Huh?
I do not think anybody was replying to you, PA. I certainly was not; my post was in reply to "Reactor."
And "Reactor" trashes me while giving little value to HL and Q1???I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, what do I
not have an opinion on after all :o, but I
hate the "No. You are dumb." types of replies/thoughts.
Otherwiser, some random points:
- I am not writing a full-on review of a game - never have, never will. It reall is just what occurs to me in the short bit I write a post. Likewise, I look at a wide range of things: the game, the game relative to its field, the game relative to what it should be/claims to be. As noted before, I think gaming has the potential to be the absolute, final medium for entertainment and I have very high regards for it. I am looking at games from a perspective of these combined things and it is also how I can sit there and get into inifite details about it, but still love/hate a game and play it/not play it.
- In this case, I veered almost completely into the "How does it feel as I am playing it at this very moment" perspective. I was not "seraching" for stuff, but it is all stuff I noticed. I have referenced things like sky boxes and animation when discussing other games. Obviously, I do not note the general stuff, but I do note stuff I find particularly good or bad. Note, too, these are not constant - even if a game is profound in one aspect, I may especially note the one really bad bit because it stands out all that much more and vice versa.
- I do not think games are ever truly bad/truly great, but a combination of factors. For me, it really is how something "feels" to me and is a combination of things, a collection of my experiences. Who cares if one small thing is particularly good/bad? Now, when lots and lots of things end up veering one way or direction, I do then start formulating a feeling. I am not disliking a game solely because of its skybox - who gives a shit about just one thing? But when my feeling of a game's quality has veered toward one direction, this time toward a generic negative, it was because of a number of factors. If anything, I think this is more "true" representation than anything else. "THIS GAME WAS BAD BECAUSE OF THIS ONE THING" - that seems really stupid to me. Now, a game not being good overall because item A, thing B, location C, aspect D, system E, process F, and so forth...that, for me, is what makes a game good/bad.
- I do concede that things seemed really off from what I had seen and heard early on, but how many damn times did I epxress a desire to play a demo and not being sure? That is the same scenario - lots of things are building up toward a certain direction, but not enough or I knew/played too little to be sure or I might have been completely wrong. Even in that circumstance, I was leaning toward another D3 type game, a game with some great polish and graphics (style aside,) but fairly lifeless and a bit disrespectful to its origin franchise. And yet...I was literally shocked because it was not even to that level. As ever, at least as presented in the demo. There might be more to the game, I do know more than a few people have posted here or contacted me elsewhere than the latter part of the game does improve, but I have only this to base my conclusions upon. For that, I can only wonder. After all, this is what the developer chose to show me as the epitome of its game. If we want to make the "They just grabbed one level" argument, I point to Monolith and F.E.A.R., actually making a demo comprising different aspects of many levels. I do have reviews to fall back on as well, but a number of those have referenced shortcomings, not excelling at any one aspect relative to the field, being a generic, competent shooter, etc.
- Right or wrong, I am very surprised to see id, Raven, and Quake go this route.
Blah blah blah...I am looking at a wide range of things. For all the items I listed, they do
not all carry equal weight. There are some aspects I am particularly worried about (combat, story, uniqueness) and there are many other smaller things that just rubbed me the wrong way or built up to give me the negative conclusion and lead to a questioning of being a console port or the original intent of design.
Everybody, do feel free to argue or disagree, but don't just write people off. Otherwise, please explain my perspective and do not make the assumptions that a poor texture of cables has anywhere near as much weight as weak, simplistic combat does. I did have concerns about the game, but was not sure, repeatedly fretted over the GoGamer deal (ask Dagok how long I quizzed him about Q4 while contemplating that over
X3,) and frequently requested a demo. If anything, I think people
should try the game. But for the people that do enjoy Q4 on any/various levels, I would highly suggest they buy many other games first:
Thief,
Deus Ex,
Call of Duty,
Half-Life,
Serious Sam,
Medal of Honor,
No One Lives Forever, the
Doom collection,
F.E.A.R.,
Far Cry,
Will Rock,
Painkiller, etc.
Nobody is wrong for liking games of different types, with inherent flaws, challenges to entry, or their own preference. Hell, I play and love things like
Myst and
YoHoHo! Puzzles Pirates, do I not? Heck, I enjoy the shitty golf game on my cell phone!
Truly believing gaming can be the greatest medium evAr,
Ray
-----
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMardenhttp://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=ray_mardenhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/raymarden/I love you, mom.
Everything is awesome!!!
http://www.kindafunny.com/I love you, mom.