[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]

You're focusing on my angry first impressions and ignoring my follow-up posts. Fair enough. Still, try not to get stuck on an angry reaction due to the huge hype I had for this title, and don't dismiss the fact that I specifically said the game would be excellent were it not for the frustrating paranoid NPCs. Just disregard the "piece of crap statement" and focus on what I've said after.

After beating the game and going back to a few levels on Normal instead of Hard, I noticed the AI seems to be far less aggravating to deal with. This further confirms my theory that starting games on hard may alter the perception of the overall game. I will play it again on normal and see if I find it more playable.

I actually concur with you about many of the points you listed: it looks stunning and I/O's crowd engine (which was already impressive in Blood Money and Kane & Lynch) is simply astonishing. Gunfights are fun and extremely brutal and believable (reminded me of Max payne 3) which is an even greater merit considering they are entirely optional, thus not the main focus of the game. I will also add sound design, writing and voice acting, which are stellar.

That said, I find that the absence of the safehouse with its weapon and equipment customization to be a massive loss: half the fun in Blood Money was the preparation, the other half being the execution. Knowing you had to compromise between available equipment and the ability to blend in. It's all gone here. I also find it hard to ignore the often backwards reactions by the AI to your actions (see the aforementioned courthouse example), the step back in realism in some key areas (hiding three pistols, a gasoline can, a large landmine, a shotgun and a rifle in a topless wrestling outfit, for instance). The limited disguise options in most levels to justify the instict system. The sectorial AI which makes enemies on the other side of a "checkpoint" door unaware of a massive firefight in the next room. Contracts is nice, I guess, but it was advertised as user generated content while in practice it is nothing but alternate objectives in the campaign levels. 47 losing weapons and disguises in between levels even if the take place seconds one after the other.

There's a great game hidden beneath these many flaws, but the result is ultimately disappointing.

Concerning FarCry 3, I believe the frustration of being killed by a sneaking tiger is hardly comparable to having to reload a checkpoint multiple times because you bumped into a cook in a corridor.

[/QUOTE]

Firstly I'm focusing on your initial post because it was hyperbolic, reactionary and entirely the opposite of the intelligent critiques you usually post. If you don't want that post used against you redact it and move on and so too will I.

The game takes a different approach regarding preparation but the truth is most of the weapons deliver the same results and Contracts Mode does give you an opportunity to customize and select your arsenal. Also, Contract Mode was never advertised as anything but what was delivered: a level-editor that allows you to change the dynamics of the hit.

The inventory system that allows you to hide all manner of weapons on your person has been a staple of Hitman since the beginning: it didn't make logical sense in the previous games and it doesn't make sense now.

I do agree the AI is inconsistent but that's hardly something new with this franchise or even this genre as a whole. I would still assert the AI in Absolution is superior to what was seen in Blood Money, even if those areas of superiority vary.

The game is compartmentalized and that essentially makes it feel more like a game in some regards, though the level of malleability present remains staggering given how many options the player is given.

Absolution is a great game, period. What you need to understand is those flaws you mention are design choices, most of which I consider strengths. Like I already stated, if I want Blood Money (replete with crappy combat mechanics) I'll play Blood Money because Absolution is looking to do something different. It is a situation analogous to the whole Splinter Cell: Conviction debate, where a good segment of the fan base hated that game and claimed certain key design choices were flaws, often ignoring the radically innovative aspects and overall quality that franchise entry represented.

And yes, I think having a random tiger chew me up, causing me to lose a significant amount of progress, constitutes the same type of frustration as having to reset a checkpoint multiple times.

That said, Far Cry 3 is brilliant.

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]And yes, I think having a random tiger chew me up, causing me to lose a significant amount of progress, constitutes the same type of frustration as having to reset a checkpoint multiple times.

That said, Far Cry 3 is brilliant.

[/QUOTE] But can't you save anytime you want in that game? ;) /troll[/QUOTE]

For certain, though the wildlife in that game is so persistently murderous that you really are forced to save constantly, almost excessively.

Also, the animals are bullet sponges; way harder to kill than the humans.

Still, as I already stated, FC3 is brilliant.