PDA

View Full Version : IGN Rage.



Pretentious Old Man.
24th Aug 2010, 19:22
They gave GTAIV a 10. They gave RDR 9.8. They gave Mafia II 7.0.

I think this rather sums up what we have always said about IGN: They do not understand what makes a good sequel, they do not understand games that are anything more than mindless destruction, and they do not understand that sim-style games can be fun.

For future reference: when DXIII comes out, disregard IGN's review. Or rather, take the score, if it's bad, buy the game, if it's good, think long and hard about it.

/rant.

Pretentious Old Man.
24th Aug 2010, 19:29
Just to clarify my position: IGN always ****ing do this. They have a particularly hard time giving eastern-european games good scores. ArmaII , Hidden and Dangerous 2, the Stalker series, three of the best games I know, all got scores in the 7s to early 8s.

While CoDs get 9.5. Ruddy disgrace.

(And for those that are wondering, yes, I'm playing with a US version that friend in the States who works at a gamestore mailed over to me. Not strictly legal in the "it's not out in Europe yet" sense, but hey)

nomotog
24th Aug 2010, 19:35
But what if they rate the game bad because it is really bad (Bad bugs ect.), but yes I get what you mean. I think reviewers post a lot of there review on hype (GTA 4 is not a perfect 10 in my book.).

Blackbird SR-71C
24th Aug 2010, 19:38
I agree that most, if not all the time i disagree either completely with IGN or at least two scores in the sub-categories (graphics,sound etc.). They got quite a reputation for giving ridiculous scores. Though, is there really any other site that features professional reviews with fair scores? I have yet to find one.

Also, I myself do believe that such scores aren't only the result of lack of understanding or extremely bad taste, but money as well. How come every game made by rockstar gets so high scores on so many popular gaming websites, while many really good games made by more unknown or simply smaller developers do not?

pha
24th Aug 2010, 19:39
There are many morons who pay attention to biased professional critics, and big boys like Activision exploit this. No surprise.

Blackbird SR-71C
24th Aug 2010, 19:48
There are many morons who pay attention to biased professional critics, and big boys like Activision exploit this. No surprise.

You forgot the quotes on proffesional :D

It's really sad, yes. Though I don't know how many people are actually persuaded to buy a game like, say, Modern Warfare 2 by the review. If they really went by the score said sites gave these games, then how come Battlefield: Bad Company 2 doesn't only not sell equally as good, but is often compared to Modern Warfare 2 by fans of both games despite the difference in sales?

Ilves
24th Aug 2010, 19:58
I've long given up on the "gaming press" as reliable reviewers. Impossible to find a site with access to "the industry" that isn't plastered with advertisements for upcoming releases. How on earth am I gonna give them one ounce of credibility when their primary source of income is the very industry they're supposed to criticize. :hmm:

Xenoc
24th Aug 2010, 20:06
I would rather read gamer reviews on the forums... after all what better place to get a decent review from people who have followed a franchise or have gotten the game before me!

IGN have always been a **** site and I must admit even PC Zone which I goto on a daily basis is getting rather shoddy!

pha
24th Aug 2010, 20:09
If they really went by the score said sites gave these games, then how come Battlefield: Bad Company 2 doesn't only not sell equally as good, but is often compared to Modern Warfare 2 by fans of both games despite the difference in sales?

Did it? I was led to believe that Modern Warfare 2 totally destroyed Bad Company 2's sales, except on PC.

Pretentious Old Man.
24th Aug 2010, 20:10
Rock Paper Shotgun and PCgamer are the 2 best.

For the record, Gamespot gave M2 a much more reasonable 8.5 out of 10.

Angel-A
24th Aug 2010, 20:13
I don't really trust "professional" critics. Honestly, their opinion/review is most always just opposite mine once I take a look at what's being reviewed. Defintely think things are biased, games need to be reviewed on their own merit, not live up to whatever embodiment of down syndrome is considered Number One that day.

Xenoc
24th Aug 2010, 20:14
PC Zone/Gamer is part of the CVG site and i must admit even the fans have been bashing the reviewers lately!

Blackbird SR-71C
24th Aug 2010, 20:25
Did it? I was led to believe that Modern Warfare 2 totally destroyed Bad Company 2's sales, except on PC.

Yeah, that's what I just wrote. I'm sorry, English isn't my first language, did I make a mistake?

pha
24th Aug 2010, 20:27
My bad.:o

Pretentious Old Man.
24th Aug 2010, 20:33
PC Zone/Gamer is part of the CVG site and i must admit even the fans have been bashing the reviewers lately!

It used to be part of the CVG one. They got their own months ago, with a similar format to RPS.

hem dazon 90
24th Aug 2010, 20:38
GTA IV deserved a 10 though

II J0SePh X II
24th Aug 2010, 20:46
I played the Mafia II demo, and it's an anorexic GTA4 imo. The writing is cringeworthy esp the ped dialogue, the rest is just gangster cliche. The GFX are nice tho.

Red
24th Aug 2010, 20:50
I've never put much worth in the numbers given in a review as opposed to what is written in it. It's the articulation and arguments that should describe you the game experience, not an arbitrary number at the end of the article.

Jerion
24th Aug 2010, 21:02
Here boys and girls, is a fundamental lesson about major reviewers: There is no 1-10 scale, there is only the 7-9 scale. Take this to heart.

Shralla
24th Aug 2010, 21:03
I don't know if you think the Mafia score is too high or too low, because it's a relatively low score for a blockbuster, but relatively high given all the complaining I've heard from the fanboys.

Also, you seem to be falling in the "BAWWWWWWWWWW ANYTHING BELOW A 9 ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR MY PRECIOUS GAMES" trap that all the Zelda fanboys fell into when whoever it was gave Twilight Princess an 8.8 on Gamespot.

I'm sorry, but Stalker is a buggy, glitchy, horribly balanced game. Given all the things wrong with it, I'm surprised as hell the gave it 8+. But it sure as hell doesn't deserve any more than that, no matter how good the concept may be.

This kind of crap happens in reviews of all mediums. Reviews are inherently subjective, and if the reviewer didn't like the game, it's going to get a lower score. I have my own gripes with IGN's grading scale (Split/Second got an 8.5, Blur got a 7, even though Blur has near infinite replay value, while Split/Second gets old after a couple hours, because you always know what's coming up) but honestly, I don't let it bother me. I still read IGN, I still check out their reviews. Do I take it as gospel? No. But all it is is an opinion.

Daeda
24th Aug 2010, 21:09
The site i work for gave M2 a 7 as well (GTA IV and RDR 10s)

Have you played the game yet? I havent but according to our reviewer, the game is extremely linear. And not just story wise or no interesting city, but linear to the extend that you have zero input in how to play a mission. The instructions are litteraly go there, press this button, go there, press another button etc.

While Maffia 1 was great storytelling design for its time, M2 didnt do anything remotely new. And considering that Maffia 1 is ten years old and other games have done things better, a ten just isnt justified.

Blackbird SR-71C
24th Aug 2010, 21:45
Here boys and girls, is a fundamental lesson about major reviewers: There is no 1-10 scale, there is only the 7-9 scale. Take this to heart.

More like 6.5-10
Oh and you've got to give them credit for giving Ridge Racer 1.0

Irate_Iguana
24th Aug 2010, 21:48
How on earth am I gonna give them one ounce of credibility when their primary source of income is the very industry they're supposed to criticize. :hmm:

This. Review scores on major sites are all about the advertising dollars. A lot of advertising = high marks.



Here boys and girls, is a fundamental lesson about major reviewers: There is no 1-10 scale, there is only the 7-9 scale. Take this to heart.

Also this.

Yzerman
24th Aug 2010, 21:58
They gave GTAIV a 10. They gave RDR 9.8. They gave Mafia II 7.0.

I think that you fail to understand that Mafia II is not like GTAIV or RDR, in fact, judging from multiple reviews, Mafia II is quite far from game of the year caliber. Eurogamer 40, Edge Magazine 60.

The good thing about professional reviews is that there are more than one, so even if one of the reviewers does not know what he or she is doing, you can find out the real truth by giving a quick glance to game's Metacritic page.

Also, sometimes bad or not so great reviews are better than great reviews, because those reviews tend to reveal more from the game. You know what to expect, and you can still buy the game if you believe that you can live with the problems that the game has.

Pinky_Powers
24th Aug 2010, 22:10
I can't say I don't look to review scores... cause I do... but Penny Arcade is just about the only site I really trust to be honest. And their honesty is highly influenced by what they ate for breakfast that day. But still, I find them good and trustworthy.

Serendip1ty
25th Aug 2010, 00:29
Giantbomb.com is the only review site i regularly look at (& trust) & they sum up the game pretty well in one single sentence:

"This decent tale of ascension through the mob ranks feels a little outdated as an actual video game."
-Brad Shoemaker

The expectations were very high so it's sad the game can't fully live up to them.

mad825
25th Aug 2010, 00:35
meh, yahtzee croshaw all the way.
Sa6WLMt-3oQ

pringlepower
25th Aug 2010, 01:08
I've always been a fan of Kevin Van Oord on Gamespot. Maybe because he's just so darn friendly

Romeo
25th Aug 2010, 01:22
FIGHT THE SYSTEM!

I still say we make a gamer-run review site. IGN is useless for reviews. They're the Top Gear of the videogame world.

Shralla
25th Aug 2010, 01:35
meh, yahtzee croshaw all the way.

I'm hoping you're just being funny. While I do appreciate Yahtzee's humor, the fact is that his reviews are produced primarily as a means of entertainment. His actual views on video games in general are questionable at best, and while I admit he does point out a lot of things regarding games that most of the big outlets gloss over, most of his complaints are relatively small, and when it comes down to it, he just ****s on things to get a laugh.


I still say we make a gamer-run review site. IGN is useless for reviews.

They exist. It's just that most of them focus on a single console or genre, as it's hard to get a wide enough selection of enough reviewers to review all the different kinds of games there are.

I visit Nintendo World Report (formerly Planet Gamecube) every day, and ALL the people who write the articles are active forum members, and obviously active gamers.

Rindill the Red
25th Aug 2010, 01:40
Yes. Pretentious Old Man. Exactly.

You can actually read the reviews, and notice that one thing that the reviewer rails on in one game giving it a low score, is acutely present in another, yet the reviewer doesn't mention it at all and gives that game a high score.

I actually believe that IGN and the ilk are taking bribes. The big american publishers bribe them, the european and foreign publishers don't. That's the only way I can make sense of it.

I personally like Metacritic which is a little bit fairer since it averages.

Pinky_Powers
25th Aug 2010, 01:42
I'm hoping you're just being funny. While I do appreciate Yahtzee's humor, the fact is that his reviews are produced primarily as a means of entertainment. His actual views on video games in general are questionable at best, and while I admit he does point out a lot of things regarding games that most of the big outlets gloss over, most of his complaints are relatively small, and when it comes down to it, he just ****s on things to get a laugh.

Quite. He actually scolded Mass Effect for having such a thorough Codex system. :eek: And I think - it's been a while since I watched it - but I think he complained about all the dialog and conversations... or something.

I like his reviews and watch them every week, but is opinions can be highly nonsensical at times.

mad825
25th Aug 2010, 01:42
I'm hoping you're just being funny. While I do appreciate Yahtzee's humor, the fact is that his reviews are produced primarily as a means of entertainment. His actual views on video games in general are questionable at best, and while I admit he does point out a lot of things regarding games that most of the big outlets gloss over, most of his complaints are relatively small, and when it comes down to it, he just ****s on things to get a laugh.

ha :lmao:

well, Bioshock taught me otherwise.


most of his complaints are relatively small
looks like someone need to be told again what a critic does. in many regards there are only a few critics who don't "nitpick", any positive or negative no matter how small may appeal to different people even so I would rather listen to someone who is Pessimistic rather than optimistic because we get ****s like IGN and gamepspot overrating things

Shralla
25th Aug 2010, 01:46
Yeah, but then you also end up with bad reviews of MadWorld and No More Heroes 2, despite the fact that he loved the original No More Heroes, and both games pretty much followed the same formula, only executed much better.

And yeah, I can see where you're coming from with the pessimism thing. Like this whole thread has said, IGN and its ilk generally give glowing reviews to big name games. By the same token though, I think that a lot of the games they give glowing reviews deserve a lot of it, even if not all of it. No, I wouldn't have given GTA4 a 10, but I do think it's better than the whole GTA3 series.

mad825
25th Aug 2010, 01:51
I have no care for the Wii.

Then I hope you like Sims.
because that's the only way GTA is going now.

pha
25th Aug 2010, 01:54
I personally like Metacritic which is a little bit fairer since it averages.

I only consult it for the user scores, and I wish it had a top games by user score list (if it does, please let me know). Metascores can be averages but they are still misleading, because biased adulatory "pros" are all over the place.

beastrn
25th Aug 2010, 02:06
IGN sure is biased towards idiocy - but really, Mafia 2 deserves less than 7. A 5 or 6 at best. It's so easy and boring, the dialogue is awful, the town is pointless. It's just a killing dudes simulator where killing dudes is as boring as possible.

Shralla
25th Aug 2010, 02:30
Then I hope you like Sims.
because that's the only way GTA is going now.

What?

Red Dead. You're wrong.

OH NO YOU CAN TAKE PEOPLE OUT ON DATES COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY. Yeah, I can see how it's the Sims. :|

mad825
25th Aug 2010, 03:01
What?

Red Dead. You're wrong.

OH NO YOU CAN TAKE PEOPLE OUT ON DATES COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY. Yeah, I can see how it's the Sims. :|

O.o
somebody self-conscious?

-the need to eat.
-ability to watch Tv in-game
-the social aspects
-the "dilemmas"
-traffic communes that you are bound to experience
-pay a toll to drive across a bridge :hmm:
-going through the windowscreen
-engine dying
Half of these point's can be experienced via your local game The Sims if not, then all of it in real life.

pringlepower
25th Aug 2010, 03:36
O.o
somebody self-conscious?

-the need to eat.
-ability to watch Tv in-game
-the social aspects
-the "dilemmas"
-traffic communes that you are bound to experience
-pay a toll to drive across a bridge :hmm:
-going through the windowscreen
-engine dying
Half of these point's can be experienced via your local game The Sims if not, then all of it in real life.

Other than the tolls... these are bad, how?

And the need to eat isn't really a need to eat.

Shralla
25th Aug 2010, 03:40
I don't see how any of that is bad, and besides

Need to eat

No you don't

traffic communes
"dilemmas"

What?

paying tolls

Or you could just drive through them. Or is that one-star wanted level just TOO evil for you?

going through the windowscreen
engine dying

I assume you mean windshield, in which case, how is that in any way similar to the Sims at all, and again, how is it a bad thing? Same with the engine.

watching TV

Except in the Sims you just tell your Sim to watch TV, and you don't actually get to see it. It's exactly like the radio (writing, humor), and completely optional, so again with the how is it bad question.

So what I'm seeing here is that... Yup! Just like I said, the dating is the only even remotely "Sim-like" facet of the ENTIRE GAME.

pringlepower
25th Aug 2010, 03:42
So what I'm seeing here is that... Yup! Just like I said, the dating is the only even remotely "Sim-like" facet of the ENTIRE GAME.

That and the fact that the game is totally awesome.

mad825
25th Aug 2010, 03:56
Need to eat

you need health.

traffic communes
"dilemmas"

you are givein choices which could be questionably "good" or "bad" for niki

the cars are everywhere constantly in the ******* way, never experienced this with previous GTAs and in some missons you are forced to "obey" the right way of driving

paying tolls

I could however 90% there are cars blocking the way either way it's an unnecessary obstacle

going through the windowscreen
engine dying

I never Compared it to The Sims
watching TV


Except in the Sims you just tell your Sim to watch TV, and you don't actually get to see it. It's exactly like the radio (writing, humor), and completely optional, so again with the how is it bad question.

So what I'm seeing here is that... Yup! Just like I said, the dating is the only even remotely "Sim-like" facet of the ENTIRE GAME.

Why are you comparing this to The Sims anyway? I was calling it a sim aka simulation.

Rindill the Red
25th Aug 2010, 03:56
I only consult it for the user scores, and I wish it had a top games by user score list (if it does, please let me know). Metascores can be averages but they are still misleading, because biased adulatory "pros" are all over the place.

Actually, yes you can view games ranked by user score... there is a tab... says... "By user score"... not difficult, really, it isn't... you should try it.

pha
25th Aug 2010, 04:23
I... see... that... tab... only... in... the... recent... games... page... not... the... all... time... list... where... I... need... it...

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all?sort=desc

Rindill the Red
25th Aug 2010, 05:49
I... see... that... tab... only... in... the... recent... games... page... not... the... all... time... list... where... I... need... it...

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all?sort=desc

Oh yeah, sorry, I haven't found one for the all time list either.

Red
25th Aug 2010, 07:14
Heh...

Deus Ex: Captain Bland's Monotonous Adventure :D

pha
25th Aug 2010, 08:26
I'd buy that for full price.

APostLife
25th Aug 2010, 09:34
I never trust or even let reviews cloud my judgment on a particular game because it has been written by someone else meaning the review is obviously going to have some bias in it.

I judge the game myself, that's all is there to it. No reviews required. :)

JCpies
25th Aug 2010, 09:45
Deus Ex is a money machine with babe reviews to lure people in. Don't trust them.

Crap they're onto me, they're bust in the doors down. If I dissappear contact Unatco! Oh wait-

Slaughterman
25th Aug 2010, 10:32
Sorry mate but in my opinion GTIV is way better than Mafia II...

It breaks my heart to say this, but Mafia II deserves nothing more than a 7/10. Gameplay (gunfight, driving...) is good, ambiance and world are awesome and really true (we really think we are in 50'), BUT the scenario and how it is produced completely sucks compared to GTA IV. The chapters and the fact that there is "jump" of years in the middle of them kinda ****ed up the immersion and I find myself not being able to sympathize for Vito while I was in love with Niko. Plus the mission are really horrible sometimes, like the time where you need to pick up Joe who is drunk at a bar..... Come on... 4min driving ->15sec cinematic -> 4min driving back joe -> 4min driving to throw the corpse -> 4min driving to get back to your place... It's like they added this mission to make the chapter a little longer.

The chapters in the prison were a cool concept, but you just goes through them in 15min or so, throwing punch at 2-3 opponents.

No seriously, Mafia II disappointed me, even more knowing the amazing job the developers did creating this amazing world and city with a lot of details (more than in GTA IV btw).

puzl
25th Aug 2010, 12:31
Mafia 2 is a decent game with a good story and it is enjoyable from start to finish. But trying to make it out to be something it isn't is pointless. It is insanely linear (even if this is a choice) and this just feels weird when putting this style of storytelling in a living, breathing sandbox-style city. It is too short (especially since the vast majority of the game you aren't actually playing anyway!) and next to a game like RDR, just feels infinitely underwhelming. For all the pre-talk about it being a saving grace for PC gaming, Mafia 2 is the most console-feeling game i've played in a long, long time.

The 7/8 scores are totally warrented, because the game just isn't on the same level as GTA4 or RDR. Not by a long shot.

demon boy
25th Aug 2010, 13:22
Mafia 2 is a decent game with a good story and it is enjoyable from start to finish. But trying to make it out to be something it isn't is pointless. It is insanely linear (even if this is a choice) and this just feels weird when putting this style of storytelling in a living, breathing sandbox-style city. It is too short (especially since the vast majority of the game you aren't actually playing anyway!) and next to a game like RDR, just feels infinitely underwhelming. For all the pre-talk about it being a saving grace for PC gaming, Mafia 2 is the most console-feeling game i've played in a long, long time.

The 7/8 scores are totally warrented, because the game just isn't on the same level as GTA4 or RDR. Not by a long shot.

Thank you! I was starting to think I had lost my mind.

Look, I am not a GTA fan at all but I've played GTA4, RDR and Mafia 2 and there is really no comparison. RDR is the best of the bunch IMO but both Rockstar offerings are vastly superior to mafia 2 in almost every way.

One of the worst things that has spread across the internet like a plague is this ridiculous need people have to promote their platform. If someone plays XBOX, they try to make it out to be the best and say that PS3 and PC suck. If someone plays on the PC they try to say that it is superior to consoles, etc. It's so annoying because this irrational behavior seems to seep into every single discussion in video game forums.

Personally, I play all 3 but I feel no loyalty or allegiance to any of them. I'm not sure why anyone would.

Pretentious Old Man.
25th Aug 2010, 14:43
You miss my point. I'm not (as Shralla presented in his usual insightful and witty style) a fanboy screaming for a certain score. It's just the tedious frequency with which IGN either over or under rate games based upon what they hope its commercial success or failure might be. Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of Eurogamer, who splattered the advert for M2 right across their main page, and then gave it a 4/10. I suppose there's no such thing as sincere advertisement, right?

For the record, I'm with Gamespot. 8.5 is about right, because it's too short and has had too many free ride features cut. I might even have given an 8. But to go into a hissy fit because it's not a mindless prostitute whack-a-mo....sorry GTA game, is just ridiculous. I wouldn't mind if virtually every other game that's any good that's not exactly in the mainstream didn't get the same treatment. (Hidden and Dangerous 2 at 7.9? Uh? Still, back then, commercial success was not influenced by review scores so much).

beastrn
25th Aug 2010, 14:54
I appreciate what you're saying old man - but I think you're being overly fair in your opinion of Mafia 2 as some sort of underdog. Mafia 2 was made to be mainstream. Everything about it is mainstream. It has been advertised around the globe probably more than any Rockstar game to date (I live in Australia and can't walk 5 minutes without seeing a bus or a sign adverting it).

And as such, as an easy mainstream risk-free title, it fails to deliver. I doubt you can name ONE single thing that Mafia 2 does that is unique. Not one. I think the way that stolen cars and being Wanted is slightly different, but it ends up working the same anyway as the instant anything happens the alert seems to wipe off by itself.

It's a clone through and through, and cashes in on all the current money-making trends in gaming. It's no underdog.

<3

SageSavage
25th Aug 2010, 15:01
I might even have given an 8. But to go into a hissy fit because it's not a mindless prostitute whack-a-mo....sorry GTA game, is just ridiculous.

No need to further one of the most superficial and shallow propaganda-cliches against games containing violence.

Pretentious Old Man.
25th Aug 2010, 15:02
I can understand your opinion, beasty old chap. It has been over advertised, it is too short, there's no free ride, the story isn't as good as Mafia I's, and there's less to do in the city than GTAIV.

But I genuinely believe that it isn't a clone. Unlike GTA, story is more important than giggles. Cars drive properly. Gunfights have you killing a plausible number of people. Cops behave properly.

I think it's a matter of expectation. I expected a logical progression from Mafia I, which is exactly what it is. I happen to loathe 3rd person shooters on the whole, but M1 and M2 are the only two I like. I've had this conversation with a lot of PC gamer friends, and they all echo the same sentiments: it's like Mafia I, but with modern graphics, much better handling driving, and lots of cool features. I agree, t'is too short, t'is too expensive, and t'is beset with DLC problems. I predicted all this when 2K bought Illusion. But to be honest, it's still a fine game, and based on the 6-9.5 scale that IGN invariably use, 7 means crap. This is not the first time. Arma II and Hidden and Dangerous 2 both failed to get anything remotely good, and they are probably the two best moderately recent FPSes out there.

Mafia II is only my current problem with IGN. I made the thread about all of them.

Oh, and don't get me started about them giving Mass Effect 2 a 9.6...

Pretentious Old Man.
25th Aug 2010, 15:04
No need to further one of the cheapest propaganda-cliches against games containing violence.

Like many cliches, it is still completely true for GTA. Subtle pathos it is not, and it never has been. Let's face it, shooting grannies and prostitutes in the face is precisely what GTA is all about.

SageSavage
25th Aug 2010, 15:22
No, it's not. You don't need to like them (and the writing may be too juvenile for you) but reducing these games the way you just did is pretty superficial. For me GTA is mainly about the sandbox/free roam aspects and I rarely shot any AI-granny in the face or deliberately ran over a hooker - and the games don't really encourage it (especially not the later iterations) either.

Anyway, IGN's review scores are not to be trusted and most people know it. And no, I wouldn't rate GTA IV a 10/10, more like a 7/10 (especially compared to GTA:VC or RDR, which is currently a 9.8/10).

Pretentious Old Man.
25th Aug 2010, 15:50
I don't wish to get into an argument about this, as my quarrel lies with IGN as a whole and not Rockstar or 2K or GTA, but I would strongly argue that GTA fails on that level as well, fox. As far as sandboxes go, I would rank GTAIV only just below Oblivion in terms of sheer laziness of construction, not to mention possibly the worst car handling of any game ever created, finished off with a veneer of superficiality that is symptomatic of GTA's target audience.

Nevertheless, I would really very much like to bring this thread back to where I intended it to go (whether or not this is obvious): Namely, Deus Ex Human Revolution's possible critical reception, and how we can interpret this.

For example, the word "cinematic" is usually game-journalist speak for "involving little gameplay".

Desperate. Your turn.

SemiAnonymous
25th Aug 2010, 15:52
a google image search for IGN reveals boobage. A much more refined search reveals this piece that accurately sums up IGN.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uYCV9lwNaAg/SkTyuhLk_MI/AAAAAAAABj8/jQ09GVBnh8s/s1600/Godhand%20IGN.jpg

Pretentious Old Man.
25th Aug 2010, 16:03
For the record, the PCgamer review gets it spot on: It says that the game is an excellent sequel to the original, but could have done more in the way of making the additional content already provided integrate with the main game's, giving a final score of 78/100.

Why can't IGN be like that? Say something about how it compares to the original game in a series, say how it is on different platforms, say about how long or short it feels, say about what the additional features are and how they integrate? Nope. It wasn't spectacular enough.

If I hadn't of played the game yet, I would have read PCGamer's review, thought "yes, some people might want more story incentive to bother with it, I don't care about that, so I'll buy it anyway"

I know whose review I'll be believing for DX3. (Well, them and RPS anyway).

beastrn
25th Aug 2010, 16:52
Mafia 2 is just;

-Drive in a bland environment
-Shoot some guys in an overly playtested, linear environment
-Watch cutscenes

It's literally the biggest waste of millions of dollars this year.

Uh oh, the building is on fire! ****'s happening! Get excited player, run around! ...oh wait. Everything's completely static. I could stand here for hours and nothing will change until I walk out the door. I know nothing will fall from the roof and hit me, because things like that are cut due to being 'annoying' and 'not easily avoidable'.

Ohhh noo I'm in a jail! Won't it be interesting to walk about and talk to people? I wonder what side things I will find. I wonder if there will be interesting things to watch! Ohhh how exciting! Wait... wait... slow down. One of two copy and paste models might have something pointless to say, but again, everything's completely on rails and static. So no, you will run to the little objective marker like a good player and watch the cutscene.

-Drive (boring)
-Shoot (duck hunt, boring)
-Follow a dot (boring)
-Watch (slightly interesting but still pretty unimaginative and boring)
-Repeat ad nauseam (boring)

That's what years of development and millions and millions of dollars got them. It's pathetic game design which can only possibly appeal to the worst type of players. Those that just want to watch the images on the screen rather than participate in any sort of interaction of believability.

To me, that's not worth anything.

edit: On the plus side (I have manged to finish it after all)

-The graphics are decent for a 3rd person game, and it's not such a scabby PC port
-Some of the scripted animations are nice.
-The driving around can be a little serene (mostly ruined by the world being void of anything interesting though)
-I liked what they tried to do with the "job" like things you need to do. Stacking crates, cleaning toilets - it could have provided a good contrast on the subject, but again, you do it for 2 seconds, and then it's over. You as a player never got sick of cleaning toilets. It's just showing you for one second how much it sucks to clean a toilet and how much you'd rather be out shooting people - but you as the player don't care because it's over so quickly. Lots of lost potential.

I just wish wish wish they went all Vampire: The Masquerade and made the world a believable place, rather than a totally static bunch of roads. There's so much potential there for interactivity that could have made it something to remember, but it's all squandered on boring tried and false gameplay mechanics. There's basically nothing for the player to do! I mean, take out the driving and the borderline-"may as well be a movie as well" gunfights and you may as well just watch everything else on youtube for free. There's no personalization, no immersion - why is this a game?

Sorry... I'll shutup about Mafia 2. :\

Slaughterman
25th Aug 2010, 17:05
Mafia 2 is just;

-Drive in a bland environment
-Shoot some guys in an overly playtested, linear environment
-Watch cutscenes

It's literally the biggest waste of millions of dollars this year.

Uh oh, the building is on fire! ****'s happening! Get excited player, run around! ...oh wait. Everything's completely static. I could stand here for hours and nothing will change until I walk out the door. I know nothing will fall from the roof and hit me, because things like that are cut due to being 'annoying' and 'not easily avoidable'.

Ohhh noo I'm in a jail! Won't it be interesting to walk about and talk to people? I wonder what side things I will find. I wonder if there will be interesting things to watch! Ohhh how exciting! Wait... wait... slow down. One of two copy and paste models might have something pointless to say, but again, everything's completely on rails and static. So no, you will run to the little objective marker like a good player and watch the cutscene.

-Drive (boring)
-Shoot (duck hunt, boring)
-Follow a dot (boring)
-Watch (slightly interesting but still pretty unimaginative and boring)
-Repeat ad nauseam (boring)

That's what years of development and millions and millions of dollars got them. It's pathetic game design which can only possibly appeal to the worst type of players. Those that just want to watch the images on the screen rather than participate in any sort of interaction of believability.

To me, that's not worth anything.


Sorry... I'll shutup about Mafia 2. :\

It's exactly how I feel about mafia 2. The gameplay is boring and very linear (no freedom at all, which is sad considering they created an entire city), and I had to force myself to finish the game because I wanted to see the ending. Now that I just did, I'm even more disappointed...

That is why a 7 seems totally fair to me, it's even overrated but in a way when you see the work the developers had to pull out to create the city you kinda have some pity for them and you couldn't rate below than 7.

BTW it took me something like 6h to finish it in normal difficulty.

Pretentious Old Man.
25th Aug 2010, 17:19
OK, I know I started all the Mafia II stuff, but I really feel we should get back to topic. ;) Although having said that



That's what years of development and millions and millions of dollars got them. It's pathetic game design which can only possibly appeal to the worst type of players. Those that just want to watch the images on the screen rather than participate in any sort of interaction of believability.


You just described Mass Effect 2. That got a 9.6 with almost no explanation why.

Anyhoo, So far, we've identified "cinematic" as a no-no. Any more?

beastrn
25th Aug 2010, 17:31
No need to tell me about Mass Effect 2. :) That game is so easy to get excited about once it ends... but if they'd stopped typing their reviews for 10 minutes and actually thought about what they just played... probably wouldn't have received so many high scores.

Well - I hope. :\

Blackbird SR-71C
25th Aug 2010, 17:38
OK, I know I started all the Mafia II stuff, but I really feel we should get back to topic. ;) Although having said that



You just described Mass Effect 2. That got a 9.6 with almost no explanation why.

Anyhoo, So far, we've identified "cinematic" as a no-no. Any more?

I don't know wether you're talking about the reviews or wether you're expressing your own opinion, but in my opinion there definitely were good parts to Mass Effect 2, for example:

- Very good graphics, aside from the low-res textures which are barely noticeable
- Good optimization for PC, I've yet to come across someone who can't rune the game at all
- Interesting and immersing setting, I especially like all the alien species, their culture and behavior

That said, I myself don't think it deserved the score it got as well. Here's the main complaints I had with the game:

- Boring gameplay, they ditched the not well executed RPG elements from the first game and made the second one a complete shooter, but that didn't fare that much better
- No side missions aside from character missions, and you don't know what upgrades you'll get from those
- No inventory, very limited choices in terms of weapons and armor; you will still only use one assault rifle since it's superior to all others
- Screwed up morality system; Renegade translates to "complete d*ck", the last choice in the last mission was structured in a simple black/white scheme even though the renegade choice was obviously smarter
- No character interaction, NPCs NEVER move: This takes away from the experience. Instead of a sympathy bar or the like you complete a loyalty mission after which you're best friends with that character, after that they never have anything to say to you again; It's also extremely bad that you'll see the exact same scene with the exact same characters in the exact same place when landing on, say, Omega for the tenth time

In my eyes it did neither deserve the score it got nor the RPG-tag since most powers are inferior or at best on par with shooting.

demon boy
25th Aug 2010, 18:02
OK, I know I started all the Mafia II stuff, but I really feel we should get back to topic. ;) Although having said that



You just described Mass Effect 2. That got a 9.6 with almost no explanation why.

Anyhoo, So far, we've identified "cinematic" as a no-no. Any more?

Not even close. Mass Effect 2 was all about the gameplay. Some people might object to the shift towards being more of a shooter and away from some of the RPG elements but the game was undoubtedly about selecting a class and developing your abilities and those of your teammates. It actually had multiple play styles in terms of the combat and some non-linearity to boot. I think it's worthy of the high scores. High, production values, fun gameplay, good story, great characters.

Mafia 2 is an also-ran.

Cronstintein
25th Aug 2010, 18:58
It was really faux-rpg IMHO.
-No inventory management at all save maybe heavy weapon ammo.
-No decisions with any weight except one character mission and the final mission.
-Very linear mission design.
-Whack-a-mole gameplay
-shallow conversation choices (renegade/paragon both got you what you wanted, just with slightly different cut scenes). Sometimes being a douche shouldn't work, and vice-versa.

Anyway, I enjoyed my first playthrough but didn't feel compelled to finish it a second time as it seemed like the exact same experience. That's the problem with 'cinematic' games vs deep gameplay.

Deus_Ex_Machina
25th Aug 2010, 19:24
I own Mafia 2, and while it has a few technical issues (what game doesn't that uses its own proprietary engine), it certainly doesn't deserve a score below 8/10 or 80%.

However, it does have some issues that are non-technical that do limit the score. For example, there are NO side missions and very few collectibles (Playboy Magazine centerfolds and wanted posters), and the game world isn't as big as what we're used to in games of the same genre such as GTA or Saints Row. Needless to say, the replay value is nearly non-existent.

What Mafia does better than most games of the genre, however, is have an engaging story that plays out excellently.

Overall, I'd give it an 8.5 or 85%. And IGN is about as reliable as the intel about WMDs in Iraq.

puzl
25th Aug 2010, 19:45
a google image search for IGN reveals boobage. A much more refined search reveals this piece that accurately sums up IGN.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uYCV9lwNaAg/SkTyuhLk_MI/AAAAAAAABj8/jQ09GVBnh8s/s1600/Godhand%20IGN.jpg

God Hand was INCREDIBLE. Seriously, one of the last games i played on the PS2 and by the same team who made Okami. It is just OTT, ridiculous fun and also challenging.

I don't trust IGN or indeed many review sites when it comes to scores, but in the case of Mafia 2, if they rated RDR a 9 or a 10 (I forget which) then Mafia 2 is definite a 7 or 8 in comparison. So in that respect, they got it right.

But yeah, **** IGN. I prefer sites like Kotaku who don't give a score, but always weigh up the pros/cons very fairly.

Pretentious Old Man.
25th Aug 2010, 23:02
I wasn't trying to victimise or persecute Mass Effect 2, I was just giving it as another example of a game that IGN rated highly chiefly due to its hype and Crash bang wallop effects. I still enjoyed ME2, but for what it was: a somewhat interactive movie set within an engaging universe with likeable or at least interesting characters, who have usually been well voice acted.

Rindill the Red
28th Aug 2010, 16:12
Here is my analysis of IGN's Mafia II review...

GTA IV: 10.0 ------ Mafia II: 7.0

---------------
"Now, at first glance, Empire Bay looks like an open world – one teeming with missions and quests for you to take Vito on. It isn't. You'll have one mission at any time and it's always one that drives the story forward."

Every main quest mission in GTA IV drove the story forward, and though you got to choose sometimes which missions to do first, they were all essentially linear as the order didn't effect the game at all.

The very few side missions you had were taxi, drug dealing, stealing cars, racing, and the strangers.

There were not that many stranger quests, and most of them short.

The side missions involved nothing more than driving to a spot, standard third person shooting, driving to a spot, etc.

While some of this could be entertaining, most was drab, repetitive, and added nothing to the game experience.

--------------
"All the icons on the map – clothing stores, gun stores, and so on – are just ways to enhance that mission."

In GTA IV, all the stores and icons on the map were just ways to enhance your missions, whether that be nice clothes to meet a lawyer, or better guns if you die, to spray shops to avoid the cops."

The other places to visit were used primarily to maintain forced relationships... in which you are required to date everyone you meet to keep them your friends if you want their special abilities, and they call you every two missions. The minigames were drab and boring (bowling?--really?).

Oh, and what do your friends specail abilities do? Enhance your missions.

----------------

"You're not going to wander around the streets of Mafia II picking up odd jobs and meeting strangers."

What, so in GTA IV you occaisionally meet like 10 random strangers all game and do a short drive to X, third person shooter. All of which add nothing to the plot.

---------------

"There isn't that "a-ha" moment seen in other games where you realize there's stuff going on in these massive metropolises. Empire Bay is like an empty playset, and that hurts the believability of being Vito's world."

Ah, so in GTA IV, those oddly empty streets and popping in civilians make you realize that the entire world isn't loaded just before (or even as) you show up? So in GTA IV, there is stuff going on without Niko and you can see that?

---------------

"The mechanics of Mafia II are pretty much those of a basic third-person shooter. You have a bunch of guns, you take cover, and you kill all the bad guys so that you can move on. You can try to deviate from this strategy and get creative, but you'll be blow away in a few seconds."

GTA IV -- well the game speaks for itself, and this quote could fit it just as well.

---------------

"There are some awesome breaks from this formula, like going undercover as a window washer to whack a main player and having to sneak into a guarded compound unprotected, but these are the exceptions to the rule. Most of the time, you're just slowly moving forward and gunning down everyone in your path. It feels stiff – the animations drive that home and the aiming is never natural."

Mafia II had MUCH more variety than GTA IV ever did. GTA IV doesn't even have stealth. How many times did I try to stealth and get automatically seen? And Mafia II's variety is excentuated by the fact that the game is shorter and more concentrated. Who actually can play all of GTA IV within a concentrated play time, follow the story, and not get bored and put off by it's length and repetitiveness.

--------------

"and waiting to regenerate health is never a great time. "

How much you want to bet they praise DX:HR's regenerating health?

From MW2: "There's been some discussion on whether the splatter is too distracting, and in my experience with the game it's far from an issue." -- Not an issue here.

-------------

"the mechanics are nothing special – in fact, they're eye-rollingly basic. You hold the dodge button until the opponent gives you the chance to land a light or heavy attack. Repeat the stiff animations and curse the camera from there until you win. "

Doth my memory decieve me, or did GTA IV implement just such a system?

-------------

"Mafia II also struggles with pacing. There are great moments, like when you're driving a dead body to be buried and your friends are singing in the car, but there are mundane parts where you watch Vito pick up the phone and stare at the wall like a robot. You'll finish a mission on one side of the town and then have to drive your car all the way home to park it, walk inside your apartment building, walk to your bed, and go to sleep. Nothing essential happens in this time. You're just doing menial tasks to close out the chapter. "

GTA IV "suffered" from the exact same problem... yet that didnt' seem to matter then?

Mafia II, being a smaller city, is actually much quicker at getting around to your safe house to save.

-------------

"In a similar vein, police in Mafia II can be interestingly aggressive and annoyingly conscientious. The game uses a cool mechanic where cops will report your license plate or clothing description, and then it's up to you to make it to a chop shop or clothing store to throw them off the trail."

Wow, so the cops actually police the world realistically--deepening the immersion? And you can't just mow down 20 civilians in the street and walk away? Things will get reported like clothing or license plates -- further deepening the immersion? This is bad?

------------

"be prepared for a pretty standard third-person shooter in the gameplay department. The “take cover, kill everyone, do it again” mechanic didn’t wow me, but it didn’t let me down either. "

Again... can be pretty much applied to GTA IV... even more so since it was longer and included a lot more of it.

------------

My conclusion? Big video game media reviews aren't worth ****, and like skillful advertisers can conveniently overlook or focus on certain aspects to provide support for their arbitrary assignment of a "score".

My verdict... I hope Eidos and Square Enix remember to bribe the big video game reviewer media so they can more efficiently target their new consumer base.

Pinky_Powers
28th Aug 2010, 17:30
Rindill the Red, you have way too much time on your hands. You have the longest, most pointless posts of anybody on these forums. But nobody can say you don't try. Your nonsense is usually well formatted and grammatically decent. :thumb:

KSingh77
28th Aug 2010, 18:12
Of course any game that doesn't have the totle GTA deserves a score lower then 10 or maybe 8.

puzl
28th Aug 2010, 19:29
Here is my analysis of IGN's Mafia II review...


Long story short: GTA4 did everything Mafia 2 does years before and better.

II J0SePh X II
28th Aug 2010, 21:41
http://imgur.com/B5Lsm.jpg

I lol'd

Cronstintein
28th Aug 2010, 21:48
Can't help but notice if you average out the mafia scores it comes out higher than 7.0...

Fluffis
28th Aug 2010, 22:06
Can't help but notice if you average out the mafia scores it comes out higher than 7.0...

It's not an average. It's the overall impression.

ZakKa89
28th Aug 2010, 22:10
They gave GTAIV a 10. They gave RDR 9.8. They gave Mafia II 7.0.

I think this rather sums up what we have always said about IGN: They do not understand what makes a good sequel, they do not understand games that are anything more than mindless destruction, and they do not understand that sim-style games can be fun.

For future reference: when DXIII comes out, disregard IGN's review. Or rather, take the score, if it's bad, buy the game, if it's good, think long and hard about it.

/rant.

Though I agree that those games are overrated, it's their opinion. Also, you do realise that there are multiple reviewers with different opinions who hand out different scores. It's a little bit pointless to compare the scores to eachoter imo.

Also, I am dissapointed in mafia 2 so far. Good voiceacting but "seen that, done that" simple third person shooter gameplay. I haven't played a lot though, I hope it gets better.

Rindill the Red
28th Aug 2010, 23:10
Rindill the Red, you have way too much time on your hands. You have the longest, most pointless posts of anybody on these forums. But nobody can say you don't try. Your nonsense is usually well formatted and grammatically decent. :thumb:

And Pinky, you have the shortest, most pointless posts of anybody on these forums. But I can't argue with you, I have recently found myself come into too much time. I just felt like proving my point to myself that I made earlier, since I didn't actually back it up with any evidence and I might as well as post it here.

(Is there a point to being on these forums at all except for entertainment? I mean, it's not like we're communicating with the development team or anything.)

Rindill the Red
28th Aug 2010, 23:27
Long story short: GTA4 did everything Mafia 2 does years before and better.

Long story short. Better is debatable. Mafia 2 is railed on for being too much like GTA IV (when it really isn't), and for not being enough like GTA IV (which it thankfully is).

GTA IV was way overrated.

The only game in this category which really deserved a high score was Red Dead... and it could have been a lot better with more free-roam options and game-world development -- but all the same, the point was that the whole number-rating scheme is crap and needs some work.

FrankCSIS
29th Aug 2010, 00:07
It's fairly simple to sum this up, guys, no need to over-analyse.

Game reviews are done the way politics are covered.

Step 1 - Potential candidate is either introduced to the public directly or at least makes his entrance in the political world's inner circle.

Step 2 - Media observes public reaction and/or tries to get "insider info" on what the political class thinks about the potential candidate

Step 3 - Media heavily covers the subject if he is most likely to win (hot candidate), with half-hidden praises along the way.

Step 4 - Media backs up the candidate until he wins. Alternatively, media will suddenly drop the candidate like he's hot if he's losing momentum.

Keep in mind, all large medias are democratic by structure. It will not cover a subject that does not attract viewers. The amount of subscribers and unique site visits are to IGN or Gamespot what viewers ratings are to CNN or CBC. The larger your crowd, the larger your influence. In the end, they will always back what the crowd wants/expects them to back, or hype up a potential phenomena to make a true event out of it. They don't even need bribes or incentives to do it, their very structure depends on it.

You will also observe that medias do not hesitate to speak their true mind about a person (or a game, in this case) when the general public is either uninterested, or flats out dislikes them, while hot items are always handled with gloves. At the risk of being in direct violation of many unwritten internet laws, I'd like to state, in this regard, that I'm fairly sure today's medias would have heavily backed Hitler's rise to power as chancelor back in da dayz. Wouldn't be surprise to see People or Times interview of the candidate, with potential Man of the Year cover.

Pinky_Powers
29th Aug 2010, 03:10
([I]Is there a point to being on these forums at all except for entertainment?

Not that I've found.

JackShandy
29th Aug 2010, 03:53
They gave GTAIV a 10. They gave RDR 9.8. They gave Mafia II 7.0.

I think this rather sums up what we have always said about IGN: They do not understand what makes a good sequel, they do not understand games that are anything more than mindless destruction, and they do not understand that sim-style games can be fun.



Rock Paper Shotgun and PCgamer are the 2 best.

Well, Rock Paper Shotgun just panned Mafia 2 as well.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/28/wot-i-think-mafia-ii/#more-37295

I don't think it's fair to hate IGN because they didn't like a game that you love. Hate them because of their 7-9 scale, or their terrible writing, or their idiotic GRAPHICS-GAMEPLAY-SOUND-REPLAY table average system, as if anyone's going to buy a game just for one single element alone.

pringlepower
29th Aug 2010, 07:13
Well, Rock Paper Shotgun just panned Mafia 2.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/28/wot-i-think-mafia-ii/#more-37295

I don't think it's fair to hate IGN because they didn't like a game that you love. Hate them because of their 7-9 scale, or their terrible writing, or their idiotic GRAPHICS-GAMEPLAY-SOUND-REPLAY table average system, as if anyone's going to buy a game just for one single element alone.

It's bad because he has a different opinion?

He judged the storytelling, characters, and mission structure. Nothing about "not enough killing prostitutes" or "there are no tanks, i wanted to drive a tank".

mouse
29th Aug 2010, 11:12
I suggest to rename the thread title to something more fitting, like "Nerd Rage". :)

Just ignore websites such as IGN, as they are targeted at a completely different audience (and type of player).

puzl
29th Aug 2010, 12:03
ITT: WAY too many people caring about review scores as confirmation on whether thet should enjoy a game or not.

FWIW, I think the demo for this game actually accurately portrays how the final game is and if you enjoy it, then you'll probably enjoy the full game too.

If Marmite was on metacritic, it'd get 50%. Think about it.

Fluffis
29th Aug 2010, 12:34
or their idiotic GRAPHICS-GAMEPLAY-SOUND-REPLAY table average system, as if anyone's going to buy a game just for one single element alone.

I've bought a very large amount of games simply based on the "Gameplay" element (and with a lot of success). But then again, I'm not someone who cares a great deal about great graphics and sound.

Delever
29th Aug 2010, 14:47
There are no tanks, I wanted a tank :( :( :(

Dr_Bob
29th Aug 2010, 20:08
I've always been a fan of Kevin Van Oord on Gamespot. Maybe because he's just so darn friendly

Me too.

However, GameSpot has a certain reviewer who believes that Modern Warfare 2 has good graphics, but Metro 2033 doesn't.

He's a gimmick and his name is Chris Watters.


I don't know wether you're talking about the reviews or wether you're expressing your own opinion, but in my opinion there definitely were good parts to Mass Effect 2, for example:

- Very good graphics, aside from the low-res textures which are barely noticeablel

Really?

On the PC, the textures are so low-resolution, that it actually distracts me.

There are also major aliasing issues.


- Good optimization for PC, I've yet to come across someone who can't rune the game at all

Yeah, they may have optimised that aspect, but the PC UI is awful because 1) you can't use your mousewheel to scroll through text and 2) for every menu, you have to mouse over every menu element, like the 'Confirm' button, because that acts as a replacement for the 'A' button prompt on the Xbox version. There is no support for arrow key selection.

They also removed 2 buttons from the power bar, which totals 8 assignable buttons in ME2.

For controls, they condensed three actions into one button (sprint, interact and take cover are all done by pressing SPACE by default).


- Interesting and immersing setting, I especially like all the alien species, their culture and behavior

Me too.


That said, I myself don't think it deserved the score it got as well. Here's the main complaints I had with the game:

- Boring gameplay, they ditched the not well executed RPG elements from the first game and made the second one a complete shooter, but that didn't fare that much better

After playing through ME2 multiple times, I agree that the combat is very boring.

The "ammo" system sucks and having ammo types like 'Incendiary Ammo' as powers is so annoying, because you have to apply the power every single time you switch weapons.


- No side missions aside from character missions, and you don't know what upgrades you'll get from those

Huh?

There are side-missions.


- No inventory, very limited choices in terms of weapons and armor; you will still only use one assault rifle since it's superior to all others

The inventory in ME1 was so awful, perhaps removing seems over-zealous now?

And yes, the weapons do seem very basic and limited.

However, they may have done that on purpose, so that they could charge you money for the weapons DLC.


- Screwed up morality system; Renegade translates to "complete d*ck", the last choice in the last mission was structured in a simple black/white scheme even though the renegade choice was obviously smarter

No, I do believe there are shades of grey in the majority of the choices in this game.

The last choice had me wondering what to do for like 5 minutes and I never once thought "Man, this is so black & white".

I chose the Renegade option, because ultimately, the suffering of the people would be in vain if I destroyed everything.


- No character interaction, NPCs NEVER move: This takes away from the experience. Instead of a sympathy bar or the like you complete a loyalty mission after which you're best friends with that character, after that they never have anything to say to you again; It's also extremely bad that you'll see the exact same scene with the exact same characters in the exact same place when landing on, say, Omega for the tenth time

Yeah, that is a problem and makes the world feel "static".

I don't think dynamic AI placements would be wise for a game like this, because it can result in people not knowing where to go.

The fact that your squad-mates have no post-suicide mission dialogue makes the characters feel dead by the end of the game.

Also, during side-missions, hardly anyone talks and it's usually the player character that does most of the talking.


In my eyes it did neither deserve the score it got nor the RPG-tag since most powers are inferior or at best on par with shooting.

I think it does deserve the high-ratings, it's certainly a great game but lacks the depth and the good PC port features of its predecessor.

I think one of the things that make ME2 so great is the soundtrack.

Please, listen to these songs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PobHe526wbM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBLOvSb56Vc

singularity
30th Aug 2010, 03:39
Well, just to join the pointless arguement, I bought Mafia II and was so dissapointed, I returned it. GTA4 and RDR (both of which are far more than childish violence in interactive form) were purchases I still play and enjoy to this day... and probably will for several years to come (I'm still finding new lines of dialogue and fun ways to experiment with GTA4 and RDR deserves another play through).

On Topic:
Many critical reviews tend to lean a little too heavy on the blockbusters... but there have been exceptions. I've always gone by the 6.5 -- 10 scale rather than the 1- 10 scale, and on that note, Gamespot giving MW2 an 8.5 was just awesome. As with Kayne and Lynch 2 -- a game that garnered a lot of hype as a "comeback kid" and had a popular demo... only scoring in the 7 range. There were also a few "pros" who have called out Bioshock, Mass Effect 2 and Batman Arkham Asylum for their respective flaws.

With that in mind, I think that many reviewers will judge DXHR in comparison to modern shooters/ RPGs (i.e. ME2), but a lot of the sites that have been around for a while (like IGN), who have reviewed more than one DX game, will likely also compare it to the series.

For all the flak IGN gets, I like that their reviews are catered toward audiences. MW2 got a a high score... because people who are into games like MW will love MW2. GTAIV got a 10 because GTA fans will absolutely adore GTAIV. Those of us who like 3rd person shooters with some co-op found KaL2 to be a little slippery and way too short with a glitchy multiplayer... thus it gets a 7. People who liked the original Mafia tended to think very little of Mafia II (thus their 7 score fits). We saw something similar with Starcraft 2 on a lot of sites. It's important to remember, they gave DX a 9.4 (a score I thought was too high, personally). And people who are into those types of thinking-man's RPGs tend to love DX.

What I'm trying to say is this... if DX gets a high score from a place like IGN, it will probably mean one of two things: It's a lot like modern shooters, etc and is well polished... which means the DX crowd will despise it, although it is a perfect match for a different crowd. Or, the reviewer has remembered the game's roots and believes there is enough of an audience who could love it/ is a fan himself. I'm not 100% bleak about professional reviews for DX3 (surprisingly), mostly because DX1 is still something of a cult, with an under-ground fan base, and I think several reviewers (potentially even IGN) will grade DX3 accordingly.

I'd say the accuracy of the reviews in regards to how well they match up with the DX community, is a 50/50 shot.

Shralla
30th Aug 2010, 08:13
Hate them because of their 7-9 scale, or their terrible writing, or their idiotic GRAPHICS-GAMEPLAY-SOUND-REPLAY table average system

Except it blatantly says the ultimate score is not an average of the other scores.

Ephemeral
30th Aug 2010, 14:21
Honestly I'm a bit surprised people here like any open world games all that much, to me it's always felt like the anti-thesis of structured and effective storytelling. Any sense of pacing is usually lost and the need to design a complex environment particularly in the case of mammoth projects like GTA4, involves designing vast portions of virtual space most people will never see. That eats into the amount of core storyline, the ability to introduce emergent gameplay features and to me usually ends up with mediocrity.

Sure GTA4 was full of endless distractions, but did anyone actually play them more than once? Sure you can play poker in Red Dead, but what does that add to the actual core experience? When it comes down to it, what is a card game doing in a third person shooter? Meanwhile the gameplay's walked off a cliff and building even upon auto-aim there's a bullet time feature that's removed any sense of skill to the game that's left.

I'll admit I haven't played Mafia 2, but am I really to expect anything better? Anything really beyond the standard duck and cover shooter, with stereotypical cliche characters, wanton violence that has become the GTA formula?

Probably not, huh.

As far as IGN being biased, I don't think it's even the blanketing of site advertisements that's the give-away as much as the fact that they always seem to get games early. For that matter, when's the last time you can remember an early review from them has been negative? It's just far too easy to work out how the industry works.

ZakKa89
30th Aug 2010, 20:31
I finished mafia 2. Very solid game 8.5/10

Romeo
31st Aug 2010, 01:13
I finished mafia 2. Very solid game 8.5/10
No tanks. No hooker-killing. 3.1/10. LOL

Me too.

However, GameSpot has a certain reviewer who believes that Modern Warfare 2 has good graphics, but Metro 2033 doesn't.

He's a gimmick and his name is Chris Watters.

Picture him as EVERY reviewer - that's IGN.


Really?

On the PC, the textures are so low-resolution, that it actually distracts me.

There are also major aliasing issues.

Only played on 360, looked rather lovely on that. They probably didn't take advantage of the PC's power. Unfortunate.


Yeah, they may have optimised that aspect, but the PC UI is awful because 1) you can't use your mousewheel to scroll through text and 2) for every menu, you have to mouse over every menu element, like the 'Confirm' button, because that acts as a replacement for the 'A' button prompt on the Xbox version. There is no support for arrow key selection.

They also removed 2 buttons from the power bar, which totals 8 assignable buttons in ME2.

For controls, they condensed three actions into one button (sprint, interact and take cover are all done by pressing SPACE by default).

Don't worry, it was simplified even on console.


Me too.

It was pretty gnarley. I also liked reading about the planets.


After playing through ME2 multiple times, I agree that the combat is very boring.

The "ammo" system sucks and having ammo types like 'Incendiary Ammo' as powers is so annoying, because you have to apply the power every single time you switch weapons.

What I hated was the ammo itself (BTW, Ammo stays with weapons even when you switch). I wouldn't have minded sort've a hybrid between what we have now. Say, you can wait for a weapon to cool manually (Slow) or simply eject the heatsink (Very quick).


Huh?

There are side-missions.

Quite a few of them, as it were. lol


The inventory in ME1 was so awful, perhaps removing seems over-zealous now?

And yes, the weapons do seem very basic and limited.

However, they may have done that on purpose, so that they could charge you money for the weapons DLC.

I actually didn't mind the inventory in Mass Effect. And I much preferred multiple options than the slight customization (Although I would forfeit my first born child for a hybrid of the two).


No, I do believe there are shades of grey in the majority of the choices in this game.

The last choice had me wondering what to do for like 5 minutes and I never once thought "Man, this is so black & white".

I chose the Renegade option, because ultimately, the suffering of the people would be in vain if I destroyed everything.

I AM SO GLAD SOMEONE ELSE HAD MY LOGIC! Well, I actually just figured we'd need the extra tech to survive the coming repear invasion.


Yeah, that is a problem and makes the world feel "static".

I don't think dynamic AI placements would be wise for a game like this, because it can result in people not knowing where to go.

The fact that your squad-mates have no post-suicide mission dialogue makes the characters feel dead by the end of the game.

Also, during side-missions, hardly anyone talks and it's usually the player character that does most of the talking.

It does, it really kills the mood just hearing a quick one-liner from a squad mate once, given that we just went to hell and back together. lol


I think it does deserve the high-ratings, it's certainly a great game but lacks the depth and the good PC port features of its predecessor.

I think one of the things that make ME2 so great is the soundtrack.

Please, listen to these songs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PobHe526wbM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBLOvSb56Vc
I'm... On the edge. On one hand, I liked the "snappier" combat aspect, and the customization, but I still consider it inferior to it's older brother.

pringlepower
31st Aug 2010, 01:18
It's important to remember that not only WERE there side-missions in ME2, but they didn't all take place in the exact same warehouse/spaceship/mine shaft copied ad nauseum.

pha
31st Aug 2010, 01:19
I actually didn't mind the inventory in Mass Effect. And I much preferred multiple options than the slight customization (Although I would forfeit my first born child for a hybrid of the two).

:thumb:

I believe BioWare really overreacted at the fan feedback which suggested that ME1's inventory was too complicated. I hope ME3 will introduce something in between, with lots of variety and options but without useless clutter.

Romeo
31st Aug 2010, 01:22
:thumb:

I believe BioWare really overreacted at the fan feedback which suggested that ME1's inventory was too complicated. I hope ME3 will introduce something in between, with lots of variety and options but without useless clutter.
Hell to the yes. Could you imagine all the choices plus customization on top? Would be phenominal.

Pinky_Powers
31st Aug 2010, 03:05
Hell to the yes. Could you imagine all the choices plus customization on top? Would be phenominal.

This conversation is just making me sad now. :(

Romeo
31st Aug 2010, 04:40
This conversation is just making me sad now. :(
Dare to dream, brother. Dare to dream. ;)

Dr_Bob
31st Aug 2010, 11:23
Picture him as EVERY reviewer - that's IGN.

:mad2:




Only played on 360, looked rather lovely on that. They probably didn't take advantage of the PC's power. Unfortunate.

Yeah, and before the game came out, a developer said "We are fully committed to providing a good PC experience."

Heh.


Don't worry, it was simplified even on console.

Yeah, I was fortunate enough to own and play both versions.

The controls for the Xbox were actually expanded upon from the first game, allowing you to map your squad-mates' abilities to the 'X' and 'Y' buttons.

That was a nice feature to have, but not as useful as the 1-8 key mapping for the PC.


It was pretty gnarley. I also liked reading about the planets.

Hah, I read about the first few planets I travelled to and then I just gave up.

It's nice they included such details for players such as yourselves.


What I hated was the ammo itself (BTW, Ammo stays with weapons even when you switch). I wouldn't have minded sort've a hybrid between what we have now. Say, you can wait for a weapon to cool manually (Slow) or simply eject the heatsink (Very quick).

It must be random, because I can recall times when ammo powers applied themselves to all my weapons and time when they did not.

So, it's annoying!

Yes, I too, would like a hybrid of ME1 and ME2's ammo systems, where you have unlimited ammo but carry a finite amount of thermal clips.

You can wait for your gun to cool down, or you can use a thermal clip to instantly cool it down.



I actually didn't mind the inventory in Mass Effect. And I much preferred multiple options than the slight customization (Although I would forfeit my first born child for a hybrid of the two).

Yeah, although a few of the ammo mods were a bit OP.

And that helped me bring the "own" to the weak enemies.


I AM SO GLAD SOMEONE ELSE HAD MY LOGIC! Well, I actually just figured we'd need the extra tech to survive the coming repear invasion.

:D


It does, it really kills the mood just hearing a quick one-liner from a squad mate once, given that we just went to hell and back together. lol

It really is a shame.

What is more annoying is how Garrus has such little dialogue if you had recruited him in ME1.

I assume the rest of the dialogue was for the new players, who started a brand new ME2 game.


I'm... On the edge. On one hand, I liked the "snappier" combat aspect, and the customization, but I still consider it inferior to it's older brother.

Yes, the combat is more snappier and less annoying, but the customisation options and features are gone, annoyingly.

It's a more action-oriented game, and I hope ME3 bring back the RPG features lacking in ME2.

xAcerbusx
31st Aug 2010, 22:24
Notice how games whose ads are practically wallpapering the site in question tend to get higher scores at IGN, Gamespot and Gametrailers than other, lesser-known games?

Gametrailers hammers the point home, in particular, because they put the 'GT Review Score' right next to the 'User Score'. The User Score for Silent Hill: Homecoming, for example, is like 2 entire points higher than GT's score. They're just completely profligate sell-outs.

I also notice how any game that is a property of Paramount / Viacom (The Transformers games, for example) gets a higher score on GameTrailers than anywhere else. Like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (which was an absolute abortion, for the record) walked away with a 6.5/10, whereas everywhere else was giving it 2/10 or 3/10.

That's because GT is owned by MTV, who in turn is owned by Viacom.

Sad stuff.

Mindmute
31st Aug 2010, 23:13
I AM SO GLAD SOMEONE ELSE HAD MY LOGIC! Well, I actually just figured we'd need the extra tech to survive the coming repear invasion.


Sorry for the off-topic...

I could see Cereberus and the Illusive (for some reason I had spelt Invisible first) Man becoming an even greater threat to the galaxy as whole BEFORE the arrival of the Reapers if he had access to that stuff. At this point I'd imagine the Universe needed unity, not some human-centric group aquiring god-mod technology.

pringlepower
31st Aug 2010, 23:18
Sorry for the off-topic...

I could see Cereberus and the Invisible Man becoming an even greater threat to the galaxy as whole BEFORE the arrival of the Reapers if he had access to that stuff. At this point I'd imagine the Universe needed unity, not some human-centric group aquiring god-mod technology.

With Martin Sheen in charge nothing will go wrong.

Romeo
1st Sep 2010, 01:32
Sorry for the off-topic...

I could see Cereberus and the Illusive (for some reason I had spelt Invisible first) Man becoming an even greater threat to the galaxy as whole BEFORE the arrival of the Reapers if he had access to that stuff. At this point I'd imagine the Universe needed unity, not some human-centric group aquiring god-mod technology.
No no, it's alright. Anyways, I understand that logic, but I'm not actually all too concerned about Cerberus, to be honest. Cerberus is a shadowy group, but they simply cannot take on the combined might of all other species, especially in direct combat (Given that they're more of a strike and retreat group, not a true army). The Reapers on the other hand are actually dedicated to annihilating organic life.

With Martin Sheen in charge nothing will go wrong.
LOL! I heart this comment.

pringlepower
1st Sep 2010, 03:44
No no, it's alright. Anyways, I understand that logic, but I'm not actually all too concerned about Cerberus, to be honest. Cerberus is a shadowy group, but they simply cannot take on the combined might of all other species, especially in direct combat (Given that they're more of a strike and retreat group, not a true army). The Reapers on the other hand are actually dedicated to annihilating organic life.

LOL! I heart this comment.

After all, considering how well the US did with him in charge, I think the galaxy's gonna be a-ok.

Pinky_Powers
1st Sep 2010, 04:23
The West Wing is one of those shows I can watch, day or night, anytime, and always enjoy myself.

TrickyVein
1st Sep 2010, 04:52
Really? 'Cause I thought that for you, Pinky, that'd be Porn.

Pinky_Powers
1st Sep 2010, 05:03
Really? 'Cause I thought that for you, Pinky, that'd be Porn.

There are many things that are as porn to poor old Pinky.

Romeo
1st Sep 2010, 05:34
After all, considering how well the US did with him in charge, I think the galaxy's gonna be a-ok.
We made the Illusive Man a nicer fellow, now he's all gumdrops and unicorns. =)

Really? 'Cause I thought that for you, Pinky, that'd be Porn.
...There's a difference? =D

Pretentious Old Man.
1st Sep 2010, 09:29
The West Wing is one of those shows I can watch, day or night, anytime, and always enjoy myself.

I'm like that with Yes, Minister.

Humphrey Appleby could batter Jed Bartlet.

Pinky_Powers
1st Sep 2010, 09:37
I'm like that with Yes, Minister.

Now you're just making things up.

Pretentious Old Man.
1st Sep 2010, 09:46
Now you're just making things up.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080306/

Pinky_Powers
1st Sep 2010, 10:12
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080306/

I'm impressed with your hacking skills. But suggesting there's a British Broadcasting... thing... is one step too far. It's just not very believable.

Pretentious Old Man.
1st Sep 2010, 10:31
I'm impressed with your hacking skills. But suggesting there's a British Broadcasting... thing... is one step too far. It's just not very believable.

On the contrary, it's the largest broadcasting company in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC). Think of it as the Majestic 12 of Global broadcasting. :D

TrickyVein
1st Sep 2010, 14:24
Well I'll be durned...

Pinky_Powers
1st Sep 2010, 21:04
On the contrary, it's the largest broadcasting company in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC). Think of it as the Majestic 12 of Global broadcasting. :D

I should warn you, I'm impervious to neural linguistics and programing. You can hack IMDb, but you can't hack me.

Gordon_Shea
1st Sep 2010, 21:19
Not reading the thread, but Mafia 2 was a really bland game which was visually very interesting. The AV Club review sums it up pretty well:


The three gameplay types work well enough, but never distinguish themselves in any remarkable way. No one expected 2K to reinvent the open-world wheel, but the driving-shooting-fighting mix has been around since 2001’s Grand Theft Auto III, and it’s been stale—and getting staler—since GTA: Vice City.

For a game that often feels so crafted, Mafia II features plenty of incongruously thin narrative turns. One mission tasks you with stealing gas-ration stamps. Once you’ve stolen them, you’re informed that they’re dated and expire at midnight, which is only an hour away. Part two of the mission: Deliver the stamps to no less than six gas stations before they expire. Whatever suspension of disbelief you had peels away like a second getaway car.

Also it looks like you're talking about Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect is a pretty lame series cos it marries mediocre shooting mechanics with the vestigal remains of an RPG system that really has very little influence on the actual game itself. Also it's Bioware so you know that it's going to have a really bland story and setting.

TrickyVein
1st Sep 2010, 21:22
Mass Effect is a pretty lame series cos it marries mediocre shooting mechanics with the vestigal remains of an RPG system that really has very little influence on the actual game itself. Also it's Bioware so you know that it's going to have a really bland story and setting.

...Huh? Fo' real?

I don't like you anymore, Gordan_Shea

Gordon_Shea
1st Sep 2010, 21:30
...Huh? Fo' real?

I don't like you anymore, Gordan_Shea

I was never likable. :confused:

Seriously I don't get how people who put so much emphasis on freedom and dynamic choice can like a game like ME or ME2 with their sterile, highly artificial-seeming levels and lack of any real choice or consequence. When you can spot every major firefight a mile away by keeping an eye out for incongruous waist-high objects, when the shooting still feels floaty even after they've stripped the RPG elements down to have as little influence on running and gunning as possible, when the consequences of your choices are limited to different emails you might or might not get...

It's also pretty telling that dedicated Bioware Fans felt ME2's story was weak. They tried something different after getting flack for using the same structure over and over again and, surprise, they didn't have the chops to pull it off. Then again, seeing as these are people who view Hero with a Thousand Faces as a writing guide, I don't know why anyone is surprised when their settings and stories are so poor.

Irate_Iguana
1st Sep 2010, 21:47
Seriously I don't get how people who put so much emphasis on freedom and dynamic choice can like a game like ME or ME2 with their sterile, highly artificial-seeming levels and lack of any real choice or consequence.

Different game, brah! I don't get my ME2 on when I want a good RPG. To me it is just a linear space opera with a nice and cheesy storyline. And I like it that way just fine.

Pinky_Powers
1st Sep 2010, 23:56
Different game, brah! I don't get my ME2 on when I want a good RPG. To me it is just a linear space opera with a nice and cheesy storyline. And I like it that way just fine.

Agreed. But let me throw something out there that will make your head hurt a little...

Mass Effect 1 & 2 is not very good as an RPG, but it succeed greatly as a roll-playing experience. Think about that. It falls very short in RPG depth and features. But in the strictest roll-playing sense, you really can get into the character and have fun with the dialog choices and your crew. You really get to play out the Space Opera as your own character and have some interesting control over events.

Gordon_Shea, it's a huge mistake to hate a game because it's not Deus Ex. There are a lot of titles out there that have their own exceptional virtues.

The Mass Effect series is awesome. gfy if you disagree. :)

Gordon_Shea
1st Sep 2010, 23:59
Different game, brah! I don't get my ME2 on when I want a good RPG. To me it is just a linear space opera with a nice and cheesy storyline. And I like it that way just fine.

I guess if you have basically no standards about how well a shooter handles or whatever I guess I could see you liking it. But in terms of linear OTS shooters it's pretty much on hte lowest tier cos the shooting and cover are really floaty because they are bad at Unreal 3.

Plus I just don't get how you could be so starved for Space Opera that you'd be willing to put up with stuff that is as terrible as the whole HUMAN REAPER reveal at the end of ME2. I mean basically at some point it crosses from cheesy to outright terrible. I mean it's a lot like Cyberpunk in that it's largely neglected by modern game designers but still I dunno why your appreciation of a genre would prompt you to pick up such a bad game.

Plus, y'know, Talimancers.


Gordon_Shea, it's a huge mistake to hate a game because it's not Deus Ex. There are a lot of titles out there that have their own exceptional virtues.

The Mass Effect series is awesome. gfy if you disagree. :)
I'm just saying that I think it's weird to see people all pontificating about the importance of Freedom and stuff not just in Deus Ex, but in all games and talking about how the direction the industry is going is SO TERRIBLE because it's all about linearity and stuff and then seeing basically the same people talking up a game that is one of the worst offenders in terms of faux freedom.

Pinky_Powers
2nd Sep 2010, 00:52
I'm just saying that I think it's weird to see people all pontificating about the importance of Freedom and stuff not just in Deus Ex, but in all games and talking about how the direction the industry is going is SO TERRIBLE because it's all about linearity and stuff and then seeing basically the same people talking up a game that is one of the worst offenders in terms of faux freedom.

I think you're simply misinterpreting our concerns.

Mass Effect, and especially ME2, does illustrate the Industry's downward spiral into utter simplicity. But not on all levels.

And it is far from a general consensus that games need be non-linear... even in level design. Deus Ex titles need to have non-linear levels. But not all games. The Half-Life series is one of my favorite things in the world, and it's a serious rail-shooter. But it possess powerful and special qualities that most other games fall so terribly short of.

I explained in my last post what makes Mass Effect so enjoyable for me. It may be different for other people, so I'll leave it to them to voice their own reasons.

Romeo
2nd Sep 2010, 01:03
Yes Gordan, I think I could take you a hair more seriously if you didn't hold such an extremist view. The shooting mechanics in ME2 weren't all that bad. In fact, I found the combat in that game to be about the best of every game I played this year. As for linearity and consequence, considering Deus Ex offers even less consequences, and also still follows a linear story, that kinda bites the bullet... Moving on from that, saying it has a bland setting is about the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums, and I've been here since the good old days of it's infancy.

Gordon_Shea
2nd Sep 2010, 01:35
Yes Gordan, I think I could take you a hair more seriously if you didn't hold such an extremist view. The shooting mechanics in ME2 weren't all that bad. In fact, I found the combat in that game to be about the best of every game I played this year. As for linearity and consequence, considering Deus Ex offers even less consequences, and also still follows a linear story, that kinda bites the bullet... Moving on from that, saying it has a bland setting is about the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums, and I've been here since the good old days of it's infancy.

Um if you don't think the setting is really hella bland there is basically something wrong with you. It's like the most generic Science Fiction setting ever and assembled from ****loads of terrible old science fiction cliches.

Also if you thought that the gunplay was good then you're probably one of those snobs who doesn't play dedicated OTS shooters like Gears of War or Uncharted because basically when you get right down to it they blow it out of the water on both counts.

Basically what I am saying is that if you like bioware games your taste in games is bad and you should feel bad.

Romeo
2nd Sep 2010, 01:41
Um if you don't think the setting is really hella bland there is basically something wrong with you. It's like the most generic Science Fiction setting ever and assembled from ****loads of terrible old science fiction cliches.

Also if you thought that the gunplay was good then you're probably one of those snobs who doesn't play dedicated OTS shooters like Gears of War or Uncharted because basically when you get right down to it they blow it out of the water on both counts.

Basically what I am saying is that if you like bioware games your taste in games is bad and you should feel bad.
There was more variation in the settings than your precious GoW or Uncharted. Which, by the way, I play. And while I do like the gunplay in Gears of War, I still prefer Mass Effect 2 due to the variation in weaponary (Although GoW has good weapons too), special abilities and squad control

Basically what I'm saying is that I would care if you gave the impression your IQ exceeded the double digits.

pringlepower
2nd Sep 2010, 01:54
There was more variation in the settings than your precious GoW or Uncharted. Which, by the way, I play. And while I do like the gunplay in Gears of War, I still prefer Mass Effect 2 due to the variation in weaponary (Although GoW has good weapons too), special abilities and squad control

Basically what I'm saying is that I would care if you gave the impression your IQ exceeded the double digits.

This proves my IQ is under double digits: BAHHHHH CHAINSAW BAYONETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!

TrickyVein
2nd Sep 2010, 01:57
This fool has not experienced the delight of chainsawing locust infantry.

beastrn
2nd Sep 2010, 02:40
Basically what I am saying is that if you like bioware games your taste in games is bad and you should feel bad.

Agreed.

And someone ban this Romeo person whoever it is.

pringlepower
2nd Sep 2010, 02:42
This fool has not experienced the delight of chainsawing locust infantry.

Deus Ex is deep and great and blah blah blah. But it's always nice to know that you can take a break from that, and brutally slice through a locust. Or an Ork. Or an Eldar, etc. etc.

Case in point: Adam needs a chainsaw arm.

WildcatPhoenix
2nd Sep 2010, 02:51
Case in point: Adam needs a chainsaw arm.

Watch this be the one suggestion from the boards EM actually pays attention to! :lol:

pringlepower
2nd Sep 2010, 02:52
Watch this be the one suggestion from the boards EM actually pays attention to! :lol:

Throw stealth out the window. 2027 is the year of... STYLE!

lithos
2nd Sep 2010, 05:31
Yes Gordan, I think I could take you a hair more seriously if you didn't hold such an extremist view. The shooting mechanics in ME2 weren't all that bad. In fact, I found the combat in that game to be about the best of every game I played this year. As for linearity and consequence, considering Deus Ex offers even less consequences, and also still follows a linear story, that kinda bites the bullet... Moving on from that, saying it has a bland setting is about the stupidest thing I've ever read on these forums, and I've been here since the good old days of it's infancy.

I can't stand space operas - actually, I think ME wasn't that space-opera-y, because it dealt with some nice scientific principles (as opposed to being dungeons and dragons with lasers.) Makes you think, like Deus Ex did. ME didn't really count as Space Opera for me. It was a helluva interesting setting, you're absolutely right. It was different to a lot of other games, for one (I'm getting sick of elves and dwarves.)

I don't think that non-linear games are automatically better than linear games. If the narrative holds up well for a linear game, fantastic. Think Half-Life and Max Payne, and of course, DX. With non-linear, open games like GTA, you tend to trade a bit of that narrative structure for freedom. A fair trade, but you tend to end up with narrative bubbles, rather than a solid, well-placed story. Neither is necessarily worse or better.

Bad writing and bad game design, however, are still just plain bad, no matter the execution. (The easy fix is more cut scenes and scripted sequences! Eh, Ubisoft? Eh? Eh?)

The beauty of DX, though, was its non-linear gameplay with a linear plot. Nice balance. They worked out every possibility - what if you kill Jordan Shea? What if you never talk to Harley Filben up until the point where you absolutely have to? What about if you kill Maggie Chow without ever having talked to her? And the level design seem very organic. The alternative routes didn't seem to have the big, glaring stamp of "THE DEVELOPER WANTS YOU TO GO HERE" on 'em.

The combat in ME2 got boring after a while. For starters, I couldn't real tell the different weapons apart, and cover mechanics always ensure combat devolves into a girlish slapping match (I know, I know, it recently became international law that Every Single Game Must Have A Cover Mechanic.)

I realise the inventory in ME1 had issues. Those issues could've been fixed by adding simple tabs ("PISTOLS" "ASSAULT RIFLES" "SNIPER RIFLES" etc,) or at least not having the scroll bar reset every time you sold something. But removing it entirely was like a doctor fixing an ingrown toenail by amputating the leg.

I'm not a fan of the "If it doesn't directly relate to the main plot, delete" school of game design that's become popular. Each little detail adds richness, believability, immersion. ME2 also suffered from classic Invisible War Syndrome symptoms - areas you visited in the first game are *smaller* than in the sequel, and a lot of stuff gets magically done.

Romeo
2nd Sep 2010, 05:54
Agreed.

And someone ban this Romeo person whoever it is.
Line starts on the right. Hope you packed a lunch. =)

I can't stand space operas - actually, I think ME wasn't that space-opera-y, because it dealt with some nice scientific principles (as opposed to being dungeons and dragons with lasers.) Makes you think, like Deus Ex did. ME didn't really count as Space Opera for me. It was a helluva interesting setting, you're absolutely right. It was different to a lot of other games, for one (I'm getting sick of elves and dwarves.)

I don't think that non-linear games are automatically better than linear games. If the narrative holds up well for a linear game, fantastic. Think Half-Life and Max Payne, and of course, DX. With non-linear, open games like GTA, you tend to trade a bit of that narrative structure for freedom. A fair trade, but you tend to end up with narrative bubbles, rather than a solid, well-placed story. Neither is necessarily worse or better.

Bad writing and bad game design, however, are still just plain bad, no matter the execution. (The easy fix is more cut scenes and scripted sequences! Eh, Ubisoft? Eh? Eh?)

The beauty of DX, though, was its non-linear gameplay with a linear plot. Nice balance. They worked out every possibility - what if you kill Jordan Shea? What if you never talk to Harley Filben up until the point where you absolutely have to? What about if you kill Maggie Chow without ever having talked to her? And the level design seem very organic. The alternative routes didn't seem to have the big, glaring stamp of "THE DEVELOPER WANTS YOU TO GO HERE" on 'em.

The combat in ME2 got boring after a while. For starters, I couldn't real tell the different weapons apart, and cover mechanics always ensure combat devolves into a girlish slapping match (I know, I know, it recently became international law that Every Single Game Must Have A Cover Mechanic.)

I realise the inventory in ME1 had issues. Those issues could've been fixed by adding simple tabs ("PISTOLS" "ASSAULT RIFLES" "SNIPER RIFLES" etc,) or at least not having the scroll bar reset every time you sold something. But removing it entirely was like a doctor fixing an ingrown toenail by amputating the leg.

I'm not a fan of the "If it doesn't directly relate to the main plot, delete" school of game design that's become popular. Each little detail adds richness, believability, immersion. ME2 also suffered from classic Invisible War Syndrome symptoms - areas you visited in the first game are *smaller* than in the sequel, and a lot of stuff gets magically done.
I must say, I share your opinion on a sort of "structured open-ended" being the best possible way to work a game, and don't misinterpret my statement as anti-DX, I'm just saying I thought ME did just fine in that respect, especially regarding consequences.

They are, but I kinda new what to expect from ME2, it was always designed as the doom-n-gloom filler in the trilogy. Beyond that, didn't really mind the plot (Except the reaper-reproduction thing at the end. That was pretty awful). Still, the mass of Reapers at the end made me more excited.

I really liked the weapons in ME2, even moreso than the ones in ME. And I could live with cover, just not the health system first.

I share that belief too, I fully admit ME2 was not as good as ME was, and really screwed up worse in most areas. Inventory was one such area. Still didn't mind it over-all, as a game.

lithos
2nd Sep 2010, 06:22
I must say, I share your opinion on a sort of "structured open-ended" being the best possible way to work a game, and don't misinterpret my statement as anti-DX, I'm just saying I thought ME did just fine in that respect, especially regarding consequences.

The simplest way I can think of summing up DX's gameplay is "linear story, open-ended design."


They are, but I kinda new what to expect from ME2, it was always designed as the doom-n-gloom filler in the trilogy. Beyond that, didn't really mind the plot (Except the reaper-reproduction thing at the end. That was pretty awful). Still, the mass of Reapers at the end made me more excited.

See, I loved the first game. Only paid $29AU for it on a EB sale, and, like Mirror's Edge, it's one of those rare games I wish I paid more for.

So I did something I NEVER do. I pre-ordered the collector's edition through EB, in the same week such a pre-order was available. Had never, ever done that before. For one, I don't care for the feelie stuff. (Yay, a T-shirt? How did you know my size? Or whatever they fling in.) But I felt I owed Bioware.

I got to the last the mission. Past the Omega relay. And then stopped playing. Meh. Why? Well, ninety-percent of the way through the game, it still felt exactly the same as the first mission. There was no real evolution in gameplay - it was too pared back, slimmed down.

That, and every second loading screen tells you to "Keep Shepherd (or your entire party,) alive." Doesn't tell you how to do that - even after reading other people's guides as to how they did it, and reloading SIGNIFICANTLY earlier saves, it just felt like they flipped a coin as to who copped it, and who didn't.


I share that belief too, I fully admit ME2 was not as good as ME was, and really screwed up worse in most areas. Inventory was one such area. Still didn't mind it over-all, as a game.

How's scanning an entire planet from orbit an improvement over barreling around in a vehicle? That one was a puzzler. I think I strained my right hand doing that. Actually, I think for those sections I remapped the keys so I could just rest my left hand on the space bar, instead of holding right click (why did we have to *hold* it? Did they only have momentary SPST switches left when they built that part of the Normandy II?)

No, it wasn't a bad game. Far, far from it. Very far. I long for the day EA does a hostile takeover of Ubisoft. It was just one of those clear cases of trying to fix something that wasn't broken. It didn't end up being an RPG-lite, more of a third-person shooter with a few stats.

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand "hardcore" RPG mechanics like dice rolling and doing calculus in order to figure out if you can hit that dragon. It's kinda insulting, too - here I am, on a machine that can millions of calculations per second, and they've turned it into a set of dice and a pencil and paper. But I do love the loot, the basic stats (in simple percentages,) and the storylines, which no one bothers with for some reason on non-RPG games. The loot and simple stats were a little thin in ME2.

II J0SePh X II
2nd Sep 2010, 06:54
I've really enjoyed Mass Effect 2 and can't wait til next tuesday and when Lair of the Shadow Broker comes out. Here's the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnH0p6p03hU&feature=player_embedded

I think it stands up for itself in the shooty-shooty pew-pew department, there's a rich variety of classes and tons of choice in the way you want to approach the game.

I hope DE:HR takes the hub-based exploration and mission selection route. Has anything about this been stated by the team? Personally I like to have a lot of choice as to what to do next.

Irate_Iguana
2nd Sep 2010, 08:46
I guess if you have basically no standards about how well a shooter handles or whatever I guess I could see you liking it. But in terms of linear OTS shooters it's pretty much on hte lowest tier cos the shooting and cover are really floaty because they are bad at Unreal 3.

As I said, it's not a shooter to me. The combat mechanics are pretty wonky. So are a few other things in the game. Doesn't spoil my enjoyment of the game.



Plus I just don't get how you could be so starved for Space Opera that you'd be willing to put up with stuff that is as terrible as the whole HUMAN REAPER reveal at the end of ME2. I mean basically at some point it crosses from cheesy to outright terrible. I mean it's a lot like Cyberpunk in that it's largely neglected by modern game designers but still I dunno why your appreciation of a genre would prompt you to pick up such a bad game.

Besides the fact that I can't really point out any other space opera games, there is such a thing as mindless entertainment. I'm one of those people who watches bad movies because they are bad. Because the plot is ridiculous and the characters are wonky. I play the ME games because I like Sci-Fi and I like their odd story and I even like their bad characters. All in all I just like watching the train wreck and seeing how they'll miracle their ass out of the next corner they've written themselves in. Their is something hilarious about their dialog. Especially playing as EXTREME Shepard.



I'm just saying that I think it's weird to see people all pontificating about the importance of Freedom and stuff not just in Deus Ex, but in all games and talking about how the direction the industry is going is SO TERRIBLE because it's all about linearity and stuff and then seeing basically the same people talking up a game that is one of the worst offenders in terms of faux freedom.

Deus Ex was great and it is a shame that the industry decided that games like that shouldn't be made anymore. I do think that the focus of the industry is on the wrong things. Mostly on flavor of the month mechanics, pretty graphics and a desire to be "epic". I'd like to see much more diversity. That is the key. I don't want all games to be a carbon copy of one game that I happened to like. you won't see me complaining about how the next Halo doesn't have huge choices and consequences and a gameworld that reacts to player-driven changes. There should be a ton of different games out there. Sadly the offer is limited. I'm not so much about the decline of gaming as a whole as I am about the decline of individual series and a loss of diversity.

Pretentious Old Man.
2nd Sep 2010, 13:12
As I said, it's not a shooter to me. The combat mechanics are pretty wonky. So are a few other things in the game. Doesn't spoil my enjoyment of the game.




Besides the fact that I can't really point out any other space opera games, there is such a thing as mindless entertainment. I'm one of those people who watches bad movies because they are bad. Because the plot is ridiculous and the characters are wonky. I play the ME games because I like Sci-Fi and I like their odd story and I even like their bad characters. All in all I just like watching the train wreck and seeing how they'll miracle their ass out of the next corner they've written themselves in. Their is something hilarious about their dialog. Especially playing as EXTREME Shepard.




Deus Ex was great and it is a shame that the industry decided that games like that shouldn't be made anymore. I do think that the focus of the industry is on the wrong things. Mostly on flavor of the month mechanics, pretty graphics and a desire to be "epic". I'd like to see much more diversity. That is the key. I don't want all games to be a carbon copy of one game that I happened to like. you won't see me complaining about how the next Halo doesn't have huge choices and consequences and a gameworld that reacts to player-driven changes. There should be a ton of different games out there. Sadly the offer is limited. I'm not so much about the decline of gaming as a whole as I am about the decline of individual series and a loss of diversity.


So...would you join my petition for a first-person Dune RPG? :)

Pinky_Powers
2nd Sep 2010, 13:17
So...would you join my petition for a first-person Dune RPG? :)

Dune is far too boring.

I know, I know. That's heresy. But there you have it.

Pretentious Old Man.
2nd Sep 2010, 13:23
Dune is far too boring.

I know, I know. That's heresy. But there you have it.

Harkonnen very angry... :mad2:

WildcatPhoenix
2nd Sep 2010, 13:28
Dune is far too boring.

I know, I know. That's heresy. But there you have it.

Good god, I'm agreeing with Pinky! There must be something in the water. :confused:

Pinky_Powers
2nd Sep 2010, 13:28
Harkonnen very angry... :mad2:

There's just soooooo much sand. And sandy people. I get tired and thirsty just thinking about it.

-~::Edit::~-

Good god, I'm agreeing with Pinky! There must be something in the water. :confused:

Bloody hell! I think even my soul got goosebumps. This cannot continue!

Irate_Iguana
2nd Sep 2010, 14:03
So...would you join my petition for a first-person Dune RPG? :)

Only if that includes Sting.

Pretentious Old Man.
2nd Sep 2010, 15:13
Only if that includes Sting.

Done.

And anyone basing their opinion on the films/games of Dune rather than the book has not lived, incidentally.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2010, 00:30
I want another space combat game... There hasn't really been a major release since early 2000. =(

Pinky_Powers
3rd Sep 2010, 00:42
I want another space combat game... There hasn't really been a major release since early 2000. =(

id Software is making Doom 4. That's something.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2010, 00:46
id Software is making Doom 4. That's something.
Nono, I mean like control a starship game. Escape Velocity is an example.

Pinky_Powers
3rd Sep 2010, 00:49
Nono, I mean like control a starship game. Escape Velocity is an example.

Ah, I gotch'ya.

I do so miss the old Wing Commander days. :hmm:

Romeo
3rd Sep 2010, 00:50
Ah, I gotch'ya.

I do so miss the old Wing Commander days. :hmm:
I played a game called Galactic Civilizations 2 recently... Although it was TBS, it was also pretty fun as you got to literally make a spaceship.

pringlepower
3rd Sep 2010, 01:16
I played a game called Galactic Civilizations 2 recently... Although it was TBS, it was also pretty fun as you got to literally make a spaceship.

I spent hours making a civ that had toaster, spatula, frying pan, etc. ships. With black hole generator missile launchers. Ah that game is good stuff.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2010, 01:19
I spent hours making a civ that had toaster, spatula, frying pan, etc. ships. With black hole generator missile launchers. Ah that game is good stuff.
LOL

I just tried to model my ships off of real life vehicles.

pringlepower
3rd Sep 2010, 01:29
LOL

I just tried to model my ships off of real life vehicles.

You can put a lot of love into your ships... just to see them blow up.

Also you should play Homeworld and Homeworld 2 if you haven't yet. Not space-combat like Freespace, but they're some really good RTS games, with a 3d map.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2010, 01:40
You can put a lot of love into your ships... just to see them blow up.

Also you should play Homeworld and Homeworld 2 if you haven't yet. Not space-combat like Freespace, but they're some really good RTS games, with a 3d map.
Will look into it tomorrow. Mall will be closed soon, although I have tomorrow off.

pringlepower
3rd Sep 2010, 02:16
Will look into it tomorrow. Mall will be closed soon, although I have tomorrow off.

Yeah it's also got a really nice storyline that's like Jews in space with Arabic tinges. And if you like emotionless characters (aka JC), you'll love the campaign advisor. They have one tone of voice. It really adds to the atmosphere when you get overwhelmed by enemies and the dvisorator calmly calls for retaliation.

And the combat is in full 3D - meaning ships can move along the x, y, and z axes, and capital ships are weaker at the tops and bottoms, and can strafe. So it's a great space strategy simulation.

Sorry if I'm blabbering about this but Homeworld is one of my favourite series. And made by Canadians (go Relic!)

Romeo
3rd Sep 2010, 05:57
Yeah it's also got a really nice storyline that's like Jews in space with Arabic tinges. And if you like emotionless characters (aka JC), you'll love the campaign advisor. They have one tone of voice. It really adds to the atmosphere when you get overwhelmed by enemies and the dvisorator calmly calls for retaliation.

And the combat is in full 3D - meaning ships can move along the x, y, and z axes, and capital ships are weaker at the tops and bottoms, and can strafe. So it's a great space strategy simulation.

Sorry if I'm blabbering about this but Homeworld is one of my favourite series. And made by Canadians (go Relic!)
Oh RELIC! They're no more than a five minute drive from where I live. I really liked the original Dawn of War series they did, and combined with what you just said, I'm really looking forward to these. Are they still sold? Or are they too old?

pringlepower
3rd Sep 2010, 06:54
Oh RELIC! They're no more than a five minute drive from where I live. I really liked the original Dawn of War series they did, and combined with what you just said, I'm really looking forward to these. Are they still sold? Or are they too old?

Homeworld was released in 1999, so that's definitely not in stores anymore, except maybe ones that specifically sell old games, or used game stores. Homeworld 2 was released in 2003, and the last time I saw it in stores was 2007 in a Toronto Costco, so it's probably not available either.

Homeworld might be available as a free download, since Sierra (Relic's publisher before THQ) did release Ground Control for free, but I'm not sure.

Romeo
3rd Sep 2010, 07:07
Homeworld was released in 1999, so that's definitely not in stores anymore, except maybe ones that specifically sell old games, or used game stores. Homeworld 2 was released in 2003, and the last time I saw it in stores was 2007 in a Toronto Costco, so it's probably not available either.

Homeworld might be available as a free download, since Sierra (Relic's publisher before THQ) did release Ground Control for free, but I'm not sure.
Bah, worst case scenario I can just hit up the shop at Relic. It's actually closer than EB Games to me. LOL

Ninjerk
3rd Sep 2010, 08:38
Yeah, FO3: 10 iirc. I was wary of IGN before that. Now, I find it unreadable.

lithos
3rd Sep 2010, 10:05
I hear Gamespot's already given Human Revolution 11 out of 10.

The Monochrome Man
3rd Sep 2010, 10:26
Homeworld 2 was released in 2003, and the last time I saw it in stores was 2007 in a Toronto Costco, so it's probably not available either.

It's out of print now, but there's still a lot of copies from GSP floating around.

I've hoping it would come up on Sold-Out, but they've never picked up the series. They've still got the original Deus-Ex by the way, so you can expect to see that back in stores when DE3 releases. :)

Pinky_Powers
3rd Sep 2010, 10:49
I hear Gamespot's already given Human Revolution 11 out of 10.

I doubt it. There's no car jacking or hooker killing. Is third-person cover really enough to get them that excited?

lithos
3rd Sep 2010, 11:05
I doubt it. There's no car jacking or hooker killing. Is third-person cover really enough to get them that excited?

That wasn't the point...

Pinky_Powers
3rd Sep 2010, 14:46
That wasn't the point...

You're as shy as a maiden. This is a safe place. Please, tell me about the point.

Pretentious Old Man.
3rd Sep 2010, 17:37
You're as shy as a maiden. This is a safe place. Please, tell me about the point.

When did you become a shrink? :)

Romeo, have you played any of the "X" series? Couldn't help but notice your comment on a lack of recent space combat games when we have X3: The Terran Conflict to play! :)

OtzUtCWfkKU

lithos
3rd Sep 2010, 18:04
You're as shy as a maiden. This is a safe place. Please, tell me about the point.

Jeez, you been under a rock?

This basically sums it up: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/11/30/

pringlepower
3rd Sep 2010, 18:11
When did you become a shrink? :)

Romeo, have you played any of the "X" series? Couldn't help but notice your comment on a lack of recent space combat games when we have X3: The Terran Conflict to play! :)

OtzUtCWfkKU

I've been thinking about trying this for a while, but I kept getting mixed reviews about it from my friends. So it's good?

Or Romeo you could just pick up Freespace 2 SCP and its various mods

Pretentious Old Man.
3rd Sep 2010, 18:31
I've been thinking about trying this for a while, but I kept getting mixed reviews about it from my friends. So it's good?

Or Romeo you could just pick up Freespace 2 SCP and its various mods

YES, it is. One of the deepest games ever made.

Not for the CoD crowd, but that goes without saying.

Pinky_Powers
4th Sep 2010, 04:00
Jeez, you been under a rock?

This basically sums it up: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/11/30/

Sure sure. But then you've got gross examples like this (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/grandtheftauto4/index.html), and it makes you ask questions.

lithos
4th Sep 2010, 05:05
That wasn't an Eidos game.

And, yeah, GTAIV was terrible. Nothing kills a fun, lighthearted game like making it "gritty" and "realistic." Failing that, make the main character bipolar.

Pinky_Powers
4th Sep 2010, 05:24
I was looking at the score they gave it. 10 out of 10... for GTAIV.

As many things as you might dislike about Human Revolution, it is absolutely a far more complicated game than we've seen in a long time. And based on GameSpot's history, I can't see them according it very many points.

No game that lets you talk your way through mission objectives, or play the entire thing without killing, is going to get a fictitiously high score by the likes of them.

pringlepower
4th Sep 2010, 05:55
That wasn't an Eidos game.

And, yeah, GTAIV was terrible. Nothing kills a fun, lighthearted game like making it "gritty" and "realistic." Failing that, make the main character bipolar.

That accent though... dayum.

Shralla
4th Sep 2010, 06:21
And, yeah, GTAIV was terrible. Nothing kills a fun, lighthearted game like making it "gritty" and "realistic." Failing that, make the main character bipolar.

There was nothing gritty or realistic about GTA4. It wasn't even trying to be.

pringlepower
4th Sep 2010, 06:31
There was nothing gritty or realistic about GTA4. It wasn't even trying to be.

Compared with the other ones, yeah. No tanks.

lithos
4th Sep 2010, 06:39
There was nothing gritty or realistic about GTA4. It wasn't even trying to be.

Compared to San Andreas? Vice City? Zero of the memorable, vaguely disturbing characters that were a hallmark of the series. Instead, you get a gallery of interchangeable underworld types.

The car selection was designed to be much more realistic - ie, abysmal. Sure, in real life, you can probably go years without seeing a Ferrari or Porsche, and that's what they aimed for in GTAIV. I think I drove an Infernus three times during my entire playthrough. That's not why we play GTAIV. Instead, you got a range of bog-standard, mid-range sedans, hatchbacks and station wagons that handled like a greased pig on a Teflon floor. Realism.

The city was dead boring. Yes, Mr. Houser, we know, you went to New York. Congratulations. Liberty looks like every other city in the world, now.

And Roman was an idiot, an annoying one. He does clean himself up during the game, which was nice...until Rockstar decided to urinate on all that and make him do an unbelievable 180 degree turn so they could tack on an extremely artificial "moral choice" ending.

And the PC version wasn't so much ported as raped.

pringlepower
4th Sep 2010, 06:54
Compared to San Andreas? Vice City? Zero of the memorable, vaguely disturbing characters that were a hallmark of the series. Instead, you get a gallery of interchangeable underworld types.

The car selection was designed to be much more realistic - ie, abysmal. Sure, in real life, you can probably go years without seeing a Ferrari or Porsche, and that's what they aimed for in GTAIV. I think I drove an Infernus three times during my entire playthrough. That's not why we play GTAIV. Instead, you got a range of bog-standard, mid-range sedans, hatchbacks and station wagons that handled like a greased pig on a Teflon floor. Realism.

The city was dead boring. Yes, Mr. Houser, we know, you went to New York. Congratulations. Liberty looks like every other city in the world, now.

And Roman was an idiot, an annoying one. He does clean himself up during the game, which was nice...until Rockstar decided to urinate on all that and make him do an unbelievable 180 degree turn so they could tack on an extremely artificial "moral choice" ending.

And the PC version wasn't so much ported as raped.

I got plenty of Banshees, Turismos, and NRGs though. Maybe they were afraid of you?

And Liberty City looking like the city it's based on is bad now?

Nahhh Roman was cool.

Shralla
4th Sep 2010, 10:06
I can't believe you didn't think there were any memorable characters in GTA4. Brucie and Packie were both hilariously over-the-top.

Romeo
6th Sep 2010, 04:15
When did you become a shrink? :)

Romeo, have you played any of the "X" series? Couldn't help but notice your comment on a lack of recent space combat games when we have X3: The Terran Conflict to play! :)

OtzUtCWfkKU
Gasp! I retract my comments! :)

lithos
6th Sep 2010, 06:31
I can't believe you didn't think there were any memorable characters in GTA4. Brucie and Packie were both hilariously over-the-top.

But in contrast to the rest of the tone of the game, they felt horribly out of place.

hem dazon 90
6th Sep 2010, 08:33
But in contrast to the rest of the tone of the game, they felt horribly out of place.

I take it you don't know many hilariously over the top people then



Anyway OTCT I loved GTA4 the story was great the gameplay was fun and Niko is one of my favorite game characters ever

Romeo
7th Sep 2010, 03:30
My single strike against GTAIV was that it got caught in between realism and over-the-top. It wasn't "real" enough to be hardcore, and it wasn't silly enough to be arcadey.

lithos
7th Sep 2010, 04:16
My single strike against GTAIV was that it got caught in between realism and over-the-top. It wasn't "real" enough to be hardcore, and it wasn't silly enough to be arcadey.

Yeah, that's a good description. Face it, in real life, even if you're a member of the criminal underworld, a lot of the stuff you do would get boring (even shootouts, eventually.) That's what happened. There were no completely fun, but utterly stupid missions like jumping a bike over rooftops to turn on a pair of spotlights to project a giant pair of breasts onto the clouds to advertise your porn studio. Or stealing a jar of alien goo off a train for an acid-shredded hippie. That was fun.

In GTAIV, due to realism, most missions ended up constrained by that - "Take this average, non-descript station wagon, drive to location X - try not too attract any attention - wait for people to start shooting, then shoot back."

That, and the Facebook gameplay.

hem dazon 90
7th Sep 2010, 07:51
So...would you join my petition for a first-person Dune RPG? :)


I love you

Rindill the Red
7th Sep 2010, 07:56
My single strike against GTAIV was that it got caught in between realism and over-the-top. It wasn't "real" enough to be hardcore, and it wasn't silly enough to be arcadey.

I endorse this statement.

On the other hand, GTA IV is a sort of "return-to-roots" for the franchise. GTA IV is more like the original GTA than GTA: Vice City or GTA: San Andreas. In fact, you might say GTA IV is like GTA with upgraded graphics and updated simulations and with dramatic storytelling thrown in. I'm not saying this was the best thing for Rockstar to do, I'm just saying I understand their motives.

The problem is that the RAGE engine and Rockstar's implementation of Liberty City is so realistic that it makes you want to imagine it *is* a representation of our own reality--which conflicts with the rather arcadey nature of the GTA universe.

Rather, to truly appreciate what GTA IV is, you have to look at Liberty City as Liberty City; not as an attempted clone of real New York, but as a somewhat wacky parody/farce/satire of our own reality: of crime, of city life, of relationships, of types of people, of motives, of culture, etc. -- Once you stop wanting GTA to be more serious like Mafia II or more arcadey like San Andreas, you will then be able to appreciate it for what it is.

That being said, the game definitely could have used more mission variety.

Rindill the Red
7th Sep 2010, 08:00
I want another space combat game... There hasn't really been a major release since early 2000. =(

I've heard that Mass Effect 3 may include player controlled space combat... not sure, just speculation (but I think somewhere the developers said that they wanted to implement that).

I've also heard that SWTOR is going to have space combat as well.

Seems like space combat is snaking into other genres... not a bad thing.

It's curious though, with how relatively cheap a space combat game is to make, that there aren't more of them in the works or in the market.

pringlepower
7th Sep 2010, 08:01
I endorse this statement.

On the other hand, GTA IV is a sort of "return-to-roots" for the franchise. GTA IV is more like the original GTA than GTA: Vice City or GTA: San Andreas. In fact, you might say GTA IV is like GTA with upgraded graphics and simulations with dramatic storytelling thrown in. I'm not saying this was the best thing for Rockstar to do, I'm just saying I understand their motives.

The problem is that the RAGE engine and Rockstar's implementation of Liberty City is so realistic that it makes you want to imagine it *is* a representation of our own reality--which conflicts with the rather arcadey nature of the GTA universe.

Rather, to truly appreciate what GTA IV is, you have to look at Liberty City as Liberty City; not as an attempted clone of real New York, but as a somewhat wacky parody/farce/satire of our own reality: of crime, of city life, of relationships, of types of people, of motives, of culture, etc. -- Once you stop wanting GTA to be more serious like Mafia II or more arcadey like San Andreas, you will then be able to appreciate it for what it is.

That being said, the game definitely could have used more mission variety.

Bank robbery was fun. And the Ballad of Gay Tony.

Shralla
7th Sep 2010, 08:58
But in contrast to the rest of the tone of the game, they felt horribly out of place.

Maybe if you don't realize that people like that actually exist, and it's more of an exaggerated stereotype than anything else, just like most of the GTA series.

Pinky_Powers
7th Sep 2010, 13:28
Powerfully weird characters are never out of place.

PS. this that comment terribly off topic? I was just skimming the last few posts of the thread. But I think I know what was being talked about.

Romeo
8th Sep 2010, 01:00
I've heard that Mass Effect 3 may include player controlled space combat... not sure, just speculation (but I think somewhere the developers said that they wanted to implement that).

I've also heard that SWTOR is going to have space combat as well.

Seems like space combat is snaking into other genres... not a bad thing.

It's curious though, with how relatively cheap a space combat game is to make, that there aren't more of them in the works or in the market.
They had spoke of that during ME2, when I was on there. Funny how things go around like that. Maybe they'll get it in this time around. =)

Powerfully weird characters are never out of place.

PS. this that comment terribly off topic? I was just skimming the last few posts of the thread. But I think I know what was being talked about.
Yes we are outrageously off-topic, but there's a reason why: Someone brought up game reviewers, which led to games, which led to... This. Here, I'll make another thread for it. lol

Romeo
8th Sep 2010, 01:02
Continued here: http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=113404

CodenameD
8th Sep 2010, 04:39
heh im surprised ign gave the original deus ex a 9.4