@foxrock66 Which are fantastic games. Well, Meatboy is; haven't played Fez. I'm not saying a game MUST have top-notch graphics to be fantastic. It all depends on the game. Some games succeed on creativity alone, or comedy, or what have you. Others are a concerted attempt to offer a realistic experience, or an altered reality. In those games, graphics absolutely matter.
I'm not the biggest shooter fan, but the games are undeniably solid. They're perhaps not the *BEST* shooters out there, but they're definitely B+ or above in my book.
Also, I love that Yerli actually makes the distinction I argue so often with people. Artistic style IS subjective; technical graphics are, for the most part, not. Crysis 2 is a better looking console game than 99% of the stuff out there.
Finally, to those arguing graphics are not important, enjoy playing Pong for all of eternity. Gameplay comes first, but to claim graphics aren't part of the progressive move towards immersion in gaming is just asinine.
I agree to an extent. LOVED AC1; absoutely phenomenal game. AC2 had some promise, but the fact that it was like...4 months into the game, and BASIC CHAT still didn't work reliably...in an MMO? That's pretty hard to overlook.
Two companies that literally cannot help themselves from recycling the same IPs over and over and over. But then, if consumers want to keep paying for the same product, I don't blame the companies.
@Reuwsaat I have to say that's incredibly insightful. It just occurs to me that most of the games I adore have fallen in the 8.5 range as well (Uncharted series excepted) and probably for the reasons you mentioned. Good post, kudos.
It's not terrible as a score but it IS terrible for BL2. This game is a ridiculous amount of fun, and underrated like its predecessor. I don't generally buy into the stereotype that big game review sites hand free passes to established franchises while glossing over independent talent, but this one has me on the fence. Like Wolverine, Borderlands is the best at what it does. The humor, the gameplay, the loot - all top notch. I love the game, but even if I didn't I think that just by objective comparison to other shooters this one deserves an extra boost for setting itself apart in such a distinctive, enjoyable way. Really, just look at the negatives. Sometimes spoken dialogue interrupts itself, and ONE special ability fails to be particularly distinctive. Those must be the weakest negatives I've read in several years of reviews.
@Raeldor Not true. That's a claim that gets frequently mentioned, and it's incorrect. I no longer have the desire to pour through posts on the Amalur forums, but the company did not need 3 million copies to break even as far as KoA was concerned; the financial trouble came from lack of investor support, not because the game underperformed.
@Tzardok I'm sort of in the same boat. The last FF I played was XII, but I'm pretty sick of the genre, as I feel it hasn't changed much in the last decade. I was one of the minority that actually appreciated the changes XII tried to bring to the table, even if it did feel a little too MMOish for my taste. XIII had me excited for about one hour of playtime (of my friend's copy) and then it just fell flat. I know many people liked it, which is fine. I found it tedious and totally uninteresting. Versus LOOKS like it returns to the things I enjoyed about oldschool Square. As you said, it seems darker and it has me intrigued.
However, the proof is in the product. We'll see if this is just clever marketing, or if the company can actually deliver. I actually feel sorry for Squeenix at this point, because I think many people have designated this the "last shot" for the developer to prove it's still relevant and hasn't entirely failed to progress with the modern gaming market. I don't think they ever intended this game to be such a critical and deciding factor for the future of their company, but that's what it's come to be.
ProjektInsanity's comments