Prey gets a 9.0 from IGN

Since 6892 Days

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/717/717824p1.html

I must admit I did enjoy what I got the chance to play early on and maybe I should just cave and buy the damn thing it is pretty good afterall (from what I was playing anyway I really enjoyed it.)

In reply to

[b] Never judge a game too harshly via screenshots or videos, because they are in no way capable of properly representing what the game truly looks like were you to see it running in front of you on a 360 [/b]

NeoNemesis

Since 6712 Days

It got 7.5 on Gamespot, and 8.3 on TXB. The game is just a rental.

In reply to

Wii60!

Optimusv2

Since 6892 Days

I've already come to my senses I can't waste my money on this when the big stuff is coming out later I need to have money for everything possible :)

Plus I can just get the pc version. I can't give myself another game to play right now. I want to continue oblivion, but busy, want to go A LOT further in ghost recon, but Halo PC has me occupied. I haven't played my 360 in awhile because I'm playing Halo on the pc.

Last thing I'd want to do is give myself another game to play

In reply to

[b] Never judge a game too harshly via screenshots or videos, because they are in no way capable of properly representing what the game truly looks like were you to see it running in front of you on a 360 [/b]

NeoNemesis

Since 6712 Days

Posted by Optimusv2

I've already come to my senses I can't waste my money on this when the big stuff is coming out later I need to have money for everything possible :)

Dead Rising for one! That game looks awesome.

In reply to

Wii60!

Panzer83

Since 6935 Days

I'm also on the fence about getting this one but since August is going to be March part2 then I'll hold out for now or maybe just rent it.

In reply to

New rule: If you don't have an HDTV then you cannot comment on the graphics of X-Box 360 games.
Want to come over and play with my Wii?.....hey where are you going?

Shawnzee

Since 7012 Days

Ign sucks at ratings, They give games good scores based on hype, not actual gameplay.

In reply to

Acert93

Since 6971 Days

The PC demo was great. It has gads of new and unique gameplay -- that works! The death system is more than novell and keeps the pacing well and the graphics are decent enough and it runs well on older machines.

If games were rated highly on gameplay Prey would have to get very high marks for the very reason it takes an old, worn, and proven genre and play machanics and adds a half dozen new gameplay/mechanics to the genre. Very few games add anything to the genre, let alone that many. Typically it is just more of the same, better, and prettier. Prey steps outside that box.

In reply to

Now that I retired I can play more MGS games.

PRIMER

Since 6706 Days

Posted by Acert93

The PC demo was great. It has gads of new and unique gameplay -- that works! The death system is more than novell and keeps the pacing well and the graphics are decent enough and it runs well on older machines.

If games were rated highly on gameplay Prey would have to get very high marks for the very reason it takes an old, worn, and proven genre and play machanics and adds a half dozen new gameplay/mechanics to the genre. Very few games add anything to the genre, let alone that many. Typically it is just more of the same, better, and prettier. Prey steps outside that box.

bravo ...i for one will be buying prey...d/loaded the demo...loved it
i like the fact that it thinks out side the box....and also the ufo /alienship trashes the bar to the sound of "dont fear the reaper" by blue oyster cult thats worth a 10 in my book ;)

7.5 from gamespot...meh..ive never seen a good review from gamespot.

In reply to

Optimusv2

Since 6892 Days

If you ask me gamespot seems to be the site that is usually more off when it comes to ratings. Shadow of the colossus they initially gave a bad rating to my knowledge then quietly increased its score after seeing how good it really was.

Then again... I'll NEVER take ign too seriously after their absolutely horrible review of Kingdom Hearts II the game is extremely well done and they gave it such a low score it was a joke. Its the first time I saw such an average score for a game and still went out and bought it because it still seemed very killer app worthy to me and sure enough after playing it, I was right the game is incredible.

In reply to

[b] Never judge a game too harshly via screenshots or videos, because they are in no way capable of properly representing what the game truly looks like were you to see it running in front of you on a 360 [/b]

Acert93

Since 6971 Days

TeamXbox's review is kind of lame; they cannot even get basic facts right:

http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1191/Prey/p4/

Throughout Prey, it should be abundantly clear what the focus of the more than ten years of development time was spent on: the alien environments.

The game was originally being made by 3D Realms (I believe, it has been a long time) and then scrapped. It got picked up a couple years ago through contract by Human Head who has worked on it for a couple years. The games are TOTALLY unrelated outside some of the core concepts--and some of those did not even make it (e.g. destructible worlds; the other big one was Prey was originally slated to be kinf of 1 on 1 tournament with suped up AI, etc).

I am also dissappointed about how their bottomline notes how the gameplay separates it from the pack and that it is hard to do (most definately) yet gameplay gets a mere 8 and innovation cannot even crack 9. To contrast they gave Half-Life 2 a 9.9 and 8.8 in those categories, respectively and Halo 2 9.9 and 9.8 for gameplay and innovation.

Where I would fault Prey is it is too short and the graphics are only above average and the MP, while solid and unique, it appeals mainly to Death Match which lost its hold on gamers in 2000ish.

I am all for story telling and new cutting edge graphics, but at the end of the day we are still playing a lot of games that their seminal design has not changed much in a decade. Prey has faults, but I think the reviews are exposing the industry some: New and honestly unique twists and innovation are not as appealing as tied, true, re-used, and overdone stories, franchises, and just general polish. If you toss in a new shiny engine it is like an RPG: you get +1 across the board.

Reviewing games is hard and ultimately scores are irrelevant. That said, when "ranking" the final game is the most relevant aspect so I won't disagree with the final scores. But when things like "gameplay" or specifically "innovation" gets pooped on and "name brand" sequals with little new get uber high scores it makes me shake my head.

Personally I want to see both LotR BFME2 and Prey sell well to encourage developers, especially console developers, to experiement and branch out more. I love FPS, but lets try some new things with gameplay and design. If holy grails like destructable worlds and totally unified and destroyable lights are not possible then try something else: Massive worlds with hundreds of characters on screen or do what Prey did.

In reply to

TeamXbox's review is kind of lame; they cannot even get basic facts right:

http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1191/Prey/p4/
[quote]Throughout Prey, it should be abundantly clear what the focus of the more than ten years of development time was spent on: the alien environments.[/quote]

The game was originally being made by 3D Realms (I believe, it has been a long time) and then scrapped. It got picked up a couple years ago through contract by Human Head who has worked on it for a couple years. The games are TOTALLY unrelated outside some of the core concepts--and some of those did not even make it (e.g. destructible worlds; the other big one was Prey was originally slated to be kinf of 1 on 1 tournament with suped up AI, etc).

I am also dissappointed about how their bottomline notes how the gameplay separates it from the pack and that it is hard to do (most definately) yet gameplay gets a mere 8 and innovation cannot even crack 9. To contrast they gave Half-Life 2 a 9.9 and 8.8 in those categories, respectively and Halo 2 9.9 and 9.8 for gameplay and innovation.

Where I would fault Prey is it is too short and the graphics are only above average and the MP, while solid and unique, it appeals mainly to Death Match which lost its hold on gamers in 2000ish.

I am all for story telling and new cutting edge graphics, but at the end of the day we are still playing a lot of games that their seminal design has not changed much in a decade. Prey has faults, but I think the reviews are exposing the industry some: New and honestly unique twists and innovation are not as appealing as tied, true, re-used, and overdone stories, franchises, and just general polish. If you toss in a new shiny engine it is like an RPG: you get +1 across the board.

Reviewing games is hard and ultimately scores are irrelevant. That said, when "ranking" the final game is the most relevant aspect so I won't disagree with the final scores. But when things like "gameplay" or specifically "innovation" gets pooped on and "name brand" sequals with little new get uber high scores it makes me shake my head.

Personally I want to see both LotR BFME2 and Prey sell well to encourage developers, especially console developers, to experiement and branch out more. I love FPS, but lets try some new things with gameplay and design. If holy grails like destructable worlds and totally unified and destroyable lights are not possible then try something else: Massive worlds with hundreds of characters on screen or do what Prey did.

Now that I retired I can play more MGS games.

PRIMER

Since 6706 Days

Posted by Acert93

TeamXbox's review is kind of lame; they cannot even get basic facts right:

http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1191/Prey/p4/

Throughout Prey, it should be abundantly clear what the focus of the more than ten years of development time was spent on: the alien environments.

The game was originally being made by 3D Realms (I believe, it has been a long time) and then scrapped. It got picked up a couple years ago through contract by Human Head who has worked on it for a couple years. The games are TOTALLY unrelated outside some of the core concepts--and some of those did not even make it (e.g. destructible worlds; the other big one was Prey was originally slated to be kinf of 1 on 1 tournament with suped up AI, etc).

I am also dissappointed about how their bottomline notes how the gameplay separates it from the pack and that it is hard to do (most definately) yet gameplay gets a mere 8 and innovation cannot even crack 9. To contrast they gave Half-Life 2 a 9.9 and 8.8 in those categories, respectively and Halo 2 9.9 and 9.8 for gameplay and innovation.

Where I would fault Prey is it is too short and the graphics are only above average and the MP, while solid and unique, it appeals mainly to Death Match which lost its hold on gamers in 2000ish.

I am all for story telling and new cutting edge graphics, but at the end of the day we are still playing a lot of games that their seminal design has not changed much in a decade. Prey has faults, but I think the reviews are exposing the industry some: New and honestly unique twists and innovation are not as appealing as tied, true, re-used, and overdone stories, franchises, and just general polish. If you toss in a new shiny engine it is like an RPG: you get +1 across the board.

Reviewing games is hard and ultimately scores are irrelevant. That said, when "ranking" the final game is the most relevant aspect so I won't disagree with the final scores. But when things like "gameplay" or specifically "innovation" gets pooped on and "name brand" sequals with little new get uber high scores it makes me shake my head.

Personally I want to see both LotR BFME2 and Prey sell well to encourage developers, especially console developers, to experiement and branch out more. I love FPS, but lets try some new things with gameplay and design. If holy grails like destructable worlds and totally unified and destroyable lights are not possible then try something else: Massive worlds with hundreds of characters on screen or do what Prey did.

nice post..
i excpect prey to sell fantastically well..people are going to buy the game just to see how the whole "gravity" thing works,(regardless of reviews...imo even a 7.5 out of 10 from gamespot is an above average score) and from other forums that ive seen ,m
the general reaction to the xbl demo has been a positive one

even LotR has its faults (the camera and some slowdown when action gets heavy on screen)...but its a rts and they aint many ,if any come to think of it for the 360.

In reply to

[quote=Acert93]TeamXbox's review is kind of lame; they cannot even get basic facts right:

http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1191/Prey/p4/
[quote]Throughout Prey, it should be abundantly clear what the focus of the more than ten years of development time was spent on: the alien environments.[/quote]

The game was originally being made by 3D Realms (I believe, it has been a long time) and then scrapped. It got picked up a couple years ago through contract by Human Head who has worked on it for a couple years. The games are TOTALLY unrelated outside some of the core concepts--and some of those did not even make it (e.g. destructible worlds; the other big one was Prey was originally slated to be kinf of 1 on 1 tournament with suped up AI, etc).

I am also dissappointed about how their bottomline notes how the gameplay separates it from the pack and that it is hard to do (most definately) yet gameplay gets a mere 8 and innovation cannot even crack 9. To contrast they gave Half-Life 2 a 9.9 and 8.8 in those categories, respectively and Halo 2 9.9 and 9.8 for gameplay and innovation.

Where I would fault Prey is it is too short and the graphics are only above average and the MP, while solid and unique, it appeals mainly to Death Match which lost its hold on gamers in 2000ish.

I am all for story telling and new cutting edge graphics, but at the end of the day we are still playing a lot of games that their seminal design has not changed much in a decade. Prey has faults, but I think the reviews are exposing the industry some: New and honestly unique twists and innovation are not as appealing as tied, true, re-used, and overdone stories, franchises, and just general polish. If you toss in a new shiny engine it is like an RPG: you get +1 across the board.

Reviewing games is hard and ultimately scores are irrelevant. That said, when "ranking" the final game is the most relevant aspect so I won't disagree with the final scores. But when things like "gameplay" or specifically "innovation" gets pooped on and "name brand" sequals with little new get uber high scores it makes me shake my head.

Personally I want to see both LotR BFME2 and Prey sell well to encourage developers, especially console developers, to experiement and branch out more. I love FPS, but lets try some new things with gameplay and design. If holy grails like destructable worlds and totally unified and destroyable lights are not possible then try something else: Massive worlds with hundreds of characters on screen or do what Prey did.[/quote]

nice post..
i excpect prey to sell fantastically well..people are going to buy the game just to see how the whole "gravity" thing works,(regardless of reviews...imo even a 7.5 out of 10 from gamespot is an above average score) and from other forums that ive seen ,m
the general reaction to the xbl demo has been a positive one

even LotR has its faults (the camera and some slowdown when action gets heavy on screen)...but its a rts and they aint many ,if any  come to think of it for the 360.

GriftGFX

Since 7000 Days

I think Gamespots rankings are usually pretty fair--and 7.5 on their scale isn't bad at all. 9.0 is rather inflated, imo..the game is good--but that's just it--it's good.

Not great.

In reply to