UpInFlames' forum posts

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

@experience_fade said:

IGN is partnered with GAME, UK's biggest gaming retailer. That would indicate that the mere 10% disparity applies to the UK as well. Trends are... trendy, meaning, whatever GAME's pre-order numbers are, you can bet they won't be that much different (in consumer preference) from other non-IGN partnered retailers.

The article cites that the data is coming from IGN's retail partners in the United States.

I am pretty surprised, actually. Considering the price differential and all the bad press, it's actually astounding.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

@Pedro said:

@UpInFlames said:

@Pedro said:

I don't understand this 4/10 rating. Is the game broken, does the mechanics not work? If the game is a fully functioning mediocre game a rating of 4/10 is stupid.

Why does it have to be broken and unplayable? It's not a bridge so that it only needs to be functional in order to receive positive reviews. Do films have to be unwatchable to be considered poor? Does music have to be inaudible to be considered crap? Of course not. The same is true for games. Functionality itself doesn't cut it.

Did I say that it suppose to be receive a positive review? Games are not movies or music. They have interactive elements which are the core mechanisms to what make a game. The functionality of the game is critical and plays a role when rating a game. A rating of 4/10 indicates that this aspect of the game is not particularly important. 4/10 is absurd for a game that just OK,Mediocre, nothing special. These sort of rating(especially numerical) does a horrific job of evaluating games. Any game scoring less than 50% should be indicative of a practically broken game, not just a game with solid mechanics with uninspired execution. This is the same with Knack. The games are generic and the rating should be a closer representation of that.

The score is representative as 4/10 is just a point below the middle of the scale. And GameSpot's description of a 4 isn't broken or horrible, it's poor. And a game doesn't have to be broken to be considered poor (or horrible, for that matter).

Games don't deserve to get higher scores and thus a more positive rating (which is totally what you're proposing) simply because they are mechanically sound. Being mechanically sound should be EXPECTED. If they are not, they should be penalized. But if they are, they shouldn't be awarded. Scores can reflect many things, not just one.

Games are entertainment and as such can be compared to films and music in certain contexts.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#3 UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

@Pedro said:

I don't understand this 4/10 rating. Is the game broken, does the mechanics not work? If the game is a fully functioning mediocre game a rating of 4/10 is stupid.

Why does it have to be broken and unplayable? It's not a bridge so that it only needs to be functional in order to receive positive reviews. Do films have to be unwatchable to be considered poor? Does music have to be inaudible to be considered crap? Of course not. The same is true for games. Functionality itself doesn't cut it.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

@Shame-usBlackley said:

Yeah, Crytek's always seemed like a tech company first and foremost, and a game developer second.

You ever play LucasArts' Gladius? I fucking loved that game...

Oh hell yeah, Gladius was awesome! But it was a Norse/Roman mythology game, so I don't really count it as a true Roman game, you know?

As for Crytek, Crysis was a truly fantastic game that facilitated and rewarded player experimentation. When I played Crysis back in 2007 (and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl), I thought I got a glimpse of the future. How wrong I was. Crytek went straight to shit with Crysis 2 dumbing it down to hell and back, Call of Duty got big and things have been pretty shitty for the genre since, unfortunately. 2007 was the last truly great year for first-person shooters thanks to the two aforementioned games and Team Fortress 2. That's my take on it, anyway.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

@Shame-usBlackley said:

@UpInFlames: Yeah, it's getting trashed. Still I wouldn't condemn it until you play it; professional reviews are pretty fucked these days. Or at least wait for forum feedback.

On its face though, it looked like a troubled project all along: seven years in development hell and a Kinect game originally. There are definitely some bad signs afoot.

I agree, but I don't mind the scores. Some of the things they complain about don't matter to me, but some do. I was hoping to get what Crytek promised (a fairly open and diverse game which would utilize real Roman combat tactics), but it seems it's an extremely linear game with "cinematic" action blockbuster setpieces which doesn't do anything for me.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#6 UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

@Planeforger said:

I sometimes feel like the only person who enjoyed the vehicle segments. Seeing the scenery whiz by on the airboat for the first time was fantastic, stopping for supplies at each station had a great tension to it (especially since they'd just introduced the zombies), and then of course the helicopter chase (and eventual fight) was spectacular in its day.

It was a wonderful change of pace with very few blemishes at all (although the barrel puzzle gets a bit dull when you replay it too many times).

Same goes for the buggy sections, really. Having fought through the claustrophobic streets of Ravenholme, you were rewarded with this excellent sense of freedom as you tore down the highways and various bits of countryside. Alongside that, you finally got to take down those flying gunships, you mastered the art of sniping people with the crossbow, and...I believe those segments introduced those awesome antlion swarms (only to empower you later by allowing you to lead them into battle). The buggy segements were some of my favourite in the game, come to think of it.

As for the rest...hm, it didn't have the deepest gunplay and maybe it could have done with better AI...but the game's presentation of details, gameplay mechanics, the world and everything in it, the pacing, the variety in your objectives, the way it was all designed...was masterful - and that's not even taking into account what a spectacular technical achievement it was (in graphics, physics and facial animations especially).

So, no, I wouldn't call it overrated. I'd dare call it a masterpiece of immersive design.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Water Hazard and Highway 17 are both fantastic levels. Half-Life 2 is just a tour de force of game design and still remains a game with unparalleled diversity and atmosphere. I actually replay it every few years and I played it this year and it's fucking amazing how a game from 2004 feels a hell of a lot more modern than 99% of first-person shooters coming out today.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

Ryse got panned by Eurogamer (5) and GameSpot (4). Both called it beautiful but shallow and extremely linear. It's not entirely unexpected, but I was holding out hope. I would really love to play a truly great game set in Rome, but apparently it's not to be.

Crytek has truly gone to shit and hasn't managed to make a great game since the first Crysis. They've been hardcore in dumbing down their games since.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#8 UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

@The_Last_Ride said:

@UpInFlames said:

9's everywhere, I don't think so. Both Eurogamer and Edge gave it a 7. Seems like Forza 2 all over again, rushed sequel with no content. Fewer tracks, fewer cars and still no day/night cycles and no weather patterns. Forza really needs to stop being so god damn static.

it's still the best sim there is in my book. It does seem rushed, but still a superb game

Right now, I agree. But Project Cars and Assetto Corsa are coming and Forza has been pretty complacent for a while now.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#9 UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

9's everywhere, I don't think so. Both Eurogamer and Edge gave it a 7. Seems like Forza 2 all over again, rushed sequel with no content. Fewer tracks, fewer cars and still no day/night cycles and no weather patterns. Forza really needs to stop being so god damn static.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
UpInFlames

13301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

286

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#10 UpInFlames
Member since 2004 • 13301 Posts

@MirkoS77 said:

@UpInFlames: I picked up my PS4 without a single game, and I realize I'm more than likely the exception, but Solid's 100% on the money with his points.

I'm afraid that these two statements are mutually exclusive.

Also, you bought Resogun which, if I'm not mistaken, is a game. :)