how hypocritical...

[Azure Sky]

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.

Like L4D: The TDM Shooter!
If you saw gameplay of the velociraptor you would cringe...

 

[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

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!

yeah. bad game. but so what? how many world war 2 games with nazis riding dinosaurs are there?

but you have a point, it DOES sound like a bad family guy joke. rather, just a bad seth mcfarlane joke.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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

Have the game. Played it once. Rarely have I seen such a defenceless pile of droppings as this Half-Life Mod.

Brief rundown: Sound effects are either HL or dreadful, Play balance is out of line, Numerous cheats exist, Stereotypes beyond World War 2 basic standards, horrible modelling, horrible maps, dull, dingy, drab, desolate, dry, dog's gonads Dino D Day.

Seriously, it's just awful. It's not even innovative. The Hitler animation is laughable, even for Hitler animations. The Dinosaurs are The Hunter, The Charger and the Tank from L4D.

There are far better dinosaur mods for HL2 out there.

 

[Gigano]

Well, wanting something refreshing now and then is hardly incompatible with maintaining a standard of quality.

Every game should be judged by the same standards in terms of "good/bad" gameplay. The "stale/innovative" gameplay part is then a somewhat different factor to evaluate separately.

Innovation won't save a poor game. It will make a good game extraordinary though.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

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.

well. at least they went there, like mindjack did.so now we know it WON'T work. at least give them credit for showing us that it's a bad idea

 

[Zay-el]

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.

No. I refuse to in any way praise a game that relies solely on a single gimmick, BUT cannot provide adequate reasons and fun for me to actually keep playing it. Portal is gimmicky, but the dark humor, the nice puzzles and the ending song all compiled into one very enjoyable package.

Want to innovate? Fine, all my support goes to developers that want to try new things. However, if they fail to package their innovation decently, then I WILL mercilessly beat it down, because it hurts the innovation field more than anything. Lack of innovation is STILL better, than heaps of fail.

 

[Zay-el]

well. at least they went there, like mindjack did.so now we know it WON'T work. at least give them credit for showing us that it's a bad idea

I'm sorry, but even as an argument, this is just the bottom-of-the-barrel weak. Perhaps if we lived in a world of sunshine and butterflies fluttering through clean streets and amongst a perma-happy population, it'd work. In the real world though, either you succeed, or fail. There's no award for last place.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

well. at least they went there, like mindjack did.so now we know it WON'T work. at least give them credit for showing us that it's a bad idea

I'm sorry, but even as an argument, this is just the bottom-of-the-barrel weak. Perhaps if we lived in a world of sunshine and butterflies fluttering through clean streets and amongst a perma-happy population, it'd work. In the real world though, either you succeed, or fail. There's no award for last place.

that's depressing.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

I think portal was a little more innovative because it was a FPS that didn't really allow you to S. They took away the way every other FPS lets you interact with the game (buy shooting things in the mouth-parts) and replaced it with something...alien...something...unmouth-shooty.

 

[Zay-el]

that's depressing.

I know, but that's sadly how it is. If the developers of this game had spent some more time bug-fixing, improving the animation and the overall gameplay, amongst other things, I'd be a lot more lenient. The problem is, a lot of criticism directed towards this game seems to indicate that 90% of the problems could have been eliminated, if they got a playtester beforehand.

 

[Sejs Cube]

Game was shit and not worth the price they were trying to sell it at. It felt like a student project that was simply packaged up and shoved out the door. NEW and DIFFERENT can't hold a candle to IS ACTUALLY FUN TO PLAY.

Also, the game was neither new nor different. Oh it's a WW2 shooter [sub](pick one)[/sub] but with dinosaurs [sub](Turok)[/sub], oh and you can play *as* the non-human elements and they have slightly different gameplay [sub](any AvP shooter)[/sub]. Also the game wasn't very good [sub](also Turok)[/sub].

 

[Crowded_Space]

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.

Asking that a terrible game be treated less harshly just for being different isn't fair, plain and simple. A game that sticks to a proven formula or even improves upon it, and plays well, should not be held to a higher standard than a game that's too busy trying to stand out and not busy enough being good.

 

[Unesh52]

Remember Mirror's Edge? That was new, innovative -- and flawed. But it was still fun. In fact, if there weren't so many other games I haven't played yet that I want right now (and if I had more money to buy them), I'd pick it up again. This seems like something I can enjoy to the fullest it will allow by reading the advertisements for it. I don't even like shooters that much, dinos or no.

Seriously, OP's getting butthurt over nothing. The article actually praises all the "innovative" parts (which are not particularly innovative, just unusual). There is no hypocrisy of any kind here.