blubseabass

L.A. Noire is a nice innovative game. To keep it short: + Good story, for most of the game + Investigating is fun and original + Atmosphere, music and aesthetics are great + Action is ok + Allows you to skip parts after a few attempts to continue the story. Great idea! + Faces look terrific. + I really liked some of the main characters. - Investigation is seriously lacking. Most of the time it's trial and error, and error means the clue is gone forever. Knowing when to press (try to get more by intimidating) or to reveal a lie (by presenting evidence) can be very confusing and frustrating. The faces don't always help, since sometimes the "lying motion"only kicks in after 15 seconds. Phoenix Wright got this way, WAY better. - The story is sometimes extremely poorly told. With the plethora of characters in the game, the story writers should have done a better job keeping the spotlights right and the designers should have given an option to review past characters. Also, some of the climaxes just don't make sense, because of the addition of action gameplay. Some scenes are just ruined because random mobsters show up for no apparent reason other then to be your cannon fodder. I found the ending very unsatisfying as well. - Interface and restrictions are clunky sometimes, especially during the action scenes and chases. - Some cases are very poor. The biggest flaw of them is that they often don't leave the solving part to the player. I literally thought at some cases: This is **** neither of this suspects did it, and still I have to press charges against one. That's maybe the stupidest thing a game designer designing a game where the investigation skills of a player are tested can do. It's like saying to a soccer striker:"yeah you can run down with the ball, but God forbid you to take a shot at the goal!" It made me feel stupid, it made Cole look stupid and it made the whole cheering crowd look stupid. Again, Phoenix Wright got this WAY better. - (small) Some minor annoying bugs. (X360, My personal worst bug was the playing of the boss music during a tragic cutscene...) All with all, L.A. Noire did a bold and good job, especially on the aesthetics department. The story department had it's high ups and low downs, and the gameplay department should have put some more effort in making stuff more clear to the player. I hope they learn from their design errors and take the time to make the successor of L.A. Noire a more complete and potent experience.

Confusing and steep, but undeniably compelling and interesting. In fate of the world you are elected world leader to tackle a fuel and environmental crisis at the same time. The game is not afraid to throw you into the deeps, providing a tutorial that is too small and tons of information that you may or may not need directly. Information is not well presented: it's too much and too fine, there is no good top down information-stream. Since the gameplay is turn-based and graph reading is involved a lot, the pace is slow. This gets a bit tedious because all areas you control don't feel unique, and you tend to find the same scenario in different areas over time, making you hasty and careless in your decision. Different options for different countries would certainly help. Actually, the gameplay is remarkably linear for a game which gives so much choice. It's more about juggling between economy and environmental issues. You only have one sane choice direction to go (Renewal energy), its just how you manage it while keeping the folks happy. The game would benefit if the options feel more distinctive. A suggestion would be to, for example, enable South America to become a world national park, lowering the Carbon emitted drastically and saving bio-diversity, or to choose to make it the world bio-fuel factory, buffering food supplies and spreading the juice. Generally, the game misses gameplay character. The game mechanics and the action-consequences events are hidden deep. You'll never see a "Will reduce Carbon emitted by 20% over 10 years" or "Produces X barrels of oil in 5 years". This may make the gameplay look random at times, and makes you play a little more aimlessly. However, taking this all together, Fate of the World brings the player in a fresh new situation, educating them on the run. It's vagueness and lack of direct feed back make the game mysterious and unpredictable. It's steep learning curve and difficulty make the player think not only about the game, but also about the future of the world. If you put this all together, it makes Fate of the World memorable and stimulates the player to think. Therefor I see the game as a great educational and philosophical game, that like a really good movie, makes you think about our existence and problems. Only for that brave step alone I think the game is already admirable. That I'm enjoying it regardless of all the pits is an extra.

Why would they do this? What was so broken that it needed such drastic actions? I don't understand **** the user complaints. Dragon Age 2 has been criticized for being too easy, dumbed down and bland. I will discuss the gameplay first, then talk a bit about the setting and story. DA2 is not easy. Yes, if you pick normal in DA2 it's easier then in DA:O, but you can go up in difficulty if you want a better challenge. Personally, I'm playing hard, and have met quite some interesting challenges. It's even nice that you can play the game pretty easily on normal, so that everyone can enjoy the game without the but-you-played-on-easy-shame. Just pick the difficulty that fits you, and the too easy problem is fixed. I guess it's just too hard to switch to another difficulty. I seriously don't get what's the problem with dumbed down. The skills are well distributed and tons of combinations are possible. While finishing my first game as a two-handed-weapon fighter, I was already thinking how I would make my new two-handed-weapon fighter play different. I've also been moving my characters around a lot more then in DA:O, and not just because I needed to clear the way for a mages fireball. Friendly fire has been disabled, which I applaud since that does not belong in a realtime team-based RPG. Moving all the characters in DA:O before casting AoE was just annoying imo, and I'm glad its gone. The isometric top view is gone, which makes it a little harder to move around the characters or casting AoE spells, but its nothing that hindered me from having fun. The tactics work pretty good, and the AI is very decent. I still paused the game a lot in difficult situations, which is good. Potions and healing have a much bigger cooldown, so health is a valuable resource again. The only problem I have with combat is that it's easy to kite an opponent, buying time until you can drink a new potion. It almost feels like cheating, especially if there are no ranged enemies nearby. Other then that, the combat is fun and quick while being tactical whenever you want it to be due to difficulty settings. It certainly made the game more enjoyable for me. Wrapping up gameplay, it has been one of the best for RPG's, surpassing DA:O. The story and setting have a hard time to hit off, but once it does, it sticks pretty well. I'm very happy with the character design and like everyone of the party. I have no idea why people would say it's so much worse then DA:O. However, getting to know a character better and finding out their likes has become somewhat more difficult. The friendship between the characters must develop over the whole game, which sometimes gives an odd feeling. Why can't I talk about an issue now? What do you even like? I don't want to wait 3 years to develop something! Because of these obvious secrets, the characters grow enigmatic, even though they're not meant to be like that. Another thing that is a bit annoying about the story is that because everything is spit into acts, your character only develops significantly at the end of each act. This feels a bit unrewarding. I'd liked to see Hawke gain a normal job, rising in ranks, rising it stature etc. not only at the end of each act. One thing that is annoying in my eyes, is the derailing of the story which is almost mandatory. The game plays in different acts, and every act has 4 to 5 main quests to proceed the story. All other 30 or so quests are sidequests. It's nice to have sidequests to know the city better, but I think they slightly overdone it. The game can be played as a collection of sidequests if you don't know where you're heading, especially in Act 1. This underlines the unrewarding feeling of character development. The sidequests can also be hard to find sometimes, leaving you with the " did I miss something?" feeling a bit to much. I have mixed feelings about the environment. Kirkwall is a great city, but "propped" down a lot. Most people seem static, and if it wasn't for the sidequests, the city might feel dead. The other environments are also pretty grey, like the bonepit and sundermount. This leaves the game in a grey tint, never being refreshing like the forests in DA:O. The graphics look pretty good, but certain animations are still to clunky. especially when two characters are interacting, the suspension of disbelief breaks immediately. The game could do with a little more ambiance. The moral choices you have to make are again suburb, and the dialog wheel, even though it influences your choices to much for my taste (I want to say A, but I don't want to break my character who mostly says B), it gives Hawke some character. THANK GOD they did not made the important choices be influenced by the wheel! Wrapping it up together, I enjoyed DA2 alot, and I'll keep playing it to explore different situations and tactics. It certainly has some setting problems, but it's still a lot of fun.

Why would they do this? What was so broken that it needed such drastic actions? I don't understand **** the user complaints. Dragon Age 2 has been criticized for being too easy, dumbed down and bland. I will discuss the gameplay first, then talk a bit about the setting and story. DA2 is not easy. Yes, if you pick normal in DA2 it's easier then in DA:O, but you can go up in difficulty if you want a better challenge. Personally, I'm playing hard, and have met quite some interesting challenges. It's even nice that you can play the game pretty easily on normal, so that everyone can enjoy the game without the but-you-played-on-easy-shame. Just pick the difficulty that fits you, and the too easy problem is fixed. I guess it's just too hard to switch to another difficulty. I seriously don't get what's the problem with dumbed down. The skills are well distributed and tons of combinations are possible. While finishing my first game as a two-handed-weapon fighter, I was already thinking how I would make my new two-handed-weapon fighter play different. I've also been moving my characters around a lot more then in DA:O, and not just because I needed to clear the way for a mages fireball. Friendly fire has been disabled, which I applaud since that does not belong in a realtime team-based RPG. Moving all the characters in DA:O before casting AoE was just annoying imo, and I'm glad its gone. The isometric top view is gone, which makes it a little harder to move around the characters or casting AoE spells, but its nothing that hindered me from having fun. The tactics work pretty good, and the AI is very decent. I still paused the game a lot in difficult situations, which is good. Potions and healing have a much bigger cooldown, so health is a valuable resource again. The only problem I have with combat is that it's easy to kite an opponent, buying time until you can drink a new potion. It almost feels like cheating, especially if there are no ranged enemies nearby. Other then that, the combat is fun and quick while being tactical whenever you want it to be due to difficulty settings. It certainly made the game more enjoyable for me. Wrapping up gameplay, it has been one of the best for RPG's, surpassing DA:O. The story and setting have a hard time to hit off, but once it does, it sticks pretty well. I'm very happy with the character design and like everyone of the party. I have no idea why people would say it's so much worse then DA:O. However, getting to know a character better and finding out their likes has become somewhat more difficult. The friendship between the characters must develop over the whole game, which sometimes gives an odd feeling. Why can't I talk about an issue now? What do you even like? I don't want to wait 3 years to develop something! Because of these obvious secrets, the characters grow enigmatic, even though they're not meant to be like that. Another thing that is a bit annoying about the story is that because everything is spit into acts, your character only develops significantly at the end of each act. This feels a bit unrewarding. I'd liked to see Hawke gain a normal job, rising in ranks, rising it stature etc. not only at the end of each act. One thing that is annoying in my eyes, is the derailing of the story which is almost mandatory. The game plays in different acts, and every act has 4 to 5 main quests to proceed the story. All other 30 or so quests are sidequests. It's nice to have sidequests to know the city better, but I think they slightly overdone it. The game can be played as a collection of sidequests if you don't know where you're heading, especially in Act 1. This underlines the unrewarding feeling of character development. The sidequests can also be hard to find sometimes, leaving you with the " did I miss something?" feeling a bit to much. I have mixed feelings about the environment. Kirkwall is a great city, but "propped" down a lot. Most people seem static, and if it wasn't for the sidequests, the city might feel dead. The other environments are also pretty grey, like the bonepit and sundermount. This leaves the game in a grey tint, never being refreshing like the forests in DA:O. The graphics look pretty good, but certain animations are still to clunky. especially when two characters are interacting, the suspension of disbelief breaks immediately. The game could do with a little more ambiance. The moral choices you have to make are again suburb, and the dialog wheel, even though it influences your choices to much for my taste (I want to say A, but I don't want to break my character who mostly says B), it gives Hawke some character. THANK GOD they did not made the important choices be influenced by the wheel! Wrapping it up together, I enjoyed DA2 alot, and I'll keep playing it to explore different situations and tactics. It certainly has some setting problems, but it's still a lot of fun. 8.8