Okay, does anyone else notice the similarity in all Japanese faces? Look at Jill's face and you'll oddly see a similarity with faces in games like Soul Calibur and other such titles. It's freakishly weird... Like they are all related.
I will say, the CGI trailers were quite good and promised much more than this. Vivid exploration, loot, trophies, skills. I wanted to explore a non-linear open ended world of Sacred 3. This was definitely not a step forward for the series. In fact I would not mind calling this a Sacred sequel, because it is not. It is a spinoff in terms of the progression, story and gameplay of the events I witnessed in earlier games.
A 4 is generous, but in truth I'd give it a 1 for ruining a franchise, and a 7 for the effort put into doing so. I mean they could have just made a point n' click adventure with even less loot. Too bad, because now they make me want to hope they had put the extra effort into utterly dissolving their singular, most well-regarded IP.
I mean I can't even begin to imagine how they can build a Sacred 4. People would wonder what happened to Sacred 3 and why the game had pivoted so suddenly... and terribly.
This game looks terrible. The flat, pop-up dialogue is terrible, so is the voice acting. The game is linearized and... where are the items and loot? What happened to the world of sacred?
And to think the CGI trailers were SO GOOD looking. Why was the game nowhere near what I was expecting? What happened?
@Dsolow5 I firmly disagree. To me it seems, that this is 2014 graphics since they were made this year. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain this is the style they are intentionally going for. Smooth, jaggy-less non-artifacted textures, I see optimal graphics quality here, no more, no less.
People need to realize that graphics quality and art style are two different things. I would never expect Skyrim-like detail in WOW, since they went a more painterly route. It is also why some games like Warcraft III can still hold up today.
Plus didn't WC3 come out in 2002? So WOW had to have better graphics than that.
Ok, this is very obvious now. I laughed, smirked, whatever. You hire a new chick the likes of which I haven't seen around here to talk about some AAA games in a new show that, let's be honest has been done hundreds of times.
You're throwing the proverbial gauntlet down in a realm of gamer news that has been through the wash cycle near a hundred times. Drenched in the anticipation of adolescent youth, you bandy Lisa around the world, making people click on pictures of her to increase ad revenue through site traffic. It is the most cookie cutter ad-hoc method out there to bring in user views, and it literally reeks of unoriginality.
No offense to Lisa but she should be ashamed for having to do this. She is not some object to bandy about for viewership, so you guys can compete with IGN in the hot-chick-hosts-game-show market... the marketing oh the marketing is so very, very transparent. I literally see right through it.
That last Invisibility cloaking cape with the beads would seem to be able to bypass security cameras. Sure it couldn't foil an actual human, but if all you ever see is the object through a camera, then that cloak seems to do the job. Tanks and drones work in the same way, so in fact that technology is perfect for the unmanned battlefield.
Of course other waves would need work; this seems to only work on visible rays.
@notfrylock1987 GS, upon their new site design re-reviewed several games like GTA5, etc. They stated a while back that they will try to do these 'second opinion' pieces. Trouble is they aren't doing them as often. Further, they stated their first review will remain the official review which of course doesn't help much if both reviews are the same.
Radnen's comments