Jade Empire review at IGN

[Volourn]

The score is irrevelant. At least to me.

[Plin]

... I think volourn's posts make up almost 1/4 of this thread.

[Drakron]

...  And, if that doesn't convince you (since it's just a matter of opinion), just look at most of the simultaneous release cross-platform Xbox/PS2 games. 

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am going to make a point in this.

 

If I am looking for sheer power then I go to the PC that is going to be better on how it looks and sounds due to the higher advances in technology.

 

If I am for gameplay then there are issues, some games simply play better in some plataforms with controls being a issue and naturaly there is a cost to the PC superior graphics that not everyone is capable of taking to their maximun effect.

 

I never plated a simultaneous Xbox/PS2 release but I played the first Splinter Cell in the PS2 that was released after the Xbox and I remenber one thing, it had FMV unlike the Xbox version that lacked then so as for story telling there was a advantage in the PS2 version the Xbox lacked.

 

Problem with convince me is that I look at the XBox and see nothing I want to play ... I dont play sports or racing games, I consider FPS something the PC will always be better at, same with RTS and in RPG case ... there is no much choice in the Xbox.

 

What I want I can already get in the PS2, I am sure the Xbox version of MGS3 will be "better" but I already played and finished it, also I prefere the PS2 controler over the Xbox controler.

 

I dislike the "Xbox is more powerful" selling point because its not the hardware that sells the consoles, its the software.

 

A good example of that is that if that was true then we sould see more Gamecube titles as we do not, even RE is comming back to the PS2 due to the Gamecube not being that popular.

 

Also the DS sould not stand a chance against the PSP and right now the DS is leading and with new titles as the PSP have a lot of dificulties on launch (and still have then).

 

I dont have to argue with anything more that sales figures, the PS2 is more that 50% of the console market, the users have pointed that its not the hardware or the price that sells a console, its the software and even after all this time the Xbox have yet to catch up to the PS2 in relation to market.

 

Isn't x-box also home to MW which in spite of my dislike of it has very much "wide open" areas? If that's the case, I don't think that Fable and KOTOR's 'tiny' areas are an example of the x-box's lack of pwoerl; but the developers going a different route..

 

Since I used MW CS I can explain a bit.

 

MW "world" is composed by cells, the game only loads the cell we are on and MW does not have a large field of view.

 

In Fable case I cannot understand very well the issues with the tiny areas, I suspect they simply run out of time and ditched the idea (along with the other 75% of Project Ego) so they could complete the game, also there is a lack of power ... if you run uphill in the starting village the ground textures dont load and you will be looking at the ground mesh for a few time as the game is still trying to loading it.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I am going to make a point in this.

Sorry if this comes off as jerky, but if you step into a discussion about the computational power of consoles, switching to a discussion of the game library that has already been discussed is pretty obnoxious. Numerically, the PS2 has more games. Nobody is arguing against this. It's pretty easy for any person to state that an individual console has more titles that they prefer. No one is arguing against this. What I was arguing is that the Xbox has more powerful hardware. The Xbox could sell 2 units and have 1 game and the PS2 could sell 10,000,000 and have a library of fifty billion games and it wouldn't change the fact that 64 megs of memory is twice as much as 32 and 733 mhz is about three times as much as 250 mhz.

[mkreku]

Sorry if this comes off as jerky, but if you step into a discussion about the computational power of consoles, switching to a discussion of the game library that has already been discussed is pretty obnoxious.  Numerically, the PS2 has more games.  Nobody is arguing against this.  It's pretty easy for any person to state that an individual console has more titles that they prefer.  No one is arguing against this.  What I was arguing is that the Xbox has more powerful hardware.  The Xbox could sell 2 units and have 1 game and the PS2 could sell 10,000,000 and have a library of fifty billion games and it wouldn't change the fact that 64 megs of memory is twice as much as 32 and 733 mhz is about three times as much as 250 mhz.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But isn't saying "Xbox's hardware is stronger than PS2" also kind of obvious? What I reacted to is that you used the word "significantly". The difference in graphical quality between (for example, as I have played both versions of this) Burnout 3: Takedown isn't a significant change. Yes, the Xbox version is a bit sharper, but it doesn't handle better or anything and since PS2 still looks extremely good.. Who cares? The difference isn't significant. IF you could name a title that actually made use of the more powerful machine in a way that mattered, then I would call it significant.. But so far I don't agree with you.

[Monte Carlo]

I think the general consensus is that most people don't want to use a mouse when they're on a console.  Their consoles are often in places where mouse use would be difficult, to say the least.

 

That's a shame, really. OK, with the olf-fashioned wheel mouse I can see it, but new optical mice can be used on anything. Like a nice flat pizza box, for example.

 

Cheers

MC

[Drakron]

Sorry if this comes off as jerky, but if you step into a discussion about the computational power of consoles, switching to a discussion of the game library that has already been discussed is pretty obnoxious.

 

Talking over the console specs are pretty obvious as well.

 

The Xbox is more powerful that the PS2 and GameCube, the GameCube os more powerful the Xbox.

 

Both the Xbox and PS2 have multiplayer capablities.

 

I dont think anyone can disagree with that.

 

But there is not that much visual diference, its not like the diference of PS1 to PS2 graphics, sure they can run a little better or have some extra visual effects but its not the diference of N-Gage to GameBoy.

 

  What I was arguing is that the Xbox has more powerful hardware.  The Xbox could sell 2 units and have 1 game and the PS2 could sell 10,000,000 and have a library of fifty billion games and it wouldn't change the fact that 64 megs of memory is twice as much as 32 and 733 mhz is about three times as much as 250 mhz.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said that is pretty obvious but the problem remains that hardware alone does not sell consoles.

 

If it did then Sega would still be making then and N-Gage would had finished off Nintendo.

 

The diference of the Xbox to the PS2 in relation to how it looks is not of Shenmue II and DoA3.

[Craigboy2]

I certainly know of a lot of titles that don't or would not run on the PS2 as they do on the Xbox.  Mercenaries and Riddick are two good examples.  The PS2 just doesn't have enough memory to support the same amount of textures that the Xbox does.  Polys pushed really isn't the issue.  Having twice as much memory is the big deal.  Twice as much memory at a slower speed is much better than half the memory at a faster speed.

 

Also, there's no memory swapping on the Xbox because it has a unified memory system, unlike the PS2, which only has 4 megs of dedicated video memory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Xbox is not much better that the PS2 in relation of what it can do, Fable and KotOR(s) tiny areas are a example of the Xbox lack of power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But it can play Morrowind and Morrowind is +300.

[EnderAndrew]

I seriously probably beat the game around 15 hours.

 

A 9.9 review for this game is a travesty. 9.9 reviews should be saved for near flawless games, period. And I've seen way too many 9.9 reviews handed out like candy to obviously flawed games. I can't take reviews seriously anymore, especially when really broken games like Driv3r got 9.9 reviews.

[GhostofAnakin]

I've always wondered how some games get such ridiculous reviews they didn't deserve. Even rabbid fanboi/fangirls would hesitate to say JE was a 9.9 game.

[EnderAndrew]

Some people reported that Atari outright paid for Driv3r reviews, and more people lately seem to suggest that reviewers have been bribed as of late.

[Cantousent]

Jade Empire is a fun game. 9.9? *shrug*

 

Civ 3 received a 5 star rating from Computer Gaming World. I no longer have a subscription. After all, how can something so buggy get a perfect score? How is it that a game that promised multi-player support in the original game, shipped without that support, and then charged players for the expansion pack that provided multi-player support, added to the fact that the multi-player component was buggy when it finally did ship be "perfect?"

[EnderAndrew]

Bingo, we have a winner!

 

Stop giving money to companies that feed you garbage.

[GhostofAnakin]

If I lived by that motto I'd rarely spend money, though.

[Cantousent]

I agree, Anakin, but I didn't shell out the cash for the Civ 3 expansion. I'm glad. The point isn't to yell that you aren't going to buy from a company that screwed you. The point is to simply not buy from them.

[EnderAndrew]

You can get Civ 3 with both expansions now cheaper than the cost of one expansion.

[Cantousent]

I'll wait for Civ 4. In the meantime, Jade Empire is a good game. It doesn't deserve a virtually perfect rating. Then again, I think a lot of games receive an undeserved perfect score. I even think a few games deserve a perfect score but don't receive them.

[EnderAndrew]

My impression of Jade Empire started very strong and went down the more I played the game. The AI is horrid, the combat is repetitive, and the game far too short. The world is beautiful, and the game plays just like a Wuxia movie.

 

One thing they did well that I would like to see more of, is they created several cinematic intros before major fights.

[GhostofAnakin]

My main problem (as I've stated probably numerous times now) with JE was the fact that it became extremely linear at such an early part of the story, atleast IMO. I was shocked that I was riding the climax train as soon as I entered the Lotus Assassin fortress.

[Foamhead]

I like how people talk about inflated review scores as if this were a new phenomena.

 

The only gaming reviews I look at are the ones on gamefaqs because they are by customers, not paid journalists who will give anything a perfect score. EGM gave Majoras Mask a perfect score even though it was a castrated version of Orcania of Time. Every single Final Fantasy is "the greatest of all time" without fail. If you are the kind of person who saves all their mags, go back and look. It is laughable. Never mind that the series has become more and more liner with every title to the point that now it is basically a slightly interactive crappy movie.

 

I remember when Mario 64 was granted the title of "greatest game of all time" by EGM and a couple of other companies...less the a month after release. Meaning that if we take the time it takes for a magazine to go to print and get to us, they gave it that review before it was released. So much for being unbiased!

 

As far as specs between the X-Box and PS2 are concerned, yes the Xbox is much more powerful, and whenever I see a game on both systems the X-Box version only looks a hair sharper then it's PS2 counterpart. This tells me that developers are not at all trying or all the vaunted power of the X-Box means diddly and only translates to slightly crisper visuals. If the X-Box is so infinitely superior to the PS2 as you say it is then I look forward to Obsidians first X-Box title that will show me and everyone else what this system is supposedly capable of.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

GameFAQs reviews are made by costumers who often follow the same standards as these so-called gaming journalists, ie, perfect or near-perfect scores for games which often just float on average of above average scores.

[Epiphany]

But isn't saying "Xbox's hardware is stronger than PS2" also kind of obvious? What I reacted to is that you used the word "significantly". The difference in graphical quality between (for example, as I have played both versions of this) Burnout 3: Takedown isn't a significant change. Yes, the Xbox version is a bit sharper, but it doesn't handle better or anything and since PS2 still looks extremely good.. Who cares? The difference isn't significant. IF you could name a title that actually made use of the more powerful machine in a way that mattered, then I would call it significant.. But so far I don't agree with you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You have to look at titles that take advantage of hardware. Burnout is a prime example of a title built for the PS2, then ported to the Xbox. If you look at Splinter Cell series, titles built for the Xbox, you can tell a simple "port" can't happen, and that the developers have to modifiy the engine, which is why it looks so drastically different on both the PS2 and Gamecube.

[EnderAndrew]

The first splinter cell didn't really look any better than Metal Gear Solid 3. The latest Splinter Cell was designed as a mutliplatform title released of 4 platforms at the same time.

 

You've been called on that before, yet you keep spouting the same things.

 

The XBox isn't infinitely more powerful than the PS2.

 

Look at games like Ace Combat 5

 

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/sim/acecombat5...s.html?page=295

 

The XBox is more powerful, but not leaps and bounds more powerful.

[Epiphany]

The first splinter cell didn't really look any better than Metal Gear Solid 3.  The latest Splinter Cell was designed as a mutliplatform title released of 4 platforms at the same time.

 

You've been called on that before, yet you keep spouting the same things.

 

Because the proof is in the game. The Splinter Cell series has always been designed as a PC/Xbox lead platform title. The Xbox/PC versions are not ported over the PS2 and GC. Sorry if you're unable to understand this.

 

The XBox is more powerful, but not leaps and bounds more powerful.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not leaps and bounds, but significantly, none-the-less.

[EnderAndrew]

Hrm, announced as a multiplatform title, released on multiple platforms at the exact same time, and sells the most copies on the PS2. Surely that is an XBox title.

 

http://gamecube.gamezone.com/gamesell/screens/s21978_1.htm

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/splinte...creenindex.html

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/splint...creenindex.html

 

The game looks largely the same on all three platforms. If the game was designed to shine on the XBox, how come it is not really outshining the other platforms. It looks "slightly" better on the XBox, and you're own example really deflates your arguement.

 

The following two screenshots are almost identical and make a really good comparison between the PS2 (supposedly worst) and XBox (best) versions.

 

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/...8_screen004.jpg

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/...8_screen002.jpg