360 "wasteland" Lowest Scored, GamesPot is awful Options

[AdmiralSinep25]

I'm sorry, Gamespot, but to rate the 360 version of wasteland below the ps2 and xbox version for the following reason is an absurd piece of gaming "journalism." They are my least favorite gaming site and have proved why...Gamespy, my favorite, is holding reviews of online games until they can play them online...shows a great deal of class, IMHO.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/sports/ton...iew.html?page=3

"Graphically, Tony Hawk's American Wasteland on the 360 doesn't look much better than its Xbox counterpart. Sure, you can run it in a higher resolution thanks to the 360's 720p and 1080i support, but all this does is make the character models look really awful. It runs at a smooth frame rate and doesn't have any jagged edges to it, but it still looks like a game that was initially developed for the PlayStation 2 and then hastily converted for a higher-powered system. If you're familiar with how some console-to-PC ports come out looking like crisper PS2 games, you should already have a pretty good idea of how this one looks. The textures are a weird mix--some of them are clearly higher-quality textures that look sharp, clean, and colorful. But you'll still come across some really dirty-looking ground and wall textures from time to time, too. When you compare this to other games on the Xbox 360, it looks downright mediocre."

How does "doesn't look much better than its Xbox counterpart" equate to giving it a lower score?

[Joergen]

Well I'd have to agree. If a developer cannot utilise any of power of a new system but charges 10 or 20bucks more for the same game you should smack them for it, hard, this applies to all releases of a next gen launch lineup. The ones that dont make the new console look good dont deserve a high score.

Add to this the fact that all the previous tony hawk games have supported 720p on the Xbox1 but this is the FIRST ONE that doesnt, the evil plot starts to emerge. They've just dumbed down the xbox1 version to make the x360 version look that much better, because it needs all the help it can get.

[Carlo210]

Also, it's Jeff Gerstmann. He always has something up his butt.
The only reviewer I trust is Greg Kasavin. Go Greg!
Gamespot is my favorite gaming websie when it comes to reviews and videos. We all have our opinions on them, but if you actually think a 'website' writes reviews and articles, you're wrong. Yes, they publish them, so I'm sure that since they've actually played the game, and since Jeff Gerstmann is a successful Gamespot journalist, the mediocre rating for American Wasteland holds some water for a next-gen launch title. One of the main reasons that the game scored crappy for looking just a little bit better than the Xbox 1 version, and I say it's a pretty good reason too.

It's funny, one of 1UP's journalists gives out a mediocre review about a critically acclaimed game called KAMEO and no one minds, but when "gamespot" gives out a mediocre review about a game that wasn't all that critically acclaimed in the first place, and probably isn't all it could be and may not be a justifiable Xbox 360 title (while fine for Xbox1), everyone goes "Gamespot suxxx!".

I've never liked that Jeff Gerstmann, though.

Greg Kasavin is the journalist I trust - Jeff Gerstmann can suck an egg. Don't get me wrong, those "I have crappy speaking skills, so I'll read my video review straight off of a sheet of paper" journalists can suck an egg too, but while it's lodged far up my ass.

This post has been edited by Carlo210: Nov 19 2005, 12:09 AM

[MadEx]

Well I'd have to agree. If a developer cannot utilise any of power of a new system but charges 10 or 20bucks more for the same game you should smack them for it, hard, this applies to all releases of a next gen launch lineup. The ones that dont make the new console look good dont deserve a high score.

Couldn't have said it better. I mean isn't it $10 more? And for what, the game adds nothing except a higher resolution (which as mentioned was available in previous versions until now) and even then it doesn't look that good. So yes, in my opinion the score is justified.

[darkblizzard]

Gamespot is spot on. Wasteland is a piece of shit since all they did was port it over. They didn't even bother to fix all the bugs or fix the fudged up textures. Since Xbox isnt as good as 360, all the bad spots of Wasteland are hidden but when you launch it up in 360 it's an awful piece of work.

** Thumbs Down for Wasteland **

[brooksie48]

I think that score makes perfect sense. A half ass port should get a half ass score.

This post has been edited by brooksie48: Nov 19 2005, 06:52 AM

[jizzlobber]

exactly!

this is the xbox 360, if I see a bunch of ps2 ports i'll be very pissed off.
it's a next gen console and it's a last gen game.

[aled]

Ive played the game and its shite!
trust me!

[Natsocube]

It's pretty much the same as all the other "SHITE" Tony Hawk games, It put's X360 to shame, it's no more graphically advanced or more enjoyable. Thumbs down for the Tony.

[atomheartmother]

Yeah its kinda odd as remember tony hawk 2x how they made it special for xbox why not THAW360 that has the same effects???? Ohh well htey are all the same anyway.

[Ballz2TheWallz]

heh heh




hey m_hael, wtf is going on in activision

[dysfunc7i0n]

this is only my opinion but....

to me, the tony hawk series hasnt changed much at all since tony hawk 3.

[Weem]

haha yeah that game sucks so much what do you expect?

[KAGE360]

Well I'd have to agree. If a developer cannot utilise any of power of a new system but charges 10 or 20bucks more for the same game you should smack them for it, hard, this applies to all releases of a next gen launch lineup. The ones that dont make the new console look good dont deserve a high score.

Add to this the fact that all the previous tony hawk games have supported 720p on the Xbox1 but this is the FIRST ONE that doesnt, the evil plot starts to emerge. They've just dumbed down the xbox1 version to make the x360 version look that much better, because it needs all the help it can get.

its not the developer who chooses the game price its the publisher. so blame activision. also i think that a good reason that the game doesnt run at 720p on the xbox1 has to do with the game being so large.

i think people were expecting too much out of a cross-generation port. for tony hawk fans, they know that the game has never really been a graphical tour de force, but played for the fun factor (IMO). im sure as long as M_heal isnt under any kind of NDA he would be more then happy to divulge the technical enhancements done for the 360. i think any naysayer here shouldnt say anything if your not a fan or until you have actually played the game. again its no surprised that everyone is so quick tol judge but things should be kept in mind when your voicing your opinions.

This post has been edited by KAGE360: Nov 20 2005, 03:55 PM

[SonnyMarrow]

There hasn't been a good Tony Hawk game since the original. I think the only one that ever impressed me was the GBA one. Graphics always suck, gameplay is always the same. I agree with the review as well... if you are buying a game for a next-gen system you don't expect it to look like ass, which it does.