Kynes said:
Rpruett said:
twesterm said:
Booh! said:
Mr.Metralha said:
Lafiel said:
Mr.Metralha said:
And for gaming press.
This game is only good to the ps3 crowd and shitty biased websites.
|
The "ps3 crowd" huh? Depending on your definition of that (bullshit)term it could be 41plus million people, which are probably a better indicator than 18 reviewers, lol.BTW as this game is PS3 only I think it's most important objective is to be "good to the PS3 crowd", heh.
Why is it so important to you that all people agree that this is "a bad game" huh?
I think shit like postal and rape simulators are bad games, but a fighting game that might or might not work as well as it should in no way is a "bad" game to me, just an enjoyable or not enjoyable one.
|
Personally I've enjoyed in the past some shovelware with broken controls too. Like I said above, and twestern elaborated on that, it doesn't make it a good game, we're just enjoying crap.
|
Why are you always trying to twist someone else's words? He did say that "a bad game" is (plain speaking) a game of bad taste, like postal, all the other games can be enjoyable or not enjoyable (not good or bad). The fact that you do not understand is that The Fight is a good (enjoyable) fight-simulator/fitness game, while it is a bad (not anjoyable) arcade-like fighting game, but that's not its fault: it wasn't meant to be an arcade-like fighting game. All the gripes against some reviews are just due to this fact, it is not an action game, it is a simulator/fitness game. It is not shovelware (ie: a poorly realized game based on a popular genre), it is a niche game (ie: a game designed for a restricted crowd). By your standards MS flight simulator would be a bad game with bad controls, because the airplane is very difficult to control and you can't shoot.
|
He wasn't twisting my words, my message was pretty simple and he was right...
You can name it whatever genre you want, the reviews show that it's a bad game. There are people that like it (and that's great!) but it's still not a good game. I'm sure we all like our share of bad games, there's nothing wrong with that. The thing that is wrong is trying to convince people that reviews for the game are wrong because you like it.
As for videos showing it working, I've seen videos of Sonic Free Riders working perfectly, Lair working perfectly, and Red Steel (the first one) working perfectly. That really doesn't prove much.
|
Find videos of the Fight working poorly and not registering punches. Find them. Link them. We've seen plenty videos of it working. Where are the ones where it doesn't work.
Like I said, Ghostbusters was proven to be a horrendous game with tons of technical issues. Ghostbusters is flat out a bad game.
The reviews of the game that mention broken controls are WRONG. Period. End of discussion. Reviews that say the graphics are meh, the colors are bland, there isn't a major story to speak of, etc are correct. This is where you are wrong and until you 'Play' the game you won't know, can't comment and have absolutely 'no' basis to stand on. And are simply relying on hear-say.
|
I don't think the stealth ad-hominem attack against Twesterm is a good way to defend your point of view. And saying that Ghostbusters is a flat out a bad game is ridiculous. You could have said that the PS3 version was way inferior technically than the PC/X360 versions, due to design decisions made by Sony that hurt the multiplatform games in PS3, but it wasn't a bad game in any sense in the other versions.
Going to the move game, it seems that it's a very polarizing game. Some people think that the controls are horrible, some think that they're great. Maybe the reviews are harsh, but the controls can't be great with a meta of ~50, when most reviews say that's the main reason to give this game a low score. The good thing about aggregations is that every score counts, and if one of them is very harsh, it can take two or three points of the score, not 25-30 points. IGN was harsh, but even without the IGN review, this game isn't a 75 points game. It's a weak game, accept it.
|
I don't need to present my point any better or clearer to people who insist on telling you something that they've never experienced. People who can't even provide objective evidence as to why it sucks. What exactly is broken about the controls? I'm curious to see. Being hard (Having basic fundamental fighting skills) , tiring (1:1 Fighting Motion Controlled game) are not excuses.
- "Eating sucks, it's un-enjoyable and horrible, trust me I read it somewhere".
- "Sex? Doesn't feel good, my Dad told me about it once".
Why is saying Ghostbusters is a flat-out bad game ridiculous? Story was mediocre. Linear game. Really only a game 'for' the fans. Short lengthed game. (5-6 hour completion time).
" But it’s not an even game. Whether the fact that the game was meant to play out like a third movie or not, Ghostbusters is so linear in it’s storytelling it feels like an 8-bit game. You’re ultimately only ever given one path to walk down, the script will loop until you’re in the right spot, and despite some impressive opening sections the game descends into a standard shooter at about the midpoint and never picks up again. Even the story itself, revolving around the player joining the Ghostbusters as a rookie, fails to excite as much as it could and the key devices in the story are ill-explained and poorly delivered."
" So, despite a smart, exciting start, towards the end you’ll be tired of the game. The pacing slows considerably during the last act, which takes far to long to get through and never really fulfills its promises – the story twist isn’t nearly as satisfying as it could have been and the final boss pay-off is weak. "
I think it's perfectly justified. Ghostbusters was a broken, downright terrible game.
