[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Jake

See, Doom 3 was a supremely inbred, retro-throwback gore-ridden (and in my opinion, subpar) FPS designed for the core FPS players who have been at it since Doom 1.

The difference is that Doom 3 and many other games are not generally penalized for it by mainstream press. If they do what they TRY to do well, then all is forgiven. Of course it's a valid point to say it's geared for fans-only, but if a review harps on it, then it certainly looks like a criterion of quality. If it is, fine, then it just needs to be consistent across the board.

I have no real problem with this review, or its score, and I DO have a problem with conspiracy theories. But that repetitive focus point did seem counter-productive in this review.

Oh, and the Canadian mannerisms thing was retarded.

[squarejawhero]

Hey, FOV! I created that t-shirt in two minutes! C'mon, at least give me a womans opinion!

[fov]

Does it come in babydoll?

I don't want one of those *boy* tee-shirts...

[squarejawhero]

Give me a moment.

[squarejawhero]

http://www.cafepress.com/storytees.23495719

There you go.

edit - I'll keep these tee's up til tomorrow.

[fov]

Very cute.

I'm too cheap to buy one, but you get an A for effort.

[sethsez]

Okay fov, the review contends that Still Life offers nothing that adventure fans haven't seen before. You say this is false. So what does Still Life offer that you haven't seen in adventure games past?

[fov]

EDIT: Hey no fair, you changed your post while I was answering!

The original question was "what was new in this game for you," and that's what I answered:

Hmm... let's see.

-The STORY. I have never experienced that story before (or even one remotely like it). And it was a damn good one.

-Awesome atmosphere, particularly in Chicago. I loved the Art Deco, loved the Christmas touches (blinking lights in the trees outside Vic's dad's house, the little decorated tree in the office) - I can't remember another game taking place at Christmas time. Great touch.

-Puzzles I was capable of solving (and had the desire to sit through and solve!) without going for a walkthrough. This is the first game in probably 15 years that I have completed entirely on my own. Which is not to say they were easy, but they were attainable, and that kept me glued to the game.

-The ending and possibilities it left open. Other than Shadow of Destiny (which I will never get tired of discussing), Still Life has given me the most to talk about / think about than any other game in recent memory.

-The cutscenes -- just great all around. I watched each of them at least twice and some three or four times. I never do that (even when it's easy to do so, like in Syberia). I especially liked how action took place in the cutscenes... action I wouldn't necessarily have wanted to play through myself, but that belonged in the story.

This is what comes to mind, off the top of my head. But why should I (or others) have to justify it? Do you not believe me when I say playing this game was a completely fresh and exciting experience for me? There may be *elements* that have been in other games before - so what? If they were put together in a way that felt new and unique to me (and others), what does it matter?

[DFish]

Originally Posted by sethsez

Okay fov, the review contends that Still Life offers nothing that adventure fans haven't seen before. You say this is false. So what does Still Life offer that you haven't seen in adventure games past?

It offers a puzzle where you have to bake cookies without any clue what the ingredients are. I've never seen that before.

Seriously, should we wonder why adventure games don't get top scores when they have things like that in them? I liked the game fine, but there were too many of that type of silly puzzle in them. It is that very type of puzzle that sends me to the walkthrough simply because I don't have the desire to sit there wasting my time on it and I want to get moving on in the game.

[fov]

Ooh, thought of another one - the emphasis on family and backstory. Including the context of that cookie puzzle (which I happened to love). Most games don't even scratch the surface.

[squarejawhero]

I'd be really impressed with a game with the presentation values of Syberia and the innovation of Mysterious Island. Kind of two opposites, but take the good bits of each... MI actually garnered great reviews for its style of play, not its presentation nor story. Still Life the other way around.

[squarejawhero]

Actually, I just thought of a better way of putting things. What does Still Life offer OTHER gamers? Now that story is something which has gained massive importance in the last two years within mainstream gaming. I think it's time people on both sides of the argument stood back from their personal opinions and looked at the wider view in these kind of discussions.

Sure gaming is about personal enjoyment, and that's totally subjective - if a gamer likes Boiling Point: Road To Hell as an FPS/RPG doesn't mean everyone will like it. It's bugged to hell and only some will like it for its open-endedness. Likewise Still Life's puzzles aren't going to be for everyone.

I'm digressing a bit, but hopefully the point is there.

[fov]

Personally, I think everything I listed could potentially appeal to "other" gamers, which is why I disagree with the assertion that this is a game for adventure gamers only.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Jackal

The difference is that Doom 3 and many other games are not generally penalized for it by mainstream press. If they do what they TRY to do well, then all is forgiven.

Isn't that what the reviewer's saying? "Still Life as a game doesn't live fully up to its premise, but still may be worth a look." Plus, he's talking about "Slavish dedication to (genre) convention". From what I've read and seen about Still Life thus far, that *might* be true. There's a difference between that and "making the best out of a genre's potential". It's just his opinion, there's still plenty of pretty good scores on the web.

I partially agree with fov about Still Life appealing to quite a few people, though. In my book, at least it's the only current game that might attract a wider audience. Not because it's an adventure game/interactive movie/blah-blah, and especially not if a "slavish dedication to convention" actually hurts the game. No. Because of the story's premise. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the game does a better job of telling that story than Gamespot's review suggests...

[Bruno_Malta]

It offers a puzzle where you have to bake cookies without any clue what the ingredients are. I've never seen that before

If you have at least, some minor notion of how to make a Cake or something, this puzzles is very easy to do. And a lot of fun i should add.

I hate threads like these. I just want to say, that even if this review was biased (it isn't), it is not Gamespot's fault. It's the reviewer's fault. It always seems to me, that just because a reviewer working for a website gives an adventure game a bad, mediocre, or even a fair review such as this one, a few adventure gamers always want to start a personal vendetta against said website. Either one reviewer just didn't like it, or the very slim chance that they are biased. If they are, oh well. It's their loss. Quit bitching.

[Bruno_Malta]

But i like bitching

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by fov

But why should I (or others) have to justify it?

Exactly. Your opinion is valid, and so is this reviewer's.

[fov]

Originally Posted by sethsez

Exactly. Your opinion is valid, and so is this reviewer's.

I never said it wasn't.

Forget it. I give up.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by fov

I never said it wasn't.

In that case I probably missed the point you were making, so sorry for that.