Barozi said:
Soleron said:
I have no experience of shooter games. I watched 10mins of that livestream.
The game looked much better than 1/5. I don't really understand. The game looked great for a handheld game, you could switch between weapons and kill bad guys, and the levels looked interesting enough. It certainly looked like it was done by a professional studio with millions of dollars. That says more of a 3/5 to me? |
when I watched it they were doing one of the singleplayer missions.
I heard the AI shooting him long before he was walking around the corner. Apparently the singleplayer is 1 hour long, has no connecting storyline (so basically it's like the Spec Ops missions in MW2 and MW3 but even shorter) and it's incredibly hard to get into any multiplayer match.
How is that going to make the game above average (if we take the 2.5/5 = average standard) ?
|
I bet I could hack together a 3D shooter that would get at least 2/5 from Giant Bomb in less than a week. The art assets would be in MS Paint, I'd be using a Doom-clone tutorial as my engine, but given those limitations it would be polished and thoughtful.
What I'm trying to say is, they got the majority of what it takes to be a playable game. It looks good, it plays OK (you can shoot things and run around) and its flaws are mostly in comparison to the CoD you're used to, rather than objectively.
