|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 8.8Feb 2, 2013This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Good game, but again, like 999, this game still has some issues with the way the game is structured. The game assumes that you want to be a good guy, and also, despite your character's ability to access alternate timelines, you are completely powerless compared to the other characters. If tiny, weak little Clover gets 9 BP, she can run for the 9 door and nobody will stop her. But if YOU run for the 9 door after getting 9 BP, despite that your character could have foreseen it in an alternate timeline and deliberately avoided it, you will be stopped. The game also acts like you're a horrible person if you choose "betray"; they start treating you like you're a sociopath or a murderer, even if it was only the more logical decision for the group. This is usually followed up by a game over. Basically, this is my hugest problem with both 999 and VLR The moral system is one of those "save 1,000 kittens, or become a mass murderer, nothing in between" kind of deals. Other characters, like Phi and K get to be rational yet not necessarily evil, so why can't I? Story based games where all you do is scroll through text (and solve puzzles) should be the best at giving players a wide array of options, but VLR is still pretty limited as far as that goes. One thing they DID do to improve the game's structure was that they added the "flow" option, where you basically don't have to replay the whole game over and over to get alternate endings like we did in 999. In my opinion, the puzzles are also much better than in 999. I would say an average adult could probably solve every single puzzle in the game without having to look anything up, yet they still provide a solid challenge. Some rooms have taken me over 30 minutes to solve. And the story, just like in 999, is still very good as well. Once Aksys opens up the player's choices a little bit more, and stops treating logical players like they're evil, I think they will have the formula perfected.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.3Dec 4, 2012First let me address the things I like about the game. The fighting has improved, in that it is much more difficult; in the previousFirst let me address the things I like about the game. The fighting has improved, in that it is much more difficult; in the previous Assassin's Creed games, you could literally just hold a button and block every attack. Not in this one. There is a much wider variety of things that you need to keep in mind when battling. Still, once you are familiar with all of these things, you will never be hit and it does become a bit repetitive. The combat system still needs some serious work before I can call it perfect. Hunting is amazing. It's a great way to pass the time on the way from point A to point B. At first, when the game was introducing hunting to me I was like "Oh boy, this is just another stupid gimmick that's going to force hunting requirements on me". For the most part, hunting is completely optional, and all of the animals react differently. Some can be caught in snares, but larger animals obviously can't. Once you're done hunting you can go to the store and sell all of your pelts, fangs, claws, meat, and other animal products. It's a very satisfying feeling and the game doesn't force it upon the player in any way. If you find it fun, great. If not (I think you should reconsider), don't worry about it because you'll never have to put up with it. Climbing in trees works wonderfully. I had some concerns about the tree climbing; I thought perhaps it would be a bit clunky and wouldn't work properly. One thing I have to say I don't like about the climbing is that they took away the ability to leap up and grab a higher ledge, a trick implemented in Assassin's Creed 2 I believe. I will definitely miss doing that because it made climbing a lot faster. I also really enjoyed the naval missions, finding treasure, battling with other ships, etc. Finding Captain Kidd's treasure is the greatest side mission in Assassin's Creed so far in my opinion. And of course, the main storyline is captivating as always. I mean, come on, it's Assassin's Creed. Now I would like to address the things I don't like about the game. You can manually aim now which seems like a great idea, but it was so poorly implemented. First of all, you can't aim for the head, if you put your cursor on their head, it will auto-adjust and move to their body. Players that can aim well should be rewarded with one hit kills for aiming at vital spots. You also can't shoot freely, despite that you can aim manually. So what's the point? All it does is give you a bit of extra range (maybe 5-10 feet or so), and it auto-adjusts for you if your aim is poor. This was very disappointing for me because since the first Assassin's Creed I have been saying that you should be able to aim manually, and when it was finally implemented, I expected it to be done well. I fear that rather than perfecting the aiming system, Ubisoft may decide to scrap manual aiming altogether. Another big problem is the optional objectives. Some of them are so poorly done that if you want to get them, you'll be restarting the mission 10-20 times. Don't get me wrong, the problem isn't that the optional objectives are hard. I have 2 problems with them. Number one, they're poorly implemented. They're horribly inconvenient, they often rely on luck, and the game often does not set the player up for a fathomable way to complete the optional objective. Look at missions like the one where you have to destroy two British ships by swimming out to them and planting bombs. In that mission, they want you to kill one of the captains with an aerial assassination. But it's like they intentionally set it up so that this is horribly inconvenient to pull off. Look at the mission where you have to shoot groups of approaching enemies with the cannon. They want you to take two groups out with a single cannonball. No good player would really feel accomplished once they pulled it off anyway, because they would know that it relied almost purely on luck and not skill. Look at the final naval mission; the one where you have to destroy 2 frigates and a man-o-war by attacking their weak points. It's ridiculous, and anyone who has tried it would have to agree, unless they were either insane, or being paid by Ubisoft to just lie and say they disagree. Anyway, the second reason I don't like the optional objectives is because they limit the player. They tell you to complete the mission in a specific way, rather than letting you assess the situation and formulate your own course of action. Let us think for ourselves, that's part of the fun. Or rather, it SHOULD be. Another thing that I don't like is that the game is heavily consolized. We constantly have to pause and interrupt the action because Ubisoft refuses to utilize more hotkeys for PC players. Overall, the game is not what I wanted it to be. I expected a 10/10. You still have a lot to perfect Ubisoft, but this was definitely a step in the right direction. AND PUT MANUAL AIMING IN AC4. DON'T SCRAP IT. DO IT RIGHT.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.9Nov 24, 2012This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The choices in this game are very limited and poorly structured. The game seems to assume that the player wants to be a "good guy". I think there should have been more options. For example, there is a part where the team finds a gun. They will say things like "it's obviously a trap" and "it's to get them to turn on one another". So the game forces you to leave the gun there. Well obviously now that people know it's there they can go back and pick it up (ultimately this does happen by the way and the gun is used against the player and the other good team mates), so it doesn't really make sense that the game absolutely FORCES the player to leave it behind against their will. If I were in that situation, I would have picked it up in fear that someone else may go back and get it. Of course, this is just one example but there are situations like this throughout almost the entire game. Another thing that I don't like is that there is no real line of logic that the player can apply to their choices in order to yield a good ending. In other words, if you get the good ending, you probably just got lucky. You have to choose between doors 4 and 5, then 3, 7, and 8, and finally 1, 2, or 6. After that point, your ending has already been determined through your course of action. In my first playthrough, I tried to play logically. I left people behind if necessary, and I did whatever I thought it would take to get the good ending. Obviously, that didn't work. So I figured, well maybe the game is trying to make me act selflessly, so I tried this. Still no luck. My next playthrough, I just picked some random ass combination of doors with no real logic as to which one I would choose. Still no luck. By this time, I had been playing the game for at least 15 hours. At least the game lets you skip what you've already done, but rather than just selecting "skip scene", you have to hold right on the d-pad to quickly scroll through text. Not a huge inconvenience, but it can still take a while, and it's a pain in a game like this that the player needs to go through multiple times in order to get everything. Anyway, back to my original point - So are you telling me that if I pick doors 4, 8, and 2 (this would yield a bad ending), that clearly I suck at the game and I should have to do the whole thing over? Yet if I pick doors 4, 7, and 1, clearly I'm awesome and I deserve a good ending? Each door is as much of a mystery as the others, and there is no real logic behind which one you should pick. In other words, the game doesn't reward players for thinking critically and carefully planning their course of action. You'll might as well just pick random combinations of doors until you happen to get lucky and get the good ending. Now I want to cover my hugest problem with the game's structure. In order to get the good ending, there is a very specific bad ending that you need to get, often referred to as the "safe ending". To get this ending, you need to go through doors 5, 8, and 6. But you also need to check a safe in room 5 before you leave the room, but AFTER unlocking the door. This is very cryptic. On one playthrough, I actually did this, because I was curious about the safe. However, I didn't know that after that I would have to go through door 8 and then 6. How was I supposed to know? Even if you DO check the safe after unlocking the door, you have to take two 1/3 chances consecutively after that by picking the correct doors. So once again, I would have to do the whole game over again. There is also a "coffin ending" (which I got). In the coffin ending, you have to make all of the choices that would normally yield the good ending, which is basically the same exact thing as the good ending but you don't know the password to the coffin in the coffin ending. So obviously, nobody wants or needs to see the coffin ending. However, if the player happened to get the safe ending, and then you got the good ending, it gives you credit for completing the coffin ending. This may confuse players and cause them to erase all of their save data in order to see what this ending was that they now couldn't get, not knowing that it was just a shortened version of the good ending. After all of this complaining, you might be wondering why I gave the game a 7 out of 10. It's simple - In spite of all of these problems, and the relatively easy puzzles throughout the game (By the way, the final puzzle in the game is an easy sodoku puzzle. That should put things in to perspective as far as the game's difficulty), the story still kept me entertained and wanting to see what would happen next. If the thought of a story involving curses, ESP, unsolved ancient mysteries, and a game of life and death appeals to you, then you should try this game out. But remember, don't bother taking the game seriously at all and trying to plan a detailed course of action, as the game's poor structure makes it too luck based. Perhaps it's better to view it as a story, not a game.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.6Oct 5, 2012This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. GTA IV was a big step back to me. Look at the massive array of vehicles in San Andreas. Bicycles, dirt bikes, quads, tractors, different types of helicopters and airplanes, the jetpack, etc. Why take all that stuff out?
GTA IV also completely **** up the physics of the game. Driving is half as fun as it was in the previous games. And people generally respond to this by saying that it's "realistic", but no. It's not realistic in any way. Making it slow paced and boring doesn't make it realistic. It just makes it slow paced and boring.
The shooting was improved a bit, but still needed a lot of work. The people who defend this game will claim that sticking your arm up while behind cover will cause Niko to shoot inaccurately, but it certainly hasn't worked that way for me. It seems to shoot wherever I point, regardless of the fact that Niko isn't even looking or aiming. Also, when you do choose to aim from behind cover (for whatever reason), it will cause your cross-hairs to move up a bit. Not a serious issue, but it's stupid that you have to keep in mind to aim a little bit below their head.
The weapon variety was also significantly reduced and simplified compared to San Andreas. Of course San Andreas also had weapons that were just flat out better than others, but GTA IV's weapon system operates by "tiers", where you have tier 1 weapons, tier 2 weapons, etc. One tier being completely better in every way than the other. It leaves no room for options and determining which weapons are best for you personally. Of course, SA had SOME weapons which were flat out better than others, but to a much smaller degree than GTA IV.
Niko is a walking contradiction, he speaks out against violence, but he's perfectly willing to kill if he gets money for it. Meanwhile, the guy he's trying to track down ends up telling him that he sold him out for $1,000. Niko acts all surprised and offended by this - but he does things like that all the time. The cheesy attempt to include a "2deep4u" story winded up backfiring. Rockstar should have stuck with the classic humor based, light hearted style story, rather than what was the equivalent of a B movie written by some emo kid.
Ultimately, my dislike for GTA IV can be traced back to one thing - Lack of variety. Look at all of the content from SA that they just flat out REMOVED. Just look at the build up of content and gradual perfection of concepts from GTA 3, to Vice City, to San Andreas. I thought Rockstar would continue that system. I was under the impression that what we saw in SA would be perfected and build upon, just as they had done in the past - Not just completely thrown away. I really thought Rockstar was on to something. I thought they had it figured out. I guess not.… Expand
Average User Score: 9.3Oct 5, 2012I didn't like the scanning in Prime, even though you didn't have to do it, I don't like the idea that in order to get 100% you have to scanI didn't like the scanning in Prime, even though you didn't have to do it, I don't like the idea that in order to get 100% you have to scan every stupid thing in the game. The enemy AI was extremely **** They missed like crazy, and generally as long as you continued moving they won't hit you. And if they DO manage to hit you, oh well, they still have to hit you about 400 more times to kill you. The game was just way too easy. The controls were absurd compared to other FPS games of the time. The exploration wasn't real. They would set up a few little platforms and maybe a grappling point, and all you need to do is traverse the room. Terms like "exploration" and "puzzles" imply that you need to look around and figure out what to do for yourself. Instantly seeing what you need to do and simply carrying it out is not exploration. The game made me feel like a rat in a maze, rather than a person exploring an unknown land. I also hated the way they started you out with all this great equipment and then they take it away from you. It gives the player nothing to look forward to. You've already experienced items like the charge beam and morph ball, so obtaining them once again isn't really satisfying. It feels more like a job.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.6Jul 18, 2012This is a good game, that's really all there is to it. People that give it a low score, not just on this site but all over the internet, areThis is a good game, that's really all there is to it. People that give it a low score, not just on this site but all over the internet, are just Prime fans which is why they say "it's not like the other ones", and unfairly hold it to a non-existent standard. This game did not claim to be a 2D or 3D style Metroid. To rate it properly, you have to take it for what it is. I guess I have to say, good job Prime fans. Because of you, and the way you acted about this game, we will never see a 2D Metroid ever again. Only the extremely sub-par Prime games. As for details of the game itself, my first thoughts were that the automatic aiming would be a bit broken. But the idea is that if you use the standard shot which automatically aims, it's not very powerful. If you take your time and carefully aim a shot with a missile, it will do more damage. A simple yet ingenious concept. Nothing new of course, but at least we can say that this game has the bare, basic fundamentals required in order to be considered a "game". Most modern "games" such as the Prime series, and Skyrim cannot say that. Sure, you can easily clear out a group of small enemies but you're just not going to be taking out boss after boss by spamming the charge shot like some people want to make it seem. And the game is not about fighting each small enemy on your way from point A to point B. They are just there to give you something to do, and to add a small degree of challenge. That is why they're not incredibly difficult. Did you even play Super Metroid? Your beam took up half the screen when you fired it. Killing smaller enemies on the way from point A to point B was extremely easy. The game is about exploration, upgrading your equipment, and fighting bosses. In all of these areas, it succeeds. There are some frustrating moments, such as when the purple lizard like enemy jumps on Samus and you have to shoot its tail. I guarantee very few people survived that their first time. There are the moments where you have to look around for clues, sometimes requiring that you notice a very, very small detail in a large, open environment. I'm so glad they included moments like this in the game. It really goes to show just how many people got to these parts, got mad, and came on Metacritic to give the game a 0/10. The art style, graphics, and use of color in this game is just awesome. Traversing jungles, volcanoes, etc. is really fun to look at, and every now and then it's fun to just stop and look at the scenery. This is probably the most visually appealing Wii game out there. Not to mention all of the awesome animations when taking out a weakened opponent. The story is pretty decent. I would probably enjoy it more if I actually played games for the story. A lot of people complained that Samus "acted too much like a girl", and that she showed weakness. To these people, I have to ask, did you even pay attention to the story at all? The only times she really showed weakness was when she was initially getting in to her career. She was young. She WAS weak. How do you think she got to the level she is at today? Did you want her to just be BORN incredibly strong and independent? Wow, yeah, that would be an awesome back story! Another complaint I often hear about this game is that "you can just dodge everything". No. No you can't. I guarantee the people that say this got hit countless times. Not to mention, that's your choice if you choose to sit there and mash the d-pad as fast as you can in order to dodge. If you think the dodging is unfairly advantageous, then how about you don't abuse it then claim that it's a definitive part of the game when it's not?… Expand
Average User Score: 8.5Jul 18, 2012I really enjoyed this game. The gameplay overall works very well, but I would first like to address my minor problems with it. Sometimes whenI really enjoyed this game. The gameplay overall works very well, but I would first like to address my minor problems with it. Sometimes when you have an object such as a crate against a rail, you will have to press and hold space multiple times to get where you are trying to go. There is also no "hold" options for crouch, iron sights, etc.; only toggle. This means that you cannot hold your crouch button, and release to stand up. You have to press the button once to crouch, and again to stand. In other words, there are some clunky moments, but it's definitely nothing unbearable. Avoiding lasers and cameras, neutralizing guards, finding secret areas and vents, etc. all work very well and are just plain fun. The character customization is a bit mediocre. Upon replaying the game, I found myself picking the same old upgrades I did last time. It's pretty obvious which abilities are good, and which ones just aren't necessary at all. This is one of the few games that I think should go down in time as a must play from generation 7.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.4Jul 18, 2012Easily the best original / non-remake Mario game for a portable system. It's very linear which is a blessing and a curse for anyone familiarEasily the best original / non-remake Mario game for a portable system. It's very linear which is a blessing and a curse for anyone familiar with Mario games. It means that we don't have the element introduced to us in Mario 64 where you're thrown into a large, open world and you have to figure out what to do yourself. Instead, you just work your way through the levels with not much deviation from what the developers intended. I prefer the Mario 64 style but I'm not going to criticize it based off of what it doesn't do, but what it does do. So for a portable, linear Mario game, it's exactly what I expected - a whole new set of levels, enemies, and mechanics such as the boomerang suit, the tanooki suit (this is the first 3D Mario to use the tanooki suit), the propeller box, and probably several others I can't think of at the moment. The controls of this game are generally pretty decent, but trying to get Mario to do the side flip for example can be frustrating. Mario's momentum can also be odd at times. If you don't get a huge running start and keep moving, you may find Mario to be somewhat slow, clunky, and unresponsive. If you jump in the air with no momentum, and try to start moving at the peak of your jump, Mario will barely move at all. Experienced players may find it frustrating that the advanced maneuvers are hard to do, and are scarcely useful anyway. This is an extremely basic and simplistic 3D Mario game. If you want something more than that, go with Mario 64 or the Galaxy games, depending on whether you want to play something nonlinear or linear respectively.… Expand
Average User Score: 4.0May 25, 2012People say not to give a game a 0, as clearly only fanboys do this, and their reviews obviously mean nothing. That is a very closed minded wayPeople say not to give a game a 0, as clearly only fanboys do this, and their reviews obviously mean nothing. That is a very closed minded way to look at things. Some games do indeed deserve a 0 - Diablo 3 being a perfect example. There is basically nothing that Diablo 3 does that Diablo 2 doesn't do better. Diablo 3 is a perfect example of exactly what a sequel shouldn't be - Toned down gameplay, "b-b-but the graphics are better!!!"
What redeeming qualities could this game possibly have that warrant a score higher than a 0? Could it be the heavily restrictive DRM? Could it be the pay to win BS? I feel like this "game" was bought more by people who are interested in the political / business sides of gaming, and the DRM that would finally be the end of piracy (which obviously isn't even true). It's like they bought it out of some kind of distorted, false interpretation of "morality", rather than to play a game.
Diablo 3 is also a perfect example of why many people feel classic gaming is superior. The idea used to be "This company is providing a game that I am interested in. Therefore, I will buy it so that hopefully they will make more in the future. I like to have fun!" But now the idea of "gaming" is "Wow, this company sure did rape us all in the ass really hard! Now I'm going to go on the internet and accuse anyone who didn't buy it of being self-entitled!"… Expand
Average User Score: 7.9Dec 26, 2011Yes, this was copied from a Japanese game called Doki Doki Panic. No, it doesn't matter. It's still a good game. Anyone rating this game lowYes, this was copied from a Japanese game called Doki Doki Panic. No, it doesn't matter. It's still a good game. Anyone rating this game low is a relatively new gamer who is under the false impression that the "h4rdc0r3" stance is to not like this game. The truth is that this is a great game. 4 characters to play as, and 7 worlds with 3 levels each (except for the last world which only has 2), interesting warp zones, bosses that actually have unique patterns unlike in most Mario games which just have a similar boss repeated over and over again, and unique mechanics that we don't see in most Mario games, such as the charge jump, the mask that chases you for finding the key, the ability to pick up smaller enemies and vegetation to use as projectiles, and probably many more that I could come up with. This was just off the top of my head, if I went and played the game all the way through then did this review, I'm sure I could come up with much more. Don't knock this game just because it's copied from Doki Doki Panic. What does that even tell you about the gameplay? Absolutely nothing. That's a factor outside of the game, completely irrelevant to gameplay, and it doesn't actually have anything to do with a sane person's enjoyment of the game. It would be like if you loved a particular type of food, then someone informed you that that food came from a country that you didn't like so you stopped eating it and desperately tried to convince yourself that you didn't like it anymore.… Expand