Summary: I was very dissapointed with this game. I thought it would be a free-for-all multiplayer game, but only one player!? What are you thinking Rockstar!? This game would kick ass if only you had the technology from Red Faction supporting the "destroy anything" bull crap Otherwise, the missions are very hard, and the first level sucks. Police squads are cheap-they come in huge swarms. You may enjoy it, but dont expect anything GTA3-ish. Rent it first...
Summary: Alright, let's take this from the top. Start with a company like Rockstar Games, the innovative geniuses behind the famed "Grand Theft Auto" series. Add in a new, exciting concept in games, a riot simulator. Then surround the whole thing in a glut of media hype and controversy. You can't possibly go wrong, right? WRONG!
As a rebel, you help ordinary citizens smash up the system by creating wholescale mayhem!
18 February 2011
Excerpt: State Of Emergency is a 2002 Rockstar game that courted some controversy, as many Rockstar games seem to do, upon its release. Set in a near future dystopian society where The State controls every moment of existance, the idea of the game is to cause widespread destruction and chaos whilst striking back at "The Man!" With each succesive level, you choose to play as one of a set of characters and are given certain challenges you need to complete.
Excerpt: Following the massive success of Grand Theft Auto 3, it was hoped that State of Emergency might follow suit and be a stunningly crafted game with a great story and addictive gameplay. Sadly, it's none of these things, but it's an alright shoot em up if you're bored, even if it's got not even superficial depth and is in fact a little bland.
Summary: I don't know what to make of this game. I think the idea is for it to be serious, but I wound up laughing at this game while playing it. You are going against the corporation and all h*ll breaks loose. For that matter, everything breaks loose. The crowd is all rioting by breaking into stores and stealling. You go around with your trusty baseball bat and club people to a nice pulp. But wait till the cops get a hold of you. You won't be a happy camper for long.
Summary: When I first heard about this game in late 2001/early 2002, I was pretty stoked. I mean, it was from Rockstar Games (the people who brought us the almighty GTA series), and it was about RIOTING. I figured, it would be like GTA3 (Vice City wasn't out at the time, remember?), and I could riot and cause all kinds of damage to a town! SWEET! Well, I bought the game, and for the first ten minutes, I loved it. Then, it got a little boring.
Dosen't live up to common "Rock Star" standards...
Nick Watkins "Nick Watkins", Amazon
23 September 2002
Summary: I checked out this game, because (probably like the majority), the makers of the of the greatest games of all made it. "State of Emergency" STRONGELY dissappointed me. The levels, well... actully, I can't tell if they're all the same or not because I've only played the first for about a half an hour and got bored. But, the level itself was pretty dull.
Summary: This game has a lot going against it. If the mass media gets a hold of this game like they did GTA3, there will no doubt be a collective outcry from parents groups, conservatives and other general naysayers with a microphone and an opinion. Unfortunately, I don't think this game is good enough to warrant that kind of attention. Like a lot of people, I was really looking forward to this game.
Summary: With ringing denunciations from Sen. Joseph Lieberman and other social watchdogs, State of Emergency looks great on paper. The numerous explosions and cool crowd engine make the game look great in a demo, too. Unfortunately, the game play is ill-thought out. The missions rely on rote memory rather than skill, the set-ups often seem contrived and repetitive. The shoot-em-up Chaos mode is amusing, but the other supplementary games are equally frustrating.