Gamespot Nightfall review: 8,2. Lower than Factions. WTH?:/

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/guild...gn3/index.html


"The Good: Features a great-looking new continent to explore, filled with countless quests; two interesting but complex new character professions add even more depth; gameplay still offers an excellent mix of action, role-playing, and strategy."


"The Bad: The core game hasn't changed much, and its shortcomings are still there; new hero characters can be complicated to manage."


_________________________

It's probably beginning to become as some have feared. It's like he is pointing it as a negative, that it is more of the same.

Obviously, the review'er is bitter over the LFG system(or lack thereoff), community and trading. All which he complained over in his factions review.


"So, at worst, Nightfall might be a case of having too much of a good thing."

It really seems like that across the over three games now, there is a feeling that too few changes are here to warrant a new game.
As much as I think Nightfall is a much better game than the other two campaigns, it is hard to disagree with the review.

It's one thing that 1,5 year has passed in game design, graphic advancement, and technology and that the fundamentaly the same game across a trilogy, warrants a much lower score, simply because it's not as impressive as it was in early 2005.

But it's also another thing to complain over the same core issues for so long.


It's a complex situation, really. I gotta admit. Im loving NF but im taking it very slow. And I really have to admit, that across the 150 bucks I have spent across the three games, it is unquestionable, ALOT of the same without any big leaps in technology.

So what I think will happen if this trend continues. If the core problems that so many people want to be adressed(grouping, communicating, trading) and if it will continue to be more of the same, then I suspect that even if the games are vastly better than the predessesors, that it will gain something like 7,8 or around that score.


I dunno. No one might not even care. Others might be pissed and claim it all as biased and ignorant opinions. I know many people have harsh feelings towards Gamespots harsh reviews though. And of course... It's a review. Just an opinion of one man(Greg Kasavin, in this case).

http://pc.ign.com/articles/745/745105p1.html



Factions got 8,5, and GWP got 9,0!





The low down;

7.5 Presentation
Lots of narrative, though it takes a while to get going. Cut-scenes are weak. Inventory still a pain to organize. UI easy to manage, lots of convenient shortcuts.

8.5 Graphics
Excellent character and enemy designs, great environments, and interesting architecture. Plus, it runs nearly flawlessly even on mid range systems and loads extremely fast.
7.5 Sound

Crisp, strikingly realistic ambient sounds and a solid soundtrack. Voice acting never impresses, often induces cringing. Many sound effects from previous games return.

8.0 Gameplay
Still the same gameplay as before, and it remains enjoyable.

8.5 Lasting Appeal
Lengthy single player campaign, a new PvP mode, plenty of opportunity for cooperative play. RP starts to grow stale after level 20, however, unless you're obsessed with finding unlocks.



8.4
Impressive OVERALL
(out of 10 / not an average)

foolish gamespot...

Any website that gives Nightfall lower than 9.0 out of 10 I will not be visiting in the future for other reviews. This person has no clue. I'm not saying Nightfall is the greatest game ever made, but in its genre it's one of the best.

Hey, you'd think after making us buy 3 iterations of a game that they'd have a better trading system and a better LFG system. But they don't. Hell, they can't even finish their devolpment cycles in time... (elite mission lol)

But yea, I'm really enjoying Nightfall. I guess the heroes take care of that LFG problem since now you never really need to group in PVE... despite it being a multi-player game.

A lot of people unfortunately take Gamespot as some kind of tool for finding good games by looking at their ratings..

I'm not gonna read this guide, but I can tell that Gamespot really doesn't like the GW series, or the people writing the article were really lazy. Why? Neverwinter Nights 2 came out on the 31st, while NF came out on the 27th. There's a review and even a guide to NWN2 already.

Magazines are always going to be biased. Opinions are biased. People take them too seriously.

I just looked at some of the pictures there... the person playing the paragon wasn't even using a full skillbar while in PvP...

then you might still wanna check 1up, as they have given the game 9/10: http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3155064


they seemed to really enjoy the humour and actually enjoy the game. I think they gave the original and factions 9/10 aswell.


82% on gamerankings this far; http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/932734.asp

Mabey using those new starter templates?8.2?! its more like........82/10 .Well at least a 9. lol.

Gamespot is full of a bunch of frickin idiots. They're a total loyalty to Xbox 360 only and they prove that daily now. I think they just did this review as is b/c of NCSofts current money loss. These guys even gave FFXII a low rating when all the consumers rated it much higher. They're a bunch of idiots I tell ya. THis is why I read the user reviews Which I even have one up there!

I usually enjoy Gamespot's reviews. I am not in the camp of 'believe everything they (or anyone) say(s)', but I'm also not in the campe of 'don't ever listen to a thing they say'. Like everything in life, it's good to at least consider outside information, and also use your own insights or perspectives. Going to one extreme or the other can be foolish.

As for this lower-than-Factions review, it does suprise me a bit, but not really. That's because: NF, more than either of the previous two GW's, is (I believe) for the hardcore gamer. As employees who need to quickly play as many games as possible, they aren't getting into this hardcore player aspect that us forum hounds do. We (by we I mean those of us who are obsessed with GW) are getting a lot more out of this game than the reviewers are, largely solely on the fact that we know the peculiarities and complexities, and know how to play this game to its fullest.

It's a very fair and well-written review, and I agree with it for the most part. Nightfall really is more of the same, with a cherry on top. It is undoubtedly the best chapter in the series, and had it been released in 2005 before Prophecies, it would probably have achieved a 9.7-ish rating. However, in terms of the innovations it provides over its predecessors, it's not that giant a leap forward. This is always the way games are, and *should be* reviewed.

They gave Prophecies an Editor's Choice award (9.2) when it first came out, and they've had nothing good to say about it after. Not even a runner-up GOTY award.

Merged Lawnmower's two review threads. Any discussion about Nightfall reviews can go here, don't make additional threads.

I kinda agree with the score. Really the only things I like about NF so far is the skill templates and the new professions. New skills and/or professions are always good (assuming its all balanced as much as possible).

Oh no! Gamespot can't micromanage 3 Hero's. If that is one of their beefs with the game, then they did not play enough. If they are going to complain about Hero's, it should be about Hero's making end-game PUGs harder to get into, where real people make end game missions much easier.

thanks mate.

and roger roger!!!

No prob ^^

They have a point, as people who have played the other Guildwars games might not find this one so new and exceptional. People I've showed Nightfall to, as new players to GW, have thought it incredible though.

However, I do feel a higher rating than what they gave would be been more correct... after all, they didn't look into a great deal of the game. Essentially, they're rating the PvE content, and not the extensive PvP factors of the game.

The reviews have been poor for Nightfall which is unfortunate because it really is the strongest of the lot.

About the Gamespot review - On one hand he critises the heroes and the LFG interface for making it difficult for casual players to PUG, but then complains about how *map travel* effects immersion on the other, which is so damn important for casual players. From what point of view is he trying to review the game from?