Get over the numerical value. Read the review and see what you can get from it, if it sounds like it's better than a 7.5 from what you read, then perhaps you will find it to be a better game than Tom.
Infamous 2 did deserve a 7.5 (maybe an 8, actually) imo. After playing it, I can clearly see where that score came from. It boils down to this: the game didn't address issues from the first, the morality system (a core mechanic) is WORSE than it was in the original, new issues have been created, and the game simply did not take any steps forward with core gameplay mechanics. New powers? Cool, but that's just content, not a mechanic being added to or built upon. 2 years (or more) in development and the combat hasn't been improved at all, the platforming still has annoying aspects to it and hasn't been improved, the morality system got worse and they added nothing new or notable to the game in terms of core mechanics. That deserves a 9? No. Look at the Assassins Creed series; AC2 was a step up from the original in EVERY way. They added an economy, the combat was revamped, the mission design/level design was revamped and the repetitionremoved, the platforming was refined, and then on top of those advancements, they added TONS of new content. Infamous 2 is a good game, but it is not superb or excellent by any stretch. It's Infamous 1 with better graphics, slightly better technicals and new things to play with. That is not superb in any way, shape or form. Maybe if the story/plot of this series was exceptional or noteworthy, that kind of meager "improvement" from one entry to the next would be acceptable, but this story, just like the first's, is somewhat predictable and just not all that inspired or interesting.
A 7.5 is a good score, so why complain? The game has been marked as GOOD, so there's really no reason to. People would complain just as much if it got an 8.5, because, oh no, that's .5 lower than the original, which this game is supposedly "better" than. Play the game, if it's better to you, then okay, that's awesome. When the majority of you haven't even played the game yet, it's just somewhat ridiculous that you are all crying over its score. A demo can only tell you so much about a game, so don't bother saying you've played that.
I'm happy Tom took a stand and gave this game the score he thought it deserved from his experience, instead of playing into the hype. I wish he reviewed everything because then the CoD games wouldn't get 9.0s with every entry in the series.
Ask yourself this: Would you rather have him give this game a 9.0, buy it and then feel like it wasn't "superb" or "excellent" and as if it had many flaws? Or would you rather him give it a 7.5, buy it and be pleasantly surprised because you thought it was better than what a 7.5 entitles?
I also love how no one is pulling out the "You can't spell ignorant without IGN" phrase even though their review of this game was vague, unprofessional and overall just very weak. Why? Because they gave it a 9.0 and are helping all the fanboys justify their overhyping of a game, which they haven'tevenplayed.
GS users disappoint me sometimes.
Log in to comment