Review: Lost Planet 2

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.
 

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

Elite Member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
41
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.