To me, this game was a boring and long monstrocity of what could have been exciting role-playing story driven Star Wars action. One of the weaker games I've ever played.
Jedi Outcast for me, I've actually recently got KOTOR in a budget bin and it's not really my type of game I guess: the combat is dreadfully boring just click-wait-click-wait, the different planets all basically boil down to the same thing, the storyline isn't very deep but it tries to be and that's painful to go through, tacked on things like swoop bike races and pazaak should've just been left out or further refined and it's just so long, plenty of segments felt stretched out and instead of being a long lasting adventure it felt more like a long blurry slow paced click fest to me.
I'd have to agree with a previous poster, Gears titles are likely the worst offenders of them all. Unreal Tournament 3 was also entangled in its snare. They all look.. really, really good but - that's just for a screenshot. Playing these games in motion or even staring at them for more than a few minutes becomes straining to me.
Mirror's Edge is an extreme example of how not to be drab.
I think Source titles (Half-Life 2/Team Fortress 2/Left 4 Dead) hit a fairly good balance between the two extremes (Mirror's and Gears)
To be honest, Crysis is fairly short, I only got the hang of my nanosuit real good when the game was nearly over. It lends itself real well to replay the game at least once, once you've got the nanosuit fully under control.
Very weird one - the first play through I didn't even finish the game and generally was left very unimpressed. But a few months later I decided to install it again and give it another shot, and man, I just loved the bloody game right from the get-go!
The lowest denominator should bring scores down, not kept up as mere "if only they weren't there" ratings. Performance is one of the most important factors of a video game, I'm can't say personally since I don't own the game, but from what I've read it seems quite bad.
Log in to comment