thepixiesrock

I'd give it more than a 7.5

Repetitive missions: Drive here. Pick up item/person. Drive item/person here. Kill enemies. Receive money. Driving controls: It really isn't so much the controls, it's just that the cars skid and slide all over the place. Shooting: Just because it's an improvement doesn't make it good, the auto-aim is off at times. Save system: Again, just because they improved from the other games doesn't mean its any good. Checkpoints are a must for games like this, I mean, I had to do all the pointless driving halfway across the city to get to the bank and then load all those bank robbery cutscenes like 4 times. 7.5/10 The driving is perfect.

What the crap? What do you mean by repetitive missions? Driving controls are fantastic and realistic. Unless you mean the actual buttons you use to control driving, in which case it's just regular racing game controls, and I'm pretty sure you can change them anyway. Shooting is a super improvement over all the other games. Cover and the ability to control where you shoot the person on their body. Unless you mean that actual buttons you use to shoot, but I don't understand how they could be bad. Save system is the same as all the games except for the fact that they added auto saves, so it's just better. You could shut the game off and come back to after the last mission. 10/10

You're just so enlightened.

Tom Waits - Rain Dogs

Yeah, if you need body armor for any of the missions besides the bank one you just aren't taking advantage of cover as well as you should be.

I disagree

That's kind of ridiculous. I mean, it could potentially be alright if it's only increased in a case where they are using thier police status to cause harm to someone under the guise of being a police officer. So for example, if a cop beats someone using the fact that they are a cop to ge tthe drop on them and gain an advantage, like if they are searching someone and start beating them or questioning someone and start beating them, or soemthing like that, then yeah. If the cop just starts assaulting someone, like, maybe his wife is having an affair with some guy, or he gets in some bar fight, or he just likes beating people up, and the other person doesn't even know they are a cop because the guy is off duty or soemthing, then no, there shouldn't be a larger sentance or penalty, because he wasn't using his copness get gain some sort of advantage over someone.

Just because you didn't understand the dialogue doesn't mean it wasn't great.

Yay Yay Islands - The Arm

In before locks all around

In before lock

In before lock

In before lock!

In before lock

Dear diary, Today I woke up. Later I am sad. Until next time

Yeah, it could be compared to that without too much difficulty. And you're a bank robber. What? I do not understand your comment, although that might be because it is 1:01 a.m. at the moment. It has something to do with your ridiculous comment.

Hey Krookie, Hades really liked that joke. It was a Hades-worthy joke. I think that's a sufficient insult.

I know, I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was pointing out how badly Krookie sucks. Then I think that's something we can all get behind.

And I thought I was the only one

It isn't mutually exclusive. I didn't say you wouldn't be able to drive well in this game if you don't drive.

Krookie that's illegal

If you know how to drive a realy car it shouldn't be a problem. Unless your name is Krookie.

So your complaint is that he hasn't defined what "just right" is? How would that even work? He takes a game that works, like Psychonauts for example, and uses it as a control variable to be tested against? That's not a very smart way to go about giving criticism. At the end of the day all you can really say is "This game is not as good as Psychonauts" or "this game is as good or better than Psychonauts" which doesn't really mean anything. Especially if it's a review of something like Tetris or Gothic. I'd love to get into the whole criticism spiel again, but this is a gaming forum just like any other. I could argue with a brick wall and provoke more thought. Still though, as always He gave the most honest reviews of Mass Effect and the Witcher I've seen in their respective categories. Whether he's funny or not is beside the point. I remember when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and called that show out on cheapening political discourse. They called him "a comedian" as though it had some bearing on what he was saying. There are a lot of Tucker Carlsons out there. I understand you think I'm less thought provoking than a brick wall, and I think you unrightfully arrogant and elitist, but please for my sake, just bare with me. I'm not complaining that he hasn't defined what just right is. I can see where you've gotten confused. I'm saying that all of his reviews are negative, and that's his gimmick, and so he will always do that. I'm saying that even if a game is good and he has to review it, he will reveiw it negatively because it's what gets him views, and it's easy to make jokes when you're making fun of something that's bad. I'm mean, you can say they are honest reviews, and that he "reviews games without regard for their pretensions" but I just disagree. He will get things right on, but other times I think he's just saying something negative to get more lame jokes in. I mean, obviously I firmly belive this because I don't like him or find him funny. And obviously you will disagree because you do like him and do find him funny.

Every game ever made is too something. Too short or too long, too easy or too hard, too unoriginal or too weird, too violent or too kiddie. You don't ever have to define what "just right" would be and so you'll always have room to criticize. And I don't think he's funny.