JoeB666

Your mileage may vary, but for me, the game is transcendent. It transcends both video games and movies to become something greater than either medium would ever be by themselves. I'm an avid gamer (I have 400+ Steam games, 400+ iOS games, and 100+ console games). Yet--to speak for myself--*I* found this game far more moving, thought-provoking, meaningful, and entertaining than many other games (including Super Mario Galaxy 1-2, Grand Theft Auto 4-5, The Last of Us, and others). I can only compare it to Heavy Rain, The Walking Dead, or the Metal Gear Solid series: deep rich stories that have themes and messages that convey something of lasting meaning; something beyond the mindless (but fun) shooting and platforming of other titles. I will remember this game for years to come. There are few works of fiction of any medium for which I can say the same. If you like a rich deep story line and don't care about a lack of "agency" (it's always illusory in video games, anyway--there are always incredibly restrictive rules on game play), then this is *the* game of the seventh generation. The comparably minor errors in execution and direction can be ignored, when viewed in light of the whole. Indeed, the question of whether this qualifies as a game is, like Dear Ester, a largely irrelevant and pedantic: It entertains. It provokes thought. It is emotionally moving. And it illustrates that games--like cinema or literature--can be taken seriously as a medium to both entertain and enlighten. It seems to me that most reviewers of this game have profoundly and tragically missed the point. I've tentatively come to the conclusion that most people who dislike Beyond do so because they cannot (or will not) accept the game on its own terms: They have certain expectations of video games, and deviation from well-established norms vexes them. So, for instance, they demand interactivity, even when accepting passivity allows a far more compelling and moving narrative. In contrast, other people are more flexible (with regards to their expectations of the medium). For instance, the "passivity" of playing Beyond did not bother me in the slightest. I knew what I was getting into, and I knew it was worth the tradeoff: there has been only one other title in forty years of gaming history that provides an experience comparable to Beyond: Two Souls, and it was released three years ago (Heavy Rain). I believe that many reviewers, given their larger than average exposure to the medium are even less tolerant that other players of certain deviations from gameplay norms. This, I think, explains the large divergence of opinions on metacritic, and the (to me) inconceivably low average the game currently has (a mere 73 for the professionals, and 78 for gamers). Like the criticism that the game strips the player of freedom/agency, I do not think the others have merit: I consider the script to be impeccable. I have noticed no plot holes, and very few problems with the dialogue. It is telling that David Cage took a year of 12-14-hour days to write it and that it is 2000 pages in length. I consider Page's acting to be truly and deeply awe-inspiring. I cannot praise her highly enough. She memorized 30-40 pages of dialogue each day. She had very little time to prepare and rehearse. She often had to juggle different emotional responses to the situations (e.g., playing the part one way in a scene and playing it another way in the same scene). Yet, despite these challenges, her acting is consistently of the highest professional quality. I have noticed no flaws in her performance; it is (along with William Dafoe's performance) very much in keeping with her Academy Award for Best Actress. I consider her to be the most talented actress I've seen. I also think that the myriad ad hominem attacks against David Cage seem entirely unwarranted. He does not try to impose his views on others. Rather, he is merely passionate, has a vision he believes in, and is outspoken in his beliefs. He believes that gaming can, like cinema or literature, change the world (or try to). This is not arrogant; it is noble. Moreover, the game has other strengths that seem to be overlooked by many: - The social commentary is entirely warranted, and appropriately biting. - The graphical quality of the game is the best of any on a console. - The story is incredibly moving and thought-provoking. The narrative was very easy for me to follow, despite the non-chronological presentation. - There is a wide range of different locales and gameplay dynamics employed. To put it succinctly (and a little melodramatically): For me, the game is both a reminder and illustration of the many challenges and the triumphs, the sadnesses and joys that life has to offer. For me, it's life affirming, and I consider it deep, rich and meaningful. There are almost no other games (and few movies and books, for that matter) for which I can say the same. Take a chance: play this game.

I really liked this game. It's as challenging (or as easy) as you want it to be (with different difficulty levels). It has personality and heart. For what it's worth, I *enjoyed* it far more than Super Meat Boy (which was an exercise in masochism). I'll be checking out Bootdisk Revolution's future works: keep it up, Ian Campbell!

I love this game so far. I'll update this, following finishing it. In response to pcgamer 83's review: the graphics are completely fine. The textures are of a high resolution (far higher than they could be on a current-gen console). With regards to the controls: I use a gamepad (either an Xbox gamepad or one from logitech). If you are any sort of "serious" pc gamer, you'll have a spare gamepad (I know that it's a pain, but some games simply play a lot better). The controls are *excellent* with a gamepad. They are perfectly fine (but require some memorization), if you use a keyboard. Regarding the game being "the worst port" he's ever seen: Give me a break. The game hasn't crashed *once*, for me. It supports 3D vision (which shows dedication on the part of the developer). It runs at a *contstant* 60 fps (really 120 fps) on my machine--this shows optimization was a priority. It is *sometimes* annoying that the camera is fixed, but the positioning is thoughtful (and, frankly, this is an extremely minor issue for me). The game has deep gameplay, a thoughtful and mature storyline, good pacing, excellent visuals (they really are *exceptional* for a PC port, and they are *fantastic* if one considers that the game was originally released 3 years ago on consoles). To determine if you'll love the game (as I do): briefly view the game on youtube and play the demo. If you think you'll like it, you'll probably love it. I am new to the Castlevania series, I'll be considering the sequel, as a result of playing this game.

Everything that doesn’t show Russians as ultimate heroes is offensive to them. No wonder anyway years of post-war communist propaganda twisted so many facts that even now we can’t know the whole spectrum of cruelty and atrocities done by the Red Army. The reason for the overwhelmingly negative users score: A bunch of closeted Stalinists have rated the game poorly. Stalin was a monster. Apologists for his regime are betrayers to their countrymen and humanity. This is not to say the game is without it's faults. Other users have pointed these out, extensively. But, seriously: 1.4? (The current average user score on metacritic.) No way. 8.0 (or higher, if the game is patched more)? Definitely.

*The metacritic score is out-of-date*, because, in only three months, the studio has fixed 175 bugs/game issues in Warlock: Master of the Arcane (the fixed issues are listed on the game's steam page). Few games are updated (much), post-release. For that reason, almost no reviewers update their reviews, post-release. This game has vastly improved, since it's release. Consequently, the Metacritic score is now *at least* ten points two low. (I added twenty more points, because of the studio's dedication.) The profoundly long list of issues addressed by the developer in the three months since the game has been released can be found here: ****/news/?feed=steam_updates&appids=232050 (or search the Steam site for "Eador", and click "view update history" on the right-hand side of the game's page). How do I know that 175 bugs were fixed? I pasted the list of bug fixes into Word. It was over 200 lines in length. I eliminated those lines that weren't bug fixes. Each remaining line of text was a bug fix, and there were about 175 remaining lines. Should the game have been released without said bugs? Perhaps. (Although, in the Studio's defense, it can be extremely difficult to eliminate bugs without widespread bug testing and user testing, for technical reasons.) *But,* the developer has shown extreme dedication in eliminating said bugs. They deserve kudos for that fact. I don't believe the decision to eliminate the bugs was made by some bean counter--sadly, I'm not sure you could easily make the case to such a person that it's in the studio's self-interest to patch a released product. But the studio decided to, anyway. Both this game and Snowbird Game Studios deserve your support.

*The metacritic score is out-of-date*, because, in three months the studio has eliminated 175 bugs/game issues from the game. Almost no reviewers update their reviews, post-release. And few games are updated (much), post-release. This game is an exception. The profoundly long list of issues addressed by the developer in the three months since the game has been released can be found here: ****/news/?feed=steam_updates&appids=232050 (or search the Steam site for "Eador", and click "view update history" on the right-hand side of the game's page). How do I know that 175 bugs were fixed? I pasted the list of bug fixes into Word. It was over 200 lines in length. I eliminated those lines that weren't bug fixes. Each remaining line of text was a bug fix, and there were about 175 remaining lines. Should the game have been released without said bugs? Perhaps. (Although, in the Studio's defense, it can be extremely difficult to eliminate bugs without widespread bug testing and user testing, for technical reasons.) *But,* the developer has shown extreme dedication in eliminating said bugs. They deserve kudos for that fact. I don't believe the decision to eliminate the bugs was made by some bean counter--sadly, I'm not sure you could easily make the case to such a person that it's in the studio's self-interest to patch a released product. But the studio decided to, anyway. Both this game and Snowbird Game Studios deserve your support.

I love the game. It's nice to see something with an intelligent story and innovative gameplay. It also qualifies as speculative science fiction, which can be prophetic.

This game deserves >9. It pushes modern hardware (somewhat), it has an excellent story, it is novel, thought provocative, and intelligent. And it ends with an uplifting message. . Don't shy away from from the unknown. Have the courage to try something--something that you may not understand. Play this game.

If you're tired of 3D, you're tired of life. I'd like to review this game from the perspective of 3D monitor support. The 3D Vision support is awful. They opted to use 2.5D, like with Crysis 2. This is unacceptable. The difference is like looking at layers of a painting moving over one another, and **being there**. True 3D is incomparably better. If you've never experienced it, you are truly missing out (cerain (older?) gamers' grumbles notwithstanding). It's like gaming in color for the first time. I played games, once, on a black and white television. I moved to colour, and I'd never go back. Likewise, playing in 2D seems lacking equally lacking. Leave in the 2.5D compromise, for those who can't run true 3D, but allow gamers to run true 3D. The lack of true 3D support makes a joke this game's efforts to be "cutting-edge". I'm sure some grossly incompetent executive(s) made the decision. Such an oversight breaks the game, for those connoisseurs who care. (Or so I'd like to say. For me, lack of true 3D is so obvious it hurts, and I don't know why others .) I generally don't buy games that fail to support 3D properly, and if you have a 3D monitor (and good stereoscopic vision), you shouldn't, either. I made a mistake with this game.

The game is not for everybody (though I think it has far wider appeal than most games, nowadays--I mean, what percent of the general population would like to sit down and play a "murder simulator" [and I say this as someone who plays FPS games]). Having said this, you will love this game, if the following applies to you: - you like the trailer you like JRPGs (when done well), especially: if you admire Studio Ghibli and enjoy their works. It also helps if you don't like playing the same game, over and over, but rather believe that novelty has a value all its own. This game is unlike anything you've played. It's like a game adaptation of a Studio Ghibli production, while keeping the best aspects (great voice acting, production values, an orchestral score featuring the Tokyo Philharmonic Orchestra, etc.), and "gamifying" the rest. This game is, for those who are likely to appreciate it, magnificent.

It's about darn time that video games grew up. / It's okay to show human violence, but not violence against certain demographics (like women)? It's okay to show death and dismemberment, but not the most necessary of all acts (procreation)? Get off your high horses, please. / The medium of video gaming needs to be driven forward. That means that the same topics that other media deal with needs to be covered, as well: sex, violence, philosophy, religion, etc. Does DmC cover said topics in an adult way? Perhaps not. **But it is a giant leap forward.** It deserves to be saluted, for that fact. / The negative reviews here are merely by reactionary conservatives. People who whose views be looked back upon with contempt, just as the average citizens of today look back with contempt upon historical conservative views (anti-abortion, pro-slavery, pro-monarchy, anti-woman, etc.). What is conservatism? A mentality that is afraid of change and afraid of the unknown. Progressiveness is not afraid to try new things. And that is why we have the modern world: electronics, philosophy and science (instead of religion), democracy (instead of dictatorship, monarchy, or other oligarchical), etc., etc., etc. / Get with the 21 century. Play this game. Now.

It's about d*mn time that video games grew up. / It's okay to show human violence, but not violence against certain demographics (like women)? It's okay to show death and dismemberment, but not the most necessary of all acts (procreation)? Get off your high horses, please. / The medium of video gaming needs to be driven forward. That means that the same topics that other media deal with needs to be covered, as well: sex, violence, philosophy, religion, etc. Does DmC cover said topics in an adult way? Perhaps not. **But it is a giant leap forward.** It deserves to be saluted, for that fact. / The negative reviews here are merely by reactionary conservatives. People who whose views be looked back upon with contempt, just as the average citizens of today look back with contempt upon historical conservative views (anti-abortion, pro-slavery, pro-monarchy, anti-woman, etc.). What is conservatism? A mentality that is afraid of change and afraid of the unknown. Progressiveness is not afraid to try new things. And that is why we have the modern world: electronics, philosophy and science (instead of religion), democracy (instead of dictatorship, monarchy, or other oligarchical), etc., etc., etc. / Get with the 21 century. Play this game.

The game requires the use of gold in order to enjoy. As others have said, things become frustrating, after a while, when you are incapable of playing well against opponents without upgrading. Additionally, the price of gold is obscene. It costs $100 dollars for enough gold to obtain a premium account for merely a year. I expect more than than that.