Review: Lost Planet 2

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

daedrick:

Susan Arendt:

daedrick:
Bleh, got to be expected, most players on the escapist are relatively bad at video games. From what I can read at least, thats what I see. Some people who dislike or never played classic games that are considered master peice are rampant on this website... And Im not talking about the halo-quality-ish games.

Meh

Who are you referring to? People in the community or on the staff?

Both, and Im not trying to troll or being mean. From what I can read, or hear, most people on this website seem to be bad at video games. Sometimes its from thread on the forum or sometime its in an article like this one. Yathzee as well, doesn't seem like the best of the player, often complaining about game designs that are meant to be that way and, in my opinion, are perfectly fine.

Especialy complaining about difficulty, I mean, its refreshing these days to find an hard game in the sea of children friendly almost retarded video games that swarm the shelves of the stores. So everytime someone complain about a video game difficulty my ears squeak.

I mean, how much fun can it be to always fly trough content without chalenges.

That being said; Please dont hurt me! Think about my children! :O

Did you ever consider that it's not so much that others are bad, but that you're particularly good?

From this review, and all the others I've read, it looks pretty ...bad

Wandrecanada:
I just wanted to say that this is not in any way a direct attack on you or your review but more a generalization of all reviews.

Understood. No problem, man, I'll hold back the hounds for now!

Wandrecanada:
My question to you now becomes; Do reviewers using the argument that a game needs to be fun the first time through, think that games should ONLY be fun the first time through? Does your review process even venture into replay with any game by attempting to have a reviewer to play it a second time especially when the game's structure implies that it has replay value?

It's hard enough that there is the expectation that reviewers must play through an entire game in order to fully judge a game. But it's also really tough to assume that one must play through several times. That's just impossible, given time restraints. The reviewers of GTA4, for example, didn't play until the meter read 100% complete. Does that make their opinions of the game less valid?

So what we have to do is play the game that is presented to us and offer an honest opinion of how that experience measures up to other similar games. That's what I tried to do with this review.

I think some of what you crave can come later, through retrospectives or post-mortems with game designers months or years after a game's release. I personally love those kinds of stories, especially if they are written by authors who have a passion about the game and discuss it with the designers from a very well-learned perspective.

Wandrecanada:
Full disclosure I did find myself frustrated at certain points of gameplay where I hadn't fully had time to digest the on screen instructions and fell into the trap of assuming a game would show me in some obvious fashion how to achieve the mission goals. It was only by moving forward into the game world (read: simply moving through the map in an obvious direction) that the instructions became clear. Only through iterative gameplay did I discover better and more complex ways to achieve those goals.

Agreed. If I had played the game a second or third time, I would have no problem figuring out more efficient ways to complete the missions. But to me, the core gameplay of those fights was not valuable enough for me to WANT to replay it.

Is it just me or is it starting to feel like Capcom missed the bus, and instead of trying to make their own bus is instead running like mad trying to catch up with everyone else's?

Greg Tito:
It's hard enough that there is the expectation that reviewers must play through an entire game in order to fully judge a game. But it's also really tough to assume that one must play through several times. That's just impossible, given time restraints. The reviewers of GTA4, for example, didn't play until the meter read 100% complete. Does that make their opinions of the game less valid?

So what we have to do is play the game that is presented to us and offer an honest opinion of how that experience measures up to other similar games. That's what I tried to do with this review.

I think some of what you crave can come later, through retrospectives or post-mortems with game designers months or years after a game's release. I personally love those kinds of stories, especially if they are written by authors who have a passion about the game and discuss it with the designers from a very well-learned perspective.

I want to say thanks for the responses and I want you to know that it's appreciated. I can fully understand your position is far from perfect and time constraints really are an issue especially when readers demand reviews so quickly.

I would however like to ask your opinion on how you as a reviewer can do justice to games where iterative gameplay is an core aspect of the game? Can the review window be too short to get a real bead on what a game really is? Could publishers be doing themselves a disservice by waiting to release iterative games into the hands of reviewers too long that the reviewers are hamstrung by crushing time limitations? Is this something that game reviewers even have that much power over?

I've mulled it over several times in my head and I often wonder how some of the more non conventional games would have fared given a longer window for review. Would games that break molds or games that use unfamiliar control schemes have done better given that reviewers would have had more acclimatization time?

I'd really love to hear what you and any other The Escapist reviewers think about this.

Hearing a videogame critic say "this game is too tricky" or "this game is too hard" is incredibly saddening to me. This would be like a movie critic saying "This movie is too hard for me to understand!" I guess this is to be expected when the videogame media puts more priority on writing ability over any expertise. To find an individual with both skills is rare.

So.... for a species whose earliest technological innovation control of fire... we... fly to distant worlds and... harvest... bug... heat.

yeahhhhh.

no.

This game looks awful.

It seem's the best part about this game, is the online experience .

Susan Arendt:

Did you ever consider that it's not so much that others are bad, but that you're particularly good?

Oh wow, ahahaha, never though about that. :P

Nevermind what I said! :D

Well, I also did a review of this game a little while ago, and PLUUUUUUG.
Lost Planet 2 is one of those games were consensus can be reached on a few things (The slot machine being a pain, and killing big aliens being fun) but everything else is dependent on who you ask.

Jaredin:
I will admit the story is weak, and the multiplayer in singleplayer action is sometimes real bad...but, I still enjoyed it

it sounds like the plot is a vast improvement over the first games, its plot was so horrible, it was the worst thing that has ever been put to paper

Seems like I might actually enjoy this, as I always did have a soft spot for co-op games like this.

Also, I don't recall something like this being done before...

squid5580:

Korten12:

Mr Companion:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.

you have it on ps3? could I play with you guys if you do?

I have it for the PS3. GT: squidward5580

And dammit you do not have to use the cannon to beat the worm. On either side of the coolants is 2 mounted guns per side. Use them to take out the glowing spots on both sides of it. Hit the coolants when needed. Takes a bit longer perhaps but it is the best way to solo it. I got the kill shot with a machine gun lol

added you, we got play now sometime. :) im rank 45 almost 46.

Greg Tito:
How can you say that a game is supposed to be fun only after a certain number of hours invested? A game should strive to be fun no matter how it is played from the moment you boot it up. If it isn't fun, then maybe it's not that great of a game.

Is that such a crazy concept?

..no.. it just invalidates you as a critic.

Imagine me watching "A Clockwork Orange". And I say: "Dear me - Kubrick forces me to invest over an hour into this film, and I still did not see any female parts in the end. What A BAD FILM".

I mean, it's perfectly fine to have that opinion. But that's really all as well. I wouldn't use that opinion as an argument against someone who liked the film, for example. How rude would that be. To deliberately ignore not only opinions others have, but also the one the director had when making the film?

Hm?

I have the game on the PS3, add me.

Mr Companion:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.

I actually I've been asking the same question dude.

All my friends love the game. The only ones I hear talking about how bad it is are reviewers.

I think it's the fact that reviewers try to make a science out of it. Good Graphics + Good sounds - Good Story = A good rental.

Where's the rating system based on nothing but the "fun" factor?

This is a great game, although the split-screen was shitty. Half of both screens is taken up by a mini map. Come one people, do like UT3 and take away the mini-map when playing splitscreen.

To be honest, I've been playing this more than Red Dead Redemption. Hell, I've been playing Just Cause 2 more than RDR and the latter is getting nothing but praise.

Ask yourselves guys. Why is a game I can't get into so great, yet the one I've spent countless hours on is getting bad press?

The answer is simple. Reviewers are rating solely based on graphics and story. Can't a game be a bunch of mindless fun like Doom, Black, or even Duke Nukem?

I'm all for engaging stories, but sometimes it's nice to turn your brain off, kill giant aliens with robots, and blow shit up for no real reason other than because you want too.

Wandrecanada:

Greg Tito:
It's hard enough that there is the expectation that reviewers must play through an entire game in order to fully judge a game. But it's also really tough to assume that one must play through several times. That's just impossible, given time restraints. The reviewers of GTA4, for example, didn't play until the meter read 100% complete. Does that make their opinions of the game less valid?

So what we have to do is play the game that is presented to us and offer an honest opinion of how that experience measures up to other similar games. That's what I tried to do with this review.

I think some of what you crave can come later, through retrospectives or post-mortems with game designers months or years after a game's release. I personally love those kinds of stories, especially if they are written by authors who have a passion about the game and discuss it with the designers from a very well-learned perspective.

I want to say thanks for the responses and I want you to know that it's appreciated. I can fully understand your position is far from perfect and time constraints really are an issue especially when readers demand reviews so quickly.

I would however like to ask your opinion on how you as a reviewer can do justice to games where iterative gameplay is an core aspect of the game? Can the review window be too short to get a real bead on what a game really is? Could publishers be doing themselves a disservice by waiting to release iterative games into the hands of reviewers too long that the reviewers are hamstrung by crushing time limitations? Is this something that game reviewers even have that much power over?

I've mulled it over several times in my head and I often wonder how some of the more non conventional games would have fared given a longer window for review. Would games that break molds or games that use unfamiliar control schemes have done better given that reviewers would have had more acclimatization time?

I'd really love to hear what you and any other The Escapist reviewers think about this.

Can it also be possible that you have unrealistic expectations for a review?

Seriously, the standard you seem to be demanding would appear to require one editor leasjed to each game for weeks, months, years(?) at a time. This is not going to be possible anywhere, ever.

That is the realm of the dedicated uber-fans who heroically create and maintain wikis.

That is a different arena than game reviewing. Now more than ever with the pace of game releases on numerous devices, simply getting a solid playthrough alone must be a huge challenge for those people with deadlines.

This seems to be a charge I'm seeing on more and more sites. And the suggestion that ever more stringent demands being unmet result in reviewers being deemed incompetent or worthless. And the goal posts seems to be constantly moving too.

If people don't care for reviews based on a reasonable and consistent set of standards, then why bother with them at all? Or is it only when a person feels a game they like isn't receiving the assessment they wish to see? That does seem to be a common denominator.

Sure, other reasons are given for their displeasure, but isn't that really what's going on? And if it is, why?

If you like something, no matter how many people line up to say otherwise, why should that bother you in the least? This isn't a matter of "somebody calling your baby ugly."

It's OPINION. Opinion with explanation. You can have yours too, but it doesn't make the other opinion wrong. Why does that concept seem so hazy to folks?

AzrealMaximillion:

Mr Companion:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.

I shouldn't HAVE to play online to get a good gaming experience. The story could've been much better. And try playing split screen two player local. IT'S HORRIBLE. Trust me, the dislike for this game is well warranted.

Actually me and my friend are playing it split screen and its not that bad. At first it looks horrible but after about ten mins I got used to it. I actually find it a much less disorienting split screen than borderlands which I found nauseating and confusing.

Korten12:

Mr Companion:
I do not understand why all the reviewers dislike this game so much. Me and a friend are playing through it co-op and it has been a blast. That may be for a number of circumstantial reasons (how good my ally is, how much I like the idea of killing giant bugs ect) but from what I can see this game is very enjoyable.

you have it on ps3? could I play with you guys if you do?

Nah we are playing it split screen on the xbox, sorry pal. I would be happy to otherwise. Although I do own a ps3 so if you just want to play online in a different game I would be fine with that. Not that I play many console online games anyway aside from little big planet.

wonkify:

Wandrecanada:

Greg Tito:
snip

snap

Can it also be possible that you have unrealistic expectations for a review?

Seriously, the standard you seem to be demanding would appear to require one editor leasjed to each game for weeks, months, years(?) at a time. This is not going to be possible anywhere, ever.

That is the realm of the dedicated uber-fans who heroically create and maintain wikis.

That is a different arena than game reviewing. Now more than ever with the pace of game releases on numerous devices, simply getting a solid playthrough alone must be a huge challenge for those people with deadlines.

This seems to be a charge I'm seeing on more and more sites. And the suggestion that ever more stringent demands being unmet result in reviewers being deemed incompetent or worthless. And the goal posts seems to be constantly moving too.

If people don't care for reviews based on a reasonable and consistent set of standards, then why bother with them at all? Or is it only when a person feels a game they like isn't receiving the assessment they wish to see? That does seem to be a common denominator.

Sure, other reasons are given for their displeasure, but isn't that really what's going on? And if it is, why?

If you like something, no matter how many people line up to say otherwise, why should that bother you in the least? This isn't a matter of "somebody calling your baby ugly."

It's OPINION. Opinion with explanation. You can have yours too, but it doesn't make the other opinion wrong. Why does that concept seem so hazy to folks?

I don't think that his expectations are very unrealistic. I think, however, that the expectations are very different. Personally, I very much prefer a review that presents the facts first and closes with the personal opinion of the reviewer. However, although I might be interested in his personal opinion, I also think that a reviewer should be able to look at a game from different angles when it comes down to giving a solid recommendation. Even if that means, that he/she did not like it personally.

There are an awful lot of games that I can't stand, personally, but I would still recommend them very much to a friend if I know that he is into that type of thing.

Same here, the game can be (very) appealing to you, if you are into co-op action combined with an arcade style progression that doesn't care too much about story but on having fun blowing things up in the most stylish way possible.

Of course, reviews are partly an opinion, but that doesn't mean that the opinion should outweigh the factual presentation (yes, that's my opinion). Saying that reviews are personal opinions entirely sort of defeats the purpose of a professional review that is about informing you about a title in the first place and giving your opinion after that.
Otherwise, people would write reviews solely for themselves instead for others.

I don't mean this as a hard criticism on this article in particular, but something that does seem to have crept into quite a lot of reviews out there. It never hurts to look at things from different perspectives and reviews are no exception there.

Greg Tito:

Wandrecanada:
It's probably because THEY NEVER PLAYED THE GAME MORE THAN ONCE.

How can you say that a game is supposed to be fun only after a certain number of hours invested? A game should strive to be fun no matter how it is played from the moment you boot it up. If it isn't fun, then maybe it's not that great of a game.

Is that such a crazy concept?

um.....Heavy Rain?

i disagree with this review in SO many ways, the story in NOT hard to follow if you're F***ING PAYING ATTENTION TO IT!!! co-op is brilliant, the story is.....adequate....., and the multiplayer has tons of new things that weren't in the first lost planet game. i'm gonna go back to the story here: it pretty much has you go through 5 different factions so that you get the feeling that a wide-spread chaotic war between nevec, the akrid, and the snow pirates is happening. and in my opinion, it suceeds at that. the thing is, it didn't have you go through those factions just to carry on the game, but to show that at the end, it required the factions to team up to take down the Over G. overall the game ended brilliantly, and i can't wait to see if there's a third lost planet game on the way.

dnadns:
Can it also be possible that you have unrealistic expectations for a review?

Seriously, the standard you seem to be demanding would appear to require one editor leasjed to each game for weeks, months, years(?) at a time. This is not going to be possible anywhere, ever.

That is the realm of the dedicated uber-fans who heroically create and maintain wikis.

That is a different arena than game reviewing. Now more than ever with the pace of game releases on numerous devices, simply getting a solid playthrough alone must be a huge challenge for those people with deadlines.

This seems to be a charge I'm seeing on more and more sites. And the suggestion that ever more stringent demands being unmet result in reviewers being deemed incompetent or worthless. And the goal posts seems to be constantly moving too.

If people don't care for reviews based on a reasonable and consistent set of standards, then why bother with them at all? Or is it only when a person feels a game they like isn't receiving the assessment they wish to see? That does seem to be a common denominator.

Sure, other reasons are given for their displeasure, but isn't that really what's going on? And if it is, why?

If you like something, no matter how many people line up to say otherwise, why should that bother you in the least? This isn't a matter of "somebody calling your baby ugly."

It's OPINION. Opinion with explanation. You can have yours too, but it doesn't make the other opinion wrong. Why does that concept seem so hazy to folks?

I don't think it's unrealistic of an expectation at all given the scope of some games. Notice I said mentioned iterative games where multiple playthroughs are part of the core experience. I'm not talking about a game that takes 40+ hours to slog through once. I'm talking about games where you're going to be playing the same level over and over again because the game was built that way. Fighting games are iterative in that you will be playing them over and over with new unlocked characters but with all the same levels. Racing games are similar.

Lost Planet 2 is sort of a special case for a few reasons:

#1 It's format at face value is a 3rd person shooter with a linear campaign. The problem is (and this is the crux of my argument) that LP2 does not fit into that pidgin hole and therefor needed to be reviewed against it's own unique set of standards.

#2 It's presumptuous to say that a game requiring maybe 8-10 hours for a single playthrough need only be given that one shot to shine whereas a game like Dragon Age allows for review times of 20 and 30 hours plus just because it's reviewed as another genre. Double standards between genres are just another reason it's problematic to review games in against some kind of perceived genre standard.

#3 In an industry where the employees are trying to paint themselves as journalists, reviewers aren't really supposed to be telling opinion they are supposed to be writing objective critiques. For some people this magical opinion shield seems to apply to reviewers specifically in game reviews but in other areas like movies, art, food and music it does not? Game journalists are going to have to learn to keep opinions to a minimum and analyze the games even if they dislike the genres based on their own merits. Lost Planet 2 does not play like a normal shooter with an SP campaign and an MP component. It's a co op game with iterative game levels and an unlock system that demands you replay content to experience the whole game. Just like you'd play the same fighting game with a different fighter.

TLDR: This is a Capcom game through and through and I feel that not a single review has reflected this whatsoever. From the game's mission map (If you can't see the Street Fighter connection you're blind) to the mission conclusion screens that score you on a rank system to the "lives" bar under your health bar. Everything about this game screams Capcom fighter/brawler with a shooter pasted over the top. If anyone had reviewed it like this do you think for a second the scores would have been the same? Just ask Bayonetta what she thinks.

Wandrecanada:

dnadns:
snip

snup

Erhm, I didn't say that ;-)
That was wonkify.

Greg Tito:

So what we have to do is play the game that is presented to us and offer an honest opinion of how that experience measures up to other similar games. That's what I tried to do with this review.

I think some of what you crave can come later, through retrospectives or post-mortems with game designers months or years after a game's release. I personally love those kinds of stories, especially if they are written by authors who have a passion about the game and discuss it with the designers from a very well-learned perspective.
...
Agreed. If I had played the game a second or third time, I would have no problem figuring out more efficient ways to complete the missions. But to me, the core gameplay of those fights was not valuable enough for me to WANT to replay it.

Here's the thing for me - IMO Lost Planet 2 is fairly comparable with Monster Hunter and probably Demon's Souls in terms of game structure and style. It demands online co-op. The majority of the gameplay is repeating scenarios. It beats you about the head as its method of teaching you what to do, rather than kindly instructing. When it comes to review scores however... I'm at a complete loss. Some sites are giving LP2 like 40-50%, while their review for Monster Hunter is 90%+ with accolades and Demon's Souls is their GOTY for 2009. It's not like MH Tri or Demon's Souls have a significantly higher level of polish than LP2, for example MH is a Capcom game and has a lot of the exact same flaws with the multiplayer setup as LP2.

I can understand how games like this are just hard to review given the circumstances. I'm going to say that the difference in critical reception might be those other games' established popularity in the East before their release here that established their high scores... Demon's Souls was only a 60% according to Famitsu, but western press was left more with the task of explaining WHY the game was so successful rather than wieghing its pros and cons in a vaccuum.

It's still unfortunate though because there are people who do just go with reviews by numbers. I tend to judge unknown games by their cover while shopping, but I have a friend who looks the title up on metacritic and decides based on the overall score. Lost Planet 2 doesn't have nearly the same early community as MH Tri and Demon's Souls did... on the other hand it's arguable that people who were turned off by low reviews may have been turned off by the game itself for no net difference.

Guys, reviewers aren't God, and our reviews aren't the Holy Gospel of Games. We play a game and we relate what the experience was like in an attempt to give you enough information so that you can make an educated guess about whether or not you would enjoy playing the game. Your opinions will, at times, differ with ours, because sometimes something will just plain tickle your personal fancy. We're not trying to dictate taste to you, or tell you that you're wrong if you have fun with a particular title. We want you to enjoy games, and if you like a game that I don't, well, that's just fine by me, man. I'm totally cool with that. We give you our experience with a game, your mileage may vary.

If online co-op play blows your skirt up, and you enjoy a robust challenge that requires multiple attempts for the full experience, then yes, you will undoubtedly enjoy Lost Planet because it's that kind of game. Not everyone is in that boat, though, and it's perfectly reasonable to be a bit disappointed that the sequel to a game with a strong single-player component has decided to ditch that in favor of required multiplayer. This is the kind of game that some players will take to heart, adore, and play the holy hell out of, while others give it a wide berth and move on. It's just that kind of game. In other words, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion about it one way or the other in this thread is right.

Damnit, I was hoping this game would be alright but since I don't have any friends I really can't play this game now without alot of trouble. Just wondering but does anyone know what's up with that annoying "Flowplayer" thing in the lower left hand corner of the screen?

Susan Arendt:
Guys, reviewers aren't God, and our reviews aren't the Holy Gospel of Games. We play a game and we relate what the experience was like in an attempt to give you enough information so that you can make an educated guess about whether or not you would enjoy playing the game. Your opinions will, at times, differ with ours, because sometimes something will just plain tickle your personal fancy. We're not trying to dictate taste to you, or tell you that you're wrong if you have fun with a particular title. We want you to enjoy games, and if you like a game that I don't, well, that's just fine by me, man. I'm totally cool with that. We give you our experience with a game, your mileage may vary.

If online co-op play blows your skirt up, and you enjoy a robust challenge that requires multiple attempts for the full experience, then yes, you will undoubtedly enjoy Lost Planet because it's that kind of game. Not everyone is in that boat, though, and it's perfectly reasonable to be a bit disappointed that the sequel to a game with a strong single-player component has decided to ditch that in favor of required multiplayer. This is the kind of game that some players will take to heart, adore, and play the holy hell out of, while others give it a wide berth and move on. It's just that kind of game. In other words, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion about it one way or the other in this thread is right.

Amen. Ha!

NamesAreHardToPick:

WestMountain:
Is this game worth it if you only play it with 1 buddy in splitscreen or is it a necessity to have 3 buddies with you?

Splitscreen isn't the best experience for the game - there are some limitations like no appearance customization on P2 and no night vision - but it works well enough. One positive is being able to toggle 2x zoom (unless your weapon has a better scope) for the same size/detail as you're used to on a full screen.

Okay, thanks for the answer :]

I think someone largely missed to point of the story, the fact there is something far higher than any of the insignificant characters.

Its a hard game, anyone saying its only possible to do in coop is outright lying though.

The game is generously littered with epic battles and is certainly worth playing with a few mates; and without as I've had equally brilliant times playing with people in the quick matches, with the absence of drop-in play being one of its biggest flaws.

Personally, competitive multiplayer is the worst aspect of this game, but I'm a massive fan of coop, so don't let me put you off that.

Susan Arendt:
Guys, reviewers aren't God, and our reviews aren't the Holy Gospel of Games. We play a game and we relate what the experience was like in an attempt to give you enough information so that you can make an educated guess about whether or not you would enjoy playing the game. Your opinions will, at times, differ with ours, because sometimes something will just plain tickle your personal fancy. We're not trying to dictate taste to you, or tell you that you're wrong if you have fun with a particular title. We want you to enjoy games, and if you like a game that I don't, well, that's just fine by me, man. I'm totally cool with that. We give you our experience with a game, your mileage may vary.

If online co-op play blows your skirt up, and you enjoy a robust challenge that requires multiple attempts for the full experience, then yes, you will undoubtedly enjoy Lost Planet because it's that kind of game. Not everyone is in that boat, though, and it's perfectly reasonable to be a bit disappointed that the sequel to a game with a strong single-player component has decided to ditch that in favor of required multiplayer. This is the kind of game that some players will take to heart, adore, and play the holy hell out of, while others give it a wide berth and move on. It's just that kind of game. In other words, pretty much everyone who's voiced an opinion about it one way or the other in this thread is right.

..I really want to agree with you. Because that would be a nice thing to do.

..But I don't know how you would justify that view either. LP1 had some extremely pointless treks. And had more frequent parts compared to the sequel where you were just shot to bits because you didn't pick up the shotgun/sniper/etc on the previous stage.

On the other hand, LP2 keeps the exact same control setup, and the same mechanics. I'm kind of surprised that it translated so well to multiplayer as it did, without being changed very much at all. So for the most part it's not very different at all.

What is different is that you lose the focus on the main character, as well as the long winded cutscenes. The menu-interface is also very confusing at first - that's not well made at all. And then it's the fact that you're going to replay the chapters a few times before you get the gear and the upgrades. But the build-up in the missions, and how they end up in some seriously epic boss-fights - that's exactly the same.

And I don't see anything in the review that says: I loved the single-player on the original, and I expected the exact same thing from the sequel - which was different in such and such ways, and similar in others. Doesn't say that anywhere. Instead it blasts the game for details that has to do with gameplay - that demonstrably is identical, and in many ways not nearly as irritating as it was in the original.

Bah. I mean... I don't have a problem with this. Bad reviews, or people's "opinions" turn up everywhere. Whatever. But I have to admit - the way you proclaim, even as editors at the mag, that you are not dictating anyone, or attempting to influence anyone's opinions - just as you defend the review as a whole generally speaking - that's just not very funny. You just don't say that a carefully written review, that inexplicably hides the way it is extremely selective - apparently just to trash the game to shreds - is "just someone's opinion".

Because this review, even if there was an extremely good reason to explain some disappointed about the game - doesn't explain why, so it is apparent to the reader. That's the problem.

(..ff.. no more internet for me today.)

OMG! Is there really carpet baggers in this game? I Must Play!

Absolutely, Almost every review i've seen or read whines about it that the games to hard or difficult when playing solo. I just finished it on extreme :) and i almost completely soloed it. And I kinda suck at other shooters CoD MW2 and Halo 3.
And BTW I loved the game!
Screw storytelling,
Shoot the big things that's what it is all about oh and noms de guerres of course

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here