Review: PlayStation Move Roundup

[Alphakirby]

That boxing game looks awful. Like Sissy Fight Night.

Time Crisis, however, will be at the top of my list when I eventually get a PS3+Move.

A-fucking-men I love Namco rail shooters and when I get a move (preferabley the bundle because I have no camera) That will be my first and only Move purchase

 

[Alphakirby]

Did I mention Namco makes great rail shooters!

 

[boholikeu]

P.S. Wii Fit's tutorial's narrative is much worse since it really doesn't even have a narrative. It really was just "do this, then do this, you're fat, ok go." If I wrote that on my English paper, I'm sure to fail horribly. Whereas if I wrote something along the lines of The Fight, I just might get the lowest passing grade. If you really want to judge tutorials' narrative, then having narrative should be better than having no narrative.

Actually having a narrative is not automatically better than not having a narrative. Writing in the real world is all about having the correct tone and form for what you're trying to do. Writing the text of Wii Fit for your English paper would probably earn you an F, but that's because it's not an English paper. Writing the text of Wii Fit for a casual exercise game will probably get you good pay from your boss and maybe even a raise. Heck, Wii Fit was actually praised by some reviewers for it's light-hearted tone, which makes it a lot better writing than what you see in The Fight.

In short:

The writing for Wii Fit is simple and friendly. It perfectly matches what the game is trying to be. The writing for The Fight is hokey and cliched. It conflicts directly with the overall "badass" tone of the game. The Fight would've been much better off without the "story" in the tutorial section, whereas the text in Wii Fit actually reinforces the charm of the game. That's why Wii Fit has better writing than The Fight.

Ahahaha, this is awesome. Good job man. Congrats on reviewing the writing of fighting game's tutorial. I love how reviewers never think that what they're doing may be remotely wrong. It's always the reader's fault. Again, I don't really care about people's opinions on what's good and what's bad, since that depends on taste. But if you're going to review a tutorial's writing for one fighting game, then maybe you should also review the tutorials' writing for all fighting games.

You're arguing that my opinion is just wrong, which is funny coming from a gaming journalists who always play the "it's my opinion" card (I don't know if you do it, but almost every journalists do it). While I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of reviews just to smear a particular game.

*whooosh* =)

Reviews are consistent. Anytime you see a tutorial with the production values of the one in The Fight, it's usually mentioned in the review. I still don't understand why this is so surprising to you.

Exactly, so The Fight's fault is having a higher production value in its tutorials than other games. Got it. Fighting games should always just not have tutorials or single players at all just to avoid being reviewed. Fight Night also has high production value in its tutorials (it only lacks cinematic, but it also has a coach and commentary), but nothing in the reviews even come close to talking about the writing in its tutorials.

Also, Cataclysm emphasizes its narrative more than The Fight, but the review also didn't mention how the writing was.

P.S. I think I should make it clear that production value includes other things besides cut scenes, in case you didn't already know.

Still missing the point. The Fight's problem isn't that it has tutorials with high production values, it's that those tutorials turned out lame despite the high production values. That makes The Fight worse than a game with cheaply made tutorials, because apparently The Fight tried to make their tutorials seem cool with a fairly well known actor, but still failed.

Also, I didn't see the Cataclysm review on this site, but most of the other reviews I saw mentioned the storytelling the the game. They were quite positive about it, too.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

P.S. Wii Fit's tutorial's narrative is much worse since it really doesn't even have a narrative. It really was just "do this, then do this, you're fat, ok go." If I wrote that on my English paper, I'm sure to fail horribly. Whereas if I wrote something along the lines of The Fight, I just might get the lowest passing grade. If you really want to judge tutorials' narrative, then having narrative should be better than having no narrative.

Actually having a narrative is not automatically better than not having a narrative. Writing in the real world is all about having the correct tone and form for what you're trying to do. Writing the text of Wii Fit for your English paper would probably earn you an F, but that's because it's not an English paper. Writing the text of Wii Fit for a casual exercise game will probably get you good pay from your boss and maybe even a raise. Heck, Wii Fit was actually praised by some reviewers for it's light-hearted tone, which makes it a lot better writing than what you see in The Fight.

In short:

The writing for Wii Fit is simple and friendly. It perfectly matches what the game is trying to be. The writing for The Fight is hokey and cliched. It conflicts directly with the overall "badass" tone of the game. The Fight would've been much better off without the "story" in the tutorial section, whereas the text in Wii Fit actually reinforces the charm of the game. That's why Wii Fit has better writing than The Fight.

Ahahaha, this is awesome. Good job man. Congrats on reviewing the writing of fighting game's tutorial. I love how reviewers never think that what they're doing may be remotely wrong. It's always the reader's fault. Again, I don't really care about people's opinions on what's good and what's bad, since that depends on taste. But if you're going to review a tutorial's writing for one fighting game, then maybe you should also review the tutorials' writing for all fighting games.

You're arguing that my opinion is just wrong, which is funny coming from a gaming journalists who always play the "it's my opinion" card (I don't know if you do it, but almost every journalists do it). While I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of reviews just to smear a particular game.

*whooosh* =)

Reviews are consistent. Anytime you see a tutorial with the production values of the one in The Fight, it's usually mentioned in the review. I still don't understand why this is so surprising to you.

Exactly, so The Fight's fault is having a higher production value in its tutorials than other games. Got it. Fighting games should always just not have tutorials or single players at all just to avoid being reviewed. Fight Night also has high production value in its tutorials (it only lacks cinematic, but it also has a coach and commentary), but nothing in the reviews even come close to talking about the writing in its tutorials.

Also, Cataclysm emphasizes its narrative more than The Fight, but the review also didn't mention how the writing was.

P.S. I think I should make it clear that production value includes other things besides cut scenes, in case you didn't already know.

Still missing the point. The Fight's problem isn't that it has tutorials with high production values, it's that those tutorials turned out lame despite the high production values. That makes The Fight worse than a game with cheaply made tutorials, because apparently The Fight tried to make their tutorials seem cool with a fairly well known actor, but still failed.

Also, I didn't see the Cataclysm review on this site, but most of the other reviews I saw mentioned the storytelling the the game. They were quite positive about it, too.

Wow, I guess it's been so long, you've forgotten what's being argued. I'm not arguing that the tutorial narrative is good, or that it's bad. I'm criticizing the fact that you are actually judging the narrative of a fighting game's tutorial.

It doesn't matter if the Fight tried to make a tutorial cool and failed. Reviewing a fighting game's tutorial for its narrative depth is plainly asinine. It's like criticizing a car's instruction manual for poor writing.

 

[boholikeu]

P.S. Wii Fit's tutorial's narrative is much worse since it really doesn't even have a narrative. It really was just "do this, then do this, you're fat, ok go." If I wrote that on my English paper, I'm sure to fail horribly. Whereas if I wrote something along the lines of The Fight, I just might get the lowest passing grade. If you really want to judge tutorials' narrative, then having narrative should be better than having no narrative.

Actually having a narrative is not automatically better than not having a narrative. Writing in the real world is all about having the correct tone and form for what you're trying to do. Writing the text of Wii Fit for your English paper would probably earn you an F, but that's because it's not an English paper. Writing the text of Wii Fit for a casual exercise game will probably get you good pay from your boss and maybe even a raise. Heck, Wii Fit was actually praised by some reviewers for it's light-hearted tone, which makes it a lot better writing than what you see in The Fight.

In short:

The writing for Wii Fit is simple and friendly. It perfectly matches what the game is trying to be. The writing for The Fight is hokey and cliched. It conflicts directly with the overall "badass" tone of the game. The Fight would've been much better off without the "story" in the tutorial section, whereas the text in Wii Fit actually reinforces the charm of the game. That's why Wii Fit has better writing than The Fight.

Ahahaha, this is awesome. Good job man. Congrats on reviewing the writing of fighting game's tutorial. I love how reviewers never think that what they're doing may be remotely wrong. It's always the reader's fault. Again, I don't really care about people's opinions on what's good and what's bad, since that depends on taste. But if you're going to review a tutorial's writing for one fighting game, then maybe you should also review the tutorials' writing for all fighting games.

You're arguing that my opinion is just wrong, which is funny coming from a gaming journalists who always play the "it's my opinion" card (I don't know if you do it, but almost every journalists do it). While I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of reviews just to smear a particular game.

*whooosh* =)

Reviews are consistent. Anytime you see a tutorial with the production values of the one in The Fight, it's usually mentioned in the review. I still don't understand why this is so surprising to you.

Exactly, so The Fight's fault is having a higher production value in its tutorials than other games. Got it. Fighting games should always just not have tutorials or single players at all just to avoid being reviewed. Fight Night also has high production value in its tutorials (it only lacks cinematic, but it also has a coach and commentary), but nothing in the reviews even come close to talking about the writing in its tutorials.

Also, Cataclysm emphasizes its narrative more than The Fight, but the review also didn't mention how the writing was.

P.S. I think I should make it clear that production value includes other things besides cut scenes, in case you didn't already know.

Still missing the point. The Fight's problem isn't that it has tutorials with high production values, it's that those tutorials turned out lame despite the high production values. That makes The Fight worse than a game with cheaply made tutorials, because apparently The Fight tried to make their tutorials seem cool with a fairly well known actor, but still failed.

Also, I didn't see the Cataclysm review on this site, but most of the other reviews I saw mentioned the storytelling the the game. They were quite positive about it, too.

Wow, I guess it's been so long, you've forgotten what's being argued. I'm not arguing that the tutorial narrative is good, or that it's bad. I'm criticizing the fact that you are actually judging the narrative of a fighting game's tutorial.

It doesn't matter if the Fight tried to make a tutorial cool and failed. Reviewing a fighting game's tutorial for its narrative depth is plainly asinine. It's like criticizing a car's instruction manual for poor writing.

Still missing the point. I'm saying it's not asinine to review a tutorial if they put a lot of money and work into it, especially if they got a Hollywood actor to star in it. They obviously wanted people to pay attention to it, so it's hardly surprising that it gets mentioned in some reviews.

Also, I'd like to point out that dialogue=/=narrative depth. No one would expect it to have a thought-provoking story, but if you hire a well known actor to star in it it's fair to expect at least passable dialogue.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

P.S. Wii Fit's tutorial's narrative is much worse since it really doesn't even have a narrative. It really was just "do this, then do this, you're fat, ok go." If I wrote that on my English paper, I'm sure to fail horribly. Whereas if I wrote something along the lines of The Fight, I just might get the lowest passing grade. If you really want to judge tutorials' narrative, then having narrative should be better than having no narrative.

Actually having a narrative is not automatically better than not having a narrative. Writing in the real world is all about having the correct tone and form for what you're trying to do. Writing the text of Wii Fit for your English paper would probably earn you an F, but that's because it's not an English paper. Writing the text of Wii Fit for a casual exercise game will probably get you good pay from your boss and maybe even a raise. Heck, Wii Fit was actually praised by some reviewers for it's light-hearted tone, which makes it a lot better writing than what you see in The Fight.

In short:

The writing for Wii Fit is simple and friendly. It perfectly matches what the game is trying to be. The writing for The Fight is hokey and cliched. It conflicts directly with the overall "badass" tone of the game. The Fight would've been much better off without the "story" in the tutorial section, whereas the text in Wii Fit actually reinforces the charm of the game. That's why Wii Fit has better writing than The Fight.

Ahahaha, this is awesome. Good job man. Congrats on reviewing the writing of fighting game's tutorial. I love how reviewers never think that what they're doing may be remotely wrong. It's always the reader's fault. Again, I don't really care about people's opinions on what's good and what's bad, since that depends on taste. But if you're going to review a tutorial's writing for one fighting game, then maybe you should also review the tutorials' writing for all fighting games.

You're arguing that my opinion is just wrong, which is funny coming from a gaming journalists who always play the "it's my opinion" card (I don't know if you do it, but almost every journalists do it). While I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of reviews just to smear a particular game.

*whooosh* =)

Reviews are consistent. Anytime you see a tutorial with the production values of the one in The Fight, it's usually mentioned in the review. I still don't understand why this is so surprising to you.

Exactly, so The Fight's fault is having a higher production value in its tutorials than other games. Got it. Fighting games should always just not have tutorials or single players at all just to avoid being reviewed. Fight Night also has high production value in its tutorials (it only lacks cinematic, but it also has a coach and commentary), but nothing in the reviews even come close to talking about the writing in its tutorials.

Also, Cataclysm emphasizes its narrative more than The Fight, but the review also didn't mention how the writing was.

P.S. I think I should make it clear that production value includes other things besides cut scenes, in case you didn't already know.

Still missing the point. The Fight's problem isn't that it has tutorials with high production values, it's that those tutorials turned out lame despite the high production values. That makes The Fight worse than a game with cheaply made tutorials, because apparently The Fight tried to make their tutorials seem cool with a fairly well known actor, but still failed.

Also, I didn't see the Cataclysm review on this site, but most of the other reviews I saw mentioned the storytelling the the game. They were quite positive about it, too.

Wow, I guess it's been so long, you've forgotten what's being argued. I'm not arguing that the tutorial narrative is good, or that it's bad. I'm criticizing the fact that you are actually judging the narrative of a fighting game's tutorial.

It doesn't matter if the Fight tried to make a tutorial cool and failed. Reviewing a fighting game's tutorial for its narrative depth is plainly asinine. It's like criticizing a car's instruction manual for poor writing.

Still missing the point. I'm saying it's not asinine to review a tutorial if they put a lot of money and work into it, especially if they got a Hollywood actor to star in it. They obviously wanted people to pay attention to it, so it's hardly surprising that it gets mentioned in some reviews.

Also, I'd like to point out that dialogue=/=narrative depth. No one would expect it to have a thought-provoking story, but if you hire a well known actor to star in it it's fair to expect at least passable dialogue.

I'm saying that, using the car manual example, even if the instruction manual uses premium color pictures, that doesn't make it any more valid to criticize those pictures for its artistic value.

Similarly, even if they used a well-known actor with high production value, that doesn't make it more valid to criticize the writing for its depth. It's a tutorial of a fighting game. Reviewing the writing of a tutorial of a fighting game is plainly asinine. You can muddle the issue with excuses like "oh they spent so much money on it", but that doesn't change the fact that it's still only a tutorial of a fighting game. That's like saying we should criticize the artistic value of Rolls Royce ash trays simply because they spent over $1million in its design. Criticizing something so extremely trivial is nick-picking at best, and finding excuses to slander a game at worst. Justifying this atrocious behavior is putting your integrity in danger. Especially when you are saying that this behavior is natural and that I shouldn't be surprised at it, and then turn around and play dumb when other reviews clearly don't do this: Fight Night reviews, Kirby reviews WoW reviews, etc.

But I can see how this method may be just your personal review style, but just don't say that this style is everywhere in other reviews because it's absolutely not. Every fighting game have a whole section dedicated to training/tutorials, but you will never ever find a review that talks about the writing of those modes. The production value is there, but it's just absolutely idiotic to review the writing of a tutorial of a fighting game.

I mean, UMD cost a lot of money and effort to its design as well, why don't you critique the artistic value of its case? Companies also spend a crap ton of money just to design the box art, why don't you review the artistic value of every box art of every game? Hell, companies spend money and a lot of effort just to decide the font of the title screen, why don't you review that?

It's trivial. It's idiotic. It's slander.

If you still can't see how reviewing the writing of the tutorial of a fighting game is trivial, then there's just no hope for you. Stubborn people will always be stubborn.

 

[boholikeu]

Still missing the point. I'm saying it's not asinine to review a tutorial if they put a lot of money and work into it, especially if they got a Hollywood actor to star in it. They obviously wanted people to pay attention to it, so it's hardly surprising that it gets mentioned in some reviews.

Also, I'd like to point out that dialogue=/=narrative depth. No one would expect it to have a thought-provoking story, but if you hire a well known actor to star in it it's fair to expect at least passable dialogue.

I'm saying that, using the car manual example, even if the instruction manual uses premium color pictures, that doesn't make it any more valid to criticize those pictures for its artistic value.

Similarly, even if they used a well-known actor with high production value, that doesn't make it more valid to criticize the writing for its depth. It's a tutorial of a fighting game. Reviewing the writing of a tutorial of a fighting game is plainly asinine. You can muddle the issue with excuses like "oh they spent so much money on it", but that doesn't change the fact that it's still only a tutorial of a fighting game. That's like saying we should criticize the artistic value of Rolls Royce ash trays simply because they spent over $1million in its design. Criticizing something so extremely trivial is nick-picking at best, and finding excuses to slander a game at worst. Justifying this atrocious behavior is putting your integrity in danger. Especially when you are saying that this behavior is natural and that I shouldn't be surprised at it, and then turn around and play dumb when other reviews clearly don't do this: Fight Night reviews, Kirby reviews WoW reviews, etc.

But I can see how this method may be just your personal review style, but just don't say that this style is everywhere in other reviews because it's absolutely not. Every fighting game have a whole section dedicated to training/tutorials, but you will never ever find a review that talks about the writing of those modes. The production value is there, but it's just absolutely idiotic to review the writing of a tutorial of a fighting game.

I mean, UMD cost a lot of money and effort to its design as well, why don't you critique the artistic value of its case? Companies also spend a crap ton of money just to design the box art, why don't you review the artistic value of every box art of every game? Hell, companies spend money and a lot of effort just to decide the font of the title screen, why don't you review that?

It's trivial. It's idiotic. It's slander.

If you still can't see how reviewing the writing of the tutorial of a fighting game is trivial, then there's just no hope for you. Stubborn people will always be stubborn.

Well, since you still aren't getting it, I'll use you manual example to explain it. If a car company got, say, Stephen King to write their car manual, you can bet that it would be mentioned in many reviews even though it has nothing to do with how the car actually drives. Furthermore, a game tutorial has much more of an affect on the overall game than a car manual does, especially when the game has an all new control scheme (like this game does).

What's more, it's funny that you should mention the design of PSPs, because most hardware reviews actually do include at least a sentence or two about the aesthetic design of the item. Obviously they don't base their overall decision about the product on that, but the same is true of The Fight's review. Honestly, it's kind of amusing that you are getting so worked up over a simple remark that probably had no effect on the final score and really isn't that uncommon in reviews.

But I can see how this method may be just your personal review style, but just don't say that this style is everywhere in other reviews because it's absolutely not. Every fighting game have a whole section dedicated to training/tutorials, but you will never ever find a review that talks about the writing of those modes.

I guarantee you that it's mentioned in reviews for every game that features a Hollywood actor in its tutorial.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

So that's exactly my point then. The only reason why this tutorial is critiqued was because of its actor.

And even if Stephen King wrote the car instruction manual, it would be mentioned, but it would not be critiqued, otherwise that would just be ridiculously stupid kinda like critiquing the writing of a tutorial of a fighting game just because they had an actor to do it...oh wait.

But hey, it's a months old review of a game that I don't even care about, so just say whatever you need to let you sleep at night, but the truth is the undeniable truth--you criticized a fighting game's tutorial's writing. I just find that funny (considering how little critics regard fighting games' actual campaign's writing).

 

[Alphakirby]

That boxing game looks awful. Like Sissy Fight Night.

Time Crisis, however, will be at the top of my list when I eventually get a PS3+Move.

I can tell you first hand that the Move is great with the arcade shooters and the story mode sucks

 

[Optimystic]

That boxing game looks awful. Like Sissy Fight Night.

Time Crisis, however, will be at the top of my list when I eventually get a PS3+Move.

I can tell you first hand that the Move is great with the arcade shooters and the story mode sucks

Who plays Time Crisis for the story though?

It usually amounts to "Are you a bad enough dude to save the President's daughter by shooting some guy's rockets out of the air?

(And who fires ROCKETS at two Asian guys wearing pleather anyway?)