Инсталирайте Steam
вход
|
език
Опростен китайски (简体中文)
Традиционен китайски (繁體中文)
Японски (日本語)
Корейски (한국어)
Тайландски (ไทย)
Чешки (Čeština)
Датски (Dansk)
Немски (Deutsch)
Английски (English)
Испански — Испания (Español — España)
Испански — Латинска Америка (Español — Latinoamérica)
Гръцки (Ελληνικά)
Френски (Français)
Италиански (Italiano)
Индонезийски (Bahasa Indonesia)
Унгарски (Magyar)
Холандски (Nederlands)
Норвежки (Norsk)
Полски (Polski)
Португалски (Português)
Бразилски португалски (Português — Brasil)
Румънски (Română)
Руски (Русский)
Финландски (Suomi)
Шведски (Svenska)
Турски (Türkçe)
Виетнамски (Tiếng Việt)
Украински (Українська)
Докладване на проблем с превода
I can tell in one bite if a particular food is disgusting, but even if it's great, that doesn't tell me that eating the entire meal will give me explosive diarrhea every time.
I don't know--it seems obvious to me. A game can have serious flaws which compromise or ruin the experience, and these can be detected quickly. But when someone recommends that I purchase a game after having experienced only a fraction, I consider that dishonest.
Having a full time job, then playing something that feels like a messy incomplete chore of a game isn't an ideal way to relax and unwind.
Honestly, it's not necessary to justify yourself to such a typical comment. I have a very hard time believing that strangefruit is leaving the same criticism in the <= 2.6 hour positive reviews for games.
In all seriousness though, I couldn't stand more than 2 hours, the other .6 were probably fiddling with the settings.
But when it is clear that a lot of care and resources went into visuals and/or story, etc., but the fundamental gameplay mechanics are poor, there's no excuse. I believe the gameplay should be designed and finalized before production begins on artistic aspects.
Anyway, the last paragraph of your reply is exactly right. How many times have I heard someone say that everyone has to recommend the latest poor game "or we won't get another sequel!" *sigh* lol
the floaty/poorly timed animations in 2033 and Exodus.
I think I'm noticing it more with Exodus because the story isn't grabbing me, that and it's 2019 but the animations feel like they were made back in 2010 where you could get away with more flaws.
My guess as to why people are okay with stuff like this, is mostly the nostalgia, the hype, and/or the rarity of owning this game on Steam.
That and lots of people are hopping from console to PC now (hence the big push for the epic store), so any highly flawed game feels fine to them- as it's still a massive upgrade in gameplay for them.
Some people just don't know any better, and letting devs know "that was a great game, don't change anything" will never get these issues resolved, even the minor ones.
I wanted to play the game, as I like the concept, the atmosphere, and the visual realism, but I could not get over the terrible gameplay.
The animations are ridiculous, with creatures not seeming to have any physical connection to the world. The melee combat is worse than Skyrim's, with zero sense of physicality and zero satisfaction. The shooting mechanics are also intolerable.
It's certainly possible to look past deficiencies when a game is good overall, but gameplay is a fundamental aspect.
I can look past mediocre gameplay if other aspects of a game are very well done (e.g. GTAV...I might even say BioShock could be included), but I don't understand how so many people are okay with outright poorly designed and implemented mechanics in games, especially when there is nothing spectacular to compensate for them.