Downpour nominated by GT as "Disappointing"

[SilverWolfPet]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/most- ... -e3/716393

I think it's unfair. It looks far better than the recent titles and, despite some minor stuff that some people don't like... it's really a decent looking for a SH title.

I was disappointed to see it nominated.

[Harrys_Girl]

Who cares if the game is month from release!? Let's just nominate it was a bad game. Sure, why not. :/

[Typographenia]

"combat looks clunky"
Wait, so the person(s) nominating Downpour didn't actually play any combat segment?

"lack of scares"
Well, yeah? You're playing a game on a showroom floor with tons of stuff going on in an environment extremely contrary to letting you get into the atmosphere they might be trying to build.


Their later reasons sound like typical "going through the motions" concerns of any new silent hill.
At least they managed to pick the worst of the nominees for the prize.

[Yoshata]

Whatever. If they haven't played the entire game yet, and have only experienced the demo, I think the nomination is pointless.

[wonder's boy]

I can't take this too seriously. Never heard of a website nominating E3's most disappointing game before. Quite honestly, the justifications for most of their nominees sound like some random person's observations after watching a couple of clips. Some of the games nominated actually don't look that bad at all, but I can see why a couple others were on the list. Downpour certainly doesn't look disappointing to me, and I haven't sensed any kind of vibe like that from it since the release of the first info and screens. This one actually appears to be an improvement on the series in several areas, most notably the gameplay.

Besides stating that the gameplay looks clunky and that it looks to lack scares, I didn't hear any substantial justification for their judgement. I agree that the gameplay looks like it'll have some getting used to on my part, but I wouldn't go as far to say it looks clunky. In three words, this is what the combat and overall gameplay is saying to me: improved, challenging, diverse.

Improved: the gameplay seems fluid in that the camera is not just fixed or over the shoulder, weapons can be exchanged/dropped to fit the demands of the situation, you will apparently be able to run and hide/flee in the final product, and the AI for enemies seems very improved and more functional.

Challenging: the enemies seem tough and intelligent (or at least the Screamers do) through using what looks like tactics to an extent, yet not as relentless and unescapable as some of Homecoming's beasts. In other words, they appear to be a challenge and to offer a more interesting battle than just attack, dodge, kill, etc.

Diverse: So far we've seen several different kinds of gameplay in Downpour. Murphy will have a chance to explore the town and other areas while the player will still be kept on their toes, as the developers have made it clear that enemy encounters will be less predictable than, say, SM where we knew indeed the only time the Raw Shocks were going to attack would be in the nightmare chase sequences. So of course we'll get to experience combat, and we've only really seen one good battle between Murphy and two Screamers, so who really knows what other battles with other monsters will be like. We can speculate what to expect, though, from this one battle. And so far it doesn't feel stale. Then there'll also be some kind of SM-style chase sequences between Murphy and this mysterious Void entity. And a bit of other varieties as well, such as wild water slides, mine rides, and potentially some other kind of interactive environments.

[Biccard]

Who cares if the game is month from release!?

A month from release?

[Yuki]

I'm not sure why they counted this as the most disappointing, considering there were games like Fable--open-world games--that turned out to be practically a rail shooter. Considering that I really like what I see of Downpour, though, it might just be my bias.

That being said, I have to wonder why they think the premise is cliched. The car accident part is, but it's not caused by fog nor by anything seen on the road as it was in SH1; it's caused by driver negligence, and it's a prisoner, not a man looking for his daughter. As for the lack of scares... they played it on a crowded E3 floor, and only saw a tiny bit of the beginning of the game, as far as I can tell. SH3 started out weird rather than outright scary, so I strongly disagree with their nomination. I also totally disagree with the graphics; some of the people look weird, but the majority of it looks great to me.

To each their own on the combat. I think it looks great.

[Tillerman]

I have mixed feelings about what I've seen of Downpour so far, but I think this nomination is pretty dumb. The combat looks fine, and anyway it's not supposed to be God of War. I don't know how you can tell there is a lack of scares from what little we've seen (although the game does lack a real attention grabbing monster so far, so maybe that's where that is coming from...) Why criticize the premise? There's nothing wrong with a simple premise, it's what they do with it that matters. There's plenty of movies that start with simple or cliched premise and then do something brilliant with it.

[VIVIsect]

Whatever. If they haven't played the entire game yet, and have only experienced the demo, I think the nomination is pointless.

I think they were referring specifically to the demo and the E3 presentation.

edit:

And this thread title is misleading bitch-bait.

[Rayder]

It really gnaws at me when reviewers pass judgement on a game when they haven't even played through a finished version. I've seen quite a few of reviews for games where you could tell they didn't actually play very far into the game before writing their review and passing a negative judgement on it. I mean, come on! That's what those people are PAYED to do. Couldn't they at least attempt to be thorough at their job?

[The Adversary]

DID YOU KNOW: Thomas Pynchon's masterpiece Gravity's Rainbow (1973) was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for literature. The three-member jury for fiction agreed. The other eleven board members overturned the decision, saying the novel was unreadable. No novel received an award for fiction that year. Later, those board members who overturned the decision admitted to not even reading, or finishing, the novel.

The point: Who gives a fuck what a handful of reviewers think based solely on arguably 12% of a game? If I had to review Moby-Dick; or, The Whale (1953) based on a select 50 pages, I would think the novel's about different types of oars and how to remove the fat from whales.

[alone in the town]

It really gnaws at me when reviewers pass judgement on a game when they haven't even played through a finished version. I've seen quite a few of reviews for games where you could tell they didn't actually play very far into the game before writing their review and passing a negative judgement on it. I mean, come on! That's what those people are PAYED to do. Couldn't they at least attempt to be thorough at their job?

Reviewers are paid to sell an opinion. Sensationalism does a better job of it than well-researched partiality. Positive stories about a game which is not top-billing will generally be ignored, and unread articles don't generate ad revenue.

[Yuki]

It really gnaws at me when reviewers pass judgement on a game when they haven't even played through a finished version. I've seen quite a few of reviews for games where you could tell they didn't actually play very far into the game before writing their review and passing a negative judgement on it. I mean, come on! That's what those people are PAYED to do. Couldn't they at least attempt to be thorough at their job?

Reviewers are paid to sell an opinion. Sensationalism does a better job of it than well-researched partiality. Positive stories about a game which is not top-billing will generally be ignored, and unread articles don't generate ad revenue.

Not necessarily. I've read multiple positive reviews for games that weren't hard-hitters. The Persona series comes to mind.


Unfortunately, professional game reviewers often aren't given the chance to beat the games they play, as far as I'm aware.

[alone in the town]

There has to be some exceptions for the system to persist. If everything was cynical, and if no focus is reserved for items somewhat off the radar, there would be no illusion of integrity. Let's face it, a game like Silent Hill isn't going to appeal to a broad audience, and stories focusing on how scary it is and how good it might be aren't going to attract much attention beyond people like us, who already give a damn. But, everybody loves a story about something being bad or disappointing. That's why Duke Nukem Forever has been such big news lately and why it is selling well: not because the game itself has any redeeming value, but because it has been a running joke in the industry for a decade and a half, as long as some interested parties have been alive.

That being said, being a professional reviewer is like getting paid to take a shit. Why do people even care?

[clips]

My only issue with Downpour at the moment is the combat....so they were dead on in that aspect....everything else looks good to me...

[Typographenia]

That being said, being a professional reviewer is like getting paid to take a shit. Why do people even care?

B-b-but, I need numbers to tell me if something is worth buying! : (


The only things gametrailers is good for is finding more "exclusive" trailers (but then they pop up on youtube) and watching a review video with more gameplay footage than most other sites. The sooner you tune out their biased, ignorant "reviews" the better.

[Mr.FLOOT]

The way I see it is, I think the game looks great, and I am going to buy it. So what if it's nominated for worst game.... only my opinion matters to me so I'm gonna buy it based on that.

I do think it's unfair how they are basing it on a tiny portion of the game which might change a little when released anyway

[raptor112]

My only issue with Downpour at the moment is the combat....so they were dead on in that aspect....everything else looks good to me...

How can you say that without playing it? Before SH:SM came out and they revealed that it had zero combat, I HATED the idea and bitched to my friends till its release. Then I played it and found it to be one of my favorite silent hill games.

[Redklok]

The trailer isn't really disturbing, which is indeed a bit disappointing.
But it doesn't mean anything really. Just look at the trailer for Silent Hill 4: The Room, which is very disturbing if you ask me but finally wasn't that scary (except for some scenes and the two-headed baby monster was freaky aswell)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATpxzgZl ... re=related

[Typographenia]

It was actually playable on the showroom floor, so it's not based entirely upon the E3 trailer. You should be able to track down a preview of people playing it with relative ease.