Published on 4th November 2007 by
Originally Posted by AcidJileswill you do a seperate pc review because from what i heard it works alot better than the 360 version?
Originally Posted by Tim Swe'll see if we can get hold of it - not sure if the pc version is out yet. At least, ive not heard about it (maybe Joe has). :)
Originally Posted by BauulOk..... that was creepy. Page three, just got the first set of screenshots, and for some reason memories of Requiem: Avenging Angel pop into my head. Keep on reading, and just two lines later Joe goes and mentions it. That was really, really creepy.
Excellent game though Requiem, I can't think of many others that included time travel, flying, blood boiling, wantom violence, a dystopian 1984 future civilisation, Railguns, the most out-of-place moment of bad language in a game ever AND Lucifer himself, all in one game! Result!
And a shadow system which looked as good as UE3's, and the game's 10 years old.
Originally Posted by CardJoeWank level design though, plus awful enemies and horrible, horribly delivered plot. Requiem was magnificently difficult.
Originally Posted by CardJoeI'm still confused about the endings though...
Originally Posted by kickarseSay what? "That's fair does though - FPS games and metaphysics don't usually go together that well. Pathologic is proof of that." On page 2.
I DO think it was a good review of the game. However, I really wish that someone proof read the whole review as the semantical errors were abundant. Like "You’ve got" instead of "you have".
Originally Posted by BauulAre we still talking about Requiem here? There were multiple endings? What did I miss?
Originally Posted by kickarseI really wish that someone proof read the whole review as the semantical errors were abundant. Like "You’ve got" instead of "you have".
Originally Posted by CardJoeThere weren't multiple endings, but I remember having a conversation with you once where we both described entirely different endings...
Firstly, we do proof read. First I do it but, since I know what I'm saying already, I often miss things. That's when Tim does his edit and proof read.
Secondly, it isn't a semantical arguement. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, this is a stylistics choice to convey the same meaning in a more conversational manner so it would be a stylistical error if anything. But it still isn't. "You've got" is the compacted version of "You have got". I have (or rather, I've) written reviews in the past which have been in the full grammar from a prescriptivist approach but it always ends up reading like an essay rather than a review. That could work on some sites, but not here where the writers are often close to (if not adopted out of) the community of readers.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
6th February 2016
4th February 2016
3rd February 2016
© Copyright bit-tech