Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/597/597343p1.html

Good: MUltiplayer
Bad: Single.

Unfortunately, the single-player game is super short. It's easier than the other two games in the series, and it never delivers the feeling, that gut feeling, that you've just played something unbelievable. It's over in about six or seven hours on the medium difficulty level which, needless to say, is disappointing. To be totally honest, the TimeSplitters series has never offered up much of a story, and though this iteration probably delivers the most of the three, that's still not saying much. The first game was nothing more than capture the flag against an onslaught of AI enemies, and the second game was just a crazy fetch-quest for the slippery time crystals, just like this one.

Time out.

IGN reviews games, right? Games have stories, and most have bonuses like multiplayer. You can have multiplayer all the live long day, but without a solid story, it deserves a low score. Halo 2 deserved less than what it got, but at least it was competent. This.. they call it short, has no "oompf", "basic" level designs, "substantially stutters" when there's four or more people on the screen and/or an explosion, and non-interactive backgrounds. At this late in the game, EVERY game should have FULLY INTERACTIVE BACKGROUNDS, and they should ALL have ragdoll physics. There's no excuse.

It's completely lame. The game's rated 9 despite its extremely obvious flaws. Unbelievable. IGN needs to get their head out of EA's ass.

"Reader Average -> 7.3".. that sounds about the right area, maybe a high six.

Originally Posted by Scorch Time out. IGN reviews games, right? Games have stories, and most have bonuses like multiplayer. You can have multiplayer all the live long day, but without a solid story, it deserves a low score. Halo 2 deserved less than what it got, but at least it was competent. This.. they call it short, has no "oompf", "basic" level designs, "substantially stutters" when there's four or more people on the screen and/or an explosion, and non-interactive backgrounds. At this late in the game, EVERY game should have FULLY INTERACTIVE BACKGROUNDS, and they should ALL have ragdoll physics. There's no excuse. It's completely lame. The game's rated 9 despite its extremely obvious flaws. Unbelievable. IGN needs to get their head out of EA's ass. "Reader Average -> 7.3".. that sounds about the right area, maybe a high six.

I agree, I was quite surprised that the game got such a high score... im not buying it... prob will get UC 2 in stead.

Originally Posted by Scorch Time out. IGN reviews games, right? Games have stories, and most have bonuses like multiplayer. You can have multiplayer all the live long day, but without a solid story, it deserves a low score. Halo 2 deserved less than what it got, but at least it was competent. This.. they call it short, has no "oompf", "basic" level designs, "substantially stutters" when there's four or more people on the screen and/or an explosion, and non-interactive backgrounds. At this late in the game, EVERY game should have FULLY INTERACTIVE BACKGROUNDS, and they should ALL have ragdoll physics. There's no excuse. It's completely lame. The game's rated 9 despite its extremely obvious flaws. Unbelievable. IGN needs to get their head out of EA's ass. "Reader Average -> 7.3".. that sounds about the right area, maybe a high six.

I don't really disagree, but, one of your points is that multiplayer is a bonus. Its not a bonus. Its an integral part of the game. For some games, it is the game. The game is the multiplayer and the single player is a bonus. That is not to say that you can't have just one, some are single player only and some are multiplayer only, and thats just fine. But its not a bonus anymore, just as story isn't a bonus.

How hard is it, compared with everything else that goes into making a videogame, to make a good story, and to make good levels to flesh out that story? I mean, you have the graphics, the AI, all the other stuff you have to do, and you can't get a good single player game in there? Unbelievable. Tons and tons of games are guilty of this.

OXM gave it a 7.9, which is probably closer to what it deserves.

Well, I'm getting it for the MP anyway, so I don't mind...

Time Splitters is like Unreal Tournament, its all about the multiplayer. If you don't buy it, you should atleast give it a rent to try out the map maker on live.

Originally Posted by xspeedracerx Time Splitters is like Unreal Tournament, its all about the multiplayer. If you don't buy it, you should atleast give it a rent to try out the map maker on live.

Not to mention, the multiplayer impliments BOTs so well that it really has a huge draw, even if you never play with friends.

Not to mention the challenge mode and arcade mode are super fun and whoop story mode's ass anyway. tons of veriety and really tough... all a good thing

getting it when I pick up my PSP

Question:

Is this game like UNREAL fast or Halo 2 fast?


I never liked games that are TOO fast....I hated the first unreal for XBOX, loved Halo 2....that gives you an idea

Originally Posted by doubledown Question: Is this game like UNREAL fast or Halo 2 fast? I never liked games that are TOO fast....I hated the first unreal for XBOX, loved Halo 2....that gives you an idea

more like Halo fast but with more action and veriety... in other words better than Halo

I think the review is fine. Do you have a problem with the way they reviewed TS1 and 2? TS1 had absolutely no story and TS2's story wasn't that good, but they still got good reviews. Its because of the multiplayer. I buy it because of the multiplayer and so do most other people. Its like Unreal, people buy it for the multiplayer. Would you rate Unreal much lower because the single player mode sucks?

And I would say that TS is much faster paced than Halo. I think Halo is way too slow and boring.

some games rely on the multiplayer (TS, UT, Tribes, etc.), so that's not bad if you like to play with others

If the game got a 9.0 what sets it apart from other FPS? They all seem about the same to me? They always rip on SNK fighters for being Street Fighter clones, why don't they rip on FPS for all being basiclly the same?

I have the GC version. Had it pre-ordered at GameRush. If I'd known it had such sucky controls, I wouldn't have got it. TS2 had more control options. The thing I can't stand is you can't use the D-pad for movement/turning, even if you're using Custom controls. The 2nd thing I can't stand is you can't put Switch Weapon to a Face Button. I was really looking forward to this game too. I don't see why they needed to add a Grenade button and a Melee button. And they could've combined the Action and Reload buttons into one (B), like GE.

Do the PS2/Xbox versions of this game let you use the D-pad for movement/turning or not? Just wondering. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Green-Bull I have the GC version. Had it pre-ordered at GameRush. If I'd known it had such sucky controls, I wouldn't have got it. TS2 had more control options. The thing I can't stand is you can't use the D-pad for movement/turning, even if you're using Custom controls. The 2nd thing I can't stand is you can't put Switch Weapon to a Face Button. I was really looking forward to this game too. I don't see why they needed to add a Grenade button and a Melee button. And they could've combined the Action and Reload buttons into one (B), like GE. Do the PS2/Xbox versions of this game let you use the D-pad for movement/turning or not? Just wondering. Thanks.

sorry, but I dont know... looks like I will pick this up when its cheaper...

its ok, for map maker people its a must buy, but id still wait for the price drop, though i like my copy, since i did a trade in deal at eb

I thought the SP in TS:FP was pretty good, it was very funny (voice acting), the missions never really got boring (some parts did but over all not boring at all) multiplayer is pretty much the meats and potatoes of every time splitters (unless your playing on cube then your shit out of luck, unless you've got friends to play with ), so in respect i kind of agree with IGN.

I totally agree that Single Player should be first on the developers list of things to do, but in some cases such as SOCOM or Halo for example Single Player takes a back seat, which is a shame because I like playing Single Player more than Multi (I don't like dealing with idiots online, which seems to be an epidemic lately), but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

As far as single player goes it isnt that bad at all, though very linear, i love the gravity glove addition, only thing i hate about it is the difficulty, and the trouble i have switching from that and halo, i get really screwed up do to lack of jumping

im waiting for a drop still...

the people on live are relatively easy to put up with compared to the assholes on the PC RTS's online, mainly due their sophisticated ways to piss you off, using the thought they put behind their statements, unlike the spastic drunken raged rants of the halo community, i prefer the latter as it is funnier, and has a tendancy not to be taken seriously

Originally Posted by dafoomie I don't really disagree, but, one of your points is that multiplayer is a bonus. Its not a bonus. Its an integral part of the game.

AHHHH!!! Are people unable to amuse themselves these days? I want a strong single player campaign. That's by far my biggest concern.......