rebellion1
Mr. Big's Thug
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 195
No blood = no reviews
LOLZ
LOLZ
Last edited:
The big ass CENSORED kof 2000/2001 PS2 review thread
- Thread starter rebellion1
- Start date
Mr. Big's Thug
rebellion1
Mr. Big's Thug
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 195
No blood and no boobs make homer somthing something
Last edited:
Kevin Paul
Overtop Pathfinder
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Posts
- 102
Play gave the compilation a B+, which is the best review so far.
It's funny because EGM reviewed Midway classics in the same issue, and never do they mention archaic graphics or sound. Instead the grizzled editors chime in about superlative gameplay compared to today, but when they review KOF it's OHH, it's so ugly. The graphics are horrible, especially 2001.
I guess it's not about the gameplay anymore...
It's funny because EGM reviewed Midway classics in the same issue, and never do they mention archaic graphics or sound. Instead the grizzled editors chime in about superlative gameplay compared to today, but when they review KOF it's OHH, it's so ugly. The graphics are horrible, especially 2001.
I guess it's not about the gameplay anymore...
twodeepuzzler
Geese's Thug
- Joined
- May 26, 2003
- Posts
- 277
This is why I don't bother reading gaming mags.
rebellion1
Mr. Big's Thug
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 195
Kevin Paul said:
well, in EGM's defense the midway compilation is only 20 bones and features a shitload of games.
the main thing that pissed them shmucks off was that it was almost full priced and the grpahics wern't up to their standards.
and twodeep, yea most gaming mags really suck today. I really miss the days of game players
I'll have to check that play review.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2003
- Posts
- 11,915
Also, I think it's about the year numbers after King of Fighters which the editors (except Sushi-X), which of course are 2000 and 2001 and just expect it to be something graphically of that era.Kevin Paul said:
Kevin Paul
Overtop Pathfinder
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Posts
- 102
I'll give Sushi-X credit he at least looked at the game objectively. All the other reviewers didn't, instead they griped about graphics. Hmm... I guess that's why in their minds Soul Calibur 2 is the greatest fighter ever (not saying the game isn't great but not the greatest).
And granted this compilation is $39.99, but at least it's two games for 40 bucks.
With that kind of press from one of the more mainstream video game magazines, it's any wonder why SNK never got the support it deserved (but the same can be applied to 2D fighters, Treasure, shooters, etc).
And granted this compilation is $39.99, but at least it's two games for 40 bucks.
With that kind of press from one of the more mainstream video game magazines, it's any wonder why SNK never got the support it deserved (but the same can be applied to 2D fighters, Treasure, shooters, etc).
SilverAngel
Member,
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Posts
- 2,176
does anyone know if its coming out in europe?
rebellion1
Mr. Big's Thug
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 195
yea nes, gameinformer is notorious for saying really (and i mean REALLY) stupid things when talking about snk games.
but they scored it good so i fiorgive them.
Only 9 days till U.S. release, aI'm not sure of a european release though.
but they scored it good so i fiorgive them.
Only 9 days till U.S. release, aI'm not sure of a european release though.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 26,968
Holy crap, I miss Treasure...Kevin Paul said:
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2003
- Posts
- 11,915
As of now, I don't think so, but might come out in the future. Ben Herman previously talked about SNK Playmore going to Europe, but never said when.SilverAngel said:
rebellion1
Mr. Big's Thug
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 195
new reviews are trickling in over at www.gamerankings.com
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/918878.asp
THe fuckers at Playstation Magazine gave it a 2.5 out of 5.
some site called etoy chest gave it a REALLY good review though, very long and very informative. Though i wondered why the reviewer said some animation seemed to be cut out...
http://www.etoychest.org/reviews/ps2_r_67.html
anyway, that site gives it a very nice review, and a cool pic too.
Anyone want to type up what them schmucks at playstation magazine said?
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/918878.asp
THe fuckers at Playstation Magazine gave it a 2.5 out of 5.
some site called etoy chest gave it a REALLY good review though, very long and very informative. Though i wondered why the reviewer said some animation seemed to be cut out...
http://www.etoychest.org/reviews/ps2_r_67.html
anyway, that site gives it a very nice review, and a cool pic too.
Anyone want to type up what them schmucks at playstation magazine said?
Last edited:
Shapermc
Mai's Tabloid Photographer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 2,131
Even worse anyone want to type up the crap that was said about it in EGM?rebellion1 said:
Their reviews were:
5.0 | 5.5 | 7.5
Overall not bad, but they say how old the Neo hardware is and hold IT accountable for bad games... crap.
SilverAngel
Member,
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Posts
- 2,176
Lets Gekiga In said:
Thanks for letting me know
rebellion1
Mr. Big's Thug
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 195
Shapermc said:
see, that's what pisses me off.
Mario advance 4 (mario 3) gets glaring reviews from everyone, even though it is just a re-release of a RE RELEASE (a port of super mario allstars mario 3 which was a port of nes mario 3) and the graphics and sound aint nothing special even on GBA SP.
you all know what point im makin here - if the game plays good then why the fuck is it rated in the 6's?
rebellion1
Mr. Big's Thug
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 195
GMR just reviewed it, gave it a 6 out of 10.
The review basically says that KOF 2002 should have been brought over instead because 2000 and 2001 are the worst in the series. It's a pretty good review and the reviewer Dave Smith really know what he is talking about (even bringing up how the neogeo original would cost you about $700...a little high but the fact he even mentions that rules)
Im not too pissed because he actually knew what he was talking about, and just didn't like 2000 and 2001 which is understandable. Much better than EGM's garbage review.
The review basically says that KOF 2002 should have been brought over instead because 2000 and 2001 are the worst in the series. It's a pretty good review and the reviewer Dave Smith really know what he is talking about (even bringing up how the neogeo original would cost you about $700...a little high but the fact he even mentions that rules)
Im not too pissed because he actually knew what he was talking about, and just didn't like 2000 and 2001 which is understandable. Much better than EGM's garbage review.
Moon Jump
Alfred Garcia's Butler
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2003
- Posts
- 5,904
People are stupid. They just look at it as an old 2D game and they'll almost instantlly bash it because it doesn't look like Tekken.
I didn't really like 2000 and 2001 (compaired to 2002), but considering your getting two games for the price of one, you can't beat it.
Any reviewer that gives it bad raitings because the graphics are bad, there's no tag team feature or it's too hard is an idiot and should have there job taken away.
I didn't really like 2000 and 2001 (compaired to 2002), but considering your getting two games for the price of one, you can't beat it.
Any reviewer that gives it bad raitings because the graphics are bad, there's no tag team feature or it's too hard is an idiot and should have there job taken away.
Kevin Paul
Overtop Pathfinder
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Posts
- 102
Hmm....
EGM gave Soul Calibur 2 a 9.0, 9.5 and 10 (not sure). Not to say the game isn't great, but the game starts out like a button masher until you learn it's nuances. Yes, the graphics are great, the music is cool, the adventure mode supplies short-term replay and the gameplay is deep (sorta).
I can't understand why the KOF compilation couldn't at least get 7s. Granted the graphics were horrid even when they were originally released, the music reeks and the only replayability is in versus, but the gameplay is still leaps and bounds better than most 3D games.
Game Informer gave Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance a 9.5. Nuff said...
If PSM could give GGX2 a 9 then I don't know what they're problems is...
Like someone said, these magazines are hypocrites. Legend of Zelda, Super Mario, Ghouls and Ghosts or whatever is re-released on Game Boy Advance and they view it as the second coming, but a 2D game with phenomonal gameplay is released they turn their face away and put they nose up.
EGM gave Soul Calibur 2 a 9.0, 9.5 and 10 (not sure). Not to say the game isn't great, but the game starts out like a button masher until you learn it's nuances. Yes, the graphics are great, the music is cool, the adventure mode supplies short-term replay and the gameplay is deep (sorta).
I can't understand why the KOF compilation couldn't at least get 7s. Granted the graphics were horrid even when they were originally released, the music reeks and the only replayability is in versus, but the gameplay is still leaps and bounds better than most 3D games.
Game Informer gave Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance a 9.5. Nuff said...
If PSM could give GGX2 a 9 then I don't know what they're problems is...
Like someone said, these magazines are hypocrites. Legend of Zelda, Super Mario, Ghouls and Ghosts or whatever is re-released on Game Boy Advance and they view it as the second coming, but a 2D game with phenomonal gameplay is released they turn their face away and put they nose up.
Violent Ryo
Loyal Neo-Disciple
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2003
- Posts
- 845
you know we should write to these magazines and explain to them that their reviewers are too biased and only rate a game on its graphics mostly....we should mention that real gamers put gameplay first and then graphics...we should really do this...
i think it will help a lot, so who is with me? let's do this for 2D Fighters!!
i think it will help a lot, so who is with me? let's do this for 2D Fighters!!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 26,968
I think even you are selling it too short. Horrid graphics, music that reeks... you can maybe say those things about 2001, but 2000 (the last full-SNK KOF) has very good graphics and in my opinion one of the best soundtracks of the series. The Ikari team, Ryuko no Ken team, K's team... those are great themes... It's unfair that you lump them in with the techno-noise of '01.Kevin Paul said:
rebellion1
Mr. Big's Thug
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Posts
- 195
i LOVED the music in 2001 besides like 3 tracks.
yes i am insane
anyway, writing to the idiots at EGM is a lost cause, and the person at GMR just liked KOF 98 style better so i don't hold it against him cause his review was very informed.
yes i am insane
anyway, writing to the idiots at EGM is a lost cause, and the person at GMR just liked KOF 98 style better so i don't hold it against him cause his review was very informed.
Kevin Paul
Overtop Pathfinder
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Posts
- 102
Southtownkid
I agree with you regarding the music in KOF 2000, but I don't like the graphics in KOF from 2K to 2K2.
2K2 had to compete with Garou, Last Blade 2, GGX (I think), SF3S, SFA3, MVC2 and CVS.
The music and graphics still reek in 2K1 though. 2K1 is the only KOF I have not bought for my Neo (I have all the rest). I only play it once in a blue moon for my Dreamcast. Though, I'll admit the gameplay is more refined than 2K.
Shit, they just reviewed Pacman in a recent EGM, and one of the reviewers gave it a 9 (though the graphics were revamped 3D, but they were still simple by Gamecube standards).
I'm just irked by magazine reviews. I remember when EGM gave 3S a bunch of 7s or 8s. But their sister magazine GMR rated the game as the best fighting game ever. And even EGM rated it as one of the 100 best video games (I think it had a pretty good ranking too).
Or I'll never forget the Super Street Fighter II debacle. Just because Capcom was dropping yearly updates to SFII they decided to review the game harshly and not on its gameplay. It was stupid back then because they were sucking SF's dick before that when they gave the previous two games 9s and 10s and devoted dozens of covers to covering them.
And it's funny Madden comes out every year, and no one seems to harp on that. Granted, Madden is awesome, but they hardly ever change the graphics or make giant changes...
I agree with you regarding the music in KOF 2000, but I don't like the graphics in KOF from 2K to 2K2.
2K2 had to compete with Garou, Last Blade 2, GGX (I think), SF3S, SFA3, MVC2 and CVS.
The music and graphics still reek in 2K1 though. 2K1 is the only KOF I have not bought for my Neo (I have all the rest). I only play it once in a blue moon for my Dreamcast. Though, I'll admit the gameplay is more refined than 2K.
Shit, they just reviewed Pacman in a recent EGM, and one of the reviewers gave it a 9 (though the graphics were revamped 3D, but they were still simple by Gamecube standards).
I'm just irked by magazine reviews. I remember when EGM gave 3S a bunch of 7s or 8s. But their sister magazine GMR rated the game as the best fighting game ever. And even EGM rated it as one of the 100 best video games (I think it had a pretty good ranking too).
Or I'll never forget the Super Street Fighter II debacle. Just because Capcom was dropping yearly updates to SFII they decided to review the game harshly and not on its gameplay. It was stupid back then because they were sucking SF's dick before that when they gave the previous two games 9s and 10s and devoted dozens of covers to covering them.
And it's funny Madden comes out every year, and no one seems to harp on that. Granted, Madden is awesome, but they hardly ever change the graphics or make giant changes...