Originally posted by myusernameisprettybland@Jan 11 2006, 09:10 PM
hey just reporting back from the mysterious reviewer "LV". heres his reasons for giving rc2006 a 4. some of them are a bit shifty.
-It doesn't boast the same depth in modes that RL2 does (nothing to match the franchise mode in RL2).
-The lineouts are not particularly user-friendly.
-The presentation doesn't match that of competitor Rugby ***les, including both Rugby 2005 and RL2, and also falls short of Swordfish Studio's other sports ***le Ricky Ponting Cricket.
-The opposition AI is incredibly easy to exploit. I found spreading the ball wide and passing to your wingers will net you a decent line-break far too often.
-It lacks the appeal of both Rugby 2005 and RL2 because it includes no local content (players, teams or stadia). I understand this may be due to licensing issues beyond my knowledge (EA may have swallowed them up with exclusivity deals we're not aware off â€" it has a frustrating habit of doing that). Nonetheless, the lack of local content does dampen the appeal for what it already a lukewarm product.
-It also suffers from some severe glitches. On two occasions we watched in confusion as an opposition player froze in the middle of the field and stayed there until half or full time (depending on which half it occured)
-Fickle passing controls mean you can never be sure where your passess are going to go. Simply passing right isn't as foolproof as it sounds â€" more often than we cared to expect the ball would go in the opposite direction we intended.
-The ball physics are also less than perfect. The ball bounces to ridiculous heights.
Ok, after reading LV's points, I noticed that they were mostly aimed towards licenses and aesthetics rather than gameplay. I think he's put the game on, saw that there's no SH teams, and thought "That's ********, I'll give this a bad review."
Here we go:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
-It doesn't boast the same depth in modes that RL2 does (nothing to match the franchise mode in RL2).[/b]
Yes, this is probably true, but the franchise in RL2 is seriously flawed and there are more than enough modes, including Career mode in RC2006 to keep single players happy.
No gameplay issues mentioned!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
-The lineouts are not particularly user-friendly.[/b]
What??? They're the same as WCR, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with them. They're quick and keep the action flowing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
-The presentation doesn't match that of competitor Rugby ***les, including both Rugby 2005 and RL2, and also falls short of Swordfish Studio's other sports ***le Ricky Ponting Cricket.[/b]
Again, maybe true. This doesn't affect
how the game plays though.
Again, No gameplay issues raised.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
-The opposition AI is incredibly easy to exploit. I found spreading the ball wide and passing to your wingers will net you a decent line-break far too often.[/b]
St Helens RLFC also said that this was easy to do, however, and I think he'll agree, he was playing on the easy difficulty. When it's ramped up to Intensive Care difficulty, this is nowhere near the problem he makes out it is. Also, it just doesn't apply in multiplayer games.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
-It lacks the appeal of both Rugby 2005 and RL2 because it includes no local content (players, teams or stadia). I understand this may be due to licensing issues beyond my knowledge (EA may have swallowed them up with exclusivity deals we're not aware off â€" it has a frustrating habit of doing that). Nonetheless, the lack of local content does dampen the appeal for what it already a lukewarm product.[/b]
Again, problems with features NOT Gameplay.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
-It also suffers from some severe glitches. On two occasions we watched in confusion as an opposition player froze in the middle of the field and stayed there until half or full time (depending on which half it occured)[/b]
That may have happened. It didn't do it when we played the game, but nevertheless, it could well have done. Say this happened in 2 out of ever ten matches played, would it really affect the game that bad?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
-Fickle passing controls mean you can never be sure where your passess are going to go. Simply passing right isn't as foolproof as it sounds â€" more often than we cared to expect the ball would go in the opposite direction we intended.[/b]
Right, this is where he starts talking utter utter ********. WCR had the best passing system ever in my opinion, and they've kept it the same way, albeit with a couple of tweaks to tighten it for RC2006. If you didn't like the passing in WCR, then you won't like it here.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
-The ball physics are also less than perfect. The ball bounces to ridiculous heights.[/b]
Hmmmm. I've noticed this too, but it wasn't a problem. Hammer a grubber through and it'll sometimes bounce chest high after a while. This makes it easier to just pluck the ball out of the air and go over.
All in all, those problems cannot make RC2006 a 4/10. That's just not right. I notice he fails to mention the smooth game engine, slick graphics that move around the screen effortlessly. Also, the best kicking system in Rugby games, the fact that you are FULLY in control of the ball carrier at all times. etc etc etc. To be honest, he hardly mentions the gameplay at all... it's as if he wanted it to be bad after finding out that there aren't many licensed things in there.
This game is, in my opinion, the most playable Rugby game ever created!