Posted by Guigui on 09/16/98 15:18:24:
In Reply to: GameSpot Review: Final Score = 5.5 (Ouch) (NT) posted by Unknown on 09/16/98 11:47:13:
Unfortunately, some game review zones are in want of hits that they do not construct a good review to begin with. I would like to see a web site destined to review game reviews.
It's one thing to play a game real quick and then note how one feels about the game... It's another thing to play the game in detail and see its impact upon others.
I find some review sites of Dune 2000/be they ones that commend highly or lowly on Dune 2000 seemed to pop up rather quickly.
I've seen reviews that go up to 4.5 stars to those giving it just 2. Maybe if they didn't engulf the game at such a fast rate would they have time to make a better assessment of the game in question.
Anyhow I've played the game. I should mention that Dune 2000 is supposed to be a remake of the original. The introduction itself should be commended as to how well it resembles the original. The full-screen animations were also very nice (better than the half-screen/interlaced ones I've seen on many games)
However people should realise that it is just that, a remake. If they wanted to make a whole new game they would have called it Dune 3. (And yes there was a Dune 1, just to mention to those who feel that Dune 2 'started it all'.)
The job was not to come up with something new, but to bring back something seen before. Also, the game takes place on a Desert the size of a planet... So those who say the terrain gets boring after a while need to realize that a desert IS just that. you have sand, sand, and sand. (That's why the planet is known as 'Dune').
The strategies of the game are simple, and easy to manipulate. (If you want a complex game, play starcraft on Slower/slowest... If you can)
We should think whether or not a game needs a whole lot of bells and whistles in order to be considered "good"... and even so, what does that say of the game's addictiveness/enjoyability/value/etc...
Follow Ups:
