Stallion Free said:
and no one liked the combat. And a metacritic in the 70's is the very essence of mediocre.
Mhhh, i'd say that it's not that simple.
The problem with the combat is not in the concept, but in the software. Actually, the concept is great, it's just that the technology doesn't always follow along.
The concept behind the combat shows that, no matter what happens and no matter what weapons you have at disposal, stealth and\or a careful strategic approach should always be the priority. This is made pretty obvious by the fact that all the weapons can be powerful, but noone is powerful enough to wipe 10 people\monsters out in a spree. Take the auto-shotgun for example. It reloads in 3 different ways. You can put a quick shell in it, you can put 5 shells if it's empty, but if you have 4 shells in it, you can load it up to 6 shells - as you'll need 2 shells to kill someone\thing, the 6 shells load up is the best, but sometimes you miss the target, and you won't be always able to load 6 shells in it - if you load 5 shells, you'll have to decide between keeping the shotgun loaded that way (and you'll know it won't be enough to kill 3 monsters that usually come in packs of 3 or more), or waste a shell to load it up with 6. It's a very smart way of conceiving a weapon that will end up being a tool for survival rather than a tool of destruction. You'll feel never reassured, never safe, never empowered enough for what's waiting ahead. You're surviving, you deal reactive violence.
The problem is, that the software doesn't follow the quality of the concept: monsters don't show any feedback when attacked (no animations of them being hit and suffering), and when you hit them they will attack you anyway, sometimes they will even jump through you, forcing you to turn in panic and shoot blindly.
Also: FUCK METACRITIC. Reviewers are mostly pathetic nerds with pissed pants and horrible tastes and their scores are their products - that site should just be banned here.
