| 14-04-2009 09:42 AM | ||
| AlumiuN |
Heck, I wouldn't have given five if we had decimals. It would have been more like 4.7 or 4.8, but as it is, I like rounding numbers, and it a really good game. Had I reviewed one of the earlier versions (which I'm considering adding as an extra), it would have been more likely to get a 4. 
|
|
| 13-04-2009 06:13 PM | ||
| Eagle of Fire | I fail to see your point. There was too many downsides to ADOM for me to give it a full 4. 3.7 is perfect. | |
| 13-04-2009 06:02 PM | ||
| _r.u.s.s. |
who cares that's why it says "reviewer score" not "real score" or anything by the way, rounded 3.7 is 4, not 3 |
|
| 13-04-2009 05:57 PM | ||
| Eagle of Fire |
I don't hate this game. It is the "5" on it which make my blood race. Just like everytime I read Ascendancy review... And if you really knew me a little better, you'd know that I bash down every new game such as the ones you mentionned above at every opportunities.  The whole point, though, is that there is no redeeming points for the game to be brought from 4 to 5. 5, or 100%, should be reserved to the real gems out there. But lets face it: no game is perfect. The real gems, however, have that some kind of little extra to get them back up a notch in relation to other games. Most of the time, that extra notch is their originality for creating or leading a new genre or adding something really great to the gaming industry. Then we can consider that the small flaws are worth it because of the added value. Sometimes I wish that we could add decimals to the ranking system. It would save so much confusion. For example, if you look at my AR ADOM review in comparison to my AB ADOM review, on AR it is 3.7 and on AB it is only 3. The number on AR is the real number I always wanted to have in my review... |
|
| 13-04-2009 08:31 AM | ||
| AlumiuN |
*cough* I wrote the review. And have you actually played the game? Because if you had you would realise that unlike other games, even Doom, which require a certain amount of firing around corners and tactical advantage, in Radix the best way is almost always to throw yourself into the centre of the room - against 100 or so enemies, a lot of the time. And anyway, the engine can always handle all of the enemies, but sometimes overloads the amount of sprites it can display - notably when you use a plasma bomb against a large number of defense drones and other spammy aliens. The game was always designed with a large number of enemies, not to compensate bad AI. Also, why does a game need to bring anything 'new' to a genre to be a good game? I haven't seen many FPS's lately that have added anything new, just improved graphics. I don't hear you criticising those with such a passion as you have this game. |
|
| 12-04-2009 09:22 AM | ||
| Eagle of Fire |
Quote:
* Radix has largely ineffective robots. * The challenge in Radix is that every room has a large number of enemies scattered everywhere * Every enemy death and barrel detonation is accompanied by a string of explosion and smoking pieces of robot or shredded pieces of alien (often both) flying everywhere to the point that sometimes the engine is unable to handle them all. *Radix tells you to hold down your Fire button and blast straight through, and it is refreshing to see a game that just tells you to blow everything up. (??? Refreshing? Quite the oldest trick in the book!) So, in resume: this game, instead of basing its gameplay on creative and well coded AIs, send you wave after wave of stupid ennemies that you need to blast thru mindlessly. To compensate, they had to add so many ennemies to make it challenging that it goes beyond the engine of the game, which is quite understandable... How is that refreshing? Or novel? You can't have an older principle, of which countless other games used way before this one... It is not a genre starter... It doesn't sport the "best" graphics of its time... It doesn't bring anything new to the game industry in its time... How could that qualify for a 5? |
|
| 12-04-2009 02:43 AM | ||
| AlumiuN |
Quote:
Anyway, I just noticed a spelling mistake, so maybe that makes it three. I'd better fix it. 
|
|
| 11-04-2009 06:09 AM | ||
| dosraider |
Even if there are some flaws it's an excellent game. Deserves indeed a 5. |
|
| 11-04-2009 02:32 AM | ||
| Eagle of Fire |
Another game rated 5 while the reviewer himself listed countless downsides to the game... Yeah, the reviewer rating sure mean something... |
|
| 09-04-2009 08:26 AM | ||
| AlumiuN |
Radix: Beyond the Void Feel free to comment and discuss this game here. Also, if you have any useful tips or tricks don't hesitate to share them with the others! Thanks! Review and Download (if available) |
|
