Yes, I always consider reviews as simply one's opinions on games. But sometimes there's that one review that I clearly didn't gel with, or liked a game that was critically panned. These are the games where my opinion was completely the opposite of the reviewer(s) in question.
Alex Navarro gave this a 7/10 at GameSpot. The game is arguably the worst budget title I've played ever. It looks, plays and sounds like a game that came out in 2001, despite it came out in 2007. I've heard that there are better Delta Force games, but this definitely isn't good.
PC Gamer US's review got the tagline on the box, calling it "A Masterpiece of the Art form." Greg Kasavin, a reviewer I usually trusted, gave this a trusty 8.5/10. While people were hoping this to be id software's return to fame, I just found a pretty engine with gameplay that hadn't evolved past 1997. Add to the fact that it shamelessly rips off concepts from Half-Life and System Shock, and you got a relatively disappointing shooter. It's this game that actually made me not give a shit about any future id game, including Rage.
Yes, the reviews were all over the place. GameTrailers gave it a 9, 1-2 EGM staffers gave it a 4 or something. This game had hope, but it was marred by one-on-one combat with dozens of enemies, a ridiculous trial-and-error system, and just feeling derivative by the time you got past Memory Block 3. Seriously, this game actually put me off playing anything with "Assassin's Creed" in the title.
I guess lots of people were glad to finish the fight. Me, I thought the series peaked at the first Halo. I didn't care for the story or the characters, and I'd only bothered playing through the campaign with a friend over the course of a day. Multiplayer isn't bad, though.
This got loads of praise from various gaming websites, even got some furor thanks to GameTrailers scoring the "Story" too low. But I think they didn't score it low enough. The plot is more contrived than any other game in the series, it's clearly more of a third-person shooter with stealth elements, and it still had the excess bloat that plagued MGS3. This game actually killed any future interest I had in the franchise.
Outside of the wonderful graphics, this game does everything wrong. The plot is dumb and contrived. You have little to no sympathy for your allies. You're doing missions from factions with little impact on the world or the story. Coupled with annoying parts where you had to stop and repair stuff, or do a random gunfight; it just shows how a sequel-in-name-only sucked, compared to Far Cry's spiritual successor: Crysis.
One of these days, I must find Chris Remo and debate with him on how he thought THIS game was any good.
0 Comments