A french site (Gamekult) made a preview where they compliment the great technical aspect of the game, but also say that the gameplay doesn't reinvent the wheel, and is even simplistic at times. They don't really talk about what they thought of the series, except for saying that the 3D models suffer because of the transition series > 3D.

Are they biased and bought by Sony too? :(

No they just didn't say that Max Payne already did time power. Sony wasn't called into this, if someone mentioned them, call that person out.

Shadow of mordor was mix of ac and batman, it was very easy, short and didn't offer much new yet it was praised by reviewers. Now remedy is expected to come off with bullet time again..yeah.. I just can't help but feel kotaku previewer wanted to take everything negatively.

Excerpts from the article:

Graphically, the whole platforming section looked good, especially the effect of the environment skipping and jumping between different states. But it’s hard to get excited about another platformer where you control time.  Bwahahahahaha, sure, Limbo and some other 2D platformers saturated the Third Person view market.

For instance, in one case you can choose between being ‘Hardline’ and ‘PR’. (Two terms that don’t exactly inform you about the decision you’re making.) This decision then plays out in the episode. If you chose ‘Hardline’ then the episode will include a scene where Paul’s men capture a witness of their more clandestine acts. Rather than risk her telling people what she saw, they kill her. If you chose ‘PR’ then you will see a different scene, one where Paul’s men will threaten the safety of her family and she will agree to help them. She will also remain a character in the story and have an effect on the game.

While an interesting idea, it seems out of place in Quantum Break. The programme seems to interrupt the game rather than thread into it. In Max Payne and Alan Wake, television series were part of the world and informed the fiction but they didn’t insist on taking up 20 minutes of your time. You could walk by the television screening episodes of Lords and Ladies and Captain Baseball Bat Boy in Max Payne. In Quantum Break you have to just put the controller down and watch. This guy is trolling and he knows who he is aiming with this article. Plus, he is ill informed about the game.

These sort of branching story archs and decisions that give you different story episodes sound awesome and should provide replay value. But they seem out of play in Quantum Break for... reasons.

If the story is any good, the game stands to be amazing. If the story sucks then it will need some good gameplay to fall back on or it will just be another Order 1886.

1. What does it being 2D or 3D have to do with being a platformer where you control time?

2. How is he trolling? If you want the full experience from Quantum Break, you have to watch 20+ minutes of live action cut scenes periodically throughout the game. I'd also like you to point out exactley what part of the game he's misinformed about, if you wouldn't mind.

He seems to think that the tv aspect of the game appears to be more shoehorned in rather than a cohesive part of the experience. That issue is of course in addition to his issues with gameplay that he (and others) think looks a bit dull.

I do not understand what you're talking about here.  Most consumers are going to be afraid to skip cut-scenes the first time they play because they don't want to miss anything potentially important.  It's perfectly valid to assume that as a common mindset and judge the entirety of the game, even if you can skip some of it.  If the television portion is part of the package, and it's obviously presented that way, then it's open to criticism.

1- "Another" platformer that you control time. He is implying that we have lots of those. Do you agree?

Platformers that used time powers were exclusively 2D in the last couple of years, so I don't know what warranted him to word it that way. I was being sarcastic on the original comment.

2- He is misinformed because you don't "have" to watch the cutscenes. Even if you do, is that new? Is that really a nuissance? Are we going to criticize Metal Gear games, Final Fantasy games, JRPGs in general because of long cutscenes as well?

The Live Action part holds the same value as a story medium as the in game cutscenes. It's just shoehorned because that's his opinion which differs from mine.

If consumers are afraid to skip cutscenes, then what's the problem here? We're talking about forcing people to watch cutscenes, which doesn't happen in QB.

Did I say QB is immune to criticism? It looks like this article is getting supplied with bullet proof vests by some reactions here instead.

I have to admit the gameplay demo they showed at Gamescom didnt look that exciting... freeze, move, shoot, freeze, climb vehicle cutscene.... But then again the demo they showed of TR wasnt particularly good, the demo they showed a few days ago was much better. Sometimes they show something that might not do it justice, but hopefully the game has more than just the freeze/move/kill mechanic or it will get boring quick.

I think the problem with the cutscenes is *you have to watch them* (otherwise whats the point) and in some cases they are 20 mins long.... unless you are really connected to the characters with good writing (which has also been a complaint) that 20 mins may be a problem. Personally I hated Metal Gear Solid 4 because the cutscenes went on and on, others loved it.

I wont judge the game until i see more of it, I love remedy and hope this is a scene that wasnt that interesting as part of the story....but the site is allowed to have a differing opinion, it's fine, if you buy the game and love it, who cares. I realised that reviews are pointless (Dead Island, Mafia 2) which were derided by the press but were awesome. That doesnt mean their opinion is invalid as sometimes they are also right.