Deadly Creatures IGN Review is up

Depends on the person I suppose. I won't pay $50 for a 10 hour game, but I'll pay $20 for a 2 hour movie. Movies that I like, I'll watch repeatedly, but I rarely replay a game, which over time makes the value of the movie much higher. Kinda seems backwards I guess...

EDIT: I think I also find movies to be a 'deeper' entertainment. With games there's almost always something you have to overlook, framerate, bugs, clipping, bad voice acting...always something to distract you from the experience. But high budget hollywood movies can be done amost perfectly. Deadly Creatures seems to have a few of these issues.

presto7640

Naw, I think this is a classic case of cognitive dissonance! You recognise that it's backwards, but you're trying to find ways to justify your assumptions and behaviour (as in, show them to be rational.)

But I'm sure I don't need to point out to a movie buff like yourself that Hollywood movies ALWAYS contain bloopers, continuity problems, plot holes, and instances of jumping the shark. Dialogue can be weak, acting can be so poor that it's distracting, and yes, even in big-budget movies... actually, especially in them.

Putting "deep" and "Hollywood movies" in the same paragraph makes just about as much sense putting "smart" and "sea slug" together, unless there's a "NOT" somewhere in between to intervene!

As for why you watch movies repeatedly but rarely replay a game, I am going to guess that this can be attributed to there being a ton of games that interest you whereas there are not as many movies that interest you. Therefore, when you decide to watch a movie, you're more likely to go with something you've already experienced, whereas you don't feel you have time to return to games you've already played because there's always new stuff that you just have to play.

[QUOTE="presto7640"]Depends on the person I suppose. I won't pay $50 for a 10 hour game, but I'll pay $20 for a 2 hour movie. Movies that I like, I'll watch repeatedly, but I rarely replay a game, which over time makes the value of the movie much higher. Kinda seems backwards I guess...

EDIT: I think I also find movies to be a 'deeper' entertainment. With games there's almost always something you have to overlook, framerate, bugs, clipping, bad voice acting...always something to distract you from the experience. But high budget hollywood movies can be done amost perfectly. Deadly Creatures seems to have a few of these issues.

clicketyclick

Naw, I think this is a classic case of cognitive dissonance! You recognise that it's backwards, but you're trying to find ways to justify your assumptions and behaviour (as in, show them to be rational.)

But I'm sure I don't need to point out to a movie buff like yourself that Hollywood movies ALWAYS contain bloopers, continuity problems, plot holes, and instances of jumping the shark. Dialogue can be weak, acting can be so poor that it's distracting, and yes, even in big-budget movies... actually, especially in them.

Putting "deep" and "Hollywood movies" in the same paragraph makes just about as much sense putting "smart" and "sea slug" together, unless there's a "NOT" somewhere in between to intervene!

As for why you watch movies repeatedly but rarely replay a game, I am going to guess that this can be attributed to there being a ton of games that interest you whereas there are not as many movies that interest you. Therefore, when you decide to watch a movie, you're more likely to go with something you've already experienced, whereas you don't feel you have time to return to games you've already played because there's always new stuff that you just have to play.

lol, well I guess I didn't really mean 'deep' in the sense of a great original story or something like that, but better 'depth' of entertainment value, if that makes any sense. The lighting, sound effects, and other technical sides of movie making are down to a science, whereas in video games we still get problems with third person camera. The same problems that have been around for years. Basically, the flaws in movies are much less distracting to me than flaws in games.

Actually I find most games to be disappointing, and that's why I don't replay them. I guess I'm just a much harsher game critic than movie critic :)

EDIT: I think I also find movies to be a 'deeper' entertainment. With games there's almost always something you have to overlook, framerate, bugs, clipping, bad voice acting...always something to distract you from the experience. But high budget hollywood movies can be done amost perfectly. Deadly Creatures seems to have a few of these issues.

Naw, I think this is a classic case of cognitive dissonance! You recognise that it's backwards, but you're trying to find ways to justify your assumptions and behaviour (as in, show them to be rational.)

But I'm sure I don't need to point out to a movie buff like yourself that Hollywood movies ALWAYS contain bloopers, continuity problems, plot holes, and instances of jumping the shark. Dialogue can be weak, acting can be so poor that it's distracting, and yes, even in big-budget movies... actually, especially in them.

Putting "deep" and "Hollywood movies" in the same paragraph makes just about as much sense putting "smart" and "sea slug" together, unless there's a "NOT" somewhere in between to intervene!

As for why you watch movies repeatedly but rarely replay a game, I am going to guess that this can be attributed to there being a ton of games that interest you whereas there are not as many movies that interest you. Therefore, when you decide to watch a movie, you're more likely to go with something you've already experienced, whereas you don't feel you have time to return to games you've already played because there's always new stuff that you just have to play.

lol, well I guess I didn't really mean 'deep' in the sense of a great original story or something like that, but better 'depth' of entertainment value, if that makes any sense. The lighting, sound effects, and other technical sides of movie making are down to a science, whereas in video games we still get problems with third person camera. The same problems that have been around for years. Basically, the flaws in movies are much less distracting to me than flaws in games.

Actually I find most games to be disappointing, and that's why I don't replay them. I guess I'm just a much harsher game critic than movie critic :)

lol, well I guess I didn't really mean 'deep' in the sense of a great original story or something like that, but better 'depth' of entertainment value, if that makes any sense. The lighting, sound effects, and other technical sides of movie making are down to a science, whereas in video games we still get problems with third person camera. The same problems that have been around for years. Basically, the flaws in movies are much less distracting to me than flaws in games.

Actually I find most games to be disappointing, and that's why I don't replay them. I guess I'm just a much harsher game critic than movie critic :)

presto7640

Hah, that could be it. Everyone sorta is an armchair video game developer when they play games, and I do find it harder to criticise movies. I guess it's because games don't take themselves - and aren't taken - as seriously as movies are.I wonder why it is that games aren't as immersive as movies, despite you actually getting to "act" in plot with a game. Is it really just down to technical issues? If that's so, then it won't always be the case that movies have more entertainment value.

Unlike you though, I never buy movies. I rent them. On the other hand, I never rent movies. I only buy them. But I think overall movies and games share the same property of having greater value for your entertainment dollar than other things, which is why during recessions, the movie industry and video game industry see rises in profits. People go to the movies for a distraction, and buy video games and movies because they provide a lot of entertainment time for a relatively little amount of money.

But now I think I have taken things off-topic at this point, so to prevent moderation, I'll say that while I wasn't originally interested in Deadly Creatures because I hate spiders, watching the video review made me consider it. It looks really good. I heard though that there's a lot of cussing in it...

I don't like to re-play games that are extremely story driven either for pretty much the same reasons -- once the story is complete, you know what happens. My favorite games don't rely on a story, which gives the game great replay value (i.e. Battlefield, Battlefront, and RPG's that are done the way they are supposed to be done -- some people call this WRPG). I guess I just like games where you have some control over story so it can be re-written the next time you play.psychobrew

LOL! But I think you've got it right. On reflection, the games that I replay are either open-ended so that they never really end and you can craft your own experience, or they are games that have multiple, branching pathways that end up leading to significantly different endings or significantly gameplay experiences. But on the other hand, I get bored of games that have little in the way of plot and variety like Mario games and Nintendogs.

It's interesting that you've latched onto the movie analogy when discussing a game that is all about the story telling aspect of the game. It's trying to tell the story from a unique perspective - think Memento as an example.

I also believe that movies are easier to re-watch because they ONLY demand what 90/180/240minuets of your time at maximum. Any video game especially one 10 hours in length requires a considerable more investment in your time to get the most out of it.

I also think an 8.0 is a great score for a first time outing, was half expecting the same problems Mushroom Men had but it seems they've got over them.

Oh and Madworld has clipping it's evident in the Video from the NYCC 2009 you can see a tyre wrap itself around Jack and the guy he sticks it over are you all going to moan about that one as well?

It's here at 2:06

It's interesting that you've latched onto the movie analogy when discussing a game that is all about the story telling aspect of the game. It's trying to tell the story from a unique perspective - think Memento as an example.

I also believe that movies are easier to re-watch because they ONLY demand what 90/180/240minuets of your time at maximum. Any video game especially one 10 hours in length requires a considerable more investment in your time to get the most out of it.

I also think an 8.0 is a great score for a first time outing, was half expecting the same problems Mushroom Men had but it seems they've got over them.

Oh and Madworld has clipping it's evident in the Video from the NYCC 2009 you can see a tyre wrap itself around Jack and the guy he sticks it over are you all going to moan about that one as well?

It's here at 2:06

Nomad0404

If it's too short ;)

Look I'm not bashing the game, the review looks pretty good really, better than I had expected. And an 8.0 is very resptectable. But, to me, these short games are getting too common and my wallet has to draw the line somewhere. I'll be much more interested somewhere down the road when the price drops. But that's just my opinion, I certainly don't want to discourage anyone else!

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]no multiplayer? Jaysonguy

What does multiplayer have to do with anything?

You finish a game and you buy a new one, why on Earth does everything have to have multiplayer these days?

[QUOTE="evrdayblues"][QUOTE="-wildflower-"]Am I the only one who finds it completely ridiculous to bash a game over ONE review. Maybe the IGN review is spot on or maybe it's not. The point is, at this point in time nobody knows how good or bad this game is so calling it "unfinished" a disappointment or whatever based on a single person's opinion is just plain silly and poor logic.clicketyclick

well I read 10hours and said oh no..

I read "another could have being great if they finished it" and I had my doubt...

then I watch the clip... ....

did I watch the wrong review??

Because for what I heard for that link, the game is fun, would give you great "character" to play, which are smooth to control ("resposive controllers" ), the story is good, good voice acting, great animation and graphic design. Lvl really detailed...

Yes it does have some bugs, the framerate can be laggy in few occassions/loading of 5 sec and it could have being longer. But lets face it ask so much of the Wii would cost. And what happen with just appreciating a game without expecting to last 40h to see the end.

I once in while appreciated this games, where I do not need 1 week vacation to have the time to play them. I honestely miss the days where gamers were less demanding with games. I do like the great "blow my mind" game of now at days, but a couple of this is not actually bad and is refreshing.

So you want to say CONS, mention the bugs, the frame or some small glitch with the camara (the review did not seem to think they were a big issue) but for the love of God, 10h is not bad and this was NEVER a multiplayer.

See you... enjoy gaming...

PS. that said, I do not think I`ll support the game, in the sense that I normally buy USED. But maybe.. :P

EDIT: BTW: it also have some unlockable which are always a lil nice extra ...

FROM IGN written review:

Gameplay
Really fun action-adventure with tight controls and a balanced mix of character upgrades and exploration. You won't want to stop playing, even with some technical bugs

Lasting Appeal
There's no multiplayer mode of any kind and the single-player adventure has run its course in fewer than 10 hours. Adept players will complete it much quicker. Some unlockables to come back for.

and teh graphics, sound and presentation were rank quite nice. 8-8.5

Six pages and noone here has obviously followed this game for awhile.

If you did someone would've pointed out to Jason Furball that they game wasn't rushed. It was planned for a preChristmas release and they said screw it we can't develop it right in that time frame and delayed it for TWO months.

That's good enough. The rushing commentary from the review was about how the storyline wrapped up. Take a step back and ask yourself have you ever read a movie reviews where the crtiics felt the story was rushed but you felt the story worked out when you watched the movie yourself? If occassionally yes then disregard the rushing statements.

The framerate issues are unfortunate. Even House of the Dead pushing the machines capabilities is being reported to having frame rate issues. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues with other graphically intense games like Monster Hunter 3 and Conduit. For the time being you have to ask yourself if dropping from 30 to 20 fps when 4 enemies get on screen is going to bother you. Has it bothered you enough in past games to write them off as terrible experiences?

Lastly I'm surprised no one mused over the reviews comments that it played like the original Metroid. That games a classic but when you know what you are doing can be beaten in an hour. It certainly was worth its $50 back then. It's ujnclear if Deadly Creatures would be just as fun because you have to play it to be sure but the game does look neat to begin with.

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"][QUOTE="evrdayblues"] Yup. People are crazy like that nowadays... And on top of that, the off topic discussion about movie tickets and dvds needs to end...evrdayblues

[QUOTE="Longcat2"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

What does multiplayer have to do with anything?

You finish a game and you buy a new one, why on Earth does everything have to have multiplayer these days?

santiagochile

Thats like asking why are you so cynical. Seriously, literally every single one of your posts is negative. Your bad energy is affecting the forums. Go ahead. Report this post and ignore me like you always do.

I'm with Jaysonguy

You want a game to play the main story

(I'm not saying that I don't like multiplayer)

It's a crime to refuse a game because he hasn't multiplayer

Six pages and noone here has obviously followed this game for awhile.

If you did someone would've pointed out to Jason Furball that they game wasn't rushed. It was planned for a preChristmas release and they said screw it we can't develop it right in that time frame and delayed it for TWO months.

That's good enough. The rushing commentary from the review was about how the storyline wrapped up. Take a step back and ask yourself have you ever read a movie reviews where the crtiics felt the story was rushed but you felt the story worked out when you watched the movie yourself? If occassionally yes then disregard the rushing statements.

The framerate issues are unfortunate. Even House of the Dead pushing the machines capabilities is being reported to having frame rate issues. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues with other graphically intense games like Monster Hunter 3 and Conduit. For the time being you have to ask yourself if dropping from 30 to 20 fps when 4 enemies get on screen is going to bother you. Has it bothered you enough in past games to write them off as terrible experiences?

Lastly I'm surprised no one mused over the reviews comments that it played like the original Metroid. That games a classic but when you know what you are doing can be beaten in an hour. It certainly was worth its $50 back then. It's ujnclear if Deadly Creatures would be just as fun because you have to play it to be sure but the game does look neat to begin with.

mutantmagnet

Has anyone had a chance to play it yet? I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive... :)evrdayblues

Amazon apparently decided to be jerks so I won't be getting mine until the 12th.

[QUOTE="evrdayblues"]Has anyone had a chance to play it yet? I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive... :)GabuEx

Amazon apparently decided to be jerks so I won't be getting mine until the 12th.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="evrdayblues"]Has anyone had a chance to play it yet? I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive... :)evrdayblues

Amazon apparently decided to be jerks so I won't be getting mine until the 12th.

[QUOTE="evrdayblues"]Same here. So nobody played it yet?clicketyclick

So far, it's a lot of fun. The environments are the highlight, looking at them is awesome, exploring them is fun. I've died several times, which means it's not too easy but not at all frustrating. I already know that I'm going to go back and play through each mission again after I've beaten the game, since there are areas that I couldn't reach initially because I hadn't unlocked the abilities to. Combat gets more fun as you find stronger enemies and unlock more creative ways to kill them.

Yeah, I'd say it's a good game.