You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
and they all seemed to have one thing in common: they all kept commenting on how it was "just another shooter where you kill aliens". it seemed to be a recurring theme with almost all of the previews/reviews out there. with that said, why did so many outlets hold this against the game? a billion of these kinds of games are released on the other consoles, and no one says **** about it. yet, the wii gets ONE game involving guns and aliens, and everyone ******* about it. how the hell is that fair?
to keep this post on-topic, do you feel that this sequel could also be unfairly judged? if so, how? discuss...
convenience store clerk- "hey buddy, you gonna pay for all that stuff?!" me- "looking into it." *walks out the door*
It was the fact that we were shooting aliens and getting nothing unique with the game. Look at Killzone 2. Though we were shooting the same type of aliens throughout the game and it having also having a drab look to it, the graphics (lookwise) impressed everyone, online multiplayer (32 people) was something unique unlike weapon sets having a lot of depth in it. The Conduit's art style held it back considerably, making the reviewers hating on the game, also the corridor-style gameplay that should have been extinct in the n64 era.
On the other note, to answer your question...I dont think Conduit 2 would be judged unfairly cuz it seems to be doing a lot of things right. It has a lot of things that are fun to play around with. To name a few:
Custom Loadouts (I know its not original, but w.e)
Environmental Dangers on each map
Currency System from Invasion Mode
There are more that we dont know yet...but these are already enough.
Some said its just like everyother shooter on every other consle. WHAT DID THEY EXPECT? The point of the game was to give people on the wii, a shooter more commonly found on an Xbox or PS3. the 2nd one is more of something new.
I think it's probably that the whole campaign consisted of *shoot everything, take out ASE, scan something, repeat*, and most of the more unique weapons were a bit too awkward, with the multiplayer basically having the same issues as Halo; slow, too much health, and overly simplified.
By the way, the only reason Halo gets away with it is because it's already super popular just from the first game being well timed.
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
I agree with what you said about the campaign, but I strongly disagree with what you said about multiplayer health. It is not a lot considering you can instantly die at any moment. One example being, getting headshotted with the Strike Rifle.
I think the AI was really dumb. One day my bro was playing on the hardest difficulty, and like he kept dying from people shooting at him, so I took the controller and literally just ran as fast as I could hopping and stuff and I made it all the way to the end of the level and stuff because the AI was like "appearing" and "shooting" too slow. It was one of the earlier levels, I believe it was infirmary, I remember there being a staircase with an elevator.