how hypocritical...

[Azaraxzealot]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/116/1163089p1.html

now i never played the game, but it seems like this one was actually trying something NEW and DIFFERENT

yet it sucks that although some people i see on this site want diversity, those same people decry it for being horrible when it comes along.

what's wrong with this picture?

shouldn't we try to give diversity a chance? because at this point, it would seem like if something tries to just break completely new ground people just kick it to the curb then they either go play something "safe" or go get something that's free.

it's the same thing with the horrendous amount of hatred that streamlining and accessibility gets. is that not moving forward? is that not the future of gaming? to make games everyone can enjoy? not just the hardcore elite?

EDIT: Not trying to say the game is "good" by any means, but i AM trying to say that perhaps people should be a little easier on games that are trying something different, or try to grab a new audience.

EDIT2: this is not a defense of this game so much as its "stop asking for things to be different and then whine when it is" then we get Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 2 scenarios.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

It doesn't matter if it's 'new' and 'different' if it plays like shit.

 

[Pat8u]

The game sucks it should of been a source mod

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

It's not just about doing different stuff, it's about doing it well.

For example, people liked Portal because it was innovative and well made.

People don't like dino d-day because it's innovative and badly made.

Also, I'm not really sure that mixing together two premade genres, that being the Turok-style dinosaur hunter and any of the countless WW2 games, can really be counted as innovation.

That's kind of like adding curry to noodles and calling it culinary innovation.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It looks like a sort of bad FPS mod. The review seemed to be pretty generous to it for trying something slightly different as I see it.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

It's not just about doing different stuff, it's about doing it well.

For example, people liked Portal because it was innovative and well made.

People don't like dino d-day because it's innovative and badly made.

Also, I'm not really sure that mixing together two premade genres, that being the Turok-style dinosaur hunter and any of the countless WW2 games, can really be counted as innovation.

That's kind of like adding curry to noodles and calling it culinary innovation.

all portal did was make a whole game out of gordon freeman's gravity gun and let it shoot colored holes. and that's counted as "innovation"

in fact, the gravity gun was just a "grab" button that could throw things harder (at the end of the day)

i don't understand why one mash-up is innovation while another one is just "throwing things together"

 

[JJMUG]

It doesn't matter if it's 'new' and 'different' if it plays like shit.

Agreed. I dont get what OP is crying about, if a game is not good, then it can not capture and audience. Is it because its NEW and DIFFERENT which it is not really all that new and different, it is just a WW2 game with a packet if instant dinosaurs added in.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

It's not just about doing different stuff, it's about doing it well.

For example, people liked Portal because it was innovative and well made.

People don't like dino d-day because it's innovative and badly made.

Also, I'm not really sure that mixing together two premade genres, that being the Turok-style dinosaur hunter and any of the countless WW2 games, can really be counted as innovation.

That's kind of like adding curry to noodles and calling it culinary innovation.

all portal did was make a whole game out of gordon freeman's gravity gun and let it shoot colored holes. and that's counted as "innovation"

in fact, the gravity gun was just a "grab" button that could throw things harder (at the end of the day)

i don't understand why one mash-up is innovation while another one is just "throwing things together"

Because nobody ever thought about putting dinosaurs into World War 2 right?

And the 'coloured holes' as you put them, are a little bit more than that.

See: Portal

 

[zehydra]

lol, what's the "gaming community"? The gaming community doesn't really have a strict opinion on what it wants in games, as the gaming community is VERY diverse in opinion.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

in fact, the gravity gun was just a "grab" button that could throw things harder (at the end of the day)

Maybe, but one of big questions at the time was about if the new physics simulations coming into action games could be used to enhance gameplay or if they were just gimmicks that were only good for things like rag doll corpses. Half-Life 2 integrated physics sims into the gameplay very well in a way that few games of it's type have done since. The facial animation was also seen as a big technological step forward. Both are in a different class of innovation to saying that it would be funny to have dinosaurs in world war 2.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

It's not just about doing different stuff, it's about doing it well.

For example, people liked Portal because it was innovative and well made.

People don't like dino d-day because it's innovative and badly made.

Also, I'm not really sure that mixing together two premade genres, that being the Turok-style dinosaur hunter and any of the countless WW2 games, can really be counted as innovation.

That's kind of like adding curry to noodles and calling it culinary innovation.

all portal did was make a whole game out of gordon freeman's gravity gun and let it shoot colored holes. and that's counted as "innovation"

in fact, the gravity gun was just a "grab" button that could throw things harder (at the end of the day)

i don't understand why one mash-up is innovation while another one is just "throwing things together"

Because nobody ever thought about putting dinosaurs into World War 2 right?

And the 'coloured holes' as you put them, are a little bit more than that.

See: Portal

it really was just giving the player a room with puzzles to solve and giving them some sort of tool that could do a lot. it really is just physics manipulation on the player's part. nothing more than the level design was done on the developer's part

and besides, i'm not criticizing portal, i'm making the generalizations people are making at me.

 

[Azure Sky]

I saw a First Impressions vid of this game done by Total Biscuit.
And I fully agree with him in what he said about it.

It was buggy, the hit detection was terrible, the graphics were very dated, balance issues, etc etc.
It looks like a mod, a poorly put together mod, and they want to charge for it?

It should also be mentioned that the developers rejected all requests for review-copies, or whatever they are called.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

snip

all portal did was make a whole game out of gordon freeman's gravity gun and let it shoot colored holes. and that's counted as "innovation"

in fact, the gravity gun was just a "grab" button that could throw things harder (at the end of the day)

i don't understand why one mash-up is innovation while another one is just "throwing things together"

Portal expanded from one idea into a much bigger and more complex idea, showing some semblance of considered development.

DDD simply takes two old ideas and glues them together.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

in fact, the gravity gun was just a "grab" button that could throw things harder (at the end of the day)

Maybe, but one of big questions at the time was about if the new physics simulations coming into action games could be used to enhance gameplay or if they were just gimmicks that were only good for things like rag doll corpses. Half-Life 2 integrated physics sims into the gameplay very well in a way that few games of it's type have done since. The facial animation was also seen as a big technological step forward. Both are in a different class of innovation to saying that it would funny to have dinosaurs in world war 2.

if its a fully-priced game (like 20-30 dollars or more) then by all means, rip into it, thats YOUR money they want to take, but this isn't the first time someone tried something new and was just heavily bashed for going such a direction

see: Dragon Age 2

 

[Outright Villainy]

It's not just about doing different stuff, it's about doing it well.

For example, people liked Portal because it was innovative and well made.

People don't like dino d-day because it's innovative and badly made.

Also, I'm not really sure that mixing together two premade genres, that being the Turok-style dinosaur hunter and any of the countless WW2 games, can really be counted as innovation.

That's kind of like adding curry to noodles and calling it culinary innovation.

all portal did was make a whole game out of gordon freeman's gravity gun and let it shoot colored holes. and that's counted as "innovation"

in fact, the gravity gun was just a "grab" button that could throw things harder (at the end of the day)

i don't understand why one mash-up is innovation while another one is just "throwing things together"

Because one added interesting and well made challenges to go with it.

The other plays like shit.

Mixing bread with meat and calling it a sandwich was innovative because it was fast, convenient and delicious. Dipping your meat into a toilet would not be innovative because it would taste like shit. Besides, it's not even new, Turok 2 was doing this a decade ago.

 

[Zay-el]

I'm all for innovation, but only when it's decent! You can innovate all you can possibly do, but if the final result is poor, you WON'T get credited for it, or rather yet, you'll hurt the whole thing in general, as people will thus be LESS trustful of new ideas.

 

[Gralian]

TotalBiscuit said it best. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxxW39P9af8] It's nothing but an overpriced source-mod with broken gameplay and a shallow gimmick.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

it really was just giving the player a room with puzzles to solve and giving them some sort of tool that could do a lot. it really is just physics manipulation on the player's part. nothing more than the level design was done on the developer's part

Kindly give me a list of other games that have done what Portal did, and I will then gladly rattle off a list of dinosaur killing games and WW2 shooters that preceeded DDD.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

in fact, the gravity gun was just a "grab" button that could throw things harder (at the end of the day)

Maybe, but one of big questions at the time was about if the new physics simulations coming into action games could be used to enhance gameplay or if they were just gimmicks that were only good for things like rag doll corpses. Half-Life 2 integrated physics sims into the gameplay very well in a way that few games of it's type have done since. The facial animation was also seen as a big technological step forward. Both are in a different class of innovation to saying that it would funny to have dinosaurs in world war 2.

if its a fully-priced game (like 20-30 dollars or more) then by all means, rip into it, thats YOUR money they want to take, but this isn't the first time someone tried something new and was just heavily bashed for going such a direction

see: Dragon Age 2

All due respect here, they didn't do anything new. It's a bad FPS game with an fingerqoutes original setting...that's little more than a family guy joke. I can see it now: "Hey Lois, remember that time when I had to fight nazi dinosaurs in WW2..." oh god, I can hear his voice in my head now.

GET OUT! GET OUT PETER I HATE YOU GET OUT!

 

[lord.jeff]

I'm trying to figure out whats new or different about this game, it looks like a very straight forward class based shooter where a few of the classes are shooters. That's not innovation that's a skin change, you could easily mod any shooter to be what that game is.