That's a one-way vent. Go around to the other side, there'll be a way to get to the top of the room you're looking for, although I forget what items you need to get up there. Once you're done, you can drop down into the room you're currently in via the one-way vent.
I have to say, I personally despise the Beatles's music and everything they stood for, but really, all the people ripping on the game in these comments is just wrong. The game, unlike Metallica or Aerosmith, actually looks great, with a few new features as well as remaining true to what I understand to be what the Beatles are all about. I wouldn't even think about buying this game, but for Beatles fans or average rhythm game fans, this will be the game to get this Q4.
" Another game for the 'modern generation' read people that all have attention defecit disorder. What happened to RTS games being about building a base and making strategic decisions? These days you need the reflexes of an FPS guy and the multi-tasking of an air traffic controller. Each unit has to have a billion different skills you need to micro. Soon you'll need to manually wipe their butt before a battle and babysit them so they don't kill themselves because you didn't touch them for 5 seconds. It used to be you could sit back and enjoy a nice little mind battle with a friend. Now it's rushing after 1min of gameplay and constant adrenaline pumping and everything is over after 5min as if you were playing Quake 3. I blame the Zerg! "
Wholeheartedly agree. I loved Tiberian Sun and RA2, the C&C games I grew up with. Hell, I loved supreme commander because even though to be good you needed to micro the hell out of it, I just liked building a giant goddamn army and then nuking the shit out of an enemy. It was FUN, dammit, not some giant test of skill like every game needs to be these days. I want a game that I can play in a laid back manner against computers or friends, none of this anonymous tournament scene bullshit that C&C has been about since 3.
" Games are an art form. At Giant Bomb, I would expect people to get that (especially Jeff). I don't see why people has such a problem with a game about Fallujah being made. Is it the fact that people actually died fighting in this battle? Well, so did people in World War II, but some of the best games involve that as a subject (and Nazis may be the greatest video game enemy of all time). Is it because it happened so recently? I don't see why video games can't be timely. I think that will only expand the impact of the game. Is it because we suspect the game content will be in poor taste? Why? We don't even know how the game is going to play. No one would judge a painting by a few brush strokes early on, so why are we insisting on doing the same here? This is shades of the FoxNews coverage of Mass Effect. Do we really think this is going to be less tasteful than, say, Postal, or any number of other violent games? Maybe this just exposes the biases of the writers. War in Europe, good. War in Iraq, bad. I don't really have any answers here, I just don't get it. "
I don't think they find the premise all that terrible, Jeff just seems to be pointing out that a game developer is comparing a lack of financial backing to being wounded in a war.
And you are right, there is some bias of making a game based on a recent battle compared to one over 60 years ago. Is that fair? No. But I'd hazard a guess that no one reading this site was involved in WWII in any way, so no one is going to get touchy feely about it. But then again, most WWII don't go for a real emotional connection with actual, real life soldiers, so it seems like Six Days is just setting itself up for all this criticism.
Calling a Star Wars IV TIE-fighter-battle-esque scene where the brothers have a familial bout interrupted and have to each get in a turret to fend off falling rocks.
Log in to comment