I think inFamous is overrated.
- Thread starter wgreer25
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That seems very ignorant of you since Sucker Punch were making this game Before Prototype and it just happend to be a coincidence that The team who are working on Prototype had a idea of a game that was really similar to inFAMOUSZebidizy said:
note to everyone inFAMOUS is not meant to be like Prototype and how can you compare it if Prototype has not even relaesed yet ?
It seems like you were expecting a perfect game (which no one should do for obvious reasons)wgreer25 said:
and Sucker Punch said it loud and clear that they wanted this game to be as fun as possible they had a huge amount of idea's but when they put them to test they just weren't fun
so what you got is a game with all the fun stuff left in...
But it's your opinion so i can't really say your wrong nor can i say your right
overall
you just expressed your opinion which is perfectly acceptable in the gaming world as long as you don't treat it like a fact.
Happens in a lot of games. I think the last karma game that encouraged neutrality off the top of my head is Fallout 3. It is nice that you can go both ways if you're patient though.wgreer25 said:
No it's not. GTA is not a shooter, neither is this. Shooting is just a core aspect of gameplay.
You forgot thunder drop, shockwave, arc lightning, gigawatt blades... Shame on you for trying to review the game's 'weapons' and skipping the more interesting ones, nevermind the cool stuff you can do with them.
The game is a bit short, I'll grant, given the fact that it encourages you to play it twice. I have to admit I loved some of the evil cut-scenes and using red lightning was awesome. Still, 20 hours seems like a conservative number. I mean, the game has all the typical extras like the stunts, battery collection and dead drops, plus all those side missions. There is definitely still some room for something like rooftop racing though.
Reviews are subjective, remember? Besides, numbered scores are total BS. The game's a load of fun, that's all you need to know.
No, this is the internet so I know better than to expect actual conversation over pointless, unending arguments. I just thought it was funny how fast the thread derailed.timmytom1 said:
I think a lot of people like halo 3, but are ashamed to admit it cause they think everyone else hates it. Its like they just want to fit in so they say its crap, its sad really.g805ge said:
I finished Infamous last night truthfully me and my buddy had a lot of fun playing it. We would just hand off the controller every time we died. Played through on the good side will probably go back to play through on the bad side. I think it was worth the money I also think unless they grabbed got a crunk load of more powers into the game lengthening it out just to lengthen it would be a bad idea. It didn't seem to overstay its welcome and when the story ended I felt pretty good about the time I put into it.
I will agree that by older standard this game is not a 9 but look at the games that are getting 8's now there are some really horrible games that get into the eight marks. The scale is skewed I think a better scale would be something along the lines of like what most of the reviews here do rent, buy, skip completely, that sort of thing.
Likes:
Powers seemed well fleshed out and was pretty neat watching them change as they get upgraded. Story was decent, definitely not going to win a prize but had a couple good twists even if they were predictable. Scaling buildings and finding that next hand hold especially on the bigger towers always kept me entertained with the puzzle aspect of it. Starting on 1 roof and finding the fastest way to jump slide and float your way to a checkpoint can be a blast. The fights were fun and always seemed to have some thought that needed to go into setting them up instead of just running and gunning. Standing on top of the tallest towers and looking out over the city always gave me a wow feeling.
Dislikes:
Karma System was very black and white and to choose the middle ground is basically dooming yourself. Towards the end the side missions started feeling a little repetitive. A few clipping issues once in a while nothing game breaking. People look fine until it goes into closeups at which point I always got this weird feeling that they just did not look natural(See: Uncanny Valley).
Overall:
This game is definitely deserving of a RENT for most PS3 owner. Maybe a BUY if you really like sandbox style game play. Although is a little short compared to most Sandbox games.
I will agree that by older standard this game is not a 9 but look at the games that are getting 8's now there are some really horrible games that get into the eight marks. The scale is skewed I think a better scale would be something along the lines of like what most of the reviews here do rent, buy, skip completely, that sort of thing.
Likes:
Powers seemed well fleshed out and was pretty neat watching them change as they get upgraded. Story was decent, definitely not going to win a prize but had a couple good twists even if they were predictable. Scaling buildings and finding that next hand hold especially on the bigger towers always kept me entertained with the puzzle aspect of it. Starting on 1 roof and finding the fastest way to jump slide and float your way to a checkpoint can be a blast. The fights were fun and always seemed to have some thought that needed to go into setting them up instead of just running and gunning. Standing on top of the tallest towers and looking out over the city always gave me a wow feeling.
Dislikes:
Karma System was very black and white and to choose the middle ground is basically dooming yourself. Towards the end the side missions started feeling a little repetitive. A few clipping issues once in a while nothing game breaking. People look fine until it goes into closeups at which point I always got this weird feeling that they just did not look natural(See: Uncanny Valley).
Overall:
This game is definitely deserving of a RENT for most PS3 owner. Maybe a BUY if you really like sandbox style game play. Although is a little short compared to most Sandbox games.
Yes, the game is overrated, because it just isn't interesting. The Bourne Conspiracy is InFamous with downed graphics and gunplay but that game was considered to be 'forgettable'. I just don't understand the 'critics' these days...
how do you know it failed? prototype doesnt come out til next week it could be worse. i agree prototype looks awesome and i probly will get it but hey the force unleashed looked good toZebidizy said:
Yeah I was thinking the same thing about this game. I haven't played it so I can't really say, but I found it odd that the pro review sites were giving it top marks but the indie guys were saying it was average at best. The Escapist review says as much but because they don't assign scores their reviews don't get tallied on Metacritic. Penny Arcade delivered the warning that it might be a rental at best.
So why all the praise from professional sites? I have three theories:
1. Sony bribed the reviewers.
I'm not suggesting Sony marketers handed reviewers envelopes of cash while wearing trenchcoats and sunglasses, meeting in an abandoned alley at 3AM, while whispering, "8.5 or better." The "reviewer pay-off" doesn't happen so literally. What does happen is sometimes publishers will invite gaming press to special demo sessions where they are allowed to review the game in extreme comfort with plenty of amenities, then given lots of cool swag when they depart. Then there is the well-known effect of editorial pressure due to ad revenue. Does this have an effect on review scores? Someone more qualified than I must answer this.
2. Lack of Competition.
InFamous is a console-exclusive game for the least popular console (like it or not, this is the truth). Perhaps the reviewers took this into account when reviewing the game, either consciously or unconsciously; they only compared the game directly to other PS3 exclusives. So while the more objective perspective finds the game average at best, competing against the likes of Lair makes it seem like a damn masterpiece.
3. Hardcore Zeitgeist
This is the idea that the topic creator was getting at and the idea that I feel is the most correct. Basically the concept is that game journalists are "hardcore" gamers essentially by definition. Now I don't think "hardcore" and "casual" are useful terms for describing games, but they are useful terms for describing gamers. I think a lot of hardcore gamers look at the runaway success of the Wii and it scares the crap out of them, since the Wii is the "casual" gamer's platform. Sony on the other hand has invested considerable marketing in establishing the PS3 as the elite, top-tier, super hardcore gaming system for extreme enthusiasts only. While Sony once had the cheap mass-market console flooded with garbage titles, now they are associated with the hardcore, and they are also in last place by anyone's reckoning.
Gaming journalists do not only consider themselves to be the chroniclers of the industry, but also its guardians. They see the death of the "hardcore" as the death of gaming itself. The PS2 was a great console and there is a strong desire for the PS3 to be just as awesome. This is why every week you see "news" articles saying "PS3 to win console race by 2030" or "Imminent PS3 price drop will spell doom for rivals." They don't print these stories because they are true but because they want them to be true. They want to "save the industry" and that means saving the PS3.
So when a PS3-exclusive rolls around that doesn't obviously suck like Lair, they call it epic and try to make everyone buy it.
So why all the praise from professional sites? I have three theories:
1. Sony bribed the reviewers.
I'm not suggesting Sony marketers handed reviewers envelopes of cash while wearing trenchcoats and sunglasses, meeting in an abandoned alley at 3AM, while whispering, "8.5 or better." The "reviewer pay-off" doesn't happen so literally. What does happen is sometimes publishers will invite gaming press to special demo sessions where they are allowed to review the game in extreme comfort with plenty of amenities, then given lots of cool swag when they depart. Then there is the well-known effect of editorial pressure due to ad revenue. Does this have an effect on review scores? Someone more qualified than I must answer this.
2. Lack of Competition.
InFamous is a console-exclusive game for the least popular console (like it or not, this is the truth). Perhaps the reviewers took this into account when reviewing the game, either consciously or unconsciously; they only compared the game directly to other PS3 exclusives. So while the more objective perspective finds the game average at best, competing against the likes of Lair makes it seem like a damn masterpiece.
3. Hardcore Zeitgeist
This is the idea that the topic creator was getting at and the idea that I feel is the most correct. Basically the concept is that game journalists are "hardcore" gamers essentially by definition. Now I don't think "hardcore" and "casual" are useful terms for describing games, but they are useful terms for describing gamers. I think a lot of hardcore gamers look at the runaway success of the Wii and it scares the crap out of them, since the Wii is the "casual" gamer's platform. Sony on the other hand has invested considerable marketing in establishing the PS3 as the elite, top-tier, super hardcore gaming system for extreme enthusiasts only. While Sony once had the cheap mass-market console flooded with garbage titles, now they are associated with the hardcore, and they are also in last place by anyone's reckoning.
Gaming journalists do not only consider themselves to be the chroniclers of the industry, but also its guardians. They see the death of the "hardcore" as the death of gaming itself. The PS2 was a great console and there is a strong desire for the PS3 to be just as awesome. This is why every week you see "news" articles saying "PS3 to win console race by 2030" or "Imminent PS3 price drop will spell doom for rivals." They don't print these stories because they are true but because they want them to be true. They want to "save the industry" and that means saving the PS3.
So when a PS3-exclusive rolls around that doesn't obviously suck like Lair, they call it epic and try to make everyone buy it.
Read the post, the last paragraph especially. It's an OK game, but it is by no means the "must buy" that every reviewer says it is. And no I have actually never writen a post about not liking a popular game. And it is not "electricity based violence" it is pistol, grenade, rocket launcher and sniper rifle with a little electric flare. You've got lightning, and those are the best weapons you can come up with.Sexual Harassment Panda said:
I think this game was rated higher because it was on the least popular console. So for those of us with more than one console, it is very misleading and the priase is undeserved (like Halo 3).