All these "blah blah I am a reviewer so I am going to emphasize the flaws more than anything else" is reminding me I still haven't gotten Alone in the Dark.
All these "blah blah I am a reviewer so I am going to emphasize the flaws more than anything else" is reminding me I still haven't gotten Alone in the Dark.
To be fair, that looks genuinely shit. The PS3 version is apparently a lot better though, they fixed most of the stupid problems.
Hmmm. I definitely want it, though I do think more and more I'm going to agree with a lot of its flaws. I was always prepared for the linearity, and a lot of the faults they bring up probably won't bother me much, but three review sources I pay a lot of attention to think the story's rubbish (1Up, Edge UK, Eurogamer) - I am now severely lowering my expectations.
Although
Faith, the strikingly designed lead, sounds like she's seconds away from offering you a timeshare with her anodyne Californian accent
is the kind of stupid, stupid line that makes me slightly embarrassed to be British. Never had any problems with her voiceovers in what I've seen so far. Not every lead character has to be bursting with "personality", like some cheesy 80s day-glo action movie.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
I've always thought of this game as a racing game more than anything else, and a lot of the complaints about this game are irrelevant from this perspective. With few exceptions, racers are linear, and there's a hell of a lot of replay value in them, even if you are just shaving off half a second or so. A racing/platformer game sounds very interesting to me, and story hardly matters in either of those genres.
Also, I really don't understand why they hammer it for being linear. It's not Assassin's Creed or GTA, why does it need a wide open sandbox world? Apart from Burnout Paradise, that's not the way that racing games or platformers work.
I typically like Eurogamer reviews, and the review would probably echo my own sentiments about the game. But it is not a very helpful review. It is a litany of issues they had followed by a lukewarm endorsement despite them. The 8/10 at the end just drives home the cognitive dissonance on display. If it's like Assassin's Creed in that it's an undercooked demonstration of something potentially greater, then their recommendation at the end really should be "Buy it if it interests you, but know well that if you can wait a year or two it's going to be done much better in its sequel".
*And that's my review of the review*
Silly reviews - I know why they're turning out why they are, but $60 is too much money to spend these days on a half-baked experience. Which is probably why I'll end up buying it for $55 or something at newegg anyway :P.
Ultimanecat on
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
1up, edge, eurogamer.
I don't trust any of them.
You take as many reviews as possible and average them and then maybe you'll get something worth listening to.
Maybe.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I've always thought of this game as a racing game more than anything else, and a lot of the complaints about this game are irrelevant from this perspective. With few exceptions, racers are linear, and there's a hell of a lot of replay value in them, even if you are just shaving off half a second or so. A racing/platformer game sounds very interesting to me, and story hardly matters in either of those genres.
Also, I really don't understand why they hammer it for being linear. It's not Assassin's Creed or GTA, why does it need a wide open sandbox world? Apart from Burnout Paradise, that's not the way that racing games or platformers work.
But it's not a racing game.
yea, there's a time trial, and I'm sure tons of people are going to have fun shaving points off, but just the same, some people aren't. With a racing game, you're always competing against someone else, even if it just the computer. Plus there's interaction with your competition.
Considering you're seeing/playing the whole game inside a character's head and point of view, I can see why someone would consider the story to be important, or at the very least, wished it was decent.
I've always thought of this game as a racing game more than anything else, and a lot of the complaints about this game are irrelevant from this perspective. With few exceptions, racers are linear, and there's a hell of a lot of replay value in them, even if you are just shaving off half a second or so. A racing/platformer game sounds very interesting to me, and story hardly matters in either of those genres.
Also, I really don't understand why they hammer it for being linear. It's not Assassin's Creed or GTA, why does it need a wide open sandbox world? Apart from Burnout Paradise, that's not the way that racing games or platformers work.
But it's not a racing game.
yea, there's a time trial, and I'm sure tons of people are going to have fun shaving points off, but just the same, some people aren't. With a racing game, you're always competing against someone else, even if it just the computer. Plus there's interaction with your competition.
Considering you're seeing/playing the whole game inside a character's head and point of view, I can see why someone would consider the story to be important, or at the very least, wished it was decent.
You take as many reviews as possible and average them and then maybe you'll get something worth listening to.
Maybe.
I... no, I'm not going down this route.
Though I will say (I guess that's obvious, since I just replied to you) that "trust" doesn't come into it, and that I've long been aware I'm in a very small minority as regards the general internet "Every game is brilliant, it's all just your opinion, maaaan" approach to things.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
I've always thought of this game as a racing game more than anything else, and a lot of the complaints about this game are irrelevant from this perspective. With few exceptions, racers are linear, and there's a hell of a lot of replay value in them, even if you are just shaving off half a second or so. A racing/platformer game sounds very interesting to me, and story hardly matters in either of those genres.
Also, I really don't understand why they hammer it for being linear. It's not Assassin's Creed or GTA, why does it need a wide open sandbox world? Apart from Burnout Paradise, that's not the way that racing games or platformers work.
But it's not a racing game.
yea, there's a time trial, and I'm sure tons of people are going to have fun shaving points off, but just the same, some people aren't. With a racing game, you're always competing against someone else, even if it just the computer. Plus there's interaction with your competition.
Considering you're seeing/playing the whole game inside a character's head and point of view, I can see why someone would consider the story to be important, or at the very least, wished it was decent.
Have you never seen rally driving? Or air races?
You can race against your ghosts as well.
I'm generally not good at racing games, but I got to the point in Burnout 2 where I don't see the competition after the first hundred metres, yet I still enjoy racing it over and over again, against my ghost, trying to get better times. Couple this with the ability to download friends' ghosts, and I'm pretty happy.
If you look at it as a racer, then it seems like a solid, different take on the genre. If you look at it as a platformer, well, let's just say that Mario has never had a good story. People don't play mario for time trials either, but they usually have a lot of replay value. I think that the first person view is causing people to view it as an FPS that's light on shooting, some sort of action/adventure game, and from that perspective, it does have a lot of shortcomings, but I think that's because you're asking it to be something that it's not, something it was never intended to be.
Who cares? We all played the demo so it should be obvious what the decision is.
I was going to say this exact thing. I wouldn't mind 8+ hours of gameplay just like the demo, with the added bonus of time trials.
If you hate the demo, and/or you were expecting something besides a linear first person platformer with parkour, then don't buy it. If you like the concept of a first person platformer with parkour, with an interesting visual style and setting, then buy it.
I played the demo. I liked it. A lot. I'll buy the game.
And I still want/wanted a decent story. You know, since the game is actually being sold as single-player, bold new IP, distinctive design work, setting that was actually thought up in tandem with the basic concept? If it was just "Run very fast across anonymous city rooftops - who are you? Who cares?", sure, I don't think I'd really have much grounds for complaint. But hey, I guess I'll just have to make do with truth, justice and the crusade for individual freedom as brought to you by EATrax. You like treating the game as a pure racer with some ephemeral weird shit going on in the background? Good for you. Some of us were hoping for a little more than that.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
I've always thought of this game as a racing game more than anything else, and a lot of the complaints about this game are irrelevant from this perspective. With few exceptions, racers are linear, and there's a hell of a lot of replay value in them, even if you are just shaving off half a second or so. A racing/platformer game sounds very interesting to me, and story hardly matters in either of those genres.
Also, I really don't understand why they hammer it for being linear. It's not Assassin's Creed or GTA, why does it need a wide open sandbox world? Apart from Burnout Paradise, that's not the way that racing games or platformers work.
But it's not a racing game.
yea, there's a time trial, and I'm sure tons of people are going to have fun shaving points off, but just the same, some people aren't. With a racing game, you're always competing against someone else, even if it just the computer. Plus there's interaction with your competition.
Considering you're seeing/playing the whole game inside a character's head and point of view, I can see why someone would consider the story to be important, or at the very least, wished it was decent.
Have you never seen rally driving? Or air races?
You can race against your ghosts as well.
I'm generally not good at racing games, but I got to the point in Burnout 2 where I don't see the competition after the first hundred metres, yet I still enjoy racing it over and over again, against my ghost, trying to get better times. Couple this with the ability to download friends' ghosts, and I'm pretty happy.
If you look at it as a racer, then it seems like a solid, different take on the genre. If you look at it as a platformer, well, let's just say that Mario has never had a good story. People don't play mario for time trials either, but they usually have a lot of replay value. I think that the first person view is causing people to view it as an FPS that's light on shooting, some sort of action/adventure game, and from that perspective, it does have a lot of shortcomings, but I think that's because you're asking it to be something that it's not, something it was never intended to be.
About the ghosts.
Do you actually see a see through faith running around? or is it something else?
I played the demo. I liked it. A lot. I'll buy the game.
And I still want/wanted a decent story. You know, since the game is actually being sold as single-player, bold new IP, distinctive design work, setting that was actually thought up in tandem with the basic concept? If it was just "Run very fast across anonymous city rooftops - who are you? Who cares?", sure, I don't think I'd really have much grounds for complaint. But hey, I guess I'll just have to make do with truth, justice and the crusade for individual freedom as brought to you by EATrax. You like treating the game as a pure racer with some ephemeral weird shit going on in the background? Good for you. Some of us were hoping for a little more than that.
I played the demo too and enjoyed it. But if story and gunplay are in the game, it is fair to point them out as being lacking or poorly-implemented, especially when this game seems to take its story pretty seriously. The developer may tell us years from now that they were forced to add those parts to the game and really did just want a pure parkour game, but for now we have to accept that it was their intent all along, and we can judge the game for how well it incorporates them. And honestly, if I wanted a pure parkour game, I'd probably appreciate a more open experience than what this game is offering (more similar to skate or Tony Hawk) instead of a series of linear courses. But of course that's just me.
I'm not convinced that the story isn't going to be good. It just seems to be understated. I prefer to not have lengthy exposition. What we got from the demo seems to be pretty good. There was an introductory cutscene that adequately conveys the backstory, and we get hints from the person in charge that things ain't quite right. Clearly, the reviewers know something that I don't, but I'm not ready to decry it for having a bad story yet.
I've always thought of this game as a racing game more than anything else, and a lot of the complaints about this game are irrelevant from this perspective. With few exceptions, racers are linear, and there's a hell of a lot of replay value in them, even if you are just shaving off half a second or so. A racing/platformer game sounds very interesting to me, and story hardly matters in either of those genres.
Also, I really don't understand why they hammer it for being linear. It's not Assassin's Creed or GTA, why does it need a wide open sandbox world? Apart from Burnout Paradise, that's not the way that racing games or platformers work.
But it's not a racing game.
yea, there's a time trial, and I'm sure tons of people are going to have fun shaving points off, but just the same, some people aren't. With a racing game, you're always competing against someone else, even if it just the computer. Plus there's interaction with your competition.
Considering you're seeing/playing the whole game inside a character's head and point of view, I can see why someone would consider the story to be important, or at the very least, wished it was decent.
Have you never seen rally driving? Or air races?
You can race against your ghosts as well.
I'm generally not good at racing games, but I got to the point in Burnout 2 where I don't see the competition after the first hundred metres, yet I still enjoy racing it over and over again, against my ghost, trying to get better times. Couple this with the ability to download friends' ghosts, and I'm pretty happy.
If you look at it as a racer, then it seems like a solid, different take on the genre. If you look at it as a platformer, well, let's just say that Mario has never had a good story. People don't play mario for time trials either, but they usually have a lot of replay value. I think that the first person view is causing people to view it as an FPS that's light on shooting, some sort of action/adventure game, and from that perspective, it does have a lot of shortcomings, but I think that's because you're asking it to be something that it's not, something it was never intended to be.
About the ghosts.
Do you actually see a see through faith running around? or is it something else?
Apparently they have not made 3D models of faith doing her thing, so I don't know.
AnteCantelope on
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
I've always thought of this game as a racing game more than anything else, and a lot of the complaints about this game are irrelevant from this perspective. With few exceptions, racers are linear, and there's a hell of a lot of replay value in them, even if you are just shaving off half a second or so. A racing/platformer game sounds very interesting to me, and story hardly matters in either of those genres.
Also, I really don't understand why they hammer it for being linear. It's not Assassin's Creed or GTA, why does it need a wide open sandbox world? Apart from Burnout Paradise, that's not the way that racing games or platformers work.
But it's not a racing game.
yea, there's a time trial, and I'm sure tons of people are going to have fun shaving points off, but just the same, some people aren't. With a racing game, you're always competing against someone else, even if it just the computer. Plus there's interaction with your competition.
Considering you're seeing/playing the whole game inside a character's head and point of view, I can see why someone would consider the story to be important, or at the very least, wished it was decent.
Have you never seen rally driving? Or air races?
You can race against your ghosts as well.
I'm generally not good at racing games, but I got to the point in Burnout 2 where I don't see the competition after the first hundred metres, yet I still enjoy racing it over and over again, against my ghost, trying to get better times. Couple this with the ability to download friends' ghosts, and I'm pretty happy.
If you look at it as a racer, then it seems like a solid, different take on the genre. If you look at it as a platformer, well, let's just say that Mario has never had a good story. People don't play mario for time trials either, but they usually have a lot of replay value. I think that the first person view is causing people to view it as an FPS that's light on shooting, some sort of action/adventure game, and from that perspective, it does have a lot of shortcomings, but I think that's because you're asking it to be something that it's not, something it was never intended to be.
About the ghosts.
Do you actually see a see through faith running around? or is it something else?
Apparently they have not made 3D models of faith doing her thing, so I don't know.
Really?
That seems a bit odd since her arms, legs and waist you see while running around. It's strange they didn't model all of her.
I believe it was posted earlier in the thread that they had to kind of mess a few things around to make the perspective actually work, and so it looks right to you from your perspective.
That seems a bit odd since her arms, legs and waist you see while running around. It's strange they didn't model all of her.
It was brought up earlier in the thread that the model you see from her perspective in the game 1)does not actually resemble a human being and 2) some of the animations were crafted specifically for the perspective and do not look correct outside of it.
That seems a bit odd since her arms, legs and waist you see while running around. It's strange they didn't model all of her.
They have said in interviews that they exaggerated the movements of the player model for the first-person perspective to give the player a better sense of how Faith is moving.
It looks fine in first person but if you were to view it from third-person it would look pretty weird.
You take as many reviews as possible and average them and then maybe you'll get something worth listening to.
Maybe.
I... no, I'm not going down this route.
Though I will say (I guess that's obvious, since I just replied to you) that "trust" doesn't come into it, and that I've long been aware I'm in a very small minority as regards the general internet "Every game is brilliant, it's all just your opinion, maaaan" approach to things.
I have no idea what you just said but it seemed to work for you.
You really didn't like "trust" though, I gathered that.
Unless you are arguing that researching a potential purchase from many different angles is a bad thing to do?
Because my basic angle there is "Read as many views as possible and make up your own mind."
I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
You take as many reviews as possible and average them and then maybe you'll get something worth listening to.
Maybe.
I... no, I'm not going down this route.
Though I will say (I guess that's obvious, since I just replied to you) that "trust" doesn't come into it, and that I've long been aware I'm in a very small minority as regards the general internet "Every game is brilliant, it's all just your opinion, maaaan" approach to things.
I have no idea what you just said but it seemed to work for you.
You really didn't like "trust" though, I gathered that.
Unless you are arguing that researching a potential purchase from many different angles is a bad thing to do?
Because my basic angle there is "Read as many views as possible and make up your own mind."
I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.
Well, in a way, if you read a bunch of different perspectives-- yet, you still don't even trust these perspectives/reviews to begin with --wouldn't that mean that, in the end, the conclsuion you reach would be based on opinions you don't even trust to begin with thus making your "product" inconclusive and untrustworthy?
I find reading several different reviews to be a good tack. Usually you'll hear a bunch of positive things (that we've been hearing about since media first got their hands on the game at an E3 or whatever), and then a bunch of negatives that are often (not always) individual to the reviewer. Some won't like the interface, some won't enjoy the music, one may experience a gamebreaking bug.
But after reading all these reviews and playing the game, you start to understand that all of the reviewers were "correct", in that the positives and problems they pointed out exist, but their impact on your enjoyment of the game is entirely subjective to you. The best you can glean from reviews is often information about the content of a game and/or its level of polish - its overall quality is, perhaps, best left to metascores and your personal taste.
Case in point: God Hand.
Chance on
'Chance, you are the best kind of whore.' -Henroid
You take as many reviews as possible and average them and then maybe you'll get something worth listening to.
Maybe.
I... no, I'm not going down this route.
Though I will say (I guess that's obvious, since I just replied to you) that "trust" doesn't come into it, and that I've long been aware I'm in a very small minority as regards the general internet "Every game is brilliant, it's all just your opinion, maaaan" approach to things.
I have no idea what you just said but it seemed to work for you.
You really didn't like "trust" though, I gathered that.
Unless you are arguing that researching a potential purchase from many different angles is a bad thing to do?
Because my basic angle there is "Read as many views as possible and make up your own mind."
I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.
Well, in a way, if you read a bunch of different perspectives-- yet, you still don't even trust these perspectives/reviews to begin with --wouldn't that mean that, in the end, the conclsuion you reach would be based on opinions you don't even trust to begin with thus making your "product" inconclusive and untrustworthy?
What do you think I mean by trust.
Do you think I believe they lie? Seriously? That way lies madness.
No, it's like chance said above, I don't trust their ability to give a game an ultimately emotionally based overal score without a heavy amount of bias related to their lack of time because of the large amount of games they play.
I don't trust them singularly to apply to me. So I read as many as I can to get an overal impression of how a game functions, and ignore for the most part the emotional slant. They are most definitely not in my situation, so it doesn't apply.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Well to be fair, aside from the bugs (which they might've been lucky enough to miss, who knows) it deserved it.
It was good game, don't get me wrong, but it was an 8 or 9 at most.
This is exactly why I ignore reviews in general, it's all so subjective. Most game reviewers have become as annoying as political pundits. In that Eurogamer review he spends 95% of his time talking about what's wrong with the game yet ends with an endorsement to buy and an 8/10. Huh?
If it's another typical FPS I expect more because it's all been done before. Put me in a scary house, in space, in a jungle and throw psychos/zombies, aliens, bad guys/soldiers at me and leave stuff lying around to pick up. But this game is innovative and fresh. I wouldn't have thought a first person platformer would work, let alone one that throws in crazy moves and intense speed. But they've proven they can and they've done it amazingly well.
Why does he keep referring to portal when talking about great story? Portal's story is basically "evil robot trapping you oh noes escape!"
edit: eh, scratch that. Apparently I can't read.
the story is simple fine
but if you don't agree that Portal has some of the best writing this side of Chris Avellone
then you have no soul
Yeah, the writing for Glados is pretty good.
I still feel that it's kind of dumb to compare Portal and Mirror's Edge story wise seeing that from what I know of ME it wouldn't work with Portal's style of story-telling.
The demo is good, but it doesn't feature any of the things that seemingly annoy the reviewers; cheap enemy AI, being forced to fight, poor combat, uninteresting indoor environments, terrible plot, etc.
It's fine to say that you don't trust reviewers, but mind the fact that they have played the game to completion, and I'm fairly certain that they want to like the game as well. This is not the first time we've seen a dichotomy between the demo and the final game (hello, Force Unleashed), so I wouldn't naturally dismiss these concerns just because some dude at whatever gaming outlet is relaying them.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Posts
To be fair, that looks genuinely shit. The PS3 version is apparently a lot better though, they fixed most of the stupid problems.
Although
is the kind of stupid, stupid line that makes me slightly embarrassed to be British. Never had any problems with her voiceovers in what I've seen so far. Not every lead character has to be bursting with "personality", like some cheesy 80s day-glo action movie.
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
Game sucks; go buy it.
Seven Thumbs Up. :x
Also, I really don't understand why they hammer it for being linear. It's not Assassin's Creed or GTA, why does it need a wide open sandbox world? Apart from Burnout Paradise, that's not the way that racing games or platformers work.
I typically like Eurogamer reviews, and the review would probably echo my own sentiments about the game. But it is not a very helpful review. It is a litany of issues they had followed by a lukewarm endorsement despite them. The 8/10 at the end just drives home the cognitive dissonance on display. If it's like Assassin's Creed in that it's an undercooked demonstration of something potentially greater, then their recommendation at the end really should be "Buy it if it interests you, but know well that if you can wait a year or two it's going to be done much better in its sequel".
*And that's my review of the review*
Silly reviews - I know why they're turning out why they are, but $60 is too much money to spend these days on a half-baked experience. Which is probably why I'll end up buying it for $55 or something at newegg anyway :P.
I don't trust any of them.
You take as many reviews as possible and average them and then maybe you'll get something worth listening to.
Maybe.
But it's not a racing game.
yea, there's a time trial, and I'm sure tons of people are going to have fun shaving points off, but just the same, some people aren't. With a racing game, you're always competing against someone else, even if it just the computer. Plus there's interaction with your competition.
Considering you're seeing/playing the whole game inside a character's head and point of view, I can see why someone would consider the story to be important, or at the very least, wished it was decent.
Have you never seen rally driving? Or air races?
Satans..... hints.....
I... no, I'm not going down this route.
Though I will say (I guess that's obvious, since I just replied to you) that "trust" doesn't come into it, and that I've long been aware I'm in a very small minority as regards the general internet "Every game is brilliant, it's all just your opinion, maaaan" approach to things.
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
You can race against your ghosts as well.
I'm generally not good at racing games, but I got to the point in Burnout 2 where I don't see the competition after the first hundred metres, yet I still enjoy racing it over and over again, against my ghost, trying to get better times. Couple this with the ability to download friends' ghosts, and I'm pretty happy.
If you look at it as a racer, then it seems like a solid, different take on the genre. If you look at it as a platformer, well, let's just say that Mario has never had a good story. People don't play mario for time trials either, but they usually have a lot of replay value. I think that the first person view is causing people to view it as an FPS that's light on shooting, some sort of action/adventure game, and from that perspective, it does have a lot of shortcomings, but I think that's because you're asking it to be something that it's not, something it was never intended to be.
I was going to say this exact thing. I wouldn't mind 8+ hours of gameplay just like the demo, with the added bonus of time trials.
If you hate the demo, and/or you were expecting something besides a linear first person platformer with parkour, then don't buy it. If you like the concept of a first person platformer with parkour, with an interesting visual style and setting, then buy it.
There that's my review!
And I still want/wanted a decent story. You know, since the game is actually being sold as single-player, bold new IP, distinctive design work, setting that was actually thought up in tandem with the basic concept? If it was just "Run very fast across anonymous city rooftops - who are you? Who cares?", sure, I don't think I'd really have much grounds for complaint. But hey, I guess I'll just have to make do with truth, justice and the crusade for individual freedom as brought to you by EATrax. You like treating the game as a pure racer with some ephemeral weird shit going on in the background? Good for you. Some of us were hoping for a little more than that.
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
About the ghosts.
Do you actually see a see through faith running around? or is it something else?
Satans..... hints.....
I played the demo too and enjoyed it. But if story and gunplay are in the game, it is fair to point them out as being lacking or poorly-implemented, especially when this game seems to take its story pretty seriously. The developer may tell us years from now that they were forced to add those parts to the game and really did just want a pure parkour game, but for now we have to accept that it was their intent all along, and we can judge the game for how well it incorporates them. And honestly, if I wanted a pure parkour game, I'd probably appreciate a more open experience than what this game is offering (more similar to skate or Tony Hawk) instead of a series of linear courses. But of course that's just me.
Apparently they have not made 3D models of faith doing her thing, so I don't know.
Really?
That seems a bit odd since her arms, legs and waist you see while running around. It's strange they didn't model all of her.
Satans..... hints.....
It was brought up earlier in the thread that the model you see from her perspective in the game 1)does not actually resemble a human being and 2) some of the animations were crafted specifically for the perspective and do not look correct outside of it.
They have said in interviews that they exaggerated the movements of the player model for the first-person perspective to give the player a better sense of how Faith is moving.
It looks fine in first person but if you were to view it from third-person it would look pretty weird.
Well to be fair, aside from the bugs (which they might've been lucky enough to miss, who knows) it deserved it.
It was good game, don't get me wrong, but it was an 8 or 9 at most.
I have no idea what you just said but it seemed to work for you.
You really didn't like "trust" though, I gathered that.
Unless you are arguing that researching a potential purchase from many different angles is a bad thing to do?
Because my basic angle there is "Read as many views as possible and make up your own mind."
I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.
I love the time trials
Well, in a way, if you read a bunch of different perspectives-- yet, you still don't even trust these perspectives/reviews to begin with --wouldn't that mean that, in the end, the conclsuion you reach would be based on opinions you don't even trust to begin with thus making your "product" inconclusive and untrustworthy?
But after reading all these reviews and playing the game, you start to understand that all of the reviewers were "correct", in that the positives and problems they pointed out exist, but their impact on your enjoyment of the game is entirely subjective to you. The best you can glean from reviews is often information about the content of a game and/or its level of polish - its overall quality is, perhaps, best left to metascores and your personal taste.
Case in point: God Hand.
edit: eh, scratch that. Apparently I can't read.
What do you think I mean by trust.
Do you think I believe they lie? Seriously? That way lies madness.
No, it's like chance said above, I don't trust their ability to give a game an ultimately emotionally based overal score without a heavy amount of bias related to their lack of time because of the large amount of games they play.
I don't trust them singularly to apply to me. So I read as many as I can to get an overal impression of how a game functions, and ignore for the most part the emotional slant. They are most definitely not in my situation, so it doesn't apply.
the story is simple fine
but if you don't agree that Portal has some of the best writing this side of Chris Avellone
then you have no soul
If it's another typical FPS I expect more because it's all been done before. Put me in a scary house, in space, in a jungle and throw psychos/zombies, aliens, bad guys/soldiers at me and leave stuff lying around to pick up. But this game is innovative and fresh. I wouldn't have thought a first person platformer would work, let alone one that throws in crazy moves and intense speed. But they've proven they can and they've done it amazingly well.
Yeah, the writing for Glados is pretty good.
I still feel that it's kind of dumb to compare Portal and Mirror's Edge story wise seeing that from what I know of ME it wouldn't work with Portal's style of story-telling.
It's fine to say that you don't trust reviewers, but mind the fact that they have played the game to completion, and I'm fairly certain that they want to like the game as well. This is not the first time we've seen a dichotomy between the demo and the final game (hello, Force Unleashed), so I wouldn't naturally dismiss these concerns just because some dude at whatever gaming outlet is relaying them.