Neuromancer said:Garnett you should really get on Crysis 2 in this upcoming summer gaming drought, I think you'd really dig it.
Yeah, marketing money.ChristianSpicer said:I think there is a difference between "better" and something I (or you or whomever) find "more fun."
I never played the first one either (got it on the 360). Which, if you compare it to other console shooters (i.e. CoD), the play spaces are nice and large at least.eznark said:Crysis 2 is such a massive and disappointing step back from the original that I have to wonder of Jeff ever had the opportunity to play the first? Crysis 2 by itself is a pretty decent shooter, but compared to the first Crysis it's a linear hallway shooter that punishes the player for exploration.
Neuromancer said:I never played the first one either (got it on the 360). Which, if you compare it to other console shooters (i.e. CoD), the play spaces are nice and large at least.
eznark said:Ah, yeah. The great thing about the first game is that you could attack every situation in a dozen ways. Because it was a PC game, you could quick save, do something awesome, then try it again in a different way. The rigid console-style checkpointing in Crysis 2 absolutely kills that.
It's a lot like Far Cry 2 which is an awful game on the consoles but an absolutely amazing experience on the PC. It's another way in which the technical shortcomings of a game truly hinder the experience of playing that game.
But I imagine if you go in without expectations Crysis 2 is an absolute breath of fresh air in the shooter space.
Rolf NB said:Yeah, marketing money.
Cole gets no loveChristianSpicer said:HA! I get the point and want to agree...but...that is not always the case. Heavy Rain is a game that I really liked for what it did/tried to do/attempt to push games forward but I think many games are more fun than it.
Still, driving around LA it is crazy how many LA Noire billboards/posters are still up. They spent bucks marketing the game for sure. And I haven't really seen any marketing for inFamous 2 at all, which is a shame.
eznark said:The world is intentionally un-realisitc. It's a comic book world. Would any person ever live in Gotham City? No, of course not, it's where every super villain congregates. Normal people would move.
Rockstar gets a pass for it's poor storytelling, awful pacing and diametrically opposed game world v. story world (I'm so conflicted about murder despite murdering thousands in that past ten minutes!) or mechanics being inconsistent with the story so they are dropped sometimes (RDR's dead eye) because it makes an effort to be grandiose. Game writers eat that shit up generally speaking. If you make an effort to tell a "good" story (even if that story is just something you've seen a dozen times on Law and Order or other cop serials...Heavy Rain) game writers tend to reward you if you pulled it off or not.
I think inFamous is more fun most definitely but also a flat better game because it accomplishes everything it sets out to do. It makes you feel like a super hero and lets you play through a ludicrous comic book story in a ludicrous comic book world. At no time is the story world broken so that you can play with your mechanics. When I injure civilians, I go heal them. If I don't, they die. If I kill enough of em, they boo me. In GTA 4 I'll murder people by the thousands but then feel bad when a gang banger kills himself because he is lonely. Give me a break.
Not really the same situation with those two games. Dan Houser wrote RDR and San Diego has been a part of Rockstar since 2003.Sceptic said:Funny that they didn't mention Rockstar when discussing the marketing on creator instead of franchise. Rockstar has lent their name to LA Noire and (arguably) to Red Dead Redemption to great success.
Lard said:Garnett Lee's assertion that "Japanese gaming is fixed because they make shooters now" in regards to Shadows of the Damned is the most fucking ridiculous thing I have heard in ages.
