I've always wanted to play Snatcher and Policenauts. Snatcher in particular sounds batshit insane in the best way possible.
WTA2k5's forum posts
@Ish_basic said:
@alim298 said:
@WTA2k5 said:
The Darkness
Is The Darkness really that good?
the original is brilliant. Starbreeze has made some really thoughtful games. I don't know if I'd put it top ten stories, but it definitely has some truly memorable moments. At the very least, I'd put it in the discussion, as it's one of the few games to actually make me feel something for its characters.
I'd say it's just the general presentation of the story that resonates so much with me. Even if the writing isn't always all there, the game has some of the most creative and self-assured narrative presentation I've seen in a game. The opening sequence driving to the construction site, the load-screen monologues, the chapters in the weird supernatural WWI setting , the plot twists, and so on all feel really fresh and inventive. Again, there's better written stuff (like The Last of Us and whatnot), but very little that's so creative and so well executed at the same time.
Planescape: Torment
Spec Ops: The Line
Shadow of the Colossus
The Walking Dead
Metal Gear Solid 2 (yes, really)
Silent Hill 2
The Witcher 2
The Darkness
Braid
No. Tomb Raider gets the most overrated game of 2013 title. Infinite definitely doesn't live up to its self-serious posturing or its ridiculous critical reception - Adam Sessler saying its ending is as good as the endings to Chinatown and Waiting For Gadot is one of the more absurd things I've ever seen in a review.
But it's still a very good game. In fact, it's probably one of the best singleplayer first-person shooters of this gen.
Dark Souls 2
The Witcher 3
The Witness
The Walking Dead Season 2 (once all the episodes are out, of course)
Destiny
Transistor
Barkley 2
Hotline Miami 2
Those I'm pretty certain will be at least good enough to be worth checking out, if not legitimately great.
@Cranler said:
@WTA2k5 said:
@Cranler said:
@WTA2k5 said:
@Cranler said:
@CrownKingArthur said:
@WTA2k5 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@organic_machine said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
LOL that is your entire argument. You said in a couple posts you want to know how the reviewer "feels". You said reviews changed.....it's in your posting history. I suggest you read your posts over than maybe you just might know what argument you're making here dude.
But trying to be dishonest about what you said isn't very ethical. I think that means the reviewer has to deduct points. Sorry pal.
Yes it is in my history. I stand by what I said, and I suggest you actually read what I said. Because you clearly did not read what I had to say.
Oh I read it. It was a crock of bull. A professional review should highlight the merits and problems of a game....and not get on a soap box. I think a few individuals in here really don't understand the GTA series though that is for sure. But don't feel bad....apparently some reviewers don't either.
Again, pointing out that a game that incessantly attempts to make political statements but utterly fails to make them meaningful or entertaining is pointing out a flaw with the game. Thus, Carolyn's review does analyze what Grand Theft Auto V offers as a gaming experience, and then gives her opinion on how she felt about it. That is literally the entire point of a review.
agreed.
also, several is not an integer.
How about a specific example of a political statement, why it should be meaningful and why it's not entertaining?
The game has a big torture sequence. I don't think I have to explain why touching on the issue of the government torturing suspected terrorists to gain information about other suspected terrorists is inherently a political statement. I also don't think I have to explain why that should be explored in a meaningful way - torture isn't exactly lighthearted fun. Anyway, after the whole sequence is said and done, the only point the game makes is essentially: "Ha ha! Torture can be fun for the torturer!" What a knee-slapper. I'm not saying GTA needs to be serious and high-minded, but that's total bullshit.
Why does it have to be meaningful? Why would anyone play GTA for some sort of meaningful message? It's not light hearted fun it's deeply sickening fun for certain types of people. I found it funny how the victim said he was ready to talk since he was kidnapped but Trevor pulls a tooth before asking for any info.
How do you think that scene should have been handled?
If touching on a subject like that for an extended period of time yields no meaningful statement, then it's just crass and exploitative. And not even in the spirit of "sickening fun." God of War, for example, is sickening fun because it's sheer fantasy that makes no attempt to say anything about any hot-button issue. Grand Theft Auto V just exploits hot topics to stir up controversy without saying anything about them. That's not fun in any sense.
Here's some dialogue from the game
“The media and the government would have us believe that torture is some necessary thing. We need it to get information, to assert ourselves,” Trevor says. “Did we get any information out of you?”
“I would have told you everything!” the man replies.
“Exactly!” says Trevor. “Torture’s for the torturer. Or the guy giving the order to the torturer. You torture for the good times! We should all admit that. It’s useless as a means of getting information.”
If that's not a message against torture then I dont know what is.
Then again, it's a satire. It's a comedy/action game. If you want a message look elsewhere.
Still waiting on how you think the torture scene should have been handled.
First off, satire is intended to have a message. The point of satire is to use humor to deliver a message.
Secondly, while I agree that that dialogue does support a stance on torture, I'd say it does so extremely superficially. Trevor just outright states what the audience should have derived from that sequence, regardless of what it actually presents. If I recall correctly, that whole exchange is just sort of tacked on at the end of that (really long) mission as Trevor and the tortured guy are driving back to the airport. Shoehorning a brief, halfhearted message into a sequence right as it's about to end isn't exactly saying something substantive
Given the game's writing, how i would've handled the torture sequence is to just scrap that shit. (Though also given the game's writing, I would've scrapped half the campaign). Clearly the game has nothing remotely thoughtful to say about it, and it's not like that sequence is entertaining, so what's the point of even having it? They should've saved all the resources they put towards that crap sequence and made another cool heist or something.
@Cranler said:
@WTA2k5 said:
@Cranler said:
@CrownKingArthur said:
@WTA2k5 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@organic_machine said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
LOL that is your entire argument. You said in a couple posts you want to know how the reviewer "feels". You said reviews changed.....it's in your posting history. I suggest you read your posts over than maybe you just might know what argument you're making here dude.
But trying to be dishonest about what you said isn't very ethical. I think that means the reviewer has to deduct points. Sorry pal.
Yes it is in my history. I stand by what I said, and I suggest you actually read what I said. Because you clearly did not read what I had to say.
Oh I read it. It was a crock of bull. A professional review should highlight the merits and problems of a game....and not get on a soap box. I think a few individuals in here really don't understand the GTA series though that is for sure. But don't feel bad....apparently some reviewers don't either.
Again, pointing out that a game that incessantly attempts to make political statements but utterly fails to make them meaningful or entertaining is pointing out a flaw with the game. Thus, Carolyn's review does analyze what Grand Theft Auto V offers as a gaming experience, and then gives her opinion on how she felt about it. That is literally the entire point of a review.
agreed.
also, several is not an integer.
How about a specific example of a political statement, why it should be meaningful and why it's not entertaining?
The game has a big torture sequence. I don't think I have to explain why touching on the issue of the government torturing suspected terrorists to gain information about other suspected terrorists is inherently a political statement. I also don't think I have to explain why that should be explored in a meaningful way - torture isn't exactly lighthearted fun. Anyway, after the whole sequence is said and done, the only point the game makes is essentially: "Ha ha! Torture can be fun for the torturer!" What a knee-slapper. I'm not saying GTA needs to be serious and high-minded, but that's total bullshit.
Why does it have to be meaningful? Why would anyone play GTA for some sort of meaningful message? It's not light hearted fun it's deeply sickening fun for certain types of people. I found it funny how the victim said he was ready to talk since he was kidnapped but Trevor pulls a tooth before asking for any info.
How do you think that scene should have been handled?
If touching on a subject like that for an extended period of time yields no meaningful statement, then it's just crass and exploitative. And not even in the spirit of "sickening fun." God of War, for example, is sickening fun because it's sheer fantasy that makes no attempt to say anything about any hot-button issue. Grand Theft Auto V just exploits hot topics to stir up controversy without saying anything about them. That's not fun in any sense.
@Cranler said:
@CrownKingArthur said:
@WTA2k5 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@organic_machine said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
LOL that is your entire argument. You said in a couple posts you want to know how the reviewer "feels". You said reviews changed.....it's in your posting history. I suggest you read your posts over than maybe you just might know what argument you're making here dude.
But trying to be dishonest about what you said isn't very ethical. I think that means the reviewer has to deduct points. Sorry pal.
Yes it is in my history. I stand by what I said, and I suggest you actually read what I said. Because you clearly did not read what I had to say.
Oh I read it. It was a crock of bull. A professional review should highlight the merits and problems of a game....and not get on a soap box. I think a few individuals in here really don't understand the GTA series though that is for sure. But don't feel bad....apparently some reviewers don't either.
Again, pointing out that a game that incessantly attempts to make political statements but utterly fails to make them meaningful or entertaining is pointing out a flaw with the game. Thus, Carolyn's review does analyze what Grand Theft Auto V offers as a gaming experience, and then gives her opinion on how she felt about it. That is literally the entire point of a review.
agreed.
also, several is not an integer.
How about a specific example of a political statement, why it should be meaningful and why it's not entertaining?
The game has a big torture sequence. I don't think I have to explain why touching on the issue of the government torturing suspected terrorists to gain information about other suspected terrorists is inherently a political statement. I also don't think I have to explain why that should be explored in a meaningful way - torture isn't exactly lighthearted fun. Anyway, after the whole sequence is said and done, the only point the game makes is essentially: "Ha ha! Torture can be fun for the torturer!" What a knee-slapper. I'm not saying GTA needs to be serious and high-minded, but that's total bullshit.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@organic_machine said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
LOL that is your entire argument. You said in a couple posts you want to know how the reviewer "feels". You said reviews changed.....it's in your posting history. I suggest you read your posts over than maybe you just might know what argument you're making here dude.
But trying to be dishonest about what you said isn't very ethical. I think that means the reviewer has to deduct points. Sorry pal.
Yes it is in my history. I stand by what I said, and I suggest you actually read what I said. Because you clearly did not read what I had to say.
Oh I read it. It was a crock of bull. A professional review should highlight the merits and problems of a game....and not get on a soap box. I think a few individuals in here really don't understand the GTA series though that is for sure. But don't feel bad....apparently some reviewers don't either.
Again, pointing out that a game that incessantly attempts to make political statements but utterly fails to make them meaningful or entertaining is pointing out a flaw with the game. Thus, Carolyn's review does analyze what Grand Theft Auto V offers as a gaming experience, and then gives her opinion on how she felt about it. That is literally the entire point of a review.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@WTA2k5 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
I disagree. A review should be about the game....not political statements. Frankly.....when a world is created....be it movie or game....there will be actions which we may find objectionable. But the review should NOT focus on that. If someone has a problem with some "worlds"...then maybe they shouldn't get involved with it.
In other words...if you can't keep your personal agenda out of the review....you are not best suited to do that review.
This sort of mindset confounds me. Grand Theft Auto V is a game that makes political statements. Lots of them. All the time. And they're pretty much all misguided and stupid. Why on earth would a reviewer not touch on a fundamental facet of the game they're writing about and, you know, offer their opinions on it?
You know what confounds me? People that expect GTA to be serious. People that don't understand that for good or ill...movies, book, and games create worlds that might not have the best characters...in fact....many times they are flawed.
There's a difference between flawed characters and worlds, and flawed writing. A flawed character may be objectionable, but good writing uses that potential offensiveness to make a strong point (see: anything from Taxi Driver, to Breaking Bad, to The Last of Us). Grand Theft Auto V has objectionable content and fails to use it in a way that makes a compelling statement. Surely if someone is offended by distasteful stuff that exists for no purpose, you can understand why (even if you don't take issue with it).
Log in to comment