I haven' t seen any discussion on Bullet Witch, got it earlier yesterday, been playing it...I have to say, it has its faults...but it is really fucking fun.

It is a shooter and one which is getting shit reviews because, although after the faults it is a great game, isn' t developed by a " known" company. I mean to say, that a lot of these sites will get $ to put out good reviews, Cavia I am sure did not pony up. Good thing Kikizo isn' t that kind of site :P

Anyway...anyone else played it?

I actually was interested in this until I read a few reviews and then had to make a decision as to whether go with Graw 2 this month or Bullet Witch and I went with the former after playing the demo, so what are the faults you have found and how much do they detract from the gameplayability?

Cavia are retarded.

Their biggest games have been...

Ghost in the Shell: SAC (PS2)
Beat Down (PS2/Xbox)
Win Back 2 (PS2)
Zegapain (Xbox 360)
Drakengard/2 (PS2)

...and they' re all fucking shit!

It' s no wonder Mistwalker has taken Cry On away from then and given it to Artoon.

Bullet Witch looks pathetic. It looks repetitive, ...it looks like it has shoddy controls and it' s a graphical mess.

There was a time when i was looking forward to it but after seeing what actually became of the game i decided to avoid it. Like alijay my biggest 360 purchase this month will be GRAW2. A good game.

Bullet Witch is disappointing. As in... I' m not even paying the $6 to rent it.[:' (]

GRAW2. A good game.

Good thing that was at the end, cause I would have stopped reading.

GRAW isn' t my type of game, GRAW 1 I loved...but 2...looks like a fixed up #1...which is a bullshit EA move, which noone should be doing.

Drakengard was a good game, Zegapain...I didn' t like and I would agree that every other game they have made has been shit.

I think a lot of what made people gamers hasn' t consumed us as much as our want for " sophistication" in the gaming community.

I haven' t been playing games for awhile and coming back I realize the reason I fell in love with Video Games was because of the FUCKING EXPERIENCE. It isn' t to sit and say " wow, these graphics are fucking nuts!" or " wow, these controls are amazing" . If the game sucks I won' t play it simple as that, but if it can deliver an experience that is worth my time, it is worth the money.

When you die every second and have to adjust because of your tactics...then die again, that isn' t a good experience...the point of games, same with movies, are entertainment and past that to pull us out of this shit-hole life for a few hours to a different place.

I can' t get into something like GRAW where it detracts from the " escapism" factor. Bullet Witch, however glitchy it maybe...doesn' t detract from the whole of the experience.

Anyway, that was my weekly rant, enjoy :P

Edit:

Bullet Witch and I went with the former after playing the demo, so what are the faults you have found and how much do they detract from the gameplayability?

Faults...some clipping issues with the enemies. Alicia/Bullet Witch' s cape clips into her...but almost noone has made a good cape dynamic yet. Aside from that...not much, none of the issues detract from the playability. I have heard the game is pretty short, thus the $50 price tag (here in the US) and the reason they are going to be releasing more content for it over the year.

It is a shooter though, not a FPS/3PS/RTS. It is a Shooter...like Contra, a shooter, go through kill the baddies finish the level, upgrade. It can' t be compared to GRAW because Graw isn' t a shooter, it is a 3PS/RTS. There don' t exist many shooters now-a-days so it is nice to see another one finally coming out.

Y' know, there' s a reason that the game has got dire reviews (Gamespot 5.5/10 - OXM 4/10 - Gamepro 1.5/5 - IGN 4/10 etc etc etc...)

Now while i' m not a fan of " reviews" in general, if everybody says it sucks there' s usually a good reason y' know.



You' ll understand if i dis-trust your gaming tastes, but you' re the guy who really enjoyed Perfect dark Zero and Full Auto... [:' (]

It is a shooter though, not a FPS/3PS/RTS. It is a Shooter...like Contra, a shooter, go through kill the baddies finish the level, upgrade. It can' t be compared to GRAW because Graw isn' t a shooter, it is a 3PS/RTS. There don' t exist many shooters now-a-days so it is nice to see another one finally coming out.

What are you talking about?

You have a 360 and you' re complaining that there aren' t enough shooters???

What are Lost Planet and Gears of War? What, to a lesser extent is Crackdown (apart from an awesome platform game) ???

And why, even if GRAW/2 and Vegas have minor " tactical" aspects are they not shooters? I mean, you do spend 95% of the games shooting stuff.

Oh, i see what you mean. You want a " pure" shooter that doesn' t have any of these new fangled game mechanics. You don' t want to be able to take cover or anything, ...you want and old gen game in new-gen skin.

If that' s what you want then you probably should have bought Earth defense Force instead.

Quake 4

ORIGINAL: M B

Quake 4

Sucks monkey balls.

What didn' t you like about it, short of the s*** framerate that is?

I' m actually fairly disappointed with what I' ve seen of GRAW2. It' s focusing more on action, and a lot less on hard tactics, which I really enjoy. Kinda like making the swap from Brothers in Arms to Medal of Honor if you forgive the WWII shooter reference.

ORIGINAL: Eddie_the_Hated

What didn' t you like about it, short of the s*** framerate that is?

What, Quake IV?!

Ugh, don' t even get me started. I adored Quake, Quake II and Quake III and their respective expansions, and Quake IV had an immense amount of promise and yet they completely ruined it.

Doom 3 should have been Quake IV and Quake IV (as it is) should never have been made.

If it was going to be developed then id should have done it instead of Raven-we-can' t-even-model-hands-properly Software.

I despise Quake IV!!!



As for GRAW2. Like i said before, ignore the demo level. The game proper will completely outstrip the original.

Saying that, you might be better off with the PC version as there' s far far far more emphasis on tactical play.

What didn' t you like about it, short of the s*** framerate that is?

It just bored me. Something about unloading a clip from a machine gun into somethings head and having it still walk towards me doesn' t strike my fancy. It was like playing a 15 year old game with new graphics. FPS doesn' t have to mean, gun + monsters = finished game. It also got tedious when you expect that a monster is going to come out, and sure enough it does, and you have to kill it with a ridiculous amount of ammo shot from basic, unimaginative guns designs, and lackluster gun models.

As far as Bullet Witch is concerned, a compilation of tons of reviews gave it a 54

Perfect dark Zero and Full Auto...

Full Auto was fun...for short bursts of times...and where did I say I loved Perfect Dark Zero...I fucking hated the game...I could tolerate it on co-op, but god...I wanted to kill the developers for not putting in a jump.

There are many games that have gotten shit reviews that have been fairly decent.

With games there just hasn' t been a definitive split...with the movie industry there is...one person can say " I liked this movie" and regardless of it being shit, it is ok because he didn' t say " film" with games...ya just got games, good or bad, Bullet witch is in the " not sophisticated, but ok to waste time on" catagory. If I was I would suggest this, not recommend it...because it isn' t even in leagues with games like LOZ or MGS.

ORIGINAL: Alecrein

Bullet witch is in the " not sophisticated, but ok to waste time on" catagory.

It' s in the ' never should have been made' catagory as far as i' m concerned.

You' re opening post expressed surprise that it wasn' t something we' d discussed. It hasn' t been discussed because nobody is interested in it [probably]

You also called it " a great game" which i can' t take seriously whatsoever. I mean, maybe i need to play it for myself but the amount of negativity surrounding the game can' t be for nothing.

Did you pay full price for it?

I understand Alecrein' s point. There are games out there that, while they don' t rate as " groundbreaking" or " masterful" are still worth a buy, or at least a rent. If, for anything else, to waste time until the next game. Something different then what you already have. I just recently got Indigo Prophecy, and while it certainly didn' t live up to what I was expecting/hoping, I consider it worth the $20 I paid for it.

I wanted to kill the developers for not putting in a jump

I wondered why they didn' t include a jump in Gears of War. The jump is a feature that seems like it should be standard now. I don' t understand why so many developers still leave it out.

>_>


<_<

Yeah because battlefields are full of guys jumping on top of crates and stuff...

Gears of War does not need a fucking jump mechanic. You dive, and hop over stuff in a realistic fashion, ...it' s not a fucking Mario game!

What the fuck would you use a jump button for in Gears? To jump over sandbags and low walls? Because the context sensitive nature of the existing control system does that flawlessly without having these 6ft digital badass' s juming about in their armour like fucking plumbers!



Alecrein likes Bullet witch because it features a girl who casts spells. He likes that kind of stuff and that' s fine, but calling it a " great game" was just asking for somebody to question his gaming tastes.

You also called it " a great game" which i can' t take seriously whatsoever. I mean, maybe i need to play it for myself but the amount of negativity surrounding the game can' t be for nothing.

Did you pay full price for it?

I didn' t pay for it, got it under gamefly, so technically maybe $4. You' re not understanding what I was saying and are jumping to exactly my point. As I said earlier...there are two diversities in the film industry...

Movies: Which are for entertainment purpose, purely and simply, are not there to push a certain point or accentuate the artist' s skills.

Films: Which are there for the purpose first, and the entertainment second.

A good movie - Spider-Man
A good film - Schindler' s List

Games are without this diversity...so when I say " Great game" you can' t tell that I am putting it in the lower bracket, as with the movie category in the film industry.

You think the game shouldn' t have been made, that is fine, it is an opinion. I think that there are far more games out there that shouldn' t have been given the fucking thought of day, but were, and they are out there on shelves now.

The harsh reality we face in the gaming industry...is how fucking shitty we are going. Back in the day it was almost a guaranteed " good buy" on any game, aside from the occasional E.T. gaming was Primo Entertainment. But...now-a-days with movie to game tie-ins, every fucker coming off the street thinking they can make the next MGS, and general capitalistic attitudes from the developers. We hit a rut, games have to be researched before they are bought, because we don' t know what the fuck we could be popping that $50 down on.

In reality gaming is a very great value, say you purchase Xenosaga...an 80 hour game. $50 Brand new for 80 hours...is 1 and a half hours of entertainment for $1. For $15 you get the same amount of entertainment. Books are still the greatest value, but you see what I mean.

Edit: Forgot to comment on the Gears of War thing. I really thought that it wasn' t needed, in PDZ...it feels like it should be there, since you can naturally leap over obstacles in GOW I didn' t see the need for it.

[image]http://forum.teamxbox.com/image.php?u=111214&dateline=1144265456[/image]

....does Bullet Witch sucks monkey' s testes?

..well in answer, i can only say this:
































i' d rather play warhawk