View Full Version : RTX that bad?

06-20-2003, 12:20 AM
I just read the revue of RTX on gamespot.com They gave it a 4.9. I was never interested in the game in the first place, anyone played it?

06-20-2003, 12:39 AM
Skyfox beta tested it over at Sony and he seems to think it's quite a good game.

How they can give the sound a 5 is beyond me.

06-20-2003, 09:03 AM
RTX Red Rock... yet another completely inhouse game from LucasArts after long time... Result...


Gamespot's reviews are mostly spot on. LucasArts should stop making games now. They stil have quality designers no doubt, but what are they doing? Hal's last brilliant game was Fate of Atlantis, he could have produced many more great Adventure Games, but LucasArts wanted him to create Action/Adventures... wonderful... see the result... 2nd flop game in row... First Infernal Machine, and now this.

Sean Clark is working on another Action/Adventure Full Throttle 2. It will be not surprising to see such review for FT2. LucasArts should have stuck with what they could do best, Adventure Games, or abandon them completely. When you try to please everyone, this can be the result!



06-20-2003, 12:22 PM
Wow, your deppressing. Anyway, IGN gave it a 5.6. Oh, well. Every company at some piont, makes a game that just isn't very good. By the way nahmed, Infernal Machine sold pretty good and got a 7.9. I'll be dammed if it floped. And Full throttle 1 was an action adventure as well, and is one of the best adventure games ever.

06-20-2003, 01:30 PM
Don't read too many reviews or let them always be the guiding force when you choose which games you should buy. Experience has shown me that some critics try to deliberately find faults in movies/games/music/you name it and seem to think that being a good critic means that one needs to be overcritical. There are exceptions of course, but method mentioned above is the easiest way to make a review.

Now, before you start pointing out that they usually are telling the truth(like GameSpot in this case), which of course depends on everyones own POV, they usually use much more time underlining the faults and leave analysing of good aspects in much lesser detail. That's how you get a picture(or you could say they want you to think) that whole game is overally bad which or course is not fair thinking that developers used quite a lot time to make it.

I suggest that from now on you rent each game you have been thinking of buying(we can't rent games in here Finland or at least I haven't ran into such stores yet) or try demo first, before bashing it and making your final oppinion about it. Sometimes it feels that people wanna quickly know if they either like something or hate it, so they listen too much what others say and go with the flow... :rolleyes:

06-20-2003, 05:40 PM
I am playing games from early 90s, and IMO, Infernal machine really sucked, it was nowhere near fun!

And about the reviews, although Gamespot has bad reputation when it comes to adventure games, but they gave excellent score to Syberia, Longest Journey, Grim Fandango, CMI, and EMI. And for Action Adventure, their reviews at least for me are always helpful. I played Rayman 2 only because of their score 9.2 to it, and it turned out to be one of the best platform game I ever played on PC, and now you have seen the IGN score.

So being a fanboy you can say "Well what if reviews are not good, game is fun!"... Please understand, better games get good reviews and vice versa.

06-20-2003, 10:54 PM
The bad:
there are a few issues with collision detection, the worst of which causes you to fall right through platforms
not only does the lock-on system have trouble actually locking onto enemies that are three feet in front of Wheeler, but you often have to maneuver yourself around before that particular feature kicks in
The list of problems in RTX Red Rock is completed with the inventory system, which is probably one of the bulkiest inventory systems in any action adventure game to date. When you get further into the game and start to get more items, you'll have to press the D-pad several times to get to the item that you want. It's annoying when there isn't a whole lot of action going on around you, and it's even worse when you're engaged in a boss fight and have to switch between using health items and your weapons, which essentially leaves you open to enemy attack.

The good:
The environments are initially pretty impressive, and there are some cool technical effects--such as the bio spectrum scan that lets you see entire structures and items that aren't visible with normal sight.
The voice acting for Wheeler, Iris, and other characters in the game is pretty good. But Wheeler has the most memorable performance, and his cocky attitude comes across pretty well.
If RTX Red Rock has any redeeming quality, it's the storyline

The result:
Unfortunately, the story just isn't involving or interesting enough to draw you back into the game or overlook its shortcomings
RTX Red Rock is filled with concepts and ideas that look great on paper, but are executed in a flawed manner.
RTX Red Rock is one of those games that has a promising concept, but just doesn't pan out.


Ummm. Look at these comments. All of the problems with the game are FACTUAL and not personal things like "I didn't like the plot, graphics, storyline, gameplay" etc.

Unfortunately it seems LucasArts have STILL to completely grasp 3D the way they did with 2D. (All their decent 3D games have been done by non-LA people.) I remember how ugly I thought Infernal Machine looked when I first played it and how clunky it played. I don't know why they have so much difficulty with 3D :(

~ John

Interesting trivia: Hal Barwood considers Infernal Machine to be better than Fate of Atlantis. I kid you not.

Also: The average user review on IGN for RTX Red Rock is 3.3 :(

06-20-2003, 11:47 PM
Well I think it looks good, so I'm remaing hopeful for other reviews to give plenty of praise in the future. I might even play it.

I would however like more original adventure games, but that's beside the point. :~

06-21-2003, 06:09 AM
Wow bad collision detection, how retro.

06-21-2003, 10:03 AM
It's looking pretty grim. gamerankings.com (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/561277.asp) shows an average ratio of 57% (based on 3 media outlets) at the moment.

Does anyone else think that they may have taken a too big bite with all the games they are developing at the moment and certainly were planning/developing even through the making of RTX Red Rock?

I thought Emperor's Tomb rocked. It's not a milestone, but very solid entertainment. I'm glad I bought it although one of my gameing mags gave a pretty nasty review elaborating on the missing save option.

Infernal Machine wasn't bad either. The controls were clunky and the graphics looked outdated. But hey, I was able to play it at any resolution I chose and still have absolutely fluid game play (apart from the controls that is). That was a pretty intoxicating feeling after having to turn certain features off in other games of the same period. The atmosphere was pretty good and it did some things better than Tomb Raider.

06-22-2003, 05:10 PM
I don't think LucasArts "took too big a bite" or "failed to grasp how to make a 3D game" or "can't make good games" or "should give up" or any of that applies really. It seems like, as both the Gamespot and IGN reviews say, RTX was a game full of really good inventive ideas that at some point just didn't add up. RTSX is full of good parts, but they just don't combine to make a good game. I still have faith in the team that made the game, if they're even still at the company and haven't been fired or quit yet that is. The art (yes, 3D art!), cutscenes, sound design, and animation were all top quality, and at least the attempts they made at implimenting the unique gameplay stuff all seemed really good. The only person I don't really trust at this point is Hal Barwood. Faulting LucasArts as a whole is pretty suspect.

06-23-2003, 04:24 PM
Worthplaying gives the game 7.5/10

06-23-2003, 10:53 PM
Jake: But nearly all the complaints about the game are technical ones, so I feel that my "failed to fully grasp 3D" comment still stands. ;)

~ John

06-24-2003, 07:29 AM
Erm, is it just me or are RTX' 3D graphics actually very good. They're superior to, well, anything LucasArts has put out before.

I'm sad to hear the gameplay is apparently dissapointing, though.

Ray Jones
06-24-2003, 08:31 AM

i wouldnt say LA is doing bad GFX .. actually these are highquality and fit the spot ..
but there was a time when playing LA games ment play it like :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: on entering new screens ..
now it's like 'yeah, cool, really.'

.. yes you can say its just like 'yeah, they are not doing bad graphics.'


06-24-2003, 12:57 PM
The graphics look great, but apparently there are slow down problems. That's more the fault of the engine though I guess.

06-25-2003, 07:24 AM
Hopefully some guy or gal who buys it would also make sort of minireview for us, so we can get a better idea of its strong and weak points. :cool:

07-10-2003, 04:26 PM
So has anyone here actually played it? PSW gave it 8/10, perhaps all is not lost. Well if anyone is interested, Game have it in their 2 for 30 deal.

08-08-2003, 03:07 PM
I got the game today. I'd been looking forward to it very much, since I really enjoyed Fate of Atlantis and Infernal Machine. Sure, Infernal Machine had its faults, but they were mostly on the technical side. The gameplay and puzzle design, I believe, were top notch.

So when I bought RTX I was expecting pretty much of the same. I didn't listen to the bad reviews, since I know that there are a lot of cynics out there that can't separate graphics and gameplay.

Aynway, the game starts off with the introduction sequence that's been online at Lucasarts.com for quite some time now. Everyone who saw that will most likely agree that the voice acting, as well as the overall presentation of the pre-rendered cutscenes (i.e. facial animation, camera work, etc.) is pretty successful. They create a nice retro-sci-fi atmosphere and manage to get the characters across quite nicely (Iris as the "robotic lover" works very well, I think).

As for the game itself:

At first the game's 3d engine seems to work quite well. There are, however, massive frame rate drops whenever you walk through doorways, and they will later on become very annoying when you're trying to fight your way through the later levels.
But in the first level, this didn't disturb me very much.

The controls are quite easy to pick up, pretty much your typical action-adventure control scheme, and, they too, seem to be working quite well at first glance.

But once you've entered the second level (after a short and empty 'Mars surface' intermezzo) all this will jump back at you with a vengeance.
The levels seem big, because they are crammed with too many details that all look too much the same. But they're not really that big. You'll simply get lost very easily, because there's nothing very memorable about the different rooms (which was a big surprise to me, since, judging from the screenshots, the environments looked quite lively). Everything seems small and cramped, and the graphics start to look more and more like those old Quicktime Adventures ("The Space Bar" and such) which made you believe you're in a 3d room by rotating a 2d in the most confusing ways.

Combat is always the same: You lock on to your enemy - which isn't as easy as it may sound, because there are often lots of them on screen and the game will choose one at random - then you shoot. The only challenging thing here is to hit the critter you actually wanted to hit.

There are various gadgets and visor modes you can use to explore the scenery or detect enemies. A little bit of guided introduction to these elements like in Metroid Prime would have been very nice, because as you start out you can get confused about their importance very easily.

The puzzles are very simple. Iris will tell you to get this and install it somewhere else, then something 'terrible' will happen and you will be forced to do more of the same. Then there are parts where you get to control service bots, which works about the same way it did in Jedi Knight. The sequence where you get to control the "Spider" are quite enjoyable, though.

After I'd completed the third of the ten levels, I was pretty disappointed, since all these issues that seemed to start out as minor flaws became increasingly annoying.

Summing up:
RTX has a lot going for it at first glance: Good presentation, solid story and characters and the name Hal Barwood.
Once you take a closer look - which you will, since the game really looks like a lot of fun when you start playing - things will get uglier by the minute.
Personally, I was very disappointed with the game. Lucasarts used to have much better quality control. With maybe half an additional year of development and a complete (and I MEAN complete) overhaul of the engine this could have been a really great game.

The way it is, however, makes me doubt whether Lucasarts has the resources to build a thoroughly enjoyable game as it used to.
And I'm sure, Lucasarts wouldn't have stopped development on Full Throttle 2 if there hadn't been enough reason to do so quality-wise, apart from bad reception from the community.

RTX was very promising, but it just didn't deliver.

P.S.: There's a big library with extras you can unlock as you proceed in the game that includes a movie to test E.Z.'s movements in which he fights Timmy the Monkey (tm) from Escape from Monkey Island. That was fun.

08-12-2003, 10:20 PM
I've been playing the game for a few days now. It turned into great fun a few hours after I'd written that last post... I guess the graphics just need a little getting used to, as well as the way the game cooperates with the environments.

I'm in level 8 out of 10 now, and the whole thing has really come alive. The story becomes very involving, the environments are huge and have a strong realistic sci-fi touch to them. The puzzles are great, too, very adventure-like at times. I can't really explain to myself why I hated this game so much at the beginning. This is easily turning into one of my favorite PS2 games...
The characters are great, and this is the first game in which in-game facial animations really work well - they reflect the moods of the characters perfectly and allow them to break out of their polygon-molds. The other part of the character animations are great, too - and we owe it all to Graham Annable, of Curse of Monkey Island and the indie-comic "Grickle" (I really recommend this to anyone) fame.
I love the music. It takes turns at being either atmospheric or melodic, and changes according to what's happening on screen, much like the what iMuse used to do.

I believe that most of the people who gave the game bad reviews reacted in a way very similar to how I did: They really wanted, probably even expected to like the game, but in the end confused sloppy graphics or frame-rates (which are really unimportant compared to the massive, creative environment the player is offered here) with gameplay.

Everyone: Give this game a (second) chance. You clearly won't regret it. You may well hate it at first for the few flaws that it actually does have (like the N64-like slow-downs I already mentioned and a few clipping issues), but trust me, you will get over that. There's a really strong title with cool, well-designed characters hidden behind your first look. The game really delivers on its premises.

I want to apologize for bad-mouthing this title. Clearly, a lot of hard work and love has gone into it, judging from the sheer amount of detail, and I'm currently enjoying the results very much.

One thing though: A Gamecube conversion would be greatly appreciated. The people over at Factor 5 made a really good conversion of Infernal Machine back in the N64 days, why not let them have a shot at it for a conversion? I've always felt that RTX would have been good on Gamecube, and I was very sad when the port was cancelled.

Anyway, what are your opinions on the game? Has anybody played for a little longer than the first few minutes? And does anybody know where to find the showgirl legs for Iris in the park? :P

08-13-2003, 04:12 AM
Thanks for the reviews, man!

I also find that lately I'm getting more tolerant with games. I knew that the new RoboCop (http://www.robocop-game.com) game by Titus and Tomb Raider: The Angel Of Darkness (http://www.eidosinteractive.co.uk/gss/trangel/home.html) got bad reviews, but being a fanboy I bought them nonetheless (actually TR6 was more of a "want the soundtrack CD" thingie). After playing them a while I realised that with my expectations already really low, I could appreciate them for what they are. Little imperfect and sometimes ugly games that may not be good ambassadors for gaming, but can be quite fun.