Much like MGO, people who played the game during early testing phases would not use the cover mechanic because it restricted their movement. Rather, they would opt to just stand/crouch behind cover and peek out - so that if someone attacked them from the side they could get away faster because they weren't pinned to the wall. So they took out the cover mechanic because it was redundant. It obviously works better in single player though.
The guy from metacritic came out and said that whilst variety don't give out a score on their website, they actually _do_ give a score to metacritic. I can only presume this is so they can still be counted on metacritic (and generate hits), but that people who read their review read the actual content rather than just a number at the end.
Still, it's probably just that Variety like to buck the trend. They still seem biased, however. BUT... look at their review for "The Godfa...
Props to diefor, LightofDarkness and Sheddi for actually seeing the graphics for what they are. Read my original comment. These are SCREENSHOTS. The ONLY thing that screenshots can realistically show off is the graphics.
Where did I say the game will have bad gameplay? All I would note is that USUALLY bad graphics give an indication NOT that more time has been spent on the gameplay, rather that there has not been enough time/thought/effort put into the game IN GENERAL. Now that's...
I also see a lot of copies of bioshock, assassin's creed and battlefield: bad company on that shelf. And those games sold fewer copies than GTA4. Furthermore, most people who traded in Bioshock would have done so a long time ago because it came out ages ago. GTA4 not so much. The reason there are so many copies of GTA4 on that shelf is simply because the game sold a lot of copies.
Now you're all making excuses for the graphics! I gave a good example of a game with better graphics than this - Star Ocean 4 - and guess what, that's an RPG too!
Resorting to an argument like "Who cares about graphics" only goes to show that you agree with my point about the graphics.
The graphics look "fine" in that they don't seem to detract from the gameplay, but they are bad as PS3 games go. Seriously, go and compare this game to screenshots ...
The game was rushed.
It's only thanks to their incredible talent that they were able to pull off such a great game in such a short timespan.
Just imagine how great it _could_ have been (especially graphics-wise) with another year of development time...
I hope they take their time with the next one.
Yep the graphics will look mostly like that. The game will go gold in just a couple of weeks ffs. That's hardly enough time to change anything significantly. Stop blindly trying to defend the graphics.
I felt the same way after playing the demo. It was fun for a little bit, but I wouldn't really want to go and play it again. As much as the much touted AI director tries, it can't help but feel the same each time you play it. There is really no depth there.
If you saw the opening trailer, that pretty much introduces you to every last enemy/gameplay mechanic in the game.
Whilst an opinion is an opinion, this still provides further evidence for Variety's bias.
**Note that Variety DO give a score to Metacritic even though they don't publish it on their site**
It's possible to absolutely love this game, but when you're giving 80/100 for LBP and 70/100 for R2 as well, you have to wonder if they really can be trusted to give an unbiased review.
For all that flowery language you'd think he could get the number of players online right :\
This:
The tangibility is imaginary and, after all the effort to render skyscraper sized monsters, the interaction is canned, sterile and inorganic. Visually, you are contending with some of the most fearsome of creatures; nightmarish Lovecraft stuff. But in action, you might as well be shooting at a single blob of pixels.
is what I always thought about those boss encoun...
No you're blind. Is it that you honestly can't tell the difference between good graphics and bad? Compare these graphics with the recently released in-game screenshots of Star Ocean 4 and you'll see how much worse this game looks. Compare it with any of the games that have been acclaimed in terms of graphics - Gears 2, Uncharted, MGS4 - and you cannot possibly say that the graphics in this game are awesome. Heck, compare the graphics with those of, say, "Quantum of Solace" and they ...
The graphics in this game are bad. Hopefully a great story and great gameplay can redeem it.
In the very early stages of development, if you showed off what the in-game graphics looked like at that stage, they would look awful. You might say it's misleading, but there isn't really an alternative - unless you don't want to show off the game at all.
Why do I get disagrees?
MGS4 set a precident for installs between acts.
FF13 may well follow that trend.
If you tell me they are not going to at least consider the 360's limitations when designing the game for the PS3, I'm afraid you are mistaken. They might make it for PS3 first, sure, but they know that they are going to make it for 360 and some of the design descisions may reflect this.
And can someone kindly explain how swapping disks is annoyi...
This is obvious.
But I don't think it will be that bad that you have to swap disks.
The PS3 will probably come with installs between chapters like MGS4 which are MORE ANNOYING than simply putting a new disk in. Especially when you want to change from chapter 3 to 1 and back again. Multiple disks is fine.
My only concern is that the game will have to be restructured (i.e. like in earlier FFs where not all the world map was available to explore because it ...
I agree with
Bosses were lame
Drebin Point System was lame
Challenge was lacking (for shooting/siding with enemies, stealth was great)
Graphics were great
F***ing annoying installs
I disagree with
Game length. It took me 22 hours on my first playthrough. That's a LOT of gameplay no matter how you spin it. My brother took 28 - so there you go.
Cutscenes - have you seen BETTER cutscenes in a game? I thought the cutscenes were ...
OK I'll tell you all what happened here.
The graphics have been hyped as the best thing ever. Crysis DOES look better, so, presuming this guy has played Crysis, and then he hears the claims about the graphics of this game, then he notices graphical flaws and the fact that it's not the be-all end-all of graphics, he is slightly let down. Now he's said that they're still amazing, and he's said that it's a graphical powerhouse, but he wants to provide a counterpoint to all the other...
No they don't dumb down the AI.
You are one of the many who confuse AI with difficulty. (No offense intended - I don't expect many people to know anything about AI)
The AI will be set pretty high, at all times. The places where people say "oh look there! Isn't the AI stupid!" are AI _glitches_. It's a glitch because, even if the game were set on easy, you still wouldn't want the AI-controlled enemies to run around in circles and getting stuck on stuff. Ther...
Those games are overhyped in the sense that they are not of any better quality than other great games out there, yet they sold and were reviewed a lot better. They are still great games though. Just not over and above everything else, like the sales and reviews would lead you to believe.
This is actually a nice selection of weapons. I love the sound and "feel" of the weapons (of course they look awesome too).
Every beta vid I have seen up until now has the standard assault rifle pretty much all the time - why is this? I assumed for a while that there weren't actually that many weapons in the beta...