Uncia on 27/11/2003 at 17:08
Quote:
Originally posted by averroes ~15 hours sounds quite short...
Was hoping for more... Then again, SS2 was something like 12 for me. Ahwell.
Z on 27/11/2003 at 17:12
Hmm. Pretty much what I had expected given the latest information. A good game, but not quite what it could have been due to any number of factors depending on who you listen to. At least it should sell better than the original, which should be a good thing for the company. Hopefully they can learn from this experience with future titles. Hopefully.
Z
CrashT on 27/11/2003 at 17:20
The Review did seem to focus on the negative on the last page, but none of us are helping matters but doing exactly the same. In the second page of the review the Reviewer talked about how we was really prepared to give DX:IW Five Stars, so there has got to be something there. Or is that just my eternal optimisim showing through?
I really wonder if (ok hope) this is going to be a case of "Super Model with Head Lice" syndrome, ala it's full of bugs but you still just want to play with it.
:cheeky:
deadman on 27/11/2003 at 17:43
Quote:
Originally posted by GameSpy More serious are the game's performance problems. While the graphics are acceptable and quite attractive at times, they're not great enough to justify the game's surprisingly sluggish performance. I did most of my playing on a 2.8 GHz P4 with 512 MB RAM and a Radeon 9700, and couldn't maintain a totally smooth framerate, even at 640x480. It worked out for me since I'm not a resolution whore, but people who consider 1024x768 to be low-res will definitely have some issues with Invisible War's performance. I also experienced a handful of crash-to-desktops and an annoying bug that made maps take over a minute to load.
So, even if I
do get a slighter better video card for Thief 3 (and presumably Deus Ex II if it is good enough), it won't be good enough to play this in a 800x600 resolution even without some major choppiness? This isn't good to hear at all. Plus, that video card sounds like one of the better ones, and I can only afford $100-$150 US at the most (from Ebay?). I did hear that there was a way to tweak the cfg to make it run better, but still.. I just hope Thief 3 won't be similar to this. Eep! :eek:
deadman.
Crion on 27/11/2003 at 19:39
Wait, wait, wait...
4 stars out of 5? Oh, fuck off Gamespy.
Uncia on 27/11/2003 at 21:40
Let me guess... Too high? ;)
Crion on 27/11/2003 at 22:42
No, those tard monkeys are eshewing the standard good, bad, or the ugly rating system as well as the far more common place "blah blah blah out of 10" system.
And it's too high, yes.
jay pettitt on 27/11/2003 at 23:05
My own unsubstantiated feeling is that this guy is in the difficult position of trying to review a game (pre release) that he knows is going to get a fairly hefty patch soon.
Scots Taffer on 28/11/2003 at 00:28
Kind of what I was fearing unfortunately. No major advances in AI and the primary advances done to the engine have resulted in a sluggish game (much like DX itself when it was first released). The elements that I expected it to retain, the complex layering of characters and multiple storylines/plots is something I can really only experience for myself. I expect I can get over the little problems with the game, but if the story is that short ... 15 hours? I did Max Payne 2 in around 8 and it was very short. I would be expecting 30 at least.
Chade on 28/11/2003 at 02:52
Quote:
Originally posted by Z Hopefully they can learn from this experience with future titles. Hopefully.
Z
AFAIK, this is the first time they have ever:
1) used a massive tech team
2) attempted to put a really major focus on making their games accessible as well as deep
3) tried co-developing on different platforms
I'm pretty sure you'll find there's a whole lot of "don't do this again" stuff they've got written down that you certainly wouldn't hear in an interview.
