sdharrison

@Daveyo520 said:

@Wrighteous86: I think they are being as harsh as they feel they need to be. All the stuff you guys mentioned they don't need to say because they don't think they are issues like you guys do. It is not a big enough deal to detract from the game.

That's... kinda what I just said. In my opinion it's a good game, so I don't have a problem with reviewers calling it great. Almost every major release gets that review hype shine, even the ones that are legitimately great. GTA IV is an awesome game in my opinion, but some reviews were calling it the greatest game of all time with an "Oscar-worthy" story. OP should get over it, whether it's true in this case or not, and judge it for himself.

Star system, percent system, etc.  Whatever metric you want to use - critics were light on LA Noire.  I respect that you love it, but this game got a free pass on some questionably shallow mechanics at the very core of the experience.  Other games with less hype and ad money don't.

@sdharrison said:

  "just because you didn't like it doesn't make somebody's opinion wrong"

This seems like an appropriate response.  +Hype dictates review scores to some extent unless the game completely blows. That is just how mainstream reviews are.

I preordered LA Noire, bought completely into the hype and nearly exploded when all the 5 star/90% reviews came pouring in.  But love it or hate it, the developers are the first to admit they crafted a linear adventure title for the console market.  The problems arise not from that concept, but from the execution.  Set aside the technical elements, and what has Bondi done?  Because of the need for mass appeal, puzzle solutions are spoon-fed, and actions sequences are almost autopilot.  Worse, the interrogation system relies less on reading the wonderful faces and more on guessing where the writer wants you to go.  The core gameplay of "searching for clues" equates to puppeteering Cole around a crime scene and tapping A.  (if you turn off sound notices and rumbling, you still just tap A.)

 The presentation is second to none, but the gameplay is...  I am pained to come to this conclusion....  Shallow.  It is a rental, pure and simple.  The depth (or lack thereof) of content, lack of replay incentive and empty open world simply don't merit the almost universal high marks the game received critically.  Stranger still is the incredible quality of the open world.  It is absolutely stunning, and probably one of the most visually realized game worlds I have explored.  Why couldn't we see or do more?  Bondi takes the time to do the hard work, but opts to handcuff the player and provide no creative diversions besides "Collect the random thing we dropped around the world!"  and "Kill a couple dudes!"

I understand the idea that "just because you didn't like it doesn't make somebody's opinion wrong".

But I really think that impartial critics should have taken this game to task a bit more.  It is more suited to being a rental than a 60 dollar purchase, and all I see from Brad's review is gushing praise for what are ultimately incredibly simple and shallow systems of gameplay.

As an interactive movie - it's best in class.  As a full price retail game?  It feels overpraised as a result of hype.

 After messing around for a while, it has become clear that Ermac has such an unbelievably sweet launch attack, coupled with the teleport punch that he is now my favorite on the roster.  I suck horribly, but I'm ripping off massive combos easily.  Just the flow of the launchers and teleports together makes him such a breeze.  He "seems" like he would be a higher skill level type character because it looks complicated, but the motions come together really smooth for me.

Anyone else experienced Ermac euphoria?

Ive never heard of it, but do they dish out low scores when games fail to innovate and just want your cash?

*edit*  checked it out - the blog format was difficult to navigate and I wouldn't call that "mainstream"

When a game is released for PCs that charges money and is being marketed, I would like to see the game press give it a paragraph.  If its a derivative time-sink, I would like to see if exposed and scored accordingly.

Is that really an idea you HATE and want to argue?

This could very well just be a perception on my part, but it seems like MMOs tend to get off easy with the game media.  Either they are so bad or small they don't get reviewed at all, and you are forced to check youtube for info - or they routinely get 70-85%s just for launching and showing up (even if the mechanics are identical, boring, etc).

There seems to be an attitude among game journalists that "if your an MMO player then you'll play this because its an MMO that starts up and works."

Clearly it isn't the only reason, but maybe if the media held these developers feet to the fire a bit more and exposed what a pathetic derivative and overly monetized scheme it has become, there would be more change on the horizon.  Because lets face it - most MMOs are terrible games with great logistics.

And I should add that I also enjoyed it.  Kind of.  I basically spammed magic to get to the end - thinking Peter would invent some cool king mechanic.  But it wasn't a mechanic.  It was just a brief choose your own adventure series of questions followed by a technically limited "final battle" and a boring overworld to do nothing in afterward.  You could co-op, but why?  Once I realized there was no ace up the sleeve in the second act, I started to examine the product as a whole.

The media, and even GB I think got duped.  The game was good enough in a first play to merit a decent score, but its abusive DLC and wildly false claims about features went above and beyond anything I've seen before in a AAA title.  It just took a little while past the first wave of reviews to really set in.

So the dust has settled on Fable 3 and it's awful/expensive/pointless DLC and I have come to the conclusion that Microsoft just wanted to see how far they could stretch a franchise.  The game was clearly unfinished, featured no truly innovative mechanics, broken graphics (framerates, popin), and any slightly redeeming characteristics were merely stripped down versions from previous editions.  Then they have the audacity to make black dye an empty area on your shelf until you buy it?  After reflecting on it a bit and reading through the "most disappointing games" thread, I really feel like Fable 3 was a bigger travesty than it gets credit for.  It could be stood up as an all time example for most exploitive and unfinished DLC cash-cow ever.  Opinions?