I have a Kinect and like it, but it just doesn't work with shooters unless they build it from the ground up spesifically for shooters, like Child of Eden.
@LouChou: Yeah like I said, I stick by my opinion but I know I said it kinda troll-like instead of properly. So am sorry for that and will probably re-do my point later on.
Well I still standby everything I said in my last thread/blog post (http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/gungravetza/critics-sometimes-have-no-idea-what-theyre-talking-about/30-83024/). Critics really have no idea what they are talking about sometimes, espicially in the case on AiTD and DNF. But the way I said this was *somewhat* stupid. My argument didn't make much sense as I just gave an example of a badly reviewed game that I liked and then went "SO YEAH CRITICS ARE IDIOTS". I just needed to rant somewhere game-related where people would seem to pay attention, and since I registered I figured this would be a good place to do it. It'd be a good excuse to get into this site.
So for that, I am sorry. I'll probably re-do that argument some other time when I fully explain my points, but not right now. Can't really be bothered. But yeah, let's start again. I'm going to start posting on the forums more, and I was going to make a signature shop thread but then everyone pointed out there isn't on.
I'd rather buy a console for £200-300 that I'd have to change every 6 years or so than buy a PC and have to pay £200 on a new graphics card every year just to have better visuals.
Also you can just get an adaptor to use keyboard and mouse on consoles.
Hey guys, name's Jack and I've been lightly following GiantBomb for years ever since Jeff was fired from Gamespot (and thanks to that I STILL don't take them seriously as a gaming site). I really like the whole look of it, but I could never get into it as easily as other sites like IGN. So I figured registering might help that. :P
I've been gaming for as long as I remember and I love it as a medium for everything. Story-telling, entertainment, even art in some cases. I'm mostly into games that have a great story, so you'll probably see me playing a lot of single player games. Heck, over every single CoD I've ever owned I think I only have about 3 days playing time. Probably played World at War the least since the spawning system was so broken.
I'm just pissed because now about 20% of people considering to buy DNF won't thanks to the reviews. And most of them probably haven't even tried it for themselves.
@BrainSpecialist: Well I never found AiTD broken. And I was playing on the 360 version, the apparently worst verison of it. And the thing that pisses me off is everyone expected a blockbuster. It was a sequel to a game from the late 90s, where you played an 80s action hero parody. It was in development for 14 years, where they scrapped it every few years for being too shi- for not being "perfect" enough. When gameplay of it was finally shown, it looked dated and rough.
Yet people still had inflated expectations of it. And by inflated I mean they expected it to stand up to modern day games, which it obviously can't. And all critics would naturally compare it to modern day games because it's their job. So if you take it for what it is, it's great. Which is why I'd give it an 8.5/10.
But now a good chunk of people won't thanks to the awful reviews.
Critics really piss me off sometimes. I don't mind if they critisise a game fairly and mention fair points, like generic gameplay or a poor story. But the thing that really annoys me is when they don't take a game for what it is.
For example, 2008. Alone In The Dark comes out. Torn apart by critics complaining that all off the cool features are too clunky and the last half of the game becomes too much of a grind. But all of these so-called "clunky" features was what made it unique. Like swinging your analogue stick to use melee weapons was somewhat rough. I've never seen any game since that one attempt anything like it. It was a really memorable game for everything it tried to do and had some really cinematic moments, like the driving sequence early on in the game (many said that it was too hard but somehow I managed to finish it first time). Even if some of these attempts didn't work too well. I'd give it maybe a 7.5 or 8 out of 10.
And now, the exact same thing is happening with Duke Nukem Forever. Critics are destroying it, calling it awful with it's clunky shooting, dated design and poor visuals. While I can agree that the shooting is somewhat clunky, this can be remedied by simply turning up the aiming sensitivity, and while the visuals are bad, they are just dated. There is nothing really awful about them, it just looks a few years old. All of these issues are expected for a game in development for 14 years. I think the problem is that people have inflated expectations because of this rather than sensible ones. I never had this as I knew a long development time usually meant a worse design philosophy, not a better one. So I expected a 6.5/10. And what did I end up with? An 8.5. Feel free to read my review to see why.
Anyway, tl;dr: Critics are pissing me off and have no idea what they are talking about because they approach games with what they should be aiming for and not what they are actually aiming for. For example, AiTD just aimed to be a cinematic ride with some cool mechanics, not a third person survival horror with amazingly in-depth melee combat. And now with Duke Nukem Forever, the game just aims to be a really fun and enjoyable return to the world of Duke Nukem, not a FPS with fast, sharp controls and a emotionally moving story.
Critics need to learn to take a game for what it is, not what it should be.
Because if they don't, the consumers won't either. And they won't even give these great games a chance.
P.S: Don't keep going "shut the fuck up bad game is bad game". It gets old fast.
And on another note, I ended up in a Gametrailers gameplay video for DNF multiplayer. Check it out here if you want: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-duke-nukem/716273
Log in to comment