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

Forums - Microsoft - IGN reviews Caslte Crashers - 9.0

badgenome on 27 August 2008

I've only played a little bit, but I can say with confidence that Castle Crashers deserves at least one billion out of ten.

After the Summer of Arcade parade of greatness, it's going to be tough when we start getting crap games again. Minesweeper Flags...



Around the Network
Frodaddyg on 28 August 2008

I'd have probably rated it a tad higher than just a 9, but it's pretty fantastic. Played through a good portion solo, then replayed a bunch with my brother and another friend . Tons of fun both times.

We'll have to get some VGC folks together to play sometime soon. I look forward to fighting you folks for the kiss from the princess. (Which is a hilariously great touch, BTW.)



The dedication you show to any particular console or company is inversely proportional to the number of times you have gotten laid. If you get laid enough, even if you prefer a certain brand, you just don't give enough of a shit to argue about it on the internet.

FaRmLaNd on 28 August 2008

I can say with confidence that this game is full of win. It and Braid are the best original games on xbla as far as I'm concerned. Buy both. You wont be disappointed.



EaglesEye379 on 28 August 2008

@Frodaddyg

I concur, we definitely need to start VGC co-op sessions. At least 12 people in our league have already got the game and playing with 4 players is supremely fun.

Now all they need to do is fix the online!



xman on 28 August 2008
Onyxmeth said:
desmondau said:
I honestly think Arcade games are priced a bit too high. For some old retro ports, they still charge you 400mp. I agree some of the new games are pretty good and could be and should be priced between 800mp and 1200mp. But most of them are small in size, short in play time, old in game design and easier to make when compared to the physical counterparts. I think MS should think of a more aggressive pricing when its main competitor PS3 is taking a healthy step on PSN to introduce its old days PS games and newly developed games. The prices on PSN, in my opinion, are much more reasonable considering the cost of distributing and developing; and more practical considering downloading the game is a cost on the part of the console owner.

Let me try and find the connection here. The topic is about Castle Crashers' IGN review score and you are making an opinion piece on why Sony's PSN pricing is better than Microsoft's XBLA pricing. Welcome to VGChartz, but try to leave that crap for where it's welcome, which is not in this thread.

 

Yeah pretty much Castely Crahsers was rumored to be coming in HIGHER than it did.  I am pretty happy and lookig forward to buying this game

 



PS3, WII and 360 all great systems depends on what type of console player you are.

Currently playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Halo ODST and Dragon Age Origins is next game

Xbox live:mywiferocks

Around the Network
xman on 28 August 2008
Onyxmeth said:
c0rd said:
Squilliam said:
Chrizum said:
I need to play this game. I don't have an Xbox 360.

Arcade is only $200! It would compliment your Wii really well...

I think most people here would enjoy owning one...

 

Haha, not $200 quite yet...

Anyways, really sucks this is 360 exclusive, because it looks pretty damn awesome.  Even if (err, when) I do get a 360, I wouldn't be able to fully enjoy it since there's no way I'm buying 3 extra controllers just for this (and maybe halo, unless there are more games I'm missing).    I'm sure the online would be great, but it's not the same as playin with friends in the same room.

Yeah, I'm a selfish Wii owner that thinks all party games should be on one system... but let's be honest, having to buy 3 extra controllers for every system would really suck.

There are more 4 player offline games than just Castle Crashers and Halo 3. There's at least 40 others.

 

Plus if you have four friends go online and play headsets on and off you go easiest thing i the world with live.

 



PS3, WII and 360 all great systems depends on what type of console player you are.

Currently playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Halo ODST and Dragon Age Origins is next game

Xbox live:mywiferocks

xman on 28 August 2008
Onyxmeth said:
c0rd said:
Squilliam said:
Chrizum said:
I need to play this game. I don't have an Xbox 360.

Arcade is only $200! It would compliment your Wii really well...

I think most people here would enjoy owning one...

 

Haha, not $200 quite yet...

Anyways, really sucks this is 360 exclusive, because it looks pretty damn awesome.  Even if (err, when) I do get a 360, I wouldn't be able to fully enjoy it since there's no way I'm buying 3 extra controllers just for this (and maybe halo, unless there are more games I'm missing).    I'm sure the online would be great, but it's not the same as playin with friends in the same room.

Yeah, I'm a selfish Wii owner that thinks all party games should be on one system... but let's be honest, having to buy 3 extra controllers for every system would really suck.

There are more 4 player offline games than just Castle Crashers and Halo 3. There's at least 40 others.

 

 

At least 360 controllers are cheaper than the WII ones you can get them onslave for $40.00 a piece



PS3, WII and 360 all great systems depends on what type of console player you are.

Currently playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Halo ODST and Dragon Age Origins is next game

Xbox live:mywiferocks

mysticD on 28 August 2008
desmondau said:
I honestly think Arcade games are priced a bit too high. For some old retro ports, they still charge you 400mp. I agree some of the new games are pretty good and could be and should be priced between 800mp and 1200mp. But most of them are small in size, short in play time, old in game design and easier to make when compared to the physical counterparts. I think MS should think of a more aggressive pricing when its main competitor PS3 is taking a healthy step on PSN to introduce its old days PS games and newly developed games. The prices on PSN, in my opinion, are much more reasonable considering the cost of distributing and developing; and more practical considering downloading the game is a cost on the part of the console owner.

So PSN which have very little selection price at the same as MS (you can say they copy XBLA for PSN store, but you know Microsoft is not innovate and they just copy everybody unlike Sony) is better while Microsoft XBLA have bigger selection is not aggressive and price too high.  400 MP is about $5.00.  If you feel $5.00 is too expensive for old port (which of course not available on PSN) then I don't know what you think it should be? $1.00 ? free? it's a cheap port but someone still have to do the work.

And what on PSN is more innovate than XBLA?  I try Pixle Junk, it was good but nothing ground breaking.  New Ratchet is just another level of Ratchet & Clunk with some new items, couple hours long and cost $15.00 yet that is reasonable?  I don't mind doing DLC but for full size retail game like Warhawk , GT5P or even Siren I would rather own a physical disc and those cost just the same as retail disc? So that is a good pricing to you?  No disc so you can't resell, loan to friend , tie to your PS3 account but Sony charge the same price but to Sony Fanboys that's suddenly better.  So what on PSN that is price so much better than XBLA?

 



Goddbless on 02 September 2008

I can't believe how much fun this game is. My cousin can't believe it's not a retail game. Has anyone else heard the rumors about expansions for the game?



Love the product, not the company. They love your money, not you.

-TheRealMafoo

badgenome on 02 September 2008
mysticD said:
desmondau said:
I honestly think Arcade games are priced a bit too high. For some old retro ports, they still charge you 400mp. I agree some of the new games are pretty good and could be and should be priced between 800mp and 1200mp. But most of them are small in size, short in play time, old in game design and easier to make when compared to the physical counterparts. I think MS should think of a more aggressive pricing when its main competitor PS3 is taking a healthy step on PSN to introduce its old days PS games and newly developed games. The prices on PSN, in my opinion, are much more reasonable considering the cost of distributing and developing; and more practical considering downloading the game is a cost on the part of the console owner.

So PSN which have very little selection price at the same as MS (you can say they copy XBLA for PSN store, but you know Microsoft is not innovate and they just copy everybody unlike Sony) is better while Microsoft XBLA have bigger selection is not aggressive and price too high. 400 MP is about $5.00. If you feel $5.00 is too expensive for old port (which of course not available on PSN) then I don't know what you think it should be? $1.00 ? free? it's a cheap port but someone still have to do the work.

And what on PSN is more innovate than XBLA? I try Pixle Junk, it was good but nothing ground breaking. New Ratchet is just another level of Ratchet & Clunk with some new items, couple hours long and cost $15.00 yet that is reasonable? I don't mind doing DLC but for full size retail game like Warhawk , GT5P or even Siren I would rather own a physical disc and those cost just the same as retail disc? So that is a good pricing to you? No disc so you can't resell, loan to friend , tie to your PS3 account but Sony charge the same price but to Sony Fanboys that's suddenly better. So what on PSN that is price so much better than XBLA?

 

EA Sports Live Draft Tracker! It's 400 MS points on XBLA vs. $0.99 on PSN!

Other than that, I haven't a clue. Multiplatform games so far have the same price point on either. Although if you buy 100 of those on PSN, you'll save $1, since it's $10 vs. $9.99! Woot!