[360] - The Outfit - Reviewing the reviews

[GrinR]

I just finished reading the reviews (Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/theoutfit/review.html?sid=6145879) and IGN (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/695/695633p1.html)) and found myself wondering what the reviewers were playing, since I certainly wasn't playing the game they reviewed.

They complained about the graphics, which are admittedly Xbox-quality, but the graphics are far from bad, and the animation of things makes up for it. It's like the difference between DDO/EQ2 and WoW - high-res, high-poly models that walk like robots, or low-res, low-poly models that move fluidly.

They complained about the world being not destructable enough, but in my experience, if you wanted to level everything on the map but boulders and tank-traps - you could. EVERYTHING. (and I do just that - often.)

They complained about the controls, but the controls are no different from any other console-FPS. Yes, it's hard to run and gun like you would in a standard FPS or 3rd-person shooter - but the scope of the game makes that meaningful. If you could simply pop off shots like in GRAW or even Battlefield, the entire point of airdropping support would dry up. This is not to say you cannot fight with your weapons, but rather they are less accurate than you'd be used to from other FPS's. As for driving vehicles, yes, it's not the easiest thing to do when you're dodging obstacles but it's far from the hand wrecking experience they talk about. Push forward to go forward, right to turn right, etc. - not rocket science. It's also safe to say that at least half of what you might run into while driving will go right under your wheels/treads, which is half the FUN of driving.

They complain about the single player missions giving you the objectives, as if they were playing a FPS. It is true that the mission objectives are spelled out for you, but how to achieve those objectives is up to you! This is something neither of these reviews even mention. Want to go through the game in a tank, driving over the enemy and blasting opponents? DO IT. Want to play the turtle and use turrets and airstrikes to crawl to your objective? DO IT. Want to be a bit more fiesty and just run right into the enemy, taking out their men in hand-to-hand and capturing their emplacements for your own use? DO IT. I agree that there is a bit too much hand-holding, but let's be fair about it.

They even complain about the "limited" number of players in a multiplayer match. Playing 3 vs 3, which I've done for about 20 hours now, I can tell you that there is absolutely no lack of action. Would 4 vs 4 be better? Possibly (I think the game supports that, but not in the quickstart mode). 5 vs 5? No way. The size of the maps would have to be increased to accomodate more players, or the strategy would be lost to a constant "deathmatch" of players fighting next to each other.

I've often used TFC as the closest-thing-to example for The Outfit. Look at the issues they raise and tell me if TFC is a bad game because of the graphics, the controls, the single-player mode, or the limited number of players per match. The game's magic is entirely encompassed by the rock-paper-scissors of "FPS direct control beats any one thing" but "Airdropping many emplacement beats FPS direct control" but "Airstrikes/Artillery beats many emplacements" and all of those things are limited by the "Field Units" you earn by killing and destroying. It's a dynamic not mentioned at all in the reviews and is the lifeblood of The Outfit.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should love this game. It has a learning curve, and the single player game is nothing to write home about. But, once you find yourself with all Strategic Points (the points you must capture and hold to have your side win) taken by the enemy, with a massively lopsided score, and you manage to sneak or fight your way to victory by careful expendature of your Field Unit points and FPS skill - the magic is unavoidably obvious. There are very few games that allow a comeback from a 95% loss, and this is designed to be one of them.

[Rakael]

This is what we need more of around here. Great job GrinR.

[GrinR]

This is what we need more of around here. Great job GrinR.

Yeah, well I guess enough people hate me here that it was time to cough up something valuable. :D

[AntB]

I got a little down after I read the reviews, but your giving me new hope Grinnie.

[GrinR]

I got a little down after I read the reviews, but your giving me new hope Grinnie.

I think if you play the free demo, and are on a losing team, and you manage to win because of your contribution to the team, you'll get what I mean. If you manage that a couple of times and you still don't like it... it's probably not for you.

The retail also has a LOT of multiplayer maps, MANY of which are designed well. At least as far as I can tell from 5 hours of playing last night.

[bapenguin]

Good job. I moved this to our in house forum.

[drakkarim]

its a preview/review, what do you expect? 99% of what is said in them is merely opinion, and we all know about opinions, nobody's is any better then anyone else's.

so do what i do, stop reading the crap.

[gzsfrk]

Good review, GrinR... you've definitely salvaged my interest in this game. It's up from "pick up out of bargain bin for half price or less" to "Buy used copy".

Of course, I need to acquire a 360 first. :)

[Kelegacy]

Do you own the game or just the demo?

I find this whole in-house article a bit...odd. I trust Gamespot quite a bit, and I really like Ryan Davis, so I can't help but think that they'd give it an honest review, not slam it for silly reasons. I haven't played the game, so I really have no foot to stand on, though.

Still, if you are comparing their reviews to your free demo, I will find fault in that--because that'd just be plain silly.

[rein]

I liked your review more than I liked the game if that helps. :)

I think multi-player is where this game might shine. Single player is just not good. I mean really not good. I could careless about the graphics. They were fine. The AI is just incredibly stupid on single player and I ran into a glitch. It told me in the training to set up a AA gun. I went to the menu and it showed up but when I placed the AA gun it was a machine gun nest. :eek: I thought maybe I missed something and back tracked. When I did I ran across a few enemies I left behind me. There they were manning the machine gun nest facing the wrong way. I took a few shots and they didn't turn around. The just let me pick them off. :confused: At this point I decided to play around with a different one. I drove my half-track next to him and he just stood there taking shots at me with his rifle. He let me drive right up to him and then shoot him. He never made a run for it.

I took the game back before I finished the first mission. It was just unbearable for me in the single player game. I'm not disagreeing with you GrinR. I think the reviewers were wrong on some of their points. However, the AI really did it for me. If GRAW was not as good as it is and Oblivion was not on the horizon I would have held on to the game to give multi-player a chance. However, with the release titles The Outfit is up against it wasn't worth $60 for me.

[pavlovscow]

nice post.

[GrinR]

Kelegacy - I did mention I was playing the retail last night for 5 hours.

Rein - I could easily see that. I think it's like Counterstrike in some ways. If you play the single-player game and quit after you realize the AI is retarded, you're missing out. Fundamentally, the game is designed for multiplayer. I think the single player does a decent job of it because it is a war game, not a tactical combat game. In other words, if you had the 20-30 enemies coming at you with good accuracy and good AI, you'd just die. For what it's worth, the enemies DO get a lot harder (if not smarter) later in the single-player. Trust me, one soldier standing there while you shoot him to death is impossible to notice when you have 10 others shooting at you, flame tanks rolling up, and enemies parachuting in overhead.

[rein]

Rein - I could easily see that. I think it's like Counterstrike in some ways. If you play the single-player game and quit after you realize the AI is retarded, you're missing out. Fundamentally, the game is designed for multiplayer. I think the single player does a decent job of it because it is a war game, not a tactical combat game. In other words, if you had the 20-30 enemies coming at you with good accuracy and good AI, you'd just die. For what it's worth, the enemies DO get a lot harder (if not smarter) later in the single-player. Trust me, one soldier standing there while you shoot him to death is impossible to notice when you have 10 others shooting at you, flame tanks rolling up, and enemies parachuting in overhead.

I am glad you played some single player and gave a quick reply about it. I will probably try again later when it is cheaper and I am not overwhelmed with other 360 release titles. I don't have a lot of time to play games lately (but yet I am here a lot :o ). With Ghost Recon:AW out last week and Oblivion next week, hand helds and pc games I just didn't want to give it that much time if I wasn't enjoying it up front. I am glad you are enjoying it.

[GrinR]

What's sad and funny is that I have GRAW, Fight Night, Burnout, (and soon Oblivion) - and I was playing the damn Outfit demo night after night. Now that I have the retail... what chance have I??

[thecrazyd]

Hmm... a game that makes me want a 360. Well I never.

[captainspankypants]

I like this review more for what it says about IGN and GameSpot than for the review itself. Quite often I find that the reviewers totally miss the point of a game, and this seems to be one of those times. Sometimes they do it because they are trying to write for the "average gamer," sometimes they are just playing so many games day after day that they start grading them all on the same merits. I notice this most in games like Armored Core or 2D fighters or other niche games, but I'm sure it comes naturally in genres with ten thousand entries. They probably went into this thinking "Another WWII FPS game, I've got this one nailed." Sometimes you can't just go through your usual checklist and write a number between one and ten though.

[SPBTooL]

I have felt this exact way about the reviews for the game and the game it's self. Reading the Gamespot and IGN reviews I realized that I had said "What build of the game have they been playing?" out loud several times.

The vehicle controls are the only thing that I tend to agree on. It's not that they are bad, but more like, not intuitive. The left stick controls the vehicles like a RC car where UP accelerates, LEFT and RIGHT turn the car relative to it's self. Most other games have gotten us used to "The direction I push is the direction it will go" controls.

The graphics are next gen. just not anything that really pushes the 360. There is no way this game could run on the old box. The resolution and amount of textures in a level is too great. This is especially true when you see the view distance on some of the maps. Then add the destructibility and all the particles from all the shooting going on top of that. Although I do find the on screen text hard to read on a non HDTV so I have been playing it on my PC’s CRT.

Speaking of shooting; the range that the units shoot at each other is quite a treat for me. If they can see you they will shoot. It is very common to get fire fights that are literally across the whole map. I was never a fan of units and weapons that had a limited range yet the player could still kill at 3 times the range.

The single player game to me reminds me of the single play for Unreal Tournament and Battlefield. The campaign isn’t the best but it gets you ready for the multiplayer. The campaign does fit with the style of the game too. It is serious and corny, Much like Hogan’s Heroes. The voice acting is also very good. Not being able to save a co-op game is a slight bummer.

Many of the reviewers seem to have last sight of what makes a good game; Fun. Everyone that I have had play this game all think it is the most fun game that has been out in a while. I also find it odd how people are always asking for innovation in games but then complain about the Outfit because it’s not a first person tactical squad game. That is more emphasized by reviews for GRAW that state that the game is just more of the same with crappy AI, but the best graphics yet so we are going to give it real high scores.

[GrinR]

It's funny you should say that about GRAW - I got in day one, but the AI and the incredibly crude trigger-point scripting just turned me off. It ended up feeling more like I was playing a puzzle game than a shooter. Go here, step forward to trigger enemies, back up and let them come to me and my squad, rinse repeat. Also, the AI on my squad is no better at keeping itself alive than the AI in Outfit (not that I'm comparing the games to each other) - I don't know how many times my idiot squad will stand there taking fire instead of lying down, or using corners, or ANYTHING they taught me during training. I wanted to tell them "if this had been a real firefight, you would be dead - oh wait, IT IS A REAL FIRE FIGHT AND YOU ARE DEAD!"

I'm 100% positive I'll love the online game, and GRAW is still great fun - I'm not dogging it - but it wasn't the immersive game I was expecting.

[Kelegacy]

I like this review more for what it says about IGN and GameSpot than for the review itself. Quite often I find that the reviewers totally miss the point of a game, and this seems to be one of those times. Sometimes they do it because they are trying to write for the "average gamer," sometimes they are just playing so many games day after day that they start grading them all on the same merits. I notice this most in games like Armored Core or 2D fighters or other niche games, but I'm sure it comes naturally in genres with ten thousand entries. They probably went into this thinking "Another WWII FPS game, I've got this one nailed." Sometimes you can't just go through your usual checklist and write a number between one and ten though.

For one thing, reviewers should play a game THROUGH to the end before reviewing. This takes off the newness factor and can change many a score. I've played plenty of games where it was awesome at first but as the game went ont I became bored to tears. I know GrinR played the review copy for 5 hours last night, and the demo for countless others, but once he's completely through the game his review will have much more merit. Items such as controls might not seem like a huge problem at first but after twenty hours they can become irksome to say the least.

However, reviews are always opinion pieces, like it or not. That IGN and Gamespot are both saying the same things, pointing out the same problems, is enough for me. Jaded they may be, but problems, big or small, are problems.

Still, when I read Jeff Gerstmann's review of Black, I became a bit leery of the title. I went and played it anyway and loved the hell out of it. I would have jacked up his score by nearly another whole point, but I don't know why. I just had...fun. I'm glad I don't have to review it professionally because I don't know how I can peel it apart and explain it.

What this means is that GrinR has found a game he loves. I'm glad, and he's found faults with portions of other reviews, in categories he thinks are over-emphasized. I loved Black while many reviewers just thought it was Good, not great. Nevertheless, I can't overlook a pair of reviews that seemingly agree with one another, giving near identical scores. And one portion of the reviews that stands out for me is this, from the Gamespot write-up:

The Outfit's aim for a bold blend of action and strategy gets sabotaged by a repetitious single-player campaign

Repetitious? That turns me off a bit already and I haven't even read the other problems! I'm a singleplayer guy by nature, and no matter how good the MP is, you can't ignore a SP campaign that is lacking.

Dan

(P.S. Don't take my criticisms the wrong way at all, GrinR. I haven't played the game OR the demo, so what the hell do I know? But I DO look forward to your thorough review by next week, when you complete the game. And write a review you MUST!)

[GrinR]

I gotta tell you Dan, I couldn't review it any more than I already have! I'm not even sure if I'm going to finish the singleplayer game. Like I said, in different ways, The Outfit is 90% a multiplayer game. It happens to have a single-player component that does a good job of dishing out fun, but it's not about that. Put (yet) another way, I'd give the SP game a 65% and the MP a 90%. Because I see the SP as "extra", it only raises the score, to say 92% or something.

I think what I said about playing the demo is the best method of deciding whether or not to buy/play:

"I think if you play the free demo, and are on a losing team, and you manage to win because of your contribution to the team, you'll get what I mean. If you manage that a couple of times and you still don't like it... it's probably not for you."

[bapenguin]

Still, when I read Jeff Gerstmann's review of Black, I became a bit leery of the title. I went and played it anyway and loved the hell out of it. I would have jacked up his score by nearly another whole point, but I don't know why. I just had...fun. I'm glad I don't have to review it professionally because I don't know how I can peel it apart and explain it.

See...THAT is what reviews need. In fact, from now on in all my reviews for this site I'm going to put a FunFactor score. That is...a score regardless of a games flaws and shortcomings based soley on FUN. I mean, fuck, isn't that what gaming is mostly about?

That's exactly what happened to me with Full Auto, the game really isn't anything super, nothing special. But god damn it, if I didn't have fun everytime I fired it up. So even though I technically gave it a 3 out of 5 or 60% or whatever, funwise i'd give it a B or an 80 or an 8 out of 10. Or 27 happy hamsters out of 30. You get the idea.

Reviews of games need to be less like movie reviews and more like game reviews. The critical stuff is fine, but is it fun? It's like Army of Darkness. Critically, it's a piece of shit. But god damn if that movie isn't a fun ride.

[regular mo]

Cheers for the write-up on the Outfit GRINR! After loving the demo, I was a bit surprised at the review scores it's been getting.

[AniAko]

You had me TFC :)

Reading this makes me want to try the game out myself. Keep those kickback-reviewers in check ma' man.

[Expugnare]

It's funny you should say that about GRAW - I got in day one, but the AI and the incredibly crude trigger-point scripting just turned me off. It ended up feeling more like I was playing a puzzle game than a shooter. Go here, step forward to trigger enemies, back up and let them come to me and my squad, rinse repeat. Also, the AI on my squad is no better at keeping itself alive than the AI in Outfit (not that I'm comparing the games to each other) - I don't know how many times my idiot squad will stand there taking fire instead of lying down, or using corners, or ANYTHING they taught me during training. I wanted to tell them "if this had been a real firefight, you would be dead - oh wait, IT IS A REAL FIRE FIGHT AND YOU ARE DEAD!"

I'm 100% positive I'll love the online game, and GRAW is still great fun - I'm not dogging it - but it wasn't the immersive game I was expecting.
I feel the same way about the allied AI in GRAW. It will just stand there and get shoot while shooting at other enemies. Also many times I found them not following even if I hadn't set a position to hold. Now I just use them as meat shields mainly.

[Kelegacy]

I gotta tell you Dan, I couldn't review it any more than I already have! I'm not even sure if I'm going to finish the singleplayer game. Like I said, in different ways, The Outfit is 90% a multiplayer game. It happens to have a single-player component that does a good job of dishing out fun, but it's not about that. Put (yet) another way, I'd give the SP game a 65% and the MP a 90%. Because I see the SP as "extra", it only raises the score, to say 92% or something.

I think what I said about playing the demo is the best method of deciding whether or not to buy/play:

"I think if you play the free demo, and are on a losing team, and you manage to win because of your contribution to the team, you'll get what I mean. If you manage that a couple of times and you still don't like it... it's probably not for you."

Still, there will always be a loophole. Me seeing the 8.0 rating of Black didn't turn me off, but it did make me reconsider an immediate purchase. People will see the Gamespot review of the Outfit and think the same way, even if they would have enjoyed it as you have. But some people would see your incredibly high 92% rating and go out and purchase or play and think "What the hell was this guy smoking...I was duped!" The trouble with reviewing is coming up with a fair score after outlining all problems and prospects. If a game is fun to you, will it be for others? Do the pros outweigh the cons? I like IGN's fun factor score, as bapenguin pointed out, because it shows that you can still have fun with a "mediocre" game. I think that the best way to review a game (though it's not possible in this hurry-to-press world) is to complete a game and think about it for a day or so after. Was it REALLY that good, or were you caught up in the moment? Is it really that bad or were you wracked with a bout of constipation on Tuesday?

Still, I think that reviews of games shouldn't give free passes just as they don't with films. Games are becoming movie-sized, so it's only fair to critique them as such.

[torrefaction]

On The Outfit: GrinR, I'm adding you tonight. I had so much damn fun in this game last night, I was just frustrated by the lack of players :). GrinR is dead on, although once I got used to consistently commanding my troops. I started to really have a good time in the single player. Maybe it's just me. The vehicle controls...well...they're pretty lame. Not horrible. But I think developers should take queues...Halo progressed vehicular combat in alot of ways, and they should've followed suit. I haven't had any issues with the aiming thing really, I understand why it's implemented the way it is. If it bothers you...crouch and play a sniper. It's worked really well for me. I played until 3:30 in the morning, and judging by the sheer blast I had in multiplayer, it'll probably continue. My gamertag is torrefaction for anyone who has this game.

On GRAW: I found towards the end of the game that the squad can be very effective, with handholding. Particularly using them in recon to identify enemies, changing to assault, and then flanking them myself. These kind of things seem to make the AI "behave" better. When I direct them to move, it's always at the edge of a wall. I found it to be much more enjoyable. This was one of the best damn games I've ever played.

[Mortis]

That's exactly what happened to me with Full Auto, the game really isn't anything super, nothing special. But god damn it, if I didn't have fun everytime I fired it up. So even though I technically gave it a 3 out of 5 or 60% or whatever, funwise i'd give it a B or an 80 or an 8 out of 10. Or 27 happy hamsters out of 30. You get the idea.


Yeah I had a lot of fun with Full Auto, with some more game modes it could have been great. My issue with it was that it was buggy as shit, I ran into a ton of bugs including a complete loss of all full auto medals because of a save game corruption that happened while playing. I had to redo a few races to be able to tweak my weapons online again. It also screwed up the 100 wins achievement, I had to do like 230 races before I got it.

The Outfit should arrive Friday, gotta play the hell out of it before Tuesday. If anyone wants to do single player coop let me know, could be fun.

[GrinR]

torrefaction - will do. Sadly, the rest of the week is going to be too busy for me to play anything, so it's going to be monday or so before I get online...

[ÜberJumper]

I've been playing The Outfit SP as well. I got through 3 missions last night, and I've got some feedback for Relic on it.

[GrinR]

I've been playing The Outfit SP as well. I got through 3 missions last night, and I've got some feedback for Relic on it.

for Relic, or FROM Relic?

[Major Dan]

So far my 9 year old and I have played through the first 3 SP campaigns, and we are really enjoying. I think it is an all right game, but he really loves it. So I think it is a good way to break him in to a strategy game. So maybe that is what they were thinking, casual, young gamers if you will. I myself liken it to playing with plastic army men, it just is simple and fun. No glithes yet and I like the graphics. The story is a bit heavy but easy enough to look past. Just wanted to put in my 2 cents.

[AniAko]

See...THAT is what reviews need. In fact, from now on in all my reviews for this site I'm going to put a FunFactor score. That is...a score regardless of a games flaws and shortcomings based soley on FUN. I mean, fuck, isn't that what gaming is mostly about?

That's exactly what happened to me with Full Auto, the game really isn't anything super, nothing special. But god damn it, if I didn't have fun everytime I fired it up. So even though I technically gave it a 3 out of 5 or 60% or whatever, funwise i'd give it a B or an 80 or an 8 out of 10. Or 27 happy hamsters out of 30. You get the idea.

Reviews of games need to be less like movie reviews and more like game reviews. The critical stuff is fine, but is it fun? It's like Army of Darkness. Critically, it's a piece of shit. But god damn if that movie isn't a fun ride.

Amen brotha!