@Generic_Dude @wilson336 @mhaed I agree here, I do think they could have ironed out some of the bugs for the expansion. But I do think a 4.0 is being a little harsh. I haven't played Riptide yet, so I can't really say whether I think it's bad or not, but a 6 or 7 seems more appropriate to me based upon what I took from Walton's review.
If this game is so similar to the first Dead Island, than why did it get a 4.0!? I was pretty happy with Dead Island. Sure, it had some horrid voice acting and frustrating combat, but it certainly wasn't THAT terrible. I enjoyed it for the most part. It's one of the better zombie games. I was looking forward to Riptide, not expecting an overhaul, but expecting complementary changes and additional features. Looks like Mr. Walton thinks otherwise. The two review scores of both Dead Island games are too vastly different from one another to make any logical sense. He's clearly bias.
Of course story elements are not very important in sandbox action games, because gamers don't play these types of games for the story. But story is extremely important in a lot of AAA games, it's just that, lately, the stories have sucked.
Pity party much? What is this, to raise or lower our expectations? If the game sucks, why are they telling us? Plus, the Metroid games have always been of the highest quality, from the Nintendo onward. So this is basically a ploy to either prepare us for a lackluster game, or make us expect a bad game, get a mediocre one, and be happy with it.
While I am happy for the guy getting recognition for something he's passionate about (or WAS passionate about), it seems absurd that he's getting THIS much attention. From a gaming standpoint, his ideas have never really been implemented, but it's not like they've never been thought of before.
@Skyt_Aura Man, that's no fun :( Fortunately the rats aren't in most of the game, only really in one tunnel in the very beginning, and one boss battle mid-game. Of course, that rat is pretty creepy looking, even if you're not afraid of rats...
The thing I hate most about all the "always-on" hoopla is that we, as gamers, are not really "owning" our games that we are spending our hard earned cash on. I understand that some games, like MMO's, are required to be always-on, but single player experiences should remain offline no matter what system they're on. I honestly doubt that Microsoft will implement this strict always-on feature for every game. Some games, yes, but all, not a chance business-wise, in my opinion.
mhaed's comments