Before everyone jumps on the whole Mods don't like vs threads bandwagon let me just state for the record this is not meant to be a "which game is better" thread. Sorry you won't be able to get your free post count.
I played both over the last few days (Terminator Salvation and Damnation) and although I haven't beat Damnation yet I breezed through Terminator in the matter of a few hours. And so I decided I would check IGN and Gamespot to see thier reactions to both games. And what a shock. Terminator scored in the mediocore range where damnation got 2s and 3s. And I am offended by this.
I am not going to sit here and say either game is great. They aren't. Graphics are dated, controls are wonky at best and neither one is all that much fun. With that being said I don't understand the huge difference in scores. Or why Damnation is the lower of the 2.
Terminator could have been good. If a team like Epic had made it using the Gears engine it might have been. Instead it is just another movie cash in hoping to make a quick buck off the popularity of the movie. I mention Gears because that is how it felt. A poor man's Gears of War. The only innovation was some enemies have weak spots in thier rear ends that you have to rely on an uncontrollable AI to either draw thier fire so you can slip behind and blow them up or become the target and pray your AI wakes up and shoots at the one who has you pinned down. It is a shooter that requires very little shooting and no worries about getting lost the game holds your hand throughout the entire 3-4 hour experience.
Damnation plays out similar to an Assasin's Creed shooter in a SteamPunk Civil War era. You can wall jump, hang off a ledge and jump to the next and try to find your way to the end of the level (without much more help than the odd arrow sign pointing you in the right direction). Enemies don't mess around and although they don't seem to be able to move once they start shooting at you they will rape you with a few bullets if you don't find some cover. No cover system mind you find your own type cover.
So we have 1 generic 3rd person shooter that required next to no thought in creating from beginning to end. And another that is fairly new, rather innovative in both gameplay and story. And although could have used some tweaks you can see what they were trying to accomplish. Keep in mind they are both selling for the same price. How do these so called "proffesional" reviewers justify the difference in scores when something like this happens? Why are these "proffesional" reviewers not encouraging the bad new IP saying things like I have? And instead giving the higher scores to the generic we have seen it done much better (the graphics for Terminator are laughable at best. They couldn't even get characters walking in cutscenes right. Let alone getting the reticle not to drift or giving the game more than 3 enemies and a single boss). How do we stop these people? If you want to know why we don't seem to see very many new original IPs well there is a big part of the problem.
Thoughts?
I played both over the last few days (Terminator Salvation and Damnation) and although I haven't beat Damnation yet I breezed through Terminator in the matter of a few hours. And so I decided I would check IGN and Gamespot to see thier reactions to both games. And what a shock. Terminator scored in the mediocore range where damnation got 2s and 3s. And I am offended by this.
I am not going to sit here and say either game is great. They aren't. Graphics are dated, controls are wonky at best and neither one is all that much fun. With that being said I don't understand the huge difference in scores. Or why Damnation is the lower of the 2.
Terminator could have been good. If a team like Epic had made it using the Gears engine it might have been. Instead it is just another movie cash in hoping to make a quick buck off the popularity of the movie. I mention Gears because that is how it felt. A poor man's Gears of War. The only innovation was some enemies have weak spots in thier rear ends that you have to rely on an uncontrollable AI to either draw thier fire so you can slip behind and blow them up or become the target and pray your AI wakes up and shoots at the one who has you pinned down. It is a shooter that requires very little shooting and no worries about getting lost the game holds your hand throughout the entire 3-4 hour experience.
Damnation plays out similar to an Assasin's Creed shooter in a SteamPunk Civil War era. You can wall jump, hang off a ledge and jump to the next and try to find your way to the end of the level (without much more help than the odd arrow sign pointing you in the right direction). Enemies don't mess around and although they don't seem to be able to move once they start shooting at you they will rape you with a few bullets if you don't find some cover. No cover system mind you find your own type cover.
So we have 1 generic 3rd person shooter that required next to no thought in creating from beginning to end. And another that is fairly new, rather innovative in both gameplay and story. And although could have used some tweaks you can see what they were trying to accomplish. Keep in mind they are both selling for the same price. How do these so called "proffesional" reviewers justify the difference in scores when something like this happens? Why are these "proffesional" reviewers not encouraging the bad new IP saying things like I have? And instead giving the higher scores to the generic we have seen it done much better (the graphics for Terminator are laughable at best. They couldn't even get characters walking in cutscenes right. Let alone getting the reticle not to drift or giving the game more than 3 enemies and a single boss). How do we stop these people? If you want to know why we don't seem to see very many new original IPs well there is a big part of the problem.
Thoughts?
