Carlos de la Gamba reviews Sony's super hero sequel. Just how does it stand up to the first game and other sandbox games?
since when is a 7/10 bad
Its not bad so long as you think the game is average,most people think this game is at least good,which means it should be 8+. For me its the best game we have had this year so far,that will likley change but i expect it to be in the GOTY category if people are fair n impartial.
it averages 83/100 thats a great score, crysis 2, la noir and alot of others get 8's.
I have no problem with i2 getting a 7/10. It's the lowest score it deserves because Sucker Punch didn't really do anything new with the game.
I disagree with you. inFAMOUS had 2 or 3 big bosses and the rest were a couple of varieties of 3 factions. inFAMOUS 2 opened up a huge world of variety in terrain, combat rapidly was improved, melee was revamped, Karma and story direction was much more defined, bosses were out of this world, story was better, the implemations of user content added. This game is such a huge step up from the orignal. I think the wow factors were just a little worn off which gave some reviewers the leeway to bash it for minors. 7 is a good game, but I have played it and it's a 9. opinions tho.
The open world wasn't that big. I think i2 was smaller than the first game. While I agree with your points about karma and the story, I think SP could have atleast allowed Cole to enter buildings ( we've been doing that in GTA since the PS2 days ), climb/jump a bit more realisticly( like in Uncharted ), plus we're still doing the same thing we did in the first game, hunt down blast shards and collect dead drops. The game would have been a whole lot better, in my opinion, if they expanded the story across several cities, countries, like in Sly Cooper. Maybe next time.
I get your point. But if you think about it, most sequels follow their prequels formula. If Gears 1 and 2 rolled right into each other you wouldn't be able to tell where one game ended and the other one began. I think that it's pretty crappy to gig a game for following it's formula. Gears is a great series. I see it with PS3 games a lot. God of War III plays just like every other GOW, and that was a CON in many reviews when the entire series is so highly rated. GOW 3 really shines harder than any other one of it's series but gets a negative mark for that. Following formula is fine. LBP, Halo, Uncharted, Zelda. They follow a formula that defines their series and I think to gig Zelda for having another Water Temple is unfair because those are the things that define the series. Like how you always get a Biggs, Wedge, and Cid in every Final Fantasy. Defining attributes of the game. Of course milking is not cool and a game sequel shouldn't be a remake of the orignal. I think Crackdown 2 was a bad example of a sequel since it really was not original and basically was Crackdown with minor improvements and new missions. On a completely off remark, I am excited to see PREY 2, just because it is nothing like Prey at all. Almost like starting a new series.
I found it much more refreshing and funner than the first game, it was just more bright and after a bit of getting used to it also felt better to me. Also @MaideninBlack's original comment "Sucker Punch didn't really do anything new with the game." Many sequels don't do all that much NEW, just improve and add a couple of features, it whats Infamous 2 did. I wouldn't want it to drastically change.
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.