Zero Punctuation: Rage
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I haven't played Rage yet, but I'm taking a wild guess that the setting for the apocalypse is post-nuclear war, or something of a similar nature that's turned the oceans into dust and the people into asshats. I think it's time to assemble a list of alternate apocalypse settings that might liven things up a bit.
1. During a new ice age brought on by the magnetic reversal of the poles. People trade in their leather singlets for fur ones and all the quests involve shoveling someone's driveway and making snowmen to amuse the children.
2. World being destroyed by rapaging nanobots. More of an apocalypse in progress, which might come with a countdown in which you have to complete missions before the Earth is devoured. It could be about you getting revenge on the dick-wizard who unleashed the nanites in the first place. Also he killed and ate your daughter for good measure.
3. A zombie apocalypse, but replace zombies with unicorns. 'Unicorn Apoclaypse'. You'd play that, right?
1. During a new ice age brought on by the magnetic reversal of the poles. People trade in their leather singlets for fur ones and all the quests involve shoveling someone's driveway and making snowmen to amuse the children.
2. World being destroyed by rapaging nanobots. More of an apocalypse in progress, which might come with a countdown in which you have to complete missions before the Earth is devoured. It could be about you getting revenge on the dick-wizard who unleashed the nanites in the first place. Also he killed and ate your daughter for good measure.
3. A zombie apocalypse, but replace zombies with unicorns. 'Unicorn Apoclaypse'. You'd play that, right?
I can see the point Yahtzee makes about a three disc game taking about a weekend to complete. I remember when a game having three (or four- FF VIII)discs was a sign of considerable status as far as game play time goes. But it's the same situation as FFXIII- Make it look ultra-pretty, then stuff it on three discs because one disc would get shat on (xbox that is). But at least it doesn't fill every disc with 20 hours of linear progression and/or poorly explained cutscenes.
i dint like borderlands my self. found it pretty boring. and rage seems to look the same. and since the game has bin poorly optimized for the pc, i surely give it a miss. this game also never got my interest.
and rage asks me to waste 25GB which you will finish over the weekend??? there is surely something wrong here. good looks doesnt make a game good.
i have spend a more time on deus ex: HR and mass effect 2.
and rage asks me to waste 25GB which you will finish over the weekend??? there is surely something wrong here. good looks doesnt make a game good.
i have spend a more time on deus ex: HR and mass effect 2.
My bet is he will play them all and then condense it into a top 5 of November sort of thing :s or more likely just ignore most of them.Diegolomac said:
Good review, still trying to decide if I want this game though.
Something tells me Yahtzee won't be reviewing Dark Souls....lol
Even though you make a good point, Rage isn't worth it. I personally have played Rage and have found it one of the most boring and lackluster shooters of the year. Every point Yahtzee hits on what's wrong with Rage is on point, although I agree for an FPS the length of the game is pretty good (even though it still sucked).Jennacide said:
Fallout: New Vegas featured jeans, shirts and jackets.
Uhhh no, Resistance is a grittier, FPS version of Ratchet and Clank, both of which were made by Insomniac Games.Pyramid Head said:
Am I the only person who doesn't completely despise this game? To me, it's actually kind of refreshing. It's the sort of game that is just quintessentially id Software. Monster closets. Big guns that go boom. No inane battle chatter, no lengthy cinematics, no "checkpoint reached." Just the simple fun of killing things, fermented and aged to a fine vintage. I thought it was a lot of fun... at least until the game glitched and I could not continue it. 
Well pretty much exactly what I thought when I saw the news about the Bethesda QA tester ripping through Skyrim in like 2.5 hours.
How the hell are these games improvements or worthy of our money when they just seem to be slipping further and further backwards on any sane measure of quality everytime we get a new one.
I have just finished playing through Dragon Age for about the 5th time and I am giving serious consideration to playing through again so I can play an Arcane Warrior because I havnt done that yet. At the same time I have Space Marine (extremely dissapointing) and Killzone 3 sitting on the floor barely touched.
The point of saying that is, some games are of such a superb quality level that you cant stop playing them (Oblivion, Battlefield 2, Deus Ex1, Fallout1 etc) and some are so average you dont want to play them past the first 20 mins. I like pretty much all games so its not like Im saying I prefer RPG's or anything. Im saying developers are releasing products that are just so half assed its really sad.
For me the prime example of this fall in quality over time is the Fallout series. Fallout 1 was such an amazingly brilliant game I still open it up now and then for a little reminder of its total awesomness. Fallout 2 was pretty good too. I dont still have it installed but I got many many hours of excellent gameplay from it over a period of months. Fallout 3 was a complete dissapointment. When I finished it without even realising I was about to finish it in about 15 odd hours I was gobsmacked. How can you take such an epic storyline as the first game and miss the point of that so totally in FA3. FA3s main storyline was like a FA1 sidequest.
Now it seems I better get used to that feeling because games are declining in quality and long term playability in an almost linear progression. 1995 your average RPG is like 100 hours of play, 2005 its like 40 hours, 2011 its like 10 hours. So whats 2020, pay $100 to look at the box art and walk out the store with a memory?
I guess I shouldnt give them ideas.
How the hell are these games improvements or worthy of our money when they just seem to be slipping further and further backwards on any sane measure of quality everytime we get a new one.
I have just finished playing through Dragon Age for about the 5th time and I am giving serious consideration to playing through again so I can play an Arcane Warrior because I havnt done that yet. At the same time I have Space Marine (extremely dissapointing) and Killzone 3 sitting on the floor barely touched.
The point of saying that is, some games are of such a superb quality level that you cant stop playing them (Oblivion, Battlefield 2, Deus Ex1, Fallout1 etc) and some are so average you dont want to play them past the first 20 mins. I like pretty much all games so its not like Im saying I prefer RPG's or anything. Im saying developers are releasing products that are just so half assed its really sad.
For me the prime example of this fall in quality over time is the Fallout series. Fallout 1 was such an amazingly brilliant game I still open it up now and then for a little reminder of its total awesomness. Fallout 2 was pretty good too. I dont still have it installed but I got many many hours of excellent gameplay from it over a period of months. Fallout 3 was a complete dissapointment. When I finished it without even realising I was about to finish it in about 15 odd hours I was gobsmacked. How can you take such an epic storyline as the first game and miss the point of that so totally in FA3. FA3s main storyline was like a FA1 sidequest.
Now it seems I better get used to that feeling because games are declining in quality and long term playability in an almost linear progression. 1995 your average RPG is like 100 hours of play, 2005 its like 40 hours, 2011 its like 10 hours. So whats 2020, pay $100 to look at the box art and walk out the store with a memory?
I guess I shouldnt give them ideas.
SickBritKid said:
I took it as 'bad example' refering to how he said "A game on the PS1 could last weeks" while showing an image of a JRPG, which can be great fun but are usually long by their very nature, and how he compared it to a modern FPS game. The two genres aren't really comparable, so FFVII was a bad example in that context.
Okay, okay. Rage's review wasn't GREAT, but it was good. I was smirking and giggled a little. I won't withdraw the my statement on Hard Reset that I was afraid of you jumping the shark, but I will officially state that I don't believe you have hopped over said fish as of yet (becuase my opinion matters on these sorts of things).