@Gelugon_baat: Well, I do think it does transport A LOT of Metroid feeling, more than Hunters for example and I like the fact it does expand the universe with the federation we know for some time now. Now what? It is okay to see it like that, it is also okay to see it like you do, because that is the personal part.
However, it doesn't have any technical issues and is far from being monotone. And that's not personal, that is a matter of fact, since you don't do the same thing twice the same way, even if it is just another "roll the ball somewhere". It does have some clever thinking of evolving these elements. So it feels for me like reviews have double standards - more than they should have!
@melonses: I don't take it as a disaster as I know even a 10 can be a pain in the ***. It's just that I don't get how unvaried and monotonous gameplay as well as technical issues can end up higher than something that's more rated on personal stuff like "I do think the levels are too small and the game is way too hard".
@Mogan: A point of view or opinion can be highly personal and subjective, but reviews should be objective. For example: I don't get how one repetitive game get's praise because someone liked it, while the other get's the hate for being repetitive as well. It's these inconsistencies I don't get and don't like.
As for my surprise of AoT getting one point more than Federation Force: technical issues and monotonous gameplay seem way more problematic than a HIGHLY personal "the game is too hard and the levels are too small".
There is nothing wrong with liking anything, even if it is bad - I mean, every gamer got at least one game that's pretty much low on review scores, but makes a lot of fu and vice versa. But that's not how reviews should work.
Gameplay is unvaried and monotonous, second half is unnecessarily padded out and technical mishaps and slowdown affect gameplay - yet this got one point more than Federation Force? WOW, I was NOT expecting this... In such moments, reviews (on sites like GS, etc.) feel way too much personalized.
@iandizion713: I doubt it will in Japan, because the Prime-series kinda messed up there. It did sell okay, but far from good. The main market for this is the US and Europe I think.
@Delston: I am not into the hype about multiplayer titles. That being said: pure single-player here and this game does a way (W-A-Y) better job for single players than Triforce Heroes.
And as far as the design goes: The federation armor always looked similar to Samus suit. I am not that much into the chibi style on my own, but I do think they made this partially due to the 3ds and it works. It still got its dark tones here and there and I like the the golem project (the idea). OH and why shouldn't they do some kind of sport out there? ;)
It is a pity if you don't have that much time for gaming, but so do I. Yet, I try not to judge a game by its cover and want to give games a chance. Of course I ended up with some rather "meh" games that were not worth the time, but I also endet up with a lot of surprises I would have missed otherwise.
@Delston: Early on? You can't mean Mario by that and even Zelda did not come up with the story of different Links that early (or am I mistaken here?). And to be fair: SPINOFF - that is NOT different approaches, it's more having double standards. I bet most "fans" did not even give this game a chance, but prejudge it for the look and for no playable Samus. And that's pretty sad if you ask me. It is okay if you don't like it, but please dont be so single minded. (no offense!)
Anyways, Federation Force does add something to the whole story, not just in the little cliffhanger you get in the ending. It may lack the depth, the exploration, and whatnot, but it's a solid experience in the universe. At least I think it is not wrong to expand the universe...
AndreasRufus' comments