this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
317 points (97.3% liked)
Games
32386 readers
2546 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Disagree. Graphics aren’t good and the combat is terrible. Predictable “are we the bad guys?” story.
I saved this one for years and was underwhelmed when I beat it a couple weeks ago. This game did not age well IMO.
Well I played it, once, 12 years ago when the graphics were good. I don't remember them being mind blowing, but I don't remember them being bad either.
I dont think it really had an "are we the baddies" story, it was a very graphic anti war game for me.
It is one of the better executed anti-war message in games. Nothing I've played has come as close to its level of execution. I remember thinking, at the time, that the competitive multi-player really undercut the message of the single player campaign.
I felt it was ham fisted. You don’t even get a choice in the most impactful scene of the game, you’re railroaded the whole time. Only choice I can remember was at the bridge and the game returns to normal after 5 seconds.
The graphics are were not good even for the time; contemporary reviews point this out. It looks like a 2007 game but was released in 2012. The guns aren’t good and the cover system is clunky.
I dunno, maybe it was hyped too much for me. I found it forgettable and not worth the 5 hours it took to beat.