Re: Gamespot gives Full Spectrum Warrior a 7.7
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
Every campaign mission is basically a completely flat, linear obstacle course of sorts in which enemies will routinely pop up and start firing on you using small arms and, occasionally, frag grenades or rocket-propelled grenades.
Ouch.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
To be fair, that is the nature of combat..
You avoid getting shot, and shoot at opponents in the hopes of killing them.
I am not sure what else he wanted.. Did he expect the locals to invite him to a pick up game of hoops in a side-street between fights?
Basically, you locate the enemy, find cover, and then strategize to kill them before they kill you.
To me, it sounds like he is looking for a different type of game than Full Spectrum Warrior.
His gripe is like saying NBA Live is a mediocre game because all you do is run up and down the court for 4 quarters, shooting a small ball at a larger hoop.
The nature of combat should not be a negative of a game. If you break anything down to a minute level, it is going to seem mundane, even stupid; so I don't agree with his point at all.
In the training mission alone, you do more than just trade volleys with enemies. I've called in a mortar strike, rescued a wounded soldier, and successfully flanked an enemy so that while he fired on Alpha, Bravo shot him in the back.
To make the argument that he does, he seems to have entered the game with pre-conceived notions of what he expected, and when he got something different, he blamed the game and not his skewed expectations.
Once again, the game is a war simulation. In war, you hide behind cover, and you strategize to kill the enemy. So, yes, if you take it down to a bare bones level, you are going through an obstacle course and dodging bullets, while shooting at enemies..
Either way, FSW simulates it well, and I don't consider that to be a negative thing at all.
I read this guy also reviewed Riddick, and I am going to do some assuming myself, and assume he enjoys FPS's and their pace more than he does FSW and a slower, strategizing game. Furthermore, the fact that he reviewed FSW after playing and reviewing a faster paced and more action-oriented Riddick, and the fact that he gave it such a glowing review, makes it clear to me that he likes that genre a lot more than the genre FSW is a part of.
I didn't read anything in his Riddick review about it being a game where you just run around aimlessly shooting different looking monsters, looking for doors, and occasionally buying a pack of cigarettes.
Therefore, I consider his opinion to be skewed, and he isn't giving FSW a fair shot. If he has to resort to breaking the game down to the bare bones structure of urban combat, then that says to me that the game does a great job of recreating it. If he doesn't like that, then it isn't for him; but that doesn't mean it isn't for everyone.
I would ask him one question.. And that would be, what more does he want? Maybe he would like to be able to have mini-games that allow you to play hoops with the friendly locals, and wash their cars for extra munitions, but unless he states this, and how the game could have been improved, it's just sour grapes to me.
You don't have to like a game, but when you are writing a review that many people will read and respect, it helps to present valid arguments and gripes, and not complaints that address the nature of reality, and not the game itself.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
Every campaign mission is basically a completely flat, linear obstacle course of sorts in which enemies will routinely pop up and start firing on you using small arms and, occasionally, frag grenades or rocket-propelled grenades.
Ouch.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
To be fair, that is the nature of combat..
You avoid getting shot, and shoot at opponents in the hopes of killing them.
I am not sure what else he wanted.. Did he expect the locals to invite him to a pick up game of hoops in a side-street between fights?
Basically, you locate the enemy, find cover, and then strategize to kill them before they kill you.
To me, it sounds like he is looking for a different type of game than Full Spectrum Warrior.
His gripe is like saying NBA Live is a mediocre game because all you do is run up and down the court for 4 quarters, shooting a small ball at a larger hoop.
The nature of combat should not be a negative of a game. If you break anything down to a minute level, it is going to seem mundane, even stupid; so I don't agree with his point at all.
In the training mission alone, you do more than just trade volleys with enemies. I've called in a mortar strike, rescued a wounded soldier, and successfully flanked an enemy so that while he fired on Alpha, Bravo shot him in the back.
To make the argument that he does, he seems to have entered the game with pre-conceived notions of what he expected, and when he got something different, he blamed the game and not his skewed expectations.
Once again, the game is a war simulation. In war, you hide behind cover, and you strategize to kill the enemy. So, yes, if you take it down to a bare bones level, you are going through an obstacle course and dodging bullets, while shooting at enemies..
Either way, FSW simulates it well, and I don't consider that to be a negative thing at all.
I read this guy also reviewed Riddick, and I am going to do some assuming myself, and assume he enjoys FPS's and their pace more than he does FSW and a slower, strategizing game. Furthermore, the fact that he reviewed FSW after playing and reviewing a faster paced and more action-oriented Riddick, and the fact that he gave it such a glowing review, makes it clear to me that he likes that genre a lot more than the genre FSW is a part of.
I didn't read anything in his Riddick review about it being a game where you just run around aimlessly shooting different looking monsters, looking for doors, and occasionally buying a pack of cigarettes.
Therefore, I consider his opinion to be skewed, and he isn't giving FSW a fair shot. If he has to resort to breaking the game down to the bare bones structure of urban combat, then that says to me that the game does a great job of recreating it. If he doesn't like that, then it isn't for him; but that doesn't mean it isn't for everyone.
I would ask him one question.. And that would be, what more does he want? Maybe he would like to be able to have mini-games that allow you to play hoops with the friendly locals, and wash their cars for extra munitions, but unless he states this, and how the game could have been improved, it's just sour grapes to me.
You don't have to like a game, but when you are writing a review that many people will read and respect, it helps to present valid arguments and gripes, and not complaints that address the nature of reality, and not the game itself.
Comment