Average Games Are Very Good games: Defending the not great but good games of our departing generation
An “Average” Game is a good game.
This generation was among the best, and the worst, in video game history. Great because of the games but terrible because of our perception of many of them. We are all spoiled. We are so used to games with AAA qualities and near-perfect review scores that we forget about the simpler games. We dismiss the qualities of effort in favor of spectacle. We no longer play good games. Only great games. We forget that many of the games that have blossomed into incredible feats started when they were average, good, and solid. We forget that its because of games that were good but not great that we got into the video game industry and started playing games. Unfortunately, this generation has left a terrible belief that I wish to debunk.
There is this ignorant belief in video games today that sickens me. When gamers here the word “ average” it automatically means a bad, not fun, unplayable game. A game so bad, that everyone involved deserves to be fired. A game that is so awful, its sends those that play it to the hospital. with a terrible diagnosis. Average is equal to abysmal and when gamers here that word, they will not buy that game. For those that preordered, they will stop at nothing to cancel their reserved copy. For one gamer I read on the MoH Facebook page, as soon as a copy of 2010’s Medal of Honor arrived at his doorstep, he immediately went to the nearest UPS with a return sticker and sent his copy back.
Has anyone ever bothered asking themselves what would happen if they play an average game? It’s as if someone, like the President of the United States, declared that if you do play an average game, or a game that gets a 7/10 or 3/5 stars, you will suffer a terrible fate. Your hands will melt off, your loins will dissolve, your head will explode. SERIOUSLY!? Since when has playing an average, solid game been declared to be such a bad thing! In addition, everyone complains why there is such an emphasis on just a few big franchises and question why there is no variety in video games. Why is it always shooters and soldiers and blowing things up? What happened to originality and creating worlds?
Well, the best games, the ones we have come to know and love, all started out there someplace. They all started as simple, average games and eventually blossomed into huge titles. Maybe they didn’t have to win awards or find themselves in a Hall of Fame. Maybe, they just had to be made first and get a chance to find an audience. If we were to think the way we do now back in previous generations, we’d all be playing one game being milked for all its worth. We wouldn’t have variety or different games to play. We would’ve have different stories or worlds.
As it was announced by CAPCOM a few weeks ago that the sales for Lost Planet 3 were lower than expected, many were quick to blast the game., citing it a disaster and a huge disappointment. The game was blasted for being average. Reasons and terms that I have never heard of from video game arose to blast the game. While the game could’ve have been polished further, it is far from a bad game.
This is where I state an honest statement to all who read this: To Liberate your minds, open up your interests, and change your perspectives on games.
An “Average” game is not a bad game at all. An average game is a good game. It’s a game that doesn’t reinvent or push boundaries but a game that sticks to what it knows best. It’s a game that arrived with the intentions of the developers as they envisioned it.
When did we become so afraid and quick to judge on a video game? When did it ever seem like a good idea to blast and skewer a game for being good and worthy of a 7/10 The greatest games aren’t the ones that have 5 out of 5 stars on a review score but simply provide the most fun that you can get. A game truly becomes bad when you stop having fun or you’re not having any kind of fun or enjoyment.
This past generation, several other games have suffered a minigun barrage worth of unfair, negative comments. And in our gaming universe where video games are skewered and judged exclusively on such negative comments, these games have suffered unfair receptions and have subsequently been unable to continue.
This is a list of games that suffered terrible criticism but are worthy of a chance. And in fact, may be so worthy as for you to own the game.
Medal of Honor (2010) and Medal of Honor: Warfighter (2012)
EA got a good talent together to bring back the Medal of Honor franchise. For the first time in franchise history, the series went into the real modern war: the War on Terror in Afghanistan and around the world. In close conjunction with special operations command and the Department of Defense, the game developed to have an incredibly authentic military shooting experience set in real world settings. The game was made with the impact and notoriety the original MoH games generated.
What made it good, despite its flaws: It could’ve used a longer, more varied campaign and maybe some direct connections with WWII Medal of Honor. Maybe an integrated flashback mission to Jimmy Patterson from MoH: Frontline. The game’s both featured sharp visuals and dynamic, realistic shooting. The sound design was incredibly detailed, rivaling that of an Academy Award winning film like Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down. The enemy posed a challenge and you’re A.I Squad did their jobs well. Each game featured an emotional narrative, about the warriors, each other, and the families they were each fighting for. Coupled with Ramin Djwandi’s score, it really created an experience you cared about. The online multiplayer provided its own hybrid of fun as well. The first game, in particular, had its online component made by DICE, complete with the Frostbite engine. It provided a faster, more balanced infantry combat experience. The second game had a longer campaign and integrated the entire game with the new Frostbite engine, providing an interesting gameplay dynamic.
What everyone hated about it:
Each of these game was ignorantly stacked up against Cal of Duty and Battlefield and essentially defecated on for their differences with the competition. Critic sthat played the game clearly played such famous levels as “ Belly of the Beast” and the Apache gunship attack mission and still called the game “boring.” I remember reading incredibly biased reviews, with Game Informer calling it “ an adequate game that’s not good enough at this point”, exactly the belief I am challenging at this time. The game had it’s flaws but it was far from inadequate. Other nonsense, such as the large patch sizes and the multiplayer, also arose. The critical reception was so bad that gamers scrambled to cancel their preorder in stores and even returned their shipments shortly after delivery. Unfortunately, due to this negative criticism, the game was led to be somewhat of a critical and commercial failure. It sold but as Electronic Arts like to pride itself on great game, it declared that MoH was to be put on hiatus. Not dead but not active. At least, for now. ( I mean what kind of shooter offering will we have next year? Battlefield 4.5?)
Personally, I feel that the single player of these two games were better then Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, CoD Ghosts, and Modern Warfare 2 & 3. I mean I’ve played both these games through and through and I ask myself, what was really so bad about these games. Critics complained that your allies can’t die in combat. Ok, doesn’t that happen in every other shooter also? I saw users call Warfighter in a particular a “brown shooter” And I ask that, in all the year that I have ever played video games, what the f*$k is a brown shooter? Exactly! It’s a made up term used blast a game an turn it into a scape goat for negative feedback when the game is actually pretty solid. I discovered that the term was used because most of the game’s missions take place in the Middle East from Dubai to Pakistan. The games are certainly worth your time and provide a unique take on military shooters that stood out on the competition. Will we see a sequel one day? I certainly hope so.
Alien Versus Predator (2010)
SEGA and developer Rebellion brought new life into the Alien franchise in 2010 with their release of Aliens Versus Predator. A PC shooter classic, the games took place within the Aliens and Predator universe and pitted players deep within the terror and isolation of those franchises. This new game continued the series tradition, placing players in 3 unique campaigns that took place within and around Each campaign had its own specific attributes. As a Predator, you used brute force, guilty, and stealth to fight xenos and marines. As a Xeno, you break free and slaughter marines, Weyland Yutani security, and Predators to protect your queen. Finally, as a colonial Marine, you’re the prey and your job is to shoot anything that wants to kill you and survive it all. This game features a multiplayer mode that you’ll find nowhere else: A Free for all and TDM of Marine vs. predator vs. alien. It provided hours of fun.
What made it good, despite its flaws:
The game could’ve used more multiplayer maps and a more streamlined online menu for finding the survivor modes. Also, you inexplicably cannot crouch as a marine. The campaigns could’ve been a little longer and featured some more gameplay variety, especially the marine one. I’ve always wanted to fly the dropship or use the APC in a mission. AvP was a truly unique and exciting experience, despite these flaws. In a point in time where every shooter dealt with military combat and ultra violence, it was a nice science fiction action shooter with exciting combat mechanics based on the campaign you choose. The multiplayer was addictive with the different characters, multiple weapons, and interesting maps.
What everyone hated:
Apparently, the game had horrible visuals, horrible sound, and horrible gameplay. The game was considered boring as well.
My take: What you see in the trailer is what you got and it was freaking awesome! Alright, the no crouching thing is kind of a clusterf*** but the way the game pans out, you really don’t need it so no worries on being unable to get through the campaign. The rest of the game was awesome! The critics were once again trying to bring this game down for no reason. It’s hard to say a game has bad sound when the movie company, 20th Century Fox, gave the team the actual sound files of pulse rifles firing, aliens screeches, and predator visors to use in the game. It’s hard to say a game has bad visuals when you can intricately rip out the head and vertebrae of a marine. The gameplay may not be easy for predator and alien campaign but you learn. It’s called a learning curve. The game’s director did have an open reaction, blasting the critics for the hard work they put into the game and I don’t blame him. I’d be pissed off myself when I’ve worked hard on a video game for several years, made it a very well done game, and someone blasts it for the most ignorant reasons. AvP went on to sell very well and a sequel is coming sometime in the future.
Dante’s Inferno (2010)
Based on the 14th Century Divine Comedy from Dante Alighieri , Dante’s Inferno was the gaming interpretation of the most widely accepted version of H E Double Hocky Stick. The game was developed by visceral games, the famous team behind the Dead Space franchise and Army of Two: The Cartel. In the divine comedy, Dante must travel through the levels of Hell to reclaim his soul. Visceral Games decided to change some aspects of the story. Dante, instead of being a weak individual fainting through his journey, was transformed into a warrior from The Crusades. His mission also grew to not just reclaim his soul but to rescue his wife, Beatrice.
What makes it good, despite its flaws:
This is a visual, animated interpretation of the darkest, most evil domain humankind has ever known. A place that chills you just thinking about it. It is the underworld. It is Hell. A place of suffer, torment, nightmares, and punishment for all eternity. The game featured an absolutely raw and stunning portrayal of the darkness within. Whether its facing Cleopatra and Marc Antony in Lust or fighting morbidly obese, defecating enemies in Gluttony, there was a lot of care and heart placed into the game. The combat, while it could’ve been more varied, was pretty intense and difficult. I would’ve wanted to see more enemies and dynamic level design with the combat. He last few levels seems rushed and I would’ve wanted to see more boss fights. Dante runs into several members of his family. He fights his Dad but it would’ve been interesting to fight his mother, who had transformed into a dark tree in the Woods of Suicides. Also, later in the game, Beatrice gets tricked into becoming a part of Lucifer. Instead of a cut-scene, it would’ve been neat go head to head in an epic fight against the Queen of Darkness to save her soul. Ultimately, it was a satisfying adventure.
Why everyone else hated it:
The game was constantly rubbed up against Sony’s God of War and repeatedly skewered for simply not being God of War or being a cheap rip off. Critics complained that they wanted Dante’s Inferno to be like God of War and that there should have some kind of individuality. The common reception was that it should’ve hit along those strides and that all the ideas used here are unoriginal.
So apparently a game, that has absolutely nothing to do with Greek mythology or the Gods of Olympus is not unique. A game that takes place exclusively in hell is not individualized. Yep. That make a whole lot of sense. (Sarcasm) I believe that if you stack up games next to top-tier, AAA quality games all the time, you’re never going to be satisfied. You’ll always be playing the one top-tier game and then throw yourself into hypocrisy when you say you want to play a new game. Open your mind to something new and different and there’s a good chance that you’ll like what you see. Certainly worth checking out.
Syndicate started as a 16 bit, Real-time strategy game in 1993. It was known for its setting, premise, and gameplay. In 2012, Starbreeze Studios and EA reimagined the game as a stylish first person shooter. Deep in the future, all governments and constitutions are dissolved as high, cutting edge technology and the companies that supply them soar. It’s a time where a handful of companies own and operate entire swaths of the planet. The creation of the DART chip revolutionizes the way humans live, rendering all portable devices obsolete. There are the chipped and unchipped populations; Those that believe in technology, bio engineering, and cybernetic augmentation, and those that refuse to be chipped. As these companies soar, their interests collide in small wars. These wars are fought by agents, enforcers with their specific companies that protect and defend their company while annihilating the competition. You star as Agent Kilo of EuroCorp and you embark on a dangerous, cyberpunk war.
What made it good, despite its flaws: The game’s campaign was short and there were not as many co-op missions as I would’ve liked. But, it oozed a futuristic, cyborg-action style with it’s combat. As you have the DART-6 chip implanted, along with several augmentations, you truly feel like an agent of the future with your quick reflexes, breaching, hacking, brutal close quarters combat, visual overlays, and state-of-the-art weaponry. The DART-6 chip allows you to hack and breach targets while shooting other targets. Each breach is different. One forces your foe to pull the pin on a grenade to explode. Another forces them to fight alongside you and one overloads weapons. Also, vehicles, foes, and other obstacles have their own breach mechanic you have to exploit. All of this forms a fast-paced, frantic style of combat that is unlike any other shooter out there. The co-op is fun as well, pitting you and three other players against waves upon waves upon waves of enemy soldiers and agents.
What people didn’t like: People, who probably weren’t alive long enough to remember th 1993 game, bitched, whined, and moaned as to the game being reimagined as a shooter. Their complaint is that the shooter market is oversaturated and having another one crowds things.
My Point: Those are most likely the same people that wouldn’t have bought it anyway, even if it was an RTS. 2011 and 2012 were the most intense years in shooters, with literally a huge list to choose from. Syndicate sttod out with its style, unique gameplay, awesome abilities, deadly weapons, and cool scenarios. It pays to open your mind and play something that intrigues you. If you see a game and it looks really neat, just play it. You decide what you play. Not the reviewer. Syndicate is certainly one hell of a futuristic shooting exerience
Capcom and newly founded Airtight Games were proudly promoting an interesting, new title in their lineup called “Dark Void” Dark Void was meant to be the hopeful start of a new, action based franchise that could find it’s audience in a crowded arena of action shooters. In the game, the year is 1935 and the world is teetering on the brink of World War II. You star as Will, a former military now cargo pilot. On a routine mission, Will and his co-pilot are sucked into The Bermuda Triangle and crash land in a bizarre, unfamiliar world. They are in “ The Void” a world between worlds. An ancient, shape-shifting alien race, known as the Watchers, seek to enslave humanity and make Earth their new home as their previous home has been destroyed. They are held back by a small but very resilient group known as The Survivors. They include all sorts of people who mysteriously disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle, thought to be gone and never seen again. These people encompass all of history and include individuals like Tesla. Together they must stop The Watchers from invading Earth. Players take the role of Will and fight in the air and on the ground with a specially modified jetpack.
What made it good, despite it’s flaws:
Out of all the scifi games I have played, none have ever woven in the real-life mystery of The Bermuda Triangle. The triangle is thought to be many things in real-life. An alien defense mechanism guarding a city? Perhaps Atlantis? A Portal? All we know is that whomever and whatever goes through disappears forever. So it’s nice that this game creates a whole new universe from that.
The Watchers have an interesting goal about opening small gateway and using their technology and shapeshifting abilities to start WWII. The combat is pretty solid. Taking out alien cyborgs and robots is pretty thrilling. The on-foot combat is cool but the game really gets fun with vertical shooting and jetpack combat. Vertical shooting literally involved taking cover and navigating through 90 degrees up or down. You’ll see Will taking cover facing up or down and maneuvering for cover and taking out enemies. It made for a very neat mechanic. Jetpack combat is as you’d expect, hijacking UFO’s and blowing things up with your mini-missile and machine gun equipped jet pack. There are missions where Will transitions in and out of jetpack combat. The visuals were solid, the story was decent, and the music, scored by Brear McCreary, is powerful.
Sadly, it felt that parts of the game were missing. Probably because of lack of will or lack of finances. The campaign was only about 8 hrs long with some replay value for trophy/achievement completionists. There were survivor missions, which pitted players against waves of enemies. They extend the value a bit more. The disappointment stems from what the game could’ve been.
What everybody else hated:
Everyone saw the ground combat and immediately stacked it up to Gear of War, calling it a horrible Gears ripoff. IGN scored it a 5/10, saying it was a game you’d play and then forget ever existed. Of course, the usual ciricisms came up. Its boring. it’s unimpressive. It sucks. It’s a game for losers. Blah blah blh…..
If you stack every single third person shooter to Gears of War , just because it’s in the third person, you are not going to get anywhere in video games. The game is worth a try and can be picked up for real cheap. It qualities do exceed its flaws. Unfortunately, due to the poor receptions and subsequent sales performance, it’s unlikely we’ll ever see a sequel. However, there is an awesome 8-bit, retro game released at the same time as a prequel called Dark Void Zero, available in iOS and Nintendo DS. And the soundtrack is very worthy also.
THQ wanted to jump onto the FPS bandwagon and ambitiously sought to create a competitive shooting experience. The result was Homefront. Homefront stood out with a hauntingly realistic depiction of the future. North Korea gets powerful, becomes western educated, and begins to annex entire countries. America is crippled by a variety of economic woes and its military downsizes. North Korea invades and begins its occupation of the United states, with a massive EMP attack, a poison cocktail released into the Mississippi River, and a large number of forces seizing complete control and even using America’s hardware. You are a former marine that escapes and resists the occupation in an attempt to take back America.
What made it good, despite its flaws:
The story was written by John Milius, famed for his work with the 1984 World War III action movie, Red Dawn (The 2012 one was a remake) The original, reflecting on the growing threat of communist aggression, takes place during a time when the UN is broken down and the Russians have seized control of most of the world. They subsequently decides to invade, occupy, and control the U.S. The movie famously starred Charlie Sheen and Patrick Sqayze and featured incredible action moments. This story is reflected here in Homefront but in a unique perspective. There were characters and a story that gave heart and meaning to the campaign. The shooting was fast paced and balanced and the settings were every interesting. The enemy force put up a hell of a fight and featured a well-paced, varied intense campaign. The campaign could’ve been longer and more conclusive. Plus, we have absolutely no idea what happened on the East Coast.
Multiplayer shined though and was one that could easily compete with both Battlefield and Call of Duty. Each class was balanced enough in the fast paced environment to where it was easy to rack up kills and points without being overwhelmed or persecuted. The use of vehicles and the maps were done well. Essentially, you could be a soldier class, equipped with an assault rifle, smg, an anti tank missile, and a perk. you earned battle points for each action (kills, protecting a point,destroying enemy vehicles) The battle points then lent themselves for players to use special functions like airstrikes and vehicles.
What everyone hated about it:
“ This game is for f%^s” as one gamer put it. People just couldn’t accept another shooter in the market and blasted it for being poorly polished, poorly animated, a poor story, just about everything poor. And, of course, the usual crud.
Yea because fighting a powerful North Korea is just suddenly poor. Using a powerful UGV is poor. Playing a multiplayer where you are not getting constantly killed and are actually having fun is poor. What this gaming industry has, sadly, taught everyone is that there can only be two shooters and not the widespread plethora that should exist. Only CoD can get away with Shooter of the Year awards, even though it’s the same game literally copied and pasted together with hardly any significant refinements. Every other game can’t receive an award because they are different. Seriously, the reception of this game pissed me off. It was a very competent shooter with interesting, well-executed ideas and the fanbase is still quite strong. A sequel as been announced is being developed and published by Crytek.
Red Faction: Armageddon (2011)
THQ began bringing its older franchises into the light during this generation. One of them was the Red Faction franchise. The game made a big hit in the gaming universe in 2002 as a brutal science fiction shooter on par with movies like Total Recall. The game introduced Geo-mod, the ability to alter your environment to give you a tactical advantage. See a wall? Use a det charge to blow it up and make an opening. See a bridge? Take it out to take your enemies out. In 2009, Red Faction Guerrilla was released. It changed its style completely, becoming an open world game on Mars. The change in gameplay perspectives provided some unique experiences. As a guerrilla fighter fighting a large enemy force, you attacked the enemy in very creative ways. Namely, you could take a truck, load it with explosives, ram it into a building, escape, then blow the building sky high. Seeing the visual particle effects provided a very satisfying experience. However, many complained that this direction strayed too far from the original. So when the sequel was announced, Volition Studios sought to create a game that paid homage to the original while introducing new elements.
Red Faction Armageddon takes place years after the events of Guerrilla. A crazy, religious army of zealots destroys the chief terraformer of Mars and plunges the entire population underground. Several year later, Darius Mason is sent on a mining and recovery operation and is tricked into releasing an alien plague that originated from the original game. A massive alien onslaught begins and the zealots take over. You fight your way through the caverns and terrains of Mars to save the human race.
What made it good, despite its flaws:
You had a better story this time around along with more refined, destructible combat. It was black to use the unique weapons and vehicles in the game, taking out enemies in satsifying fashion. The game lasted quite a while as wel and fighting in the caves and tunnels of Mars was pretty thrilling. it could’ve benefited from a stronger connection to the first game and Guerilla. Also, using nanotechnology was a very neat effect. The DLC packs and online co-op mode rpovided a boost in fun. It just could’ve used more of a direct connection with the original games and a longer campaign mode with more variety and story. Ultimately, it was an awesome game that felt more like the original.
What everyone hated:
The usual: It is boring, it’s uninspired, it sucks, it’s bland. Why does it take place in caverns and caves? Why is it isolated? Why are there no airstrikes and c4 and m4 carbines and night vision goggles or Soap McTavish or Captain Price or Master Chief or Marcus Fenix?
My take: it’s funny how people just complain and bitch and whine and moan about a game. It’s as if it is the worst thing for them when a game changes. Instead of just enjoying it, they are complaining about it then having fun. The complaints from Guerrilla was to make the sequel more like the original. And they did! But everyone complained anyway. It’s the kind of the logic that gamers have today unfortunately. The negative sales led to THQ ceasing any development on Red Faction. As history would have it, THQ dissolved. Red Faction was bought by a new publisher and is currently in the deciding phases. Play this game and Guerilla to show your enthusiasm for the series and bring it into the next generation of gaming systems.
TRON: Evolution (2010)
Disney Interactive had a nice selection of console release titles, including TUROK (2008), Split/Second (2010) Pure (2009) and the upcoming (but never to be released) Action/RPG prequel, Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned. To flex their artistic muscle and to prepare for the highly anticipated sequel to the 1982 classic film, TRON, Propaganda Studios released TRON: Evolution, the official video game prequel to the upcoming film, Tron Legacy. In the game, you take on the role of Anon, a specially made enforcer/security program under the apprenticeship of Tron. Together, you are to secure and protect the system. As the system begins to spiral into potential Civil War, a virus erupts and spreads chaos. You, as Anon, must use the power of the light disc to protect the system.
What made it good, despite its flaws: The game was short and could’ve benefited from variety. Also, I really wanted there to have been a more direct connection with the first movie, akin to the TRON: Betrayal graphic novel released before the game. We don’t know what happened to Yuri, Dumont, or the MCP. Yea it was destroyed but can you be 100 percent certain? Hell, maybe RAM is still alive and we don’t know it. However, the game had incredible production values, a solid, action-packed campaign and a pretty fun online mode.
The campaign wove through several big plot points featured in TRON: Legacy and so, the single player campaign is rich with canon. The combat, which utilized a combination of urban parkour and Brazilian Capoeria, was dynamic and fun. It was awesome derezzing control programs with the different discs. There were light cycles and light tanks levels as well, each with their own brand of fun. Though, it would’ve been neat to use the recognizer for something. The music was exceptional as well and several characters and their respective actors/actresses reprise their roles. Multiplayer was a fun distraction well worth putting time into. You could actually smash players into your jet walls on light cycles or go head to head in gladiator combat with the discs. The light tanks were also in play as well.
What everyone hated: The game was supposed to be the second coming of God Himself. It was supposed to be the biggest revolution in entertainment history, a majestic tour-de- force of unrivaled digital realms. An epic tale unfit for Hollywood and cinema. But since it wasn’t, it is garbage, trash, awful, and disappointing. Unfortunately, this criticism led to Disney Interactive terminating most of its studios, firing hundreds, cancelling the nearly completed Pirates RPG, and focusing almost exclusively on mobile games, social apps, and movie-tie ins. Because of the people that hate this game, we went from Tron to the Brave movie game. Think about it.
My take: You are talking about the sequel to a movie that has been 28 years in the waiting. You are talking about two completely different generations of gamers. 28 years ago, coin operated arcades were the next big thing. HD, wifi, fiber optics, and the world we know it today would’ve seemed like a science fiction script in 1982. I’m just happy a game as good as this with the TRON name was released. Also, most movie licensed games end up being a disaster, such as the Ironman games, the Thor game from 2011, and the Terminator Salvation game from 2009. It’s good, solid fun with interesting values. Plus, it’s TRON. If you haven’t seen either movie or the animated TRON Uprising tv show, you can’t call yourself a gamer since those movies and the show all encompass video games as we know.
Lost Planet 3 (2013)
The Lost Planet franchise has gone up, gone down, and hit a pretty good stride. Lost Planet: Extreme Condition introduced to us an isolated hell-hole of a planet, EDN III, an iceball rich with energy. On the planet, a lone soldier discovers himself through an interesting conspiracy on an ice ball dominated by massive, orange glowing aliens known as the Akrid. Featuring mech combat and fast paced shooting up against unbelievably sized enemies, Lost Planet: Extreme Condition was a huge hit. Several years later, Lost Planet 2 was released. On the surface, it seemed to have everything going for it. Bigger enemies, more weapons, full-fledged co-op, and a varied campaign mode. However, it was crushed by poor design choices, such as frustrating difficulty, braindead A.I, and a myriad of interface issues.
Lost planet 3 seeks to reboot things. Taking place several years before the events of the first game, Lost Planet 3 is an action/survival shooter. Player are introduced to Jim Payton, a loving father and husband who embarks on a big job with NEVEC to fully mine and refine EDN III’s energy. His help nets him a big pay check. But overtime, the secrets of NEVEC and EDN III begin to unravel and Jim may be the key to it all.
What made it good, despite it’s flaws: Velocity Suits are replaced by RIG’s, big , hulking slow as hell mechs. Going from section to section is not seamless. And has small load times And, you are an engineer. Not a former soldier or mercenary. However, the game provides a very solid adventure with a very well [aced and acted story that keep the player going til the very end. In addition, the quasi open world and secondary missions keep players engaged. The feeling of mystery and isolation, established in Extreme Condition, returns and your character is a capable fighter but you feel his vulnerability. The RIG is his life and he really uses weapons with the will to survive. The smaller Akrid gets a little annoying after while but fighting larger akrid, especially with the RIG, is satisfying. Crushing, punching and destroying enemies doesn’t get old an there’s a satisfaction to throwing a grenade into the mouth of one. The adventure lasts close to 15 hours and there’s plenty of replay value. There’s even a full-fledged multiplayer mode to keep things going.
What people hated: It’s average and nothing new. Nothing really cool happens. There is no crazy over the top scenarios or explosions. This isn’t like Lost planet 2, which everyone hated for the right reasons, and is a huge disappointment
My take: Doesn’t anybody see the trailers or open their minds? Everyone complained about Lost Planet 2 lacking a real story to single player so we get this game, which is actually better than the second. Everyone says this looks generic but fails to realize that this takes place BEFORE the events of the first game. Therefore, things are obviously very different. There may not be crazy-ass weaponry and Gatling gun wielding mechs. But there are still larger-than-life bosses and interesting battles to wage. There is a better story told here then even the first game. And while it does have more than inspired elements from James Cameron’s Aliens and Viscreal Games’ Dead Space franchise, it still makes for an entertaining adventure.
So are there any other games you feel were poorly mistreated and subsequently bastardized in the gaming world? Let us know in the comments. Share them and other gamers like me will give them the chance they never got.