Their review is weird, but actually useful for me. They compliment the control scheme, but complains it makes the game too easy compared to the previous titles.
"Your enemies fall faster, boss encounters require less controller fumbling, and there is an overall ease to travel and movement that the series lacked before. It's a double-edged sword, however, because while most Metroid Prime hallmarks--object scanning, careful exploration, complex puzzle-solving--remain, Corruption feels less like a probing adventure than a regular shooter.
Its core control scheme is a revelation, but the resulting tempo adjustment and streamlining is missing some of the careful pacing that made Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2 so superb."
Honestly I never cared much for Prime, (I'm well aware I'm a minority) because I found it's pacing very sluggish and the combat felt stiff and somewhat detached. I know a large part of the Prime games is the atmosphere and exploration, and those were fine, but you do have to fight things, and those segments always pulled me out. I actually like Echoes better because it's pacing was a little quicker and the scans seemed more personalized between the Marine and Aether logs. The combat wasn't any better, and most enemies seemed to have way too many hit points.
What they take issue with sounds ideal for me personally. You still get to explore, scan, and solve puzzles, and now you can shred weak enemies quickly and easily and get back to the goods. Not sure why they feel less responsive set-up that prolongs the game makes it better. With the exception of special moves and such, typically developers should make their controls has accessible as possible, and attempt to balance the game accordingly. If their issue was the game's enemies weren't balanced to the new controls, I'd understand, (I'd argue that except for the final bosses, Prime 1 and 2 were pretty easy as well) but it sounds like they just don't like what they call better controls. Case in point, the following from the same review.
"Just like Resident Evil 4 would have felt different--and arguably worse--had its controls been stripped down to a simple FPS scheme."
I don't even fully understand the comment. Didn't Prime already have a Simple FPS control scheme with simply a heavy emphasis on lock-on over free aiming? What made it's previous aiming set-up so complex? For that matter, what made RE4's aiming system complex? Hold the button and shoot, it was pretty basic and a little jarring personally. RE4 was mostly praised for being more like a simple FPS, no more fixed Camera angles and you actually aim at your enemies as opposed to aiming high, low or chest height and waiting for something to move into your Line of fire. Did Gamespot's RE4 complain about these things? (Seriously, anyone know, I don't feel like looking it up) Gamespot always comes off elitist to me, as if they pride themselves on being able to negotiate detracting nuisances in gaming, and get their buzz from that. Wonder if they'll mark Gears on PC down because using a mouse makes the game (even) easier. =P
Probably the most helpful review though, I find Gamespot's overly critical nature usually bring every flaw to the forefront for me to see if any of them raise red flags. Funny thing is there biggest complaint sounds like a huge perk for me. They even say the shooting is a lot of fun despite being easy, and oddly enough, never bitched about the graphics. Best of both worlds, feel bad ass blowing away pirates and monsters, than take your time to enjoy the environment. Where as, for me at least, combat usually felt like a chore in the last two Primes.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
