Rubbish. He is spot on. Sure, your weapons grow stronger with VTOLs and Jetbikes in the end, but it's not like a Saints Crusader doesn't do the job properly. You don't even need other guns apart from the dual wield magnums. Disguising acitivities as missions was another folly attempt, as is the entire beginning where everything is so wacky that the other 70% of the game fails to make any sort of impact.
Sensory overload is at the heart of this game, and the pacing of the entire thing is hurting because of it.
I think SR2 did some things better (one of which was the customization) but the production value was far to low for me to enjoy the simple gameplay.Watching it now, but it seems to be a recurring theme in the OT for people who played SR2 to be disappointed in the sequel. I'm glad I played it first, it's a phenomenal game in its own right but it never feels good to see a bunch of stuff you enjoyed from a previous game totally removed in the sequel.
I read in an interview that some devs went through player data and found that a surprising number of people barely even bother to do the story missions in sandbox games, so giving players a lot of toys at the start was probably a smart move.You don't have everything from the get-go, in fact, just a lot of stuff. As crazy as predator drones are, they're kind of tame compared to the airstrike ability you get later on in the game. The only reason you'd complain that SR3 gives you everything from the get-go is because you don't know what everything is.
There are things to complain about in SR3, but I really don't think pacing is one of them.
(Also, you do have the entire city unlocked from the beginning, but with the GPS systems these games have it's not like you can get lost at all, so that's a non-issue.)
Now I don't want it any more. Giant Bomb builds it up, Yahtzee and Dina knock it down. YOU'RE TEARING ME APART.
The main thing people are progressing towards in SR3 are the no damage upgrades anyway. At which point it won't matter what weapons you use really. It makes the side activities a ton easier.I read in an interview that some devs went through player data and found that a surprising number of people barely even bother to do the story missions in sandbox games, so giving players a lot of toys at the start was probably a smart move.
I've never ever heard two worse ways to gauge the quality of videogames sheesh. I'm sure you're joking but you never know.
Well, at least you have no qualms with Dina.
Now I don't want it any more. Giant Bomb builds it up, Yahtzee and Dina knock it down. YOU'RE TEARING ME APART.
Now I don't want it any more. Giant Bomb builds it up, Yahtzee and Dina knock it down. YOU'RE TEARING ME APART.
edit: again with the mentioning of little me. whatdidido
There also his bit about theI don't want to make it sound like an accusation by any means, but Yahtzee notoriously doesn't finish a number of games he reviews. This review kind of had me wondering how far he actually got in the game because it doesn't really seem like he has much of any substance to say beyond the early sections of the game.
Like...obsessing over the character creator.
There also his bit about the, as you get introduced to that via a story mission and thus there IS rationale from that angle.driving around a tiger
I guess that's the alternative explanation then, because I never got that message.Professor Genki is also introduced this way. You get a call from Pierce. Except if you did the first Professor Genki before that mission, the game skips it.
I think it's a matter of style, really.
Yeah, it depends on the game, definitely. But the post we were talking about said every game of the sort should be like this.
It might be good for st row but this should nothappen in others open world games.
Assassin's Creed 1 was not a good game.Yahtzee lukewarm towards the sequel to a good game? Man, that has only happened with pretty much every sequel he has reviewed except for Assassins Creed 2.
Assassin's Creed 1 was not a good game.
Nah, it was pretty good. I played the PC version though.
IMO the Assassins Creed games didn't really improve that much, the core is still the same thing, they just added more fluff around it with every game.
Assassin's Creed 1 was not a good game.
Perhaps, but it had class in its story that the sequels then pissed on.
Nah, it was pretty good. I played the PC version though.
IMO the Assassins Creed games didn't really improve that much, the core is still the same thing, they just added more fluff around it with every game.
And on that topic, Yahtzee reviews Assassin's Creed Revelations.
Assassin's Creed 1 was not a good game.
No.From the beginning I thought that AC was a game with huge potential, but suffering from big flaws. The sequels mainly removed the flaws and revealed the potential. So the core is the same indeed, the developers only managed to make it more enjoyable.
Correct. It was a great game.
No.
The core of the game is not at all the same. Assassin's Creed 1 is a linear objective based game. All the sequels are sandbox games. So whatever potential that was revealed in 2 was not there in 1 in the first place. The essence of the game is not the same, and whether it's more or less enjoyable is not really comparable because both games are entertaining for entirely different reasons.
Correct. It was a great game.
Well that part isn't true either because the controls got changed up in every sequel. There was an essence and a vision in the first game that defined what it was and for better or worse every sequel moved further and further away from it.but you're still pushing the same buttons to trigger the same kind of moves.
Oh god...this is going to hurt...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/5148-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Skyward-Sword
EDIT: Yup, knew it, looks like he got the timing of the combat wrong and wrote it up to inaccuracy. I knew that was going to bite Nintendo in the ass
Some legitimate-ish points in there, but, as is normal for Yahtzee, they're overstressed. And, of course, the motion controls could have been the finest, most intuitive controls ever crafted for a game (they aren't, but whatever), Yahtzee would have still disliked them.
He's a funny, acerbic guy, and I have a certain amount of respect for his opinions, but it can never be claimed that Yahtzee is a fair critic of games.
Are you honestly telling me that some people still don't understand that Yahtzee is a joke persona who isn't meant to be taken seriously?
Are you honestly telling me that some people still don't understand that Yahtzee is a joke persona who isn't meant to be taken seriously?