RedSteel gets a 5.5 from gamespot

[Jeremy]

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/redstee...l?q=red%20steel

GameSpot/CNET(which owns gamespot) seems to be giving anything to do with the Wii a low rating. CNET reviewd the Wii console and gave it an 8.0 while they gave the PS3 an 8.8. However, the readers' reviews for the Wii were 8.0, and for the PS3 they were 7.1. GameSpot has the lowest rating for TP, and now the lowest rating for Red Steel. They are far off from the reader reviews.

 

[SL92]

*alsoquits going to Gamespot*

 

[Triforce3force]

What? Geez...that biased Gamestop. I never go there anyway...okay I did once, to buy Baten Kaitos 1, only because it was 2 years old.

I scoff at their stupidness

 

[Bulerias]

Hmm, surprising. Most sites gave Red Steel a lukewarm to highly positive review... Gamespot is sounding awful biased now...

 

[Tennis=Life]

What? Geez...that biased Gamestop. I never go there anyway...okay I did once, to buy Baten Kaitos 1, only because it was 2 years old.

I scoff at their stupidness

Gamespot not Gamestop .

I'm not surprised, NP is the only thing that rates Nintendo games how they should be rated. Most other reviewers are biased and fully support Microsoft and Sony.

 

[Jeremy]

What? Geez...that biased Gamestop. I never go there anyway...okay I did once, to buy Baten Kaitos 1, only because it was 2 years old.

I scoff at their stupidness

Gamespot not Gamestop .

I'm not surprised, NP is the only thing that rates Nintendo games how they should be rated. Most other reviewers are biased and fully support Microsoft and Sony.

I don't think other reviewers do that.

 

[Tennis=Life]

What? Geez...that biased Gamestop.

 

[Sporge27]

Biased Fools! They will be unhappy when wii clears sony out not only in the number they sell but in profits as well. Sony is do to go negative profits this year for the playstation. :lol:

 

[KatzMotel]

Oh my word. Well, you must admit that the game at least looks like a dated PS2 game in places. I'm not sure how the gameplay is (neither is anybody else here, obviously) but if what has been said is true, it wouldn't be unreasonable to rate it as a mediocre game.

 

[Jeremy]

Oh my word. Well, you must admit that the game at least looks like a dated PS2 game in places. I'm not sure how the gameplay is (neither is anybody else here, obviously) but if what has been said is true, it wouldn't be unreasonable to rate it as a mediocre game.

It was rated down mostly because of gameplay. And you are showing a bad screenshot, you can do that with any game. Not to mention that the screen you showed looks way better than a PS2 game.

 

[KatzMotel]

And you took a bad screenshot, you can do that with any game.

Dude, I don't think I can help but find bad screenshots. The game really doesn't look pretty- it looks like a PS2 game. Kinda on par with the PS2 release of Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, if it's lucky. It certainly doesn't look anywhere near as good as Half Life 2, or even Battlefield 2 (PC), both of which are over two years old. Even the guns look rough in the screenshots, and they're pretty much constants- they're using the same models throughout the game.

 

[Jeremy]

You are still picking bad quality ones. They were blown up too, even the GS watermark is fuzzy.

Take a look:

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3981185.html
http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3954884.html
http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3981186.html
http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3954883.html
http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/img_3914536.html

180 more: http://media.wii.ign.com/media/821/821973/imgs_1.html

 

[KatzMotel]

You are still picking bad quality ones. They were blown up too, even the GS watermark is fuzzy.

Dude, the watermark's not fuzzy. If it was, the anti-aliasing around it would have noticeably become distorted, which is not the case.

Though the images you've provided look marginally better, I must point out again the fact that some of the textures look really rather dodgy and that guns again look rather poor. In my opinion at least, the graphics are indeed inferior to those of the two-year-old Half-Life 2.

 

[Jeremy]

Of course... Hlaf Life 2?? Come on!! The Wii is not a PC. With a PC there are little to no limits as far as graphics.

 

[Sonicdude41]

Omg!!! Gamespot is pathetic and is some crap! They're obviously biasing the reviews!!! I hate it when anyone does that to a Ninty Fanboy, and I'm one of those fanboys!

 

[KatzMotel]

Of course... Hlaf Life 2?? Come on!! The Wii is not a PC. With a PC there are little to no limits as far as graphics.

Dude, it's 2 years old!


Surely the source engine can't still come out #1 after all this time...?

At any rate, to prove the watermark isn't fuzzy, check it out:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/...4_screen014.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/...6_screen006.jpg
You can clearly see that they're the same size, and I know the graphics for the top one are displayed correctly. I'm sure it'll look much better in motion, but come on...

 

[Jeremy]

It's freaking Half Life!! :gyroid360move:

(and yes, I can honeslty see a big difference between watermarks)

 

[ƒish]

Dude you cant trust any of those screens, honestly... its like a fast food chain, they show you this and its really this.

Same thing with those "official" screenshots, they're going to make it look as pretty as they possibly can, even though the game looks nothing like that, most companies do that.

 

[Jeremy]

Nevermind about watermakrs, but those are still awful pics you had!

 

[Jeremy]

[quote author="