This should be the most basic, obvious accomplishment that a game can achieve. I will give the game credit for this: The story worked. Is it a masterful and cunning improvement on modern shooters, or a short, dumbed-down bastardization of its predecessor? It’s kind of both. Months later, I still don’t know how to judge the game. The game would take so long and cost so much to produce that it could never make money. At the same time, it seems really unfair to compare Human Revolution to the original, since it would be completely unfeasible and unreasonable to attempt to re-create a game of that size and scope using today’s technology. Those games don’t aspire to be Deus Ex, and so saying Human Revolution is better than those other shooters is like pointing out that Wal-Mart has a better selection of housewares than Dominoes Pizza. It has a slick, appealing aesthetic, yet that aesthetic doesn’t match the one in the original game.ĭo we judge Human Revolution against the standards of today, or do we judge it as a sequel to Deus Ex? It seems like cheating to compare this game to a brown military cover shooter, since those games were never intended to offer open experiences with player agency and player-controlled dialog. It’s smaller than the original, yet larger than most shooters. Or whatever you call it when you make a prequel.) It’s not nearly as freeform as the original, yet it’s far more freeform than its current-day contemporaries. (Whether or not the original deserves to be revered is a thorny discussion we can leave for another time.) This game is unlike the original in terms of gameplay and style, yet it preserves the original premise, tone, and continuity. How is anyone supposed to rate or even discuss this game objectively? It’s a sequel to a beloved and revered classic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |