Wow. What an off base review. Maybe it's because I payed less than a dollar for this from a psn flash sale, but I think it's actually pretty decent. It plays a lot like the original, but with improved shooting. I do agree that the visor makes the puzzles too easy and the updated visuals somewhat cheapen what the original accomplished, but to trash this game so harshly seems pretty biased. Either the reviewer was expecting too much and was disappointed, or he came into this expecting to hate it and thus only focused on the things he hated. Personally, I'd say it's a solid 6.5. Not at all groundbreaking or amazing, but a fun game with bad voicework nonetheless. Like Shadow Complex.
I don't think it's weird at all. I was actually pretty dissapointed that there wasn't more opportunities to explore that area. I'm still hoping that maybe some dlc will offer it.
I just downloaded this while it was on sale in the eshop. It's got a great 90's cyber-punk feel to it. Fans of movies like Hackers and the Matrix should love it. Like most SMT games from the PS2 era and before, it does have a steep learning curve that people who haven't played SMT might be a little lost with. Still, all the basic SMT staples are there. Sometimes harsh leveling requirements, dungeon crawling, demon recuitment, battle conversations and a somewhat darker than average story. While I'd personally give this a slightly higher score, I think this score is more than fair for most gamers.
I've leared to take Gamespot's reviews with a grain of salt. Much like movie critics, I think game reviewers often get jaded and expect too much from their games. Or they get too biased in their favorite franchises. However, going by the written review as opposed to the lower score, you can get a better idea of how good the game really is. Carolyn in particular, always seems to score a game a point or two lower than her review gives it credit for. Having played this, her complaints are quite valid, but it's still a very solid, fun game. Even if it is more of the same. It's probably more accurate to say this game's a 7 if you're not expecting leaps and bounds from it's predecessor. If you're expecting a completely new game with all new mechanics, 6 seems fair. I'm just not sure where people were expecting WB to go with this game. All the previews and info given ahead of time pretty much promised exactly the game they delivered.
Hmm...it sounds like this might be my kind of game. I'm one of the rare people that liked Dragon Age II despite it's many flaws, so I'll probably enjoy this as well. Considering it's on sale for PSN for $5, if it keeps me entertained for a couple nights at work, it's worth it. Doesn't sound like it would've been worth a full-price purchase though.
Okay, there was not a shredbof this comment that wasn't hypocritical. Calling someone judgemental for stating why they feel a certain way, a way you're calling them out on for feeling, acting as though they're close-minded for stating a fact about what types of games are popular where and generally just picking apart individual pieces of their statement instead of listening to what's being said are all quite the bit of hypocrisy. Also, a surefire sign that you are a troll. As you seem to keep trying to say while ignoring everyone else's right to, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Actually I think everyone's right on this one. I think there should be two reviews for games. One by an adamant fan of the genre and one by someone who's more impartial to the genre. I wouldn't say someone who dislikes the genre as that would always lead toa negative review. Just a review feom a fan's perspective and a second review from a m ore casual perspective. I don't think one person's opinion can accurately inform us. Whereas with the second opinion you can compare the pros and cons.
I had a feeling this wouldn't be as good as the previous games. I always take Carolyn's reviews with a grain of salt. She's overly critical, bordering jaded. Still, going by what was written instead of the point score, it looks like Origins is a worthy play as long as you're happy with more of the same. Which is what I expected from someone besides Rocksteady making an Arkham game. I still plan to buy it.
@Apathy4Marmite @Dredcrumb9 I agree about Franklin too. There were several missions of Micheal's where the story leads to a chase scene, or shootout, or whatever and when you get control of Micheal, Franklin's suddenly there with NO explanation. He isn't called in the cut scene, he isn't even mentioned, he just pops up like a ghost to help out. Not to mention how ridiculously loyal he is to some middle aged guy whose car he repos. Definitely tacked-on. Probably just to say they have a black main character.
roosteraxe1's comments