I just finished this today. Couple of valid points here, like the silly traversing of distance, the limited safehouses (hey, rescue 2 folks and don't take them to the nearest safehouse but the next farthest. Oh, for S&G we up the traffic of idiot drivers too).
Finish the game and they notch up the difficulty on the EDF (WTF is it with those white outfits!). Make sure you finish the guerilla missions before you finish the game...otherwise, they are like hornets!
BTW, the only real psser is the LONG load times, so don't die. (like in that tank and armor is almost out, you hit "Y" and too late... YOU DIED!!!
First appearance the game struck me more as a commie fighting capitalist suppressors kinda spiel. I didn't get the Iraqi freedom fighter feel from the cover.
Red Faction
Guy Runs around hammer in tow
Battling Mining Company
Has Socialist, Union sympathiser all over it. Whatever, if the game rocks WOOT! Have to see if its got a demo on Live.
Multiplayer coop would have made this game more than just great, it would have made it an experience to remember. As it is, it's fun as hell, but I doubt I'll remember much of it in the coming years.
As it is though, I still love you, Volition, and give you 1000+ points to your awesome stats for the Freespace reference in the achievements.
I have to say I fall firmly into the disappointed category. The overarching concept, of provoking emotion from a digital interactive art piece is great, but the execution was quite poor.
Overall I feel the artist failed at expressing the message they wanted, mostly due to the constraints that making an interactive experience carry with it.
Visually, they did an admirable making a relatively beautiful scene with an older engine, but the fact of the matter is, every background element in that entire level could have been pre-rendered video that simply plays as the character changes in position.
I simply couldn't take the visuals seriously; it would be like trying to paint the Mona Lisa on a piece of cardboard. Unless the point you were trying to make has something to do with the medium used, there is no excuse for making a visually inferior product.
The controls, they simply break the experience. The first thing I did was try to walk down the path to the right. At which point the camera stopped following me, I couldn't see my character in order to turn around, my frustration was rising and my suspension of disbelief was fading. The experience was short and linear, how hard would it have been to ensure that things like that wouldn't happen.
In context of an interactive environment I don't think the concept is particularly strong either. Why do you need to be in control of this old woman to empathize with her? Would a short film not have been a stronger medium? It's not as if player choice has any impact on the outcome of the piece.
Well, I guess it all boils down to me wanting to like this piece because the idea of interactive art (not in the cheesy 1970s kind of way) has always interested me. Unfortunetly the artists failed in so many ways that I can't find much redeeming about the piece, whether it's reviewed against it's equivalents in the fine arts world, or against video games.
"I simply couldn't take the visuals seriously; it would be like trying to paint the Mona Lisa on a piece of cardboard."
I'm sure it may have been painted on some hi-art cardboard if they had that sort of thing during the renaissance. Instead, it's painted on a plank of wood.
I hate to sound like a troll, but I think they took the message too far, and neglected the actual game aspect, and yet, people are applauding it for this. People gave MGS4 an immeasurable amount of bullshit for this, with it's rather meaty cut scenes, But MGS4 actually had fun and interesting gameplay. Now something that takes the flaw of putting the message before the "fun" has been made, and the majority of people are vehemently defending it.
I have to wonder why this is, perhaps people don't consider it a game, more of an "interactive" painting; or maybe people feel special playing a "game" that focuses so heavily on a meaningful message, and they want to justify their special, intellectual feeling.
Essentially, What I"m asking is how someone can berate a game (MGS4) for something, and then turn around to applaud and defend another game for the exact same thing.
@Green-E66: While I can't speak for everyone, I am willing to bet that a lot of people defending this "game" are doing it more-so because they feel it gives them a sense of superiority. Whenever something abstract, whether it was well executed or not, is displayed, there will be people who'll defend it, claiming to see something deeper inside of it. Whether there was ever anything deeper there or not. Just think of art connoisseurs that will go into a long winded explanation on why a tin can on a stick is a actually an abstract display of life, death, the soul, and all the true answer to life. Even if the artist only meant for it to be a can on a stick.
If they see something that no one else does, it makes them feel "superior" to the lowly ones that don't see it.
Calling people who defend something you find boring snobs is kind of cliche.
You may as well accuse them of wearing monocles and smoking jackets, laughing at FPS-playing plebeians from their 12-bedroom marble-accented mansions while sipping champagne, listening to Vivaldi and discussing Manet.
Video GAME. GAME damn it, game! Yeah, I'm sure that I'd have a blast running around a black and white cemetary as an old lady.
Games should be fun, bottom line. To imply that a gamer who expects fun out of a game is at the bottom rung of "civilisation" (good job with spelling, by the way) is outrageous.
If they honestly thought this would be successful, they were delusional.
Speak for yourself. I enjoyed it quite a bit, GAME or not.
A game doesn't have to be enjoyable based on graphics. Text Adventures proved that. A game doesn't have to be enjoyable based on gameplay. The shitty games we played in the NES days proved that. A game doesn't have to be enjoyable because of story. Look at the current trend.
But a game, to be enjoyable, just has to entertain thoughts in your head. For some, this does. Therefore, fun.
And Im fucking 100 percent positive that Van Gogh and Einstein and Socrates and so on and so on set out to be 'successful' to a major audience. Im fairly sure they did it because they wanted to, and believed in it.
Besides.
"Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible."
Now sit down and go back to using ****'s for your swearing, making dbz references and continuing to enlighten the internet with your close minded opinion.
@SuperCracker: I think that trying to shoehorn every work of interactive entertainment into the label "game" is a mistake. For example, can something without a win condition be fairly called a game? Also, things can be enjoyable, entertaining, and worthwhile without being "fun," per se.
Despite the fact that games are supposed to be interactive, many gamers still seem to be incredibly passive when it comes to the meaning of their entertainment. They expect to be spoonfed and don't seem to have any experience with literature, modern theater or fine art (or even art films) which require active participation, not just of thumbs and index fingers but also of heart and brain.
That's always the way it's been. That's why movies like Transformers (which I love, btw) makes over 708 million dollars worldwide but There Will Be Blood only made about a tenth of that. Very rarely does entertainment come along that blends the two so flawlessly like The Dark Knight, or Bioshock in gaming. I've never heard of this game, but now I am completely intrigued.
06/27/09
Finish the game and they notch up the difficulty on the EDF (WTF is it with those white outfits!). Make sure you finish the guerilla missions before you finish the game...otherwise, they are like hornets!
BTW, the only real psser is the LONG load times, so don't die. (like in that tank and armor is almost out, you hit "Y" and too late... YOU DIED!!!
06/27/09
06/26/09
Red Faction
Guy Runs around hammer in tow
Battling Mining Company
Has Socialist, Union sympathiser all over it. Whatever, if the game rocks WOOT! Have to see if its got a demo on Live.
06/26/09
As it is though, I still love you, Volition, and give you 1000+ points to your awesome stats for the Freespace reference in the achievements.
06/26/09
Was kind of underwhelmed by the demo, but that doesn't mean I won't pick it up and enjoy the heck out of it someday.
That said, I really wish the color palette had been a little more attractive. Damn it, Mars.
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
[www.youtube.com]
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
Worth the triple post
Worth the triple post
Worth the triple post
06/26/09
06/26/09
11/29/08
Overall I feel the artist failed at expressing the message they wanted, mostly due to the constraints that making an interactive experience carry with it.
Visually, they did an admirable making a relatively beautiful scene with an older engine, but the fact of the matter is, every background element in that entire level could have been pre-rendered video that simply plays as the character changes in position.
I simply couldn't take the visuals seriously; it would be like trying to paint the Mona Lisa on a piece of cardboard. Unless the point you were trying to make has something to do with the medium used, there is no excuse for making a visually inferior product.
The controls, they simply break the experience. The first thing I did was try to walk down the path to the right. At which point the camera stopped following me, I couldn't see my character in order to turn around, my frustration was rising and my suspension of disbelief was fading. The experience was short and linear, how hard would it have been to ensure that things like that wouldn't happen.
In context of an interactive environment I don't think the concept is particularly strong either. Why do you need to be in control of this old woman to empathize with her? Would a short film not have been a stronger medium? It's not as if player choice has any impact on the outcome of the piece.
Well, I guess it all boils down to me wanting to like this piece because the idea of interactive art (not in the cheesy 1970s kind of way) has always interested me. Unfortunetly the artists failed in so many ways that I can't find much redeeming about the piece, whether it's reviewed against it's equivalents in the fine arts world, or against video games.
11/29/08
"I simply couldn't take the visuals seriously; it would be like trying to paint the Mona Lisa on a piece of cardboard."
I'm sure it may have been painted on some hi-art cardboard if they had that sort of thing during the renaissance. Instead, it's painted on a plank of wood.
11/29/08
I have to wonder why this is, perhaps people don't consider it a game, more of an "interactive" painting; or maybe people feel special playing a "game" that focuses so heavily on a meaningful message, and they want to justify their special, intellectual feeling.
Essentially, What I"m asking is how someone can berate a game (MGS4) for something, and then turn around to applaud and defend another game for the exact same thing.
11/29/08
If they see something that no one else does, it makes them feel "superior" to the lowly ones that don't see it.
11/29/08
Calling people who defend something you find boring snobs is kind of cliche.
You may as well accuse them of wearing monocles and smoking jackets, laughing at FPS-playing plebeians from their 12-bedroom marble-accented mansions while sipping champagne, listening to Vivaldi and discussing Manet.
11/29/08
11/29/08
Games should be fun, bottom line. To imply that a gamer who expects fun out of a game is at the bottom rung of "civilisation" (good job with spelling, by the way) is outrageous.
If they honestly thought this would be successful, they were delusional.
11/29/08
Speak for yourself. I enjoyed it quite a bit, GAME or not.
A game doesn't have to be enjoyable based on graphics. Text Adventures proved that. A game doesn't have to be enjoyable based on gameplay. The shitty games we played in the NES days proved that. A game doesn't have to be enjoyable because of story. Look at the current trend.
But a game, to be enjoyable, just has to entertain thoughts in your head. For some, this does. Therefore, fun.
And Im fucking 100 percent positive that Van Gogh and Einstein and Socrates and so on and so on set out to be 'successful' to a major audience. Im fairly sure they did it because they wanted to, and believed in it.
Besides.
"Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible."
Now sit down and go back to using ****'s for your swearing, making dbz references and continuing to enlighten the internet with your close minded opinion.
11/29/08
11/29/08
"To imply that a gamer who expects fun out of a game is at the bottom rung of "civilisation" (good job with spelling, by the way) is outrageous."
Oh, the irony.
11/29/08
That's always the way it's been. That's why movies like Transformers (which I love, btw) makes over 708 million dollars worldwide but There Will Be Blood only made about a tenth of that. Very rarely does entertainment come along that blends the two so flawlessly like The Dark Knight, or Bioshock in gaming. I've never heard of this game, but now I am completely intrigued.