Metareview: Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Oct 24th 2007 at 1:56PM }
- GameTap (100/100): "It's rare that a game critic feels the way I do about this game, but in all honesty, I find it really difficult to find something that's not to like. The controls feel great. The graphics look great. The score sounds great. The weapon selection alone make me want to play the game over and over again, just to test out all the cool offered. And that's that's what happens when a smart development team has spent a long time imagining a game like this. It's obvious they've accomplished feats here that they've probably been wanting to do for a long time."
- Game Informer (93/100): "You know how we always say that it's not enough to make a prettier version of a last-generation title – that you really need to offer us something that wasn't possible five years ago? Well, leave it to Insomniac to make me a liar. Because, in all reality, Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction sticks extremely close to the formula that made the series one of the PS2's best. There's not much here I haven't seen before. But I don't care, and neither will you, because this is an adventure packed to the brim with vivid characters, amazing gameplay, and heartfelt humor. In a way, it's the ultimate in video game comfort food – a familiar old favorite for those times when you're hungry for nothing but an expertly crafted good time."
- Gamespot (75/100): "Try as it might, Tools of Destruction doesn't achieve the same level of greatness as its predecessors. It's too easy, the story falls flat, and the "throw everything in including the kitchen sink" style of gameplay takes too much of the focus off the tight platforming and fun combat. That said, the gorgeous visuals and generally fun gameplay are enough to make Tools of Destruction worthwhile for the series' fans and newcomers alike."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
bl13 @ Oct 24th 2007 2:00PM
Oh no.
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 24th 2007 2:01PM
You have to love gamespot forums,PS3 fanboys were so pissed Rofl.
ruibing @ Oct 24th 2007 3:24PM
The thing that gets to me is the way the review scores are spread out with PS3 versus 360 games. I looked at metacritic and found that PS3 games have about the same standard deviation (I just estimated) as 360 ones but there a more reviews that are much lower than just a single standard dev below the mean.
Take Ace Combat 6, for example for the 360, its mean is 85 with a range between 80 and 90. But Ratchet & Clank TOD has a mean of 90 with range between 100 and 75. Beautful Katamari has a mean of 77 with range between 70 to 89, but Heavenly Sword has a mean of 79 with a range between 50 and 100.
I can keep going but the point is that it is not an even spread of the scores because if it was you could just take the average of the two ranges for the PS3 games to find the mean, which is possible for the 360 games. It just seems that a lot of reviews are trying to weight down the mean score with ultra low reviews. Who knows, it might just be an convenient coincidence that it happens for PS3 games.
Jake @ Oct 24th 2007 6:21PM
Perfect Dark Zero had an 81 average and received a 50 low from one site. Heavenly Sword has a 79 average and received a 50 low from one site.
Ratchet has a 90 average and received a 75 low. Halo 3 has a 94 average and received a 70 low. Granted, the worst review scores come out later, so Ratchet likely hasn't gotten its worst score yet.
My point is that you are only seeing what you want to see. There is no trend or conspiracy. You would have to look at every exclusive for both systems with a metascore over 75, and then record the low, high, mean, and stdev for each. Then, you would have to apply confidence limits or whatever statistical means are appropriate to see if things are within experimental uncertainty.
Basically, you can't just pull statistics out of your ass or infer great meaning from one or two examples.
Shiro @ Oct 26th 2007 2:56AM
Wait, Jake...
Perfect Dark: Zero got an 81 average?
What the hell? Did the reviewers never play it, OR the first one? The game was utter garbage. None of the original PD developers worked on it, seeing as how they all jumped ship from Rare to create Free Radical. This is why the Timesplitters series was so great. Anyways, it's an old game, not getting into arguments. But still. Not worth a damned 81. *grumble grumble*
frrs @ Oct 24th 2007 2:03PM
*obligatory gamespot is biased comment*
Hashbrown_Hunter @ Oct 24th 2007 6:27PM
Well i dont think gamespot is biased, I just think their new review system f***ing sucks. Hard.
James @ Oct 24th 2007 2:03PM
I don't see how Ratchet & Clank: TOD is any less innovative than Halo 3. Discuss.
That said, the "100" scores given to both of these games is bullcrap.
Bloo @ Oct 24th 2007 2:22PM
I'm not the biggest Halo fan but, uh, save films? Forge?
EPC7 @ Oct 24th 2007 4:09PM
You're counting Forge as innovative? Bungie released Forge for the Marathon series almost a decade ago, and it was included with Anvil; an application that let you create and define your own in-game objects. And save films were around since Marathon 1.
As big of a Bungie fan that I am (We're talking back to Pathways into Darkness here) Halo 3 was not innovative.
mfed3 @ Oct 24th 2007 4:36PM
doesnt need to be innovative. its just 10x better in every way. multiplayer? thought so.
UltimateQ @ Oct 24th 2007 9:43PM
Wait what? The forge is far from being innovative. Its a fuging map editor. Didn't they have map editor/creators in old NES games? People need to stop worshiping the halo series, its not that great.
I'm not saying ratchet and clank is innovative either. But it sure is a lot of fun. If I had a PS3 I'd own the latest game.
On another note. Its not even fair to compare them together. They are completely different games. The only similarities are that there are guns, and you shoot. R&C is a PLATFORMER, Halo is a FPS.
Geist @ Oct 24th 2007 11:36PM
Yeah wow Forge, innovative map creation. Just like Excitebike. Forgive me if I don't wet my pants.
Now I haven't played Tools of Destruction except for a brief stint at a press event, but 100 is, I think, not justified. Problems with the game? How about the bug that renders it unplayable with a certain amount of hard drive space? Eh, but without playing it, my opinion is moot.
FidliousWong @ Oct 24th 2007 2:04PM
Is it now Gamespot's religion to shit on good games?
jsn @ Oct 24th 2007 2:16PM
I would think their rating acknowledges that it is a GOOD game, just not a GREAT game, at least in the opinion of the reviewer? What's wrong with that?
samfish (MSDF- Nurse Outfit!) @ Oct 24th 2007 2:24PM
Gamespot over the last year and a half or so has started grading games a lot harder than their peers. It's nice to have someone out there being a bit more of a hardass...even though they gave Halo 3 an abnormally high score given their apparent recent standards, I thought.
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 24th 2007 2:49PM
@ Samfish
No they didn’t, in the older score system Halo 3 would get a 20 and a free donut because in the old system Tony freaking hawk got a perfect 10 and it was there with Ocarina of time, yeah a perfect b-slap for all gamers.
IMO Halo 3 score is well it deserved in my opinion without being a Halo fanboy I say it was good, the Campaign was longer than the one in Gears of war, the enemy AI was great, the replay value was pretty neat and the user based stuff ads some coolness.
The problem with you people is that you instantly want to compare Halo 3 with games such as Half-life and F.E.A.R well we are talking about PC games those are obviously better but in consoles Halo 3 is a rewarding game, is fun,it comes with a lot of extras and stuff to do.Is not the Orange box but Halo 3 stands for what a consoles game should be quick, colorful and rewarding.
Is the same case with Zelda, best game in the N64 YES, best game ever…No. Diablo was way better than Zelda (Sorry but is the truth) and it didn’t got a 10.
Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 24th 2007 3:32PM
@ Word
For the record, FEAR blows. Maybe the MP is great (which I never played), but the single player was the most redundant boring POS I've played in a while. I don't know that game such praise on the PC side, it sucks.
WiNG @ Oct 24th 2007 4:04PM
"The problem with you people is that you instantly want to compare Halo 3 with games such as Half-life and F.E.A.R"
The problem with you is that HL2 and FEAR are also on console(s), invalidating your entire point.
Jonny @ Oct 24th 2007 8:08PM
Vidikron, you probably played the PS3 version of F.E.A.R. which was basically a broken version of the 360 and pc versions. Don't take my word on it, read some reviews.
Also, did you notice your tendency to bash critically acclaimed games by calling them "boring" or "sucky"? Developing some reasons why these games "blow" might make you sound like less of a jackass. Then again, maybe not.
baby sea tuna @ Oct 25th 2007 8:30AM
No, he's right. FEAR did actually suck.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Oct 24th 2007 2:05PM
Not having played the game, i can't make an informed judgement of its quality.
However, if R&CF is the same only more and prettier as previous R&C games, that makes it a mid 80's title. Only a fanboy would give it a 100/100, where just a ratchet fan would give it a 93.
Gamespot is probably too low.
copa @ Oct 24th 2007 2:47PM
"Not having played the game, i can't make an informed judgement of its quality.
However, I will proceed to explain which scores are too high, and which scores are too low."
That sums up just about every comment in this thread.
Jon @ Oct 24th 2007 3:02PM
Your comment itself is the very definition of irony. Keep it up.
Spartacus @ Oct 24th 2007 3:50PM
Actually his comment isn't ironic or hypocritical, it's logical. He prefaces his judgement with words like "if" and "probably", which connotate possibility and probability, not iron clad definite conclusions.
It your comprehension of English grammar that is lacking here.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 24th 2007 2:05PM
Gamespot 75/100
Oh boy, the SDFers are going to be pissed.
I guess today GS is sony biased.
gonk @ Oct 24th 2007 2:06PM
i don't see how a 3/4 score is bad. the review still recommends buying it...
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 24th 2007 2:06PM
Please tell me you got that from the podcast. Please.
Hyams @ Oct 24th 2007 2:13PM
75/100 = 3/4
Mr Khan @ Oct 24th 2007 4:02PM
Don't be mean: Saiyans don't need math
They just need to yell, turn yellow, and blow shit up
Ants @ Oct 24th 2007 9:00PM
lmao @ khan!
harrison_schaerr @ Oct 24th 2007 2:07PM
I like gamespot because they usually don't ham up reviews...
but i have to admit, they hammed up halo 3 pretty badly with 95/100...
i'm not saying the 75/100 for ratchet is wrong, but i think they should apply the same treatment to halo 3...
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 24th 2007 2:27PM
Okay so why PS3 fanboys insist that if Gamespot gives any PS3 game a score below 8.5 Halo 3 score must go down, why?
Try the freaking game people, Halo 3 is not bad and is a lot of fun, everyone agrees.
Anyway in the overall is a good game is just that Sony 1st party is not well flashy, is hard to get excited about Ratchet and Clank but still a good game but if you ask me Sony should simply cut Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank and focus on a Loco Roco 3D game using the effing Cell and the Sixaxis now that would be an awesome game but then again we are talking about Sony the Masters of bad decisions.
Seriously as a PSP owner and Sony enthusiast I want a Pursuit Force with online gameplay, a new twisted metal and another Syphon Filter for the PS3.Why Sony keeps bringing games no one gives a damn about?
AstroZombie @ Oct 24th 2007 2:35PM
Now I understand why your name is not "Punctuation of the street" or "Grammar of the street."
harrison_schaerr @ Oct 24th 2007 2:50PM
i don't think halo 3 is a bad game, i just think alot of people ignored it's flaws because they received a 8,00$ halo 3 gift bag from microsoft...
i mean, as a simple example, there are still no dedicated servers, which means 9player + battles are out of the question due to lag...
peer to peer on XBL is miserable...
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 24th 2007 2:52PM
Well blame the spell-check it has this flaw that erases some punctuation marks and replace some words by others until the text doesn’t make sense but is the only free spell checking software I got so F+ck you.
Now pointing at grammar well not only that’s low but is the same augment stupid people uses when they don't have anything smart to say so with all respect go the hell out of my sight you big retarded clown.
E.J. @ Oct 24th 2007 2:54PM
obviously, you've never played halo 3.
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 24th 2007 3:04PM
Actually I believe Halo 3 has dedicated servers erasing the host advantage that made Gears so unfair especially if you play with some Uk guy with a miserable connection.
Also there is options to play with people with a good connection or in the same region as you are making lag not as bad as in some games.
Basically every Multiplayer game has lag including Team fortress 2.
BTW 9+ vs 9+ in Halo 3?,Lol not a good idea my friend.
MooseMuffin @ Oct 24th 2007 3:12PM
"9player + battles are out of the question due to lag..." So these 16 player battles I've played are imaginary?
Noshino @ Oct 24th 2007 3:13PM
Word,
You know why everyone complains about the ratings for Halo3?
These were MANY of the complaints reviewers had about Halo 3:
-Short Campaing Mode
-Lack of story (I still don't consider Halo based on any story at all, it's really bare bones)
-No Challenging AI
and guess what? STILL RECEIVED 90+ reviews...which is bs in my opinion, if you are to believe that MS had nothing to do with such reviews, then you seriously blind...
But meh, w/e, Halo is an overrated/over hyped franchise, w/e someone does wont change anything (MS will find you before you attempt to)
I find R&C one of the most charming characters out there, even tho Im not a big fan of the series, for me, its pu there with Link, Crash, and Zero...
oh, do you really think a 3D LocoRoco will work? I mean, the wholy charm of the series was the fact that you tilt the screen to move the LocoRocos, a 3D world would take the charm away from it.
harrison_schaerr @ Oct 24th 2007 3:13PM
@word
i agree with you, halo 3 multiplayer is much less laggy than gears of war was...
i mean, gears of war was an amazing game, and one of my all time favorites, but the bullet lag and host advantage ruined it online.
i can't wait to buy the pc version with dedicated servers...
i mean, take team fortress 2 for instance... i play on a 30 player server without any lag on my pc...
but on xbl? no dedicated servers means horrid gameplay...
microsoft should pay for dedicated servers given that customers are paying 50$+ a year...
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 24th 2007 3:29PM
Noshino, well the campaign in my opinion was longer than the one in Gears of war, I mean you could beat Gears of war in 1 day and it got a high score, what the hell right? While Halo well it took me a week to finish it in Legendary. Also there are several ways to repeat it so I think it was fair but then again this isn't Metroid or Half-life that take you days but again is fast and I like it.
Lack of story, No more than your average FPS, C'mon GR:AW and Double agent got a lot of great scores and the story isn't that good.
No Challenging AI?, Now that’s BS activate some of the skull for a good beating, in fact Halo 3 was acclaimed for having a good enemy AI, the ally Ai by the other hand...
Okay that’s my fault; I was talking about GS alone. Of course reviewers get paid you think they do this for charity, duh Gamepro gave Super DBZ a perfect score after a whole marketing campaign in their site. Honestly still Gamespot has the most accurate reviews even when they underrate games like R&C or MGA2 their scores are still the most accurate.
Now yes I do believe a Loco Roco 3D game would be brilliant I mean 3D didn’t stopped Mario did it?..I mean Mario 64.
In the case of R&C you have to admit is hard to convince people to get a PS3 using a game which element aren't well defined. For some reason R&C games feel cheap, maybe because when I was a PS2 fan I always saw R&C games in the bargain bin and the PSP game felt somehow generic.
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 24th 2007 3:35PM
You know this is why I hate PS3 fanboys and well Sony fanboys even being a Sony fanboy myself I hate Sony fanboys.
A) If you don't say the PS3 is great and the Xb360 sux you are voted down
B) Any critic, you are voted down
C) Any opinion regarding a PS3 game = Voted down
Okay PS3 sux , lol to all of you people buying a 599$ brick and MGS:4 will be ported to the XB360 and Sony will lose this gen and Nintendo will kick Sony ass all the way.
Yes I said it, why do I care reasoning with PS3 fans is effing futile and I’m being voted down anyway.
Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 24th 2007 3:36PM
@Word
"but if you ask me Sony should simply cut Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank"
What? Seriously? Cut two of the best platforming series around today? We don't exactly have many great platformers left these days, so I'd certainly be against cutting two of the best. For one thing, platformers is an area where the 360 is woefully weak, so why would it be a good idea for Sony to cut one of areas they actually have the advantage over the 360?
Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 24th 2007 3:45PM
but if you ask me Sony should simply cut Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank"
Yeah but I meant that in order to bring a Loco Roco 3D platformer.
Loco Roco has the charm that is missing in R&C/J&D games,a 3D world full of them would be awesome.Hell I would pay 599$ to play a Loco Roco game in 3D.
It would be something like Super Mario Galaxy but with more fun and songs.
Vidikron (FU) @ Oct 24th 2007 3:54PM
Hmmm... I still like Jak and Ratchet better than LocoRoco, but that is, of course, personal taste. IMO, it's in their best interest to keep all three, especially since all offer quite different gaming experiences.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 24th 2007 2:07PM
and yet they gave Orange box a 9.5, unless that doesn't count as being a good game.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 24th 2007 2:08PM
Why? It all depends on the experience of the reviewer.
Hyams @ Oct 24th 2007 2:10PM
Just to clarify: Gamespot's review was the only one to give the game a score below a 9.
(This post is unfortunatly required because some fanboi will, obviously, make the mistake in assuming Gamespot's review was typical of most reviewers, and submit another "Dis is dah final nail in dah PS3's koffin!" post.)
Now, having said that - I'm not too sure if I'm gonna pick this up or not. I haven't played any of the other R&C games, which is really putting me off.
Meh, I'll give it a rent; if it turns out I like it, I'll do what I did with Heavenly Sword: buy it.
Hyams @ Oct 24th 2007 2:17PM
Sorry, just realised that 1up and Gamespy gave the game a score of 85 and an 80 respectively.
My point still remains. Metacritic lists fourteen reviews giving the game a 90 or above, and only three giving it below a 90.