This review reminds me of a couple of different things, in no particular order. That being said, let's number them and assign them arbitrary "figureheads," which is to say pick posts that represent my observations. Starting with column Q and work our way sideways.
This week Zero Punctuation reviews Mirror's Edge.
Just taking this post to note that while the side-bar usually has something snippy, if not slightly amusing, such a feature is not present this week. Not so much a sign of the apocolypse, but more likely that some of the minor humorous charm I still watch these for is slipping away. Like all sequel-laden titles, I find Zero Punctuation to be going away from the humor I appreciate.
Not in and of itself a bad thing, just enough to maybe make me start waiting until next month to watch last year's reviews from here on out.
One less game I won't be getting now.
Considering the nature of the way Yahtzee likes dislikes games, even on a college student's hilariously slim budget, you're going to be overburdened with free time and under-burdened with things to play. Try hitting up the User Reviews section to read more on this game. I find it to be a lot better than Yahtzee lets on.
Totaly Agree my friend got this game is "borrowed it" finished it told him it sucked gave it back to him i won the argument
Congratulations, you agree with Yahtzee. But unlike most others, you supply a situation. Although, for giggles completely unrelated to winning arguments, I'd like to discuss with you why you disliked Mirror's Edge, as I thought it was among the best titles to come out recently, including it in the ranks of Fallout 3 and Saints Row 2.
Well, to be honest, I disagree with Yahtzee's decision. But I suppose I would be put in a downtrodden attitude about a short game if I had to pay AU$100 for a game that I know other Westerners pay only half as much.
While I'm normally in-line to agree, Yahtzee has mentioned, multiple times, that The Escapist regularly funds his games, and that he's contractually obligated to review them, but it does give him a rather skewed perspective. Especially considering the theoretical dollars at play here, which is most ironically his largest and most non-existent concern.
He didn't like the game, but he didn't have to pay for it. It'd be like me complaining about "I Want To Be The Guy." The maker has to pay for the bandwidth of every download to produce and distribute his work, I don't have to pay for it. As such, I don't have any right to complain about his gameplay. If you like it, fine, but I don't. Even still, I won't say the developers and publishers are at fault for price. Making games isn't free, and I think they're charging reasonably for what they made.
Thank you for "pulling me down" :P. I was hoping that this game was to become great, but it turned to be a case of the old classic "new genre"-syndrome... innovation + sloppy game design = bad game (of course, Portal is one of the games that arn't suffering from this).
There are other reviews out there for Mirror's Edge out there. I'd suggest going and getting informed before making a brash decision. Most people liked it.
why dose EA suck so much? only games that was good was sims and c&c even tho westwood made it, but anyway ea sucks
Actually, what little I've played of Resistance, I've enjoyed. Which is a testament to the quality of the developer, DICE. EA themselves merely publish, which (most often) have very little to do with game design. Although The Sims were fun games, I also appreciated the gameplay fun of the Sim Cities and Spore (which were Maxis, not EA). And the Command and Conquer series (which you rightfully attribute to Westwood), were intensely fun games. You don't give EA enough credit. They do publish a lot, which does more to help the gaming market than hurt it, regardless of quality.
Their corporate tactics are what should be disputed (considering the Kane and Lynch fiasco), not their attempt at publishing several games.
More people seem to get banned or put on probation for the ZP thread than any other.
More people deserve bans or probation for their posts in a Zero Punctuation thread than any other.
Is it just me or was Zp almost optimistic in this one?!?!
It's just you. Yahtzee has a tendency to encourage the bizarre and indie titles, if his opinions on games like Painkiller, Portal, and Psychonauts are to serve as references. The concept behind Mirror's Edge is likely something he would have encouraged in his first review as much as now. Although, he likely would've been easier on the game in his first review.
One less game I won't be getting now.
I'm sorry but why in Satan's rectum do people take Yahtzee's review's as 100% right, if a review burns a game don't just make up your mind based on one person's thoughts rent the game to see for your self if you like it.
If you look around the forums, you'll find that a majority of the forums see the people who post on threads like these as sheep. Something I'm not going to mention with which I agree or disagree, but very few people will step forward to get a full understanding of a game before buying. It's why market research and marketing are so prevalent, and there are very few "regarded" game-review mediums. People will rarely look at more than two reviews, if even that many.
The shame of this is that Yahtzee is very loud about how he reviews, and because of his viewership, he's often the only opinion people turn to. Which is sad, considering how much salt you must approach Yahtzee's review with.
Richard Groovy Pants:
Wow, actually great review. You outdid yourself this time Yahtzee, kudos.
I often enjoy your insight to things, Richard Groovy Pants, but today's a day where I disagree. To not de-rail the thread, I won't blather aimlessly here. In short, though, I consider Yahtzee to be very consistently losing his form with each passing review.
I too was wondering whether this game would meet my standards, so now I know, it doesn't. I think that Yahtzee's negativity can actually be believed here though, because he seemed to hate it more than most other games.
I'm going to echo the call for visiting the locals at User Reviews. A lot of them have much more reviewing tact that Yahtzee seems to. Humor? Not so much. But as reviews go, theirs are of more quality.
Inform yourself, charge not forward in blindness.
This adds another game to my "Games I should not play" list
Yeah, I mean why make valid judgments on games for yourself when you can just become a lemming and follow the Yahtzee-game-hating-bandwagon without actually playing the game?
Why make valid judgments based on people for yourself when you can just assume people to be of a certain mind without actually giving them a chance?
Although it's not a perfect analogy, this rings very close to the pot and kettle.
It's interesting to note that, aside from slight plot confusion (ok not really, seriously the opening cutscene explained the fact that information is now controlled and this is like 1984. It was not a gigantic stretch to understand the concept.) I had none of the problems Yahtzee mentioned, like dodgy collision detection, having trouble jumping, or being forced to fight. In fact, except for the one specifice "chase down and beat up this person" objective I saw no need to actually fight anyone when one thinks about it, even the people who you must take down you can usually outrun.
Then I noticed that he was using the PS3 graphic for this, and I realized...he was playing it for the PS3. And that's why I, playing the Xbox 360 version, did not have the problems of a PS3 user, and thus probably enjoyed the game a lot more, and still do. Even though I beat it I will pick it up from time to time to do the time-trials and speedruns.
Except I was playing this for the PS3, and had very few problems with dodgy clipping and poor graphics. As a matter of fact, the entire play experience was smooth. I think Yahtzee was just blowing hot air here. Once I understood the mechanics of the game (in that it took me a minute to realize Faith wouldn't grab things unless she was looking directly at them from a jump), then the game ran completely without issue. Even on a PS3.
Oh I love how everyone is blaming EA for this even though they havn't got a line of code in this... and the reason I love that is because actual programmers are swedi....
...oh crap, I just blew the secret, didn't I?
Glad to know im not the only one who beat it in one day lol
Everyone finished it in one day. It's a short game.
I think first-person platforming would be exhilarating if it were implemented well. Unfortunately, this is EA we're talking about, so NO, it's NOT.
EA didn't make the game, DICE Sweden did. I'm glad you're not the one doing the reviews.
I guess you hate the Battlefield series, too, since BF1942, BF2 and BF2142 all came out of DICE Sweden ;) ?
Perhaps you two brainiacs should at least take the few seconds off you need to check Wikipedia before failing epically being condescending smartasses. Or at least take the time and explain how a game which is made by a 100% subsidiary of EA (called EA DICE) actually ISN'T made by EA. Or bring examples of modern EA games NOT made by EA subsidiaries. Good luck on both accounts. Or even better: Get back to "me too" posts.
Because being a condescending smartass is so much better when you have facts on your side. Pot, kettle, friend.
I'm going to trim down the following post to the points I agree with.
Okay, Yahtzee, I've differed with your opinions before. Oblivion. No More Heroes. World of Warcraft. Soul Calibur 4... Hell, I've disagreed with more than half of your reviews, but that hasn't stopped them from being funny because most of the time you have a good point.
I am not a fanboy of this game, I could prattle on about its shortcomings for as long as you, even if I could rant about how much I loved it for twice as long. But the points you brought up in this were stupid. Ridiculous. Unfounded.
I've played through the game three times to date. I've never had object detection bugs like the ones you described. The storyline was completely explained if you watched the cutscenes (though to be honest I wouldn't blame you for skipping the godawful things, but still, the story's in there). There is one section in the entire game I remember having a problem with in terms of it being too bright, and that was a single, easy jump. The brightness didn't make me screw it up, just made me hesitate a bit. The proper-first-person thing worked just fine provided you aren't devoid of depth perception enough to not be able to guess where your feet are after about five minutes of trial and error. And the forced combat scenes, provided you're cautious, are fine. In fact I had some damn fun moments with some of them. Running down a parking lot screwing up a spec ops' aim with slow pistol shots, running out of ammo just before you get to him, discarding the gun and then fly-kicking him in the face to finish him off is the kind of shit DMC should have let you do outside the bloody cutscenes.
But nearly this entire review was crap you just pulled out of nowhere. The way you crapped on about the storyline making no sense and the mysterious contents of the bag who the police were supposedly chasing her for, makes me wonder if maybe it was the other way around; did you play only the demo and not the full game?
Talk about dignifying all the idiots, don't do that again.
Otherwise ranty, but good post. I applaud you. A little SC4 fanboy-y, though.