I think inFamous is overrated.

[wgreer25]

The first thing that surprised me when I read this post is that you did not simply spew fanboy rage, but made a convincing, insightful criticism instead. I think that deserves a round of virtual applause

Anyway, I agree with most of what you said, except for a few things.

Firstly, as long as Karma systems exist in games, there will never be a middle ground. Just face it; you're either Optimus Prime/Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler/Rush Limbaugh, get used to it. Games with Karma systems don't encourage gamers to aim for a middle ground for only one reason, THERE ISN'T ONE.

Secondly, firearms have become default armory for any games these days. Your character may have the ability eat human hearts using the evil tentacle monsters attached to his shoulders, but he'll still be equipped double pistols regardless.

However, I do agree with you regarding the game length. The term "sandbox game" implies hours upon hours of nonstop fun; making a "sandbox game" that short is criminal!

Good points, but I will still disagree with you on the weapons. I can't believe I am saying this, but they could have used Star Wars Force Unleashed as a model. Charge metal object with energy and whoever touches it is electrified. Charge them and throw them. Electricty causes heat, some heat based weapons. Being able to arc energy through metal/conductive elements to reach enemies. And I just thought of this while typing. With a whole game development team, the best things they could come up with are lightning genades and a lighning rocket launcher? I'm disapointed.

 

[Agrosmurf]

Well it is in some ways a shooter, but the levitation and climbing mechanisms work amazingly well for such a huge game. (MAp wise). Not to mention the sonic boom jump thing. I will admit the game-play is slightly repetitive. But it is fun to play a little while after the main quests with all the side quests and shit. Collecting some blast shards can be fun and challenging to raise the cap on your power level. I thought the bosses where alot of fun and some where really hard. (On hard mode)

 

[wgreer25]

Snipped

You are correct, the drop lightning weapon was good (I tried to use it as much as possible) and the lightning storm was good. But your PRIMARY weapons are the aforementioned pistol, blah, blah, blah. I guess I am a little dissapointed that they tried to justify a lighning rocket launcher and lighning grenades and a lighning sniper rifle. I would have liked it better from a creativity standpoint, like you have to pick up a can and charge it to make it a grenade.

And Thank you for and informed and well worded response to the topic the thread was intended for. To create discussion about this game.

To the rest of you who can't help but bring your console wars to every thread, shame on you... you have made me sad. *frowns*

 

[BolognaBaloney]

Now this is not meant to start a flamewar or a fanboy outrage. I am just very upset by all the glorious reviews this game got. I don't think it is that deserving.

Now I'll list the good first (I'll try to keep this as spoiler free as possible).

It is fun, yes. It is pretty, yes. Very good graphics for a true sandbox game. The electrical effects are great looking. Some very minor graphical glitches, but nothing as bad a Fable 2. I did get stuck in the level more than once, but I can forgive that. The city has three islands, and there is very little diference between the three other than the major set pieces (tower, police station, etc...), but the city is neet. The Karma system isn't great in that your options are either save an old lady or eat a box of kittens (there is not grey area), but it does give you some replayability to play the other side. Movement around the city is fun. Riding the rails or wires is cool as well as your little thrusters.

That is the good... now for the bad...

The Karma system leaves no room for the middle ground, if you want to advance and level up, you have to be either a saint or a devil, your experince means nothing if you are neutral. That is not really a big problem, but it does break the whole karma down to two polor opposites and those are your only choice. This is not my biggest gripe.

Here is what really bothers me... this game is a shooter. Your weapons are pistol, grenages, rocket launcher, and sniper rifle. You've got freaking lightning hands, couldn't you come up with some better attacks? You have a mechanic that could lend to some really imaginative gameplay, and you had to resort to the same BS that every shooter has. Shame on you Sucker Punch. I could sit down for an hour and come up with better weapon mechanics than they did.

Lastly, it is short. If you are going to call it a sand box game, you are going to be compared to other good sandbox games like Saints Row and GTA. Each of those games has over 50 hours of gameplay. I beat this game in under 20 (which is long by today's standards... sadly). The side missions vary, but they are all really short. Yeah, you can extend gameplay by playing as your polar opposite, but that means you are playing the same game with diffent decisions... twice. I was just expecting more I guess.

Now this is obviously my opinion and everyone has their own opinions, but I have a real issue with all the uber high reviews this game has gotten. With PS3 coming up 3rd (and sometimes 4th) in the console wars, I am wondering if these reviewers saw a slighly better than average exclusive overrated it to "help them out". I don't really like number rating systems, but I would have to say that this is not a 9/10 game.

It was fun, i had very low expectations, but it isn't a great game.

Also Halo 3 was horrific but it got perfect scores and reviews.

Best source of information for a game, Friends.

Screw game reviewers who have opinions. Halo 3 is one of the worst FPS ever made! Its up there with Daikatana!

/Sarcasm

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.

I though Halo 3 was great game. The game was doomed from the start as I knew from the start it couldn't live up to people's expectations.

Halo 3's online multiplayer is some of the best out there. The single-player is a mixed bagged though. The first two missions are underwhelming but the game kicks into full gear awesomeness after the first two chapters, Cortana was abysmal level but the last level was satisfying.

Thank you, im very tired of the halo-hate.

 

[wgreer25]

Get a haircut.

-Shrugs- i should listen to you...why? until you can get hair longer then you arm, you can shut up ^.^

OK, this is funny. You misquoted so it looks like it is me with the whole haircut thing. It is funny because I have a shaved head.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

Attention all fan boys and flame-starters: Shut the fuck up. This is a thread about infamous, now stop bitching about the PS3 and 360 and act like adults.

 

[IndieRocker]

That Ctrl+Alt+Del doesn't even have a punchline. Damn you and your shitty writing, Tim Buckley.

Yes it does, the set up is that you can only do really good things (power an orphanage) or really bad things (fry a box of kittens) but not do any morally gray things, the last example of which is frying a box of kittens to power an orphanage

Its not a very good punchline but it still is one!

 

[TheBadass]

..

Or, and I know this might sound crazy, it's actually a great game. Play it and then comment dude, because until then you're doing nothin' but speculation.

Good points, but I will still disagree with you on the weapons. I can't believe I am saying this, but they could have used Star Wars Force Unleashed as a model. Charge metal object with energy and whoever touches it is electrified. Charge them and throw them. Electricty causes heat, some heat based weapons. Being able to arc energy through metal/conductive elements to reach enemies. And I just thought of this while typing. With a whole game development team, the best things they could come up with are lightning genades and a lighning rocket launcher? I'm disapointed.

...There is that power. And around twelve others. Wow.

No, really guys. Play it or don't comment. This is getting silly. I'm not running into threads abour Raving Rabbids or whatever claiming the graphics look "unimaginative" or the minigames "dull" because I've seen a few reviews and maybe played the demo at my local mall.

 

[IndieRocker]

Firstly, as long as Karma systems exist in games, there will never be a middle ground. Just face it; you're either Optimus Prime/Jesus Christ or Adolf Hitler/Rush Limbaugh, get used to it. Games with Karma systems don't encourage gamers to aim for a middle ground for only one reason, THERE ISN'T ONE.

Exception, oblivion (which didn't really have a karma system but anyway) I was some sort of Hitler Christ. I was head of the assasins guild, the gray fox, but had also completed the knights of the nine quests.

 

[chromewarriorXIII]

I have been playing inFamous a lot lately. I do have to agree with you about how the game is too short but I think for what it is it is really good. It had a pretty good story but also seemed to leave itself open for a sequel. Also, throughout the evil story they keep doing things to try and convince you to be good which I think is something that could have been removed.

 

[TundraWolf]

The Karma system leaves no room for the middle ground, if you want to advance and level up, you have to be either a saint or a devil, your experince means nothing if you are neutral. That is not really a big problem, but it does break the whole karma down to two polor opposites and those are your only choice. This is not my biggest gripe.

As has been said earlier, I've yet to see a karma system in a game that actually manages to do it well. The best you ever get is Jesus versus Satan, and until Heavy Rain or Alpha Protocol come out (assuming that they deliver on what they promise), I somehow doubt that we will have a game that will give us an appropriate level of choice in games. Besides, would you really want to be neutral in a game? I mean, yeah, I think it'd be great to have the option to have, but can you imagine how boring that would be?

I'm actually really annoyed with the amount of people who complain about that sort of thing. An actual realistic amount of choice would be amazing, but the fact that they don't have a neutral option isn't that big a deal. Neutrality doesn't lend itself to a game, in any respect. If you played a neutral individual, there would be no tension, no conflict, no plot. You'd just be a guy living in a world watching things happening and doing nothing. No offense, but no one would play that game.

Besides that, neutrality does not fit into a superpowered world, especially when you play someone with superpowers. A neutral superhero isn't a hero and neither is he a villain, he's just a guy who has amazing powers but doesn't use them because he doesn't want to get involved.

I don't mean to ***** at you in particular, I'm just speaking in general on this subject. The fact that some of the powers are specialized for good or evil is a bit annoying, but it fits with the world that they created and the story that they tell.

Here is what really bothers me... this game is a shooter. Your weapons are pistol, grenages, rocket launcher, and sniper rifle. You've got freaking lightning hands, couldn't you come up with some better attacks? You have a mechanic that could lend to some really imaginative gameplay, and you had to resort to the same BS that every shooter has. Shame on you Sucker Punch. I could sit down for an hour and come up with better weapon mechanics than they did.

Yeah, maybe they could've delivered the powers a bit better, or could've been a bit more imaginative with how they worked, but I still enjoyed them. And just because the powers play like different guns from FPSes doesn't make this game a shooter. I think people put far too much credit on the format a game is in and not the genre that the story is told in. Sure, it has shooting mechanics with the powers, but they are delivered well for what they are, and there are some awesome powers that work on multiple levels and don't fall into the category that you listed. However, as someone else already addressed this, I shan't rant about it any more.

Lastly, it is short. If you are going to call it a sand box game, you are going to be compared to other good sandbox games like Saints Row and GTA. Each of those games has over 50 hours of gameplay. I beat this game in under 20 (which is long by today's standards... sadly). The side missions vary, but they are all really short. Yeah, you can extend gameplay by playing as your polar opposite, but that means you are playing the same game with diffent decisions... twice. I was just expecting more I guess.

Two words: Terminator: Salvation. Once you play that game from start to finish (a total of three hours), no game will ever seem unduly short again.

Now this is obviously my opinion and everyone has their own opinions, but I have a real issue with all the uber high reviews this game has gotten. With PS3 coming up 3rd (and sometimes 4th) in the console wars, I am wondering if these reviewers saw a slighly better than average exclusive overrated it to "help them out". I don't really like number rating systems, but I would have to say that this is not a 9/10 game.

Meh. I don't listen to reviews, professional or not. I just try stuff for myself and see what I think. If I enjoy it, great. If I don't, then I don't buy it. Simple.

I thoroughly enjoyed inFAMOUS, actually. I thought that the inclusion of superpowers in a free-roam sandbox world was a stroke of genius, and the powers were varied and exciting. The free-running aspect has been the best that I've seen in a game thus far, on par with stuff like Assassin's Creed and the new Prince of Persia. The graphics weren't gorgeous, but there was a definite artistic choice that influenced the development of the graphics that I personally enjoyed a lot. To me, it was the same sort of case as with the new Prince of Persia; on their own the graphics were decent, but it was the artistic choice that made it something memorable.

I'll admit, it isn't a perfect game, but it's not bad by any stretch. It's a decent game at worst, and I consider it a worthy investment of my time and money. But to each their own: if you don't enjoy it, don't play it.

 

[Nmil-ek]

No if they were to do that they would make a sandbox game where you had superpowers and karmatic choices. Oh wait.

It seems like any game that is half decent becomes a must have game on the PS3, but I guess that is because when there are so few games the best of the bunch seem all the better. Not that the PS3 is bad just its taking a while to get into its stride, maybe to long? I think this year will be make or break for the PS3.

What’s that I hear? The sound of the PS3 defence force?

I'm pretty sure indigo_dingo told me that the choices would be very grey and have far reaching implications that were not obvious to begin with.

Hello fanboy.
Sorry, but the PS3 has almost all the games the 360 has, and exclusives such as Killzone, Motorstorm, Resistance, LBP, MGS4 and Uncharted fill up the exclusive list.
The bullcrap that is "The ps3 has no games" just doesn't fly anymore.
Move along troll, just pitchforks and torches here, no bridge.

Fanboy Vs. Fanboy! Oh boy!

£30 on the PS3 guy those consoles are heavier his gamer arms must be stronger!

 

[katsabas]

You wanna talk about being overrated? EVERY FUCKIN exclusive is overrated. And the games that take the cake are Halo 3 and God Of War franchise. Stereotypes doing things right and being fun but with heroes that do not offer something different.

 

[SmilingKitsune]

Eh, so far I'm liking inFamous, nice controls, a cool setting and story, and overall good atmosphere.
Seems like a great game, I played the demo and my previous uncertainty about the game dissapeared, bought it the first day it came out here.
So, no, I don't think it's over rated....so far.

 

[wgreer25]

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.

Golf Claps to you sir. A VERY compelling argurment.

I have never really thought of it that way. I was wanting to atribute the high score to sympathy, but your "saving the hardcore" gaming makes more sense and I actually believe it more.

The problem with "saving the gaming industry" is that we gamers are not helping. We continue to buy and support franchises and IPs that should have died out years ago. (Halo, MGS to name a few) And we do not support games that try to be "original" or have a new IP. (like Mirror's Edge, Overlord, Dead Space, Assassin's Creed) Now, that is not to mean that we don't enjoy these new IP's, many of us have gushed about their goodness. But the sales number don't support that. Assassin's Creed is one of the most successful original IP's and it sold about 4 million. Halo 3 is close to 10 million and it is not a good game and offers nothing new (my opinion, no flaming).

And I also blame some of this on the reviewers. Like you stated, they are the gatekeepers. I think they should hold a sequal under a much finer microscope than an original IP. A sequal should be better and more finetuned. If an original IP (like Dead Space) has a good showing, It should recieve a better score than a samey shooter sequal (if all other things are equal). In my opinion, it is horrific that Resistance 2 got a higher overall scores than Dead Space.

Why is this important, because they are the gatekeepers to the informed shopper. If a new IP gets a 7.5 vs. and 8.5, how many less sales will you have (Mirror's Edge might have suffered from this)? Did inFamous receive a higher score because it was a new IP?

Either way, I am upset with the game because it had a good mechanic and did not so good things with it. They did somethings right, but did a lot of things wrong. Now, if they were to make a sequal (and by the ending, they want one), I will play it if only to see if they can improve upon what they already made.

This also of coarse brings up the flaw of using number systems to rate games (or books and movies for that matter). How much better is a 9 than an 8.5? But that is another thread entirely.

 

[wgreer25]

All that stuff you said.

Thank you for the well worded and thoughful comments.

I really didn't want to give the impression that I didn't like the game. My disapointment is in this. You have a good mechanic (a sand box game + guy with powers + free running + electricity), but you didn't do anything really new with it. I guess where I'm going is, I see those elements (sand+powers+freerunning+electricity) and my imagination and think of TONS of things they could have done with it, but instead, they went with common shooter elements (for the most part). My disapointment is in their lack of imagination, not their execution.

And to your point... my complaint about the Karma system isn't exactly that I want neutral, it is that they give you dozens of choices through the game, but you are always going to pic the same choice (evil or good) because the level system is dependent on one or the other... so why give the player a choice. You might as well have a selection at the beginging of the game that says "Push square for evil, triangle for good". These "choices" should be more subtle and not spelled out for you. Don't tell me "this is a karma moment", just let me play the game and see where the character ends up. And the powers should only be skewed in that using one might lean you toward good or evil, not that you need to be good or evil to use them. This way, it is a choice, it is not forced and you play the game as you want and your karma ends up where it is.

And Terminator Salvation not withstanding, I think I do have a gripe about game length. If you are marketing it as a sandbox game, then you are going to be compared to other sandbox games like SR and GTA, both of with are 50+ hour games. Now this isn't a big gripe, but when I got to the end so quickly, I was like... "oh, that's the end, I thought it would be longer... guess I'll go shock some pedestrians".

I do enjoy the game, I might even play through again as good cole to see what they do with that in the story. This is a new IP and as such, I want to support it. It is better than a lot of other games out there (the afore mentioned terminator salvation for example) If you have a PS3 I would definately suggest a rent or buy.

 

[Biek]

I usually take official reviews with a grain of salt. Its either that mayor reviewers do get bribed. Or noone has the balls to give trademark exclusives a bad score. Though in my eyes infamous isnt a trademark exclusive like MGS, Mario or Halo.

With that im mind im giving infamous the benefit of the doubt. If so many people like it, then its probably good. The least I can do is check it our for myself to see what the jazz is all about.

 

[rekabdarb]

I'm just gonna say ONE THING about reviews...

Look at *cough Indiana Jones cough* Kingdom of the Crystal Skull... (8/10, IT'S THE PERFECT MOVIE, TWO THUMBS UP!!!)

 

[Remleiz]

I didn't like it. And my cousin bought it when it was released, and then returned it an hour after. The clerk was like "WTF? Why would you return this game?" "Because we didn't find it fun. He got Folklore and Warhawk instead.

Folklore? Why would you do that?

maybe because folklore is a far better game?

 

[CuddlyCombine]

What? It does!

Yes it does, the set up is that you can only do really good things (power an orphanage) or really bad things (fry a box of kittens) but not do any morally gray things, the last example of which is frying a box of kittens to power an orphanage

Its not a very good punchline but it still is one!

"Yes, kittens are an alternative energy source" is not particularly funny, nor is it a punchline. It isn't even related. Yes, he does convey how the morals system is very black-and-white. But he's not even funny in doing so.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I never could stand Tim Buckley's writing. No humour in it whatsoever for me.

What do you mean, "that" Ctrl+Alt+Del?
None of them have a punchline.

This is true. Some try, but they mostly fail. You're lucky if you even get a half-hearted setup.

But I honestly thought InFamous had pretty neutral reviews.
I guess I should pay more attention.

See, this is the impression I got, but my friends act like the game is a gift from God.