Review: Lost Planet 2

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Review: Lost Planet 2

Capcom?s latest third-person shooter is a bit of a mess.

Read Full Article
 

DividedUnity

New member
Oct 19, 2009
1,849
0
0
I disagree that it wasnt made evident what you have to do in boss fights eg the train gun. You are given a map of the gun and labelled are the various parts. If it takes damage you are told where the collant towers are to fix it. If you are playing with AI they are pretty stupid yes but they occasionally load the gun for you. I thought it was incredibly easy to figure out though I do agree the AI is not fun to play with.

I'm dissapointed you didn't mention the pain in the ass 5 character choice where each level seperately or the abundance of the nom de guerres from the slot machine. No mention of the DNF in online gameplay either which takes away points earned from online battles if you happen to disconnect or exit in the middle of play.

I think the rating was fair but you missed some key points

EDIT: Just forgot to mention for those who missed it. Capcom actually neglected to add facial animations at all to this game because of all the players wearing helmets or masks. You don't notice it except for when you play as the bonus wesker or frank west costumes where there lips are sealed.
 

ccesarano

New member
Oct 3, 2007
523
0
0
Sounds like something my friends and I should grab when it is $30. The demo didn't really give me an impression of how the game would play, though the boss fights part sounds about right. It was in a conversation with someone that had the game later that I discovered the boss in the demo can be defeated by leaping into his mouth and shooting at some sort of heart-thing, which none of us knew.

It's a shame there aren't more games with satisfying 4-player co-op, as it is something that could convince my friends and I to actually make the purchase. For example, if Jurassic: The Hunted, an overall shitty game, had 4-player co-op in its survival mode, we'd grab that shit easy. Fighting off waves of dinosaurs in a half-assed fortress is awesome no matter what the mechanics play like.
 

Mr Companion

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,534
0
0
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
I will admit the story is weak, and the multiplayer in singleplayer action is sometimes real bad...but, I still enjoyed it
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Mr Companion said:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.
you have it on ps3? could I play with you guys if you do?
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Mr Companion said:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.
I shouldn't HAVE to play online to get a good gaming experience. The story could've been much better. And try playing split screen two player local. IT'S HORRIBLE. Trust me, the dislike for this game is well warranted.
 

dnadns

Divine Ronin
Jan 20, 2009
127
0
0
I've got to stick with Penny Arcade's comment on LP2 reviews (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/5/19/):

The Apparatus is returning a nebulous result on Lost Planet 2, but most of the things I've read about the game are irrelevant to me. I happen to like the weird stories in Japanese games, and hearing that a co-op game is best played in co-op ain't exactly front page material. "We" have "said" for years that we want meaningful co-op experiences, but when they're delivered to us, they must give an impeccable single-player performance as well?
I also happen to disagree that a core group of friends is required. I am playing through extreme now, after having finished the campaign starting from easy upwards. The first run I played it entirely solo to get to know the maps and objectives (I hate being clueless in a MP game) and then started playing online.

You may call it sheer luck, but I always had teams that consisted of two types of people. Newcomers and those who know what they are doing and did so by communicating it to others using messages or their headset.

Apart from that, the game has been great fun for me. I got to know a couple of nice people and the experience of taking down the huge bosses on harder difficulties is really rewarding.
The acrobatic ninja-style grapple action and big weapons just complete the package.

I can see that this game is not for everyone, but it should at least be seen and rated as what it is. An online co-op game and not a story-driven single player experience.

Just for reference, I (still) play it on PS3.
 

Green Ninja

New member
Aug 10, 2009
60
0
0
I mostly agree with this review. If only works if you have a few buddies to help out, especially in the Train Episode.
Also, shouldn't you say something different in the video and not just repeat the lines from the text?
 

chstens

New member
Apr 14, 2009
993
0
0
I disagree with you, the point aren't the characters, it's more focus on the factions, and I never had issues figuring out what to do or how to do it, not even the most complex boss battles (on my first playthough)

But, you have a point, you have to play this co-op (I don't see this as a big flaw, since I would've played it co-op anyways)
 

daedrick

New member
Jul 23, 2008
212
0
0
Bleh, got to be expected, most players on the escapist are relatively bad at video games. From what I can read at least, thats what I see. Some people who dislike or never played classic games that are considered master peice are rampant on this website... And Im not talking about the halo-quality-ish games.

Meh
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
We ask for co-op games designed around it. We get it, and we whine about how the solo sucks. Gamers are a picky bunch, aren't we.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Onyx Oblivion said:
We ask for co-op games designed around it. We get it, and we whine about how the solo sucks. Gamers are a picky bunch, aren't we.
Hey, I tried to play it as a co-op game, but the matchmaking either sucks or there aren't enough people playing.

If the latter is true, then maybe it's just not a very good game.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
I loved the first one, yet this one... was a meh. It was well made but I dislike people and I do not want to be forced to play with others! The SP was fuckin terrible alone mainly because you will die like 55 times an episode because your AI teammates do nothing...

Anyway it was a giant meh and even a blegh.
 
Jun 26, 2009
7,508
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
We ask for co-op games designed around it. We get it, and we whine about how the solo sucks. Gamers are a picky bunch, aren't we.
Hey, I tried to play it as a co-op game, but the matchmaking either sucks or there aren't enough people playing.

If the latter is true, then maybe it's just not a very good game.
probly cus ugot it on X-box the matchmaking suck 'cus on the PS3 I get into a game of 'bout 10 people non co-op and 4 (including me) co-op in no more then 30sec's and playing it on single player isn't that hard I got through all of it on my own on normal and when I went online I ended up with 3 new freinds so all in all I liked what I got.
 

dnadns

Divine Ronin
Jan 20, 2009
127
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
We ask for co-op games designed around it. We get it, and we whine about how the solo sucks. Gamers are a picky bunch, aren't we.
Hey, I tried to play it as a co-op game, but the matchmaking either sucks or there aren't enough people playing.

If the latter is true, then maybe it's just not a very good game.
I never had a problem to find a group in standby with at least two human players in under 2 minutes. It was a bit slow the week after launch, but that's not a big surprise as most people either tried to play through it alone first or had not unlocked enough episodes, yet.

The only things that do suck about the matchmaking is not being able to join an ongoing session and something like a proper party system that can be managed in and outside chapters.

Of course, maybe you just picked a bad time for it instead of concluding that this reflects on the quality of the game.

Sorry, but I have seen plenty of matches every evening over the last two weeks that I can't leave that statement without a comment.
 

Mrsoupcup

New member
Jan 13, 2009
3,487
0
0
Well like the first Lost Planet, I'm not surprised at all it's kinda meh.
Well my extra 50 dollars is going to Alpha Protocol.
 

Hammith

New member
Dec 26, 2008
45
0
0
My problem with the game isn't that it's co-op. Co-op games are good, fine things. It's that the last one was decidedly not co-op and this one is almost entirely multiplayer. I'd imagine quite a few people that were fans of the last game and don't really play online got this and are sort of cursing some parts of it.
 

Wandrecanada

New member
Oct 3, 2008
460
0
0
Just another reviewer who tries to hold up LP2 to some cookie cutter shooter standard instead of realizing that design choices were made to make the game exactly as they said.

#1 Story

LP2 designers stated specifically that they lessened the importance of the story as a design choice. Why? Because the game is made to be played multiple times in whatever chapter order you want. When you build a game like this story must take the very back seat because in replay it becomes superfluous. Why dock something points when they accomplish what they set out to do.

#2 Clarity in objectives

Almost every review harps on some idea that the game doesn't tell you what to do. I'm not sure what game you played but if you can tell me where you found it confusing maybe I can help you. There is no point in the game where you are not given specific instructions in the form of an in mission communique with the exception of the final boss, only because the final battle doesn't tell you where exactly to shoot. Perhaps as gamers we are too trained to assume that every game needs gutter rail instructions to hand hold us at every turn.

Now one thing the game does fail to tell you is all the hidden or alternative ways to accomplish missions. That's something you learn playing the game multiple times. Again it was designed specifically to be played over and over without losing impact on multiple playthroughs.

#3 Vital Suits (VSs)

It's funny that everyone thinks the VSs are the best part of the game when they're just another game mechanic you learn to use over playtime. Did you know that VS had a sawblade when you played through the first time? Did you care? Probably not because you wanted to get through that mission to see the next. VSs are just another aspect of the game to learn and not the be all end all of the game. In fact most players will stay on foot in subsequent playthroughs because the custom weaponry you get (from playing the game multiple times) are loads more fun. That brings me to...

#4 Custom Gear

Not a single reviewer says a word about LP2's weapons and custom gear. No one mentions the Femmes Fatals and I find it odd that you'll never hear a word about the confetti shotgun, akrid launcher or the cloaking device. It's probably because THEY NEVER PLAYED THE GAME MORE THAN ONCE.

Now granted I know you're on a schedule to review games and you can't sink 40 hours into every title so you try to get through a single campaign play and drop the game for some other game you're more interested in (I'm going to assume Red Dead Redemption here). Fine I get that. I also get that if you want to do well at your job you need to put some time into doing it properly or face criticism of your work for that lack of full coverage.

This game's review has caused me to lose more faith in almost every reviewer I've read than any other failed game in the past and that worries me. Does it mean that reviewers are falling further and further towards the mainstream gaming population? Are they falling away from objectivity into the swirling mass of corporate marketing hype that leaves all non conformist games like LP2 stepped on and crushed?


PS: I know what everyone said about Mirror's Edge (omg non standard controls it's crap game!) and I worry what will become of Brink in the mess of military shooters that will bracket it's release. Please for the love of all that's holy don't measure it's quality by the standards of another game if it's not trying to be that game!
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Hammith said:
My problem with the game isn't that it's co-op. Co-op games are good, fine things. It's that the last one was decidedly not co-op and this one is almost entirely multiplayer. I'd imagine quite a few people that were fans of the last game and don't really play online got this and are sort of cursing some parts of it.
I think that this is part of the problem, why change the series direction with the sequel?
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Wandrecanada said:
It's probably because THEY NEVER PLAYED THE GAME MORE THAN ONCE.
How can you say that a game is supposed to be fun only after a certain number of hours invested? A game should strive to be fun no matter how it is played from the moment you boot it up. If it isn't fun, then maybe it's not that great of a game.

Is that such a crazy concept?

Also, I'm not sure that peppering multiplayer games with incremental rewards is necessarily a good thing. Is a game that supports an addiction model, a la FarmVille, really a better designed game or just one that preys upon those drawn to addictive styles of play?

Read this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_255/7594-The-Player-and-the-Pusher-Man
 

NamesAreHardToPick

New member
Jan 7, 2010
177
0
0
It shouldn't be left to trial and error to figure out that you have to bring the shells to the gun, load them, then turn the gun to point at the big bug.

This took trial and error... seriously? Doing it *well* requires some learning but from the very start you've got giant bullets, a giant gun, and a giant thing covered with enormous glowing weak points. It's grating that the review's filled with little nitpicks like this, or the open-ended sounding questions about the setting that are actually answered in cut-scene events and dialog as you go along.

At least you refrained from pointing out the control scheme for being "archaic".

As for being fun from the start, driving robots and shooting huge guns at horrible alien bugs rocks pretty hard. Knowing I could be doing it *better* makes me want to get my practice on instead of being a turn-off. Different strokes for different folks.
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Well, despite the game not living up to the hype that has been created by their insane and most awesome 4-man Co-op, I still enjoy the occasional demo mission with my friends. It's always fun to blast something so big with friends who actually TALK.
 

Eldarion

New member
Sep 30, 2009
1,887
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Wandrecanada said:
It's probably because THEY NEVER PLAYED THE GAME MORE THAN ONCE.
How can you say that a game is supposed to be fun only after a certain number of hours invested? A game should strive to be fun no matter how it is played from the moment you boot it up. If it isn't fun, then maybe it's not that great of a game.

Is that such a crazy concept?

Also, I'm not sure that peppering multiplayer games with incremental rewards is necessarily a good thing. Is a game that supports an addiction model, a la FarmVille, really a better designed game or just one that preys upon those drawn to addictive styles of play?

Read this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_255/7594-The-Player-and-the-Pusher-Man
No sorry, I cannot disagree more. A game needs to be fun no matter how its played? So stealth games should still be fun if you ignore the stealth and just shoot everyone? NO. A multi player focused game should behave differently than a single player focused game.

And really? The fact that you can play the multiplayer to unlock new weapons automatically makes this game farmville? Are you serious? Unlocks aren't automatically there to addict you, sometimes there are just extras. A bone for the enthusiast. Farmville, WoW and other addicting games don't offer extras in the same way. You have to keep coming back to those games every day to keep up. In WoW if you miss a few days of gameplay you end up waiting several more days to get tier gear you need to progress thru raiding, in farmville you have to come back several times a day to care for your crops. They want you to keep playing. In this game you just play as much as you want, have fun and sometimes unlock some fun extra. Don't cry "LOL FAMRVILLE" if you don't know what your talking about.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
daedrick said:
Bleh, got to be expected, most players on the escapist are relatively bad at video games. From what I can read at least, thats what I see. Some people who dislike or never played classic games that are considered master peice are rampant on this website... And Im not talking about the halo-quality-ish games.

Meh
Who are you referring to? People in the community or on the staff?
 

NamesAreHardToPick

New member
Jan 7, 2010
177
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Also, I'm not sure that peppering multiplayer games with incremental rewards is necessarily a good thing. Is a game that supports an addiction model, a la FarmVille, really a better designed game or just one that preys upon those drawn to addictive styles of play?

Read this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_255/7594-The-Player-and-the-Pusher-Man
Collecting stuff isn't what makes FarmVille addictive, that stuff's been around for ages before it became a problem in the industry... where FarmVille hits you is the the back-and-forth social obligations that the game generates. You can't stop playing without having a crappy run-down farm and starving cows on your facebook profile, and dropping the ball for a whole bunch of real-life friends :\

The slot machine's fun and the random new weapon is a thrill, but nothing in there changes the fundamental gameplay, a character's default loadout is extremely reliable and effective. What's addictive about Lost Planet 2 is player performance; going for that elusive "perfect run" where you and your team are nonstop awesome for an entire mission, chapter, maybe even a whole episode, nobody suffers from some humiliating death, people rack up lots of Good Job awards, etc. There are so many possible strategies and approaches to try and you rarely play a mission back-to-back which prevents learning by rote repetition.

Is it so wrong when the fundamentals of a game are addictive like that? It's not gimmicks, it's not collectible stuff, it's like wanding to have a great race in Wipeout where you've got to play your end really well and just hope that nobody manages to sic a missile on you while you're making a hard corner and ruin a lap time. This is where Demon's Souls lost me, there wasn't enough of a random element - besides invaders - to replays, once you knew your stuff you could play the same area like clockwork.
 

Wandrecanada

New member
Oct 3, 2008
460
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Wandrecanada said:
It's probably because THEY NEVER PLAYED THE GAME MORE THAN ONCE.
How can you say that a game is supposed to be fun only after a certain number of hours invested? A game should strive to be fun no matter how it is played from the moment you boot it up. If it isn't fun, then maybe it's not that great of a game.

Is that such a crazy concept?

Also, I'm not sure that peppering multiplayer games with incremental rewards is necessarily a good thing. Is a game that supports an addiction model, a la FarmVille, really a better designed game or just one that preys upon those drawn to addictive styles of play?

Read this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_255/7594-The-Player-and-the-Pusher-Man
I just wanted to say that this is not in any way a direct attack on you or your review but more a generalization of all reviews. And I never once inferred the game wasn't fun for me the first time through or that it was unfun during the first time or any iterative gameplay. It's just that the game's content is far greater than what you get in a single playthrough and that makes all reviews feel hollow or unfinished.

My question to you now becomes; Do reviewers using the argument that a game needs to be fun the first time through, think that games should ONLY be fun the first time through? Does your review process even venture into replay with any game by attempting to have a reviewer to play it a second time especially when the game's structure implies that it has replay value?


Full disclosure I did find myself frustrated at certain points of gameplay where I hadn't fully had time to digest the on screen instructions and fell into the trap of assuming a game would show me in some obvious fashion how to achieve the mission goals. It was only by moving forward into the game world (read: simply moving through the map in an obvious direction) that the instructions became clear. Only through iterative gameplay did I discover better and more complex ways to achieve those goals.
 

Wandrecanada

New member
Oct 3, 2008
460
0
0
NamesAreHardToPick said:
Greg Tito said:
Also, I'm not sure that peppering multiplayer games with incremental rewards is necessarily a good thing. Is a game that supports an addiction model, a la FarmVille, really a better designed game or just one that preys upon those drawn to addictive styles of play?

Read this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_255/7594-The-Player-and-the-Pusher-Man
Collecting stuff isn't what makes FarmVille addictive, that stuff's been around for ages before it became a problem in the industry... where FarmVille hits you is the the back-and-forth social obligations that the game generates. You can't stop playing without having a crappy run-down farm and starving cows on your facebook profile, and dropping the ball for a whole bunch of real-life friends :\

The slot machine's fun and the random new weapon is a thrill, but nothing in there changes the fundamental gameplay, a character's default loadout is extremely reliable and effective. What's addictive about Lost Planet 2 is player performance; going for that elusive "perfect run" where you and your team are nonstop awesome for an entire mission, chapter, maybe even a whole episode, nobody suffers from some humiliating death, people rack up lots of Good Job awards, etc. There are so many possible strategies and approaches to try and you rarely play a mission back-to-back which prevents learning by rote repetition.

Is it so wrong when the fundamentals of a game are addictive like that? It's not gimmicks, it's not collectible stuff, it's like wanding to have a great race in Wipeout where you've got to play your end really well and just hope that nobody manages to sic a missile on you while you're making a hard corner and ruin a lap time. This is where Demon's Souls lost me, there wasn't enough of a random element - besides invaders - to replays, once you knew your stuff you could play the same area like clockwork.
Although I agree wholly with your argument and it mirrors my own experience but I'd also like to add that Mr. Tito's opinion (and others with the same sentiments) are a clear example of what someone who has not actually experienced what the unlock system has to offer would assume it is. Again we're seeing people use the Modern Warfare/Battlefield persistent unlock system as a model to base those assumptions upon instead of actually testing it and realizing that it's not at all the same mechanic or design. It's a very different system and again, requires multiple playthroughs to dive into. This was a design choice to extend the life of the game without taking away from the core of the game. It's not superfluous but it helps keep the game fresh when you go into those additional plays.

To understand what I'm talking about you'd have to play it more than once... something I'm doubtful at this juncture we'll ever see out of a reviewer now that Red Dead has been released. Most have already written it off and thanks to many reviews so has the general gaming public.
 

squid5580

New member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
0
Korten12 said:
Mr Companion said:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.
you have it on ps3? could I play with you guys if you do?
I have it for the PS3. GT: squidward5580

And dammit you do not have to use the cannon to beat the worm. On either side of the coolants is 2 mounted guns per side. Use them to take out the glowing spots on both sides of it. Hit the coolants when needed. Takes a bit longer perhaps but it is the best way to solo it. I got the kill shot with a machine gun lol
 

NamesAreHardToPick

New member
Jan 7, 2010
177
0
0
Wandrecanada said:
To understand what I'm talking about you'd have to play it more than once... something I'm doubtful at this juncture we'll ever see out of a reviewer now that Red Dead has been released. Most have already written it off and thanks to many reviews so has the general gaming public.
Hey, at least it's a step up that reviewers are playing games all the way through. Remember old SEGA games? They would go all out on design for the first level in the game and then just dump you on your face after that... Phantasy Star Online was the best of the worst of those. The first area was so beautiful, and every stage after that was just a bunch of box-shaped rooms and connecting tunnels.

I happily play a lot of games with mid-60's ratings overall on metacritic... especially if a game's reviews break down into a lot of love and hate. That's almost a sure sign of a game I can really enjoy. Lost Planet 2 is the first title where I've really felt mad about low review scores because of the multiplayer. I tried getting a clan together on Destructoid but the 4 or 4.5 it got there got a lot of people saying they wouldn't give it a try.
 

dbmountain

New member
Feb 24, 2010
344
0
0
Vital Suit is 3 syllables, while VS is two. I guess the abbreviation is a little bit worth it?
 

WestMountain

New member
Dec 8, 2009
809
0
0
Is this game worth it if you only play it with 1 buddy in splitscreen or is it a necessity to have 3 buddies with you?
 

NamesAreHardToPick

New member
Jan 7, 2010
177
0
0
WestMountain said:
Is this game worth it if you only play it with 1 buddy in splitscreen or is it a necessity to have 3 buddies with you?
Splitscreen isn't the best experience for the game - there are some limitations like no appearance customization on P2 and no night vision - but it works well enough. One positive is being able to toggle 2x zoom (unless your weapon has a better scope) for the same size/detail as you're used to on a full screen.
 

Mysnomer

New member
Nov 11, 2009
333
0
0
Onyx Oblivion said:
We ask for co-op games designed around it. We get it, and we whine about how the solo sucks. Gamers are a picky bunch, aren't we.
Yes, I'm sure the entirety of gaming is on both sides, rather than something like co-op fans being stuck with solo focused games crying out, and then when appeased by something like LP 2, a soloist stumbles onto it and says, "Why can't I enjoy this game in my usual way?" Y'know, a logical division along lines preference, illogically posited as representing all gamers' opinions everywhere.
 

daedrick

New member
Jul 23, 2008
212
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
daedrick said:
Bleh, got to be expected, most players on the escapist are relatively bad at video games. From what I can read at least, thats what I see. Some people who dislike or never played classic games that are considered master peice are rampant on this website... And Im not talking about the halo-quality-ish games.

Meh
Who are you referring to? People in the community or on the staff?
Both, and Im not trying to troll or being mean. From what I can read, or hear, most people on this website seem to be bad at video games. Sometimes its from thread on the forum or sometime its in an article like this one. Yathzee as well, doesn't seem like the best of the player, often complaining about game designs that are meant to be that way and, in my opinion, are perfectly fine.

Especialy complaining about difficulty, I mean, its refreshing these days to find an hard game in the sea of children friendly almost retarded video games that swarm the shelves of the stores. So everytime someone complain about a video game difficulty my ears squeak.

I mean, how much fun can it be to always fly trough content without chalenges.

That being said; Please dont hurt me! Think about my children! :O
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
daedrick said:
Susan Arendt said:
daedrick said:
Bleh, got to be expected, most players on the escapist are relatively bad at video games. From what I can read at least, thats what I see. Some people who dislike or never played classic games that are considered master peice are rampant on this website... And Im not talking about the halo-quality-ish games.

Meh
Who are you referring to? People in the community or on the staff?
Both, and Im not trying to troll or being mean. From what I can read, or hear, most people on this website seem to be bad at video games. Sometimes its from thread on the forum or sometime its in an article like this one. Yathzee as well, doesn't seem like the best of the player, often complaining about game designs that are meant to be that way and, in my opinion, are perfectly fine.

Especialy complaining about difficulty, I mean, its refreshing these days to find an hard game in the sea of children friendly almost retarded video games that swarm the shelves of the stores. So everytime someone complain about a video game difficulty my ears squeak.

I mean, how much fun can it be to always fly trough content without chalenges.

That being said; Please dont hurt me! Think about my children! :O
Did you ever consider that it's not so much that others are bad, but that you're particularly good?
 

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Wandrecanada said:
I just wanted to say that this is not in any way a direct attack on you or your review but more a generalization of all reviews.
Understood. No problem, man, I'll hold back the hounds for now!

Wandrecanada said:
My question to you now becomes; Do reviewers using the argument that a game needs to be fun the first time through, think that games should ONLY be fun the first time through? Does your review process even venture into replay with any game by attempting to have a reviewer to play it a second time especially when the game's structure implies that it has replay value?
It's hard enough that there is the expectation that reviewers must play through an entire game in order to fully judge a game. But it's also really tough to assume that one must play through several times. That's just impossible, given time restraints. The reviewers of GTA4, for example, didn't play until the meter read 100% complete. Does that make their opinions of the game less valid?

So what we have to do is play the game that is presented to us and offer an honest opinion of how that experience measures up to other similar games. That's what I tried to do with this review.

I think some of what you crave can come later, through retrospectives or post-mortems with game designers months or years after a game's release. I personally love those kinds of stories, especially if they are written by authors who have a passion about the game and discuss it with the designers from a very well-learned perspective.

Wandrecanada said:
Full disclosure I did find myself frustrated at certain points of gameplay where I hadn't fully had time to digest the on screen instructions and fell into the trap of assuming a game would show me in some obvious fashion how to achieve the mission goals. It was only by moving forward into the game world (read: simply moving through the map in an obvious direction) that the instructions became clear. Only through iterative gameplay did I discover better and more complex ways to achieve those goals.
Agreed. If I had played the game a second or third time, I would have no problem figuring out more efficient ways to complete the missions. But to me, the core gameplay of those fights was not valuable enough for me to WANT to replay it.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
Is it just me or is it starting to feel like Capcom missed the bus, and instead of trying to make their own bus is instead running like mad trying to catch up with everyone else's?
 

Wandrecanada

New member
Oct 3, 2008
460
0
0
Greg Tito said:
It's hard enough that there is the expectation that reviewers must play through an entire game in order to fully judge a game. But it's also really tough to assume that one must play through several times. That's just impossible, given time restraints. The reviewers of GTA4, for example, didn't play until the meter read 100% complete. Does that make their opinions of the game less valid?

So what we have to do is play the game that is presented to us and offer an honest opinion of how that experience measures up to other similar games. That's what I tried to do with this review.

I think some of what you crave can come later, through retrospectives or post-mortems with game designers months or years after a game's release. I personally love those kinds of stories, especially if they are written by authors who have a passion about the game and discuss it with the designers from a very well-learned perspective.
I want to say thanks for the responses and I want you to know that it's appreciated. I can fully understand your position is far from perfect and time constraints really are an issue especially when readers demand reviews so quickly.

I would however like to ask your opinion on how you as a reviewer can do justice to games where iterative gameplay is an core aspect of the game? Can the review window be too short to get a real bead on what a game really is? Could publishers be doing themselves a disservice by waiting to release iterative games into the hands of reviewers too long that the reviewers are hamstrung by crushing time limitations? Is this something that game reviewers even have that much power over?

I've mulled it over several times in my head and I often wonder how some of the more non conventional games would have fared given a longer window for review. Would games that break molds or games that use unfamiliar control schemes have done better given that reviewers would have had more acclimatization time?

I'd really love to hear what you and any other The Escapist reviewers think about this.
 

Oh Hephaestus

New member
May 27, 2010
10
0
0
Hearing a videogame critic say "this game is too tricky" or "this game is too hard" is incredibly saddening to me. This would be like a movie critic saying "This movie is too hard for me to understand!" I guess this is to be expected when the videogame media puts more priority on writing ability over any expertise. To find an individual with both skills is rare.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
So.... for a species whose earliest technological innovation control of fire... we... fly to distant worlds and... harvest... bug... heat.


yeahhhhh.

no.
 

daedrick

New member
Jul 23, 2008
212
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
Did you ever consider that it's not so much that others are bad, but that you're particularly good?
Oh wow, ahahaha, never though about that. :p

Nevermind what I said! :D
 

Noxshadow

u mad?
Jan 12, 2010
188
0
0
Well, I also did a review of this game a little while ago, and PLUUUUUUG [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.195905-Finding-the-Way-Home-Lost-Planet-2].
Lost Planet 2 is one of those games were consensus can be reached on a few things (The slot machine being a pain, and killing big aliens being fun) but everything else is dependent on who you ask.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,637
1,054
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Jaredin said:
I will admit the story is weak, and the multiplayer in singleplayer action is sometimes real bad...but, I still enjoyed it

it sounds like the plot is a vast improvement over the first games, its plot was so horrible, it was the worst thing that has ever been put to paper
 

Sir Kemper

New member
Jan 21, 2010
2,248
0
0
Seems like I might actually enjoy this, as I always did have a soft spot for co-op games like this.

Also, I don't recall something like this being done before...
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
squid5580 said:
Korten12 said:
Mr Companion said:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.
you have it on ps3? could I play with you guys if you do?
I have it for the PS3. GT: squidward5580

And dammit you do not have to use the cannon to beat the worm. On either side of the coolants is 2 mounted guns per side. Use them to take out the glowing spots on both sides of it. Hit the coolants when needed. Takes a bit longer perhaps but it is the best way to solo it. I got the kill shot with a machine gun lol
added you, we got play now sometime. :) im rank 45 almost 46.
 

nipsen

New member
Sep 20, 2008
521
0
0
Greg Tito said:
How can you say that a game is supposed to be fun only after a certain number of hours invested? A game should strive to be fun no matter how it is played from the moment you boot it up. If it isn't fun, then maybe it's not that great of a game.

Is that such a crazy concept?
..no.. it just invalidates you as a critic.

Imagine me watching "A Clockwork Orange". And I say: "Dear me - Kubrick forces me to invest over an hour into this film, and I still did not see any female parts in the end. What A BAD FILM".

I mean, it's perfectly fine to have that opinion. But that's really all as well. I wouldn't use that opinion as an argument against someone who liked the film, for example. How rude would that be. To deliberately ignore not only opinions others have, but also the one the director had when making the film?

Hm?
 

Skinny_Ninja

New member
May 6, 2010
29
0
0
Mr Companion said:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.
I actually I've been asking the same question dude.

All my friends love the game. The only ones I hear talking about how bad it is are reviewers.

I think it's the fact that reviewers try to make a science out of it. Good Graphics + Good sounds - Good Story = A good rental.

Where's the rating system based on nothing but the "fun" factor?

This is a great game, although the split-screen was shitty. Half of both screens is taken up by a mini map. Come one people, do like UT3 and take away the mini-map when playing splitscreen.

To be honest, I've been playing this more than Red Dead Redemption. Hell, I've been playing Just Cause 2 more than RDR and the latter is getting nothing but praise.

Ask yourselves guys. Why is a game I can't get into so great, yet the one I've spent countless hours on is getting bad press?

The answer is simple. Reviewers are rating solely based on graphics and story. Can't a game be a bunch of mindless fun like Doom, Black, or even Duke Nukem?

I'm all for engaging stories, but sometimes it's nice to turn your brain off, kill giant aliens with robots, and blow shit up for no real reason other than because you want too.
 

wonkify

New member
Oct 2, 2009
143
0
0
Wandrecanada said:
Greg Tito said:
It's hard enough that there is the expectation that reviewers must play through an entire game in order to fully judge a game. But it's also really tough to assume that one must play through several times. That's just impossible, given time restraints. The reviewers of GTA4, for example, didn't play until the meter read 100% complete. Does that make their opinions of the game less valid?

So what we have to do is play the game that is presented to us and offer an honest opinion of how that experience measures up to other similar games. That's what I tried to do with this review.

I think some of what you crave can come later, through retrospectives or post-mortems with game designers months or years after a game's release. I personally love those kinds of stories, especially if they are written by authors who have a passion about the game and discuss it with the designers from a very well-learned perspective.
I want to say thanks for the responses and I want you to know that it's appreciated. I can fully understand your position is far from perfect and time constraints really are an issue especially when readers demand reviews so quickly.

I would however like to ask your opinion on how you as a reviewer can do justice to games where iterative gameplay is an core aspect of the game? Can the review window be too short to get a real bead on what a game really is? Could publishers be doing themselves a disservice by waiting to release iterative games into the hands of reviewers too long that the reviewers are hamstrung by crushing time limitations? Is this something that game reviewers even have that much power over?

I've mulled it over several times in my head and I often wonder how some of the more non conventional games would have fared given a longer window for review. Would games that break molds or games that use unfamiliar control schemes have done better given that reviewers would have had more acclimatization time?

I'd really love to hear what you and any other The Escapist reviewers think about this.
Can it also be possible that you have unrealistic expectations for a review?

Seriously, the standard you seem to be demanding would appear to require one editor leasjed to each game for weeks, months, years(?) at a time. This is not going to be possible anywhere, ever.

That is the realm of the dedicated uber-fans who heroically create and maintain wikis.

That is a different arena than game reviewing. Now more than ever with the pace of game releases on numerous devices, simply getting a solid playthrough alone must be a huge challenge for those people with deadlines.

This seems to be a charge I'm seeing on more and more sites. And the suggestion that ever more stringent demands being unmet result in reviewers being deemed incompetent or worthless. And the goal posts seems to be constantly moving too.

If people don't care for reviews based on a reasonable and consistent set of standards, then why bother with them at all? Or is it only when a person feels a game they like isn't receiving the assessment they wish to see? That does seem to be a common denominator.

Sure, other reasons are given for their displeasure, but isn't that really what's going on? And if it is, why?

If you like something, no matter how many people line up to say otherwise, why should that bother you in the least? This isn't a matter of "somebody calling your baby ugly."

It's OPINION. Opinion with explanation. You can have yours too, but it doesn't make the other opinion wrong. Why does that concept seem so hazy to folks?
 

Mr Companion

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,534
0
0
AzrealMaximillion said:
Mr Companion said:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.
I shouldn't HAVE to play online to get a good gaming experience. The story could've been much better. And try playing split screen two player local. IT'S HORRIBLE. Trust me, the dislike for this game is well warranted.
Actually me and my friend are playing it split screen and its not that bad. At first it looks horrible but after about ten mins I got used to it. I actually find it a much less disorienting split screen than borderlands which I found nauseating and confusing.

Korten12 said:
Mr Companion said:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.
you have it on ps3? could I play with you guys if you do?
Nah we are playing it split screen on the xbox, sorry pal. I would be happy to otherwise. Although I do own a ps3 so if you just want to play online in a different game I would be fine with that. Not that I play many console online games anyway aside from little big planet.
 

dnadns

Divine Ronin
Jan 20, 2009
127
0
0
wonkify said:
Wandrecanada said:
Greg Tito said:
snap
Can it also be possible that you have unrealistic expectations for a review?

Seriously, the standard you seem to be demanding would appear to require one editor leasjed to each game for weeks, months, years(?) at a time. This is not going to be possible anywhere, ever.

That is the realm of the dedicated uber-fans who heroically create and maintain wikis.

That is a different arena than game reviewing. Now more than ever with the pace of game releases on numerous devices, simply getting a solid playthrough alone must be a huge challenge for those people with deadlines.

This seems to be a charge I'm seeing on more and more sites. And the suggestion that ever more stringent demands being unmet result in reviewers being deemed incompetent or worthless. And the goal posts seems to be constantly moving too.

If people don't care for reviews based on a reasonable and consistent set of standards, then why bother with them at all? Or is it only when a person feels a game they like isn't receiving the assessment they wish to see? That does seem to be a common denominator.

Sure, other reasons are given for their displeasure, but isn't that really what's going on? And if it is, why?

If you like something, no matter how many people line up to say otherwise, why should that bother you in the least? This isn't a matter of "somebody calling your baby ugly."

It's OPINION. Opinion with explanation. You can have yours too, but it doesn't make the other opinion wrong. Why does that concept seem so hazy to folks?
I don't think that his expectations are very unrealistic. I think, however, that the expectations are very different. Personally, I very much prefer a review that presents the facts first and closes with the personal opinion of the reviewer. However, although I might be interested in his personal opinion, I also think that a reviewer should be able to look at a game from different angles when it comes down to giving a solid recommendation. Even if that means, that he/she did not like it personally.

There are an awful lot of games that I can't stand, personally, but I would still recommend them very much to a friend if I know that he is into that type of thing.

Same here, the game can be (very) appealing to you, if you are into co-op action combined with an arcade style progression that doesn't care too much about story but on having fun blowing things up in the most stylish way possible.

Of course, reviews are partly an opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion should outweigh the factual presentation (yes, that's my opinion). Saying that reviews are personal opinions entirely sort of defeats the purpose of a professional review that is about informing you about a title in the first place and giving your opinion after that.
Otherwise, people would write reviews solely for themselves instead for others.

I don't mean this as a hard criticism on this article in particular, but something that does seem to have crept into quite a lot of reviews out there. It never hurts to look at things from different perspectives and reviews are no exception there.
 

Punisher A.J.

New member
Nov 18, 2009
445
0
0
Greg Tito said:
Wandrecanada said:
It's probably because THEY NEVER PLAYED THE GAME MORE THAN ONCE.
How can you say that a game is supposed to be fun only after a certain number of hours invested? A game should strive to be fun no matter how it is played from the moment you boot it up. If it isn't fun, then maybe it's not that great of a game.

Is that such a crazy concept?
um.....Heavy Rain?
 

Zorvox

New member
Aug 30, 2009
25
0
0
i disagree with this review in SO many ways, the story in NOT hard to follow if you're F***ING PAYING ATTENTION TO IT!!! co-op is brilliant, the story is.....adequate....., and the multiplayer has tons of new things that weren't in the first lost planet game. i'm gonna go back to the story here: it pretty much has you go through 5 different factions so that you get the feeling that a wide-spread chaotic war between nevec, the akrid, and the snow pirates is happening. and in my opinion, it suceeds at that. the thing is, it didn't have you go through those factions just to carry on the game, but to show that at the end, it required the factions to team up to take down the Over G. overall the game ended brilliantly, and i can't wait to see if there's a third lost planet game on the way.
 

Wandrecanada

New member
Oct 3, 2008
460
0
0
dnadns said:
Can it also be possible that you have unrealistic expectations for a review?

Seriously, the standard you seem to be demanding would appear to require one editor leasjed to each game for weeks, months, years(?) at a time. This is not going to be possible anywhere, ever.

That is the realm of the dedicated uber-fans who heroically create and maintain wikis.

That is a different arena than game reviewing. Now more than ever with the pace of game releases on numerous devices, simply getting a solid playthrough alone must be a huge challenge for those people with deadlines.

This seems to be a charge I'm seeing on more and more sites. And the suggestion that ever more stringent demands being unmet result in reviewers being deemed incompetent or worthless. And the goal posts seems to be constantly moving too.

If people don't care for reviews based on a reasonable and consistent set of standards, then why bother with them at all? Or is it only when a person feels a game they like isn't receiving the assessment they wish to see? That does seem to be a common denominator.

Sure, other reasons are given for their displeasure, but isn't that really what's going on? And if it is, why?

If you like something, no matter how many people line up to say otherwise, why should that bother you in the least? This isn't a matter of "somebody calling your baby ugly."

It's OPINION. Opinion with explanation. You can have yours too, but it doesn't make the other opinion wrong. Why does that concept seem so hazy to folks?
I don't think it's unrealistic of an expectation at all given the scope of some games. Notice I said mentioned iterative games where multiple playthroughs are part of the core experience. I'm not talking about a game that takes 40+ hours to slog through once. I'm talking about games where you're going to be playing the same level over and over again because the game was built that way. Fighting games are iterative in that you will be playing them over and over with new unlocked characters but with all the same levels. Racing games are similar.

Lost Planet 2 is sort of a special case for a few reasons:

#1 It's format at face value is a 3rd person shooter with a linear campaign. The problem is (and this is the crux of my argument) that LP2 does not fit into that pidgin hole and therefor needed to be reviewed against it's own unique set of standards.

#2 It's presumptuous to say that a game requiring maybe 8-10 hours for a single playthrough need only be given that one shot to shine whereas a game like Dragon Age allows for review times of 20 and 30 hours plus just because it's reviewed as another genre. Double standards between genres are just another reason it's problematic to review games in against some kind of perceived genre standard.

#3 In an industry where the employees are trying to paint themselves as journalists, reviewers aren't really supposed to be telling opinion they are supposed to be writing objective critiques. For some people this magical opinion shield seems to apply to reviewers specifically in game reviews but in other areas like movies, art, food and music it does not? Game journalists are going to have to learn to keep opinions to a minimum and analyze the games even if they dislike the genres based on their own merits. Lost Planet 2 does not play like a normal shooter with an SP campaign and an MP component. It's a co op game with iterative game levels and an unlock system that demands you replay content to experience the whole game. Just like you'd play the same fighting game with a different fighter.


TLDR: This is a Capcom game through and through and I feel that not a single review has reflected this whatsoever. From the game's mission map (If you can't see the Street Fighter connection you're blind) to the mission conclusion screens that score you on a rank system to the "lives" bar under your health bar. Everything about this game screams Capcom fighter/brawler with a shooter pasted over the top. If anyone had reviewed it like this do you think for a second the scores would have been the same? Just ask Bayonetta what she thinks.
 

NamesAreHardToPick

New member
Jan 7, 2010
177
0
0
Greg Tito said:
So what we have to do is play the game that is presented to us and offer an honest opinion of how that experience measures up to other similar games. That's what I tried to do with this review.

I think some of what you crave can come later, through retrospectives or post-mortems with game designers months or years after a game's release. I personally love those kinds of stories, especially if they are written by authors who have a passion about the game and discuss it with the designers from a very well-learned perspective.
...
Agreed. If I had played the game a second or third time, I would have no problem figuring out more efficient ways to complete the missions. But to me, the core gameplay of those fights was not valuable enough for me to WANT to replay it.
Here's the thing for me - IMO Lost Planet 2 is fairly comparable with Monster Hunter and probably Demon's Souls in terms of game structure and style. It demands online co-op. The majority of the gameplay is repeating scenarios. It beats you about the head as its method of teaching you what to do, rather than kindly instructing. When it comes to review scores however... I'm at a complete loss. Some sites are giving LP2 like 40-50%, while their review for Monster Hunter is 90%+ with accolades and Demon's Souls is their GOTY for 2009. It's not like MH Tri or Demon's Souls have a significantly higher level of polish than LP2, for example MH is a Capcom game and has a lot of the exact same flaws with the multiplayer setup as LP2.

I can understand how games like this are just hard to review given the circumstances. I'm going to say that the difference in critical reception might be those other games' established popularity in the East before their release here that established their high scores... Demon's Souls was only a 60% according to Famitsu, but western press was left more with the task of explaining WHY the game was so successful rather than wieghing its pros and cons in a vaccuum.

It's still unfortunate though because there are people who do just go with reviews by numbers. I tend to judge unknown games by their cover while shopping, but I have a friend who looks the title up on metacritic and decides based on the overall score. Lost Planet 2 doesn't have nearly the same early community as MH Tri and Demon's Souls did... on the other hand it's arguable that people who were turned off by low reviews may have been turned off by the game itself for no net difference.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Guys, reviewers aren't God, and our reviews aren't the Holy Gospel of Games. We play a game and we relate what the experience was like in an attempt to give you enough information so that you can make an educated guess about whether or not you would enjoy playing the game. Your opinions will, at times, differ with ours, because sometimes something will just plain tickle your personal fancy. We're not trying to dictate taste to you, or tell you that you're wrong if you have fun with a particular title. We want you to enjoy games, and if you like a game that I don't, well, that's just fine by me, man. I'm totally cool with that. We give you our experience with a game, your mileage may vary.

If online co-op play blows your skirt up, and you enjoy a robust challenge that requires multiple attempts for the full experience, then yes, you will undoubtedly enjoy Lost Planet because it's that kind of game. Not everyone is in that boat, though, and it's perfectly reasonable to be a bit disappointed that the sequel to a game with a strong single-player component has decided to ditch that in favor of required multiplayer. This is the kind of game that some players will take to heart, adore, and play the holy hell out of, while others give it a wide berth and move on. It's just that kind of game. In other words, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion about it one way or the other in this thread is right.
 

dalek sec

Leader of the Cult of Skaro
Jul 20, 2008
10,237
0
0
Damnit, I was hoping this game would be alright but since I don't have any friends I really can't play this game now without alot of trouble. Just wondering but does anyone know what's up with that annoying "Flowplayer" thing in the lower left hand corner of the screen?
 

wonkify

New member
Oct 2, 2009
143
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
Guys, reviewers aren't God, and our reviews aren't the Holy Gospel of Games. We play a game and we relate what the experience was like in an attempt to give you enough information so that you can make an educated guess about whether or not you would enjoy playing the game. Your opinions will, at times, differ with ours, because sometimes something will just plain tickle your personal fancy. We're not trying to dictate taste to you, or tell you that you're wrong if you have fun with a particular title. We want you to enjoy games, and if you like a game that I don't, well, that's just fine by me, man. I'm totally cool with that. We give you our experience with a game, your mileage may vary.

If online co-op play blows your skirt up, and you enjoy a robust challenge that requires multiple attempts for the full experience, then yes, you will undoubtedly enjoy Lost Planet because it's that kind of game. Not everyone is in that boat, though, and it's perfectly reasonable to be a bit disappointed that the sequel to a game with a strong single-player component has decided to ditch that in favor of required multiplayer. This is the kind of game that some players will take to heart, adore, and play the holy hell out of, while others give it a wide berth and move on. It's just that kind of game. In other words, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion about it one way or the other in this thread is right.

Amen. Ha!
 

WestMountain

New member
Dec 8, 2009
809
0
0
NamesAreHardToPick said:
WestMountain said:
Is this game worth it if you only play it with 1 buddy in splitscreen or is it a necessity to have 3 buddies with you?
Splitscreen isn't the best experience for the game - there are some limitations like no appearance customization on P2 and no night vision - but it works well enough. One positive is being able to toggle 2x zoom (unless your weapon has a better scope) for the same size/detail as you're used to on a full screen.
Okay, thanks for the answer :]
 

Chris8016

New member
Jan 20, 2010
20
0
0
I think someone largely missed to point of the story, the fact there is something far higher than any of the insignificant characters.

Its a hard game, anyone saying its only possible to do in coop is outright lying though.

The game is generously littered with epic battles and is certainly worth playing with a few mates; and without as I've had equally brilliant times playing with people in the quick matches, with the absence of drop-in play being one of its biggest flaws.

Personally, competitive multiplayer is the worst aspect of this game, but I'm a massive fan of coop, so don't let me put you off that.
 

nipsen

New member
Sep 20, 2008
521
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
Guys, reviewers aren't God, and our reviews aren't the Holy Gospel of Games. We play a game and we relate what the experience was like in an attempt to give you enough information so that you can make an educated guess about whether or not you would enjoy playing the game. Your opinions will, at times, differ with ours, because sometimes something will just plain tickle your personal fancy. We're not trying to dictate taste to you, or tell you that you're wrong if you have fun with a particular title. We want you to enjoy games, and if you like a game that I don't, well, that's just fine by me, man. I'm totally cool with that. We give you our experience with a game, your mileage may vary.

If online co-op play blows your skirt up, and you enjoy a robust challenge that requires multiple attempts for the full experience, then yes, you will undoubtedly enjoy Lost Planet because it's that kind of game. Not everyone is in that boat, though, and it's perfectly reasonable to be a bit disappointed that the sequel to a game with a strong single-player component has decided to ditch that in favor of required multiplayer. This is the kind of game that some players will take to heart, adore, and play the holy hell out of, while others give it a wide berth and move on. It's just that kind of game. In other words, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion about it one way or the other in this thread is right.
..I really want to agree with you. Because that would be a nice thing to do.

..But I don't know how you would justify that view either. LP1 had some extremely pointless treks. And had more frequent parts compared to the sequel where you were just shot to bits because you didn't pick up the shotgun/sniper/etc on the previous stage.

On the other hand, LP2 keeps the exact same control setup, and the same mechanics. I'm kind of surprised that it translated so well to multiplayer as it did, without being changed very much at all. So for the most part it's not very different at all.

What is different is that you lose the focus on the main character, as well as the long winded cutscenes. The menu-interface is also very confusing at first - that's not well made at all. And then it's the fact that you're going to replay the chapters a few times before you get the gear and the upgrades. But the build-up in the missions, and how they end up in some seriously epic boss-fights - that's exactly the same.

And I don't see anything in the review that says: I loved the single-player on the original, and I expected the exact same thing from the sequel - which was different in such and such ways, and similar in others. Doesn't say that anywhere. Instead it blasts the game for details that has to do with gameplay - that demonstrably is identical, and in many ways not nearly as irritating as it was in the original.

Bah. I mean... I don't have a problem with this. Bad reviews, or people's "opinions" turn up everywhere. Whatever. But I have to admit - the way you proclaim, even as editors at the mag, that you are not dictating anyone, or attempting to influence anyone's opinions - just as you defend the review as a whole generally speaking - that's just not very funny. You just don't say that a carefully written review, that inexplicably hides the way it is extremely selective - apparently just to trash the game to shreds - is "just someone's opinion".

Because this review, even if there was an extremely good reason to explain some disappointed about the game - doesn't explain why, so it is apparent to the reader. That's the problem.

(..ff.. no more internet for me today.)
 

Joep Smit

New member
May 31, 2010
12
0
0
Absolutely, Almost every review i've seen or read whines about it that the games to hard or difficult when playing solo. I just finished it on extreme :) and i almost completely soloed it. And I kinda suck at other shooters CoD MW2 and Halo 3.
And BTW I loved the game!
Screw storytelling,
Shoot the big things that's what it is all about oh and noms de guerres of course
 

Makszi

New member
Apr 1, 2010
22
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
Guys, reviewers aren't God, and our reviews aren't the Holy Gospel of Games. We play a game and we relate what the experience was like in an attempt to give you enough information so that you can make an educated guess about whether or not you would enjoy playing the game. Your opinions will, at times, differ with ours, because sometimes something will just plain tickle your personal fancy. We're not trying to dictate taste to you, or tell you that you're wrong if you have fun with a particular title. We want you to enjoy games, and if you like a game that I don't, well, that's just fine by me, man. I'm totally cool with that. We give you our experience with a game, your mileage may vary. If online co-op play blows your skirt up, and you enjoy a robust challenge that requires multiple attempts for the full experience, then yes, you will undoubtedly enjoy Lost Planet because it's that kind of game. Not everyone is in that boat, though, and it's perfectly reasonable to be a bit disappointed that the sequel to a game with a strong single-player component has decided to ditch that in favor of required multiplayer. This is the kind of game that some players will take to heart, adore, and play the holy hell out of, while others give it a wide berth and move on. It's just that kind of game. In other words, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion about it one way or the other in this thread is right.

Susan, let me first say that I have a great deal of respect for you as a reviewer, I've enjoyed your reviews and have even picked up a game or two by your recommendation (The Path being one). I think it's great that you recognize the flaw in video game reviews being that they are entirely subjective and I propose that if the reviewers themselves recognize this than the issue should be corrected.

I've watched every single review on The Escapist, including Zero Punctuation, Movie Bob, and reviews like this, and every single time a reviewer gives a game a bad rap The Escapist's community seems to bite back and say that the game is NOT in fact bad. It seems to me that the reviewers and the community are almost always at polar odds with each other. What I suggest is this: give the community a more obvious influence on these reviews. An example of this would be to make the 'comments' pages attached to reviews bigger and more noticeable because of the dozens of gamers I know, I am the only one who actually reads the comments, and I know for a fact that everyone here is experiencing a similar situation. The community can vote on what comments are most relevant (with a 5 star system, or a like/dislike system, etc.) and the comments with the highest rating/most votes would be linked to - and readable on the review page. That way more people would actually read the comments on these things and then Escapist readers could be more involved with the magazine (generating more website hits) and ultimately giving less avid readers a more honest and objective review. The comments always seem to differ from the reviews and these comments definitely need to be more available to those who don't understand the subjectivity of reviews.
 

Makszi

New member
Apr 1, 2010
22
0
0
Also, I am going to paraphrase Greg Tito's review:

Greg Tito: "I don't like co-op. I really like it when games hold my hand like an infant. I need to be constantly reminded of what I am doing and who I am playing and what is going on, it could be because I am thinking about other games too much."

I don't mean to disrespect, I mean to discredit.

This game's story isn't groundbreaking by any means but it is inventive. The dialogue is far from bad, but not life changing, the plot is unpredictable enough to be interesting, without being convoluted, and the characters although nameless are interesting and human (as compared to the dick swinging, bullet-eating, high-fiving super soldiers of all other comparable titles)

The gameplay is damn smooth, fluid, fun and there is a ton more to do in this game than others, for example: Every VS (mech) handles differently, each with their own unique (but similar) controls and moves and fighting style, some fly, some transform, some walk, some roll, some shoot, some slash, all VS weapons are interchangeable on-the-fly, some seat 3, some seat 8, some even combine MEGAZOR style. Now the VS's aren't the main staple of combat, they are always available but are not always the best tactic in combat. There are many points in LP2 where passing up a VS for a stealth approach will save your ass, and your teammate's ass(s). There is a huge variety of weapons including: Full auto machine guns, semi auto machine guns, energy guns, shotguns, flame-throwers, revolvers, pistols, akrid-launchers, gun-blades (yeah, you heard that right), snipers, plasma rifles, plasma cannons, rocket launchers, homing launchers, homing lasers, gatling guns, VS rifles, laser lances, and the list goes on and on. Weapons that VS's can use; soldiers can use by hand. Oh yeah and you can ride Akrids online (THERE'S A GIANT SCORPION xD). And this game is more than just data-posts, data-posts are just the checkpoints in the game. This game has HUGE replayablity as each level has multiple paths and even taking the same paths is a lot of fun because the game has 'GJ awards' which are awards in the form of rankings (D,C,B,A,S) and special moves/tactics, you are notified when you have done something particularly well (or not well at all) like killing a boss particularly quickly, or collecting a lot of T-ENG or killing a boss with a particular strategy. You are awarded with credits and EXP for completing 'GJ awards' which can be used to purchase emotes, name suffixes, weapons, character parts, and abilities (which alter your play style). I can't stop playing this game because I love collecting new character parts and weapons to customize my character.

This game has WICKED graphics too, very detailed, and very organic. This game has some of the best environments in a video-game to date. The campaign takes place in jungles, deserts, tundra, under-water, outer-space, night, day, city's, villages, caves, bases, all over the places (see what I did there ;) ). This is the first game known to me with realistic jungles. It seems game developers like to make jungles flat-lands with a bunch of ferns and some trees; well LP2 like it's jungles THICK, diverse, and fore-boding. The jungle environments are nowhere near flat, the ground is never really the same height anywhere (play the campaign demo, you'll see what I mean) and gamers actually feel like they're in a jungle, you can't see through the bushes, and the trees get in your way and there's always a place to hide (or be hidden from).

The competitive online in this game is very well done, I've logged 6+ hours in competitive play and not yet encountered any balance issues, even against players who have already reached max level (99). All the gear one earns through campaign and online play (your character is the same in both) is useful when earned but not integral to gameplay. You don't have to have *insert weapon here* to put up a fight, combating experienced players is challenging only because they have stronger tactics and of course, experience.

Overall this game is FUN. And that's what matters above all else because THAT is why we call them GAMES right?

It's addictive, it's immersive, it's enjoyable, there's thrills, there's chills, there's laughter and adrenaline. This is what gaming is all about, this game is the pinnacle of FUN for it's genre.
 

antipunt

New member
Jan 3, 2009
3,035
0
0
Makszi said:
antipunt said:
From this review, and all the others I've read, it looks pretty ...bad
Think for yourself, try the game.
No thanks.

If I were to try each and every game with a terrible review average, it'd be like shooting in the dark.
 

Ohlookit'sMatty

New member
Sep 11, 2008
951
0
0
Is it just me or does this game look like steampunk but set in space, ok the military suits not so much but the other guys to have that feel to them // I think its all the brown that they used in making this game

I think I have Lost Planet around here somewhere which shows you how much I want to go out and buy the second one

-M
 

NamesAreHardToPick

New member
Jan 7, 2010
177
0
0
antipunt said:
If I were to try each and every game with a terrible review average, it'd be like shooting in the dark.
Any game with real substance and direction is going to offend at least some of its reviewers. I think any game that gets unified critical praise either has some outside influence, or it's going to be a drive-by-committee pile of compromises that a gamer's going to have fun with once or twice tops and have no reason to come back to.
 

antipunt

New member
Jan 3, 2009
3,035
0
0
NamesAreHardToPick said:
antipunt said:
If I were to try each and every game with a terrible review average, it'd be like shooting in the dark.
Any game with real substance and direction is going to offend at least some of its reviewers. I think any game that gets unified critical praise either has some outside influence, or it's going to be a drive-by-committee pile of compromises that a gamer's going to have fun with once or twice tops and have no reason to come back to.
I agree with your point, and that's why I really emphasize 'averages'. You should never judge a game based off one review, or even merely a couple. You need a fair round estimate, and you need to eliminate outliers.

With that said, I've never, to date, enjoyed a game with a terrible review 'average'. Sure a great game might annoy a few folks, resulting in a couple of negligible outlier scores. But if everyone as a whole is hating on something...that's usually a sign that something's amiss.
 

Zathshow

New member
May 21, 2009
3
0
0
Why the heck do they keep advertising about STUPID/RETARDED Dragons and dungeons or what ever the heck it is...
 

NamesAreHardToPick

New member
Jan 7, 2010
177
0
0
antipunt said:
I agree with your point, and that's why I really emphasize 'averages'. You should never judge a game based off one review, or even merely a couple. You need a fair round estimate, and you need to eliminate outliers.

With that said, I've never, to date, enjoyed a game with a terrible review 'average'. Sure a great game might annoy a few folks, resulting in a couple of negligible outlier scores. But if everyone as a whole is hating on something...that's usually a sign that something's amiss.
It's not just the average, you have to take the distribution into account too. If a game scores 66% on metactritic and the reviews are all 6.6/10, I don't care because it's consistently meh. If a game scores 66% on metacritic because half the reviews are raving 10's and the other half are 4's demanding we kill it with fire, I would probably buy that over a game that scored consistent 80's or 90's because there's something there that goes beyond just being a competent game ... check out stuff like Killer 7 and S.L.A.I. if you want to see some real extremes.