Average User Score: 8.3Apr 10, 2014Excellent conclusion to the franchise (as far as I'm concerned). Also, the change in pace and the stealth action makes this entry stand out and encourage taking in the scenery. On top of that, the story is engaging and ties up some loose ends along the way. Definitely worth checking out.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.8Apr 5, 2014Whether or not you want to pay full price for this prologue depends entirely on what you expect to get out of this. If you just want the next part of the MGS story and you don't care about the challenge involved in the game, then you'll probably be disappointed. There isn't a lot of story here. If that's all you want, you should probably just wait until they sell it for a deep discount. If, however, you are more interested in the gameplay and challenge aspects of the MGS franchise, you might actually be able to get a lot of value out of this game. Achievement hunters, completionists, and stealth aficionados will easily get their money's worth and have fun doing it. I know I did. Despite there only being one location for all of the missions, the different insertion points, objectives, and configurations make each mission distinctive and interesting. Not going to lie, I would have appreciated more story, but I'm still mostly happy with what I got.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.9Jan 11, 2014It's common to see a game with really fun, solid gameplay to have a really weak, pointless story, but it's far less common to see the opposite. That's exactly what we have in "To The Moon". We have an expertly-crafted narrative with great art, atmosphere, and music, but the gameplay is shoehorned-in, tedious, and doesn't serve the narrative in any significant way. This game would have been far better without the gameplay constantly slowing down the pacing. Still, the story is so good that I can't in good conscience give this a score any lower than an 8. The fact that I can care so much about this story in spite of gameplay that literally had me groaning for hours is a testament to just how strong a story it is. Perhaps it would have been a better book or movie, but even if this isn't the ideal medium for it, it's still a strong enough story to deserve praise and make it worth playing.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.3Jan 4, 2014As a game on its own terms, it's fine. It's an enjoyable experience and giving it anything lower than an average score would be disingenuous. But as a successor to PvZ, this game is a complete and total failure. Sequels should offer more than their predecessors, but PvZ2 offers far less than the original PvZ did. The Adventure mode only features three types of terrain and isn't even complete yet, there are no achievements, there are no mini-games, there's no "I, Zombie" puzzle game, there are probably less than half as many plants as there were in the first game, and many of the familiar and helpful plants are now eternally trapped behind a paywall. I'm not against free-to-play as a concept, but it has to be implemented correctly. The items you can purchase should always be unlockable within the game, even if doing so is incredibly difficult or tedious. If in-game coins could be used to purchase the plants that are trapped behind the paywall, I'd be far less upset about this, but that is not the case. Yes, I don't need those plants to beat the game, but it's still a part of the game I can't access for arbitrary reasons. I'd much rather have just paid $10 for the game rather than have to pay over $20 to access all of the plants in the game. So now that we know what the game is missing, what did it add to the mix? Well, some of the new plants are rather cool and the plant food boosters are pretty sweet. I was rather fond of the pirate world, though the other two worlds weren't quite as fun. Some of the new zombies proved to be rather challenging and forced me to rethink a lot of my strategies. Survival mode is still around, though you have to recreate your entire defense every round, which is less fun in my opinion, though it is a bit more challenging, I suppose. And... that's about it. It's not a terrible game, but it's so shallow and dull when compared to the original that it hardly deserves to be considered a sequel.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.4Mar 31, 2013In the first "BioShock", the main protagonist (like many FPS protagonists) was a blank slate. Nameless, voiceless, and effectively inconsequential. He was still important, sure, but his importance was owed mostly to his actions and origin rather than his personality or motivations. He was meant to be an empty vessel, and in a way, he could have been anybody. The real star was the city of Rapture and the philosophy and history within it. In "BioShock Infinite", however, it feels as though the roles have been reversed. While the flying city of Columbia is interesting and rich, by the end of the story, you realize that it really could have been any city with any philosophy and the story wouldn't have been very different. The real stars this time around are the central characters of Booker DeWitt and Elizabeth. While it does feel a waste that such an interesting setting is only explored peripherally, the focus on character in this game gives it its edge and its story is a puzzle but it doesn't sacrifice engagement in order to keep the player guessing. One of the best games ever.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.7Jul 18, 2012It's like "Game of Thrones" meets "The Sims". Each playthrough is unique and offers a ton of variety. That said, this game has a MASSIVE learning curve and the tutorials aren't very helpful. Expect to struggle near the beginning. But once you muscle through it, the game is very, very rewarding.… Expand
Average User Score: 3.9May 16, 2012Let me get the controversial things out of the way first. Hundreds of people on here gave this game a 0/10 for a number of reasons: You have to be online to play, DRM, and the Real Money Auction House.
The people complaining about the always online/DRM thing have a point, but I personally don't mind that much. Diablo is a game best played online anyway and as far as DRM goes, there has been worse. At least you aren't limited to how many computers you can install the game on and you don't have to jump through hoops to download it. You just can only play on one computer at a time. Unlike most DRM, this doesn't punish people who purchased the game legally. Yes, it meant that servers were overburdened during the midnight release, but since then, it hasn't really been a problem.
As for the Real Money Auction House, yes it allows for people to "buy power". However, this was going to happen anyway, as Diablo II showed us. There were still going to be people who would put up Diablo III items on eBay or on other auction websites. Up until now, Blizzard has wasted a ton of effort trying to put a stop to this practice, but they've just accepted that they can't. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Additionally, if this new system works, Blizzard can keep Diablo III running without implementing subscriptions.
Now, I can imagine people disliking these things, but as I said in my Portal 2 review, these aren't good enough reasons to rate a game a 0/10.
0/10 should be reserved for the worst game you could imagine. Can you imagine a worse game than Diablo III? Yes? Then it doesn't deserve a 0/10. You might argue that you gave it a 0/10 for being "unplayable", but what you really mean is that it was unplayable for the first hour or so it was live. Get over it.
As for my feelings on the game, I think that it's a worthy successor to the series. It's not perfect. I do wish that you could play the game offline and just went online to verify your Battle.net account once. Playing single player online seems like a waste. I also feel like the skill system is way too streamlined.
I think the presentation is vastly improved this time around. All of the characters talk and it feels more natural than ever before. I think Blizzard took a few cues from Bioware games and Bioshock. The flow of the game is a lot smoother.
The dungeon crawling can be a bit repetitive and so far it isn't very challenging. Perhaps it's because I'm still on Normal difficulty or because I've played Diablo games for most of my life, but health orbs drop way too often and I haven't died once yet. I'm hoping the difficulty curve ramps up significantly.
The environment effects are cool and occasionally useful. The story is compelling and intelligent. The combat is a lot of fun. The bad guys have a lot of variety. The artisan/crafting system is very robust, even if it doesn't have the cool element of discovery that Diablo II had (I still think the Horadric Cube partially inspired the crafting table in Minecraft).
It isn't a perfect game, but it is a very good game and it always bothers me when whining children on Metacritic spam overly-negative reviews just because of one or two aspects of a game that they collectively dislike and they want to "send a message" by bombing the Metacritic score.
Sorry to say it, but if you care enough about a game to buy it at midnight on a weekday and then rage about it on Metacritic, you probably like it more than you'd care to admit. You may be frustrated with the game, and that's fine and should be accounted for in your reviews, but frustration implies that you want to love the game, but these issues get in the way of that (kind of like with ME3). And is a bit of frustration with an otherwise great game enough to give it a 0/10? I personally don't think so.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.6Jul 11, 2011I hadn't heard of this game until it started getting rave reviews and once it's price dropped on Amazon, I couldn't resist.
Most of the praise you've heard about this game is accurate. The Kinect controls (assuming you are in a spacious, properly-lit room) are a revelation. At first, you may be skeptical. The right hand controls are a little meh at first and it takes a little while to get used to it. But as soon as you get the opportunity to use the rapid-fire left hand controls, you will be sold. Thrusting your palm forward and watching the purple bullets fly as they play a steady percussive rhythm is a great feeling. The level design is basically perfect. Each stage is about 15 minutes long and each moment is memorable in its own way.
That being said, the negative things you've heard are largely accurate as well. The game is criminally short. While I haven't played its predecessor, "Rez" (though I now fully intend to), the nearly universal opinion is that, if you aren't using the Kinect controls, "Rez" is superior from a gameplay and story perspective. The fact that you have to restart an entire song from the beginning if you fail may not sound so bad, but when each song is about 15 minutes long, it can get very frustrating.
I also was constantly frustrated by how finicky the Kinect could be. When you start the game, it seems to recalibrate your sensor for basically no reason. It also never succeeded in logging me in based on my face, something other games have never had a problem with. I wish that the Kinect had a more accurate way of detecting hands. Right now, it basically detects hands as an extension of the skeleton that it builds from your whole body. In other words, in order for it to read your hands, it needs to see most of your body. That really shouldn't be necessary. I should be able to play this game sitting down, yet every attempt I made displeased the Kinect sensor. If the Kinect is going to succeed, they're going to have to improve the firmware and the detection methods so that using the Kinect is significantly less problematic. People need to be able to play from their chairs and couches. They need to be able to play with their friends sitting next to them. Otherwise, it will always be more trouble than it's worth.
But I digress.
The fact is that the things this game does right far outweigh its short-comings. The game is absolutely beautiful, the gameplay is unique, it is the second game that has made me glad that I bought a Kinect, the music is fantastic, and the story, while very simple, still manages to be involving.
I paid about $35 for this game, and I'd say that's a reasonable price. You could just rent it, but this seems like the kind of game you'd like to own. I could easily imagine myself wanting to play it again or showing it to friends. I will say that I feel bad for anyone who paid $50 for this game. As remarkable as this game is, that price does not seem reasonable. However, price shouldn't be the main focus of any review. If the price tag is too high for you, you can wait. That's what I did. Still, I wouldn't wait too long, and please don't buy this game used. Games like this should be encouraged. This is the sort of game we never get, so please let Ubisoft know how much we appreciate that they published a unique game like this.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.5Apr 22, 2011Let me start off by expressing my shock toward the negative reviews I've seen. Now look, the game is not without it's flaws, but few games deserve a 1. I would only give a game a 1 if I bought it, loaded it up, and it came up as a screen that said "Haha, you just paid $50 for NOTHING". I can sort of understand the middling scores, since I can see some of the frustration with certain elements, but frankly, all this rage-posting pissed me off enough to score the game a perfect 10 when I probably would have just given it an 8 or 9, just to offset the people who think that this excellent game deserves a 1 for their stupid complaints, which I shall discredit in a way that also shares my own feelings.
1) "The game is too short". This is probably the most common and valid reason I've seen, so I'll tackle this one first. First of all, anyone who claims that they beat this in four hours is either lying, has no concept of time, or enjoyed playing so much that they lost track of time. This game cannot be beaten in four hours on the first run. I'm sorry, I don't believe you. The people who say eight hours, I'll believe you, at least for the solo campaign. It took me about 10 hours all in all and I only got stuck about 4 times. Even so, on a speed run, I could see someone completing it in 6 hours if they REALLY knew what they were doing and never faltered. 4 hours on a first play-through is complete bull.
That being said, it could be argued that 6-10 hours for a campaign is still very short, particularly with little replayability and at full price. I would argue that we generally pay $20-30 for a two hour movie. Two movies would cost about the same and that's only 4 hours. So 6-10 hours of gameplay can be worth the price.
I say "can" be worth the price, because it depends entirely on how GOOD the gameplay is. If it was 6-10 hours of BAD gameplay, I could understand the complaints. However, the fact that people complained that it was too short implies that they ENJOYED the time they spent with it SO MUCH that the brief time they spent with it simply wasn't enough. So why are these people giving it a 1? If you gave it a 1, I would expect that you hated the gameplay, but if that were so, why complain that it was too short? It's like complaining that your friend's waffles taste terrible while also complaining that they didn't make enough of the terrible waffles to satisfy you. It makes you sound like an idiot.
So to summarize on this point, I can understand people who think the game is too short to justify the cost of the game. I kind of agree in theory, but frankly, the quality of the gameplay makes up for this to me. Plus, there is SOME replayability. Even if you don't want to play the co-op campaign (which is a lot of fun), you can replay the game with developer commentary (a concept that I think more games should implement because it is fascinating), you can achievement hunt, and, well, you can play the game again. It's a great game well worth playing more than once. I mean, if you have no intention of ever playing the game again, just rent it! That's what rental stores are for. Anyway, enough of that.
2) "First Day DLC! SACRILEGE!" Anyone who complains about first-day DLC needs to understand two things. First, the DLC in question is purely cosmetic. If you don't want it, you don't need to get it. Second, you need to understand that the AAA video game market is having a hard time dealing with rentals and resellers. By including first day DLC that you can get for free by pre-order it, they encourage their customers to buy it retail. It's an advantage for buying it at full cost instead of waiting for it to be available used. It can be frustrating when this tactic is employed on something significant, but in this case, it was just for silly pointless things, so your argument is moronic and also doesn't reflect the actual content of the game at all.
3) "The Xbox Version got shafted" I actually kind of agree, but you guys act like that's Valve's or the game's fault. No. It's the Xbox's fault. You think they dumbed down the graphics because they have some kind of vendetta or because they're lazy? No, it's because the Xbox is simply not as powerful as the PS3 or a personal computer and because Microsoft has to make everything proprietary. So yes, it is the weakest release out of all of them, but the most you will notice is reduced graphics and the lack of a bundled PC version. And frankly, if you picked up Portal 2 for the graphics, you are an idiot, and if you want to play it on your PC, you should just buy the PC version.
Disappointment in one or two aspects of the game is no reason to act like the game gave you cancer. It is a great game. It may be shorter than some retail games, but the content you get during that gameplay is far better than what you would get from most other games… Expand