Poll: Top 10 most overrated games I?ve ever played *WALL OF TEXT AHOY!*
- Thread starter distortedreality
- Start date
Recommended Videos
EzraPound said:
"mostly a point/shoot affair"
What an underhanded and pointless statement, that does nothing but belittle ALL games with a shooting mechanic and COMPLETELY IGNORES the challenge of damage and defence management statistics. You act as if it is simple to aim at a moving shooting target while you are moving as well and fire at just the right moment while not wasting bullets, and while I'm not saying you are swimming in ammo you MUST conserve your shots in Bioshock or you will quickly find yourself without any bullets when you most need them.
"that would seem new"
I'm sorry, but is this an attempt at an argument of "novelty as value" that something has inherent value simply because it hasn't been done before and is completely new? Bollocks. Bioshock's mechanics aren't good because they aee new, they are good because they are altogether very challenging, interesting and engaging that make you think about far more than point and shoot. Not that there is anything wrong with that. You could say Final Fantasy is simple "select attack and X", really shooters can have incredible depth in controls if you'd just stop and appreciate them for a moment.
" dark, linear corridors you had to saunter through"
Dark... so a game isn't that good because it has a consistent theme of being in a claustrophobic underwater city. Is ANY game that isn't an open world game inherently bad? Corridors are of course linear but if you are implying the game is, it is not. You don't know the meaning of linear, as each area is a labyrinth searching around and around, going back and forth and . You are most certainly NOT railroaded through the game, you are given so much freedom and encouraged to use it!
"casette book, effectively killing immersion."
I don't follow, how does listening to audio-diaries (that could very reasonably be all the craze over written diaries in Rapture) about the people of Rapture vividly describing their circumstance ruin immersion? It doesn't.
"in the age of Halo and Modern Warfare--gamers seeking alternative experiences will enjoy any FPS that diverges from the status quo"
EXCUSE FUCKING ME!! Are you saying Bioshock was just made for the Halo crowd who wanted a mere "divergence"?!?!? Halo and MW fanboys HATE Bioshock! Bioshock was a critical darling of old school critics but was mostly a popular failure with the Halo/COD buyers.
I'll have you bloody well know I was playing Quake and Counterstrike back when the halo-kiddies of today were just a twinkle in their parents eye! I played these games and RPGs of the day while I DREAMED about a way they could be combined! The engagement and personal challenge of a shooter with the depth and character progression of an RPG and the best narrative of all!
It is the RPG-fanboys of today who most scorn Bioshock, because they assume limited controls are some sort of defining element of a true RPG, that the action of FPS games would corrupt the "purity" of the RPG type games, that should be JUST about the stats and strategy, that there should be no place for the challenge and involvement of gunplay and dynamic melee fighting with split second timing. That's their problem, a game is an RPG or "just a shooter" and with prejudice that an RPG with shooting is tainted to be only a shooter and not an RPG.
Where is the room for the Fighting General? Not the one who stays miles behind the front line looking at maps, telling people what to do (the separation of the player from character control), but the one who goes right on the front line an applies their strategy themselves! That's what I see with RPG purists who prefer to have a button and % chance of headhsots, they are asking someone else to do the job rather than applying their tactics themselves.
I mean you are clearly prejudiced. After saying Bioshock is "mostly content to copy games released over a decade ago" You say Shadow Warrior is on the same level of quality as Bioshock. It's quite clear you are willing to block out and be a denialist about bioshock's acumen as an RPG and a game of great narrative.
It's easy to deny, to make spurious dismissive claims. But it's not easy to just say that without a bit of logic to back you up.
I'm calling you out on this.
I love plenty of games that focus on narrative more than gameplay, I just wish they could have BOTH so there'd be a less jarring transition between the two. And this really, really isn't about my expectations, even though people keep saying that. I played them, I liked bits and disliked others. Seems simple to me.weker said:
I appreciate that you were methodical with your analyses of each game, but I haven't the will to respond to each. I'll just answer the ones that jumped at me. The problem with your Black example is that I don't like the direction modern shooters are going in and PREFER a lot of the ones from around Black's time, so I didn't just dislike it because of its age. Hell, TimeSplitters is even older and I'm piratically married to that.
The Half-Life 2 thing ties into that. I've played shooters from around that time where baddies react more to being shot, so this isn't about technology. Random example might be Darkwatch. Or even Resi 4, since that's as much of a shooter as Doom 3.
The Halo 2 ignoring thing seemed a bit harsh. I just focused on the story because that's the only mode I was interested in. No need for bitterness.
I specifically said I wasn't amazing at RDR, which I wouldn't say makes me sound like a god. And like I said to other people, the whole game has this nice vs. naughty system going on, yet the cutscenes all make Marston out to be a nice guy who just happens to be good at getting into trouble. Moral choice systems can be a tricky thing to get right, but RDR's implementation felt especially clumsy to me.
And that's about it. I've already said at the top of the page that is was a blog post I've shared with this forum despite also knowing it's not the greatest example of my writing, due in large part to my relative inexperience with analysing games I don't enjoy and this piece's long gestation period. Thanks for your criticism, all the same.
I've heard the Soul Reaver/Tomb Raider comparison many times, but there's a distinct difference between the two. For one thing, the camera isn't so rigidly locked behind you in Soul Reaver, but it's otherwise a bit hard to describe. Soul Reaver's camera is still clumsy, yeah, but I would say easily preferable to Tomb Raider's.Terramax said:
And the entire piece is just me expressing my opinions in my overly aggressive manner. I do personally believe Tomb Raider's controls are beyond horrific and that they cannot be excused, but that's my opinion and is clearly stated as such.
Thanks for your time.
You should save these posts for your blog, it's kinda to big for a forum, and I think you got a warning for it, proving my point.Tryzon said:
It's a nice post but I find there are too many hypocritical points, and one overbearing issue you have with almost these games.
Actually you might be surprised by this but I've been reading the whole thing without skipping and your oppinion seemed quite decent. I have been, but I couldn't do it anymore because you started blabbering random shit about Saints Row being superior to GTA, which I simply cannot accept. And yes, by the way, I have played both. Yes, some prefered the more unrealistic fun of San Andreas than the more realistic approach GTA IV gave the series, and Rockstar actually did realize this. Why do you think they made The Ballad of Gay Tony? As for Saints Row, it's just another mediocre and pretentious GTA knock-off. The retarded "Would You Rather" commercial said it all, and even reminded me of the Nintendo VS Sega war, Sega insulting Nintendo all the way while Nintendo in return always keeping calm, but... who won that war? Oh, right, it was Nintendo. Yes, they are currently pretty fucked, but that's not the point. Yes, and I'd prefer going bowling with my mentally handicapped cousin or watching TV within a game a thousand times more than I would prefer doing, say, the bodyguard missions of Saints Row. What? If I don't like them then why am I playing them? Because the fucking game won't let me advance the main mission until the Waste-Your-Fucking-Time-Some-More-O-Meter isn't filled. Oh, some jackoff character thinks that I should gain more respect before he gives me another mission, so apparently owning half of the town is not enough. Oh no, I gotta spray sewage on the poor citizens of Stillwater until I'm respected enough.
But then you also went on KoToR, whose problems were immediatly forgotten after a few multiplayer lightsaber battles.
(OK, stop reading after this. I'M SERIOUS. STOP. NOW. DUDE, STOP. I MEAN IT.)
What's that, Escapist? I'm being kinda like the OP 'cuz I'm insulting games and etc? Fuck off. What happened to the first ammendment and all the other shit? What? Stephen Hawking is apparently a jerk 'cuz he's atheist but then when I defend him and say that christians are retarded I'm harming someone's feelings? Are you kidding me? What about that time I expressed my excitement about the new Assassin's Creed: Revelations trailer and got warned for it as well? Or when some guy insults me then I insult him back and get warned for it? Or when I speak of piracy I'm apparently advocating it? SERIOUSLY? FUCKING ADVOCATING IT? OK, sorry for the caps, I might get yet another warning for that, like I did before. And yet again, the moderators of The Escapist think it's fair to give me a warning for thinking someone else's activities are "retarded" even though I still managed to suggest a few solutions to that person's problem.
OK, this just went a little overboard. I mean, the OP got warned for far less than this. So yeah, I'll just STFU from now on, since I'm on probation and after 2 more warnings I'll get banned.
But then you also went on KoToR, whose problems were immediatly forgotten after a few multiplayer lightsaber battles.
(OK, stop reading after this. I'M SERIOUS. STOP. NOW. DUDE, STOP. I MEAN IT.)
What's that, Escapist? I'm being kinda like the OP 'cuz I'm insulting games and etc? Fuck off. What happened to the first ammendment and all the other shit? What? Stephen Hawking is apparently a jerk 'cuz he's atheist but then when I defend him and say that christians are retarded I'm harming someone's feelings? Are you kidding me? What about that time I expressed my excitement about the new Assassin's Creed: Revelations trailer and got warned for it as well? Or when some guy insults me then I insult him back and get warned for it? Or when I speak of piracy I'm apparently advocating it? SERIOUSLY? FUCKING ADVOCATING IT? OK, sorry for the caps, I might get yet another warning for that, like I did before. And yet again, the moderators of The Escapist think it's fair to give me a warning for thinking someone else's activities are "retarded" even though I still managed to suggest a few solutions to that person's problem.
OK, this just went a little overboard. I mean, the OP got warned for far less than this. So yeah, I'll just STFU from now on, since I'm on probation and after 2 more warnings I'll get banned.
I'd quote you just for the sake of reference, Tryzon, but your having received a warning makes it impossible for me to do so.
I'll join the droves here who've mentioned that this might have been better served as a blog post, seeing as you have the option of cutting off your Wall of Text into manageable sections. Otherwise, I would've posted your Wall of Text as a blog entry, cut it up for legibility and then posted links to the anchored points of your entry in a forum post here. It's less direct, but it's a lot more fluid.
As for what you've said, I don't know. I hate these "Overrated Games" threads as a rule, seeing as you could really rephrase that as "Games I Didn't Like" or "Games I Think You're an Idiot for Liking". Not saying that this is what your post suggests, but it indeed is what some of these common threads do suggest.
The way you're presenting your information makes it seem as though you'd immediately forgotten that you were essentially working on an opinion piece. You might not have *wanted* to sound like a professional reviewer or to give the semblance of being one, but through your style, you gave the impression that you were making a statement of authority. Ergo, you sounded pretty much like a reviewer. I'm sorry to say this, but you actually reminded me of a *bad* reviewer, more concerned with striking off a flame war or a heated discussion than with reasonably explaining the why and how of your personal choices.
Your content, on the other hand, makes me furrow my brows a bit. Most of the games you've mentioned might be overrated now, considering as their then-innovative mechanics are now all over the place, but I really don't see how Half-Life 2 could be considered as being overrated. At the time of its release, it was one of the highest-quality FPS experiences on the market, that successfully managed to balance both gameplay and narration. BioShock followed along the same tradition, although it drew from a different source. Yes, it's far less focused than System Shock 2, but I'd come to accept and cherish that fact, largely because modern technology allows for levels of open-ended gameplay in experiences that are still designed to be fairly linear. You could approach BioShock as a simple run-and-gun shooter, or you could choose to approach it as a quasi-sandbox, which is what I chose to do. For me, the game was a lot more about seeing which Plasmids I'd be able to use where for the best possible effect than simply storming through Rapture, murderizing everything in my path.
On the other hand, you've got Doom 3. I'll agree that id Software doesn't have a storytelling bone in its entire body and that its partnership with Bethsoft won't fix that fact, but considering this, you have to take Doom 3 as a tech demo, and nothing else. Back when it first came out, that was literally *all* Doom 3 was aiming to be. A hardware whore and a benchmark station for the early two-thousands' graphics enthusiast. That also extends to the gameplay, in that they replicated the old Doom's closet scares. Yes, there is a story, but who honestly cares about Marine McScowlyface's trip through UAC facilities? id tried to give Mars a sense of place, but it was mostly washed away by corridor-crawling design. I'd say this is a bad design choice, but it's precisely what they were aiming for.
Considering all this, I consider Doom 3 to be a merely adequate shooter. I still wouldn't go so far as to say it's overrated, considering id consistently makes games you could consider as being average.
Overall, I'd say you could still stand to pare your post down. I'm aware this is a pretty long post as well, but long posts are difficult to criticize in a paragraph or less. At least, not in a constructive manner. A wall of text begets another wall of text.
I'll join the droves here who've mentioned that this might have been better served as a blog post, seeing as you have the option of cutting off your Wall of Text into manageable sections. Otherwise, I would've posted your Wall of Text as a blog entry, cut it up for legibility and then posted links to the anchored points of your entry in a forum post here. It's less direct, but it's a lot more fluid.
As for what you've said, I don't know. I hate these "Overrated Games" threads as a rule, seeing as you could really rephrase that as "Games I Didn't Like" or "Games I Think You're an Idiot for Liking". Not saying that this is what your post suggests, but it indeed is what some of these common threads do suggest.
The way you're presenting your information makes it seem as though you'd immediately forgotten that you were essentially working on an opinion piece. You might not have *wanted* to sound like a professional reviewer or to give the semblance of being one, but through your style, you gave the impression that you were making a statement of authority. Ergo, you sounded pretty much like a reviewer. I'm sorry to say this, but you actually reminded me of a *bad* reviewer, more concerned with striking off a flame war or a heated discussion than with reasonably explaining the why and how of your personal choices.
Your content, on the other hand, makes me furrow my brows a bit. Most of the games you've mentioned might be overrated now, considering as their then-innovative mechanics are now all over the place, but I really don't see how Half-Life 2 could be considered as being overrated. At the time of its release, it was one of the highest-quality FPS experiences on the market, that successfully managed to balance both gameplay and narration. BioShock followed along the same tradition, although it drew from a different source. Yes, it's far less focused than System Shock 2, but I'd come to accept and cherish that fact, largely because modern technology allows for levels of open-ended gameplay in experiences that are still designed to be fairly linear. You could approach BioShock as a simple run-and-gun shooter, or you could choose to approach it as a quasi-sandbox, which is what I chose to do. For me, the game was a lot more about seeing which Plasmids I'd be able to use where for the best possible effect than simply storming through Rapture, murderizing everything in my path.
On the other hand, you've got Doom 3. I'll agree that id Software doesn't have a storytelling bone in its entire body and that its partnership with Bethsoft won't fix that fact, but considering this, you have to take Doom 3 as a tech demo, and nothing else. Back when it first came out, that was literally *all* Doom 3 was aiming to be. A hardware whore and a benchmark station for the early two-thousands' graphics enthusiast. That also extends to the gameplay, in that they replicated the old Doom's closet scares. Yes, there is a story, but who honestly cares about Marine McScowlyface's trip through UAC facilities? id tried to give Mars a sense of place, but it was mostly washed away by corridor-crawling design. I'd say this is a bad design choice, but it's precisely what they were aiming for.
Considering all this, I consider Doom 3 to be a merely adequate shooter. I still wouldn't go so far as to say it's overrated, considering id consistently makes games you could consider as being average.
Overall, I'd say you could still stand to pare your post down. I'm aware this is a pretty long post as well, but long posts are difficult to criticize in a paragraph or less. At least, not in a constructive manner. A wall of text begets another wall of text.
I still prefer Vice City to Saints Row, really, but if you give me the choice between taking my fat cousin bowling and jumping out of a plane and somersaulting into a strip club, there's no competition. Oh, it's stupid. It's incredibly stupid. But it realises this. I can respect that. Though making the mini-games mandatory somewhat undermined half the point of the ad campaign, you're completely right. Are we talking about the same KotOR, though? No multiplayer in the one I was on about.CRRPGMykael said:
As for the rest of your comment...yeah, a bit out of nowhere. The Escapist is at war with Eurasia. The Escapist has always been at war with Eurasia.
The warning was actually for putting a link to my blog at the top, since SO MANY people said I should start a blog and I wanted to demonstrate that was already the case, but whatever. I find it funny that I can't get rid of the link now XDIamLEAM1983 said:
Thanks for being constructive, naturally. It's definitely true that there are many people on these forums posting things with questionable intent, and the word "overrated" apparently means a variety of things depending who you talk to. I'm still not particularly fond of this piece, but I'd say the tone I was going for was "honest anger". I was vaguely aware that not everything I said made sense, but that's just what happens when you're more used to praising games than criticising them. Not to toot my own horn, but I'd suggest you find my Penumbra: Black Plague review on here, which I think is a much more accurate example of my usual style. This one negative piece somehow got all the attention, unfortunately, though I've only seen a few people who didn't appear to at least try and make reasonable comments, which was a pleasant surprise.
As for the list itself, you've got to bear in mind that I actually did play most of the games in question around the time of their release, and if not, then I played things of the same genre around then. I know Half-Life 2 was revolutionary in its use of physics and junk, and I already said I really like a lot of Valve's approaches to storytelling, but I just find the shooting unremarkable and the story unworthy of so much attention to detail. I hate to use this example again, but Legacy of Kain uses the more traditional cutscene approach and I find that saga far more gripping.
Still, thanks for clearly putting thought in and expressing a valid opinion. I can always respect that, even if I happen to be radically opposed to said opinion ^_^
Well you shouldn't because for one the developer does not expect that, and even if they don't it's not good. You HAVE to know what you are getting into or you may end up playing a Football Manager simulator and wonder "but when do I fight the orcs?"Tryzon said:
Extreme example I know, but you have to go in with the right attitude and you are expecting TOO MUCH of the game to set everything up for you. I remember in my early years of gaming starting a game was a major preparation, I read the manual and sneaked a peak of as much of the strategy guide as I could (before the Electronic Boutique manager asked me if I was going to buy it or not!). The internet has been such a boon, the most depth and satisfaction I have found in games is from the Wikis where all the weapons stats are laid out.
I didn't used to like Tomb Raider, I used to suck at it big time till I applied myself to learn the controls, learned how they ACTUALLY worked not how you might assume they work. Tomb Raider, has a set of rules, their simple rules are in stark contrast to how complex analogue movement is, working within those rules you can do what you couldn't with analogue controls.
I enjoy COD far more than most of my peers (in PC gaming) because I approach it like an RPG using stats from forums that have hacked the game files to get the raw weapon data. I run the stats and estimate % hit probability based on my accuracy shooting at rough targets, I develop an in depth balance of what is the best compilation of perks, accessories and now proficiencies with a given weapon combination. And then how those classes complement each other for the strategic need of any game. But I couldn't have done that going in blind.
Realise that stats can scare many gamers, they can't include them and even if they don't that's not a bad thing. As you can easily get them from elsewhere.
Remember, these are GAMES, not movies or books that will explain everything and set everything up. People who play games talk shop about how to play them, what is the best strategy and what's the best move because you have agency in what transpires. You need to know what you are involved in. People complain about games overusing the amnesia plot device, but if you enter a game with no clue what is going on YOU DO have amnesia, effectively. You don't know anything about the world around you and that is added to by previews and details that describe the world you are entering. Your understanding of the world is helped by strategy guides and wikis that substitute for how you are inhabiting a character from a world yet does not share his or her memory.
You know what, Modern Warfare 3 I'm telling you would be a lot better perceived by many if the depth of the weapons balance was actually revealed, instead it is obscured so well it's like playing a card game where you don't know the rules, you don't know what your hand dealt will actually do. You just get told by the croupier if you win or lose and try to guess how you actually won. This is the way so many people play games, they shoot an enemy alien and it dies, or it doesn't die and you get hit. There is no strategy, it's all arbitrary when there could be so much.
One thing I'll tell you is games lie you you. They deceive about how powerful weapons really are, at what point you actually kill the enemy and obscure effects that you can't comprehend. Like Half Life 2's SMG has a very predictable upwards recoil, you can quickly take out Combine by aiming low and letting the recoil walk up their body. That game also doesn't tell you what will be in the next chapter, like how you will get the Gravity gun and how it will change, but I knew OF the Gravity gun!
This is where critics fail, they rate games but they FAIL to clarify what KIND of game it is, and I don't mean by such definitions as "first person shooter" or "third person shooter" but the type of player.
The Critics praise games on such general terms, and while the score should most definitely be for what the game is trying to be (Skyrime earned all those 10/10s), like a food critic more important they need to tell me if it's a tapenyaki or an a-la carte... regardless of quality or regional variety of a food I need to know how I'm going to get it.
The problem for games is this is so intangible, the mode that the game deals things out is as important if not more important than how good it actually is at doing that. Critics need to emphasise how methodical tomb raider is, a racing sim versus an Arcade racer where you can spin out and still just nudge back on course. They need to make clear that The Elder Scrolls is all about the strategic stat-levelling and that tactical ability is not a major element nor a serious consideration, yet the critics seem to treat such things as obvious, as if their opinion on quality is enough.
Well, although I didn't read all of it that was a fantastic piece of writing. I only read the bits from games I have played myself, because obviously it would be pretty useless for me to try and compare your opinion with something I haven't experienced. Plus the huge bulk of text was a bit daunting... But you make some very good points. I have to say of all the games in question I really enjoyed them all. They're not my favourite games of all time but I still think they're great games. But like I said you make some great points.
I've never played either of the System Shock games so I can't really say anything about how similar they are to Bioshock, but it's true the game is not perfect at all. But one thing that always bugged me about the game is that the philosophical themes of the game (and it's sequel) are barely every touched upon. I feel like it's such a wasted opportunity. It's like it would be the same game if they completely took them out. One example I've heard that illustrates this well is this story I read by some game journalist, whose name I can't remember. He said that he was playing Bioshock while a friend was watching him. This friend did play games but was not the most hardcore gamer in the world. They asked what the game was and said that it looked like Quake. The journalist replied explaining what the game was about and it's philosophical themes, all of which completely went over his friend's head. After a pause he reiterated that the game looked like Quake. It shows just how little of the fascinated surrounding world of the game actually has anything to do with how the game actually plays. It's very sad. They spent all this time trying to put high culture in to a game which they hoped would be seen as thoughtful and spark conversation, but all it ended up doing was being the most long winded explanation of a game setting ever.
I don't really have as much to say about Halo 2 other than I agree that the Arbiter is by far the most interesting character in any Halo game ever.
I don't mind the more serious setting in GTA 4. I think it's good that a game has explored that territory, and it's equally good that Saints Row has filled the gap left by GTA, but I agree that the setting isn't the most interesting place a game has ever been set. I still think it's a good setting. Liberty City does feel like a real living city , but it also feels very grey. And you're so right that it's got very underwhelming music when compared to GTA 3 or SA. Also I agree the controls feel quite sluggish. That annoyed me to an extent, but only on foot. I found the car physics to be pretty good. The body roll of the cars sometimes looks a bit comical, but I think the game has some of the best feeling cars in any non-car focused game.
I've never played either of the System Shock games so I can't really say anything about how similar they are to Bioshock, but it's true the game is not perfect at all. But one thing that always bugged me about the game is that the philosophical themes of the game (and it's sequel) are barely every touched upon. I feel like it's such a wasted opportunity. It's like it would be the same game if they completely took them out. One example I've heard that illustrates this well is this story I read by some game journalist, whose name I can't remember. He said that he was playing Bioshock while a friend was watching him. This friend did play games but was not the most hardcore gamer in the world. They asked what the game was and said that it looked like Quake. The journalist replied explaining what the game was about and it's philosophical themes, all of which completely went over his friend's head. After a pause he reiterated that the game looked like Quake. It shows just how little of the fascinated surrounding world of the game actually has anything to do with how the game actually plays. It's very sad. They spent all this time trying to put high culture in to a game which they hoped would be seen as thoughtful and spark conversation, but all it ended up doing was being the most long winded explanation of a game setting ever.
I don't really have as much to say about Halo 2 other than I agree that the Arbiter is by far the most interesting character in any Halo game ever.
I don't mind the more serious setting in GTA 4. I think it's good that a game has explored that territory, and it's equally good that Saints Row has filled the gap left by GTA, but I agree that the setting isn't the most interesting place a game has ever been set. I still think it's a good setting. Liberty City does feel like a real living city , but it also feels very grey. And you're so right that it's got very underwhelming music when compared to GTA 3 or SA. Also I agree the controls feel quite sluggish. That annoyed me to an extent, but only on foot. I found the car physics to be pretty good. The body roll of the cars sometimes looks a bit comical, but I think the game has some of the best feeling cars in any non-car focused game.
Nice rant/rambling/critique thing. Not really sure what to call it, but it was a rather well put together piece, even if it could use a bit more succinctness.Tryzon said:
That said, the real reason I'm posting here is to ask why the hell you got a warning for the OP? I can't see any way it violates the forum TOS, so I've gotta ask. Was it just too long or something?
He mentioned his blog, and linked to it. I believe that is against the rules, I think.Hobonicus said:
Oh, I'll agree that Valve isn't exactly Shakespeare in terms of storytelling, but what they *do* put out still feels much more fleshed out than most of the other "You're the stalwart hero of the land, go kill stuff" games you'll find out there. The worst recent offender being RAGE. Dan Hagar pulls you out of your first major bind, drives you to his settlement while shitting exposition in your face, and then hands you a gun, flat out *assuming* you're going to be fit for the job of murdering a gang outpost.Tryzon said:
I'm sorry, when was it established that my character is some sort of military-trained guy? When was it established that I know how to use a gun? When was it established that I know how to drive an ATV and a dune buggy? To put it shortly, RAGE gives you no sense of place, and utterly fails to give you a personal sense of character - an identity.
On the other hand, Half-Life's always focused on who Gordon Freeman is. He's a scrawny MIT nerd with Hipster Glasses who just so happens to have handled Black Mesa's Hazard Course and to be ever so slightly qualified with blowing extra-dimensional aliens to pieces. He might not talk, but we definitely know who he is. We can get a sense of his life, his nature, and of how far he's come into his life. Considering this, it's easier to extrapolate on what Freeman might feel, when thrust into this position as the "One Free Man".
I mean, he's an egghead who happens to be good with guns, and the G-Man more or less drops him in the middle of a theatre of war in the second game. The G-Man is trusting that Freeman will make the right choices as an agent of change - which is a pretty risky gamble. Realistically, if I were Gordon, I'd have handed my guns over and bent over for Wallace Breen to screw me at his leisure, as much of a chickenshit as I am.
As I've said above, I understand that Valve doesn't reinvent the wheel, narratively speaking. However, judging by my ability to shit out the above synthesis and personal perception of Freeman's character, they have to have done something right. The very fact that I can do this is unique, in a landscape where even the Master Chief doesn't have an ounce of discernible personality and where the norm is more along the lines of mistaking juvenile slurs for character-defining traits, or a burly physical presence for an indication of underlying depth.
In other words, I think Gray from Bulletstorm and Marcus Fenix are empty and impossible for me to identify with. They're crude caricatures of human beings, whereas Freeman - for all of his silence - comes a lot closer to being believably human.
Huh. Interesting reading. I definitely can't imagine treating CoD like an RPG, but good luck to you. Obviously I wouldn't pay good money for a game I had no idea what to expect from, and I also wouldn't get something unless I knew it at least fell into a vague genre that I knew I generally enjoyed, but beyond that, I'm totally in support of blindness. I know quoting Yahtzee to any extent on here immediately results in getting labelled unpleasant things, but his policy of not buying into hype so that you can be pleasantly surprised makes a lot of sense to me. Granted, I'm increasingly pessimistic about the big-name games, even Skyrim, which I'd still chop a limb off to play right now, but there's still plenty of interesting stuff thanks to the indie scene. Don't know how I lived before Steam, quite frankly. Yes, I know Steam are evil and junk, but they're so gosh darn convenientTreblaine said:
This man seems to try really hard to make me hate everything that he says...
I'll say one thing, I ENJOYED every single game that you posted being overrated. (Fine, maybe not Black...)
I'll say one thing, I ENJOYED every single game that you posted being overrated. (Fine, maybe not Black...)