• Welcome to the Resident Evil Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Resident Evil series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Last Game You Finished & Rate it!

I'm not saying 1 and 2 were identical, however, they felt like sequels to one another. These were two Dreamcast games, made by the same team, for the same system, with stories that felt like they belonged in the same timeline. Heroes, felt like something completely different. It was the first new game made for a non-Sega console, as well as being available on ALL consoles. It had a completely new gimmick, the gameplay wasn't at all like the adventure games. The story structure and character modeling wasn't either. You've said over and over how RE4 isn't the same kinda of sequel as the originals. You've talked at length about RE4. That's how Heroes and onward are to me. That doesn't mean they aren't good games. But Heroes, despite having the same voice cast, was the RE4 of the Sonic games. A welcome change, that I thoroughly enjoyed, but addmittedly isn't the same at all.

Comparing it to Resident Evil 4 doesn't work. A lot of what you're saying sounds nitpicky and honestly doesn't make sense. Character models change in every franchise when they move to better hardware. And so what if they were both on the Dreamcast? Sonic Adventure 3 can only ever be made on that console? Heroes is a direct continuation of Sonic Adventure 2, has the same exact Sonic gameplay and level design, but with a team gimmick, Crush 40 continues doing the soundtrack, you have multiple stories and multiple characters to choose from, and so on. Sonic '06 even continues this trend and they brought back the hub world like the first Sonic Adventure.

If any Sonic game is the Resident Evil 4 of the bunch, it's Sonic Unleashed as that game actually changed the formula they've been following since the Adventure games and ignored all the other characters and even went for a fruitier soundtrack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jen
Comparing it to Resident Evil 4 doesn't work. A lot of what you're saying sounds nitpicky and honestly doesn't make sense. Character models change in every franchise when they move to better hardware. And so what if they were both on the Dreamcast? Sonic Adventure 3 can only ever be made on that console? Heroes is a direct continuation of Sonic Adventure 2, has the same exact Sonic gameplay and level design, but with a team gimmick, Crush 40 continues doing the soundtrack, you have multiple stories and multiple characters to choose from, and so on. Sonic '06 even continues this trend and they brought back the hub world like the first Sonic Adventure.

If any Sonic game is the Resident Evil 4 of the bunch, it's Sonic Unleashed as that game actually changed the formula they've been following since the Adventure games and ignored all the other characters and even went for a fruitier soundtrack.
The level design for Sonic Heroes isn't exactly like Adventure. It its very similar to the speed stages of the Adventure series, but that's it. No matter what, your end objective is "Get to the end of the stage." All 4 teams follow the exact same stages in the exact same order, and the only real difference in choosing a team is you're basically picking the difficulty setting. Playing different characters is really just playing different skins at this point. In Sonic Adventure, every character played different. In SA2, each character in their own respective story played different, and gave us different level variety. Here, the characters play different...I guess, but really it's just to overcome obstacles for a short time. Switch to Knuckles to punch through one or two doors. Switch to Tails to get up SLIGHTLY higher. Then, right back to Sonic for the rest of the guided track of the level. Rinse and repeat for 14 levels, then multiple that by 3 for the other teams with 0 variation save for difficulty/level length. No Adventure game had anything like this. This was very clearly built to go in a new direction. I'm not knocking Sonic Heroes. I like the game (Despite the fact that it's objectively poorly made). But it's very much NOT an Adventure game. It varies FAR too much in both the story, and gameplay element for that.

Sonic 06? Yeah, that was Adventure-esque, but that was, by Sega's own admission, more of a soft reboot, so it's not an Adventure game. And I've said before, Adventure game or not, were it not a broken game, it actually probably would have been incredible. I loved what it could have been. But just by being a soft reboot, it isn't part of the same sub-series.
 
The level design for Sonic Heroes isn't exactly like Adventure. It its very similar to the speed stages of the Adventure series, but that's it. No matter what, your end objective is "Get to the end of the stage." All 4 teams follow the exact same stages in the exact same order, and the only real difference in choosing a team is you're basically picking the difficulty setting. Playing different characters is really just playing different skins at this point. In Sonic Adventure, every character played different. In SA2, each character in their own respective story played different, and gave us different level variety. Here, the characters play different...I guess, but really it's just to overcome obstacles for a short time. Switch to Knuckles to punch through one or two doors. Switch to Tails to get up SLIGHTLY higher. Then, right back to Sonic for the rest of the guided track of the level. Rinse and repeat for 14 levels, then multiple that by 3 for the other teams with 0 variation save for difficulty/level length. No Adventure game had anything like this. This was very clearly built to go in a new direction. I'm not knocking Sonic Heroes. I like the game (Despite the fact that it's objectively poorly made). But it's very much NOT an Adventure game. It varies FAR too much in both the story, and gameplay element for that.

Sonic 06? Yeah, that was Adventure-esque, but that was, by Sega's own admission, more of a soft reboot, so it's not an Adventure game. And I've said before, Adventure game or not, were it not a broken game, it actually probably would have been incredible. I loved what it could have been. But just by being a soft reboot, it isn't part of the same sub-series.

Those changes were made in response to how poorly recieved the other play styles were. Even Adventure 2 shrunk down the number of playstyles down to 3. Seems like a natural progression to me except for a name. Which again, I don't understand what would make Adventure 3 Adventure 3 when everything it would have been has been done already. It sounds more like people just want sh*tty playstyles to return because the title Adventure 3 is redundant.
 
Those changes were made in response to how poorly recieved the other play styles were. Even Adventure 2 shrunk down the number of playstyles down to 3. Seems like a natural progression to me except for a name. Which again, I don't understand what would make Adventure 3 Adventure 3 when everything it would have been has been done already. It sounds more like people just want sh*tty playstyles to return because the title Adventure 3 is redundant.
The play styles being sh*tty is up to the user though. Frankly, I loved every play style except for Big the Cat's. Gamma very well might be my second favorite play style of the bunch. When SA2 rolled around and they stuck Tails in a Mech to simulate gamma, I was put off, but that's because as a long time Sonic fan, him not using his signature two tails ability felt like a disservice. So Bringing those styles back...Emerald hunting. Speed. Gunplay. Racing. That's all fine, but not actually what makes a game "Sonic Adventure" to me. What everyone wants brought back is going to vary person to person. Bringing back hub worlds, several different playable character with independent but interlocking stories, and a story that is done like a cheesy B movie, meaning it's series, but isn't played straight, are all more important than multiple play styles. Those three things to me, make a GOOD Adventure game. And Heroes and 06 may have had elements of that, but they didn't have the whole package. Hell, even Adventure 2 didn't have the whole package. I find SA2, kind of a disappointment. And hey, I find Temple of Doom to be a disappointment. But Last Crusade fixed all of that.
 
The play styles being sh*tty is up to the user though. Frankly, I loved every play style except for Big the Cat's. Gamma very well might be my second favorite play style of the bunch. When SA2 rolled around and they stuck Tails in a Mech to simulate gamma, I was put off, but that's because as a long time Sonic fan, him not using his signature two tails ability felt like a disservice. So Bringing those styles back...Emerald hunting. Speed. Gunplay. Racing. That's all fine, but not actually what makes a game "Sonic Adventure" to me. What everyone wants brought back is going to vary person to person. Bringing back hub worlds, several different playable character with independent but interlocking stories, and a story that is done like a cheesy B movie, meaning it's series, but isn't played straight, are all more important than multiple play styles. Those three things to me, make a GOOD Adventure game. And Heroes and 06 may have had elements of that, but they didn't have the whole package. Hell, even Adventure 2 didn't have the whole package. I find SA2, kind of a disappointment. And hey, I find Temple of Doom to be a disappointment. But Last Crusade fixed all of that.

That's the problem Resident Evil currently faces today and something that completely ruins a franchise for me. Their lack of consistency has created so many different kinds of fans that no one game or direction is ever gonna satisfy the fans because their expectations are all over the place.

I personally don't give a sh*t for any playstyle that doesn't involve the traditional Sonic gameplay, because games like Sonic 3 and Knuckles, the Advanced series, and Sonic Mania has already showed us how to do different characters without changing the gameplay and level design so drastically just to artificially pad out the experience.

Regardless, Sonic Adventure 2 is very much an Adventure game and the fact that they made so many changes to the formula only further proves that the name never meant a thing, which is why I still never understood why anyone wants an Adventure 3. It's quite pointless now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jen
That's the problem Resident Evil currently faces today and something that completely ruins a franchise for me. Their lack of consistency has created so many different kinds of fans that no one game or direction is ever gonna satisfy the fans because their expectations are all over the place.

I personally don't give a sh*t for any playstyle that doesn't involve the traditional Sonic gameplay, because games like Sonic 3 and Knuckles, the Advanced series, and Sonic Mania has already showed us how to do different characters without changing the gameplay and level design so drastically just to artificially pad out the experience.

Regardless, Sonic Adventure 2 is very much an Adventure game and the fact that they made so many changes to the formula only further proves that the name never meant a thing, which is why I still never understood why anyone wants an Adventure 3. It's quite pointless now.
Adventure 2 only made one change to the formula, which is taking away the hub world. And let's be hones, that was probably a decision made to quicken making the game because Sega knew the Dreamcast was at the end of its life cycle.
 
GEARS 5 (Xbox One)
Just finished the main campaign. Such a great gears game. Story was more engaging this time, they tried to play with 'open world' areas which worked out fine. I dislike when games force them into being a open world experience even though it's not suiting. Gears 5 did this part very well. Haven't tried the multiplayer yet but I will eventually. I liked this one more than 4 also.

9/10
 
Last game I finished was Bioshock Infinite.
This game is absolutely insane, if you thought 1 and 2 was like snorting a barrel of flinstones gummy vitamins well then this game here is snorting an entire cargo ship of them.
Teleportation, Giant Mechanical Birds, Floating Cities, Racist Corrupt Presidents, Birds Flying Out Your hand, Crazy Guns, 1920'S/30's Aesthetic, Lower Class Uprisings, Other Dimensions, Two of the same characters, Mountains of plot twists etc etc and that's not even the half of it.
It's madness.
The gameplay is smooth and crisp, the story is incredible and the environments are highly detailed.
I'd give it an 8.5 if it was the 2000's but since it has gone off with age I have to give it a 7.7.
 
Gears 5
On paper, Gears 5 is the best looking, most fluid, and biggest Gears of War game to date. However, it is far from being the best for a number of unfortunate reasons that have currently left me feeling mixed on the game.

The biggest one being the absurd amount of bugs and glitches. They've been quick on patching things but it honestly looks like they're still doing tons of clean up, which only means this game should have been delayed, but now, my, along with many others' experience with the game have been forever tainted, making it hard to view this game in a positive light now.

I've heard the campaign stuff (which was where I experienced the majority of the problems) might be server related, since I played in online co-op, so I don't know if things have eased up since my 2 playthroughs. However, that doesn't excuse my awful experience with a triple A game I paid full price for and on day one. It started fine with a minor hiccup where my brother was ejected from the map and just forcibly died during a door opening animation. Little did I know, it was a sign of the nightmare to come. It's like the game couldn't function without breaking something. From minor stuff that could be laughed off to infuriating game breaking stuff that would stop us from progressing in the game. At one point, we had to restart all of Act 3 because the game was trying to force us to do an objective we had already done, and the game just didn't know how to let us continue and left us stuck, which was either due to poor open world game design, or just another annoying bug in the game.

I could go on and on about the countless bugs that made me regret purchasing the latest entry in one of my favorite game franchises and most anticipated game of the year, but it's just way too much to get into, and I'd rather get onto my actual thoughts on the game. Which is a total shame considering there are things that could have been improved upon already, on top of the game being such a hassle to even play, which further confirms my suspicion that the game was rushed.

The new open world levels for example, while a great concept and something I'd love to see expanded on in the next installment, just feels lifeless here. It's nothing but big empty spaces with small points of interest scattered around just to pad out the length of the game. It also feels heavily single player focused in that driving around in the open areas might not feel so bad when you're the one driving the skiff, whereas player 2 just kind of sits there until it's time to get off.

How much more exciting would it have been if player 2 actually had a mounted turret like the Worthog in Halo, and you actually encounter enemies or mini-bosses around the map while on the skiff? The flock being a great example of an airborne threat, menacing enough to warrant driving around and shooting at. There could be enemy skiffs or sand burrowing creatures. Just something to make traversal more engaging for both players while also making use of that empty space. The wind flare sequence in Act 3 in particular could have benefited from player 2 shooting those crystallized formations out of the driver's path.

Halo: Combat Evolved already set the blueprint for this kind of design back in 2001, so for Gears of War to do this half assed of a job with it, especially in a franchise that was built on co-op, is just extremely disappointing.

The game honestly felt at its best when it was linear classic Gears. Act 4 being a particular standout with all the classic Locust chaos unfolding around you and the return of the hammer of dawn. It was by far the high point in the entire game and you really felt like the world was returning to the state we found it in during the original trilogy. Which speaking of, I really enjoyed how much this game felt like a stroll down memory lane by making us revisit locations from the previous trilogy. The inclusion of JACK as an assist character and gameplay mechanic was absolutely genius as well, and actually came in handy in some very unique ways. I also really appreciate how much more useful the new melee is as it was always kind of a last resort, but ultimately useless attack. So, huge props to the Coalition for evolving the gameplay in some meaningful ways.

Horde Mode is a huge standout for me, and surprisingly actually works fairly consistently, unlike the campaign. I did however experience a couple of bugs during my countless hours with it. I had an enemy get stuck under the map at wave 40, making it impossible to kill him, and I had an A.I. partner spawn inside a wall during wave 50. Other than that, it is by far my favorite Horde Mode since Gears 3. Enemy variety is definitely key with a mode like this, and this game delivers so much more than Gears 4 did.

But, I do have two major issues with Horde this time around. The first being how cheap leeches are, as they're too fast and endless to react to, and down you instantly on harder waves, and the second being the new class system, which is just terrible. Definitely do not care for it being tied to a specific character. I'd rather choose my own character and assign whatever class I want. A definite step back from the previous game in that regard.

Escape is a neat diversion, but a little bare bones. I don't see myself returning to it like I constantly do Horde, and the maps all look quite similar. I also don't quite care for being forced to play as three nobody characters for this mode.

Overall, I'd say it's still a great game packed with tons of content to keep players coming back for more long after they've finished the campaign, but unfortunately, I can't forgive the bugs that plagued and soured my experience with the game. Had it not been for that, I would have definitely ranked the game a solid 9 out 10, but there's honestly no excuse why a game like this shipped with the countless problems it had.

7.8/10

Marvel's Spider-Man
By far the most overrated game I've played in a while. I'm honestly convinced that most of the people who hyped this game up have never played a single Spider-Man game post Spider-Man 2, and think that the pretty graphics and a cinematic narrative make it the best thing ever.

With that said, this is by far the best looking and most polished Spider-Man game, with the best representation of New York, and the most fluid web swinging and traversal of any Spider-Man game. Yet, despite all of that, this is far from the Batman Arkham equivalent of Spider-Man games because it falls into the same trappings most open world Spider-Man games do, repetitive combat, uninspiring collectibles, generic story missions, and a bunch of fluff side content.

The game splits up all of its side content into 9 various districts of New York, making for a very repetitive experience that will see you stopping the same 5 or so crime variations over and over again in each district, and it's repeated at least 4 times throughout the game when a new enemy faction is introduced. That's probably the most absurd amount of filler content that I've ever had to play through in any game, and is somehow not too dissimilar from the previous Spider-Man game, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which was by far, the worst Spider-Man game in recent memory, and how no one has pointed that out before, is mind boggling.

Other side activities include fetch quests, lab puzzles, challenges, and very by the numbers collectibles. I will however give credit to the backpack collectibles as they added nice bits of information about the game's lore. There were few side missions that actually felt unique or even amounted to something meaningful like a boss encounter. Some of my personal favorites being the random civilian side missions, Harry Osborn's lab projects, and enemy bases.

I was worried combat was gonna follow the Batman: Arkham free flow formula like The Amazing Spider-Man games before it, and while it captured the fighting style of those Spider-Man films perfectly, Spider-Man has already had satisfying combat in the past that worked for the character much better than what works for a more grounded character like Batman. Luckily, this game didn't disappoint. Combat is fluid but it's not exactly free flow, and that's okay as it opens up many possibilities with Spider-Man's expansive arsenal. Unfortunately, for as good as combat is, it can get rather monotonous due to the repetitive nature of the side activities that just see you constantly beating up bad guys over and over again, which started to get really tiring by the end of the game.

But, is this really the best combat in all of Spider-Man games? With how much critics and people have been holding up this game as the holy grail of Spider-Man games the way Arkham Asylum was for Batman, I would have thought so, but that's unfortunately not the case. I give Web of Shadows the edge in this category simply because there were far more dimensions to combat that just completely immerses you into the power fantasy of being Spider-Man. You had Spider-Man's regular moveset that could be interchanged with his symbiote moveset mid combo, and you had air and wall combat unlike any other game since. While combat is more than satisfactory in Marvel's Spider-Man, Insomniac should definitely take notes from Web of Shadows with their inevitable sequel.

While I hate to make this comparison again, a lot of the missions feel straight out of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which was a step back from what Beenox had achieved with the first Amazing Spider-Man game, which mixed an open world New York setting with unique linear levels, giving us the best of both worlds, as Spider-Man games were either strictly sandbox or followed structured levels. While a lot of the segments themselves were quite unique, a lot of what you're actually doing just comes off very typical of a Spider-Man game aside from some of its larger set pieces.

I also thought the pacing was a bit strange. At the very start of the game, you take down King Pin and not long after, you take out Shocker in some very generic boss encounters and that's about it until you're bombarded with multiple boss encounters in Act 3, which is also when the game actually feels at its best, whereas the first 2 Acts felt pretty standard and largely uneventful. But I can't help but feel like the pacing would have been drastically improved if we got to take down each of the later villains individually before fighting them in pairs in Act 3, which would have greatly improved their motivation. But, I can only assume they're planning on making a prequel game at some point featuring those villains, which is a little too Arkham Origins but has great potential.

My only other complaint are the MJ and Miles missions, which were just bland stealth segments, and felt a bit overused. The only 2 times I thought they were quite unique was when MJ was acting as Spider-Man's eyes and you get to see Spider-Man in action from a civilian's perspective, and the last MJ segment that has her infiltrating Norman Osborn's home which leads to some major story revelations.

But I think the most important question with a game like this is whether or not the game makes you feel like Spider-Man, and that's a resounding yes. Most if not all Spider-Man games have done a pretty good job at bringing the costumed hero to life in video game form, but this one takes it one very essential step further with its seamless integration of Peter Parker into the game's narrative that constantly reminds you of the man behind the mask even when you're swinging around the city as Spider-Man. Spider-Man feels more like an instrument in accomplishing Peter's goals which is exactly how it should feel because it's Peter Parker's life, morals, and hardships that drive any good Spider-Man story.

Insomniac truly gets Spider-Man. By the end of the game, I cared so much more for these characters and for this version of Spider-Man that I almost teared up as he suffered heartbreak and faced impossible decisions. That's a pretty impressive feat, considering Marvel Studios and Sony can't even get the character right, let alone, make me care about him and his non-existent struggles. Marvel's Spider-Man captures the essence of the character and understands why the character resonates with so many and that's what makes it great.

Spider-Man has had a long history with video games, and while this one may not be the Arkham caliber reinvention the character needs, it is by far one of the good ones. Just as Web of Shadows, ****tered Dimensions, and The Amazing Spider-Man had something meaningful to offer, Marvel's Spider-Man continues to add to that list while also greatly improving on many of its concepts, even if it isn't exactly the ultimate Spider-Man game we've been hoping for. (No pun intended)

8/10

State of Decay
State of Decay is a great example of not judging a book by its cover because even way back in 2013, the game looked outdated for an Xbox 360 game, and the Xbox One version (which I played) doesn't look much better either. Character models are small and look generic, animations are basic, framerate is occasionally choppy, there's tons of wall clipping, and lighting can be pretty bad at night, specifically indoors. Yet, I couldn't stop playing it.

The game has a rather abrupt start, just throwing you into a zombie apocalypse conflict with no subtlety at all, and after that, your mission is very straightforward, survive. It's a simple yet satisfying premise, and it really makes you feel like you're in the middle of a zombie apocalypse.

The game is light on storied content, but the real meat of the game is between those story missions which made up the majority of my 30 hours with the game and I honestly couldn't get enough of it due to the perfect synergy it establishes between its open world setting, survival horror concepts, and RPG mechanics that just makes for an amazing survival horror experience unlike any other. The game is just as much about maintaining and growing a community as it is traversing zombie infested streets, scavenging every house, shop, and building, resource managing, recruiting, helping, or establishing a mutually beneficial relationship with other survivors, and so on.

But what really makes it stand out to me, is its open world setting, as it not only proves the genre is viable in an open world, which we've had a recent discussion about here on the forums, but it's a damn great example that lives up to my age old dreams of such a game. Every house and building is explorable, zombies are often creeping by or hiding inside, and loud noises can alert nearby hordes, which coupled with a stamina bar, and limited inventory space, can turn a simple investigation into a horrible nightmare that can lead to the permanent loss of your most valuable community member. It's honestly one of the most tense gaming experiences I've ever had.

The flaws are glaringly obvious, but never truly problematic and quite honestly, very forgivable coming from an indie studio. This isn't a triple A game but it has triple A ideas that were executed surprisingly well for a budget game that was originally released on the Xbox Arcade. If this is what Undead Labs can achieve on a budget, then I'm super excited to see what they can do now that they are officially owned by Xbox and have the proper funding to make a triple A game.

8.5/10
 
Marvel's Spider-Man
By far the most overrated game I've played in a while. I'm honestly convinced that most of the people who hyped this game up have never played a single Spider-Man game post Spider-Man 2, and think that the pretty graphics and a cinematic narrative make it the best thing ever.

With that said, this is by far the best looking and most polished Spider-Man game, with the best representation of New York, and the most fluid web swinging and traversal of any Spider-Man game. Yet, despite all of that, this is far from the Batman Arkham equivalent of Spider-Man games because it falls into the same trappings most open world Spider-Man games do, repetitive combat, uninspiring collectibles, generic story missions, and a bunch of fluff side content.

The game splits up all of its side content into 9 various districts of New York, making for a very repetitive experience that will see you stopping the same 5 or so crime variations over and over again in each district, and it's repeated at least 4 times throughout the game when a new enemy faction is introduced. That's probably the most absurd amount of filler content that I've ever had to play through in any game, and is somehow not too dissimilar from the previous Spider-Man game, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which was by far, the worst Spider-Man game in recent memory, and how no one has pointed that out before, is mind boggling.

Other side activities include fetch quests, lab puzzles, challenges, and very by the numbers collectibles. I will however give credit to the backpack collectibles as they added nice bits of information about the game's lore. There were few side missions that actually felt unique or even amounted to something meaningful like a boss encounter. Some of my personal favorites being the random civilian side missions, Harry Osborn's lab projects, and enemy bases.

I was worried combat was gonna follow the Batman: Arkham free flow formula like The Amazing Spider-Man games before it, and while it captured the fighting style of those Spider-Man films perfectly, Spider-Man has already had satisfying combat in the past that worked for the character much better than what works for a more grounded character like Batman. Luckily, this game didn't disappoint. Combat is fluid but it's not exactly free flow, and that's okay as it opens up many possibilities with Spider-Man's expansive arsenal. Unfortunately, for as good as combat is, it can get rather monotonous due to the repetitive nature of the side activities that just see you constantly beating up bad guys over and over again, which started to get really tiring by the end of the game.

But, is this really the best combat in all of Spider-Man games? With how much critics and people have been holding up this game as the holy grail of Spider-Man games the way Arkham Asylum was for Batman, I would have thought so, but that's unfortunately not the case. I give Web of Shadows the edge in this category simply because there were far more dimensions to combat that just completely immerses you into the power fantasy of being Spider-Man. You had Spider-Man's regular moveset that could be interchanged with his symbiote moveset mid combo, and you had air and wall combat unlike any other game since. While combat is more than satisfactory in Marvel's Spider-Man, Insomniac should definitely take notes from Web of Shadows with their inevitable sequel.

While I hate to make this comparison again, a lot of the missions feel straight out of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which was a step back from what Beenox had achieved with the first Amazing Spider-Man game, which mixed an open world New York setting with unique linear levels, giving us the best of both worlds, as Spider-Man games were either strictly sandbox or followed structured levels. While a lot of the segments themselves were quite unique, a lot of what you're actually doing just comes off very typical of a Spider-Man game aside from some of its larger set pieces.

I also thought the pacing was a bit strange. At the very start of the game, you take down King Pin and not long after, you take out Shocker in some very generic boss encounters and that's about it until you're bombarded with multiple boss encounters in Act 3, which is also when the game actually feels at its best, whereas the first 2 Acts felt pretty standard and largely uneventful. But I can't help but feel like the pacing would have been drastically improved if we got to take down each of the later villains individually before fighting them in pairs in Act 3, which would have greatly improved their motivation. But, I can only assume they're planning on making a prequel game at some point featuring those villains, which is a little too Arkham Origins but has great potential.

My only other complaint are the MJ and Miles missions, which were just bland stealth segments, and felt a bit overused. The only 2 times I thought they were quite unique was when MJ was acting as Spider-Man's eyes and you get to see Spider-Man in action from a civilian's perspective, and the last MJ segment that has her infiltrating Norman Osborn's home which leads to some major story revelations.

But I think the most important question with a game like this is whether or not the game makes you feel like Spider-Man, and that's a resounding yes. Most if not all Spider-Man games have done a pretty good job at bringing the costumed hero to life in video game form, but this one takes it one very essential step further with its seamless integration of Peter Parker into the game's narrative that constantly reminds you of the man behind the mask even when you're swinging around the city as Spider-Man. Spider-Man feels more like an instrument in accomplishing Peter's goals which is exactly how it should feel because it's Peter Parker's life, morals, and hardships that drive any good Spider-Man story.

Insomniac truly gets Spider-Man. By the end of the game, I cared so much more for these characters and for this version of Spider-Man that I almost teared up as he suffered heartbreak and faced impossible decisions. That's a pretty impressive feat, considering Marvel Studios and Sony can't even get the character right, let alone, make me care about him and his non-existent struggles. Marvel's Spider-Man captures the essence of the character and understands why the character resonates with so many and that's what makes it great.

Spider-Man has had a long history with video games, and while this one may not be the Arkham caliber reinvention the character needs, it is by far one of the good ones. Just as Web of Shadows, ****tered Dimensions, and The Amazing Spider-Man had something meaningful to offer, Marvel's Spider-Man continues to add to that list while also greatly improving on many of its concepts, even if it isn't exactly the ultimate Spider-Man game we've been hoping for. (No pun intended)

8/10
I cannot speak to how much of this is correct sense I never ended up finishing the game, but, considering how much you know about me, you know I'm a biased Spider-Man fanboy. And as much as I've enjoyed my spurts playing it...I still have enjoyed Spider-Man (Dreamcast), Spider-Man: ****tered Dimensions (PS3), and Maximum Carnage (SNES) all more than I've enjoyed this game. So...I don't doubt that it's going to be almost objectively overrated.
 
I cannot speak to how much of this is correct sense I never ended up finishing the game, but, considering how much you know about me, you know I'm a biased Spider-Man fanboy. And as much as I've enjoyed my spurts playing it...I still have enjoyed Spider-Man (Dreamcast), Spider-Man: ****tered Dimensions (PS3), and Maximum Carnage (SNES) all more than I've enjoyed this game. So...I don't doubt that it's going to be almost objectively overrated.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I had a feeling the game was gonna be another typical Spider-Man sandbox game, just prettier and more cinematic, and playing it only confirmed my suspicion to be true. I don't get all the comparisons I see to Arkham Knight online or the blatant disregard for previous Spider-Man games.

Dude, Spider-Man (2000) was so good. I'd go as far as to call it the Arkham Asylum of its time as it was pretty much the only genuinely good 3D superhero game of the era. Til this day, the music and Rino Romano's Spider-Man performance is still memorable. I still quote his "already at full health" line whenever well, I'm already at full health in a video game. It's just such a memorable game and being based around the 90s animated series really made the game ooze of Spider-Man charm and atmosphere. I feel like most Spider-Man games miss the mark when it comes to bringing to life the world of comic book Spider-Man, including this latest game which feels more like a grounded film.
 
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I had a feeling the game was gonna be another typical Spider-Man sandbox game, just prettier and more cinematic, and playing it only confirmed my suspicion to be true. I don't get all the comparisons I see to Arkham Knight online or the blatant disregard for previous Spider-Man games.

Dude, Spider-Man (2000) was so good. I'd go as far as to call it the Arkham Asylum of its time as it was pretty much the only genuinely good 3D superhero game of the era. Til this day, the music and Rino Romano's Spider-Man performance is still memorable. I still quote his "already at full health" line whenever well, I'm already at full health in a video game. It's just such a memorable game and being based around the 90s animated series really made the game ooze of Spider-Man charm and atmosphere. I feel like most Spider-Man games miss the mark when it comes to bringing to life the world of comic book Spider-Man, including this latest game which feels more like a grounded film.
Oh, between Rino Ramano and Christopher Daniel Barnes, there's so much Spider-Man quotes that I can't get out of my head. They're pretty much my "Mark Harmil IS the Joker." Don't get me wrong. I like other Spider-Man VA's. Drake Bell is actually REALLY good, Neil Patrick-Harris is loveable, and there's undeniable charm to Dan Gilvezan's take on the character that just screams "Hey! hey guys it's the 80's! Life won't EVER get better than the 80's!" But as much as I enjoy all those guys, Ramano and Barnes rein supreme. Hell...I prefer almost all of these guys to any live action version of the web head.
 
Oh, between Rino Ramano and Christopher Daniel Barnes, there's so much Spider-Man quotes that I can't get out of my head. They're pretty much my "Mark Harmil IS the Joker." Don't get me wrong. I like other Spider-Man VA's. Drake Bell is actually REALLY good, Neil Patrick-Harris is loveable, and there's undeniable charm to Dan Gilvezan's take on the character that just screams "Hey! hey guys it's the 80's! Life won't EVER get better than the 80's!" But as much as I enjoy all those guys, Ramano and Barnes rein supreme. Hell...I prefer almost all of these guys to any live action version of the web head.

Christopher Daniel Barnes and Rino Romano are definitely my favorites when it comes to Spider-Man voices. I also really liked Josh Keaton, which the banter between he and Barnes made the otherwise okay Edge of Time so much more entertaining. Drake Bell on the other hand I've always found irritating. And yeah, I don't think we've gotten the perfect Spider-Man portrayal on film yet. I don't know what people see in Holland.
 
Christopher Daniel Barnes and Rino Romano are definitely my favorites when it comes to Spider-Man voices. I also really liked Josh Keaton, which the banter between he and Barnes made the otherwise okay Edge of Time so much more entertaining. Drake Bell on the other hand I've always found irritating. And yeah, I don't think we've gotten the perfect Spider-Man portrayal on film yet. I don't know what people see in Holland.
I like Holland as an actor. I don't particularly care for what the MCU has done to Spider-Man's motivations/character. He's playing what they wrote very well. Just...what they wrote isn't Spider-Man. It's...Robin with Spider-Powers
 
I, too, like Tom Holland as an actor and I think his portrayal of Peter Parker is genuine and a little goofy which I like. I don't think the scripts capture the essence of Peter Parker's intelligence and quick wittedness though.

I DID love the portrayal of Mysterio in Far From Home though. They really made Mysterio a threat without giving him over the top super powers. Like a lot of people, by the middle of the movie, I was saying to myself - Maybe THIS Mysterio really is a good guy! And then reality set in and I thought it was a fun way to create a villain without too many gimmicks. I wasn't a HUGE fan of Mysterio's motivation, but it fit well enough.
 
I, too, like Tom Holland as an actor and I think his portrayal of Peter Parker is genuine and a little goofy which I like. I don't think the scripts capture the essence of Peter Parker's intelligence and quick wittedness though.
I agree here. He's supposed to be a flat out genius, not just a "smart kid." These movies would have you believe otherwise. And the wit was TOTALLY there in Civil War...then...they dropped the ball in his own films.

I DID love the portrayal of Mysterio in Far From Home though. They really made Mysterio a threat without giving him over the top super powers. Like a lot of people, by the middle of the movie, I was saying to myself - Maybe THIS Mysterio really is a good guy! And then reality set in and I thought it was a fun way to create a villain without too many gimmicks. I wasn't a HUGE fan of Mysterio's motivation, but it fit well enough.
Mysterio was great. I wish we would have gotten Sam Raimi's Bruce Campbell as Mysterio as a joke in Spider-Man 4, but I did think Mysterio here was great. It's difficult to make a character like that a legit threat, and they did. So kudos to Marvel on that.
 
Last two games I've played and beaten for the first time:

Link's Awakening. 7/10. I had a lot of fun. Very standard Zelda experience. Some minor framerate issues but nothing too serious. Cute artstyle.

2064: Read Only Memories. 9/10. Very lovely cyberpunk point and click. I enjoyed the story and I loved my little robot buddy Turing. I ended up playing it all in one sitting, I wanted to keep it going.
 
Astral Chain (Switch)
It's great to see Platinum games take on a new IP, it's more simplistic when it comes to the combat which I personally don't have any issue with. If you feel like Bayonetta was too complex this one is easier to get into. The trade off is also solid since this is a much longer adventure than the Bayonetta games are. Great artstyle, music is fantastic and the story was a bit goofy but in a good way.

9/10 .. Game of the year?
 
Back
Top Bottom