Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
OUCH!! News.com Review
#41
(08-12-2017, 03:08 AM)TheOdd1Out Wrote:
(08-12-2017, 12:18 AM)sanzar Wrote:
(08-11-2017, 08:17 PM)stizz Wrote: I'd love to see people who say the game is fantastic play a full game without having to exploit the sidestep to gain metres.

Yeah, it's all side step and palming in this version. It's weird, because whilst a draw and pass was hard in the last game, it's nigh on impossible in this game, so exploiting even simple overlaps is remarkably difficult. Not sure why that change was made, but it's definitely made the passing game a lot weaker.

I just did on Veteran, 4 tries to 2.
First try scored on the back of an error. First tackle popped a short ball put the FB through a hole and scored.
Second try, I used the forwards to get me up the field (60 metre set) scored from a bomb.  
Third try was on the back of a knock on. Managed to draw and pass to score on the wing.
Sounds like you guys need more practice :p

Probably right, but I didn't find drawing and passing anywhere near as difficult in 3 and regularly could exploit overlaps. For whatever reason I just can't seem to do it in this game though.

To me though, this does represent one of the biggest problems with the game; a very underdeveloped tutorial system. They've made significant changes to the control system and added a bunch of new features like set plays and a more complex kick contest system, but the game makes no effort to teach you how to execute these systems and controls effectively
Reply
#42
People have problems with this review, but when Ross says confidently 'this is the best sports game ever created in Australia' then you would expect something better, eh?

Nope, typical big ant.
Reply
#43
(08-12-2017, 12:39 PM)azsportza Wrote:
(08-11-2017, 10:53 PM)ET1980 Wrote: If thats what he calls a review LOL it's not even a review.He's clearly pissed off and wrote it in a Newspaper 99% of Shit in the paper is BS other 1% is sport which is best bit to read

Despite what you may thing of News.com, their readership and reach is high enough a sensationalist headline will taint the Rugby League Live brand more than a 'bad' game. Casual Rugby League fans and gamers will see the headline and be enough to justify their hold out on buying the game.

Yeah i fully agree mate but when someone "the Reviwer hasn't spent more than 10 hour's reviewing a game and just slamming it right off the bat.Posting 360p pictures making it seem worse than it is.....Seem's like this guy has some beef with BA or he say's he's a "League" fan well if he was would of put more time and effort into this review rather than go for old headline's from 2 to 3 year's ago....

I've been watching

Insaiyan for year's now and i feel that he plays and give's his honest opiontion over these news.au guy's>Because he Acutally plays the game enjoy's it for what it is.Don't get me wrong has it's flaw's everygame does expect ARL 96 lol....

I think there Tech department need's someone that's a Fucken nerd rather than someone that's has a freaken man bun..

Same name as me Azza love ya Big Grin
[url=https://www.youtube.com/user/djelmz0][/url]

]
up up cronulla
Reply
#44
For that article, the "screenshots" that were taken were what happens when you use your mobile phone/ iPad, or similar device to take a photo of a screen. There are quite obvious scan lines and reflections off the screen itself that are present in the "screenshots" that can only occur when doing this.

Regardless of what you think of the game, doing that is unrepresentative and quite unfair to the game. The journalist wanted to "prove" how scathing his review was, and so deliberately went about taking "screenshots" that were as ugly as possible to do so.

Here's a screenshot that I took, using PlayStation 4 hardware, with absolutely no editing/photoshopping of the image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG7I7chVoAEUVXv.jpg

It's unfortunate if you didn't enjoy the game; we obviously wanted everyone that played it to have a good time. But, of course, some people aren't going to enjoy it, and we certainly appreciate feedback of all forms. The journalist is perfectly entitled to his view, but it is unfortunate that he felt he had to fabricate evidence to support it.
Reply
#45
(08-14-2017, 09:26 AM)[email protected] Wrote: For that article, the "screenshots" that were taken were what happens when you use your mobile phone/ iPad, or similar device to take a photo of a screen. There are quite obvious scan lines and reflections off the screen itself that are present in the "screenshots" that can only occur when doing this.

Regardless of what you think of the game, doing that is unrepresentative and quite unfair to the game. The journalist wanted to "prove" how scathing his review was, and so deliberately went about taking "screenshots" that were as ugly as possible to do so.

Here's a screenshot that I took, using PlayStation 4 hardware, with absolutely no editing/photoshopping of the image:  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG7I7chVoAEUVXv.jpg

It's unfortunate if you didn't enjoy the game; we obviously wanted everyone that played it to have a good time. But, of course, some people aren't going to enjoy it, and we certainly appreciate feedback of all forms. The journalist is perfectly entitled to his view, but it is unfortunate that he felt he had to fabricate evidence to support it.

The game was definitely misrepresented in that review.

That said, what are your comments on the comparisons many people have made with RLL3 - particularly the lighting and field graphics? Is there a reason they look so much better in 3 (does it come down to frame rate for instance)?
Reply
#46
(08-14-2017, 01:12 PM)sanzar Wrote:
(08-14-2017, 09:26 AM)[email protected] Wrote: For that article, the "screenshots" that were taken were what happens when you use your mobile phone/ iPad, or similar device to take a photo of a screen. There are quite obvious scan lines and reflections off the screen itself that are present in the "screenshots" that can only occur when doing this.

Regardless of what you think of the game, doing that is unrepresentative and quite unfair to the game. The journalist wanted to "prove" how scathing his review was, and so deliberately went about taking "screenshots" that were as ugly as possible to do so.

Here's a screenshot that I took, using PlayStation 4 hardware, with absolutely no editing/photoshopping of the image:  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG7I7chVoAEUVXv.jpg

It's unfortunate if you didn't enjoy the game; we obviously wanted everyone that played it to have a good time. But, of course, some people aren't going to enjoy it, and we certainly appreciate feedback of all forms. The journalist is perfectly entitled to his view, but it is unfortunate that he felt he had to fabricate evidence to support it.

The game was definitely misrepresented in that review.

That said, what are your comments on the comparisons many people have made with RLL3 - particularly the lighting and field graphics? Is there a reason they look so much better in 3 (does it come down to frame rate for instance)?

I'm really interested to get some insight into this as well. I have posted a number of Xbox One captures on here that show there is a discrepancy between RLL3 and RLL4, and also between the original screenshots released for RLL4, and what we have in game. The lighting, I feel, is the biggest let down in terms of graphics. It's very flat, and doesn't add life to either the players or their surrounds. There are other things that have obviously been scaled back - the grass being the most noticeable.

I've mentioned before that player models (in terms of proportions) are a lot more true to real life this time around, however the fine details are definitely of a lower quality. Things like hair, skin, etc.

I'm not sure if this is exactly a graphics issue, I feel it's probably not, but in RLL4 there is a lot of instances of players running through other players (like a ghost), their arms going straight through bodies, hands/arm going through the ground/posts, etc. A lot of the time this has direct influences on how the game players. Especially with things like diving tackles and grubbers.
Reply
#47
(08-11-2017, 04:45 PM)Luke Wrote:
(08-11-2017, 02:28 PM)Big Ant Studios QA Wrote:
(08-11-2017, 01:34 PM)johncasey Wrote: How is what he did any different from Big Ant releasing screenshots that aren't the same standard as the final product (original Gal, JT, Kahu screens).

In addition, the bloke is allowed to write an opinion piece. Which is exactly what a review is.

I wont say anything about the review, but I will say all of our screenshots were taken in game.

And then Photoshopped to look better.

Not the case at all. These are taken straight from in game on PC. I will say however that we have noticed the depth of field in replays (Blurred background) is not currently working on console
Reply
#48
Isn't it about time the rest of us get to play the game on PC?
___________________________
Hands up if you've held the NRL trophy... o/
Reply
#49
(08-11-2017, 02:02 PM)Yuna Wrote: I'd advise news.com to give the editor Matthew Dunn a payrise so he can afford a better TV for future game reviews.

Yeah agreed he needs to throw out his analogue TV. 

With my current rig the player models look amazing.
Xbox Live: Ickon81 & Samoan Surfer
PSN: Ickon81
Steam: ickon81
Origin: Ickon81
Reply
#50
(08-14-2017, 03:39 PM)Ickon Wrote:
(08-11-2017, 02:02 PM)Yuna Wrote: I'd advise news.com to give the editor Matthew Dunn a payrise so he can afford a better TV for future game reviews.

Yeah agreed he needs to throw out his analogue TV. 

With my current rig the player models look amazing.

I would love to see some screenshots of the player models looking "amazing". I would say they are at best PS3 standard. Some of the time they come off as PS2. It all depends on the lighting. I am yet to see a player model look next-gen standard.

** I am only talking in game here. In the fanhub and the front loading screen they look good.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)