Deadly Premonition - "So bad it's nearly perfect"

[adam_grif]

Overall, the thing that really shows how low the budget for this game was is the sound. Music-wise, it is the same 3 or 4 shot music loops playing over and over and over. The voice acting was rather mediocre and there are many lines, often in the middle of a cut-scene, that are not voiced. On top of that the sound mixing is absolutely horrible. The music often drowns out the voice acting in cut-scenes at the sound default levels.

For some reason, everytime that Jazz loop with the sax comes on, it cracks me up, regardless of what else is going on.

[Losonti Tokash]

Are you fucking serious? This pile of garbage gets a 10 while Alpha Protocol gets 2 from the same fucking people?

[Stofsk]

Are you fucking serious? This pile of garbage gets a 10 while Alpha Protocol gets 2 from the same fucking people?

Reviews, worthless they are, told us Stark did. Now... matters are worse.

[Whiplash]

Are you fucking serious? This pile of garbage gets a 10 while Alpha Protocol gets 2 from the same fucking people?

Dude, the game sucked, you think otherwise, congrats, you're a minority. Let it go.

Stark, I honestly wouldn't hate your posts if you left out the smileys, lols, and the hurr hurring (please kill me if I ever say that again) attitude. Its like you're right sometimes (not so much at the moment), but I hate agreeing with you.

[adam_grif]

Are you fucking serious? This pile of garbage gets a 10 while Alpha Protocol gets 2 from the same fucking people?

Dude, the game sucked, you think otherwise, congrats, you're a minority. Let it go.

Stark, I honestly wouldn't hate your posts if you left out the smileys, lols, and the hurr hurring (please kill me if I ever say that again) attitude. Its like you're right sometimes (not so much at the moment), but I hate agreeing with you.

According to stark, "everybody who played it [alpha protocol] thought the reviews were wrong". Obviously he missed the people who had the exact same complaints on this very forum, and everybody else in the world.

[Losonti Tokash]

Dude, the game sucked, you think otherwise, congrats, you're a minority. Let it go.

Stark, I honestly wouldn't hate your posts if you left out the smileys, lols, and the hurr hurring (please kill me if I ever say that again) attitude. Its like you're right sometimes (not so much at the moment), but I hate agreeing with you.

I'd let it go if it weren't for the fact that it's genuinely one of the best RPGs to come out in years, but apparently "only lets you carry two guns" and "cover isn't a magical bullet shield" is a disqualification in the eyes of game reviewers.

[Stofsk]

http://www.gamearena.com.au/pc/games/ti ... id=5084953

it's conclusion:

I would almost suggest you purchase this game just to send a message to developers to continue in this direction instead of pumping out “On-Rails Shooter: War In The Near Future” repeatedly - except you don't drop $100 to send a message. Get Alpha Protocol because it delivers what it promises - it takes the concept of causality seriously, and wraps it in a great game experience.

[adam_grif]

Dude, the game sucked, you think otherwise, congrats, you're a minority. Let it go.

Stark, I honestly wouldn't hate your posts if you left out the smileys, lols, and the hurr hurring (please kill me if I ever say that again) attitude. Its like you're right sometimes (not so much at the moment), but I hate agreeing with you.

I'd let it go if it weren't for the fact that it's genuinely one of the best RPGs to come out in years, but apparently "only lets you carry two guns" and "cover isn't a magical bullet shield" is a disqualification in the eyes of game reviewers.

I didn't see any complaining about that.

The GS 6.0 review, one of the worst it got, said:

* Flaky, glitchy cover mechanics
* Bland visuals further marred by texture pop-in and bad animations
* Terrible AI affects both the shooting and the stealth
* The story lacks soul and character.

GT likewise complained about the bad AI, also adding in some digs at boss fights and the dice based shooter mechanics. Quite a few people took issue with this, not just in this game but in other RPGs with shooter gameplay. The first Mass Effect had it to a less noticeable degree, but Bioware rightfully dumped that for the sequel.

There is a plethora of other minor complaints that different reviewers all had. A recurring theme, and often the difference between whether this game gets a 6 or an 8 from somebody is how willing people are to overlook issues in favor of what the game does well - the dialogue system and the ability to impact the story.

[Stark]

Hilariously, a thread involving people convincing Aly to play it despite his reservations is now portrayed as a thread of people agreeing with reviews; in short, we all justified AP getting a 2 whilst a GAME THEY ADMIT IS FAR WORSE gets 10.

But reviews are good, right?

Dude, the game sucked, you think otherwise, congrats, you're a minority. Let it go.

Have you played it? Why is something more or less right depending on how many people think it? I liked it, Los liked it, Kendall liked it, Chards didn't believe me and waited a month and then liked it, Hotfoot liked it, I think even BCG liked it with reservations. Next to that we have a bunch of fat people who never played it, oh and some worthless reviews that are objectively full of shit.

Then again, this IS the game Grif humiliated himself by ignorantly spouting lies like

perfectly lined up shots missing because the dicerolls said you missed

Oh man looking over that thread and trying to see where griffo gets 'SDN made the same complaints'. Remember, if you lie enough reviews are right and a solid game getting a 2 from the same people that give an admittedly horrible game a 10 is totally normal.

[Stofsk]

i liked it too

[Stark]

Sorry dude I think I forgot a bunch of people. I find the whole 'reviews say good game is bad and people believe them, then claim a terrible game is 'near perfect' and excellent and people believe them' thing to be hilarious.

Like I said before, even Alone in the Dark isn't that bad. It was more fun than 95% metacritic Red Dead anyway.

[Mayabird]

The game is amazing. Videos and descriptions do it no justice. It really must be experienced.

Isn't that right, Zach?

DP actually is playing it right now. Well, not this exact moment but he is towards the end (I think) of a playthrough of the game.

The appropriate response to this game is, "What the hell, Japan?"

[DPDarkPrimus]

Stark, I've played the new Alone in the Dark. I don't think it was as terrible as everyone made it out to be, but when you say it's a better game than RDR, I don't think you can complain when people question your opinion.

Oh who am I kidding, you're going to complain no matter what.

[Stark]

RDR was really boring. It in no way deserves it's 20-odd 100% ratings. Since I clearly said it was 'more fun', I don't know what the fuck you're even talking about.

Oh well, you'll just attack the messenger no matter what.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

RDR was really boring. It in no way deserves it's 20-odd 100% ratings.

I couldn't agree with this more. I enjoyed RDR... well actually, at first it bored me senseless, then I got the lasso and stuff and then I enjoyed it for a fair while, but by the time I got to Mexico it was just... boring. Really, really boring.

It wasn't awful. It was buggy as hell, but it wasn't bad. It just wasn't amazing either. There's no way in hell it deserved a perfect score. Video game reviews are fairly worthless for determining the quality of games, because what do you know, opinions and enjoyment are subjective things and some people won't like things.

Anyway, I've watched an LP of the first 20 minutes of Deadly Premonition, and... well, it's definitely bad, that's for sure. Horrible mechanics for everything, enemies that I guess are meant to be scary but just come off as ridiculous and are utterly pitiful. Why do guns have unlimited ammo, and yet steel pipes break after four swings? It's very obvious that the game designers were insane, or more likely thought "making a good game is hard and requires effort and money, let's just make a game so awful that it's funny"

Let me just say I'm glad most people ignore that design philosophy. I'd rather people try to make a good game and fail, than try to make a hilariously bad game and succeed.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Oh well, you'll just attack the messenger no matter what.

If you live by the sword you should be prepared to die by the sword, Stark.

[Stark]

Considering your whole point is built on a lie, that says pretty amusing things about you, doesn't it?

Oh nevermind you'll just quietly snip that part out to make post that is 100% personal attack on someone you lie about.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Oh yes, let's make this a semantics debate, Stark! Because when you say that a game is "more fun", you certainly are not implying that it is the better game!

[Covenant]

I think it's actually fair to say that sometimes things can be really bad and really fun. The quality of a game is based on a lot of craftsmanship criteria, but the fun value is entirely subjective. You can't rate a game entirely on fun. If you do, then you've abandoned all pretense of a review carrying meaning (which is what they've done quite recently).

Which leaves you with a lot of things being fun, but bad. Or good, but boring. Something that is well made, or important historically, or a fantastic accomplishment given some criteria is generally a good product. But the fun value is still an entirely subjective affair.

Regardless of the messenger, for a review site to give a 10/10 score to a game they claim is simply "so bad it's perfect" is idiotic. You can enjoy anything you want, but if your job is to review a game, review it. You don't give a movie Four Stars for being perfectly awful. If this is the "Trolls 2" of video games then you give it a goddamn 1/10, or 0/10, and you let it glory in it. If it's really so bad it's terrible, then it deserves it, and if it's so bad it's amazing then it'll wear it as a badge of honor.

[Stark]

Oh yes, let's make this a semantics debate, Stark! Because when you say that a game is "more fun", you certainly are not implying that it is the better game!

Congratulations, you've gone from having dishonest evidence to zero evidence. I know dickless wankers like you might not understand this, but I chose my words for a reason, and those words have meanings. RDR is of course technically the better game, but its dead boring while Alone in the Dark held my interest much longer, which is exactly what I said and nothing like your petulant strawman at all.

Turns out you're just a tryhard prick trying to score points off me by lying.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Oh yes, let's make this a semantics debate, Stark! Because when you say that a game is "more fun", you certainly are not implying that it is the better game!

Congratulations, you've gone from having dishonest evidence to zero evidence. I know dickless wankers like you might not understand this, but I chose my words for a reason, and those words have meanings. RDR is of course technically the better game, but its dead boring while Alone in the Dark held my interest much longer, which is exactly what I said and nothing like your petulant strawman at all.

Turns out you're just a tryhard prick trying to score points off me by lying.

So you declare victory because you retroactively elaborate on what you 'actually meant' and then insult me because I was working off a reasonable assumption based on your vague wordings?

Sorry Stark, I forgot you were a autistic hate-engine driven by the urge to blow things out of proportion and derail threads with your endless torrent of whinging, and that every single vitriol-laced word you write is chosen specifically and with purpose.

[Stark]

No, I declare you a pussy lameass because you strawmanned 'is more fun' into 'is better', most ironically in a thread about how how GOOD a game is can be separate from how much FUN it is. Frankly you couldn't have chosen a better thread to pull this shit in. I know you like to style as 'whinging' anything that makes you look like a spineless coward who is just plain wrong, but hey, look at that - you're a spineless coward who is just plain wrong.

OH NOEZ I IS TEH AUTISTIC GOOD POINT THAR DPDP Honestly could you be any more pathetic and crass?

Remember kids, calling something fun is 'vague wordings' if some internet hipster dickface decides to vent his spleen at you. It's a lesson for life, really; if DPDP hates you and embarrasses himself trying to score points, it's certianly whinging to make fun of his antics.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The only person you're embarrassing is yourself, Stark.

[Stark]

Is that supposed to be a comeback, shitstain? It's pretty funny that you're too much of a pussy to just admit you have no idea what you're talking about instead of sniping at me personally. Oh wait, you only posted because you hate me. I forgot. I'm glad you being as crass as to resort to mental illness name-calling to avoid apologising is embarrassing to me.

Sorry, was that more 'vague wordings'?

Anyway this phenomenon is an interesting counterpoint to AP; this game would have sunk without a stone if fat people didn't decide it was awesomely terrible, and AP sank because reviews convinced fat people it was terrible. Nobody can claim the internet blogosphere hype machine doesn't hurt the industry.

[Whiplash]

Stark, SHUT THE FUCK UP. I haven't even been here that long, but all I've seen you do in this particular section of the board is just derail something with your annoying cynicism and bash anyone that disagrees with you.

Alpha Protocol - Reviews suck, anyone who thinks differently is an idiot.
E3 - All these games suck, anyone who thinks differently is an idiot.
Star Wars: Old Republic - Bioware is fucking retarded.
And so on.

The shit gets annoying.