A lukewarm review - to say the least - of Capcom and Spark Unlimited's new Lost Planet sequel.
Nope, Resident Evil 6 take the spot.
That's a real shame, I quite enjoyed the first one. The 2nd one was just not great, but it looked like they might be on the right track in bringing this franchise back from lameness, I guess they messed up. Real shame.
No. That "honor" belongs to Dragon Age II.
not bad for $10 usd
In no way am I trying to defend this game, since the second I saw the main character, the changes to the overall game design, and the actual developer on hand had me pretty much turned off to the game from the get-go. With that said I have to call these "journalists" out for some rather inconsistent criticisms. First up is the declaration of the game being like Dead Space 3, which I find jarring since a lot of people compared Dead Space 3 to Lost Planet for the snow planet setting. If they are talking aesthetically that the game looks like Dead Space 3 then, in a sense, it is closely resembling the aesthetic setting of Lost Planet. Derp! Now the blatant copying of certain elements like the holographic menu, the hacking mini-games, and the boss battles I'll give to them, but if it works and doesn't affect the game in a negative way then why is that so bad? Many games copy or "pay homage" to other works and it works. Shoot, God of War takes elements found in both Onimusha (orbs) and Devil May Cry but still isn't a knock on the game by professional critics. Second, around the 2:27 mark he calls this a "generic shooter" which at times I cringe when I hear that since there is never a relative comparison made as to what they're comparing the shooter to that isn't generic. He also points out at 3:51 that the shooting is "all generic as hell but works well"...so it isn't bad or is it? At some point there's a fundamental mechanic to shooters that all 3rd person shooter games adhere to, so why does "generic as all hell" and "works well" seem so contradictory? Here's where things get really bizarre, at 10:58 the guy who said he hated how generic the shooting was now claims that the shooting was one of the elements he now liked about the game... "To move the man and shoot the things was fine, it was better than it is in most of these type of games." A jigga-what!?
Third, is the T.Energy comments. Um, I don't know if they just didn't do their research or if they're actually half-retarded but Thermal Energy was always the resource that played a big role in the Lost Planet universe. Yes, it was a valuable commodity that pirates would fight for and yes it acted as a mechanic that allowed for health and regenerative properties. You needed it to stay alive in the "harsh conditions". So, why is it so complicated for these guys to understand why it acts as health and currency? It's just a super "gamey" gameplay mechanic. How is that such a huge area for negative criticism? Fourth point brings me to Multiplayer, which was "alright" since you are "just shooting things"...ok... Surprisingly, the other guy loved it saying he played it almost as long (4 hours) as he did the campaign. He further claimed that it's like a "faster gears of war", leading me to question once again how generic is the shooting mechanics if it's compared to a game that's supposedly the standard for third person shooters? I'm not going to say that some of their complaints weren't valid like the frame rate dips, the inconsistency of artistic design, etc. However, for the sake of journalistic integrity and being informative to an audience needing information in order to help them make a purchasing decision, some of these criticisms flip-flop so much while being saturated in subjective view points. I'll leave you with this, at 11:57 the guy says and I quote, "...Don't play that, it's terrible. I mean, but it isn't, like...I'd never recommend it to anyone but it's not like it's not so bad. I've played some, I've played way worse games." So, what, it's not bad compared to "bad games", it's generic shooting but it's also what you really liked about the game? I'm confused and this my friends is why there needs to be a reform within gaming media and "reviewers". A review is not an opinion, it's supposed to be an objective critique that uses facts and examples along with juxtapositions which inform an audience on whether to purchase a product immediately or at all. I'm just asking for a little more research to be done when critiquing a game and trying to be way more objective professionally when analyzing/reviewing a game. ...and yea yea, I know I'm going to get hit with the "Too long, didn't read" shpeel, but I couldn't sit by seeing people just lap this up and influence their purchasing decision without further seeking out more information or calling these guys out.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.