[QUOTE="RDS_Phoenix"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

I only played the campaign, but it was really great, and just when you think the gameplay is about to stagnate it really does a good job of keeping it fresh. Some issues with the latter half of the story aside, I recommend a purchase.

Not even sure why the game has MP, more time should have been dedicated to the campaign, the game seems more fitting as a campaign-only style FPS. :?

No_worrys_mate

The only reason Starbreeze threw in a multi mode into The Darkness (and they admitted just throwing it in) is because so many people whined that there was no multi in Chronicles of Riddick. And that includes Gamespot, who actually wrote in their review as one of the few cons that "you would expect multiplayer". In Riddick, you'd "expect" multiplayer? Are you kidding me? No, you wouldn't. Howwould you even begin to incorporate multi in that game in a way that makes any sense?

Some people need to understand that some FPSs, and games in general, are single-player experiences that don't require a multiplayer mode. And in fact, multiplayer is often tossed into shooters only because people expect it and at the expense of the quality of the single-player, and that isn't right. If Darkness' multiplayer sucks, it's because it's basically a big "f you" from Starbreeze to people who think every shooter needs a multiplayer mode, even if it's just telling a story. Does anyone really think a multiplayer mode would do a game like Bioshock any favors?

Having said that, The Darkness is the best story-driven FPS I've played since Half-Life 2, which was the best since Half-Life 1 and Deus Ex before it. Great game.

I agree about games not needing the multiplayer - but there are games out there that have a killer single player/campaign, and a fantastic multiplayer too. The Darkness's single player simply is not strong enough to stand on it's own - the story is poor and cliche, the acting is only average, and the characterisations are worryingly bad. The gunplay is decent when the difficulty is cranked all the way up (get that auto aim out of my sight), but by the time it becomes anything like a challenge, the game is nearly over - and has an awful ending. It's a game worth playing, but only for the 6-7 hours it takes to stride through it. With a decent multiplayer or co-op story, it could have been a lot better - but instead remains an average game with massive deficencies.

Actually its rated as a great and what you said is just for of ****.

I don't care what it's rated at - I rented it and finished it in around 7 hours. That's not worth £40 to me I'm afraid.

Didn't you post this ten minutes ago and it was locked? What makes you think you should post it again?

Heads up here. Good games are on ALL consoles. For each console you don't own, you restrict yourself of a third of the games. End of story.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

I only played the campaign, but it was really great, and just when you think the gameplay is about to stagnate it really does a good job of keeping it fresh. Some issues with the latter half of the story aside, I recommend a purchase.

Not even sure why the game has MP, more time should have been dedicated to the campaign, the game seems more fitting as a campaign-only style FPS. :?

Zeliard9

The only reason Starbreeze threw in a multi mode into The Darkness (and they admitted just throwing it in) is because so many people whined that there was no multi in Chronicles of Riddick. And that includes Gamespot, who actually wrote in their review as one of the few cons that "you would expect multiplayer". In Riddick, you'd "expect" multiplayer? Are you kidding me? No, you wouldn't. Howwould you even begin to incorporate multi in that game in a way that makes any sense?

Some people need to understand that some FPSs, and games in general, are single-player experiences that don't require a multiplayer mode. And in fact, multiplayer is often tossed into shooters only because people expect it and at the expense of the quality of the single-player, and that isn't right. If Darkness' multiplayer sucks, it's because it's basically a big "f you" from Starbreeze to people who think every shooter needs a multiplayer mode, even if it's just telling a story. Does anyone really think a multiplayer mode would do a game like Bioshock any favors?

Having said that, The Darkness is the best story-driven FPS I've played since Half-Life 2, which was the best since Half-Life 1 and Deus Ex before it. Great game.

I agree about games not needing the multiplayer - but there are games out there that have a killer single player/campaign, and a fantastic multiplayer too. The Darkness's single player simply is not strong enough to stand on it's own - the story is poor and cliche, the acting is only average, and the characterisations are worryingly bad. The gunplay is decent when the difficulty is cranked all the way up (get that auto aim out of my sight), but by the time it becomes anything like a challenge, the game is nearly over - and has an awful ending. It's a game worth playing, but only for the 6-7 hours it takes to stride through it. With a decent multiplayer or co-op story, it could have been a lot better - but instead remains an average game with massive deficencies.

[QUOTE="E_x_i_l_e"]I hated it o_OBioShockOwnz

:| You must not like good games.

Rent it. Much too easy, much too short, and a storyline that isn't particularly well told, combined with a lead character that makes it very hard to care. It's good, but a purchase would just be a waste of money. It's a rental at best, especially until they fix the monumentally broken online.

[QUOTE="RDS_Phoenix"][QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"][QUOTE="jessesalinas"]

thats some horrible damage control you got there..

even Gamespot called it abumper car simulator.:lol:

NobuoMusicMaker

The biggest problem with GT4 was the anticipated online and it still scored 8.9. With GT5 getting much more tracks, much more cars, better visuals and then adding online on top of that.

Even if there's going to be damage, in order to retain the car manufacturer's agreement, they'd have to just let the car sit dead or have some damage metre which is absolutely ridiculous.

But wouldn't it be nice to choose whether to have it on or off?

Damage with no damage model is the only way to appease these people and keep the game's licenses intact. I'd rather take an alternative route of penalizing the offender like massive speed loss.

Agreed, but none of the GTs so far have penalised crashing into opponents - in GT3 and 4 it usually resulted in better lap times to not bother turning for certain corners. What I'm saying is that everyone argues 'better to have it off than have it half hearted' whereas I'm saying 'why not have a similar damage model to Forza 2, that you can turn off?'.

[QUOTE="jessesalinas"]

thats some horrible damage control you got there..

even Gamespot called it abumper car simulator.:lol:

NobuoMusicMaker

The biggest problem with GT4 was the anticipated online and it still scored 8.9. With GT5 getting much more tracks, much more cars, better visuals and then adding online on top of that.

Even if there's going to be damage, in order to retain the car manufacturer's agreement, they'd have to just let the car sit dead or have some damage metre which is absolutely ridiculous.

But wouldn't it be nice to choose whether to have it on or off?

LINK (Right click open in new window)

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k156/infinitipower/DSC00191.jpg

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k156/infinitipower/DSC00190.jpg

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k156/infinitipower/DSC00192.jpg

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k156/infinitipower/DSC00194.jpg

Blinblingthing

They were too big in the first place. Just resize them in paint or something then rehost them!

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"][QUOTE="Slyprince"]

But if a last gen, product placement based, 5.0, Multiplat, Sad excuse for a racing game like that one can have damage modeling why cant a Next gen, Critically Acclaimed, Huge, Exclusive have it.

jessesalinas

Then I guess we leave Ford as a non-gaming company or Ford's opinion on how a game should be done.

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

Ford vs Chevy Xbox Review - 5.0

And I quote...

"The damage effects are pretty pathetic, too, to the point where the game might've actually looked better if they'd just skipped out on crashes altogether."

jessesalinas

The Bad

• Racing opponent AI is as dumb as ever
• Lack of damage modeling encourages sloppy driving
• Musical soundtrack is hit or miss
• B-spec mode: huh?
• No online.

"Bumper car racing, so called because you use the artificially intelligent opponent cars as "bumpers" to scrub off speed and help position your car around tight turns, is alive and well in GT4. Heading too fast into right-hand turn one at Tokyo Route 246? Simply dive to the inside of the car in front of you, and watch in amazement as you not only make it around the curve unscathed, but also likely gain a position doing so."

up next....GT5 :lol:

So what does that have to do with your Ford comment? As far as I can tell, 8.9 > all Ford titled games. Ford's opinion on games goes down the drain. Go talk to Japanese car manufacturers on how to make a game. Oh wait, they're all backing Polyphony! And so are Ferarri and a whole load of Euro companies! So are the American companies!

even Gamespot called it abumper car simulator.:lol:

It's still a damn fine game, as much as I hate the lack of damage. Since Forza 2 was great yet not quite as great as it should have been, it gives Polyphony every chance to make a brilliant game regardless of damage. Lack of damage is a kick in the teeth - but it's not a game killer.

[QUOTE="laughingman42"][QUOTE="slothboyadvance"]

[spoiler] I was really hoping he was the guy you had to beat. The Zelda universe could go for another big villain. [/spoiler]

slothboyadvance

[spoiler] I hope the give him a break in the next game and let some big bad dude take over. They can bring him back after that but next game I want smoething new. I'm not really sure why I'm using the spoiler thing [/spoiler]

I just hope there's a different story. Zelda getting captured is getting about as old as Princess Peach getting captured.

[spoiler] Dude, spoiler tag rules. This is the first thread I ever used it in. [/spoiler]

Can you PM eachother? The point of a forum is to read posts, not skip most of the page due to spoilers.