Soft Meat Reviews: Kane and Lynch 2 (Video Review)

Soft Meat Reviews:
Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days
(Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC)

I'm not doing a transcript this time because I'm trying something a bit different with this review. I explain in the video but I'll go ahead and put it here anyway.

Due to he nature of this game (i.e. how fucking horrible it is) I figured it would be incredibly boring to do the review the same way I have in the past so I decided to use this opportunity to experiment with a new review style.

As opposed to writing a script in advance and recording the footage to match it, I recorded both the audio and the video at the same time to give it a less stuffy feel so I can feel more comfortable talking about how awful the game is.

I would really appreciate it if you guys could tell me what you think about this new style and whether or not I should go back to my original way of doing it or give me some suggestions on an entirely new way of doing it. I'm open to anything you guys can throw at me.

Thanks.

Verdict:
Buy It
Rent It
Leave It
Burn It

Check out my previous reviews:
Transformers: War for Cybertron (video review)
LIMBO (video review)
WET
Killing Floor
Batman: Arkham Asylum (video review)

Also, don't forget to check out Pimppeter2's User Review Index. It's a great way to find a review of a specific game or from a specific reviewer.

I loved this game. This seemed like a pretty misinformed review. It actually took them a very long time to make the low quality camera (good or bad on how you see that). But I guess it's either you love it or you hate it. I never found it to get in the way. Also you can turn the shaky cam off.
You don't seem to use your imagination to fill in blanks either (story wise). Things are open for interpretation. Example:
- In the beginning they go after Brady because he has been talking too much. What difference would it of made if they went into specifics. I like to think he was talking about the arms deal.
With the knock down feature it doesn't matter how much damage the gun does, it's all about the force of the bullet. And the closer you are the more damage you do. As annoying as that might be you almost never seem to take cover in the beginning.
I agree how it's annoying to have to pick up all your ammo. Like when a group of enemies die together. Also the guns are realistically inaccurate. If you don't like it you shouldn't be playing a game which try's to be realistic. Especially when you run, and spray without taking short bursts.
There are a lot of bugs. That really pissed me off to :(
You really didn't talk about the story line at all. You just said it was "crap". You should elaborate on why you didn't like it. Some people (me) wont just take your word for it.

Well.... That was my rant. I am in no way having a go at you, I do not know you personally. Aside everything I wrote I still like how your reviews really come from the heart and don't sound robotic. Keep it up....... Just watch your back ;)

joe the janitor:
I loved this game. This seemed like a pretty misinformed review. It actually took them a very long time to make the low quality camera (good or bad on how you see that). But I guess it's either you love it or you hate it. I never found it to get in the way. Also you can turn the shaky cam off.
You don't seem to use your imagination to fill in blanks either (story wise). Things are open for interpretation. Example:

I have to agree with you.
I havent loved a game this much since i first played kotor.
The voice acting beyond amazing. Every word fit, every spoken line fit. It was amazing.

And i like the buffering thing. I like the slight shake to the camera, i liked the video footage look, i loved it.

It was more artistic then your average game, and i think thats why people didnt like it. Because it was very different.

The story made plenty of sense to me. They went here for a bissness deal, accidently shot the presidents daughter ((who was a a bit of a whore apperently. *cough*bush's daughter*cough cough*)) and he wanted pay back. So he sends all avilable forces after them, shit hits the fan for kane and lynch, chaos follows. Sure the ending kinda sucks, but then entire thing cant be perfict. Look at halo's or MW2's storys. Full of plot holes.

And as joe said, its much more realistic with the guns. its not like COD where they baby you and every gun and shoot the dust mite off a pinhead at 300 yards.

its a real game for once. it feels like they really tryed to make this a good game. And it was a good game. To me it was an amazing game. Sure it has its problems, but name 1 game that doesnt!

Your review felt kinda forced. Like you wanted to not like this game. The dude at the beginging attacked you because Lynch was trying to shake him down and scare him. He said that clearly not even 3 minutes into the intro.

Also, you were sprinting at 4:29 in. What do you think happens when you sprint and get shot with bullets? You run through them like a super soldier?
Im not trying to troll or be mean, but it really seems like you didnt listen to anything theyer saying. So what if you dont auto pickup ammo? its realistic. Have you ever tried to carry more then 5 clips of ammo on you at once? ((i play airsoft and it can be a problem XD)) its not like you have a bottomless pocket.

You also didnt seem to use cover much. You just kinda ran around GoW style :/ all of your complaints are more of the way you play then the game itself.

Sure, i'll agree with you on the ammo pick up thing, and sure the SMG's are kinda innaccurate, but its part of the game.

Most of the problems you presented were problems with your play style. I went through the first 5 levels without dieing a single time. Hell, i went throught the first 4 without getting knocked over.

it was a good reveiw i guess. You might have talked alittle to much at the beginning. The first 2 minutes were you explaining that this was a new style, when you coulda just said, "im trying something new, tell me what you think".

Oh, and dont mute the game volume all the way. turn it down to about 30%.

You should probably go back to a scripted review. Frequently saying "ummmm" is quite distracting. At least collect your thoughts into notes that you want to cover rather than recording it completely unrehearsed.

Also, that review felt pretty incomplete. It's like you talked about maybe 1/2 of one level and then one small section of another level, and that's it. You didn't elaborate on anything, you just complained for 8 minutes.

I haven't played the game, but I guess from your review the visual style was a bit annoying. But I wouldn't say it was distracting or anything too horrible, it was just a particular style that seemed to fit the gritty feel of the game.

joe the janitor:
-snip-

First of all, I didn't get the impression at all that you where "having a go at" me. As a matter of fact, I'm really happy to finally get some feedback on this but I do have some counterpoints...

I don't subscribe to the idea that I should have to "fill in the blanks." If you're going to tell a dramatic story, I need to have some sort of invested interest in what's going on and I can't have that if you don't tell me what's going on, especially when it's the catalyst that starts the entire story. Even worse in the girl. One second he's holding her hostage to protect himself and the next he commits suicide because she died. If she was that important he wouldn't have been using her as a meat-shield in the first place.

As for the guns, I always fire in short controlled bursts as you can see when I am shooting at the guy in cover with the exposed arm from approximately 6 feet away. As for the knockdown thing, your point about proximity makes sense but I still think it's a stupid game mechanic.

I agree that I didn't talk about the story enough it was partially because I was afraid of spoilers but I was also running low on time. (I don't want my reviews running much longer then 10 mins)

kouriichi:
-snip-

realism =/= good.

It doesn't make it bad either, but just saying it's "realistic" doesn't excuse it not being fun.

Same goes for the style being "artistic". I am all for game developers trying new things, but not if it get's in the way of me enjoying the game and that's exactly what the shaky-cam and lens glare did to me. If they had just toned it down about %50, it probably wouldn't have bothered me.

The sprinting at 4:29 was on purpose to show the way the camera wobbles ad as I say in the review, getting knocked down at that part is a scripted event anyway. I had a part earlier where I had done it where you are chasing him across a rooftop (this is actually when the game is teaching you how to sprint) but I had to cut that part because I forgot to have my profile set to Busy and one of my friend got online right at that time.

Also, Kayne said he was going to go talk to the guy. Now I know that in gangster talk, "talk to" doesn't necessarily mean "talk to" but I didn't get the impression that it was a big enough deal to warrant opening fire with a fully automatic weapon as soon as the guy bursts through the door, especially with the bosses daughter in the room.

As for your points about my problem being my play-style a lot of that had to do with the fact that I was trying to highlight certain things (such as the sprinting part that you mentioned). As I said, this wasn't my first play through and I was several levels in before I started dieing too ,but here I was too busy trying to figure out what to say and showing specific things and it got me killed a lot.

Lastly, I actually tried to have a bit of background noise but, in the program I was using, when I adjusted the volume even to just a hair above 0 it was still too loud so I had to get rid of it completely. I need to try and figure out how to fix that.

Avaholic03:
Frequently saying "ummmm" is quite distracting.

Yea, you should have heard the unedited version. I would have edited those out too but I somehow missed them and by the time I realized it was already rendered and I didn't want to wait another two hours for it to render.

As or the review seeming incomplete, to be honest I feel the same way. The main problem was my own stupidity. I had rented the game and beaten it a week before but due to computer problems (that I could have fixed sooner but didn't) I couldn't capture anything. So I had to rent the game again a week later and to be honest I just didn't want to play the damn thing again.

Anyway, thanks to all of you for the feedback. I was worried this was going to be another dead review like my last two and I was really starting to get frustrated so I'm really glad to hear from you guys, even if it was just to tear me to shreds.

Pyode:

kouriichi:
-snip-

realism =/= good.

It doesn't make it bad either, but just saying it's "realistic" doesn't excuse it not being fun.

Same goes for the style being "artistic". I am all for game developers trying new things, but not if it get's in the way of me enjoying the game and that's exactly what the shaky-cam and lens glare did to me. If they had just toned it down about %50, it probably wouldn't have bothered me.

The sprinting at 4:29 was on purpose to show the way the camera wobbles ad as I say in the review, getting knocked down at that part is a scripted event anyway. I had a part earlier where I had done it where you are chasing him across a rooftop (this is actually when the game is teaching you how to sprint) but I had to cut that part because I forgot to have my profile set to Busy and one of my friend got online right at that time.

Also, Kayne said he was going to go talk to the guy. Now I know that in gangster talk, "talk to" doesn't necessarily mean "talk to" but I didn't get the impression that it was a big enough deal to warrant opening fire with a fully automatic weapon as soon as the guy bursts through the door, especially with the bosses daughter in the room.

As for your points about my problem being my play-style a lot of that had to do with the fact that I was trying to highlight certain things (such as the sprinting part that you mentioned). As I said, this wasn't my first play through and I was several levels in before I started dieing too ,but here I was too busy trying to figure out what to say and showing specific things and it got me killed a lot.

Lastly, I actually tried to have a bit of background noise but, in the program I was using, when I adjusted the volume even to just a hair above 0 it was still too loud so I had to get rid of it completely. I need to try and figure out how to fix that.

I didnt mean realism equals good, i mean its the direction they were going. so you need to play that way.

Ah, ok. :) i thought you were just playing they way you always do. You should say if your going to highlight bad things.

but i think part of its charm is the hyper realistic light. To be honest, i rarely ((outside of the first 6th and last lvl)) never sprinted. It never seemed like the smart thing to do xD This is a game where your suppossed to play more catiously.

Like the fact you can be shot behind cover. Sure its inconvenient, but its realistic. Can you kneel behind a 3'6 wall and not have a part exposed? its suppossed to force you to think more carefully about where you want to go, to make you think which wall will be best based on enemy position.

i think you may have just tryed going at it too agressively, so it ruined your performance.
like did you full-auto or burst fire most of the game?

I enjoyed the game as well. It may not be fun, but it's gritty realism highlights a part of modern society we rarely see. And playing as a bad guy for once was.. different.

It may not be the best game as a pure entertainment game, but it's pretty much the best realistic game I've seen.

And hearing that rant over superficial things that MAKES SENSE IN A REALISTIC game, well, it was irritating is what it was.

The drawbacks was the repeting of the same thing over and over. Move from cover to cover while shooting at enemies. Then restock ammo from dead enemies. Move to next room and repeat.

Apart from that it was a good, if probably a little over realrealistic for most, game.

HuntrRose:
I enjoyed the game as well. It may not be fun, but it's gritty realism highlights a part of modern society we rarely see. And playing as a bad guy for once was.. different.

It may not be the best game as a pure entertainment game, but it's pretty much the best realistic game I've seen.

And hearing that rant over superficial things that MAKES SENSE IN A REALISTIC game, well, it was irritating is what it was.

The drawbacks was the repeting of the same thing over and over. Move from cover to cover while shooting at enemies. Then restock ammo from dead enemies. Move to next room and repeat.

Apart from that it was a good, if probably a little over realrealistic for most, game.

See, that's the rub.
The sole purpose of a game is for entertainment; that's what it was first made for, and that's what it's made for today. It doesn't matter how realistic it is, as long as you have an enjoyable experience playing it. Nobody I know plays a game to feel annoyed or frustrated.

Anyway, you want a good, realistic game? Go play Silent Hunter 3, or Mount&Blade, or Hitman on a high difficulty setting.

ALuckyChance:
Hitman on a high difficulty setting.

But then how can I enforce my "ZERO WITNESS POLICY".

joe the janitor:

ALuckyChance:
Hitman on a high difficulty setting.

But then how can I enforce my "ZERO WITNESS POLICY".

Hey, there's no witnesses if nobody notices you.

kouriichi:

but i think part of its charm is the hyper realistic light. To be honest, i rarely ((outside of the first 6th and last lvl)) never sprinted. It never seemed like the smart thing to do xD This is a game where your suppossed to play more catiously.

Like the fact you can be shot behind cover. Sure its inconvenient, but its realistic. Can you kneel behind a 3'6 wall and not have a part exposed? its suppossed to force you to think more carefully about where you want to go, to make you think which wall will be best based on enemy position.

Well, I don't think it's accurate to call this a "hyper realistic" game. First of all, yes sub machine-guns are typically highly inaccurate when fired in full auto, but in this game they are just as inaccurate when fired in bursts, which is not realistic. Also, people can't take and entire clip to the chest like Kane and Lynch apparently can. Not to mention the fact that the enemies are apparently telepathic and all know exactly where you are the millisecond someone spots you. These things are not what I would call "hyper realistic."

As for your comments about the cover, I don't recall complaining about that. So, either your projecting or you are referring to Yahtzee's comments in his review.

i think you may have just tryed going at it too agressively, so it ruined your performance.
like did you full-auto or burst fire most of the game?

I typically use burst fire unless I'm point blank on someone or it's an emergency and I don't have time to aim. The only exception to this is probably Halo, but that will change when I play Reach.

HuntrRose:
I enjoyed the game as well. It may not be fun, but it's gritty realism highlights a part of modern society we rarely see. And playing as a bad guy for once was.. different.

It may not be the best game as a pure entertainment game, but it's pretty much the best realistic game I've seen.

And hearing that rant over superficial things that MAKES SENSE IN A REALISTIC game, well, it was irritating is what it was.

The drawbacks was the repeting of the same thing over and over. Move from cover to cover while shooting at enemies. Then restock ammo from dead enemies. Move to next room and repeat.

Apart from that it was a good, if probably a little over realrealistic for most, game.

As I said above, I would argue that this game actually isn't very realistic at all but even if it was, I'm not reviewing that game based on how realistic it is. I'm reviewing it on how fun it is and, although I am a proponent of games as art, I don't think a game should ever sacrifice fun gameplay to make an artistic statement.

The beauty of games as an art form is the ability to integrate a visual art style with a narrative and with interactivity. If you are going to sacrifice the "interactivity" part, then you might as well just make a movie or comic or something.

Pyode:

As I said above, I would argue that this game actually isn't very realistic at all but even if it was, I'm not reviewing that game based on how realistic it is. I'm reviewing it on how fun it is and, although I am a proponent of games as art, I don't think a game should ever sacrifice fun gameplay to make an artistic statement.

The beauty of games as an art form is the ability to integrate a visual art style with a narrative and with interactivity. If you are going to sacrifice the "interactivity" part, then you might as well just make a movie or comic or something.

I personally wouldent change a single thing in this game.
When i played, i couldent gripe about anything.
i barly used the smgs, because there was always a pistol around.

On the subject of enemys taking so much damage, i think it would be to easy of a game if they didnt. Look at other shooter games where enemys do. You have to blow through waves of 100s of them, where as in K&L, you typically face one group of 5-20 per area and move on to the next.
I cant count the number of kills i got in the MW2 story ((or how many pointless tasks i alone had to run)) but in K&L, they cut all the fat away. No random "theres something all the way on the other end of an enemy army to fetch, and if you dont get it were doomed" moments, which i just another reason why the game is so short. This is honestly less of a shooter, and more of an RPG, because your not playing some forgetful superhuman with a name, your playing as accual people. Your playing the role of Lynch ((and at the end kane)).

I think them making this a game was smart. You really cant for connectivity between characters and yourself when it comes to movies or comics. Its less of them getting cut open with box cutters, and more of you getting cut open with box cutters, and thats the connectivity i look for in a game.

This was such a misfire in just about every way. Especially after the first, which for all its flaws was actually a pretty decent game. There were problems, sure, but it was a damn fine crime story, running around the globe like some sort of Michael Mann infused James Bond. The characters were absolutely miserable, and yet you could like them in their way. And then someone said "Hey, what if we ditched everything that could be considered good from the first one and made a short, overly gritty YouTube video?"

And someone said "Do whatever, what do I care."

Lynch is no longer crazy Lynch, he's merely occasionally unpleasant Lynch. And Kane, well, he's Kane. What I want to know is, after the events of the first one, why in the hell are the two even speaking to one another? I mean it basically ends with Lynch outright disowning you in a sense, and yet here they're buddy buddy like Kane never dragged Lynch to South America while getting his buddies killed. Even after numerous instances where Kane should have just walked away, he keeps going, essentially because, well, why not right? All this for a daughter that apparently forgave him entirely after getting her mother killed, and nearly her, who was ready to kill you at the end.

Which is really the biggest problem. Putting aside any other flaws, the story is just utter garbage. It disregards pretty much the entire plot of the first game beyond "Kane and Lynch know each other's name" and struggles to take the whole 48 hours of hell concept and stretch it into a game. Fight your way through such exotic locales as utterly empty restaurant, utterly empty streets, utterly empty alli--oh, wait, there's one guy, representative of the entire population. At no point do you really feel like you're running around Shanghai, it feels like you're running around a very empty, very pretty replica. The highway ambush is really the only level that truly attains that "real" feeling they're going for. When 39 out of 40 people you encounter are police/soldiers/guards you have to kill, it starts to strain the whole "realism" thing.

Hurray for chest high walls!

But the ending is just... there is absolutely no positive argument for the ending. It's not gritty, it's not art. It is bad. There is no ending. They run onto the plane? Yeah okay. And then the plane doesn't take off, it's swarmed by cops, and they're gunned down violently. What's that you say, Lynch threatens to shoot people? In a post 9/11 world you really think that would happen? So okay, let's say they DO get away. Then what? They could have avoided the entire thing is they'd gotten on a plane to begin with. I.E. if Kane had not put up with Lynch's bullshit and said "Let's get the fuck out of here." Or if Kane remembered that, wait a minute, we hate each other, why am I flying to Shanghai to help someone I damn near killed numerous times?

It just fell so short because it chose to disregard so much of the groundwork laid by the first one, and the result is a sequel that really should have been something else. As is it feels like an overly padded first act of what the sequel should have been, which is a gritty international crime thriller. Not a short burst of hollow style that can be finished on the hardest setting in a single sitting, that provides no closure or reason for replay.

Pyode:

kouriichi:

but i think part of its charm is the hyper realistic light. To be honest, i rarely ((outside of the first 6th and last lvl)) never sprinted. It never seemed like the smart thing to do xD This is a game where your suppossed to play more catiously.

Like the fact you can be shot behind cover. Sure its inconvenient, but its realistic. Can you kneel behind a 3'6 wall and not have a part exposed? its suppossed to force you to think more carefully about where you want to go, to make you think which wall will be best based on enemy position.

Well, I don't think it's accurate to call this a "hyper realistic" game. First of all, yes sub machine-guns are typically highly inaccurate when fired in full auto, but in this game they are just as inaccurate when fired in bursts, which is not realistic. Also, people can't take and entire clip to the chest like Kane and Lynch apparently can. Not to mention the fact that the enemies are apparently telepathic and all know exactly where you are the millisecond someone spots you. These things are not what I would call "hyper realistic."

As for your comments about the cover, I don't recall complaining about that. So, either your projecting or you are referring to Yahtzee's comments in his review.

i think you may have just tryed going at it too agressively, so it ruined your performance.
like did you full-auto or burst fire most of the game?

I typically use burst fire unless I'm point blank on someone or it's an emergency and I don't have time to aim. The only exception to this is probably Halo, but that will change when I play Reach.

HuntrRose:
I enjoyed the game as well. It may not be fun, but it's gritty realism highlights a part of modern society we rarely see. And playing as a bad guy for once was.. different.

It may not be the best game as a pure entertainment game, but it's pretty much the best realistic game I've seen.

And hearing that rant over superficial things that MAKES SENSE IN A REALISTIC game, well, it was irritating is what it was.

The drawbacks was the repeting of the same thing over and over. Move from cover to cover while shooting at enemies. Then restock ammo from dead enemies. Move to next room and repeat.

Apart from that it was a good, if probably a little over realrealistic for most, game.

As I said above, I would argue that this game actually isn't very realistic at all but even if it was, I'm not reviewing that game based on how realistic it is. I'm reviewing it on how fun it is and, although I am a proponent of games as art, I don't think a game should ever sacrifice fun gameplay to make an artistic statement.

The beauty of games as an art form is the ability to integrate a visual art style with a narrative and with interactivity. If you are going to sacrifice the "interactivity" part, then you might as well just make a movie or comic or something.

Well, I had enough fun with it to start my second playthrough. And like movies. Not all movies are fun too watch. Some are quite the opposite, leaving you with a feeling of despair and sorrow. And movies are also entertainment, yet noone complains that not all movies are "fun". Why shouldn't the same be true to game stories?

ALuckyChance:

HuntrRose:
I enjoyed the game as well. It may not be fun, but it's gritty realism highlights a part of modern society we rarely see. And playing as a bad guy for once was.. different.

It may not be the best game as a pure entertainment game, but it's pretty much the best realistic game I've seen.

And hearing that rant over superficial things that MAKES SENSE IN A REALISTIC game, well, it was irritating is what it was.

The drawbacks was the repeting of the same thing over and over. Move from cover to cover while shooting at enemies. Then restock ammo from dead enemies. Move to next room and repeat.

Apart from that it was a good, if probably a little over realrealistic for most, game.

See, that's the rub.
The sole purpose of a game is for entertainment; that's what it was first made for, and that's what it's made for today. It doesn't matter how realistic it is, as long as you have an enjoyable experience playing it. Nobody I know plays a game to feel annoyed or frustrated.

Anyway, you want a good, realistic game? Go play Silent Hunter 3, or Mount&Blade, or Hitman on a high difficulty setting.

I'm not really a submarine kind of guy. Hitman was fun =)

As I said in another reply. Movies are also made for entertainment, yet not all movies are fun. So why shouldn't that be true for the stories in games?

As for the game mechanics, it's a run of the mill coverbased shooter. Nothing more, nothing less.

HuntrRose:

ALuckyChance:

HuntrRose:
I enjoyed the game as well. It may not be fun, but it's gritty realism highlights a part of modern society we rarely see. And playing as a bad guy for once was.. different.

It may not be the best game as a pure entertainment game, but it's pretty much the best realistic game I've seen.

And hearing that rant over superficial things that MAKES SENSE IN A REALISTIC game, well, it was irritating is what it was.

The drawbacks was the repeting of the same thing over and over. Move from cover to cover while shooting at enemies. Then restock ammo from dead enemies. Move to next room and repeat.

Apart from that it was a good, if probably a little over realrealistic for most, game.

See, that's the rub.
The sole purpose of a game is for entertainment; that's what it was first made for, and that's what it's made for today. It doesn't matter how realistic it is, as long as you have an enjoyable experience playing it. Nobody I know plays a game to feel annoyed or frustrated.

Anyway, you want a good, realistic game? Go play Silent Hunter 3, or Mount&Blade, or Hitman on a high difficulty setting.

I'm not really a submarine kind of guy. Hitman was fun =)

As I said in another reply. Movies are also made for entertainment, yet not all movies are fun. So why shouldn't that be true for the stories in games?

As for the game mechanics, it's a run of the mill coverbased shooter. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe I just don't like the way you said enjoyed. See, to me, 'enjoyment' means 'to have fun.' Having average gameplay does not equal 'fun' to me.

I also might have worded my second post a bit improperly. What I meant was, games were made for enjoyment, most people buy games based solely on how fun they are to play. While having a realistic story is a good thing for games, that hardly makes it a good realistic game. Many games happen to be realistic while being fun; again, Hitman would be a good example when played properly, and so would the Total War games.

ALuckyChance:

HuntrRose:

ALuckyChance:

HuntrRose:
I enjoyed the game as well. It may not be fun, but it's gritty realism highlights a part of modern society we rarely see. And playing as a bad guy for once was.. different.

It may not be the best game as a pure entertainment game, but it's pretty much the best realistic game I've seen.

And hearing that rant over superficial things that MAKES SENSE IN A REALISTIC game, well, it was irritating is what it was.

The drawbacks was the repeting of the same thing over and over. Move from cover to cover while shooting at enemies. Then restock ammo from dead enemies. Move to next room and repeat.

Apart from that it was a good, if probably a little over realrealistic for most, game.

See, that's the rub.
The sole purpose of a game is for entertainment; that's what it was first made for, and that's what it's made for today. It doesn't matter how realistic it is, as long as you have an enjoyable experience playing it. Nobody I know plays a game to feel annoyed or frustrated.

Anyway, you want a good, realistic game? Go play Silent Hunter 3, or Mount&Blade, or Hitman on a high difficulty setting.

I'm not really a submarine kind of guy. Hitman was fun =)

As I said in another reply. Movies are also made for entertainment, yet not all movies are fun. So why shouldn't that be true for the stories in games?

As for the game mechanics, it's a run of the mill coverbased shooter. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe I just don't like the way you said enjoyed. See, to me, 'enjoyment' means 'to have fun.' Having average gameplay does not equal 'fun' to me.

I also might have worded my second post a bit improperly. What I meant was, games were made for enjoyment, most people buy games based solely on how fun they are to play. While having a realistic story is a good thing for games, that hardly makes it a good realistic game. Many games happen to be realistic while being fun; again, Hitman would be a good example when played properly, and so would the Total War games.

Well, any shooter that aims to even seem realistic needs to make heavy use of cover since noone in their right mind would try the run and gun tactic in real life.

And since cover based shooters are getting "old" and are not new and fresh anymore, the shooters aiming for realism have a problem going for anything but mediocre gameplay.

As for having to manually pick up ammo, I liked it. It made you, well, me at least, more aware of my ammo. And the need to conserve it. Especially when I had a weapon I really liked, but few enemies used.

I think we should stay back on topic. If your going to argue just pm each other.

Pyode:
I'm not doing a transcript this time because I'm trying something a bit different with this review. I explain in the video but I'll go ahead and put it here anyway.

I would really appreciate it if you guys could tell me what you think about this new style and whether or not I should go back to my original way of doing it or give me some suggestions on an entirely new way of doing it. I'm open to anything you guys can throw at me.

I felt it was good how you reviewed as you played; it actually engaged me a lot more than other reviews - however I think you should:

- Play the game all the way through/as far as you could (as you did with this game)
- Gather notes/first impressions on paper
- Play the particular missions and film the squences/cut-scenes which are important to your review
- Record your voice over the top of the footage you've filmed

I must say that it was annoying (although a little bit funny) watching you die and die again. It gave me an idea of the frustration of playing the game - but I think it also distracted you from what you should have been saying [as well as cutting valuable time to show other scenes]

Pyode:
One second he's holding her hostage to protect himself and the next he commits suicide because she died. If she was that important he wouldn't have been using her as a meat-shield in the first place.

Ya.... That was kinda stupid of him now that I think about it :( I guess he didn't really expect them to open fire on Shangsi's daughter. But then again.....
Why would he expect everyone to know what the Shangsi's daughter looks like?!

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked