Quick Look: Inversion

Lutadore = buddies, and you are on a quest for gravity...

For as mediocre as the game is, it really has one hell of a messed up and twist ending.

I feel like "fucking abject horseshit" is not used often enough in reviews.

22:30 for references.

I really don't understand why they were shitting on this game so much in this. Maybe I'm crazy, but this looks kind of good to me. Looks like the gameplay works well for what it's doing, looks pretty nice, the moment where the tower collapsed over screwing around with gravity a bit looked nice, etc. Nothing really stuck out and screamed "OH GOD LOOK AT ME I'M AWFUL!"

But then again, I am the kind of person who likes stealth sections and slow segments in favor of story, so maybe I'm a special case.

@Humanity said:

@mortal_sb said:

@spiderbat87 said:

Why all the negativity? This game seems perfectly fine

same. it looks like every other boring shooter that's out there. tough guys, weird "aliens", grey and brown, dumb shooting. it's not buggy, it doesn't look like shit.. this is video game about shooting in the year 2012. there aren't many differences now.

Thirded. Some parts were funny but the way they just straight up shit on a mediocre game is kinda weird. Especially when they QL some pretty shitty games and don't act nearly as negative - like Babel? Like Lollipop Chainsaw etc

Because those games are trying to be something other than a mediocre third person shooter?

In it's defence, the sound design was pretty sharp, and the music was interesting, and quite different from the typical epic orchestral fare you usually see in games of this ilk.

So props for that.

I think there are far worse games that they have dumped on far less than this. Not that this isn't just average, but at least seemed interesting.

Not having watched this just yet, I'm going to guess this game isn't very good, considering it's Best Buy's Deal of the Day today for only $20 (this game came out, what, a week ago?). Sorta random that it's the same day this QL was published.
 
Now, it's time for me to see just how bad this is.
 
EDIT: Man, QLs of bad games are the best. Ryan losing his shit was pretty great, as well as the "whispering" back and forth. This doesn't even seem worth 20 bones.

@Humanity said:

@mortal_sb said:

@spiderbat87 said:

Why all the negativity? This game seems perfectly fine

same. it looks like every other boring shooter that's out there. tough guys, weird "aliens", grey and brown, dumb shooting. it's not buggy, it doesn't look like shit.. this is video game about shooting in the year 2012. there aren't many differences now.

Thirded. Some parts were funny but the way they just straight up shit on a mediocre game is kinda weird. Especially when they QL some pretty shitty games and don't act nearly as negative - like Babel? Like Lollipop Chainsaw etc

lollipop Chainsaw doesn't take it self seriously you know what to expect with a suda 51 game that's why it doesn't get as much negativity his games are never the best in the world but they have enough weird decent shit in them that make them great, unlike this which is trying to be totally serious and just ending up being a bland seen all before third person shooter that isn't very good there is a difference.

These guys look like a bad crossover between the Locust and the Vorcha.

Gears of War is so overrated anyway

Games like this fascinate me. I always wonder if the team had a grander vision when they started and got lost along the way, or were they aiming for mediocrity from the get go?

I don't think it looked as bad as they made it out to be. Sure, it was incredibly generic but it looked alright. Not worth $60 though.

UNKNOWN ROBOT!

They need to work on their posture, some bad slouching going on there. Maybe their invert-packs are super heavy or something but man, that looks like it would hurt after about 15 minutes. They should hit up some upright rows and some shrugs to straighten their shit out.

Cream of the crap?

@Humanity said:

@mortal_sb said:

@spiderbat87 said:

Why all the negativity? This game seems perfectly fine

same. it looks like every other boring shooter that's out there. tough guys, weird "aliens", grey and brown, dumb shooting. it's not buggy, it doesn't look like shit.. this is video game about shooting in the year 2012. there aren't many differences now.

Thirded. Some parts were funny but the way they just straight up shit on a mediocre game is kinda weird. Especially when they QL some pretty shitty games and don't act nearly as negative - like Babel? Like Lollipop Chainsaw etc

This game looks extremely mediocre. It also looks exactly like a generic third person shooter. Boy, I hope they make more! No negativity here, just keep stamping them out please!

At least Chainsaw had heart and Babel wasn't charging full price. Those games are nothing like this.

@Terranova said:

@Humanity said:

@mortal_sb said:

@spiderbat87 said:

Why all the negativity? This game seems perfectly fine

same. it looks like every other boring shooter that's out there. tough guys, weird "aliens", grey and brown, dumb shooting. it's not buggy, it doesn't look like shit.. this is video game about shooting in the year 2012. there aren't many differences now.

Thirded. Some parts were funny but the way they just straight up shit on a mediocre game is kinda weird. Especially when they QL some pretty shitty games and don't act nearly as negative - like Babel? Like Lollipop Chainsaw etc

lollipop Chainsaw doesn't take it self seriously you know what to expect with a suda 51 game that's why it doesn't get as much negativity his games are never the best in the world but they have enough weird decent shit in them that make them great, unlike this which is trying to be totally serious and just ending up being a bland seen all before third person shooter that isn't very good there is a difference.

There is no difference between bad games. If it's a bad game then it's a bad game no matter how serious the tone is because at the end of the day you're not going to have fun playing it. Lollipop Chainsaw is a very linear corridor beat 'em up with constantly recycled enemies and art assets, stiff animation, not an especially engaging story so on and so forth that even as an XBOX Arcade title would be a hard sell. The fact that it's a SUDA 51 game so it gets a free pass because it's waaaacky despite being a poor game is kind of shitty thinking.

Inversion tried to do something different by adding the gravity shifting mechanics. Jeff and Ryan didn't show any of those sections where it's trying something new and exciting. I'm not saying Inversion is great, but to be so down on it for no real reason especially when you don't put in the effort to get anywhere in the game where the game mechanics start getting complex isn't fair in my opinion.

Lutadores just sounds like the most lazy enemy name generator ever created it. Glad this isn't the sequel to Psi-Ops as it does not look that much fun to play.

Maybe if those guys had better verbal communication skills they could solve this conflict peacefully.

@Humanity said:

@Terranova said:

@Humanity said:

@mortal_sb said:

@spiderbat87 said:

Why all the negativity? This game seems perfectly fine

same. it looks like every other boring shooter that's out there. tough guys, weird "aliens", grey and brown, dumb shooting. it's not buggy, it doesn't look like shit.. this is video game about shooting in the year 2012. there aren't many differences now.

Thirded. Some parts were funny but the way they just straight up shit on a mediocre game is kinda weird. Especially when they QL some pretty shitty games and don't act nearly as negative - like Babel? Like Lollipop Chainsaw etc

lollipop Chainsaw doesn't take it self seriously you know what to expect with a suda 51 game that's why it doesn't get as much negativity his games are never the best in the world but they have enough weird decent shit in them that make them great, unlike this which is trying to be totally serious and just ending up being a bland seen all before third person shooter that isn't very good there is a difference.

There is no difference between bad games. If it's a bad game then it's a bad game no matter how serious the tone is because at the end of the day you're not going to have fun playing it. Lollipop Chainsaw is a very linear corridor beat 'em up with constantly recycled enemies and art assets, stiff animation, not an especially engaging story so on and so forth that even as an XBOX Arcade title would be a hard sell. The fact that it's a SUDA 51 game so it gets a free pass because it's waaaacky despite being a poor game is kind of shitty thinking.

Inversion tried to do something different by adding the gravity shifting mechanics. Jeff and Ryan didn't show any of those sections where it's trying something new and exciting. I'm not saying Inversion is great, but to be so down on it for no real reason especially when you don't put in the effort to get anywhere in the game where the game mechanics start getting complex isn't fair in my opinion.

While I had plenty of problems with Lollipop Chainsaw, those were mostly related to the obligatory upskirts. The combat can be pretty deep, especially on the higher difficulty and in the various challenge modes. The thing I like most about Suda 51 games is certainly the style BUT I will say they have been getting better and better from a gameplay perspective. Especially last year's Shadows of the Damned, I felt that was an objectively good game from both a gameplay and style point-of-view. While I don't think his games always succeed on every front, I am happy he's able to make them. Unlike Inversion, even a flawed game like Lollipop Chainsaw stands out stylistically,, even if it has some mechanical shortcomings, and I appreciate that.

Inversion Endurance Run! Make it happen! :D

Jeff is right. Just chill out Ryan! ;)

Unknown Robot? Any relation to Non-Specific Action Figure?

In many ways a mediocre or boring game is far, far worse than a bad game.

haha, Ryan's description of this game as "The further adventures of helping each other climb out of pits" was incredible

had no idea this game was in production lol.

Not to seem crazy, but this game seems very not good.

@Jace: Whats your explanation for Modern Warfare 3 then? That game essentially did nothing new for the franchise since MW2 and as I remember got quite a favorable review.

@Antihippy said:

@Humanity said:

@mortal_sb said:

@spiderbat87 said:

Why all the negativity? This game seems perfectly fine

same. it looks like every other boring shooter that's out there. tough guys, weird "aliens", grey and brown, dumb shooting. it's not buggy, it doesn't look like shit.. this is video game about shooting in the year 2012. there aren't many differences now.

Thirded. Some parts were funny but the way they just straight up shit on a mediocre game is kinda weird. Especially when they QL some pretty shitty games and don't act nearly as negative - like Babel? Like Lollipop Chainsaw etc

Because those games are trying to be something other than a mediocre third person shooter?

Also: they did nothing BUT talk shit about Lollipop Chainsaw. Particularly the audio. Also: this game is WAY worse on pretty much every level. Especially the FLAGRANT rip-off in enemy design.

This game makes me want to never play another video game.

This game looks amazing...ly bad.

I actually would've liked it if there were no guns at all, and you ONLY had the power, I realize I'm in the minority on that one though.

@Chris2KLee said:

Games like this fascinate me. I always wonder if the team had a grander vision when they started and got lost along the way, or were they aiming for mediocrity from the get go?

I don't think anyone aims for mediocre. I just think its a combination of a lower budget, short development cycle, and a team full of less talented people. They did what they could with what they had.

Commander Shepard is your AI partner in this?

A lot of what I saw about this game before release was some really cool looking stuff. Too bad they didn't really get into the later gravity set piece parts, but yeah this game is just another third person cover based shooter, like they said. Maybe I'll pick this up somewhere down the line when its cheaper.

On one hand I'm happy that an average looking game like this hits a 52 Metacritic score. On the other hand I know that's not how game reviews work unless the whole industry suddenly decided to abandon the 6 to 10 scale for this one game.

Doesn't look offensively bad or anything. The campaign might be worth going through for 20 bucks when there's nothing else to play, provided you're not burned out on third-person shooters.

Ehhh, I thought the game was pretty good. Especially when you get used to the Gravlink abilities, combat can go in some interesting directions or at least be fun to watch. The bosses, for once, are actually pretty good and often give you multiple options to go about beating them. That said the only thing I didn't enjoy about this game was the majority of the weapons felt rather weak aside from one particular assault rifle and shotguns.

Still, I'd rather take a shooter with a well-done specialized concept than just a basic shooter. These kind of games keep things fresh for me.

back of the box quote

"This game looks like shit"

This looks like the most boring third person cover based shooter I have ever seen. I got it from gamefly, played about twenty minutes, and sent it right back. Thank you guys for making light of its mediocrity.

I am really happy Ryan spent all thirty minutes screaming at the game :).

Picked it up last week, not a good game. Too bad because I feel that the developer at least tried a bit.

I think this game looks WAY better than they are giving it credit for. Specifically, the story was unfolding wasn't great, but it was about, oh, a trillion times better than anything Gears has ever done. And that gravity mechanic has some real potential.

This Quick Look is actually pretty depressing. They didn't even give it a chance.

@Humanity: My explanation? Yeah, hold on, let me represent the GB staff to answer your question. Nice.

Jeff has expressed multiple times in the bombcast and in the Jar videos that he thought MW3 was a good game if you want more of the same thing, even though he was personally burnt out on them. Inversion doesn't meet that criteria based on this QL.

I was excited for this as it was announced and details came out. Flash forward to now, and the reviews had a picture of one of the protagonists looking bored and holding a gun. Totally don't care now!

@Humanity said:

@Jace: Whats your explanation for Modern Warfare 3 then? That game essentially did nothing new for the franchise since MW2 and as I remember got quite a favorable review.

Well I'll not speak for Jace but I feel the need to point out that MW3 while certainly not a fresh experience, it was at least based very closely on something that is very good, ie it works and is fun if you don't happen to be bored of it's brand of shooty action (which many of us are).

Inversion however is a poorly executed game that liberally borrows ideas from other well know games and executes them worse that the originals.

Fresh and original is not the same thing as high quality, the games of Blizzard are a great example of this.

@MiniPato said:

Commander Shepard is your AI partner in this?

lol I was thinking the same thing.

@metalsnakezero: @metalsnakezero said:

I have to go with Ryan that the pacing in this game is trouble!

All 5 minutes of a random segment of a video-game has let you come to a conclusion of the pacing? You are good.

Which leads me to question why it is GB does Quick Looks on games they just rip on and do things half-assed. It is like they have a list of games they 'have' to QL, but either because they didn't get their perks or they just don't like it they do a crap job on purpose. You know what? Unless you are being forced to, don't QL a game you obviously don't want to QL.

7/10 games these days are cover-based shooters. In the last couple months you've shown at least 4 identical cover-based shooters. This is probably a better game then any of them, and there are some really cool parts of the game, yet you wouldn't get that out of a QL which shows a pretty dumb segment of the game (admittedly), and negative commentary all the way through it.

Then to top it all off, you tell viewers not to buy the game. "Here is a segment of gameplay chosen specifically (maybe?) because it is a boring part, we aren't going to give you any background on the story up to this point, we are going to be unfairly negative throughout the video, and then tell you not to buy it..."

I'm just seeing a lot of negative attitude with Quick Looks lately, and it gets old.

@proudgamer said:

while the game looks mediocre, they really didn't show it in a fair light, they showed the tutorial and were suprised nothing was going on, though you can get this game for $19.99 at best buy today, they just misrepresented the game a bit

Yea, I can see where you're coming from. Still, it doesn't look inspired in any meaningful way.

Ryan's Righteous Rant.

Whoooo, Quick Look with Davis and the other guy... uh. Gerstmann. Yeah, that's right.