Concealed101 said:
I'm not going to say that Yahtzee didn't get the game because honestly every single person takes something different away from the game; however, I feel like he was looking for the wrong things in Issac's occasional interactions with Nicole. They weren't intended to create empathy with the character, they were intended to make you question whether or not Issac was hallucinating. The idea that an unarmed girl could survive alone on the Ishimura when trained military professionals were slaughtered makes no sense, especially considering that she seems to just walk out of the room without worry whenever you see her. Issac's lack of emotional reaction is more of a sign that on some level he understood he was fooling himself. And he was characterized, just never verbally. If you read his notes on each objective, you got a clear sense of who he was as a person-- utilitarian, logical, and level-headed. Which is precisely why he survives when others die.
I haven't actually played the game, but I have wonder about praising the characterisation of a protagonist who's simultaneously logical and level-headed, and possibly a hallucinating crazy. Combining paradoxical traits can make for great and very personal characters, but there needs to be something to tie the opposites together, otherwise you're just mixing random stuff in no coherent fashion, and that's bad writing.
Also, his comments about the level design being cliche strikes me as odd. You can clearly see a practical theme to everything. And the gothic influences are astounding. You can see an amalgamation of old architecture and science fiction. I mean, a ship with influences clearly derived from flying buttresses? How is that not original?
LOLWUT
Also, even though the story is cliche the religious overtones provided by the unitologist add a lot more depth than the standard sci-fi horror story contains. The obvious criticisms of accepting everything on blind faith and inadvertently worshiping the necromorphs as almost god-like because they have a relation to the marker, when in actuality the marker is meant to contain the necros? That's at least somewhat interesting on a story-telling level and it was certainly never explored in Alien/Aliens or Event Horizon.
Religion in a science fiction story? What a new and fascinating idea... Sorry. Didn't Alien 4 already include some speculation along those lines, Xenomorphs as inherently superior beings - the next step of evolution which we should embrace? I'm sure at least one of the movies explored, or at least mentioned the concept. Just replace a belief in the infallibility and necessity of evolution with religion and there you go, hardly a very long jump...
Techni said:
I disagreed with the review completely.
1) Ripping off Event Horizon.
Yeah, the devs admitted it was one of their sources. It was the point of the game.
3) Your comment about it being a combination of other games
I felt it was the result of taking lesser games and getting a better game in result.
And the devs admitted RE4 was one of their sources. All the other games you listed I actually gave up playing out of boredom.
4) Your comment about it not looking like a place worth living in before the disaster
The place did look significantly better before the disaster. Lights weren't always out like that in every section. The unlivable conditions are a result of the disaster. They even said it was odd how all the lights were out during the opening cinematic.
So the point of the game was to be unoriginal? (Sorry, a rather inflamatory way to put it.) Not necessarily a bad thing as such, but
everything else being equal, I'd say unoriginality is inferior to originality, and thus a valid target of criticism,
even if the devs admit it.
While the dilapidated status of the ship might make perfect sense in the context of the game, it's still unoriginal. The devs could have had the game take place before the environment deteriorated, but apparently they decided against trying something new, and it should rightfully be a strike against them.
I'd say it's basically a question of which half of WALL-E you want to put your Zombies in. Why does no one ever go for the second half I wonder? Seeing a futuristic Utopia overrun by slavering undead would make for a much more effective setting simply by way of shocking juxtaposition. But what do I know...
6) Arthur Clarke reference in the name, etc.
Yeah, it was intended.
Still lame... Like a fantasy adventure starring the ever-heroic J.R.R. Lewis von Eddings.
Still better than "Superfly Johnson", tho.
Wait, what's the name of the black character again?
In short, I was excited you choose this game. I found the game very likeable, the singular best EA game I've ever played and one of the best games this gen. I expected your review to be a lot more positive. But I found most of your complaints to be either invalid, or picking on the point of the game
Making an homage/parody/imitation is, in my opinion (and, like I said above,
all else being equal, there are always other factors to consider)
automatically inferior to creating (or at least trying to create) something that's actually original. Thus it's a perfect valid target of criticism, whatever the devs might say.
("It's not a bug, it's a feature; and it's not an imitation, it's an homage!")
Might still be a very good game, of course, but that would probably be as a result of solid craftsmanship as opposed to any inspired genious...
