NHL 2K10 Review

[cookusu]

Pretty fair review. I am still sticking with the default sliders though for now, to see if I need to adjust my style to the game or vice versa. I really haven't had all the big hits that he mentions or if I do I end up with penalties if they are not timed exactly right.

Wonder if anyone has ever written a review without using the phrase "mixed bag"?

[servo75]

If I could sum it up in a few sentences...

This game is not polished. From the graphics to the UI menus, the whole thing looks like it was rushed together at the last minute.

[StormJH1]

I'm in what I assume would be the majority of hockey gamers in that I grew up with EA games, shifted to 2k hockey from around 2003 to 2006, and have shifted back to EA since NHL 08. I'm still with NHL 10, and I just think it's a far superior product, though I'm glad there's an alternative that people enjoy.

I've tried the 2k demos and watched the videos, but for me, the first two things I notice are that the players look like they're skating in place no matter how fast or slow they are moving, and some of the puck physics are terrible (Rebounds off the goalie pads clearing the zone? When does that ever happen?) Also, the player models are off and the color pallette has always looked bland to me. Even if the game has other advantages to it (franchise mode depth?), I can't overlook those obvious shortcomings, plus, I really enjoy the EA game.

[Boilerbuzz]

I wish you guys would do your reviews before the rest of the rags out there. It's clear that you actually PLAYED the game whereas some of the reviews seem to just copy from each other. Finally, a review that quantifies "slow". Great job guys. I think it's very good and fair review!

[jyoung]

A lot of times it's just a case of companies not sending OS a copy of the game in-time for a "day one" review.

The reason the NHL 10 review went up on release day is because OS had a reviewable copy two weeks in advance.

The review copy of NHL 2K10 came in much later, and thus, couldn't be reviewed as quickly as NHL 10.

[ezio]

Quote: Originally Posted by D Apocalypse

I made a switch this year back to NHL 2K10 since I have NHL 09 and 10 is essentially the same game now with board play and new animations. I agree with the review and what others have posted in that if you find the sweet spot with the games sliders, this can be a very enjoyable game of hockey. I have mine on Hall of Fame with my own tweaks. Basically I turned off the speed burst and also turned off the meter. I use the pro controls so it's basically similar to EA's control scheme. I also changed the speed to 82, turned down the body check for both cpu and user to 30, etc. I love this setting. Unfortunately, it doesn't fix the fact the you still can't break out of an animation but I can live with that. I'd give this game a solid 8 with slider tweaks.

I did the same thing. The catch-up AI or whatever you want to call it NHL 10 got annoying. I am on pro with my own tweaks and am ready to start my franchise.

[buzzguy]

Good review! I have NHL 10, but might pick-up 2K10 sometime down the road. I'll also probably get it for the Wii over the 360. That version seems to be the best.

[WAZ]

Thank you... now THIS is a good, fair review. I'd personally up the score a bit to an 8, but that would be after tweaking sliders.

It's obvious when reading reviews like IGN, Gamespot, and Game Informer that they spent very little time with the game and went in unwilling to give it much of a chance. They try a couple games on default settings with classic button controls, then complain that there's a speed burst button. When they don't bother discussing "minor" things like AI, online leagues, franchise blogs, or other key features (some things which they may actually do better than the competition, if not just provide a fun alternate approach), it's an unfortunate disservice to readers and hockey fans. Not to mention the potential damage it can do to the future of the franchise...

That said, I agree that the game could (should) play better out of the box and make a better first impression, and you do have to account for that in a review. It really only takes a handful of key slider adjustments and the difference is night & day... and you have to wonder if that's all that stood between review scores of 8+ and the 6.5-7's they're getting.

Either way, while initial out-of-the-box impressions are important, so is giving a game enough time to see everything good AND bad about it. This includes focusing on details and AI and other features that matter but somehow keep getting overlooked. I'm glad you took the time to do an honest, thorough, accurate review... something that the other big gaming sites and mags didn't bother with. Kudos, OS.

[StormJH1]

Quote: Originally Posted by WAZ

Thank you... now THIS is a good, fair review. I'd personally up the score a bit to an 8, but that would be after tweaking sliders. It's obvious when reading reviews like IGN, Gamespot, and Game Informer that they spent very little time with the game and went in unwilling to give it much of a chance. They try a couple games on default settings with classic button controls, then complain that there's a speed burst button. When they don't bother discussing "minor" things like AI, online leagues, franchise blogs, or other key features (some things which they may actually do better than the competition, if not just provide a fun alternate approach), it's an unfortunate disservice to readers and hockey fans. Not to mention the potential damage it can do to the future of the franchise... That said, I agree that the game could (should) play better out of the box and make a better first impression, and you do have to account for that in a review. It really only takes a handful of key slider adjustments and the difference is night & day... and you have to wonder if that's all that stood between review scores of 8+ and the 6.5-7's they're getting. Either way, while initial out-of-the-box impressions are important, so is giving a game enough time to see everything good AND bad about it. This includes focusing on details and AI and other features that matter but somehow keep getting overlooked. I'm glad you took the time to do an honest, thorough, accurate review... something that the other big gaming sites and mags didn't bother with. Kudos, OS.

Honestly, if you put serious value in numerical scores and MetaCritic averages, especially for sports games, you're asking to be betrayed. Increasingly, I find myself paying attention to what the reviewer SAYS about the game, and then determining on my own if that's important to me or not as a strength/weakness.

I have the same urge to quantify everything that the reviewers do, but it just doesn't work. Sports games are the worst because reviewers tend to treat them as "sequels" rather than evaluate them for what they are. So Madden 10, which is a very good, but still flawed effort, gets a 9.0, whereas something like NHL 10 gets an 8.7. I know very few sports gamers (even those who don't like hockey) who believe that Madden does a better job with football than NHL does with hockey. But the reason for the lower NHL 10 score is that (some) reviewers were expecting more changes to happen from what was already a very good game. An improved version of what was already great last year should be a better score, but from the reviewer who has to play through 100's of games a year and do write-ups as a job, that feels like a failure to them. It's all subjective.

[Boilerbuzz]

Quote: Originally Posted by StormJH1

Honestly, if you put serious value in numerical scores and MetaCritic averages, especially for sports games, you're asking to be betrayed. Increasingly, I find myself paying attention to what the reviewer SAYS about the game, and then determining on my own if that's important to me or not as a strength/weakness. I have the same urge to quantify everything that the reviewers do, but it just doesn't work. Sports games are the worst because reviewers tend to treat them as "sequels" rather than evaluate them for what they are. So Madden 10, which is a very good, but still flawed effort, gets a 9.0, whereas something like NHL 10 gets an 8.7. I know very few sports gamers (even those who don't like hockey) who believe that Madden does a better job with football than NHL does with hockey. But the reason for the lower NHL 10 score is that (some) reviewers were expecting more changes to happen from what was already a very good game. An improved version of what was already great last year should be a better score, but from the reviewer who has to play through 100's of games a year and do write-ups as a job, that feels like a failure to them. It's all subjective.

Great post Storm. I think you are spot on. I think Madden deserves nothing higher than a 7 based on the final product. The added more to the game, but it's just SO unpolished, it's a crime. BOTH NHL titles are much more refined representations of hockey than Madden is of football. But that's just my opinion.