Transformers: The Game Review

[Impactor returns 2.0]

A review of the new TF game has been posted over at IGN.

It seems that whilst the game looks pretty its a bit of a mess, and not very well designed.

Shame, I had some hopes they might have made a decent game out of the latest TF franchise but alas, I should have know better really.

Full review here :
http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/799/799517p1.html

[Kaylee]

Bah I should have guessed the Atari game was too much fun to be beat yet

[Shanti418]

Yeah, GameSpot gave it similarly average reviews.

I'm not surprised that the game isn't awesome, but I AM surprised that, as Karly said, it doesn't even appear to be as good as Atari's Transformers.

That game, which STILL consisted of fighting the same enemies over and over again (and had poorly executed, under utilized alt modes), was madly fun.

I'm most upset that blasters and weapons fire are mostly needless and the combat relies on a three button melee attack you do over and over again. Bah.


It's moved from a "buy" to an "extended rental" for me.

[<3Starscream]

Hmmm...
I do have to agree with some of the things in the review. Like the lack of fire arm use and the cut scene compression for example. But I still liked the game.
And it's true that playing as a Decepticon is more fun. The Autobot campaign is amazingly easy compared to the Decepticon one. Driving around as any of the the Autobot characters is a pure pain in the rear end. They all handle pretty poorly in my eyes. Having the freedom to fly as Starscream and Blackout (mind me, I've still yet to play as Megatron) and swim as Scorponok makes playing as the Decepticons far more enjoyable.
Both campaigns are short without playing all the sub-missions and collecting all the All Spark cubes.

I just beat the Autobot compaign about 10 minutes ago and the only thing I found truly difficult about it was Bumblebee versus Megatron's gun and about 20 other things. Even the fight against Megatron with Optimus was short lived. Although I do have to say figting against 2 bosses at once made me say some not so sweet words.

Oh well, I still enjoyed the game. And I'll continue to enjoy it until I go out and buy a new game.

[Shanti418]

How many sub missions are there, and just how tedious are they?

In other words, what will I have to go through to get the G1 skins?

[<3Starscream]

Looks like there's 20 sub missions per campaign...so maybe 40 altogether?
I'm not really sure, I haven't done one yet.

I'm still stuck on the Blackout Ironhide boss fight..

[Predabot]

A review of the new TF game has been posted over at IGN.

It seems that whilst the game looks pretty its a bit of a mess, and not very well designed.

Shame, I had some hopes they might have made a decent game out of the latest TF franchise but alas, I should have know better really.

Full review here :
http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/799/799517p1.html

Well, not really. I mean, the last TF-game from Atari was pretty spiffy. So I wouldn't say it's all that odd to have similar expectations of this game.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

My point was, that (apart from Goldeneye N64) movie tie-in games are pretty much 99% of the time, rubbish.

[Shanti418]

It seems that whilst the game looks pretty its a bit of a mess, and not very well designed.

Shame, I had some hopes they might have made a decent game out of the latest TF franchise but alas, I should have know better really.

Well, not really. I mean, the last TF-game from Atari was pretty spiffy. So I wouldn't say it's all that odd to have similar expectations of this game.

Yeah, but movie games are notorious for low quality. I don't know if that's because they just ASSUME they'll make money, or because the focus is more on graphics and flash than gameplay, or because since they're tied into a movie release date, it can't be delayed for extended tweaking.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Pretty much a dirty combination of the above.
And, theres this mad miss-conception that movies would translate well into games, why? movies require you to watch an un-folding narative of human interaction. games require u to bash buttons, repeating the same action over and over... worlds apart.

[Shanti418]

Personally, I think movie games have the most success when they're more movie and less game. Make the movie interactable, don't graft a movie onto a game idea. See: King Kong

[<3Starscream]

I have never been interested in movie games simply because I don't feel that it's even worth it. I don't see how you can make a movie into a game and make it work. (I plan on doing video game development after college and there's no way I'll do a movie game, there's not much creativity in a movie game anyway) I only got this game because it has to do with Transformers and my friend had pre-ordered it for me anyway and I wasn't going to just blow him off.

I think this may be the first movie game I've played besides a really old gameboy color game based off the movie Dinosaur.
:\

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Anyone going/wanting to go into the video games industry must play goldeneye on the N64, it pretty much writes the book on movie tie ins.

At least you didnt have to grow up playing spectrum movie tie-ins... saying that, batman was ok...

[Shanti418]

Goldeneye only writes the book for movie games if your game painlessly and obviously lends itself to a FPS shooter. Which Bond obviously does. But what works when making a Bond movie does not translate well into other genres, perhaps. I'm thinking of an INCREDIBLY crappy FPS shooter they made for South Park on the N64, as a point of reference.