Translation: adventure games are hard, so screw it. (And speaking from WAY too much experience, this game is one of the easiest of the genre.)
The game is not a perfect product - even for a crowd-funded game, it feels small and cheap - but wow, poor Larry.
And for what it's worth, I liked the new content, although the perfume-creation puzzle would've been stronger if the game didn't need to explain it step-by-step for you in a magazine.
I've been making cracks about Sony's weird corporate crush on Page for months now; I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw the similarities. Even the vocal performance feels a bit like an homage.
@OldKye @Rottenwood Boycott? Please. This isn't your first time on the Internet; people are full of crap, doubly so at GameSpot. If it has games people want, they will line up to the trough like good piggies. They always do.
@Vickman178 @Rottenwood Because selling $60 items isn't the same as selling $10 items.
Video games are a unique beast - unique audience, prince point, media format... they're the perfect storm to get hosed by second-hand sales. A movie seen by 130 million people can eat some pirated DVDs; a game trying to move 500,000 units can't lose the same percentage.
@MAD_AI @Rottenwood Fair enough, but if I were Microsoft, I'd be plenty happy to have the sympathy of the publishers. Whether or not developers are getting boned isn't really their problem.
I don't have any numbers in front of me, but the second-hand market must be a huge non-profit line for the mega-publishers. They're going to eat this up with a spoon.
Actually, it's an interesting play. Developers have been begging for this sort of protection for years; now let's see if they put their money where their mouths are. If this encourages some powerful publishers to side with Microsoft, Sony will have to match firepower or be left holding the bag.
If I had a AAA game on the line, I'd know where I'd go. Let Sony be the hero of the people.
It was a fool's errand to put so much money into a new I.P. Even if they were playing the long game - being willing to break even or perhaps lose some cash to make dough off the sequels - they took way too big a risk with untested material. The fact that taxpayers are footing part of the bill is pretty damn galling. I get annoyed when I find out my tax dollars are going to unnecessary road signs; imagine how pissed people are knowing they were backing multi-millionaire Curt Schilling's stupid pipe dream.
The purpose of this review, as with most reviews, is to determine whether a game is worth the consumer's money. Said consumer might be curious to know if the Kinect implementation works well with Dragon's Lair, and apparently, it does not. Players who have never heard of Dragon's Lair before might also be curious to see if it's worth playing, and apparently, it is not.
It's easy to forget that a majority of 360 owners weren't even alive when this game first came out. They're not judging it as a curio; to them; it's a potential new purchase.
Who's gonna pay $60 up front and $15 a month to mash goblins at this point? The genre is beyond dead - companies are literally asking people money for the privelege of dead-eyed grinding and listening to 14 year-old wannabe comedians in the chat channels. Best of luck with that.
I played the demo and found it incredibly derivative and dull. As someone else in the thread said, it was well-produced mediocrity - that can work for AAA brands like Call Of Duty, but for a new I.P.? You have to do something special to get people to stray out of their comfort zone.
No idea why anyone thought it would be a good idea to spend so much taxpayer money on an unproven studio.
Rottenwood's comments