Zero Punctuation: inFamous
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I was expecting at least a mention of the comic-relief sidekick that annoyed the hell out of me while watching a friend play it. And as far as sandbox games go...this is about as good as it gets. The combat is integrated into the movement and stunts incredibly well. Crackdown 2 is doomed.
What reasons? That they have no power at all and can't even filibuster right now, and that all of the ridiculous policies being dreamt up that are destroying the world economy right now have nothing to do with them?Akramelag said:
Because Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were also insisting that the Republicans were easier to laugh at when they had all of the power and were making all of the policy decisions, too. When do you suppose you liberals will decide that it's easier to laugh at yourselves? Because we've run the full gamut of possible situations over the last ten years or so and I still haven't seen one of you make an anti-Democrat joke outside of "the Democrats are funny because they're not liberal enough!"
Huh. When he started talking about the game, I though he was talking about Prototype... In retrospect, Prototype is much more fun...
Awesome review as always... although fallout 3 did a really nice karma system, giving you some middle ground, i think its a good idea these good/evil meters, they just need some work, giving you more middle ground and not making you feel like a total douche at the end if you are bad.
You do realise that I said "It could apply to many Democratic Party voters, too"? Yes? If not, read it again. Both parties have roughly 40% (probably more) of voters who will never vote for the other party in their entire life. As I said, the joke was made on the Republicans because they are easier to laugh at. Also, because Yahtzee is clearly, politically, more of a Liberal than Conservative. Once again, big news.hcig said:
Secondly, "pregressive" is not a word, and I didn't use it. What I did use is "progressist", which means they were advocates of social change, and, by extension, liberals. I don't see how you could contradict me on that, but oh well.
Oh, and I know you probably can't read very well, but look at the date I joined, and ask yourself whether I signed up "just to tell [you] that". Long time listener, first time poster.
Nothing that "deep", pal. They're only easier to laugh at because they keep saying the most ridiculous shit on...well, pretty much everything. Sarah Palin, anyone? And sadly, she was only the tip of the iceberg...Pellucid said:
As for the Democrats' alledged destruction of the economy...
You.
Sir.
Are retarded.
Ah, I love it when Yahtzee reviews a good game. I totally agree on that asinine moral choice system with its dumbass false dichotomy of "good" and "evil." It always seems so tacked on and forced, and of all the games I played or saw with that system I think the one that utilized it best was...don't lynch me...Shadow the Hedgehog. Say what you will about that game but at least its moral choice system actually provided 5 basic paths and 10 endings instead of only 2, and had a neutral option.
Also, I'm reminded of his Saints Row 2 review where he said he wanted a sandbox game where you play a batman villain, I remember other reviewers comparing this game to a comic book, and that's the first thing I thought of ^_^
Also, I'm reminded of his Saints Row 2 review where he said he wanted a sandbox game where you play a batman villain, I remember other reviewers comparing this game to a comic book, and that's the first thing I thought of ^_^
I agree fully with Yatz about the moral system in games being crap. Your reputation needs to be who your are and what you did, not a simple good/kinda good/neutral/kinda bad/bad system. And inFAMOUS didn't help at all. But inFAMOUS does add an interesting element. While its a simple A or B choice, at least you have to act the appropriate actions out in-game instead of just choosing a dialogue branch.
Hmm, I rather liked his political humor, and thought this whole review was pretty damn hilarious. Perhaps you are a Republican? Perhaps you are aware that there are other political viewpoints?Pellucid said:
Wait, didn't his republican joke take up like .5 seconds of the whole review?
This is a kind of generous review for infamous...
Not that it's a bad game and I can't find much wrong with it either. It has some strong design elements, controls well, plays very smoothly, but kind of lacks punch and excitement. It isn't quite dripping with the cool factor. Which all adds up to it being a respectable game, but not great.
Now: working on deadlines, sitting on piles of money, all this the week prototype is coming out... I don't know, I hope Yahtzee isn't becoming another corporate *****.
Not that it's a bad game and I can't find much wrong with it either. It has some strong design elements, controls well, plays very smoothly, but kind of lacks punch and excitement. It isn't quite dripping with the cool factor. Which all adds up to it being a respectable game, but not great.
Now: working on deadlines, sitting on piles of money, all this the week prototype is coming out... I don't know, I hope Yahtzee isn't becoming another corporate *****.
Oh, I see the political discussion was well on its way. For .5 seconds of political humor!Akramelag said:
Yahtzee, you are one controversial dude!
anyways, for the record, if republicans get their way, the world will be destroyed in atomic fire to usher in the second coming of jesus.
I really love the point about moral systems. Yahtzee's clarity in discussing this has really reached an epitome. It's such an arbitrary system to force on a player, the angel vs demon thing, and it plays on the shallowest of cultural archetypes, and fixing what powers are open to a player over this is dumb.
One of the wizardries .... 4 was it? had a system where you gain different reputations with different factions.
This seems like the thing to develop, rather than GvE morality.
Like, do some favors for one group, and they start to like you, but then steal from them, and they start locking their doors around you and eying you suspiciously, but they'll still work with you, and then go pretend to be nice to another group while you're really spying on them, and they are all your friend until you betray them, then they all leap to their feet when you enter their meeting areas and rush you with blades, except for a few who still secretly like you.
Because morality,in terms of its outward manifestation, is really about reputation, perception, and the law.
I guess Bethesda does something like this, but it's hard to have a satisfactory array of game conclusions...
There's also an inner reflection on morality, but this gets complicated. Assuming a positive, healthy character, if the player plays the character against this nature and kills everyone, then the character should start going batshit crazy. Vice-versa, a socially insane person who a player plays as good might have some kind of revelation. Or go batshit crazy.
As far as conclusions go, there should be a few of very distinct endings based on player's actions : like, the shadow monster wins and no one has a shadow anymore, or the imperialists win and the world becomes rigid and strict, or the hippies win and everyone uses drugs and dances all the time, or there is some kind of draw, and war continues for ages, and the world is obliterated, or a rift is opened to another dimension and a bunch of people leave to live on a world populated by delicious marshmallow animals.
One of the wizardries .... 4 was it? had a system where you gain different reputations with different factions.
This seems like the thing to develop, rather than GvE morality.
Like, do some favors for one group, and they start to like you, but then steal from them, and they start locking their doors around you and eying you suspiciously, but they'll still work with you, and then go pretend to be nice to another group while you're really spying on them, and they are all your friend until you betray them, then they all leap to their feet when you enter their meeting areas and rush you with blades, except for a few who still secretly like you.
Because morality,in terms of its outward manifestation, is really about reputation, perception, and the law.
I guess Bethesda does something like this, but it's hard to have a satisfactory array of game conclusions...
There's also an inner reflection on morality, but this gets complicated. Assuming a positive, healthy character, if the player plays the character against this nature and kills everyone, then the character should start going batshit crazy. Vice-versa, a socially insane person who a player plays as good might have some kind of revelation. Or go batshit crazy.
As far as conclusions go, there should be a few of very distinct endings based on player's actions : like, the shadow monster wins and no one has a shadow anymore, or the imperialists win and the world becomes rigid and strict, or the hippies win and everyone uses drugs and dances all the time, or there is some kind of draw, and war continues for ages, and the world is obliterated, or a rift is opened to another dimension and a bunch of people leave to live on a world populated by delicious marshmallow animals.
The beginning was exceedingly angry. Like, "Not really funny at all, just someone who sounds like they had a really, really bad day."
When the mood changed, it went away, but I still had a headache afterwards. Not really sure why I got a headache from the beginning. Kind of odd.
The end bit was great. Bam, offworld slavery.
When the mood changed, it went away, but I still had a headache afterwards. Not really sure why I got a headache from the beginning. Kind of odd.
The end bit was great. Bam, offworld slavery.
Hate to break it to you, bro, but the Republicans I know of think that the Democrats are the ones saying "the most ridiculous shit." That is to say, everyone thinks that everyone who says things they disagree with is saying "ridiculous shit." Oh, and Sarah Palin is nowhere near the retard that Joe Biden is. At least she never revealed any national secrets. And she never plagiarized. And she never made up ridiculous bullshit about how her family worked jobs they've never worked a day at in their lives, and she never threatened to shoot Barack Obama, and she never tried to incite national panic about the Swine Flu. That's not even the entire list.Akramelag said:
So how do you figure it is that the Democrats didn't destroy the economy? They've been in power for over two years, and almost all of the legislation that is causing the problems we have now was penned by Democrats. Gee, I wonder why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't being watched? It sure is a coincidence that those two organizations gave over ten times as much in campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans! Yep, sure is coincidental...
Also, it's not like John McCain called for an investigation of F-Mae and F-Mac over two years ago. Oh wait. Yes it is. And as I seem to recall, it was the Democrats who said that there was no need for an investigation because everything was fine.
