
This.
Kresnik said:
|
you should start ignoring him. He is always trolling Sony games, but I don´t think he even owns any of them.
pezus said:
Is it just shitty in general or in comparison to the original 2 games? It feels way too much like a Rockstar game instead of a Max Payne game (only played 1-2 hours). |
To my great shame I never played the first 2, I just don't like MP3.
Using Max's trademark bullet dive usally gets you killed, you can easilly be killed by enemies that spawn beside or behind you without ever seeing them, there are too many long cutscenes and checkpoints often start where you have to watch 5-10 secconds of cutscene before playing, checkpoints can be quite far apart and you can die in a couple of secconds (I played on hard) if you get exposed meaning you play though a lot of sections repeatedly, in fact some sections seem like they were designed as a memorisation test, having to repeat sections due to cheap deaths throws off the story pacing, the plot is stupid and cliched and rather predictable, half the time there is a small cutscene in the middle of the mission they will have max using his handgun but after the cutscene it will leave you with the handgun sellected and not the rifle you were using even if the handgun has no ammo, when Max is getting up after a dive or being knocked down the animation takes to long and you can't aim or shoot properly for a seccond which will get you killed.
Oh and there are also dificulty spikes through the campaign, and from what I have heard a lot of people are complaining about the dificulty when they played it on easy for the story, frankly it feels like the game was tuned for regenerating health or quicksaves but then didn't add those things. The minute to minute gameplay is generic 3rd person shooting with some bullet time thrown in, and an overwrought story that doesn't really go anywhere but is told in 4 hours of cutscenes aparently but really would barely carry a 120 minute movie if that.
And whoever decided that you should have to watch the intro before you can change you graphics settings including the resolution in the PC version should be fired immediately. ALso when I first launched the game the Rockstar social club pull down thing was not scaled properly so didn't fit in it's window so I couldn't input my serial number, of course at this point I couldn't change the resolution... Ended up having to use launch commands to force into windowed safe mode to register the damn game.
/rant
It is a highly polished turd tho with increadible production values, and runs great on PC (despite some bad design and instability).
@TheVoxelman on twitter
AndrewWK said:
You can´t say that Dacia Logan is a better car then a Mercedes C-Class. You just can´t, except if you wanna make a fool out of yourself. Even if you prefer the Dacia over the Mercedes. Right now I am playing Dragon Age 2 and eventough people are saying how bad this game is I like it better then the first one. But it means I like it better not that it actually is better. Your preference is your own thing and you have every right to your own opinion. If you say you did not like Uncharted then it is ok and probably true, but if you say Uncharted 2 is a bad game then this is a lie. It is a good game you just dislike it. I give you an example. I hate GTA, I always hated them just being a criminal stealing and beating is no fun for me. But I still appreciate the quality of this game. Ergo I dislike it but this does not make it a bad game. |
But Games are not like cars. Games are way more like paintings or music. How you like a Game is just a matter of taste, since there are next to no broken games with game breaking glitches and things like that are left nowadays you are not able to say this game is objectively shit. Nearly all criterias that matters for a game judgment are subjective and depend on the own taste, you can't judge objectively how good a story is or how good an art style is, you can't judge objectively what good gameplay is or you can't judge objectively how well a game fits overall in all its parts together. The only thing on games you can try to judge objectively are the graphics and even by the graphics are many things that depend on the own taste, the art style and the colors they are use in a game are also a big piont how you experience the quality of a graphic and how you like an art style or colors are subjective. Than there is the point how many waight a single criteria has for you, for the one peron a particular flaw of a game is really a bad thing and makes the game nearly unenjoyable but for an other person it is not that tragical or he not even recognizes it as a flaw. The same thing with the good parts of a game, for the one person it is not important for his enjoyment how good the graphics of a game are but for the other person the graphics are the most important part of a game.
You simply can't jude games objective in the end it is always a metter of the own taste, no matter how hard you try to stay objective it can't work .
| Heavenly_King said: Gears of War 1,2,3 |
Aw, hell naw!
pezus said:
They really aren't. CoD 1 came out in 2003, CoD 2 in 2005, CoD 4 in 2007. CoD 2 is excellency through and through and so is 4 |
No, they all suck.
| sam987 said: Uncharted 1, 2 ,3 |
i guess uncharted 2 winning over 200 game of the year awards labels it as a sh!tty game right?

Lol at the PS3 exclusive games hate. The funny thing is that all of that truly means that they think the games are amazing. XD