We sat down with The Coalition’s Colin Penty to discuss the challenge of hitting 60 frames-per-second for the campaign and developing for Xbox One X.
Talking Gears 5 and 60 FPS for the Campaign on Xbox One X
Double Fine's latest has rocked our world.
Give Us All the Rads - RAD Review
Officially the fifth entry in the long-running series, does Gears 5 change enough to keep it fresh?
Another COG in an ageing machine? Our Gears 5 Review!
Ahead of the release of World of Warcraft Classic we sat down with Blizzard to talk about the game’s legacy and the journey to bring back this memorable slice of gaming history.
World of Warcraft: Classic - Our Big Blizzard Interview
Rugby League Live 3
Rugby League Live 3

PlayStation 3
Genre: Sport
Developer: Tru Blu Entertinment Official Site: http://www.facebook.com/rugb...
Publisher: Big Ant Studios Classification: PG
Release Date:
September 2015
Rugby League Live 3 Review
Review By @ 11:13am 18/09/15
XBOXONE

Watch Joaby's video review for Rugby League Live 3 embedded above

Rugby League Live 3 retails for 100 dollarydoos and heralds the debut of Rugby League as a sport on PS4 and Xbox One. It costs as much as FIFA or NBA 2K but it looks like it should be on a tablet. Or unplayable on your phone. If graphics are all you care about and you want a good looking game where large men run into one another at top speeds, get Madden 16 -- they've even got Jarryd Hayne.

But there's more to a game than the graphics. Rugby League Live 3 isn't a good game, but with every iteration it's getting closer to something you might actually want to purchase. Rugby League Live: The First was a trainwreck on a grand scale -- terrible gameplay, worse graphics, minimal options. It contained within it a kernel of an idea, however -- a semi-competent passing system designed to give the player the ability to shift the ball across the field quickly and easily.



Rugby League Live 2 was a bit better. The passing game was tightened up thanks to slightly better AI resulting in fewer flat balls (meaning fewer interceptions), the game modes gave players options and the graphics were still terrible compared to other similarly priced sports games. The core of the game was almost there, however -- you could string together set pieces like those you might see in a game of Rugby League, although if you passed the ball wide to the wings you could repeatedly exploit a consistent flaw in the defensive AI to score without problems.

Rugby League Live 3 is a bit better again. For example, thanks to a change to the tackling system, you can't abuse the wing play quite as repeatedly. Tackles now come in a number of flavours, and the classic Rock Paper Scissors concept appears to affect them. A low tackle is used to stop a player who is hitting up the defence. An arm pin is used against someone going for the stiff arm. A hard tackle is used against a player utilising the goosestep.

This is all inferred information -- the "Help" menu is hilariously worthless (in fact, it shows the wrong button inputs) -- but it's a good thing. What it means is that you're able to create opportunities for yourself, and you're able to play an active part in defence (more active than simply pressing the tackle button). Because of this, the wing play strategy I briefly mentioned above doesn't work as regularly -- in previous games you could pass wide, get the ball to a speedy wing, bust through a tackle and then sprint for a try repeatedly. You can still do this with varying success in RLL3 -- especially online or against low level AI -- but it's no longer a surefire way to victory in the higher difficulties.



Actually, while we're speaking about inferred information, it seems like the AI on the Veteran and Legend difficulties in Rugby League Live 3 might be cheating. They always seem to know exactly what move you're going to make before you make it. They know which tackle to use to stop you, they can wrap you up just as you hit the try line. They always switch to the correct player as well...

The 'switch to the nearest player' is one of those problems which has plagued the Rugby League Live games since the first, and it's sadly no better here. When an opponent makes a break through a hilariously large gap in your defence you can sit there mashing the Left Trigger for days and you still won't switch to your fullback. It's ludicrous that this is still a problem, but at this point it seems like a tradition for the game.

There's actually quite a bit to like in Rugby League Live 3. The players only barely look like their real life counterparts, but there are heaps of clubs and teams to play with. NRL is represented (as you'd expect), but so too are International clubs, representative clubs (like State of Origin, Indigenous All-Stars and City/Country teams) and Super League teams. The Youth competition even makes an appearance with the Holden Cup allowing you to play as up-and-coming Under 20s.

And that plays into the Career mode, a surprisingly comprehensive Be-A-Pro mode that is actually semi-compelling. It allows you to create a Rookie player from scratch and take them up through the youth leagues up into the NRL, giving you the opportunity to shape a future star. As a Coach you manage a club financially and competitively, which isn't really inside the scope of a coach in the NRL, but you let it go anyway. Both modes are solid in ideas and weak in execution, but they lay the groundwork for something far more interesting in the future.



The Career mode in particular actually creates a semi-decent reason for you to earn money, allowing you to purchase boosts before a game, and it ties your XP gains to your in-game performance, successfully turning singleplayer Rugby League into something RPG-esque. On the other hand it's a tad easy to exploit, and the way the game measures quality play doesn't seem to penalise a player for staying out of position or calling for the ball endlessly.

Online the game gives you a truckload of options in its Custom Match settings, but if you select "Quick Match" you'll get paired up with two sorts of player; those who use custom versions of NRL teams filled with the best players and leavers. This wouldn't be such a large problem if the online aspect wasn't attached to a Leaderboard. According to Big Ant's twitter account, custom teams are normalised but NRL teams are not, and as is tradition with the series they were less than forthcoming with details on what a Custom team was exactly.

Obviously I don't care about my position on a Leaderboard I don't intend to play online, but what it does is incentivise players to pull the sneakiest, shittiest moves they can. When you do it back to them, they leave to avoid having any more points against them in the leaderboard. Kick-offs rarely make 15 metres as your opponents try to exploit lag to get a cheesy steal early. Free heads-up -- it never works, stop trying it.

Online play itself is plagued with lag spikes not seen in other games, and because the game can be so touchy regarding Offside there is a definite host advantage (or just a ping-disadvantage) which can result in unearned penalties. Too often when attempting a tackle as the marker on the dummy half the game will decide I moved too early and call me offside. If Rocket League can manage complex physics interactions between 8 players online without problems, RLL3 should be able to deal with far less and canned interactions. On the other hand the ping thing occasionally works in your favour -- I repeatedly 'missed' a tackle only to have my opponent throw the ball into my player's chest for a free and unexpected interception.



Actually the game seems to have a real problem determining a knock-on from an incidental collision in play. It's similar to how FIFA refuses to deal with handballs, or NBA 2K's issues with kicked ball violations, except it seems a little more of a problem here because it seems like something you can use to your advantage. In the other games it's mostly just a lack of punishment for something out of your control, but if you can identify situations where an advantageous knock-on will occur and replicate them then it's not the same, is it? At the end of the day, a knock-on in football is far more common than a kicked ball violation in basketball.

At the end of the day I can't recommend Rugby League Live 3 as a purchase. It's simply not as good as it needs to be. It's a huge step up, a commendable step up, but not enough to warrant plonking down 100 dollarydoos right as all the best games are starting to come out. It's about a gazillion times better than Rugby World Cup 2015, but it's just not able to compete in the big leagues against well made, polished titles like FIFA 16, NBA 2K16 and Madden 16.
What we liked
  • Be A Pro is very promising
  • Gameplay is an improvement on previous versions (while still being a bit crap)
  • Heaps of choices for teams
  • Community Hub is really, really well done
  • Paper Scissors Rock tackle system is a great solution
What we didn't like
  • Online mode encourages players to use fake teams and crappy tactics
  • It's so ugly
  • Knock-ons seem like an issue
  • Weird bug where if my profile signs out I need to kill the game to play it
  • Still can't reliably switch to the closest defender
More
We gave it:
5.0
OUT OF 10
Latest Comments
fpot
Posted 11:28am 18/9/15
Damn was hoping it would be better. Don Bradman Cricket 14 was a real gem I thought. Best cricket game (apart from Cricket Captain) that I have played since Shane Warne Cricket 99.
Joaby
Posted 11:58am 18/9/15
THAT TITLE STEVE
Steve Farrelly
Posted 02:31pm 18/9/15
He's, like, the only name I know in League other than Jarrod Hayne :P
Joaby
Posted 09:05am 19/9/15
According to Ross Symons, the CEO of Big Ant, I'm a work experience kid and my review is full of factual errors.

I'd want to straight up make s*** up too if I was trying to trick people into spending $100 on my budget game.
Enska
Posted 11:56am 19/9/15
Haha, Your one old looking work xp kid brah
That screenshot of what I think is supposed to be Jack Bird is f*****g hilarious, looks like Serious Sam.
Joaby
Posted 04:45pm 19/9/15
Holy crapioca.

So the CEO over at Big Ant Studios is now
- deleting all my posts defending my review
- editing some posts back in and then constructing arguments against his edits
- claiming that someone here at AusGamers is deleting his posts because we can dish it out but can't take it

He's lost his mind. I'm waiting for a DMCA on the Youtube video, should be just around the corner.
simul
Posted 06:14pm 19/9/15
Its a shame, the old rugby league game on genesis was amazing. Actually, you can play it here according to the googles:

http://www.ssega.com/play/australian-rugby-league/153
Joaby
Posted 09:00pm 19/9/15
Was always more of a Jonah Lomu Rugby guy than the ARL game, though JLR had the advantage of the much more powerful PlayStation processor.

Update on the saga at Big Ant! The CEO of Big Ant Studios himself has banned me from the forums when I demonstrated for the umpteenth time that he lied about editing my posts to construct an argument against them.

What an embarrassment.

PS - You have to login to post on AusGamers, Ross.
Khel
Posted 12:11am 20/9/15
That's just embarrassing and unprofessional. If you want more people to buy your game and pay full price for your game, instead of trying to stomp on the bad reviews you could, I dunno, make a better game?

Knowing this forums tendency to rise to the top of Google results, I'm kinda hoping this is the thread people will find when they go looking for info on it. Seems like just desserts.
nings
Posted 07:33am 20/9/15
Not really into rugby league and the Game sounds a bit s***,
This Ross guy seems to have ants in his pants over the possibility that his overpriced game may be be a flop.
Frank
Posted 08:27am 20/9/15
I think he's going through a mid life crisis guys go easy on him. If you look on google images he's going much greyer after ever Rugby league game release.
They are clearly flops I'd suggest his time would be better spent making a flappy bird clone.
Enska
Posted 11:54am 20/9/15
Is there a reason why the series has not been able to put out a game that looks up to scratch? is there genuine money/ engine development issues or are they just s*** at teh grafix?
Frank
Posted 12:10pm 20/9/15
Their claim to fame is Fruit Ninja mate. They are a casuals. Funny thing is the idea of Fruit Ninja came from a work experience kid working there.
Enska
Posted 12:35pm 20/9/15
That's nice, but I'm more interested in whether there's actually some kind of financial/management decision as opposed to a lack of talent that's responsible for them not delivering.
Clearly from Joab's review there is a slightly decent game in there and the potential for it to be great.
Just saying they made Fruit Ninja, which from what I know is pretty successful game, doesn't tell me s***.
PantherFan
Posted 12:45pm 20/9/15
The review still has screenshots from Rugby Challenge. Rugby League Live 3 is a Niche product. Its not going to appeal to everyone and how many rugby league fans are there? Not enough to warrant an Investment from Tru Blu to equal a FIFA or Madden budget.
Enska
Posted 01:03pm 20/9/15
Then why charge full retail price for a niche product that wont appeal to everyone? Are you trying to say that Rugby League Live 3 is an indie game?

Edit* - Also, Rugby Challenge was just that, a Rugby game. So I'm interested as to how the screens of the review are from that game when they show Broncos and Sharks players, which if I'm not mistaken, are NRL teams.
PantherFan
Posted 01:05pm 20/9/15
The fact that its a Niche Product inherently means you pay more (equal) for less. Should we not see Australian Film because their budget is minuscule in comparison to Marvel?

Also, the flat out mis-information in the review doesn't help either and explains why Ross would be pissed off.

They charge full-retail price to make a small profit. Australia pays its workers alot more than the US. Therefore, its more expensive to make the game. Its not an Indie game either. Indie games are very focused. Rocket League, the example used in this review is a simple game. Cars with rockets that hit a ball into a net.

There is a career mode, but its just a season with AI teams. (AI which is also terrible)

Rugby League Live 3 needs to be a FIFA clone, in rugby league form. You can't make a FIFA game without a FIFA budget, but they definitely try hard to accomplish that. (Besides, i bought my ps4 copy for 79 "dollarydoos" anyways).

The game is far from perfect, and the rating out of 10 doesnt bother me. Screenshots from Live 2, rugby challenge, misinformation such as "A low tackle is used to stop a player who is hitting up the defence. An arm pin is used against someone going for the stiff arm. A hard tackle is used against a player utilising the goosestep." and the lack of even mentioning what the fanhub can offer means this is an incomplete review.

Thats why Ross is pissed off.
PantherFan
Posted 01:07pm 20/9/15
The screenshots from other games were just removed. It had a Rugby Challenge image, and a Live 2 image. The rugby challenge image actually had their website in the bottom left, and the Live 2 image had Jamie Soward kicking a goal in Dragons gear.
Enska
Posted 01:09pm 20/9/15
I call bulls***. I read the review the day it came out and even made mention of the ridiculous looking Jack Bird. Please don't try and tell me Jack Bird was in previous iterations of this game.
PantherFan
Posted 01:10pm 20/9/15
You needed to click on screenshots. Joaby also admitted to the wrong screenshots. I'm sure whoever just removed them would be happy to enlighten you.
PantherFan
Posted 01:13pm 20/9/15
The actual image of Jamie Soward kicking the ball from the tee, thats Rugby League Live 2. hopefully its not changed before you see this comment and look.
PantherFan
Posted 01:15pm 20/9/15
Enska
Posted 01:20pm 20/9/15
Fair play, I didn't notice that. Still, incorrect images/linking on ag's part doesn't exactly null & void joab's review. If you didn't notice the other thread this site has been tits up for a while now.
Joaby
Posted 02:22pm 20/9/15
Like I've said dozens of times, screenshots aren't my department at all. I write the words and I send them to my editor. Discounting the 1400 words of criticism because it has the wrong picture at the top of the page is ticky tack bulls***, but it barely compares to the unbelievable horses*** I was put through by the CEO of Big Ant. Deleting my posts, accusing me of lying, editing posts to construct hamfisted horses*** arguments against half a post and then banning me but continuing to attack me on the forums is some utter bulls***.

Regarding the "A low tackle is used to stop a player who is hitting up the defence. An arm pin is used against someone going for the stiff arm. A hard tackle is used against a player utilising the goosestep."

I like this complaint, because I'm using it as an example of A: how the tackle system appears to be good and B: how the game fails to tell the player anything worth anything. I say directly after that piece quoted that it is inferred knowledge -- that is to say, it's information derived from experience and not definitely correct.

I don't owe the game anything regarding the Fan Hub either, but at 1400 words it's already longer than every other review for the game. Am I somehow obliged to list back of the box details of a game because I'm reviewing a game? (I'm not).

As to the realities of the market -- that's not my problem. The game releases when every other sports game releases for the same price as the others, and so it gets judged accordingly. As I said over on the other forums, English Super League teams have smaller budgets and less talent to draw from, but they are rated on the same 5 star scale as the NRL teams. Is that fair? Yes. Yes it is.
Joaby
Posted 02:27pm 20/9/15
Over on the other site they're still talking trash about me, claiming I didn't back things up or haven't responded to certain claims.

Except all those details exist in the posts Ross deleted in an effort to hide his lies.

GOLD JERRY GOLD.
PantherFan
Posted 03:26pm 20/9/15
Most of your criticisms, including your rating is fine. Its your opinion. Whats not fine is telling the wrong information about the game. I think that is pretty fair argument.
Khel
Posted 03:54pm 20/9/15
Instead of blaming the market and blaming the players for expecting a quality game when it doesn't have a big budget, maybe when it was in development they should have faced the reality that they DON'T have a Fifa level budget and shouldn't have tried to compete on that level in the first place. Maybe if they had pared it down and focused on just really nailing the basics. Get the underlying gameplay rock solid and then build up from there. Why do you think games like Rocket League are so popular? People spend probably hundreds of hours playing games like that not because they're have Fanhubs and career modes and all those bells and whistles, but because the underlying gameplay is just solid and fun.

Maybe those features and those decisions were forced upon the devs by the licsense holders or by the people holding the money, it happens, I've been on the receiving end of that. I kinda get the impression they weren't though considering how defensive people involved the game are getting about criticism of it. So instead of this juvenile "The pictures are wrong, your review is invalid" approach, maybe take a step back, take some of the criticism on board, and make Rugby League Live 4 a genuinely good game. I mean, the market is yours to take, theres literally no competition, can you imagine how well a genuinely good rugby league game would sell in Australia? Hurry up and do it properly before someone comes in and steals your thunder.
Joaby
Posted 12:52am 21/9/15
Exactly Khel. But they don't want to hear that. They just want someone to pat them on the back and say 'hey you did your best' while they ban anyone who says anything negative.

Dollarydoos is a Simpson's reference btw. It's pretty classic. Also, just FYI, in the video at the top of this review - the other guy talking at the end is the guy who reviewed it for IGN.
Steve Farrelly
Posted 12:26pm 21/9/15
Been away from my PC most of the weekend, so just jumping in to point out the screens error was my doing because I couldn't find any officially anywhere, and a Google search told me those were from RLL3. My bad. But, to most peoples' points here, the screens aren't the critical analysis, the words and video are.

Funnily enough, my start on AusGamers came about because of a review I did years and years ago when I was on GameArena, of an AFL Live game (same studio) -- it caused its own furor for being equally critical -- especially of the price of the game...
Joaby
Posted 08:31pm 21/9/15
Because of your post he now thinks AusGamers has it out for him. It couldn't be that Big Ant repeatedly makes bad games could it. Nope, must be a conspiracy!

Also Ross still hasn't worked out that you need to log in to post here.
TahMan
Posted 09:21pm 21/9/15
This review raises some fair points, but some comparisons aren't at all reasonable and unfortunately on the whole it's frankly a very poor example of writing.

I apologise if this sounds a little mean, but I can only assume this website operates on a volunteer basis, because if this were submitted to as a communications degree assignment you'd be struggling to pass. I honestly don't understand how people can be writing for what appear to be commercial online websites that don't appear to have a secondary education level command of the English language.

You simply DO NOT start a paragraph in any remotely formal piece of writing with either "And" or "Actually." Those are two massive pet peeves, but in addition to that, the piece has little to no structure and seems fails to ground its material.

However, I do agree with some of the criticisms; this game definitely lacks polish and ultimately feels unfinished.

That said, I don't think the amount of "dollarydoos" is an issue anyone with a rudimentary grasp of economics would have brought up. Yes, the game costs the same as a title like Madden, which has a budget close to $US 100 million dollars, but then the latest movie 'The Avengers: Age of Ultron' had a budget of over $250 million and the Blue Ray retails for a similar amount as the doctor who movie did when it came out.

This is a function of supply side economics; niche products in the same space extract similar prices to popular ones by virtue of similar distribution outlays on a unit-for-unit basis, a lower market share and a lower profit expectation. Ultimately, it's also about harmonisation of products in a particular class as well; value based on enjoyment is an entirely subjective thing and therefore it's not a reasonable scale to be basing a price on.

As a final word on comparisons, I'd also query whether Joaby is a Rugby League fan, as judging by his comment we should all play Madden if we wanted a better experience, I'd guess he isn't. This is important with regard to the value point, as it highlights precisely what I mean about subjectivity. He doesn't seem to really understand sport, and so to him all sports games are interchangeable, but to me, an Australian brought up on Rugby Union and Rugby League, a sports game representing either of those codes is infinitely more appealing to me than say a soccer game because I happen to find soccer as enjoyable as watching grass grow. It's for this reason that I'll happily pay 100 "dollarydoos" for a title like RLL3.

I imagine they're probably not paying you a dime Joaby, so don't take my points on language personally (I used to tutor English), but if you're looking for a professional gig then I'd advise against using this in your resume. Maybe go blog somewhere for a while and practice with subheadings as you'll find they help you develop your structure when you're just starting out.
Joaby
Posted 11:46pm 21/9/15
This review raises some fair points, but some comparisons aren't at all reasonable and unfortunately on the whole it's frankly a very poor example of writing.

I apologise if this sounds a little mean, but I can only assume this website operates on a volunteer basis, because if this were submitted to as a communications degree assignment you'd be struggling to pass. I honestly don't understand how people can be writing for what appear to be commercial online websites that don't appear to have a secondary education level command of the English language.

You simply DO NOT start a paragraph in any remotely formal piece of writing with either "And" or "Actually." Those are two massive pet peeves, but in addition to that, the piece has little to no structure and seems fails to ground its material.

Actually (lol) if you read a site and learn the tone of the writing, as a professional writer you do your best to match that tone. And as it so happens, AusGamers has a very conversational tone. It's interesting that you'd attack the structure of the review, because I thought it flowed quite well. Still, I'd love some pointers if you can share them with me. If you could point out how I failed to ground my material, I'd very much appreciate that as well. I know it's not your job, but I've never claimed to be perfect -- maybe examples of situations where I could have grounded the material, or those where structure might be added would help me understand your complaints.

However, I do agree with some of the criticisms; this game definitely lacks polish and ultimately feels unfinished.

That said, I don't think the amount of "dollarydoos" is an issue anyone with a rudimentary grasp of economics would have brought up. Yes, the game costs the same as a title like Madden, which has a budget close to $US 100 million dollars, but then the latest movie 'The Avengers: Age of Ultron' had a budget of over $250 million and the Blue Ray retails for a similar amount as the doctor who movie did when it came out.

This is a function of supply side economics; niche products in the same space extract similar prices to popular ones by virtue of similar distribution outlays on a unit-for-unit basis, a lower market share and a lower profit expectation. Ultimately, it's also about harmonisation of products in a particular class as well; value based on enjoyment is an entirely subjective thing and therefore it's not a reasonable scale to be basing a price on.

Why would the end consumer give a single s*** about any of this?

Here's a better question -- Animal Kingdom is an Australian movie with Australian actors made on a relatively tiny budget. Do you think it sits on 96% on Rotten Tomatoes because critics though "oh well it's made by Australians and it has a niche market so we better give it a better score?" No, a bunch of Aussies made a great movie and it got reviewed well and it was nominated for international awards and stuff. It was judged against films released within the same year, and it still got nominations for awards internationally. Because it was great. Not because it was hard done by or some s***.

What I like about the argument about the game's price is that people seem to think it's fine for Big Ant to shovel out the same s*** over and over and because it's a niche market and because it's all anyone has an option to buy, it will sell at 100 dollarydoos. That's alright with you people. Ross is crowing about Rugby League being the number 1 seller right now, as if that proves his game doesn't have problems you admit it has. That's what you're defending here, a man who believes that sales numbers equal quality. You're defending the Michael Bay of video games. Congrats.

As a final word on comparisons, I'd also query whether Joaby is a Rugby League fan, as judging by his comment we should all play Madden if we wanted a better experience, I'd guess he isn't. This is important with regard to the value point, as it highlights precisely what I mean about subjectivity. He doesn't seem to really understand sport, and so to him all sports games are interchangeable, but to me, an Australian brought up on Rugby Union and Rugby League, a sports game representing either of those codes is infinitely more appealing to me than say a soccer game because I happen to find soccer as enjoyable as watching grass grow. It's for this reason that I'll happily pay 100 "dollarydoos" for a title like RLL3.

Such epic, world class horses*** in this paragraph I'm not quite sure how to react. I've watched League and Union my entire life. I went to a union school. I grew up next door to Sam Backo, I went to hundreds of Broncos games. This is pure, 100% ad hominem (as if the rest of your 'critique' hasn't been) designed to do nothing but attack my character because the complaints I had regarding the game aren't really up for question. That's how I know I've done a good review. When all the haters can do is attack my writing or my character, I know I'm on point.

Unless I got something factually incorrect about the rules of Rugby League in the text? Did that happen? What about something factually incorrect about the game itself? No?

I imagine they're probably not paying you a dime Joaby, so don't take my points on language personally (I used to tutor English), but if you're looking for a professional gig then I'd advise against using this in your resume. Maybe go blog somewhere for a while and practice with subheadings as you'll find they help you develop your structure when you're just starting out.

Maybe you could point me at some of your reviews so I can read them and get some solid advice on how to structure a review?

Edit -- just some perspective, TahMan. The guy your defending, Ross, he's now blaming me for screen tearing in the screenshots of the review. Screen tearing which is prevalent and common in the game is now also my fault. That's what you're defending. He thinks selling well the week nothing else came out makes it a quality product, and he thinks that screen tearing in screenshots is somehow my fault and not his. He also thinks it's ok to delete someone's comments when they prove that he's making up fibs, he thinks it's ok to edit someone's post to construct an argument against them and he think it's ok to ban someone and then create a thread dedicated to bad talking them just because they scored his game AVERAGE OUT OF TEN. You said you used to be a reviewer (if you're Baffleck) and you're OK with all of this?
Obes
Posted 11:52pm 21/9/15
It's no secret Aussies love their native sports. NRL and AFL are both home-grown games that have been elevated to superstar status in this country, and now with Jarrod Hayne proving you can jump from one of our biggest stages to the biggest in the world in NFL, NRL is enjoying even more eyes on. But can the latest installment in the Rugby League Live videogame series live up to the real thing?

Um ... no .. He did well in pre-season.
If he works hard for a year or 2 he might be awesome. And then he will retire because he is old.

I want him to do well, but he seems under prepared, thus possibly ruining any future person's career path.

ps. Football/soccer is way bigger than NFL + both Rugbies combined by any measure.

League is the least played football code in the world.

League world cup is what Australia, NZ rejects, English thugs and PNG somethings ...
TahMan
Posted 10:17am 22/9/15
Joaby,

I'm not really interested in "Ross" or whatever your beef with him is really, I was really more just making a general comment on your review and the points your raised.

Regarding your review structure, it's frankly all over the place. You open with the cost of the game (again, an way to begin given my aforementioned product harmonisation point) and then jump into graphics briefly before jumping onto the previous iterations of the sport. You then jump onto the game modes after alluding to an in-depth analysis of the game-play. You then jump back to gameplay and then back to the game modes.

To put it bluntly, the review is all over the place and has no real coherent structure or flow.

If the intention is to give it an off the cuff and largely conversational tone (as much as one can have a conversation without an interlocutor) then I suppose it achieves that to a degree, but ultimately it just feels like a first draft after conducting an initial impressions brain storming session.

Just on some of the points you've raised in response, Animal Kingdom isn't really an analogous example as it's a drama piece that has very low overheads. That is why I used the Doctor Who movie as an example - its effects and narrative were necessarily all of a FAR lower grade than that of the Avengers films, but when it hit BluRay or DVD it still retailed for the same price. But for Doctor Who fans that would hardly be a deterrent because they love Doctor Who.

It was your inability to grasp this fairly simple concept that is repeated in almost every form of consumable media that made me question whether you had any interest in sport. You claim to have been brought up on League and Union like me, but I without knowing you I considered that a remote possibility when you suggested we were all better off buying Madden.

Again, as you seem to have missed it when you getting so offended by my questioning of your Australian footy credentials, answer me this: I'm an Australian Super Rugby and NRL fan who loves the Waratahs and Roosters and one who has absolutely zero interest or connection to the NFL, so why in a million years would I want to spend one hundred "dollarydoos" on a game representing a sport I could honestly not care less about?

This is what I mean by the subjectivity of value, and it's precisely this reason that Music, Movie tickets, video games etc have their prices decided by reviews. The whole point of a sports game like this is to cater to fans like me who isn't interested in running around the park with some silly English soccer team or heavily padded stop-start NFL team. To me those titles are very steep at $100, whilst a game like Rugby League Live 3 is actually appealing because I get to run around with my team in the virtual world.

I honestly don't understand how you think it's a reasonable argument to suggest that this game should some how retail for less when this happens virtually no where else.

Beyond your writing, that was my biggest criticism of your article; your biggest problem for the outset appeared to be a fundamental inability to grasp the market realities of the gaming industry (and wider entertainment industry too). If, for instance, you could have provided us with numerous examples of how say a Handball game in Germany retailed for a fraction of its competitors due to its tiny market and production budget, then perhaps you'd have an argument, but again, this simply does not happen and so it seemed a fairly petulant and poorly grounded thing to be constantly returning to.
Frank
Posted 10:45am 22/9/15
Joaby just tack an extra couple points onto these low budget game reviews to keep this kooks happy eh mate.
Joaby
Posted 11:08am 22/9/15

The subjectivity of value is literally what the Madden comment hinges off? How do you not get that? I'm saying that RLL3 and all those before it are so poor at representing the sport we love that you are better off buying a game based on a completely different sport for a more authentic experience. It's a joke you see.

Dr Who's entire charm hinges on it looking lo-fi, so no, that example doesn't play. What about those syfy movies like Sharknado. If you're in the mood for schlocky near-comedy horror (and you are very high) Birdemic might be the movie for you! But even Syfy don't try to sell it at the cinema, and when it hits DVD it's at a budget price.

I don't think I need to provide examples of how budget games exist? They're extremely common. Nevertheless, it's odd that you'd choose Handball as your example because that's exactly what happened when a Handball game came out? They released it for 39 Euros/40 USD on launch, a budget price for a budget game.

http://www.handball-challenge.com/en/news/game/475-jetzt-im-handel-ihf-handball-challenge-12


TahMan
Posted 11:43am 22/9/15
What Madden represents is actually the uniformity of value - almost all video games are released for around the same price. This is again what I keep coming back to with harmonisation. If we had one angry reviewer deciding the value of video games, then it would be hard to work out where to benchmark them. But as a rule they all have a similar price point, much like itunes tracks, BRs CDs and movie tickets.

Again, this is an extremely basic and fairly uniform concept, and that's why I thought it an odd point for you to bring up, as it made you sound like a high school kid with no grounding in economics.

You're right when you say Dr Who hinges on its niche and tacky nature, but then you could equally argue that Rugby League games hinge on an incredibly niche and poorly serviced fan base. Your comment about Madden didn't really sound like a joke, but if that's how you intended it then why bring up the cost so often?

As for Handball, that is an interesting one, but I note it was actively sponsored by the IHF and was on PC, both of which are mitigating factors. If the NRL had actively sponsored RLL3 and approached it like a marketing exercise, then you could argue for that outcome here, but RLL3 is purely commercial, so why would they sell it for half of what almost everyone else is?

In any case, it doesn't seem to be bothering people (and let's face it a hundred bucks is nothing) as the game has hit number 1 in the charts here and in NZ.
Khel
Posted 12:17pm 22/9/15
Goddamnit stop using Doctor Who as the strawman for your 'niche product' argument. I mean, that last episode Matt Smith did had 12 million viewers and thats just in the UK, not even factoring in audiences in other countries. Thats more than half the population of Australia. In the US the recent season 9 premiere episode outrated everything on the other 4 major networks in its timeslot, the only thing it didn't beat was a college football game on ESPN. But yeah, you're right, its totally niche.
Crash
Posted 01:29pm 22/9/15
Hi, another reviewer here
What Madden represents is actually the uniformity of value - almost all video games are released for around the same price.

Wat? No they aren't, RRP is set by the publishers / distributors. Then the retail adds their cost. If you're looking at EB then yes they charge $100 - $110 for anything. Other retailers though aren't ripping people off.

Heres some new 'sports' releases on console with JB Pricing here -
NHL 16 $64
FIFA 16 $63
Forza Horizon $79
Blood Bowl - $79
Rugby League Live - $89

When doing reviews for products price is one of the factors taken into consideration. Would I recommend people buy a game based on its current price if its not that great, probably not. When i looked at Gone Home in 2013, i liked that game but cautioned people on spending $25 for what took me just over an hour to get through. Price is definitely a factor, and you're completely wrong in thinking all games are priced the same. Also when reviews are sent games we arent given their production budget information to take into consideration. We are comparing our opinion of the product based on our experiences with other products.



This is again what I keep coming back to with harmonisation. If we had one angry reviewer deciding the value of video games, then it would be hard to work out where to benchmark them. But as a rule they all have a similar price point, much like itunes tracks, BRs CDs and movie tickets.
You're listing products that usually have the same amount of content. Most films run from 1 hour 30 to 2 hours and 30. Most most music CDS can only fit an hour of content. Games vary in what they offer.
I work in the vehicle industry, why don't we use a comparison of games to vehicles?
Not all cars are the same price, but when you have small budget car being sold for a low price you take the price into consideration. However if a small budget car was being sold the same price as a luxury family car but because the budget car has less features inside, and sometimes the car does this weird shaking thing and the sunroof opens by iteself; which is inexcusable - then yes price is a review factor. But as the CEO of Big Ant Studios would point out - "Inexcusable is a word that is not appropriate in the context of a very playable game." Or in this case a very drivable car. F***, this is something he actually said to one of his customers on his forums when they made an opinion about the game.



In any case, it doesn't seem to be bothering people (and let's face it a hundred bucks is nothing) as the game has hit number 1 in the charts here and in NZ.

Dumb and Dumber To opened #1. Congrats to them on selling an over priced game thats apparently not very good. I havent played it so i don't know personally if its not very good, but reading the reviews from people in Australia I trust they've all said its the best rugby game in a long time but don't recommend buying it. I like the in game grass though, looks nice.

Adding to all this Joaby isn't the only one who has had problems with Big Ant and reviews for their game. This seems to be a reoccurring thing for them.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 02:10pm 22/9/15

I honestly don't understand how people can be writing for what appear to be commercial online websites that don't appear to have a secondary education level command of the English language.

You simply DO NOT start a paragraph in any remotely formal piece of writing with either "And" or "Actually." Those are two massive pet peeves, but in addition to that, the piece has little to no structure and seems fails to ground its material.


For someone that is all high and mighty about English language, they don't seem to grasp that language is an ever changing form.
Obviously you can start a paragraph with And or Actually, or Whatever. Because people do. See that, I started a sentence with because.
Khel
Posted 02:43pm 22/9/15
Obviously you can start a paragraph with And or Actually, or Whatever. Because people do. See that, I started a sentence with because.


Actually, I don't think its really an issue at all. And even if the review did adhere to Tahman's strict grammar rules, it wouldn't make the game any less s***.
Enska
Posted 10:09pm 22/9/15
Tahman and Pantherfan. why hasn't fpot blown this conspiracy out of the water yet.

Edit * - lol Dr Who, f***** really?
nings
Posted 11:38am 27/9/15
(again, an way to begin given my aforementioned product harmonisation point)

An example of why the grammar stick is a s*** stick.
Not quite the full 3 out of 10 but it's good to see a bit of back and forth between Joaby and a disgruntled game series fan.
reload!
Posted 08:28am 28/9/15
professionalism abounds
SwissCM
Posted 09:25pm 28/9/15
Someone needs to spread this around on social media or something. This thread is hilarious.
Bill.From.Finance
Posted 10:57pm 29/9/15
Rugby World Cup 95 on the megadrive, now there was a great footy game. surely we could greenlight a modern day league version - perhaps we could get the makers of shower with your dad simulator to knock it out.
SwissCM
Posted 11:12pm 29/9/15
There actually was an NRL (well, ARL) version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Rugby_League_(video_game)

It was basically a glorified ROM hack. It's pretty cool that it got released at all, though.
Commenting has been locked for this item.
47 Comments
Show