| Burek said: I have a problem with your reply, especially with: c). How could you possibly arrive to that co from nclusion? I mentioned Driveclub as one example of getting points deducted, nowhere have I even mentioned the score. How you could deduce that I said that 70 is wrong is beyond me...but it fits with your profile, I guess...making stretched and false assumptions out of small examples... d.) What does that even mean...Video games are interactive entertainment media of sorts. Who are you, or anyone else, to judge exactly what the exact ratios of interaction and story are. I guess you hated Beyond 2 Souls and Heavy rain then. If your preference is just to be in control 100% of the time, you should be sticking to early 90s games. Stop being stuck in the past, limiting your experiences, and accept that video games can exist on both parts of the spectrum. f.) Again, how is that you not describing Gears of War? We still haven't seen it, but perhaps this game also has a turret sequence and a "mech" riding sequence. You just decided to conclude that the game is "whack-a-mole" based on a few minutes of demo, and yet most of those minutes are cinematic, which is again complained about. And of course, your definition of "whack-a-mole" is using cover, while you disregard the ability to use varying weapons for varying outcomes, to even use melee, or to even have a (the dreaded acronym) QTE to defeat the enemy... g.) As I said, up until a few months, people were enjoying games that were even sub-30fps, yet now being 30fps is solely due to developer's ineptitude, as they intentionaly mask their horrible game behind "buzz-words". Your entire batch of comments on this game is placing criticism regardless of anything you've actually seen. Actually, choosing to see only negatives and crap all over them, and disregarding any positives, of which there certainly are more... |
c. You lament that reviewers act like non-open world games shouldn't exist. I think its a pretty fair point to make that its not like these non open world games are getting bad reviews.
"Unless you can make an open world sandbox game, you shouldn't even bother. "
Sounds to me like you are complaining about how reviewers are treating non open world games.
d. "I guess you hated Beyond 2 Souls [...] then" Well yeah, Beyond Two Souls was garbage (I know less about Heavy Rain). Some of the things it did gameplay-wise were slightly interesting (albeit lacking), but to make a story based game with a story that is that woefully garbage is unforgivable.
I think that it is a cop out to just resort to cutscenes whenever you have to tell the player something. Earlier in this thread I compared it to exposition dumps, which are just a cheap way of getting information across. Games have the unique ability to put the player in the game, while cutscenes are counter intuitive, because they just serve to take the player back out of the game. They do have a use (namely opening/closing scenes), but they should be used sparingly. I'm not asking for games to go back to the 90's, I'm asking them to move forward past cinema. There are better ways to do these things, especially the mini-cut scenes (pulling a lever? Heres a 10 second cutscene. Knocking down a ladder? Have a 10 second cutscene. Taking down an enemy? Heres a 10 second cutscene (with bonus QTEs!)).
Watch this demo again and tell me, do you honestly think that that section where he blows up that water heater thing wouldn't have been more interesting if you actually had to think instead of just pushing a button to watch a movie? I am asking the devs to be more creative with how they utilize the medium and move forward. You are the one who seems to be fine with stagnation. Too often games aspire to be movies and forget that they have a set of tools that no one else has, that they can do wonderful and unique things with...
f. I think its perfectly acceptable to hold modern games to a different standard than games that came out eight years ago (even still, I don't really like GeOW). My definition of "whack a mole" is not "using cover" btw, it is the skillless gameplay that can be seen in the first section of the demo. All he is doing is popping out of cover whenever enemies show up and popping back in if he gets to injured. It is simplistic and boring and repetitive. Like I said, force the player to use some strategy or intelligence or make shooting the secondary objective, because it isn't interesting enough to sustain the gameplay on its own.
Yes, there are different weapons, but again, in that part of the demo, the guys were just running onto screen like lambs to the slaughter. No tactics were necessary, just use your different guns to make a different looking explosion...
Additionally, as I've said before, I can only judge the game based on what the dev/pub has shown me. I think it is perfectly reasonable to make all the statements I have made about the game based on what they have shown. It is their job to prove these statements wrong...
g. I didn't say any of that. I said that 30fps is acceptable, but not a goal that should be strived towards because it is more "cinematic"
"and disregarding any positives, of which there certainly are more..." There are positives, but this thread was quite clearly about the game's linearity. As for positives, it looks gorgeous, with a great art design and character design. The lore and the world seem to be potentially interesting but I don't know enough about it yet. The weaponry seems to get pretty interesting (unfortunately that doesn't mean much if the gameplay isn't fun).
Honestly, there are a lot of interesting things about the game, but almost none of them are "gameplay" which is unfortunate. I am making complaints about the game I see, because I hope games in the future wont make the same mistakes.
