Quick Look: Inversion

The damn guns sound like heavy goth-tech bass lines.

yea this looks like a wait till a dead spot an by it on sale for 20 bucks typea game

Nice hair Davis.

We've played Gears of War too many times in the past 5 or 6 years.

I dont get why they need a hoist if they can manipulate gravity

@FreedomTown said:

@evanbower said:

@FreedomTown said:

@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.

If a game can totally lose you in the first 10-15 minutes, is that not a major failure on the developers part? Also, thats the entire point of the Quick Look. It isn't a review.. it's meant to be like, we've taken the shrink wrap off of this game and have booted it up, what do we see? Ryan wouldn't be doing anyone any favours by not saying that he was bored already.

You don't think this is a review? What is your definition of a review then? The last lines of this video are (paraphrased): "This game isn't good, don't waste your money on this game."

That sounds like a review to me. They just skipped all the shit that usually come before the conclusion.

But my point wasn't arguing over what defines a review and what defines a Quick Look. my point was, hbkdx12 pointed out above, is that GB does this with mediocre games that are not hyped up. Binary Domain is a perfect example. That games was more fun then the last two Gears put together.

We have absolute shit games getting a lot of coverage because they are big time games with a lot of money and advertising invested. Then you get small, indie type games getting a lot of good coverage because game "journalists" get hard over thinking a small indie game is fantastic. But the middle of the road games that aren't hyped or marketed, but are actually fun games get shit on.

Do you believe they get shit on because they are just horrible games? I don't, because games like this, binary domain, and a slew of others are actually well done, and fun, for what they are. They are also exactly like a lot of other games which get praised. So why then, if the game actually isn't that bad, would you be led to believe it is? You can draw your own conclusions, I'm just getting tired of seeing it.

You have no clue what your talking about.

I realized this when you said Binary Domain was better then the last two games in one of the greatest trilogies of this generation...

And no, the indie games that get a good rep are good indie games. I generally don't play indie games but have enjoyed most of the ones hyped by GB.

And putting "journalists" in quotes like that makes you look like a jackass.

You know what? I hate to throw my lot in against the Bomb Squad, but I'm with all the complainers this time, aside from all the personal attacks on Jeff and Ryan. 
 
This game looks pretty engaging, actually, and the story stuff doesn't look any worse than it did in Gears of War. The co-op will probably be a good way to spend a few afternoons with a friend, at any rate, so I'm probably gonna check this one out.

half-life 3 is finally here god bless u gaben

Ryan : Oh goddammit! Goddammit Jeff! Fucking video games! Godammit! God fucking goddammit! Oh! Fucking games!

I love it ! :D

I'd like to see more of these types of videos on the site: Quick Looks of bad video games delivered in a MST3K style.

@MasturbatingestBear said:

@FreedomTown said:

@evanbower said:

If a game can totally lose you in the first 10-15 minutes, is that not a major failure on the developers part? Also, thats the entire point of the Quick Look. It isn't a review.. it's meant to be like, we've taken the shrink wrap off of this game and have booted it up, what do we see? Ryan wouldn't be doing anyone any favours by not saying that he was bored already.

But my point wasn't arguing over what defines a review and what defines a Quick Look. my point was, hbkdx12 pointed out above, is that GB does this with mediocre games that are not hyped up. Binary Domain is a perfect example. That games was more fun then the last two Gears put together.

We have absolute shit games getting a lot of coverage because they are big time games with a lot of money and advertising invested. Then you get small, indie type games getting a lot of good coverage because game "journalists" get hard over thinking a small indie game is fantastic. But the middle of the road games that aren't hyped or marketed, but are actually fun games get shit on.

Do you believe they get shit on because they are just horrible games? I don't, because games like this, binary domain, and a slew of others are actually well done, and fun, for what they are. They are also exactly like a lot of other games which get praised. So why then, if the game actually isn't that bad, would you be led to believe it is? You can draw your own conclusions, I'm just getting tired of seeing it.

You have no clue what your talking about.

I realized this when you said Binary Domain was better then the last two games in one of the greatest trilogies of this generation...

And no, the indie games that get a good rep are good indie games. I generally don't play indie games but have enjoyed most of the ones hyped by GB.

And putting "journalists" in quotes like that makes you look like a jackass.

Yeah, agreed, he has no idea what he is talking about.

I was bored watching this, because this looks like another Gears of War clone in which I don't need to play another Gears of War. The gravity thing looks neat, but seems like nothing other than a gimmick. This is a middle of the road game. Middle of the road games don't get a lot of money and advertising investments, because their publishers seem to know that this is a middle of the road game. If it wasn't then the press would be talking about how awesome it is. But as you said these games are "fun for what they are." When you say that then they are doing nothing that demands the spotlight.

Indie games get coverage, because they are usually trying to do something interesting. Most of the indie games GB have covered are not clones of popular games much like the games you, FreedomTown, are talking about.

"Use text prompts like blunt objects"

Good thing Jeff is playing on pussy.

When Jeff's character is running in the multiplayer, it looks like he needs to go take a massive dump and is running towards the bathroom.

Hmm, so why are they dissing this game but not Gears? Seems just the same to me.

@Majkiboy: One is done really well, the other isn't.

Really funny quick look, but a horrible game. If I were to watch this without jeff and ryans commentary, it would be torture after about 2 minutes. With them, though, it becomes cool.

I wish I get the same feel of camera movement like it shows on giant bomb flash player

@Majkiboy said:

Hmm, so why are they dissing this game but not Gears? Seems just the same to me.

Gears of War did it first and did it better.

This game is alright. Standard shooter fair with a fun gimmick and great presentation. Fuck Ryan Davis