| Mr Puggsly said: The game isn't 10 hours, also lots of cutscenes and walking around listening to dialogue. I remember seeing the marketing and thought Sony had an answer to Gears of War. It looks like a game with lot of action but the final product was a very story driven experience. If my memory is right, there are relatively few enemy encounters for the genre. Basically, I don't feel the marketing was honest about what type of game it was. Edit: I found an old post I had about this game and this is partly why its rated the way it is. "I just finished this game. And... I like the story but the gameplay is underwhelming. Slow, linear, repetitive combat, no replay value, too many QTEs, cliff hanger ending, much more focus on story than gameplay. If you could skip cutscenes this game would probably just be a few hours. This is the kind of game many core gamers don't want but they made it anyway. Did they not see the criticism Ryse received? Ryse is an arguably better game by the way. Its a shame because it seems like there was so much potential here. In fact, I would like to see a sequel to this. They need to overhaul the gameplay to something that feels more like Gears. More freedom, more dynamic combat, more gameplay, maybe good multiplayer and split screen co-op. It has many great ideas and this could become a great series, but they fucked up its first outing." |
Never saw the commercials and mainstream ads for the game so my above post should be worded better. What I saw of the game at game-shows (E3, PSX, etc.) and developer interviews seemed honest enough though.
4 ≈ One
