http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J31mgdbWtCQIf you listen to the guy on the video, you'll notice that throughout it, the guy talking only thinks of two or three things that were bad, and gave it a bunch of positives, and generally maintained that was an at least good game, if not particularly brilliant.
One of the negatives was imperfect stealth system. To show the 'imperfect' stealth system, the guy threw a knife into a stone wall by someone's head, and then complained that the guy was alerted. Another negative was weak shooting, but he never specifies what made it weak. The last negative, I think, was being a little buggy. The only bug he gave was that sometimes, you got stuck in the environment, although he doesn't say whether or not you have to reload to fix it, which causes me to believe that all you have to do is fiddle around with the controls to fix it.
The positives were being incredibly atmospheric, the shooting mechanic 'weakness' was easily ignored, and incredible graphics, and being over all a solid game.
What's the over-all score? 6.9 out of 10.
...wait, what? Oh, I'm sorry, we weren't bribing you enough to give us a good review? Sorry about that.
They COULD'VE mentioned how short the game was for the invalid, (50$ for about 10-15 hours of play-time), how the story was sometimes as confusing as Stalker's, how there wasn't a lot of variety in weapons, how sometimes the A.I. was actually too DUMB, not too smart. Sometimes, for example, I could walk right into the light for a second before they would notice me - I mean, that's not bad for reaction time, but you can actually break/turn off lights, so sometimes you can just destroy all the lights and walk around in pitch black without them ever noticing somehow, stabbing them all in the back with your knives, (or throwing them into their brains). I mean, I could've understood that. I think the developers were going too hard to make the A.I. not omniscient, unlike Stalker's.
But no, they didn't have a problem with any of those, and all they did was give a generally positive review with some weak negative points, and then slap on a 6.9 score out of ten. I very much liked this game, as everything Stalker did, this did way better, except for the things that it didn't try at all, and I can see from the comments on the YouTube page that other people think that the developers apparently didn't pay off these scumbags enough to get a higher score.
Some nice YouTube comments from that review:
"This looks amazing!"
"He mentions like three things and knocks it down to a 6.9 crazy lol"
"I guess the developers didn't pay IGN enough for them to give it a good review lol"
"The ...? 6.9? The review sounded better than that."
"yeah that was a horrible review. From just watching this video, it looks better than a lot of other games out there. this so called "6.9" review score made me want to go don't click me it."
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Chat
Fileserver
