I honestly don't see why people find this woman attractive. She's just too..manly. I see her face and think "transvestite". Also I can't think of a movie where she wasn't playing a cliched super heroine. Seriously what do people find appealing about this woman?
@AerintheGREAT: Sure, my post was all about mocking small breasts and I'm a jerk, thanks for clearing that up... Damn, the internet sure is a dumb place.
*sigh*
@Archaotic: So all you want from a film is "Beeeg American teetees?"
Seriously, ragging on the films because you hate that it doesn't stay cannon, or because you think that the dialogue is atrocious (which in my opinion is pretty canonical) is one thing. But to write off the movies because the leading lady isn't some bimbo with massive norks is...disappointing.
I thought more of my fellow Kotakuites I really did.
Personally, I like Jovovich and I like the Resi movies. They're a bit of harmless fun. For me, RE films are to Shawshank as Streetfighter is to Ico.
@ThursdayNext: yeah man i agree. internet jerks..writing off the movie coz she aint got massive tits. well said. if your going to say its shit...pick something other than the leading lady not having tits as your platform for an arguement. please.
It's like he's making films at a breakneck pace just to keep up with his wife's work tempo just so she won't work underneath another director, realize he's sort of a hack, and leave him.
I really, really, really hope Dead Space 2 doesn't become too diluted of a sequel since Glen Schofield left for Activision. I know it's just one man gone from the team, but he played such an influential role in Dead Space's creation. #horror
I am a huge fan of survival horror games because by their very nature they almost have to play with interesting issues like the incarnation of the characters (in the most etymological sense: their flesh), fantasies, psychosis, etc. Yet, where Pachter see a boom, I see a bust. The last survival horror game worthy of interest was Siren: Blood Curse / New Translation (more than a year ago) and it was probably the worst in the serie. Before that we need to go as far back as 2005 with the amazing Fatal Frame / Project Zero 3: The Tormented.
But - who knows? - maybe that Silent Hill remake will not completely shatter our memories and Alan Wake will manage to both get released and not blow...
@Phaper: One of the best games I played this generation, along with Arkham Asylum. The gameplay is very polished and immersive. Definitely recommended, and I don't even like horror games. #horror
@Showmeyomoves!: Another vote of `go buy it` for yout list Phaper. It was a great ride while it lasted, and of all the games in my collection it is still the one I look at and think `WHOA... that was wild...` Puts the other wanna-be survival horror franchises to shame really. #horror
Then you didn't play Left 4 Dead the first two weeks the game was out with three other people who were as clueless about where to go and what to do as you were.
Until we got it down to a science and made it routine, running and gunning through the levels, it was scary as FUCK and it was not uncommon to hear your friends scream like little girls into the headsets or panicked 'Save me save me save me save me!' as a hunter was eating you. #horror
"GAME IS ONLY 8-13 HOURS... RENTAL" don't be so ridiculous. How long does the original Mario take you? 15 minutes? How the hell does time have to do with whether you should own a game or not? I suppose if you knew how to write a sentence explaining all your points, you could have avoided making it look like your #1 reason for it being a rental is time. The definition of a rental is a game that isn't worthy of being in a collection. Not because it's eight hours long. Think of how many games you've played and own that aren't even five hours long. Oh wait, that's right, by your standards that'd be none. Maybe writing reviews just isn't for you. Maybe your next one can have a paragraph about how the prices and length of movies are comparable to games in some way that you come up with.
@Shawnrw222: I agree with time complaints. Really, back in the NES days, you could finish a game in one sitting. Sometimes it took many tries because of difficulty, but once you gained experience you could breeze it. Some of my favorite games are on the NES, like the original NG trilogy, Zelda 2, Cv 1-3, and yet most of these can be finished in a day and thats being generous. You still paid $40 to $50 for these back then, so I don't see why its a big problem these days. You could replay those games, too, but they'll play the same exact way every time. Just like many today.
Man, I tell you, sometimes on my first trek through a game today takes hours and hours, since I like to explore every nook and cranny. On a second play through, I usually think, man, what the hell took so long? Throwing caution to the wind and just playing usually speeds that up in a lot of slower paced games like Demon's Souls and Uncharted:DF. I sunk many hours into my first play of Dead Space and BioShock, and on subsequent play throughs finished em up pretty fast. All those games are certainly worth owning. Heavenly Sword gets a lot of complaints about length, but it was the perfect length, and a great experience. Reminiscent of days of old, like Ninja Gaiden.
The only games that should require many hours are RPG games, but what can you say about that? Grinding, farming, starting off weak and working to godhood. Sometimes it becomes extreme repetition, especially when you have to work off weak enemies before you can tackle stronger ones. None of that truly makes sense in other types of games, action games where the main character is already skilled and should beat ass without thinking of it, or survival horror on a second play through when the fear and ignorance of what will come is no longer a factor.
What should qualify as a rental is a game the reviewer is on the fence about. A game that has problems, yet is still found enjoyable, one you should decide whether or not you can tolerate its faults enough to purchase or just say nay. Length should never be a factor. #saw
@Shawnrw222: It's not just about length, it's also about replayability.
Games in the past were very short, for sure, but they were also much more replayable than most games these days. If you can get the full experience of a game in less than 10 hours, why would you pay full price? Especially if the game, like this one, isn't very good to begin with.
Batman: Arkham Asylum is a game that, while short, I could still see having in ones collection simply because its a well put together game and I could see replaying it sometime down the road. Saw? I just don't see it having much in the way of making me want to replay it.
@the7k: I understand the replayability part of it, but at the same time, even then people are stingy. No game should last more than 15 hours unless it's an RPG. That's not fun. I don't want to jump platforms and shoot things in ONE STORY for 15 hours. 10 hours is the ideal time for a single player game. I suppose it really does come down to genre, but even then, people tend to use this argument everywhere. Dead Space was another perfect example. The game didn't break the 8 or 9 hour mark for me, but guess what? I played through it twice, and even bought that extra powerful DLC gun just to see how much fun I could have with it. EVERY game should have replayability, that why I accept that part. Mirror's Edge is only 5 hours long tops, but I've put over 50 hours into it and the time trial mode... but even then I like the length of it.
I'm also a firm believer that 30 hours is the best time spot for an RPG as well, but I seem to be in the minority in every aspect. Oh well. #saw
@Shawnrw222: As long as a game can keep momentum going, it can be as long or as short as it wants to be. Demon's Souls has had more time put into in than any other game I've played this gen, but that's fine - I've enjoyed it every bit of the way.
It's when games try to be long for the sake of being long that I have issue with. Most RPGs are guilty of this - forced grinding, fetch quests and other silliness is bringing the genre down, all because they want to put "80+ hours of gameplay!" on the box. Many other games are guilty of this as well, and from what this review says in the "Repetition" section, I'd say this is one of them.
In fact, I'd say Repetition is the sign of a game forcing length. A game can't be repetitious if you are always doing something new, and the best way of padding out a game is to make the player do the same crap over and over again. #saw
@Moonchilde: you HAD to finish the game in one sitting cuz there was no saving, arsehole! and 9 times out of 10 in this gen, an 8 hour game is a pile of dogshit #saw
I'd rather take 50 hours of great content than 8 hours of sub-par content.
Not all games are created equally. A good developer can make great things happen, even when it is spread out over a long period of time. A bad developer won't be able to do much, even with just a quick-burst game.
For an example, put Metal Gear Solid against Terminator: Salvation.
@the7k: of course you want 50 hours of good content vs 8 sub-par. however, i'd rather an excellent 8 hour game than a 50 hour one... isn't it weird i'm an rpg fan? Lost Odyssey is my exception to every rule, I'd have kept playing if it was 300 hours long. #saw
11/24/09
The reason each sequel made the franchise weaker rather than stronger is as they shat more of them out people saw them for the crap they really were.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
@Antiterra: WHAT HUGE RACK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, LIAR!?!
11/23/09
i hate this mentality...
11/24/09
*sigh*
11/23/09
Christ, it's like these morons never learned what "survival horror" means.
Hint, producers. NAKED MANLY MILLA JOVOVICH ISN'T SURVIVAL HORROR. It's horror, yes, but not the right kind.
11/23/09
11/23/09
That, sir, is horror. :P
11/24/09
Seriously, ragging on the films because you hate that it doesn't stay cannon, or because you think that the dialogue is atrocious (which in my opinion is pretty canonical) is one thing. But to write off the movies because the leading lady isn't some bimbo with massive norks is...disappointing.
I thought more of my fellow Kotakuites I really did.
Personally, I like Jovovich and I like the Resi movies. They're a bit of harmless fun. For me, RE films are to Shawshank as Streetfighter is to Ico.
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/23/09
In other news, plants want sunlight.
11/23/09
It's like he's making films at a breakneck pace just to keep up with his wife's work tempo just so she won't work underneath another director, realize he's sort of a hack, and leave him.
Keep grinding away Paul, I'll pray for you.
11/28/09
11/28/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
This game scared the crap out of me as a kid. I'm surprised it didn't break sales records. lul #horror
10/30/09
Doom 3 is pretty scary too in the beginning, but once you become a beefcake with tons of weapons the threat of danger kind of leaves the game.
Can't wait to play DS: Extraction, and can't wait for DS2 either. #horror
10/30/09
10/30/09
But - who knows? - maybe that Silent Hill remake will not completely shatter our memories and Alan Wake will manage to both get released and not blow...
10/30/09
Is it any good? #horror
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
Then you didn't play Left 4 Dead the first two weeks the game was out with three other people who were as clueless about where to go and what to do as you were.
Until we got it down to a science and made it routine, running and gunning through the levels, it was scary as FUCK and it was not uncommon to hear your friends scream like little girls into the headsets or panicked 'Save me save me save me save me!' as a hunter was eating you. #horror
10/30/09
10/29/09
"GAME IS ONLY 8-13 HOURS... RENTAL" don't be so ridiculous. How long does the original Mario take you? 15 minutes? How the hell does time have to do with whether you should own a game or not? I suppose if you knew how to write a sentence explaining all your points, you could have avoided making it look like your #1 reason for it being a rental is time. The definition of a rental is a game that isn't worthy of being in a collection. Not because it's eight hours long. Think of how many games you've played and own that aren't even five hours long. Oh wait, that's right, by your standards that'd be none. Maybe writing reviews just isn't for you. Maybe your next one can have a paragraph about how the prices and length of movies are comparable to games in some way that you come up with.
10/29/09
Man, I tell you, sometimes on my first trek through a game today takes hours and hours, since I like to explore every nook and cranny. On a second play through, I usually think, man, what the hell took so long? Throwing caution to the wind and just playing usually speeds that up in a lot of slower paced games like Demon's Souls and Uncharted:DF. I sunk many hours into my first play of Dead Space and BioShock, and on subsequent play throughs finished em up pretty fast. All those games are certainly worth owning. Heavenly Sword gets a lot of complaints about length, but it was the perfect length, and a great experience. Reminiscent of days of old, like Ninja Gaiden.
The only games that should require many hours are RPG games, but what can you say about that? Grinding, farming, starting off weak and working to godhood. Sometimes it becomes extreme repetition, especially when you have to work off weak enemies before you can tackle stronger ones. None of that truly makes sense in other types of games, action games where the main character is already skilled and should beat ass without thinking of it, or survival horror on a second play through when the fear and ignorance of what will come is no longer a factor.
What should qualify as a rental is a game the reviewer is on the fence about. A game that has problems, yet is still found enjoyable, one you should decide whether or not you can tolerate its faults enough to purchase or just say nay. Length should never be a factor. #saw
10/30/09
Games in the past were very short, for sure, but they were also much more replayable than most games these days. If you can get the full experience of a game in less than 10 hours, why would you pay full price? Especially if the game, like this one, isn't very good to begin with.
Batman: Arkham Asylum is a game that, while short, I could still see having in ones collection simply because its a well put together game and I could see replaying it sometime down the road. Saw? I just don't see it having much in the way of making me want to replay it.
10/30/09
I'm also a firm believer that 30 hours is the best time spot for an RPG as well, but I seem to be in the minority in every aspect. Oh well. #saw
10/30/09
It's when games try to be long for the sake of being long that I have issue with. Most RPGs are guilty of this - forced grinding, fetch quests and other silliness is bringing the genre down, all because they want to put "80+ hours of gameplay!" on the box. Many other games are guilty of this as well, and from what this review says in the "Repetition" section, I'd say this is one of them.
In fact, I'd say Repetition is the sign of a game forcing length. A game can't be repetitious if you are always doing something new, and the best way of padding out a game is to make the player do the same crap over and over again. #saw
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
I'd rather take 50 hours of great content than 8 hours of sub-par content.
Not all games are created equally. A good developer can make great things happen, even when it is spread out over a long period of time. A bad developer won't be able to do much, even with just a quick-burst game.
For an example, put Metal Gear Solid against Terminator: Salvation.
10/30/09