[QUOTE=Crevalle][QUOTE=sega saturn x]
[QUOTE=Crevalle]I still think it was ridiculous that Gamespot gave Riddick a 9.3 -- what a joke. I personally thought the game sucked. It got a higher score than Doom 3 and HL2.
[/QUOTE]
That's because it's a better game than doom 3, HL2 well I can't explain that one.
[/QUOTE]
No, you can't, because that statement was pure idiocy. I'm sorry, but I can't even take you seriously with comments like that. Even Gamespot said they gave it higher marks due to the fact that movie-games usually suck, and they didn't think CoR did at all. That rationale also, IMO, is lame--it creates an uneven playing field for ratings.
[/QUOTE]
Oh darn you don't take my opinions seriously.
I can't speak for gamespot nor do I really take their grades with anything stronger than a grain of salt. However I thought doom 3 sucked, it was a dull and dark cramped FPS, it wasn't scary and games that are all dark all them time can eat me. I haven't liked any of the games that used the unreal engine, and now that I have superb shooters like fear I have no need to give them another shot. Riddick was a great game, the only problem with it was the lack of a map.
Comparing riddick to doom 3 and HL2 (which you did not me) is stupid in the first place. Since they are nothing alike. So in summation it was a good game regardless of how it stacked up to games that only shair it's point of view, doom 3 still sucks.