By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - 1up reviews Overlord:Raising Hell (enhanced RPG from 360 line up)

ZenfoldorVGI on 28 June 2008
SpartanFX said:

@starcraft

overlord review of 1up:

360:

B

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3160589

Overlord :raising hell(PS3)

B+


so wait for the similar reviewers to review the game.

 

Alright, allow me to explain.

The original Overlord for the 360 was released with a terrible bug, several in fact, that would keep you from finishing the game.

Luckily, weeks after launch, those bugs were patched.

Eventually, the "Raising Hell" expansion pack was even released on XBL for about 10 dollars, if I'm not correct.

 

The PS3 version of the game is the original game, the patch, and the expansion pack.

Seeing as how you can get all of those things on the Xbox 360 for about 25 or 30 dollars, and considering they have been available for month and months, now, the game isn't really very enhanced. A mini-map hud and a new zone are both small but appreciated editions, both of which will likely get live updates if they aren't in there already.

However, when it's said that the game is "improved" over the 360 version, I'm fairly sure the buggy, terrible launch is what was being referred too, and not what Overlord has become on the 360, which is an excellent, value priced game with a lot of extras available via live.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Around the Network
darconi on 28 June 2008

Isn't that the pikmin game with sauron from LOTR?



niahflame on 28 June 2008

I played the demo, it was alright.. It was fun in a quirky way but I'm going wait and see before purchasing.



 

So who wants to watch Charles in Charge?

Profcrab on 28 June 2008

I've been playing through the 360 version. The controls are a little quirky but I like it. If they fixed some of the minions behavioral glitches, then I would say give it a shot. Even if they haven't fixed it much, I would still say try it.

I give this thread a 9.7



Thank god for the disable signatures option.

windbane on 28 June 2008

I enjoyed the demo.

Starcraft: As Gobias points out: Sigma is the best version and yet isn't rated as high. Also, go away, heh.



Around the Network
MrBubbles on 28 June 2008

I would advise everyone to purchase this game.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Diomedes1976 on 28 June 2008

The PS3 is the superior version ,its clearly stated in all the reviews.

The note doesnt matter comparing those ,its only that being released one year later brings the PS3 game rating to a lower level.

Thats one of the problems when comparing PS3 and 360 libraries through Gamerankings,the 360 has many versions of some games ranking there(EA and 2K sports games) and the same game with the same quality sometimes appear in the 360 over 80% and in the PS3 under 80% just because it was released some months later on the PS3.



starcraft on 28 June 2008
Torillian said:
Enhanced huh?

is your analysis. You're right, often games will trend downwards, but that's mainly applied to games that come in with a lot of hype, since the first few reviews may or may not succumb to that hype, and is alot less pronounced for other games. In recent history I know that MGS4 actually trended upward due to a few early lower reviews.

And you're telling me that same sites with different reviewers is enough reason to invalidate comparing two scores from the same sites, but you can use aggregates of completely different sites and that's fine?

Truthfully you have no idea how it will trend, and don't even bring in the idea that a game that was previously released on another platform usually has lower scores even if enhanced simply because the original excitement for the game is long gone.

Actually I didn't say anywhere that we should invalidate comparisons between  two scores from one site, I just happen to believe that an aggregate of a far wider range of opinions is a far better yardstick for game quality, a belief that is only supported when the main example you used for PS3 superiority had different reviewers.

Do I "know" how this game will trend?  No.  Can I make a reasonable and likely prediction?  Yes.  Do you honestly think that after 30/40 reviews this game will be higher than it is now?

As for the final point that you tried to invalidate by pre-empting my bringing it up?  I was going to demonstrate why it is perfectly relevant to this debate until I realised that Gobias and Windbane, in their usual rush to try (and fail) to discredit me, have in fact simply rebutted you.

At the end of the day, the poor and tremendously subjective "analysis" that you're seeking can be found in the thread title, not in my first post.

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

SpeedBreaker on 28 June 2008

So now every game 360 already done, The PS3 could do it better even though some don't want to stated it in the reviews.



PSN: NightStalker09/ SleepyK (Dual PSN Accounts)

"Don't mistake real hip hop with mainstream BS"- My damn self

tombi123 on 28 June 2008
starcraft said:
Torillian said:
Enhanced huh?

is your analysis. You're right, often games will trend downwards, but that's mainly applied to games that come in with a lot of hype, since the first few reviews may or may not succumb to that hype, and is alot less pronounced for other games. In recent history I know that MGS4 actually trended upward due to a few early lower reviews.

And you're telling me that same sites with different reviewers is enough reason to invalidate comparing two scores from the same sites, but you can use aggregates of completely different sites and that's fine?

Truthfully you have no idea how it will trend, and don't even bring in the idea that a game that was previously released on another platform usually has lower scores even if enhanced simply because the original excitement for the game is long gone.

Actually I didn't say anywhere that we should invalidate comparisons between  two scores from one site, I just happen to believe that an aggregate of a far wider range of opinions is a far better yardstick for game quality, a belief that is only supported when the main example you used for PS3 superiority had different reviewers.

Do I "know" how this game will trend?  No.  Can I make a reasonable and likely prediction?  Yes.  Do you honestly think that after 30/40 reviews this game will be higher than it is now?

As for the final point that you tried to invalidate by pre-empting my bringing it up?  I was going to demonstrate why it is perfectly relevant to this debate until I realised that Gobias and Windbane, in their usual rush to try (and fail) to discredit me, have in fact simply rebutted you.

At the end of the day, the poor and tremendously subjective "analysis" that you're seeking can be found in the thread title, not in my first post.

 

 

Bolded: No you don't know how this game will trend, but you claimed that you did in the first post. Can you make a reasonable prediction? No you can't. Not based off of twelve reviews. Ideally you need a minimum of thirty reviews before you can start analysing the trend. If the next four reviews gave it 9/10, that pushes up the average to 77. The average score can quickly change with so few reviews. 

Do I honestly think that after 30/40 reviews that the score for his game will be higher than it is now? Well, I don't know, it is too early to tell.