Shooter devotees desperate to find something different this summer might be able to scrape out something of value in Sniper: Ghost Warrior, but even the most hard-up gamer would likely be better served looking backwards toward other, better executed titles from the last few years such as the aforementioned ARMA 2 or Operation: Flashpoint. Hopefully, City Interactive can bring something more fleshed out to the table next time.
Presentation - 6.0
Graphics - 7.5
Sound - 6.5
Gameplay - 5.5
Lasting Appeal - 7.0
Overall -
A look at five games that gamers loved but most critics hated.
Advent Rising is another good example. It got panned by critics but it has a good story and I enjoyed playing it. The graphics are dated, the enemies all look the same, but it was made in 2005 so what do you expect? I wish they made the sequel so I could finish the story but I think the critics killed it off.
Replies(1)
I seldom trust gamers or critics anymore. A lot of times high scores just mean how likely you are to enjoy something from the game, but rarely anything about how much you would enjoy said things, or whether the highly preferred type of qualities in a game you’re looking for are even in it. My initial gut feeling of the premise of a game is usually all I need.
Choose the right weapons for your mission and achieve your targets as the Sniper Ghost Warrior series comes to Android and iOS devices.
Not every "bad game" deserves its reputation, some are just misunderstood because they were too ambitious, over hyped or heavily plagued by a bad development cycle.
Shut your mouth.
No Mans Sky first trailer looked like this epic world of exploration and conflict.
Reality was - barren waste lands with creatures looking straight out of Gary's Mod.
No Mans Sky also promised the ability to play with friends which all was said during talk show interviews.
Reality Was - Absolutely zero multiplayer found inside the game, there were even sketchy moments of discoveries disappearing if you happened to travel far enough into the center of the universe.
The developers also promised a really cool ending to the game once you reached the center of the universe.
Reality Was - ...just YouTube the ending and realize how much of a shit show this game is.
They EVEN came back with some base making update.
Reality Was - They first sold you on a game of massive nearly endless space exploration, though they came back out with an expansion pack based on base-making which promotes squatting on a damn planet and doing very little.
Stahp.
MP as you claim was never, ever promised. In fact, it was explained in 2014, 2015, and 2016 that the game wasn't MP.
Lack of reading comprehension (GI's "Stop Thinking of No Man's Sky as a Multiplayer Game" 2014) isn't the fault of the developer.
Are some promised things missing from the game? Yes. Are some unpromised things in the game. Yes. Were there lies written by hack journalists and repeated in echo chambers touted as truths (no large scale space battles)? Yes
There are two endings to the game, in reality.
Reality is, you haven't played the new update. Your base and every single space station has a teleporter to quickly move between your base and the space station. That means you can move across the galaxy in the blink of an eye.
My take away from this is something I cling to religiously. Price will often time dictate my expectations levels and perhaps rightly so.
Something priced at $15 to $20 bucks will receive a less critical (not a pass) eye as opposed to a $60 dollar one.
When I put down $60 im expecting a life changing experience. When I give you $10 to $15 bucks I understand that this project may be something personal, or very niche or perhaps even vaguely resemble a game as I know it in its traditional sense.
time and price give one the ability to experience a game quietly and without reservations.
This is not great for developers, especially indie ones, but sometimes it's all you can do to truly enjoy something.
Daikatana was crap, though, not even time can help that mess. Everything else on that list I can mostly agree with.
Why is there a picture of No Man's Sky? The piece doesn't even mention that game at all.
I guess the check bounced.
The game is not that bad, or in another sense, the reviewer is complaining about issues that can be experienced in even the most highly rated games. Invisible barriers and small objects that act as obstructions plague many games, including but not limited to Dead Space, Halo 3, Resistance, MGS4, Killzone 2, Gears of War 1&2, Assassin's Creed 1&2, Shadow Complex, Modern Warfare 1&2, Grand Theft Auto IV, Red Faction Guerrilla, Doom 3, Uncharted 1&2 and much more.
It irks me that the reviewer would center his review of the game on something so common. Why didn't any of the games I listed get marked down for it. Invisible walls are there to direct the flowof the game. The player is not supposed to be wander off too far from the action. And it's common for objects to obstruct movement. Again, I've experienced that issue in virtually every game that I mentioned.
Now, the better point that is brought up is the poor acting and the plot. The gameplay, I've seen it, and it's not bad. Again, another reviewer made a video review of the game and praised the the satisfying sniper kills in each mission.
At the very worst, this game is a 6.8 or something. But I would have given it a 7.4.
And I don't even need to mentioned how fucked up the IGN rating system is.
decent review, ill rent it for my ps3, never know, it might be wayy underrated.
:/ flop
Looked like it had good graphics though.
Not perfect but very fun. I have it on pc and I'm loving it.
Not on Ps3