mattlewis
04-24-2013, 12:44 PM
It took me a couple of weeks to take the defiance plunge due to lackluster reviews from major sites, and poor user reviews on metacritic.
first thing's first.
while i did experience a mission bug that sent me back a mission to the one i previously completed... but other than that the whole experience has been fun and addicting.
infact, defiance has been an experience i have never had seeing as how i'm a console gamer and mmo's aren't exactly a dominant genre. but overall it's been great.
the first thing i noticed was the poor quality of facial animations that bugged me for less than 3 seconds during the initial intro cut scene. it was easily overlooked. then i went on to play defiance for the first time and got this tribes feeling from it. the shooting was standard third person shooter fare, and the mission structure was fun and clear to follow. so far so good. i then went on to drive my atv around and found this was comperable to atv offroad fury 2 on ps2. i never expected motorstorm. so far so good. then i continued playing and found myself completing missions and side missions that organically drew me in without taking me out of the game. then ark falls. this game is great i realized. it was underrated by people who played preview builds a week before the actual game came out. i then realized that this game... a mmo...was reviewed when nobody was playing online yet. that doesn't sound like fun.
from my understanding, games are made to play and have fun with. if the game is fun regaurdless of it's initial shortcomings, it should be rated accordingly. i feel they had zero justification giving this game such low scores which is going to deter people as it did me... and that is unfair as defiance is the most fun i've had with my playstation ever. if it looks like a fox, smells like a fox, acts like a fox, feels like a fox... then it's probably a fox. bugs will be worked out. i'd rather have a fun game with a few bugs than a perfect game that isn't fun. the funfactor is why we buy games... i think that aspect should account for more of the review than anything superficial that may be holding it back.
on that note... i give ign a 60/100 gamespot 6.5/100 and all of publications that jumped the gun on this one something comparable.
first thing's first.
while i did experience a mission bug that sent me back a mission to the one i previously completed... but other than that the whole experience has been fun and addicting.
infact, defiance has been an experience i have never had seeing as how i'm a console gamer and mmo's aren't exactly a dominant genre. but overall it's been great.
the first thing i noticed was the poor quality of facial animations that bugged me for less than 3 seconds during the initial intro cut scene. it was easily overlooked. then i went on to play defiance for the first time and got this tribes feeling from it. the shooting was standard third person shooter fare, and the mission structure was fun and clear to follow. so far so good. i then went on to drive my atv around and found this was comperable to atv offroad fury 2 on ps2. i never expected motorstorm. so far so good. then i continued playing and found myself completing missions and side missions that organically drew me in without taking me out of the game. then ark falls. this game is great i realized. it was underrated by people who played preview builds a week before the actual game came out. i then realized that this game... a mmo...was reviewed when nobody was playing online yet. that doesn't sound like fun.
from my understanding, games are made to play and have fun with. if the game is fun regaurdless of it's initial shortcomings, it should be rated accordingly. i feel they had zero justification giving this game such low scores which is going to deter people as it did me... and that is unfair as defiance is the most fun i've had with my playstation ever. if it looks like a fox, smells like a fox, acts like a fox, feels like a fox... then it's probably a fox. bugs will be worked out. i'd rather have a fun game with a few bugs than a perfect game that isn't fun. the funfactor is why we buy games... i think that aspect should account for more of the review than anything superficial that may be holding it back.
on that note... i give ign a 60/100 gamespot 6.5/100 and all of publications that jumped the gun on this one something comparable.