thelurkinghorror said:
Dead Island [3]
This is lack of respect. Hundreds of peoples invest their life in a big project and a "respected" magazine suddenly decides to kill all hopes. There's no excuse.
I've read all your posts, but this is the one I'll quote.
I understand that its disappointing for a game to receive a poor score after people have invested a lot of time in it, I get it. But effort only gets you so far. A teacher is not going to give you a pass based on effort alone, your marked on the final product. Under your logic, everyone who at least tried a bit at university deserves a degree at the end of it. It's not how it works, you have to push forward to the final product.
I doubt it was the artists fault, or even the programmers. But at some point during Dead Islands development, a decision was made to get the game out before it was ready. The review build was buggy as hell, and journalists don't have to give an allowance for it. Post launch patches to make the game function properly is now considered normal, but it doesn't mean it excuses the poor state of the game when its left QA.Edge generally don't like lazy gameplay and lazy decisions, i.e a ton of repetition. A 3 is fine considering the source.
In all fairness, I don't think the game was terrible, but it wasn't amazing either. I guess I'm just tired of zombie games, as they generally have poor AI to go with them. Mowing down fields of AI creatures got boring after L4D for me, but I know a lot of people love it and thats fine, but don't look at a magazine at Edge and expect them to review a game you like positively just because a lot of people worked hard on it. Otherwise you'd expect "Insert Movie Game here" to get 8 just because it had a staff of over 400 at one point to get it out the door.
