How aren't they known for innovation? Seems to me that they take pretty big risks with innovation.The_Logician19 said:
Don't Try New Things!
- Thread starter Gollon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
what are you talking about? every time a developer tries something new, it's usually praised. i guess you're trying to say that despite these games are trying something new, they don't get as recognized as top games ever. that's usually cause they don't deserve that recognition. in all reviews i've seen for the games you have mentioned the reviewers have noted it for trying something new, but have marked it down for other legible concerns that mar the games overall experience. when a game suceeds in doing something new, like portal, it usually gains high recognition anyway.
An innovative feature can still be a bad innovative feature... You're implying that you think these features are good ones even though reviewers seem to disagree which is fine, it's your opinion, but there are plenty of games which are praised for their innovation in fact the majority of games which introduce an innovation are praised for it.
Army of Two's main point is introducing a level of co-op play that isn't in any other game. It is, however, forced co-op and everyone likes to go lone wolf every once in a while. It's an innovation and I think it's a pretty good innovation but it certainly won't be for everyone.
The gist of this thread seems to be "There are some reviewers which don't agree with me and they suck" not "Why do reviewers hate innovation?" because they obviously don't hate innovation.
Army of Two's main point is introducing a level of co-op play that isn't in any other game. It is, however, forced co-op and everyone likes to go lone wolf every once in a while. It's an innovation and I think it's a pretty good innovation but it certainly won't be for everyone.
The gist of this thread seems to be "There are some reviewers which don't agree with me and they suck" not "Why do reviewers hate innovation?" because they obviously don't hate innovation.
im all for regenerating health, mainly because if ive just finished an insanely hard part of a game with only say 10% health left, if there's no medpacks in sight im essentially screwed. Ill take regenerating health over playing hide and seek with medpacks after every fight.GenHellspawn said:
Problem with that statement is that saying Chuck Norris has regenerating health implies that he can lose health. Which is a myth.
Many of the "new" ideas in Deus Ex 2 sucked.
Also: Ulimited SaGa. Attack reels? WTF?
Still, without new ideas we'd all still be playing Pong.
When a new idea works really well, it's praised and then usually copied by everyone (regenerating health). When a mechanic doesn't it's derided, rightfully so, thus preventing copycats and forcing devs back to the drawing board to try to innovate something else.
Thus, just because something is new, doesn't mean it is immune to criticism.
Also: Ulimited SaGa. Attack reels? WTF?
Still, without new ideas we'd all still be playing Pong.
When a new idea works really well, it's praised and then usually copied by everyone (regenerating health). When a mechanic doesn't it's derided, rightfully so, thus preventing copycats and forcing devs back to the drawing board to try to innovate something else.
Thus, just because something is new, doesn't mean it is immune to criticism.
Hello!Copter400 said:
Higher-class scum? I take offense! I'm the accumulated sludge of dead algae, thank-you-very-much.Copter400 said:
And on a further note, that's Mama Luigi to you.
Thank you for your I ROLLED A CRITICAL FUMBLE IN MY CARPAL TUNNEL.
EDIT
Can I point out the blatantly obvious and mention Myst, amongst other such LucasArts-esque Adventure games?Darth Mobius said:
Or would that, y'know, invalidate your statement too much?
I cannot say anyhing about Condemned 2 (though I love the idea, story, setting and climate) or why are reviewers afraid of their own shadows, or even why is ZP that popular (there must be some Hypnotic Effect) but I can tell you this...
Do not judge a game you have not played it, you do not understand it or when you get payed to do so. This rule does not work for anybody but nicely sums up about 99% of the reviewers in the world. (alright, I am being brutal here, but that be the truth in my opinion)
Condemned 2 rocked my chair when I saw the trailer. If I had whatever is needed to play it (apart from a PC) I would already be in the process of obtaining it.
Do not judge a game you have not played it, you do not understand it or when you get payed to do so. This rule does not work for anybody but nicely sums up about 99% of the reviewers in the world. (alright, I am being brutal here, but that be the truth in my opinion)
Condemned 2 rocked my chair when I saw the trailer. If I had whatever is needed to play it (apart from a PC) I would already be in the process of obtaining it.
It's all about context. sci-fi/ fantasy = appropriate. Realistic/Modern = not appropriate.JOE COOL said:
They do both. Something we haven't seen before? Scary! Same stuff we've seen a bunch of time before and loved? It sucks!Natural Hazard said:
As for an FPS game where you're immortal, they already made it, it's called Bioshock. Reviewers gave it 9s and 10s. I would have given it an 8, most likely... and that's the main reason.
As for health bars and the like, I will reiterate my opinion that a compromise is usually best. Condemned 2 did this. Segments of your health bar regenerate so long as they still have some health left. When they're empty, you need health kits to refill them. I honestly don't think I've seen a better system, and it's actually fairly realistic when we take into account the nature of combat injuries; you can resist going into shock, but eventually your wounds will get to you unless you get medical treatment.