[comments] James Bond 007 Blood Stone review

[charlesr]

James Bond 007 Blood Stone review

Thanks to Duncan for the words and banner.

[teddymeow]

Really can't agree with that score.

I loved the game so much I finished it a couple of times!

[BIG EDD]

Really can't agree with that score.

I loved the game so much I finished it a couple of times!

Totally agree with you 5/10 is a complete JOKE I went thru this game quite a few times and completed the majority of the levels on 007 mode.I would give this title 8/10

[Neon Ignition]

I enjoyed the game but it's exactly like the Bond games made during the EA era (in fact it's not as good as a couple of those ones). It's good fun but to score it higher or lower than 5/10 would be pretty insulting to a lot of other games.

[Yakumo]

What? 5/10? That's WAY too low. Blood Stone is a fantastic game. Well polished, great action and a story line that could pass for a real bond movie. I found it a far better game than Quantum of Solace that's for sure. The whole FPS thing is done to death so the 3rd person prospective was a fresh and welcome approach.

I'm not one to moan much but I'd love that review to be revised. 5/10 is not even close.

[rmoxon]

Its a fantastic game, giving it 5/10 is beyond pathetic.

Im getting fed up of complaining about the idiocy of the reviews on here now to be honest.

Its a solid 8, it would be 9 but the trial and error vechicle sections bring it down a point becuase they dont always work that well (and yet for some reason the reviewer seems to think they are the highlight of the game).

Did the writer even actualy play it?, nearly everything in the review is untrue IMO.

[Neon Ignition]

I'm finding the praise puzzling. As a 3rd person shooter it's blatantly below the quality of a number of alternative choices including some of the similar Bond games from the previous generation. If it was genuinely worth an 8 or a 9 then the other genre leaders would have to be given a 15/10

[rmoxon]

I'm finding the praise puzzling. As a 3rd person shooter it's blatantly below the quality of a number of alternative choices including some of the similar Bond games from the previous generation. If it was genuinely worth an 8 or a 9 then the other genre leaders would have to be given a 15/10

Its not below that quality though. The gunplay is very solid, it has really well designed levels that have plenty of variety, the close quaters combat moves are really enjoyable to pull off, the mark and execute thing is done alot better than in any other game its been used in, there are some absolubtley brilliant set peices, the graphics are great, it is the best ever representation of all that is James Bond in a video game... I could go on and on and on about the games good qualities, it has many, its a great game and far better than the EA ones you mentioned.

Like I said its just a shame about vehicle bits.

[Charlie]

No sense saying a given score is a complete joke, too low or pathetic. I don't know how many times I've said this (maybe I should just give up?) but it's one man's opinion.

If he didn't think much of the game then he was right to score it 5. If you liked it more then you're right to give it a 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10, but instead of belittling somebody elses opinion, better to concentrate on your own.

[Rep]

No sense saying a given score is a complete joke, too low or pathetic. I don't know how many times I've said this (maybe I should just give up?) but it's one man's opinion.

If he didn't think much of the game then he was right to score it 5. If you liked it more then you're right to give it a 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10, but instead of belittling somebody elses opinion, better to concentrate on your own.

Bravo, give this man a cookie.

I actually wonder why the writers still contribute to the site anymore, when the same negative comments are repeated in the feedback thread with each new review. Not to mention what they think when they do check the threads. I have always enjoyed the reviews, and believe they're well done, I would never disagree unless a point isn't backed up, which they always are. To label an opinion "wrong" because you don't agree with it is far, far more pathetic.

Last time I checked people are welcome to right a second opinion review for a given game, some of the older ones do this, they have been known to disagree with the original counterpart.

[rmoxon]

No sense saying a given score is a complete joke, too low or pathetic. I don't know how many times I've said this (maybe I should just give up?) but it's one man's opinion.

If he didn't think much of the game then he was right to score it 5. If you liked it more then you're right to give it a 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10, but instead of belittling somebody elses opinion, better to concentrate on your own.

I would guess that most of us on here play alot of games, we probabaly play alot of shooters, and so most people have plenty of things to compare the game too, comparing it to the best the genre offers it really does stand up to the test, its a great game and if you like the genre theres no reason you wouldnt really like Blood Stone. Thats why the score is a joke, a 5 is not representative of the game at all.

Its true that a score is still just an opinion at the end of the day but the thing with this review is that I dont even belive he played the game, Ive pretty much read this exact same review online somewhere (think it may have been IGN), games TM also underrated this game, gave it a 5 and made similar comments about it. He seems to just be copying what other publications have said.

The thing is though that none of the reviews that marked this down really ever seemed to have the intention of giving the game a fair shot, its almost like many expected it to be rubbish so decided it was without even really taking much notice of the game. I think this just adds to the frustration of the people who actualy bought this game despite the reviews and realised it was great (which seems to be nearly all of the people who bought it if you read about online).

Generally if a game is of high quality then reviewers point it out, its not usualy left to the public to champion somthing after it recieved unjust and mediocre scores, but with this game it seems to be the case.

So thats why there are a few annoyed people on here now.

Bravo, give this man a cookie.

I actually wonder why the writers still contribute to the site anymore, when the same negative comments are repeated in the feedback thread with each new review. Not to mention what they think when they do check the threads. I have always enjoyed the reviews, and believe they're well done, I would never disagree unless a point isn't backed up, which they always are. To label an opinion "wrong" because you don't agree with it is far, far more pathetic.

Last time I checked people are welcome to right a second opinion review for a given game, some of the older ones do this, they have been known to disagree with the original counterpart.

Anyone whos worried about public opinion does not publish things online, youre nearly always gonna get some kind of eventual backlash in one form or another.

The review isnt wrong becuase of the writers opinion anyway, its wrong becuase it does not represent the game.

[Charlie]

These backlashes on ntsc-uk are always carried out by the usual suspects and you say they're "always" gonna happen but we're not talking about unavoidable, inherent laws of nature like gravity or thermodynamics, we're talking about intelligent human beings with the ability to apply logic and reason and how they choose to react.

As for the review being wrong as it does not represent the game, it represents his perspective on the game.

[Neon Ignition]

For it's the right score because a 5 means average which is what I found the game to be. There has to be a sense of objectivity when scoring. E.g, I don't enjoy FIFA but I wouldn't score it a 2/10 because I didn't enjoy it personally as it would be white washing the facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but there are key facts in place that can't be ignored. I might have the opinion that King of Fighters XII is worth a 10 to me because the score reflects the level of enjoyment I got from it, however I couldn't in good conscience score it that if I was submitting an objective formal review to a site as it would be misleading when the fact is there are key issues in it's design.

That's the difference between the reviews and the First Play. It's also why I feel 5 is a good score, it's an enjoyable game but it's not audibly, visually or mechanically close to being best in field regardless of individual tastes

[Charlie]

Folk should indeed try to remain as objective as possible and stick to so-called 'facts' when writing reviews but, ultimately, total objectivity is an impossibility; indeed any review, no matter how fine, will always be more subjective than objective. Alas, a person can only describe what they see, hear and feel after it is perceived by their senses and filtered and translated by their own little brain.

[averybluemonkey]

Its true that a score is still just an opinion at the end of the day but the thing with this review is that I dont even belive he played the game, Ive pretty much read this exact same review online somewhere (think it may have been IGN), games TM also underrated this game, gave it a 5 and made similar comments about it. He seems to just be copying what other publications have said.

Let's get one thing straight, I am more than happy for people to disagree with the reviews I write and/or slag them off if they so wish, what is not acceptable is baseless slandering because you want to throw your toys out of the pram.

The fact that you don't even have the decency to provide the source I supposedly stole my review from is telling.

For the recond I don't read IGN and the last GamesTM I bought was back when they did the 100 cover special. I have an Edge subscription but cannot tell you what score they gave the game off the top of my head. I don't see how a 1,600 word review could plagiarise a 700 word one myself.

One thing I can tell you is that I have never once in my entire life copied, cheated or plagiarised any source be it for homework essays, coursework or exams. I feel proud to be allowed to write for NTSC-UK and take my writing as seriously as I did my academic career.

Due to personal circumstances I recently found myself unable to dedicate the kind of time I needed to reviewing games , so rather than rush out shoddy articles I took a step back until things settled down. If you paid attention you would have noticed that this is the first review I have written in around 4 months (Chime was drafted back in November), if I really was just copying and pasting from other people's work don't you think my output would have been somewhat more regular and I might have finished the review a little closer to the release date.

Given how much I have praised Bizzare's past games, the fact I gave Quantum of Solace a very positive review and the fact I paid my own money for the game how do you jump to the assumption that I had it in for the title?

You have consistently overstepped your bounds lately, claiming conspiracy theories left, right and centre everytime anyone voices an opinion different to your own. It's time to take the tin foil hat off, step outside and stop being so goddamn rude.