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.
 
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?