First impressions

August 21, 2008

Turok takes TWO HOURS to install.

Most recent blog posts from Lewis Denby...

One A Day

My Top 50 Games of the Ever

BREVITY OR BUST: Stalin vs. Martians

Most recent blog posts from Lewis Denby...
One A Day My Top 50 Games of the Ever BREVITY OR BUST: Stalin vs. Martians

Feedback

Halon - August 21, 2008 (09:06 AM)
All that and I hear the game is average at best.

honestgamer - August 21, 2008 (09:41 AM)
'Average at worst' is more like it. Seriously, what will it take for people to stop the mad rush to be the first to say that another great game is "meh, nothing special"? I've seen some people say that about games as if it were gospel truth, then when pressed further, they'd add "Well of course I didn't bother to play it for myself! Why would I?" There are a lot of shooters out there that I'd place behind Turok without hesitation, and I haven't even played too terribly many games in the genre!

People shouldn't compare any new game to the most fantastically fantastic game that ever walked a fantastic line and then say "pretty poor" or "not all that great" or whatever about any that falls a few hairs short. When they talk about 'average,' they should look at a much wider spectrum so that the phrase is a reflection of that rather than "Look at me, I'm too cool to like this mainstream game!" If it's really average, say so, but I've seen a lot of games that are well above average ripped to shreds in a 'witty' sentence or two because they weren't the next Half-Life or whatever.

Sorry, I just get sick of it all. If those people are so jaded, I wonder why they bother to play new games at all. And if they're not and it's all just an act to appear cool, I wonder why in the world they think the tactic actually works.

Anyway, I've only played the PS3 version of the game--which is gorgeous and immersive--but I'd imagine that the PC version has similar strengths (and weaknesses, certainly). Certainly not 'game of the year' material or anything, but it still beats the pants dull shooters that more accurately represent the genre average.

Edit: I posted this before reading the review that resulted from playing this game, so don't think my above post is a slam on the excellent review. It's frustration at the general Internet forum populace, who can be counted upon to savage a game at the earliest opportunity even if it means posting impressions after playing a game for only five minutes... and potentially even breaking NDAs!

Lewis - August 21, 2008 (02:04 PM)
I agree with you - it's EDGE syndrome, isn't it? Marking down seemingly for the sake of it. But Turok simply isn't one of those games, and it's an interesting example because you're literally the only person I know who thinks it's anything more than 'quite good in places'. For me, each time I launched the game it took me a good half hour to get into a position where I could stop noticing the stupid faults enough for me to actually enjoy the thing. All it would have taken is some fine-tuning (and a complete narrative overhaul, but hey!) and it would have been pretty good - a 7, at least - but for me the bad points spoiled my enjoyment so much that I couldn't award it more than half marks.

Halon - August 21, 2008 (11:19 PM)
Whoah, hold on a sec. I just said that I HEARD the game is average at best from people who have played it. Most of this feedback says the game is in the 5-6 range and nothing special, which to me is average no matter how you look at it. I never said it sucks because it isn't the next Half Life or best shooter of the year. In the matter of fact I've never even played it and haven't claimed to.

Maybe I'm wrong and the game is great. I'm just going by what I've heard and never made any statement about how the game compares to others. I don't know where you're getting these outrageous claims from.

Feedback
	Halon - August 21, 2008 (09:06 AM) All that and I hear the game is average at best.
	honestgamer - August 21, 2008 (09:41 AM) 'Average at worst' is more like it. Seriously, what will it take for people to stop the mad rush to be the first to say that another great game is "meh, nothing special"? I've seen some people say that about games as if it were gospel truth, then when pressed further, they'd add "Well of course I didn't bother to play it for myself! Why would I?" There are a lot of shooters out there that I'd place behind Turok without hesitation, and I haven't even played too terribly many games in the genre! People shouldn't compare any new game to the most fantastically fantastic game that ever walked a fantastic line and then say "pretty poor" or "not all that great" or whatever about any that falls a few hairs short. When they talk about 'average,' they should look at a much wider spectrum so that the phrase is a reflection of that rather than "Look at me, I'm too cool to like this mainstream game!" If it's really average, say so, but I've seen a lot of games that are well above average ripped to shreds in a 'witty' sentence or two because they weren't the next Half-Life or whatever. Sorry, I just get sick of it all. If those people are so jaded, I wonder why they bother to play new games at all. And if they're not and it's all just an act to appear cool, I wonder why in the world they think the tactic actually works. Anyway, I've only played the PS3 version of the game--which is gorgeous and immersive--but I'd imagine that the PC version has similar strengths (and weaknesses, certainly). Certainly not 'game of the year' material or anything, but it still beats the pants dull shooters that more accurately represent the genre average. Edit: I posted this before reading the review that resulted from playing this game, so don't think my above post is a slam on the excellent review. It's frustration at the general Internet forum populace, who can be counted upon to savage a game at the earliest opportunity even if it means posting impressions after playing a game for only five minutes... and potentially even breaking NDAs!
	Lewis - August 21, 2008 (02:04 PM) I agree with you - it's EDGE syndrome, isn't it? Marking down seemingly for the sake of it. But Turok simply isn't one of those games, and it's an interesting example because you're literally the only person I know who thinks it's anything more than 'quite good in places'. For me, each time I launched the game it took me a good half hour to get into a position where I could stop noticing the stupid faults enough for me to actually enjoy the thing. All it would have taken is some fine-tuning (and a complete narrative overhaul, but hey!) and it would have been pretty good - a 7, at least - but for me the bad points spoiled my enjoyment so much that I couldn't award it more than half marks.
	Halon - August 21, 2008 (11:19 PM) Whoah, hold on a sec. I just said that I HEARD the game is average at best from people who have played it. Most of this feedback says the game is in the 5-6 range and nothing special, which to me is average no matter how you look at it. I never said it sucks because it isn't the next Half Life or best shooter of the year. In the matter of fact I've never even played it and haven't claimed to. Maybe I'm wrong and the game is great. I'm just going by what I've heard and never made any statement about how the game compares to others. I don't know where you're getting these outrageous claims from.

© 1998-2024 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors.