gdf

Recently completed video games

Recommended Posts

To be perfectly honest, the Assassin's Creed premise (Animus) makes the writer in me want to punch babies. With flaming train cars. (Yes, I'm the Hulk on weekends.)

I don't really expect a whole lot from the 'story'.

(Though to be even more honest, all I needed to read in reviews/previews was ". . .fistfight with the pope. . .goddess sends you a message" [or something like that] to completely destroy any and all interest in the story.)

I don't mean to imply the story leading up to the ending was good, and then the ending ruined it. Pretty much everything about the story in these games is total garbage, except for the part how they're sort of set in historical settings unusual to games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me is that they have the framework in place to make pretty much the game of my dreams. And they keep hamstringing it.

Possibly my biggest issue with both AC games is that for some reason they keep crippling the gameplay to suit the shitty story they are intent on telling, seemingly with total disregard for player agency. I would still find it problematic even if the story was actually fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finished Singularity last night. The story never grabbed me much through the game but I thought they way they did the ending was sort of cool.

I had fun playing it off and on, but it did really just confirm my existing distaste for fighting mutants in video games. I don't like fighting tough melee-focused leaping mutants, and I don't like fighting tiny little jerks that run up to you and explode. I never enjoy that.

Probably the biggest overarching problem with this game, though, is that they have a TON of separate mechanics you can use and yet they almost never work together in interesting ways. They all just have their totally separate function. Your wacky Time Hand does a ton of shit to enemies and the environment, but almost every one of those things is just used as the most efficient way to kill a particular enemy, or a way to quickly deal with a melee situation, or a way to open a door, or a way to find your way into a hidden place with a weapons cache. You're never really synthesizing all this stuff into an interesting, varied gameplay palette, it's just "press E here because you need to get past this fan," or "press Q here because you need to age these vines." Since all of the time interactions are just directly scripted in, and there's no real consistency to when, the game doesn't feel systemic at all to me, which is a big drawback when you have so many goddamn systems.

What bothers me is that they have the framework in place to make pretty much the game of my dreams. And they keep hamstringing it.

Possibly my biggest issue with both AC games is that for some reason they keep crippling the gameplay to suit the shitty story they are intent on telling, seemingly with total disregard for player agency. I would still find it problematic even if the story was actually fantastic.

In what way? I find their systems inadequate to cope with the sheer content volume they seem to want to support, but what is it about the story specifically that limits the gameplay in a way that bothers you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finished Singularity last night. The story never grabbed me much through the game but I thought they way they did the ending was sort of cool.

I had fun playing it off and on, but it did really just confirm my existing distaste for fighting mutants in video games. I don't like fighting tough melee-focused leaping mutants, and I don't like fighting tiny little jerks that run up to you and explode. I never enjoy that.

Probably the biggest overarching problem with this game, though, is that they have a TON of separate mechanics you can use and yet they almost never work together in interesting ways. They all just have their totally separate function. Your wacky Time Hand does a ton of shit to enemies and the environment, but almost every one of those things is just used as the most efficient way to kill a particular enemy, or a way to quickly deal with a melee situation, or a way to open a door, or a way to find your way into a hidden place with a weapons cache. You're never really synthesizing all this stuff into an interesting, varied gameplay palette, it's just "press E here because you need to get past this fan," or "press Q here because you need to age these vines." Since all of the time interactions are just directly scripted in, and there's no real consistency to when, the game doesn't feel systemic at all to me, which is a big drawback when you have so many goddamn systems.

I totally agree with your last point and that's what sets Bioshock apart from Singularity, for me. While no game that I know of synthesizes all of the disparate elements in a web of different ways, Bioshock 1/2 make the biggest push towards that goal.

For the second point, I honestly find fighting mutants at least marginally more exciting than the standard fare in a game like Modern Warfare 2 or even slightly more intelligent guys in the first half of Crysis. The real median between those two and what I consider the AAA enemy type would be those from Gears of War or Halo, because there are a fairly small set of differing enemies that actually do have separate behaviors but overlapping abilities.

The Grunts, Jackals, and Elites can all fire a plasma pistol at me, but an Elite is more armored and can duck-roll, Jackals are only exposed at their backs and feet, and Grunts come in packs of several that can overrun you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I totally agree with your last point and that's what sets Bioshock apart from Singularity, for me. While no game that I know of synthesizes all of the disparate elements in a web of different ways, Bioshock 1/2 make the biggest push towards that goal.

For the second point, I honestly find fighting mutants at least marginally more exciting than the standard fare in a game like Modern Warfare 2 or even slightly more intelligent guys in the first half of Crysis. The real median between those two and what I consider the AAA enemy type would be those from Gears of War or Halo, because there are a fairly small set of differing enemies that actually do have separate behaviors but overlapping abilities.

The Grunts, Jackals, and Elites can all fire a plasma pistol at me, but an Elite is more armored and can duck-roll, Jackals are only exposed at their backs and feet, and Grunts come in packs of several that can overrun you.

Halo is one of the only games in which I enjoy fighting aliens. (I still DON'T enjoy fighting the mutant/zombie-like whatever-they're-called.) Not only that, it's probably my favorite overall combat in any shooter, at least in terms of the low-level tactical moment-to-moment feel. The weapon selection in that game is also unparalleled in my opinion when it comes to non-"real-world" weaponry; the variety and genuine utility of the radically different weapons really meshes well with the variety of the enemy behaviors.

If you can't pull that kind of variety off, and the core of your game is just going to be "shoot at guys with assault rifle/shotgun/sniper rifle," don't fucking make me flail around with obnoxious little explodey guys flying at my face or big dudes running up to me and clawing at me. Don't pretend I'm going to do anything else than just line up headshots as much as possible, because that's what the arsenal you've developed is actually for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Halo is one of the only games in which I enjoy fighting aliens. (I still DON'T enjoy fighting the mutant/zombie-like whatever-they're-called.) Not only that, it's probably my favorite overall combat in any shooter, at least in terms of the low-level tactical moment-to-moment feel. The weapon selection in that game is also unparalleled in my opinion when it comes to non-"real-world" weaponry; the variety and genuine utility of the radically different weapons really meshes well with the variety of the enemy behaviors.

If you can't pull that kind of variety off, and the core of your game is just going to be "shoot at guys with assault rifle/shotgun/sniper rifle," don't fucking make me flail around with obnoxious little explodey guys flying at my face or big dudes running up to me and clawing at me. Don't pretend I'm going to do anything else than just line up headshots as much as possible, because that's what the arsenal you've developed is actually for.

In relation to that, I know exactly what you mean Chris. Recently on the Bombcast, Jeff Gerstmann was talking about how he felt that "Headshots have ruined video games". It obviously wasn't as black and white as that, but allow me to expand with a personal explaination of how i feel, in relation to what you said.

I think locational damage is a good thing, to an extent. It makes games feel more realistic, because hey, if you shoot a guy in the head, his brain is there, and he dies. However, that leads to so many just...sloppy game design choices. I feel with something like (Excuse me) Bioshock, they supply you with a wide enough variety of choices, and ways in which to kill enemies that it's not a pain in the ass to experiment, and set up all these weird traps. But take something like...the new Splinter Cell game, or Metal Gear Solid 4. For games which focus on stealth based mechanics, with a lot of "Gadgetry"- Little robots, mines, grenades, and so on and so forth, essentially a lot of "Fun ways" to try and kill enemies, there's no real incentive to do it.

Why would I spend 5 minutes setting up an elaborate trap of barrels, breaking line of sights, and having 5 seconds of "Hey that was cool, I guess", when I can literally grab a rifle, with no relative falloff with bullets (Because games have magic infinite range bullets), and just shoot the dude in the head. In a way, this is what Gerstmann argues, just how basically as games have developed, it's easier and easier to just be like "Okay, I have a rifle, and I COULD make a weird trap...or I could just shoot him in the head".

Not to say it's entirely bad, headshots are cool. But when your game essentially becomes min/maxed down to "Hey, shoot these guys in the head", it kind of diminished any kind of new mechanic, or specific gameplay point kind of moot, because there's no player incentive for it.

Not played Singularity yet, but from what I've heard about it, the TMD shit sounds cool. I hope this post made sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way to fix this is to let the soldiers have helmets, so that you need two or more headshots to kill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way to fix this is to let the soldiers have helmets, so that you need two or more headshots to kill them.

Killzone 2 had that actually. You shot them once and their helmets pinged off. Then one more shot killed them. Weird game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you set up interesting combat encounters with cover (which doesn't mean you need a cover SYSTEM), lots of enemies, varied geometry, different behaviors, and so on. I mean, easier said than done, but the way to ensure your game is ruined by headshots is just to keep sending a few guys at you two by two, which is what Singularity often does. If you set up an arena where the player actually has to think tactically, even if it's just on instinct, he's not going to have the time or the security to sit there lining up headshots one by one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, you set up interesting combat encounters with cover (which doesn't mean you need a cover SYSTEM), lots of enemies, varied geometry, different behaviors, and so on. I mean, easier said than done, but the way to ensure your game is ruined by headshots is just to keep sending a few guys at you two by two, which is what Singularity often does. If you set up an arena where the player actually has to think tactically, even if it's just on instinct, he's not going to have the time or the security to sit there lining up headshots one by one.

I think with that, you have to be kind of careful that you don't make your game too formulaic by having a like "Here's the bit you can run to. Here's a sniper nest". I think it's a hard thing to make feel "Realistic", in regards to just believable human AI.

F.E.A.R was the first thing to make me REALLY get into the mechanics. Because the AI was so brilliant in its time, it really made you use the time freezing stuff, grenades, melee stuff, I found it really exciting how the game made you feel like YOU were the prey for the entire game, which was really cool as a player, because as you said, it puts the pressure on you and forces you to have more dynamic combat situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way? I find their systems inadequate to cope with the sheer content volume they seem to want to support, but what is it about the story specifically that limits the gameplay in a way that bothers you?

Ok a story. In the first assassins creed, on an early mission where I had yet to fully appreciate how they wanted me to play the game, I located the assassination target and scouted the surrounding area, removing guards along the outer perimeter and along my chosen escape route. Leaping from rooftop to rooftop, hanging from ledges to avoid guards' line of sight, climbing up and knifing them while their back was turned or dashing in close when their attention was elsewhere.

I then found doorway that I thought the target would emerge from and moved into place on the rooftop where I was out of sight from the guards on the ground but could see the door and could simply drop down on top of the target stab him in the face and leap back up the wall, running along my pre-cleared escape route.

Of course then I realised that the target wouldn't emerge from the door until the assassination event was triggered. So I inched closer and closer, still in cover, until I triggered the Assassination Area, but that only made the screen letterbox and pop up a message that I was in the right area. The actual target still wouldn't come. Abandoning my cover I moved closer and closer to no effect until I realised that the trigger volume was in the crowd. The crowd surrounded by guards, in a pit below the stage where the target would emerge. What. Ok so, I go there and the goddamn cutscene triggers and I can't even attack until the target is in the open with a dozen guards between the two of us. You know how this story ends. A huge battle to reach the target, a frantic escape along the streets and rooftops when I get bored of fighting the remaining guards, etc. This happened time after time until I learned to just give in and be passive and fight lame guard battles and not act like I'm, you know, and 'Assassin' or anything. The second game is no different, although to be fair, they do have a few assassinations that are a whole lot more fun to actually carry out, but it's the same basic problem.

So in my previous post, by 'framework' I mean they have a basic set of movement and semi-stealth combat mechanics that actually can support the kind of gameplay I want, but then they arbitrarily prevent you from deploying those mechanics in a way that makes sense within the context of the premise.

You are absolutely right in that there is a paucity of systems for a game of this length and the heuristics aren't perfect, sometimes misjudging what you want to do. Annoying, but whatever. The point is that they have the basic systems for an amazing high agency game and they don't expand on them, building supporting systems or setting up appropriate situations to use them in.

It devolves into lame battles because it forces situations in which a battle is inevitable. And they do it, as far as I can tell, solely because they want you in a good position to watch their sweet cutscene.

Edited by spindrift
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't mean to imply the story leading up to the ending was good, and then the ending ruined it. Pretty much everything about the story in these games is total garbage, except for the part how they're sort of set in historical settings unusual to games.

That's more or less what I meant. The entire thing is the worst sort of paperback tripe. The historical events sans the Animus nonsense? I'd love that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam and Max 303, Nelson Tethers: Puzzle Agent, Cryostasis, and Dragon Age: Awakenings. It's been a productive couple of weeks. Quick reviews:

Sam and Max: The weakest episode in the season, but still a damn fine adventure game. Worth playing for the opening section alone.

Nelson Tethers: Frustrating design at times, but so charming and funny that it more than makes up for it. Really hope the pilot is successful.

Cryostasis: One of the best games I've played in recent memory. Play this game, you owe it to yourself.

Awakenings: Interesting. A better story than DA:O, but the same gameplay. Very abrupt ending that left me a bit cold, but everything up to it was worth the time. If you enjoyed the original, it's worth a shot.

EDIT: 4 hours later, and that's another game done. Halo: ODST this time. I quite liked it, though it was a bit annoying when the game assumed that I had weapon "y" during a cutscene when I hadn't touched the damn thing all level. I absolutely loved the city bits between missions, some of them were downright terrifying. The missions themselves were actually kind of a relief. After the crazy stress of getting to one, running from hunters and patrols, just playing through a standard Halo level was like downtime. Less memorable, but if the entire game had been like the city sections, I probably would have had cardiac issues. The endgame was much less interesting, but I'm glad they're not bothering to put boss fights in Halo games so much any more. They always seemed so forced, especially as the draw of Halo combat is outwitting the enemy squads. Fighting one big powerful thing always felt like missing the point. That the endgame is just an extra big squad seemed right this time.

Anyway, that's 5 games finished in 8 days. I'm freaking killing it lately. Take that, backlog! I think I've been emboldened to go back and try to finish Fallout 3. I got to level 16 on the PS3 without even bothering to find Galaxy News Radio (the second or third mission out of the vault) simply by exploring like crazy and looking through side content. This time I'm going back to the beginning on PC and going to actually see what happens with the plot. It's a bit of a daunting task, and that game intimidates the hell out of me, but with that much of a dent put in my pile of shame, I feel up to a challenge.

Edited by miffy495

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: 4 hours later, and that's another game done. Halo: ODST this time. I quite liked it, though it was a bit annoying when the game assumed that I had weapon "y" during a cutscene when I hadn't touched the damn thing all level. I absolutely loved the city bits between missions, some of them were downright terrifying. The missions themselves were actually kind of a relief. After the crazy stress of getting to one, running from hunters and patrols, just playing through a standard Halo level was like downtime. Less memorable, but if the entire game had been like the city sections, I probably would have had cardiac issues. The endgame was much less interesting, but I'm glad they're not bothering to put boss fights in Halo games so much any more. They always seemed so forced, especially as the draw of Halo combat is outwitting the enemy squads. Fighting one big powerful thing always felt like missing the point. That the endgame is just an extra big squad seemed right this time.

Anyway, that's 5 games finished in 8 days. I'm freaking killing it lately. Take that, backlog! I think I've been emboldened to go back and try to finish Fallout 3. I got to level 16 on the PS3 without even bothering to find Galaxy News Radio (the second or third mission out of the vault) simply by exploring like crazy and looking through side content. This time I'm going back to the beginning on PC and going to actually see what happens with the plot. It's a bit of a daunting task, and that game intimidates the hell out of me, but with that much of a dent put in my pile of shame, I feel up to a challenge.

Man, totally agree with everyone you said about ODST. Different guns in cutscenes were annoying, the city was massively underrated, the ending was underwhelming though I was glad there was no "boss"... right on the money.

I'm getting to the same point as you with my backlog, though I haven't finished as many games. I'm looking at my pile of shame and seeing a handful of long ass games that I simply won't be able to get through fast... it's just a matter of picking one and going. The good thing about your choice of Fallout is that you can pretty much choose how long you want to spend with it. Burning through the main story could probably take you less than 10 hours, but you can obviously spend way longer if you so choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some spolerific remarks:

There's no final boss. I don't know if it happened because of the complaints of the first game, but it's kinda underwhelming to finish a game on a "horde mode", rather than a significant battle. I ALMOST died, only because I was fighting the brutes and alphas for 10 minutes, until I ran out of heath packs and decided to look at the objective and only then realized that I had to shoot 2 pipes and the game was over.

But it wasn't all that bad, I especially liked the part where you took the view of the little sister, that was A-MA-ZING. Seriously, after that it made all the sense in the world why the they behaved like they did. Kudos to the person responsible for the design of that part of the game

Excuse me for a bit as I might exaggerate to describe something impactful about Bioshock 2. Speaking as a 21-year old male going through college and anticipating a bleak future, for me Bioshock 2

softened a jaded cynicism that I've felt about real life. The Subject Delta in my mind was a world-weary Big Daddy who saw Rapture as a failed state. The three "good/evil" choices seem somewhat trivial since the Rapture ecosystem was eventually going to collapse. This eventuality combined with some latent amount of sympathy meant that I let everybody live, since I cared about eking an existence rather than power or revenge.

(Minor tangent: Gil Alexander was a tough decision to make with the incongruity between his spliced self and his recorded messages that pleaded for me to kill him.)

This changed towards the end section, starting with the incredible Little Sister moment that you mentioned. Seeing the world from a childs viewpoint as something beautiful reminded me about all the hopes and aspirations I used to have. Finding out that Eleanor idolized me was an epiphany. She was my shot at redemption after all the time I had wasted as a selfish despondent adult. I was incredibly thankful that she interpreted my actions as benevolent and would use them as a template for her new life. I felt great pity for Sophia Lamb, since she represented an ideology that I used to empathize with. In a way, I'd describe my thoughts about Eleanor as love. I really like the article that Michael Abbot wrote about Bioshock 2 and how it evoked feelings of fatherhood. I realize that plenty of people have played Bioshock 2 and haven't had this experience, but speaking personally my time with the game was pretty phenomenal and I hope I conveyed it somehow. The end sequence wasn't so much about shooting guys, it was about heading to the surface and seeing something good and pure result from a horrible environment.

Sorry for all this sappiness, I just got back from a family reunion and it reminded me a lot about Bioshock 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I gotta finish Bioshock 2. Throwing it on my mental pile of Steam games to get through before starting anything new. Right now, have about 4 missions left in Gay Tony, so going to try to wrap that up tonight. Status report on Fallout 3: have now gotten much further than I had before.

That is to say, I found my dad.

Kind of an early game thing, I know, but I'm still 6 levels below where I stopped playing on the PS3, so that should give you an idea of how much time I'd spent in the game without doing any main quests. Having a good time with it, coming way too close to death way to frequently. Making my way to Rivet city on two broken legs with 10 HP left was particularly draining on my stress levels. Like pretty much anything though, I'm refusing to fast travel. Somehow it always feels like missing the point of a game like this.

EDIT: Yup, that'll do it for Gay Tony. Throw another game on the pile, ma, I'm tearin' em up. Thoughts are in that thread. Next on 360: Brutal Legend.

Edited by miffy495

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man, I gotta finish Bioshock 2. Throwing it on my mental pile of Steam games to get through before starting anything new. Right now, have about 4 missions left in Gay Tony, so going to try to wrap that up tonight. Status report on Fallout 3: have now gotten much further than I had before.

That is to say, I found my dad.

Kind of an early game thing, I know, but I'm still 6 levels below where I stopped playing on the PS3, so that should give you an idea of how much time I'd spent in the game without doing any main quests. Having a good time with it, coming way too close to death way to frequently. Making my way to Rivet city on two broken legs with 10 HP left was particularly draining on my stress levels. Like pretty much anything though, I'm refusing to fast travel. Somehow it always feels like missing the point of a game like this.

EDIT: Yup, that'll do it for Gay Tony. Throw another game on the pile, ma, I'm tearin' em up. Thoughts are in that thread. Next on 360: Brutal Legend.

I'm still playing Fallout 3, too. I really want to complete it, but I just can't bring myself to do it. I few months back I went all out, playing it for nearly an entire weekend, and by the end, feeling as though I hadn't made much progress, I was utterly fed up with it. Not sure I can be bothered with any more 100 hour games :-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just battered Mr Sandman on Punch-Out, finishing the career mode.

Great game, made me feel young again. Challenging like all nintendo games are, but not unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metro 2033 is killing me. The world and production values are great, but the actual combat especially against mutants is just terrible. Now I'm stuck in a dark piece of the underground and people tell me to find a bomb and an airlock, but all I can find is some rails, some stairs, dark corridors and respawning mutants. Just not fun at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...It devolves into lame battles because it forces situations in which a battle is inevitable. And they do it, as far as I can tell, solely because they want you in a good position to watch their sweet cutscene.

I agree with you 100% and have ground my teeth at those moments that nullify player agency, but this doesn't actually have anything to do with the Assassin's Creed STORY. Here's the bit I bold in the vain fantasy that some developer's eye would drift over a forum page and something would click-

A game's cutscenes are not in any way, shape, or form it's "story".

Cutscenes are a vehicle you can use to drive a story somewhere, but even if you removed every single one of them from AC2, it'd still tell an (arguably less clear) story about a kid born into a family of assassins and caught up in a bullshit conspiracy that connects to the present day.

What you described is at the design junction of agency and systems, not systems and story, but that doesn't make it any less valid. The "fighting a bunch of dudes" system was indeed improved a bit in the sequel, but what they seem to be missing is that if they made it entirely optional, there's a pretty large group of gamers that would seriously get off on the idea of never having to use that system because they're so patient and careful as to never get caught up in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A game's cutscenes are not in any way, shape, or form it's "story".

In this particular case I think that the Assassins Creed series was deliberately made in such a way that the cutscenes really are the story. Sure, there is a separate, better, story that emerges from the environment & the players actions in the world. But I feel like Assassins Creed is blind to this. For Assassins Creed the story is the cutscenes. And every system in the game contorts itself to ensure that it doesn't interfere with the story (cutscene). Which I find immensely problematic.

anyways, I agree with you, but I suck at games nomenclature ;(

I also recently finished Battlefield Bad company 2, which suffers from similar issues (this post is totally on topic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also recently finished Battlefield Bad company 2, which suffers from similar issues (this post is totally on topic).

I was dumbfounded by the number of times BC2 just took control away from you for no reason. That, along with the really cheap enemy AI, was why I stopped playing.

Just finished up Sam and Max 303 for 304's release today. Like the rest of the season, I liked it a lot. Mechanics wise it's the same as 301, so it's not as good as 302, but it might have been my favorite narrative wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally beat American Mcgee's Alice, after 10 years…(well, basically, after a year and a half, because I re-installed and started playing the game again last February, I think, although I've actually played through the game in 6-7 takes, or to say, 6 or 7 days, throughout the course of that time).

Now…the game is really good. I especially liked the disturbing atmosphere which was largely helped by the even more distressing and disturbing soundtrack (by Chris Vrenna, former member of Nine Inch Nails), which I adore and couldn't stop listening to for a period of time last year.

So the atmosphere and the (somewhat) gory visuals and the soundtrack really are my kinda thing for this and have worked perfectly for me in this game, plus the mind baffling environments and the story side, along with the fact that

Alice is actually lying in a bed in an asylum, whilst all these crazy things are happening inside her head, so to beat the game she actually has to "find" herself inside her selfconscious depths and on the way, save Wonderland and battle the weird creatures and the bosses of the game, the red queen actually being herself.

The thing that extremely annoyed me is that the game design sometimes works against you… e.g. you jump off a ledge and land on the other side but the ground is all edgy and dicey (and sometimes…should I say - "slippery", for no obvious reason) so what happens is – you find yourself falling down chasms a lot (but still, the game was made in 2000 so the edginess of the environment is quite understandable). Besides, Alice's character is quite stiff so it's sometimes a problem steering her around chasms (and there are a LOT of chasms and narrow things you walk across in this game).

But what greatly helps here is the ability to quicksave at literally any moment of the game. So this immediately makes the game easier to some extent, because you don’t have to start from the last checkpoint and painstakingly go through a certain section of the game again, where you can accidentally die 150 times...again. Unless you forget to quicksave…that happened several times…lol.

One other thing that bothered me is the fact that some puzzles and certain parts in the game are just...well, annoying. E.g. lots of climbing on steep...things, and enemies suddenly appearing round the corner and sometimes you just can't dodge them so you fall down...When combined with the fact that the game design sometimes tends to fuck with your head, the result can often be that you just get overly annoyed and angry and you just quit (for the time being or in general. Maybe that's the reason it took me 10 years to beat this game).

But, all in all, it's a great game; for the most part, I really enjoyed playing it. And basically, it's fairly easy, enemies aren't too hard to beat (including bosses) when you figure out the system to beat them and the right weapon to kill them with. And when you don't mind falling a lot. :P

And now I'm eagerly awaiting the sequel, "Alice: Madness Returns".

Edited by tm_drummer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

July 2010:

Pixeljunk Shooter

Demon's Souls

Valkyria Chronicles

Punch-Out

Alien Swarm

InFamous

:violin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now