jerec's Lost: Via Domus review

Well, you say the game's worth playing because it's short and easy and practically farts achievements, but does it actually provide any insight into the show's plot and setting? I'm a huge Lost fan but if it just recaps the events of the show then I might just pass altogether.

Good question. I should add this to the review.

The events from the first three seasons of the show play out in the background. Well, some of them anyway. The game only shows you a few. But mostly it follows your own character's story as he explores the island to get his memory back.

I am also a fan of LOST, if masochistic fuck heads can be called fans. By that I mean I love LOST as much as any fan despite the fact that the show's creators like to continually hurt their audience. I also don't watch TV, so I just watch the DVDs which makes the show exactly 1000x better.

This paragraph bugs me:

But despite how annoying the game can be, how uncomfortable it can be to play, it's still a game worth seeing through to the end, if only because it is only about five hours long and is not challenging in the slightest. It takes no real effort to get the 1000 GS on the 360 version, and for that reason may actually be worth a rental for anyone trying to boost their score.

What bugs me about it is that you say the game isn't challenging at all, yet numerous times in this review you've pointed out sections that seemed design to kill you unfairly (in particular, you mention a cave killing you if you don't have torches and a section where a monster chases you while you can't run, a sequence you call tense and frustrating). These kind of contradictions in reviews always throw me off and make me wonder as to the validity of the whole piece. I would suggest changing this paragraph or reworking it to go along with the rest of the review.

It is frustratingly annoying at times, but you get through it and then you move onto the next frustrating sequence. Keep doing that for a bit, and the end credits roll.

Kuudos for taking a potshot at the writers bragging about using a cliched plot. Nice use of tongue and cheek humor there. Truth be told, I don't watch much TV and was never really interested in this series. However, your review somehow made me a bit more interested, which I suppose counts for something.

Despite not getting the references, this is an engaging read that neatly and concisely covers all the most important points.

One thing I really don't like is the following statement - "Yes, some of the sequences will kill you several times, but once you get it right, you'll be able to get through." Um, couldn't the same be said for any challenge in any video game? If you get Ghosts and Goblins for the NES right, you are going to win. Nobody in their right mind would dare as so much imply that game is not challenging. It looks to me that you are stubbornly refusing to admit that the insane difficulty is a weakness and instead you're trying to sweep some dirt under the rug. However, you do give an overall score of 4/10, so I can't complain about this too much. It's just reading that statement is a bit disorienting.

I added that sentence because of earlier complaints about it. I guess there's no way to say the game is frustrating, but at the same time short and easy.

I don't think that anyone who has played many games at all will have trouble picturing a game that is exasperating without providing any real challenge and/or length. A lot of licensed games can fit that bill, so the way you just said it made a lot of sense to me!

I think you're about the only one, Jason. The concept seems pretty alien to the rest of these guys. :P

See what Jason just said? Now that made sense to me. I think the reason it doesn't work for me here is because the definition of the challenge is spread out over too many paragraphs with no obvious connection between the two. Anyway, I'm not trying to beat up your review, I'm just providing suggestions for improvement. You can take the advice or leave it.

I just now read the review and don't see where challenge is discussed (except to say it's not)... the review makes this sound like an easy game with some annoying frustrating parts, and those aren't even mentioned until the final paragraphs.

//Zig

Perhaps I came across harsher than I intended. I still stand by my opinion above, but the review as a whole is still good. It's just that one particular phrase threw me off balance.

Maybe Zig is right; maybe I tried too hard to read in between the lines and concocted the argument is that the game is difficult, when another interpretation could simply be the game just has a couple of annoyinig parts.

I agree about the sentence you quoted, Rand... as written, that sentence could be applied to pretty much any hard part in a game.

My response was more of a comment on Zipp's feedback. I'm not picking up on the whole "this game is challenging" vibe.

//Zig