IGXpro writes:
We all do it: we see a game that’s by a company with a bad reputation, or that’s a sequel to something we didn’t like, and we assume it’s a piece of garbage. We mock it or ignore it, and never actually play it. Sometimes this is justified, but sometimes these assumptions cause us to miss out on a game that is actually genuinely good.
But there's a major difference between watching a "so bad" film and PLAYING through lengthy sequences with clunky controls. It's a one note comedy to have poor controls, and when they last several hours...you have a bad GAME.
"We've all seen the horror movies that end up being hilarious, it doesn't make them less horror, it just means the hilarity is the quality that made you enjoy the movie"
-
The gap between poor quality horror that makes you laugh and 'intentionally' clunky game controls and crappy gameplay is MAAAAAAAAAASSIVE.
I've watched a couple of gameplay vids and it does seem a bit nutty, but in a good way.
yeah i wonder that too
All has to do with that specific sense of style that oozes throughout the entire game.
York, by the way, is a boss.
But I do enjoy The Chronicles of Riddick movie.
Seeing as Michael Lacerna is very prejudiced the article makes sense.
I only doubt the game because the characters slide all over the plac and it was not a PS3 exclusive HAHA
In other words, film has a long history to look at for comparison as to what makes a good film, while game reviews are, for the most part, entirely opinion based. This means that unless you have the exact same opinion as the game reviewer you're reading, which really isn't likely, then their opinion should really mean nothing to you.
Also Crackdown was one of the first games I got on my 360 and I enjoyed every second of it, beat it completely even collected every single orb! Loads of freedom in that game.