Reply With Quote
Well, I've only played it for like half an hour at a friend's house, so I can't comment extensively on the actual game, but I really like what I played. I feel it fills a void in the FPS genre that hasn't been touched in a LONG time, what with most popular modern-day shooters being samey as fuck, only BIGGER/better and with a slightly differing game mechanic.... And with Bungie, Treyarch etc having made that sub-section of the genre so Goddamn polished at this point in time, it's unsurprising that the average gamer in 2011 with his rose-tinted glasses would be disappointed with a game that is admittedly a bit rough around the edges.
Originally Posted by Bodom
Almost every review I've read so far has basically been a thinly veiled version of this, with a dose of aforementioned nostalgia goggles being taken off... Overreaction all around. Certainly haven't seen a review that paints a complete picture yet.
And then there's this hilarious review. It would make a nice piece of trying-too-hard prose, but it doesn't really say much at all. Hell, much the negative points are either good things, nitpicking, or shit that made the original great (which I doubt the reviewer played.)
Plus he looks like this
and he named the filename "jimmles". What a cunt.
And yes, by the way, I mad. Video game critics, especially internet ones, really grinds my gears. They generally don't have the imagination/style/personality of other critics, and instead place way too much importance on stock phrases, comparing to other games and rating things out of ten. Hell, it's probably the only medium for which aggregate sites like Metacritic is actually useful (even then, not very) because it's highly unlikely that you'll find something insightful in the actual text. Ahhh, sometimes, the whole community surrounding video games makes me think that Roger Ebert was ultimately right by declaring that video games are not art.
Starting to ramble needlessly so I'll just end it
Originally Posted by Bodom
And then there's this hilarious review. It would make a nice piece of trying-too-hard prose, but it doesn't really say much at all. Hell, much the negative points are either good things, nitpicking, or shit that made the original great (which I doubt the reviewer played.)
Plus he looks like this
and he named the filename "jimmles". What a cunt.
And yes, by the way, I mad. Video game critics, especially internet ones, really grinds my gears. They generally don't have the imagination/style/personality of other critics, and instead place way too much importance on stock phrases, comparing to other games and rating things out of ten. Hell, it's probably the only medium for which aggregate sites like Metacritic is actually useful (even then, not very) because it's highly unlikely that you'll find something insightful in the actual text. Ahhh, sometimes, the whole community surrounding video games makes me think that Roger Ebert was ultimately right by declaring that video games are not art.
Starting to ramble needlessly so I'll just end it
Bookmarks