Black Reviews

[bapenguin]

Various news sites are starting to post their reviews of EA's shooter Black (http://www.ea.com/official/black/black/us/index.jsp).

XBox.IGN (http://xbox.ign.com/articles/690/690732p1.html) weighs in first with a score of 8.6

Honestly, it's rare that graphics really do make a game better, but in this case the visual cues that Criterion has thrown into BLACK really do go hand-in-hand with its core design. Had bullets simply left decals on the environment, the game would have fallen apart. But the fact that every shot leaves some sort of signature really goes a very long way into making the game a truly visceral experience.
Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63014) scores the PS2 version with an 8.0.

Also, whttp://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3148267&did=1eighing in at just eight levels and a similar number of hours, it's all over before you know it. Short and sweet, for sure, but light in content even by modern gaming standards, with unlockables that amount to little more than the chance to play it on even harder modes. Needless to say, FPS fans the world over also expect - at the very least - some basic deathmatch and CTF multiplayer in any shooter, and online at that. But Criterion risks the wrath of untold number of FPS fans by ignoring one of its most potent features; fans who would otherwise doubtlessly sing the praises of this excellent game.
Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/black/review.html) scores it a 7.4. - Thanks Inglorion

1Up (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3148267&did=1) has their review up as well scoring the game a 7.

Sounds like a solid title worthy of a $40 price tag.

[Dr Quincy]

Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=1789) scores Red Faction with a 9.0.

Nuff sed.

[Evil Avatar]

Yes, but does it run on the Xbox 360???

[Inglorion]

GameSpot with a 7.4 (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/black/review.html) :D

[Doctor Worm]

I picked up a demo of this a while back and ended up really enjoying it. If you approach it in the same way you might approach a film like Starship Troopers (a seemingly no-brainer flick which under the surface has some degree of substance) it'll definitely surprise you. Very immersive, eye candy for console FPS lovers, pure lowest common denominator... :)

boom... crash... bang... kablooey....

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=1789) scores Red Faction with a 9.0.

Nuff sed.

Alot of people gave Red Faction good scores.

You know, because it was a decent game.

[Dr Quincy]

Alot of people gave Red Faction good scores. You know, because it was a decent game.

Oops. My point was meant to be Red Faction > Black. I like Red Faction a lot and respect Eurogamer's reviews. Black sounds like 6 hours of style-over-substance repetative gameplay with no replay value. Red Faction was and is teh ace!

[MSUStud911]

Black sounds like it's a fun game, but it really is coming out at a bad time. There are too many good titles coming out in the next couple of weeks that allocating $40 to a 5-6 hour shooter just doesn't make sense. I wish this had come out a month and a half ago.

[EvilBob46]

Needless to say, FPS fans the world over also expect - at the very least - some basic deathmatch and CTF multiplayer in any shooter, and online at that. But Criterion risks the wrath of untold number of FPS fans

They ignored an untold number of FPS fans by not including multiplayer? Yeah, maybe 15% of the total player base max, if the vast majority of games are an indication.

[Dr Quincy]

They ignored an untold number of FPS fans by not including multiplayer? Yeah, maybe 15% of the total player base max, if the vast majority of games are an indication.

Everybody can enjoy splitscreen surely?

[bapenguin]

Yes, but does it run on the Xbox 360???

Is it April fools day? :)

[KidCactus]

Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=1789) scores Red Faction with a 9.0.

Nuff sed.
Interesting how you say that when you haven't even played Black.

[Roc Ingersol]

Sounds like a fun renter.

[Dr Quincy]

Interesting how you say that when you haven't even played Black.

Interesting how you say that when you haven't even played Black.

[AnthraxKitty]

The only reviews I trust are Gamespots', and they said everything I was afraid of. I'm going to rent it. I'm low on money and 40 bucks for something I'll finish in two days is not worth it.

[KidCactus]

Interesting how you say that when you haven't even played Black.
But the difference between you and me is that I don't claim that one is better than the other.

[Shifter]

Should I pick up the XBox version or the PS2 version? Any thoughts?

[Dr Quincy]

But the difference between you and me is that I don't claim that one is better than the other.

But the difference between you and me is that I am a genius who is categorically correct on all matters always. F'nar!

Should I pick up the XBox version or the PS2 version? Any thoughts?

The PlayStation2 version will unquestionably have better controls and provide a more technically impressive experience given the console. The Xbox version will be more of less the same as the PS2 one, but perhaps with improved performance.

[Emabulator]

Sounds like a mediocre game that will be worth another look when the price drops to $20.

[bean19]

Sounds like a fun renter.

Yep. Totally.

I'll wait for the PC or X360 versions though.

[Dr Quincy]

I'll wait for the PC or X360 versions though.

That'll be a long wait then.

[gawaintheblind]

I like shooters quite a bit, but with money being so tight, theres no way im dropping 40 bucks on a days worth of fun. What is the deal with games becoming shorter and shorter as graphics get better and better? Can't we hit a middle ground? I enjoy special EEEfects as much as the next guy but theres a point where all the bump mapping and crazy lighting in the world isn't going to get me to purchase a game I'll beat in a couple hours. Its just not economical.

[Tia]

Sounds like a mediocre game that will be worth another look when the price drops to $20.

oh good, I thought I was the only one that noticed that. :p

[sflufan]

Thank God they chose to ignore multiplayer completely. I wish more developers would do that as it has been the death of decent singleplayer gaming.

I can't think of a bigger waste of time, effort, and resources than multiplayer.

[Dr Quincy]

I can't think of a bigger waste of time, effort, and resources than multiplayer.

Resources which could be better spent on 6 hours of gameplay y'mean? Right.

[Venkman]

Thank God they chose to ignore multiplayer completely. I wish more developers would do that as it has been the death of decent singleplayer gaming.

I can't think of a bigger waste of time, effort, and resources than multiplayer.

here here! With the rare exception of games like Halo 2 where the multiplayer is better than the single player, multi has just sort of been wasted dev time and cost.

Did games like Republic Commando really need bare bones multiplayer? Gimme 5 more missions and ten more hours of gameplay.

[Venkman]

Resources which could be better spent on 6 hours of gameplay y'mean? Right.

For most games, yes! how many FPS games do you have, and how many of them do you actually play online? how many different ways an you play the same thing- deathmatch, CTF, plant the bomb, etc.

[Dr Quincy]

For most games, yes! how many FPS games do you have, and how many of them do you actually play online? how many different ways an you play the same thing- deathmatch, CTF, plant the bomb, etc.

Okay, I'll concede that I play more for their offline content than online, but for a full price game it is standard that you be presented with a fully rounded product which provides bang for your buck. I would expect a single player of double to triple the length indicated as the full playthrough time of Black with the addition of multiplayer as a nice bonus. I would expect unlockable content. Half-life 2: Episode 1 will contain 4 to 6 hours of gameplay and that is part one in an episodic series of games acting as a supplement to a fully formed existing product. It will not retail at full price.

EDIT: To make a comprison with a similar product that is.

[jacktion]

I'd call it a disappointment when you consider how much it was hyped. Everyone said that this game made the next generation of consoles irrelevant since these graphics could be obtained on a PS2. It was called a Halo Killer and the "shiz-nit". But really it is just a run-of-the-mill fps that has flashy graphics and no extras and is really short. Too bad. 6.4

[fitbabits]

So far to me it seems like Black is the absolute definition of rental. I'm simply not in the position where I can throw $40 (plus tax) at a game I know (from the reviews) I will complete in one sitting.

[fitbabits]

It was called a Halo Killer...
That would be Killzone you're referring to, I think (unless the same was said about Black and I missed it). Which, incidentally, was not as bad as people made it out to be. The fact that it was being touted as a Halo killer simply built up PS2 owner's expectations to unreasonably high levels. I bought Killzone when it dropped to $20 and it's great value at that price. And the same will no doubt be true of Black.

[sflufan]

Every bloody console FPS has been referred to as a "Halo killer" recently when in fact the only Halo killer that ever existed is Halo 2 because it damn well near killed the series.

[absolut taco]

Yes, but does it run on the Xbox 360???
Hopefully they'll release a 360 version... Eye candy is the machine's middle name!

[ldi222]

Halo killer that ever existed is Halo 2 because it damn well near killed the series.

7+ Million copies and still by far the most played game on xbox live. Yeah it killed it allright.

[Dr Quincy]

Hopefully they'll release a 360 version... Eye candy is the machine's middle name!

I think not, baby puppy. (http://eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63026)

[Bumbuliuz]

I just wish this game ran on my 360! But I will have to dust of my old trusty xbox for this game :)

[H.Bogard]

Whats up with the comment in the main post? everyone disagrees with you bap!

[Cool AN]

Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=1789) scores Red Faction with a 9.0.

Nuff sed.

I never liked Eurogamer.

[Reanimated]

Sounds like a rental to me.

[Reed]

Really was hoping Criterian was going to pull this off in spectacular fashion. I think this is one of those games that will really shine with its first sequel.

In any case, looks like a solid rental.

[YoungAlCapone]

I will check this out at < $20.

I have been burnt out by shooters lately. I haven't even been playing Call of Duty 2, which I was in love with a month ago.

Between Black being short, and not that great, I am fine with waiting.

[Steele Johnson]

Gamespot:
Overall, Black's strong first impression is bogged down by its repetitive and often-standard gameplay, weak enemy AI, and short length. There are some good ideas here, and the technology is cool, but you can't help but think that there's still a bunch of untapped potential throughout the game.


If you're a big fan of standard shooters, it's probably worth a purchase. If you're sick of the same ol' same ol', save your money.

I'm going to save my money. :)

[YoungAlCapone]

If you're a big fan of standard shooters, it's probably worth a purchase. If you're sick of the same ol' same ol', save your money.

I'm going to save my money. :)

Exactly.

Down the line I could see this being worth a try though. Just to see what the Burnout guys can do with a first person shooter if nothing else.

[Whodaknown]

no multiplayer + 6 hours = low replayability = rental for sure

[Zeal]

I like how "insiders" who played this at E3 were calling it the Halo killer.

Videogame journalists and the entire videogame press are paid off and full of shit, I swear to God.

7.4, 8.0 lol

Trust no one.

[Mason]

I got bored with this game from the video review.

[HardScores]

Meh. 6 hours of gameplay, apparently. I think IGN bloated this review because of how hyped they were about in in their previews and such. Defintiely not worth anything near 9 out of 10.

[The Letter 3]

I can't fault Criterion for giving the FPS genre a decent first shot. But I expected more out of this. Then again, when they approached the burnout series there had already been two games done so they had a base of ideas to work from. Perhaps if a Black 2 does come around (as is hinted) they will have thought the game out more. A rental for sure.

Welcome to EvAv HardScores!

[Kefkataran]

I like how "insiders" who played this at E3 were calling it the Halo killer.

Videogame journalists and the entire videogame press are paid off and full of shit, I swear to God.

7.4, 8.0 lol

Trust no one.

Man, what the hell are you talking about?

I got bored with this game from the video review.

Yeah, I agree with that. Hell, the reviewer sounded bored talking about it. I'd probably pick this up for cheap later if it were on PC, but console FPSes just ain't my thing.

[absolut taco]

Thank God they chose to ignore multiplayer completely. I wish more developers would do that as it has been the death of decent singleplayer gaming.

I can't think of a bigger waste of time, effort, and resources than multiplayer.
You forgot to add the 'eyeroll' icon. That was sarcasm, right?
Or maybe you have never experienced how great multiplayer gaming can be on a service like Xbox Live...

[Dag-Sabot]

The only reviews I trust are Gamespots'...
Then you'll just love their review for R6 Lockdown (PC) Bwaaa-ha-ha! I They gave it 8.0 = "great"
LOL!
Sorry if i came off a bit gamefaq'esque, but i used to trust them as well.

[HardScores]

Thanks, The Letter 3
Maybe 'cause the title went through... what, 3 rebuilds, it would be longer than 6 or 7 hours. As for payoffs towards journalists, I doubt anyone is, other than free swag they give with games. You should really be worryng about EB Games and Gamestop - they get paid to put posters, ad, and preferential shelf space for EA, Activision, and other games.

[benson]

The PlayStation2 version will unquestionably have better controls and provide a more technically impressive experience given the console. The Xbox version will be more of less the same as the PS2 one, but perhaps with improved performance.
Do you work for Eurogamer or Sony? Not sure which, but sounds like one or the other. I kid, I kid.

Besides that, I have to disagree completely on the PS2 having better controls. I personally feel that I get the best control using the Xbox Controllers (or as is now the case, the 360 controller). Control is a matter of which controller you like better, unless the developers suck at their job of making the controllers work.

I'm also not entirely sure what you mean bya more technically impressive experience given the console.
Are you saying that because the Xbox is technically superior, and the game was designed for the lowest common denominator (PS2), that it is cooler (or more impressive as you say) to play on the lowest common denominator? If that is the case, you might just be retarded. I'd rather play a game on a system that would give me the best experience period. The Xbox version should have in game Dolby Digital, and the PS2 can not do that. That is but one example of the Xbox version giving "a more technically impressive experience."

Anyway, not to rag on the PS2 entirely, it sure is slim. And black. And has a cool blue light.

Sorry to for the threadjack. I'll stop now.

[JediSanf]

Actually the X360 question is a good one. Why don't they put two versions of the executable on the disc? Is there an engineering reason (as opposed to marketing)? I'd like to play the game I just don't want to borrow a firends XBox to do it.

[Dirty Harry]

wikikikikikikikikikikikikikikikikiki

[TheFlyingOrc]

Definately sounds like the definition of a rental game.

[Gpig]

Then you'll just love their review for R6 Lockdown (PC) Bwaaa-ha-ha! I They gave it 8.0 = "great"
LOL!
Sorry if i came off a bit gamefaq'esque, but i used to trust them as well.

I heard lockdown for the PC isn't supposed to be as bad as the console version. That's not to say it's good, it's just not a complete steaming pile of a shit. Just bland and boring. An 8.0 is high, but giving Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure an 8.7 is ridiculous.

After the guy from 1up or egm or whatever said that the front page of gamespot is basically ad space that is paid for I've been questioning gamespot a bit more. They're still the site I go to, but before I tell someone a game is good I'll check gamerankings to see what other sites say.

Also, is it just me or has ign seemed to not be paid off anymore now that they've been purchased by murdoch? I don't read much ign, but it seems the review scores are lower than they used to be for more games. Someone said it could be explained away by ign reviewers having bad taste but you can't bad taste dead or alive xtreme beach volleyball into the 9.++ category, but lately I haven't noticed reviews as horrible as that(though this black review score seems high, I'm assuming it's just his taste).

I have no opinion on if gamespy has become better after the merger because that would require going to it at least once. Sorry for the rant.

[JediSanf]

DirtyHarry, if you were directing me to the x360 wiki entry you'll notice all they say is


A hard drive is required to enable backward compatibility. Hard drives purchased separately or as part of the console package include an early version of the emulator that includes emulation profiles for games Halo and Halo 2. Updated emulation profiles can be obtained through Xbox Live, by burning a CD with content downloaded from Xbox.com, or by ordering an update disc from Microsoft at a small charge for shipping. [12]


This is reiterated on xbox.com

Q: What is Xbox backward compatibility?

A: Xbox® backward compatibility enables original Xbox® games on the compatibility list to be played on your Xbox 360™ console. Backward compatibility requires the Xbox 360 Hard Drive.


These are MARKETING ANSWERS. Had you read my question I am looking for logic above and beyond "buy our $100 accessory".

Apologies for the threadjack. I will be renting Black this weekend b/c said friend has also expressed interest in it.

[captainspankypants]

IGN's review isn't bad because of the numerical score, it's bad because it's FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES LONG. Assigning a numerical value to how "fun" a game is is ridiculous, so it's always more important to take a look at what they actually have to say. The IGN review just gushes over every little detail, lavishing praise on everything, including things that were probably put in the game by accident, and it practically apologizes for pointing out the parts that might not seem so great.

[Bumbuliuz]

I sometimes envy you guys that can rent theese games instead of just buying them. In my country renting games has never really been an option :(

[sTubbs]

I view Black as being similar to the first Burnout. When that game came out it had spectacular crashes, but not much else. Like Black, it was a solid rental or a price drop buy.

With Burnout 2 came the arrival of crash mode that took the series to an entirely different level. The racing was more refined and the game was more fleshed out. People had much excitement for the next game.

Enter Burnout 3. With this game, the Burnout series reached such a height that it completely crushed everything even remotely resembling competition. The Burnout series once and for all took its place as the best arcade racer available and easily one of the best of all time.

I am not saying that Black will follow a similar curve. However, after reading the previews and now these reviews, I am getting serious flashbacks to the response given to the first Burnout game. We all know that Criterion can make a kickass game. I hope that they take the roots they have planted with Black and let them grow. Considering their uncanny ability to suck every molecule of power out of a system, I look forward to what they might accomplish on the new generation of consoles.

[Zeal]

Man, what the hell are you talking about?.

What, do you have dyslexia or some shit? I said the hype surrounding the game was a load of PR bunk, which it was. The gaming media hyped up BLACK to be the second coming and it turned out to be average at best.

It's no different than what happened with HL2, Doom 3 or HALO 2.

This is why you simply cannot trust anyone's opinion regarding videogames anymore, especially the media's. Believe nothing until you play it for yourself.

[absolut taco]

IGN's review isn't bad because of the numerical score, it's bad because it's FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES LONG.
So it takes longer to read the review than to play through the game?

[overdrivechao]

Ok I have a ... friend... that's about 3 hours into Black. He says it looks really good, and it has some cool things he hasn;t seen before in an FPS. Mainly, reload background out-of-focus, kind of long, cinematic cutscenes between missions (almost like a NIN video), and a focus on destroying the environment even more than aiming at individuals.

He says there are some negatives as well. For instance, the baddies stand right in front of red, explosive barrels which are clearly marked. Duh. And also those cool long cutscenes are unskippable if and when you die, which he says you probably will, as the difficulty is ramped up more than any FPS he has played lately.

Overall, it seems to be an excellent FPS and very worthy of $40. According to him.

[Deadend]

I think Black's levels are too damn long.

They feel like marathons, not action scenes. I am really sick of hour long levels in games. I would be fine if the levels in Black were split up a bit, maybe shorten them up alot, split them up.

I was always thinking BLACK would be like Burnout with Guns, sadly, it's just lots of shooting. What I wanted in the game was for it to have a reward system like Burnout, where you get more... something or other for playing crazy and blowing shit up. But not a slow down bullet thing... just a game where you get rewards for going faster, not using cover, not getting hit and destroying everything.

The game feels like it was supposed to be super-fast and arcadey, but then has some 'tactical' stuff thrown in, like dying with a few good hits, limit of 2 guns at a time and bad guys who shoot at you from far away.

I also found the lack of blood and the mature rating to be stupid. The game has no blood or gore, but it rated M. WHY? As I would feel much better about my gun that can shread concrete blocks apart, iif it did the same thing to the guy standing next to the wall.

It's definiately a rental game.
Even though it gets very boring, as the levels just feel too long for me.

[absolut taco]

I also found the lack of blood and the mature rating to be stupid. The game has no blood or gore, but it rated M. WHY? As I would feel much better about my gun that can shread concrete blocks apart, iif it did the same thing to the guy standing next to the wall.
Weird. Call of Duty 2 on the 360 has quite a bit of blood when you unload a clip into a nazi, and it only got a "T"...

[EvoG]

IGN's review isn't bad because of the numerical score, it's bad because it's FIVE GOD DAMNED PAGES LONG.

The irony huh? It took them longer to write the review than to beat the game. :D


Seriously though, while I can still remember the hour long experiences in beating games back in the day (Strider on Genesis), it is a tad disconcerting that companies are expecting to arbitrarily increase the prices of next-gen games(Gun360 anyone?), while simultaneously reducing play time and substance. This game is coming in at 40 bucks, which is fair, but at the same time it only establishes further the precedence of even shorter games. It was a slight shock when Max Payne 2 was 10 hours long...but now thats commonplace...but at 10 dollars more.

[Dr Quincy]

Besides that, I have to disagree completely on the PS2 having better controls. I personally feel that I get the best control using the Xbox Controllers (or as is now the case, the 360 controller).

To my knowledge the game favours having four shoulder buttons, rather than two.

Are you saying that because the Xbox is technically superior, and the game was designed for the lowest common denominator (PS2), that it is cooler (or more impressive as you say) to play on the lowest common denominator?

The game pushes the PlayStation far more than it pushes the Xbox. I can imagine the experience being additionally rewarding on the PlayStation for providing a feeling that this is something unique for the console, wheras the Xbox already has some very visually impressive FPSs like Riddick and Doom 3.

If that is the case, you might just be retarded.

Blimey.

[benson]

Blimey.
I have to appologize. I took that a little bit too far.

[Paranoia]

To my knowledge the game favours having four shoulder buttons, rather than two.

To many FPS console gamers, they prefer to use Xbox controllers because the analogue sticks are better positioned for FPS games than the Dual-shock.

[MasterKwan]

"The game pushes the PlayStation far more than it pushes the Xbox. I can imagine the experience being additionally rewarding on the PlayStation for providing a feeling that this is something unique for the console, wheras the Xbox already has some very visually impressive FPSs like Riddick and Doom 3." (so says Dr Quincy).

I read this is "it's better to play it on the PS2 because you know it's groaning under the load. You're saying your enjoyment of the game somehow hinges on how hard the console has to work to display it?

I thought most of you comments were fairly on track, this one though. It's a stretch.

"You might get some framerate hit on the PS2 version but, the satisfaction of knowing you're pushing your PS2 to the limits adds a level of joy the Xbox can't provide".

(My interpretation of your comment).

[Achilles]

I wonder if they chopped the game in half so that they could re-release it on the next-gen platforms later with improved graphics and more content.

Also 6 hours to a reviewer is more like 10 to me. I remember when they were saying Halo 2 was a 6 hour game, and it took me about 14.

[Royal Fool]

6/10.

[ This Post Has Been Artifically Lenghtened ]

[HardScores]

Ok I have a ... friend... that's about 3 hours into Black. He says it looks really good, and it has some cool things he hasn;t seen before in an FPS. Mainly, reload background out-of-focus, kind of long, cinematic cutscenes between missions (almost like a NIN video), and a focus on destroying the environment even more than aiming at individuals.

He says there are some negatives as well. For instance, the baddies stand right in front of red, explosive barrels which are clearly marked. Duh. And also those cool long cutscenes are unskippable if and when you die, which he says you probably will, as the difficulty is ramped up more than any FPS he has played lately.

Overall, it seems to be an excellent FPS and very worthy of $40. According to him.

Get out of here, you EA rep.

Anyway, I'd say reviewers sometimes take LONGER than necessary, just to check out every single feature available. If they do their job right, that is.

[mister_slim]

I am not saying that Black will follow a similar curve. However, after reading the previews and now these reviews, I am getting serious flashbacks to the response given to the first Burnout game. We all know that Criterion can make a kickass game. I hope that they take the roots they have planted with Black and let them grow. Considering their uncanny ability to suck every molecule of power out of a system, I look forward to what they might accomplish on the new generation of consoles.
Sounds plausible to me. This seems to be more and more common recently. Too many games just aren't getting the time and polish to be a complete game in the first iteration. So Black 2 will be good, Black 3 will be great, and Black 4 will lose touch with what made the series great.

Also 6 hours to a reviewer is more like 10 to me. I remember when they were saying Halo 2 was a 6 hour game, and it took me about 14.
We really need better differentiation among review sources. As someone who plays a lot of games but doesn't play that many FPSes it's hard to tell from most reviews whether I'd enjoy a particular game or not. Where's the review source with a similar identity to mine?

[H.Bogard]

It's no different than what happened with HL2

Hello santa? Whatcha got for me here? OOOH! over 40 GoTY awards? I sure feel like a dipshit now...

[dr_wily]

I view Black as being similar to the first Burnout. When that game came out it had spectacular crashes, but not much else. Like Black, it was a solid rental or a price drop buy.

With Burnout 2 came the arrival of crash mode that took the series to an entirely different level. The racing was more refined and the game was more fleshed out. People had much excitement for the next game.

Enter Burnout 3. With this game, the Burnout series reached such a height that it completely crushed everything even remotely resembling competition. The Burnout series once and for all took its place as the best arcade racer available and easily one of the best of all time.

I am not saying that Black will follow a similar curve. However, after reading the previews and now these reviews, I am getting serious flashbacks to the response given to the first Burnout game. We all know that Criterion can make a kickass game. I hope that they take the roots they have planted with Black and let them grow. Considering their uncanny ability to suck every molecule of power out of a system, I look forward to what they might accomplish on the new generation of consoles.

i liked 2 better than 3 by far.

[overdrivechao]

Get out of here, you EA rep.

Anyway, I'd say reviewers sometimes take LONGER than necessary, just to check out every single feature available. If they do their job right, that is.

...there are some negatives as well. For instance, the baddies stand right in front of red, explosive barrels which are clearly marked. Duh. And also those cool long cutscenes are unskippable if and when you die, which he says you probably will, as the difficulty is ramped up more than any FPS he has played lately.

I'm playing the goddamned game, idiot. I've despised most of EA's stuff lately, so it's nice to see something that doesn't lick balls.