Average User Score: 7.8Jul 4, 2014The most important quality of Dishonored is that it doesn't treat you like a tool. Instead it offers a toolbox of techniques and powers that you can apply as you prefer on each mission. The second most important quality of Dishonored is that it is FUN. It is a game, not an interactive movie or a tech showcase. It is game design refined for the highest possible amount of fun inside the otherwise rather grim game environment.
These qualities combine with an ambitious storyline and an exceptionally well realized game world, and the result is a rare mix of fun and immersion.
The graphics are more cartoony than the title or cover-art, but with PS3s capabilities, the art fits the constrictions and set the bar low enough to stay outside of uncanny valley and out of the ordinary. It is thus one of the best looking games I've played on PS3.
It has no multiplayer, no alternative game modes (unnecessary since it already can be played in many ways), and the ending is abruptly anti-climatic. I was overall satisfied with the story, but it could have built up the gameplay setups more rather than reiterate on the same basic challenges.
I kind of want to give it 7/10, but it's rare that you play a game and have to figure out your own way through each challenge. For that, it deserves recognition.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.3Jun 26, 2014Even after nearly 50 hours, there were still a few optional areas to beat, plus multiplayer battles. That kind of longevity is impressive in such an intense action game. The areas are varied and offers many surprises. The game rarely moves focus from the action, however, and there are loads of action games for PS3, so I'm not sure DS2 is a standout. In terms of artwork and scope, it's phenomenal, but the story and the non-action gameplay could have been more expertly crafted and brought more into focus.
One optional but significant puzzle was so unintuitive that I feel inclined to subtract a whole point for it. The whole non-combat part exists in the background and only pops up when you interact with the environment, or when the story takes a subtle turn. The game ended abruptly, beautifully but without much closure. There's a Youtube critique done by 'Matthewmatosis' which explains very well how DS2 is far from perfect. It contains spoilers, so I'm just gonna tell you that there are lots of little things, and that the story doesn't really make any sense apart from the very broad strokes. Oh yeah, and the bosses are similar, and pretty much all enemies require the same approach in melee, no strategies or variations required. Just dodge, strike and repeat, with an occasional healing item thrown in.
Overall, the game is a pretty, bombastic, fantastic spectacle. But is that all we should expect from visual media, eye candy?... When it could be a problem-simulator, a laboratory, a true playground. Instead, it forces you through hours of slashing and bashing on similar objects. It pretends to be more serious and deeper than a CoD game, but in the end, it plays on the same strengths, which is to impress with spectacle. There could be a deep message in there, as well as some playful and curious mechanics. Maybe that stuff is just reserved for other genres… Expand
Average User Score: 8.3Jun 25, 2014I wouldn't play it for the story, but the atmosphere and the post-apocalyptic world they created is spectacular. The mechanics are similar to most other shooters, but with solid and optional stealth added. That element is however not that exciting since you can just shoot the light-sources and sneak easily past most encounters.
Again, the story is there but not the main attraction. The game presents the story as a central attraction, but I'm not sure how worthwhile it is anyway.
The base game is just the campaign with a chapter selector. It doesn't seem like much, but the trophies are spread in different play-styles so it still feels like a pretty big game, and the game world is big, though linear.
Is the game tense? Yep, in some places. It switches between exploration, NPCs, stealth, and straight-up action. Those elements were balanced in an unpredictable and entertaining way.
The graphics and settings make the game feel quite realistic, but the fantasy elements broke my immersion a few times, because I didn't follow the logic that suddenly got bend by the 'magic' elements.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.8Jun 11, 2014Lots of trial-and-error moments, simple interaction (move,jump,interact), abrupt ending. Just as it was introducing some interesting mechanics, the game ended. There's not much to spoil about it. It could have been a Flash-game if it had less polish. One of the few physics-puzzlers on PSN. The challenges were very varied, and it rarely reused a mechanic or puzzle. A few solutions surprised me and reminded me of some physics ideas. If it had provided more confrontation with the limbo inhabitants or constructors, it would have left a deeper impression. But it's impressive that a small team, and such a small conventional puzzle game, can leave so few complaints while looking like its minimalism was an active choice and an ideal.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.7Jun 3, 2014A glorified shooting gallery presented with much skill and flair. If you don't mind the type of action where you move from cover to cover while you shoot increasingly tough enemies, then Max Payne 3 delivers on that front. I had hoped for more open-ended, unpredictable action with flow between one style and another.. There are a few of those break-offs, especially a few involving vehicles, but for the large part it's nothing but shooting at guys. Even the few boss-like encounters feel like additional shooting scenes.
Then there's the story which is sufficiently playful and intelligent to be interesting. Much of it went over my head though, as new characters and groups were introduced with no emphasis on what was important to notice and what was just a quick side-note. It does work well as a making-sense of the varied locations, which I find impressive. Speaking of locations, I find those to be the most worthwhile aspect of the game, since they were presented with similar detail and style as those in GTA V, some of them spectacular locations that are not usually well represented in action games.
One big drawback is that the shootouts seem designed for auto-aim ('soft lock' works similarly to that in GTA V), a mechanic that takes away a lot of the challenge and interactivity unless you change to 'free aim', which I did. The problem is when a game is designed to be interesting with auto-aim, some scenes become unpolished and unfair for those using free aim. One bit had me replaying it not because I didn't get it, but because I was a bit unlucky every time. (Well it turned out I didn't notice the button for slowmotion-in-cover until the last chapter). The enemy AI is somewhere between chaotic-impulsive and robotic-predictable, so replaying sections felt like I got trolled every time it went wrong, without sufficient variety in AI patterns to keep each attempt fresh. Did I mention I didn't get the story? It states very clearly what happens to who, but I have no idea about why, or the deeper connections between the characters. But maybe I'm just slow-minded.
Another big drawback is that the tasks/puzzles were so simplified and obvious that they felt like instructions. All the deducing of a good puzzle reduced to "Press triangle to solve x obstacle". I mean, are people really so stupid they can't figure something out for themselves, and yet with capacity to understand a convoluted storyline? If Rockstar had the balls to require the player to infer new things through the gameplay, it would feel as intelligent and cutting-edge to play as its technology is. Instead it ends up expecting as little of the consumer as the tv-shows mocked both in this game and in recent GTAs.
Online multiplayer has a handful engaging but conservative modes. Deathmatch, Team deathmatch, and a cocktail of modes like capture-the-flag, defuse-the-bomb, last-man-standing thrown together under one point-list and one narrative and presentation changed to a 'gang war' context. It's a cocktail that provides a diverse session that doesn't get boring the first dozen times.
I've played online for many hours, leveled up half-way to maximum, unlocked a few guns. The combination of classic console action, the auto-aim and the bullet-time made for a more tactic, tense experience than the direct competition on PS3 (Uncharted online). The base game comes with six large levels quite different in mood. I preferred the office (smaller level with corridors) and the bus depot (open areas interspersed with cover and a few accessible buildings).
I would rate the campaign 6/10 (although presentation is 9/10 gameplay is still the essence of games). Online multiplayer gets 8/10 but the lack of a level editor or any custom content makes for less replay value than the core gameplay deserves.
I rated GTA V 7/10, and its shooting mechanic is lifted directly from Max Payne 3. Here, you might get a more focused, cinematic experience designed specifically for the path it takes you on. But on the other hand, it lacks the cars and the game world and the radio chatter of GTA V. I cannot say it is as compelling as GTA V. I cannot say that either of them thread much new ground, or keep me addicted to the core gameplay. Both of them are above average, but I only recommend them if you're specifically looking for the gameplay in Max Payne 3, or the game world in GTA V.… Expand
Average User Score: 5.3May 23, 2014There are no creative gameplay setups in the game. It's a variety of "x zombies coming at you" and "x zombies coming at your position which you must hold for a while". Then there's the occasional boss and QTE, but it feels like an overall cash-in, something made to satisfy shareholders rather than gamers.
Some moments are way above mediocre though, and despite the long trudges, there's occasional glimpses of an 8/10 or even 9/10 game. Then that feeling lasts ten minutes at most aaand it's back to 5-6/10 action. As such, it's a game about punching, stomping and shooting, rather than a game about zombie survival.
If 7 hours of well-made, varied graphics can satisfy your curiosity, I think you will have a fun time with Leon's campaign, which is polled to be the most liked and provides decent closure to its story. But I'm not sure the other three campaigns will hold your interest, as I don't really want to keep playing the game after 1st chapter of second campaign, which adds more shootouts after I just finally got done with it in the first campaign. Leon's still had some spectacular set pieces and encounters, and the flow between chapters felt quite convincing despite some drastic changes in surroundings. The occasional puzzles all had the same mass-market design as the action: designed to be instantly solvable, each element laid out in order so you just move forward and check off each step.
You can choose to smile at the button-mashing and various times where the game treats you like a tool. With that attitude, you can play the game as a conversation about game design. Sometimes it works, sometimes you laugh. If you're looking for some spectacularly produced dark action scenes, RE6 might still be the most exciting combination of tension and action on PS3.
Ultimately, you have to ask whether it's even worth picking up from the bargain bin. It's a matter of taste. Do you want an enjoyable time, or a tense time? A smooth experience or a rugged one? Creative design or mainstream design? Whatever you want, RE6 designs it in a way so I won't recommend playing it. But there is something exciting about playing a big-budget, non-recommended game. Just to see what the fuss is about.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.7May 10, 2014If GTA had only a few types of (slow) vehicles and one radio station, it would still feel more content-rich than RDR. That's the point of sparse westerns I guess, but I like sandboxes because they feel unpredictable and expanding as you unlock new content. Another thing is, RDR didn't give me that 'aha' feeling of seeing the world from a different perspective. More like seeing a different world with THE SAME (GTA) perspective. They also satisfy the psychological 'wrongedness' that many non-privileged people feel. In GTA the (virtual) material world is finally within one's grasp, and in that way it temporarily satisfies an irrational hunger for material wealth and the inferiority felt from not attaining it in real life. It can also serve as a reminder that material gain is ultimately an empty and meaningless thing, while real happiness is all about the journey to get there. Not saying that such desire should be cultivated. I think it's important to sort of 'starve' the ego and remind ourselves that the world never promised to be fair, and that we don't need much anyway. But for those who have not kept their ego in check, GTA is an unparalleled playground, and RDR lacks a similar effect since it's not a mirror of the world that wronged us. RDR reuses the same action gameplay for a dozen hours, and there are no motorcycles or planes to broaden the scope. Online shootouts work well in the open sprawling landscapes, but as of spring 2014, online is marred by glitches that Rockstars have been fixing for months. I wonder if they'll ever get around to it.
As an introduction to Rockstar Games, or to third-person action, there's a lot of exciting content in this game. But for the seasoned gamer who has played several GTAs, the repetition of the mission style becomes very apparent. I had hoped for a few innovating missions, where the setting was used to do something that would have been impossible in GTA. But the game never really shows creativity in that area, filling instead most hours with riding through terrain (GTA driving minus the traffic!) and 'shooting gallery' action (on or off the horse) which almost plays itself thanks to the automatic targeting system (like in GTA V). The characters are memorable, a few of them among my favorite Rockstar characters ever. The game world is a marvel at times, even if you've played later open world games such as Skyrim or Assassin's Creed IV. But it also doesn't give much of a reason to explore it. No stunt jumps. No meaningful looting. No silly collectibles (except the skins of wild animals). It's completely straight-faced most of the time, and you know exactly what to expect of cabins, woods, towns etc. No surprises.
In retrospect, the game went all-in on impressive assets and characters. That focus made it impressive next to its contemporaries. However, especially the former quality will always get competition when technology improves. Good gameplay can be timeless. Red Dead Redemption plays like it could have been simply thought out in the last century, and it barely shows hints of innovations in its genre. So it feels stuck there.
If you've never played a Rockstar game before, you might add two points to the score. If you're crazy about westerns, you can safely add at least one point. But I'd recommend GTA V or GTA Vice City instead, or Skyrim or Assassin's Creed IV for similarly exotic game worlds.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.7Apr 16, 2014The HD update delivers. It has leaderboards, meaningful trophies, and the sharp cartoon graphics look recent, even impressive sometimes. The action is not so exciting, but the adventure part is almost a puzzle game by today's standard. This is from back when games didn't play themselves. You have to figure out lots of sections in the game. I suspect that's why the game stayed relatively obscure. The kids who were smart enough to figure it out didn't recommend it do their more impatient friends. Those ready for it can look forward to 10 hours of smart action adventure with lots of mini-games and secrets, in an almost Zelda-like smoothness of presentation and ambition. I was irritated more than a few times by mistakes I could not have foreseen. The last boss fight in particular allowed no shopping for health packs, so I went in unprepared. Those small things where the game suddenly screws you over, that's not cool. And much of the levels are located in rather dark and grey environments, despite the colorful and inviting 'overworld'/'hub'. I'd like to have played more in the colorful environments.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.5Apr 9, 2014(TL;DR: Recommended if the concept appeals to you.) I usually finish main missions before I write a review, but Tokyo Jungle's campaign is locked behind a huge 'survival' map that you have to replay more than a dozen times to unlock every 'act'... short stories all set on the very same map. Granted, the map is huge (although linear) and the acts use locations well. So far, I've unlocked and played five 'acts', and the repetition of the map makes me doubt if I'll want to unlock the rest.
The also unlockable animals and costumes keep variation above tolerable, but apart from the distinction between herbivores and carnivores they play similarly. The game is more action-brawler than stealth. More roguelike than platformer, but it has elements from many genres mixed together. Overall, I think it's above average, especially if you've had enough of 'standard' action games.
It doesn't have online multiplayer. It doesn't have an epic atmosphere, which could have been achieved by a continuous campaign and a more interactive 'Tokyo'. But when it works, it plays like a (post)modern Japanese arcade game with many variables thrown into play, and that's what I recommend about it.
UPDATE: The campaign proved to be fairly varied, and the fourteen 'acts' did not bore me at any point. It got pretty epic too. It remains questionable whether even reaching the campaign is worth the repeated map. If the game's concept sounds awesome to you, it's recommended. If not, still a good game. Just not super compelling.… Expand