Before I continue with links to the first two Conduit reviews I have found, let this be known:

There has been some talk of a Nintendo Power review floating around a while ago that gave this game a 6/10 claiming it to be mediocre. No one be alarmed, however, as it was a fake review (claimed by numerous grammar/spelling mistakes and a typo saying the game had 16 player online) and the real first two reviews are in. So if you ever find a Nintendo Power review online with that score for The Conduit, take note that it was a fake pile of BS written by some loser. Anyway...

Here are the links to the first two REAL reviews I've found online:

Review 1 ( An enlarged picture of the review so you can actually read it)

Review 2 I could not provide a link to because it keeps getting snipped, but to find it just follow the link above (Review 1) and click on the OP's source (links to both page 1 and 2 of the review are located at the bottom of the blog page)

I personally think that while I am expecting at least one 9+ from this game before all reviews are in, I am still impressed. 8 (being the rounded average between the two reviews) is a solid score and assuming that these reviewers generally give lower scores than say, Game Informer or Gametrailers I'd say that I'm expecting a 9+ from them once they review The Conduit. Even if the average stays at 8, however, I still am not sure why it received a score that low from the two sources seeing that the only problem they had with the game is it's repetitive single player level design and some problems with the grenade motion (can't you adjust that anyway?).

In short, try to pay much more attention to the actual review rather than the score because personally I'm expecting higher numbers from Game Informer and IGN.

What do you guys think?

I think its a review and even if butthurt critics give the game an average score for saying its better than average graphics are "inconsistant", then *bleep* if I care.

C'mon, that's like saying "Hey, this new plasma TV is superbly thin compared to what else is being offered, but I can't put it in an envelope so TIME TO MARK DOWN SCORE HUR HUR HUR".

So yeah, I'm obviously not a fan of critics, for they seem to forget to score games on their *bleep*ing fun-factor, and instead they nit pick video games for BS reasons.

=/

This message was edited by LZ Schneider on Jun 18 2009.

quote LZ Schneider

I think its a review

Well yeah no one is saying the reviews I provided in the links are fake but there was a fake Nintendo Power scan online a while ago that gave this game a 6/10, and thats the one people have to watch out for. As for the ones I provided links to those are real reviews no questions asked.

I highly agree with you though, thats exactly what I was thinking. Rate a game based on it's general quality and how much enjoyment you had with it.

I can review SSBB (for you nubbies that's Super Smash Brothers Brawl) and give it a 6/10 because I took away .3 points every time I lost a match because of tripping and because I took off a half point for every character I thought was cheap. Or I could give the game a 9.5/10 because through this I still have had much fun with the game and despite it's flaws I've played countless enjoyable hours that I would rarely spend on other games. These reviews apparently did not to the latter.

quote LZ Schneider

I think its a review and even if butthurt critics give the game an average score for saying its better than average graphics are "inconsistant", then *bleep* if I care.

It's as though you'd prefer it if they didn't bother mentioning the game's flaws. If the graphics are inconsistent, then it's their job to tell us that. If there are problems, then it's their job to highlight them. Fun-factor is an important aspect, sure, but there are lots of other important things too and you seem to be the only one "forgetting" what a review is supposed to do.

Regardless of all that, I'd say they're giving the game 8's (and frankly it's really amazing that you're whinging and calling people butthurt over an 8) because it is a solid FPS and nothing more. They mention repeatedly that the only thing this game provides that we haven't already seen a million times before is the Wii controls, and a complete lack of originality is a genuine problem in a genre as heavily saturated as this one.

Overall, it seems the game has turned out exactly how I expected: A fun game that makes full use of the Wii controller, but little more than a generic FPS at heart.

Partly true, though, how could such bullshit affect a review's score? Its as if the score was knocked down because its not comparable to 360 titles.

Bleh, as I said, I never really like critics anyway, so I ought not to be compaling.

I have a problem with any review that spends more time comparing the game to others than talking about the game itself. Perhaps it's just me, but it quite frankly feels like a cop-out on the reviewer's part. Instead of investing the time and effort into actually describing the game itself, its flaws and strengths, they just point to something else which may or may not have any meaning to the reading audience.

On a somewhat unrelated note, is Halo really that mysterious and revolutionary? I'll be the first to admit that my only experience with the games has been a few minutes in multiplayer, but I have never seen what this game series does or did so differently when it came out, beyond it was on the Xbox.

It was the first AAA FPS title of the "new" era (everything post-N64/PS1), for one thing. It had amazing graphics for its time, an interesting narrative and an amazing online multiplayer iirc (or was that added in Halo 2? I can't remember, w/e). It was the pinnacle of console FPS' for a while.

While you think it is a failure of the reviewer for the games to be compared so heavily, I consider it a failure of the game. If it can be accurately and wholly described as "Halo with Wii controls", then that is indicative of how bog-standard this experience is.

quote LZ Schneider

how could such bullshit affect a review's score? Its as if the score was knocked down because its not comparable to 360 titles.

Why do you attribute the game's less-than-perfect score to the little "bullshit" things and ignore the possibility that it "only" got an 8 because it is - apparently - utterly devoid of original ideas and does little to make itself stand out in a genre that has essentially been repeating itself ad-nauseam since, like, 1998?

Good question.

I honestly don't know :D

I hope none of you are feeling discouraged.
It's not like the game is geting bad reviews.

Off topic:
The commercial of this game is pretty good.

Meh both part of Future Publishing, unless the planets have alligned I assume they will be as unreliable as ever.

As for the Halo debate, Halo 1 was revolutionary, 2 upped th bar a bit but 3 fell flat on it's face in terms of innovation. What Halo set is now the norm in shooters, and as far as the consoles go there is barely any innovation between ANY of the current 'big' shooters, to try and fault The Conduit on it is idiocy, especially considering it's doing it on a console which is completely devoid of it.

quote Barmy Brat

While you think it is a failure of the reviewer for the games to be compared so heavily, I consider it a failure of the game. If it can be accurately and wholly described as "Halo with Wii controls", then that is indicative of how bog-standard this experience is.

It still provides no insight to those who haven't played the other game, such as me with Halo. If I say Pepsi is just a Coke ripoff, but you have never tasted either, then the comparison is meaningless in your decision to buy a Pepsi or go thirsty. It is also poor writing to just simply state a overarching comparison, like NP did, without any qualifiers or examples to back it up. What is so similar to Halo? A cliffhanger ending? Been around a long time. Shooting aliens? Once again, been around a long time. An FPS? Once again, been around a long time.

A review is supposed to help you in deciding whether or not a game is quality, not some attempt to rank it among other similar games. That's a decision for the consumer to make, and a debate for fanboys to rage on the internet over.

Then again, this is NP, who has never had particularly well written reviews. its even worse now that they are trying to be "unbiased." Perhaps I was expecting too much from them.

One thing I also find curious is how Halo goes from being the AAA standard of the industry in one sentence, and how Halo with Wii controls, you know, with Wii controls being the whole bloody reason to buy the system in the first place, is complaint worthy in the next. I guess what this review is saying is that its "just a Wii game", and since it doesn't have Mario or Link pasted on the cover, it just can't be very good.

quote Ech0ez

there is barely any innovation between ANY of the current 'big' shooters, to try and fault The Conduit on it is idiocy

"Everyone's doing it" doesn't make it any less worthy of criticism, though.

quote bbb

It still provides no insight to those who haven't played the other game, such as me with Halo.

True, and that is indicative of the review's (in)ability to resonate with the entire audience. That doesn't make it any less indicative that the game is old-hat, though.

quote bbb

A review is supposed to help you in deciding whether or not a game is quality, not some attempt to rank it among other similar games.

Why do you think they give games numerical scores? It's a de facto ranking system, and it has been happening in reviews since the dawn of the entire industry... You can't just say that the purpose of reviews is not to rank games when history strongly suggests that that is exactly the purpose they serve; This is a problem with your expectations rather than the review itself.

quote bbb7002004

One thing I also find curious is how Halo goes from being the AAA standard of the industry in one sentence, and how Halo with Wii controls, you know, with Wii controls being the whole bloody reason to buy the system in the first place, is complaint worthy in the next.

The "AAA standard of the industry" in 2001. Everything that made Halo great has been cannibalized by the genre to such an extent that if the original Halo were released today it would seem solid but wholly unremarkable; In fact, even Halo 3 was "been there, done that" for most people. The old exemplar has become the industry standard, and nowadays comparisons to Halo mean little more than the game is solidly built.

quote bbb

I guess what this review is saying is that its "just a Wii game", and since it doesn't have Mario or Link pasted on the cover, it just can't be very good.

This isn't even a remotely rational interpretation of the text.

I've learned to ignore any review that compares a Wii game to 360/PS3 games. Seriously, we all know that the 360/PS3 has better graphics, presentation, etc. We don't need to keep hearing it. Instead of comparing this game to a completely different console, how about you instead focus on the game itself, and how it compares to games on it's own console.

For example, I'd rather read a review that compares The Conduit to Metroid Prime 3 or Red Steel. This way, we get a better view on how this game really plays out as a Wii game. How the controls are, how the graphics compare to other Wii games, etc. Okay, the graphics in Halo are better, and the online play in Halo blows The Conduit out of the water. Who cares? I want to know if this is the best experience available on Wii. I really don't care if it's not as good as a game for a console with much superior hardware (and a MUCH better online system).

That's absurd. A game, is a game, is a game; It doesn't matter what console it's on. What you're suggesting is for reviewers to have one standard for "real games" and another - apparently lower - standard for Wii games. As soon as "Well, I suppose it's good for the Wii" becomes a legitimate reason to be less critical of a game's flaws, then we've started down the slippery slope of accepting mediocrity.

You're right, we don't need to hear that a Wii game is less aesthetically pleasing than a 360 or PS3 equivalent - that knowledge is taken for granted given the Wii is physically incapable of matching them. But things like "the level of detail is inconsistent at times" are valid complaints: We know it isn't going to look like Halo 3, but a well-executed game should not have inconsistent presentation!

Case in point, do we want the next Zelda game to be "A good game... for the Wii" or do we want it to be a "good game" in general? Would any of you settle for it being one of the Wii's better games, but not one of the best games of the generation? Of course you wouldn't! We expect great things from Zelda and that isn't diminished just because it's on a console with a few more limitations than its competitors.

The great irony of the situation is that there would be no complaints if the reviews compared The Conduit favorably to to Halo 3 or Half-Life; No doubt the game would be hailed as proof that the Wii doesn't need amazing graphics to outdo its rivals. But the moment a game doesn't hold up too well against the competition - the moment a reviewer doesn't lower his standards just so the Wii won't look bad in comparison - nobody wants to hear about it. And that's unfortunate.

Irrespective of all this, the game still scored an 8 despite the reviewer noting that it lacked certain qualities found in games on other consoles... And that's a really good thing. Unless you're going to take bbb's "I never played Halo so I can't relate to the review" approach, there is literally nothing to complain about.