What is there to discuss if you can't even understand what hyperbole means? Having a strong opinion on something doesn't mean that whatever I say is hyperbolic.
It is. You are overreacting on how the game comes across to you to the point where the actual general consensus of
''its a decent game, totally 70/80 scores'' is seen by you as too lenient.
In reality it is actually a decent game, but its just not for you. There is nothing wrong with that, but you are of the argument that the game should score less and is not a decent game simply because
it isn't for you.
It would be a hyperbole if I exaggerated any of those problems within the game but I didn't.
Feel free to read back your own posts. Strong opinion would be one thing of it, but that isn't the full story.
Everything I say is literally what happened when I was playing it, and I merely expressed my frustration and disappointment by using some harsh language. Being frustrated isn't an emotion that's exclusive to children either so you can quit trying to insult me with this bullshit.
You are getting frustrated over a video game because it isn't your cup of tea, resorting to coarse, even harsh language to express this. Its a video game.
They often say children react better to problems than adults do and its actually the adults that react more childish. Not saying you do, but your choice of words definitely reminds me of it. Like i said, the game is just not for you.
Anyway, nothing you said was really that insightful or smart and you seem determined to misconstrue and nitpick my opinion about the game. It's okay if you disagree but if your idea of a "discussion" is to simply bash me for it and misuse big words that you probably thought would make you sound smarter than you really are, then I've no interest in an earnest conversation with you.
It wasn't meant to be either. You implied i should read your OP and so i did, highlighting what
to me comes across as hyperbolic, or needlessly strong. You seem to invest a lot more in the game than the game gives to you. Surely you can be dissatisfied with that but your choice of words suggests this rivers runs deeper than it by comparison should be.
I don't think people should completely trash these kinds of games as we need more of them in the industry. This game is kind of like how gaming was back around 2010-2011. Where devs would make random one off FPS games that weren't AAA but weren't complete shit either. Kind of like 007 Quantum of Solace or something like that for example.
This is basically where i stand so colour me surprised that
Drizzlehell
liked that post. Atomic Heart has flaws. But it is, quite literally , the epitomy of a 70-80 game.
Its also pretty par for the course when it comes to Russian/Ukrainian games. Back in 2005-2010, there were several ambitious titles from them (Such as Cryostasis: Sleep Of Reason, You Are Empty of Psychotoxic) that had big lofty goals but often fell a little flat. Atomic Heart feels like one of those games, but is that truly bad? I doubt it.
I know the term "overrated" is thrown around a lot these days, and it can be annoying. However, if there's one game released this year so far that truly deserves that label, it's this one, although not by a wide margin. This game is definitely not a 7.5/10 kind of experience but it's not straight up dogshit either.
Most games with this description befit a 70 or 75 and not a 5 or 50. Then again, there is this age old debate about objectivity and subjectivity, right?
The general consensus however, even in this very thread, point to a flawed game, but not a 50 game.
Its an
adequate title with Bioshock-lite references. However, for the best experience i would say wait till its half the price. Its worth that imo.
