Thread: Mass Effect
View Single Post
Old 11-18-2007, 01:27 PM   #20
Lurch1982
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: DenCo
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,850
Thanks: 127
Thanked 365 Times in 192 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demonicus Prime View Post
*headdesk*


I don't mean just single player campaign. Like Mass Effect, with the worlds of other people, just not humanized. And yes, right now, I like the campaign of COD4 more than BioShock. I'm on my second runthrough.

And no, I don't put CoD4 over BioShock because of multiplayer. I put it ahead because you can play it more than once and enjoy it.
I don't understand the bolded part at all.

I'm trying to reconcile this:
Quote:
absence of multiplayer for a Next Gen game is not a good sign
with Mass Effect, which has absolutely no multiplayer and is about as replayable as, say, KotOR or Jade Empire.

CoD4 is the weakest of the "top shooter" lot (including Metroid Prime 3) because the campaign was weak and could be burned through in 5 hours. Also, no online co-op or splitscreens is just stupid. People throw out phrases like "generic shooter' against almost anything in the genre, and this game is one of the many reasons for it. Fundamentally, it doesn't do anything new, and it feels antiquated compared to everything else out. Halo (and Bioshock) doesn't have a cover system, but Halo also doesn't try to disguise itself as a tactical shooter (ala Clancy series). Missing the cover system is just inexcusable if you're trying to pack this up as a tactical shooter. If they put one in, the game is extremely solid and might have weight (though you're still looking at a very weak, very short campaign). The multiplayer is a good addition, though a bit noob unfriendly if you get started late. Really, if given the choice between a run-and-gun shooter, I'm taking Halo 3 because its a more fundamentally sound game.

Even all that said, Bioshock did more with the narrative than Halo 1-3 and CoD 1-4 combined. I don't mind the lack of multiplayer because I don't see how they could do anything worthwhile in the multiplayer without it being completely out of balanced and feel like just a generic tacked on mode. If Bioshock stuck with the original plan and went 3rd person through the entire game, there wouldn't be a question on it's validity even with lack of multiplayer.
Lurch1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.04135 seconds with 11 queries