tried to get some info directly from cdv. not much info, no trailers ( wonder why lol) , scren shots don't work ( wonder why :p ). Finally got some intel off youtube, game video quality was rubbish, more akin to what was happening 10 years ago. There was clearly some nudity, even spotted some full on nudity in the bar/pole dancing sceen!!! GOD this game looks crappy, body mechanics look all wrong, the video of lula on the phone was one endless repeat of the same frames! the guys in this game all look like sleazy sex driven slobs high on controled substance with an IQ of a dead hamster. what in gods name possessed you to make a article of this? what was the point? even looking at windows 95 boot was more exciting than this game...
he was caught playing this game, 'catching some boobs' when his editor came up behind him, asking him what he was doing... 'euhm euhm reviewing a euh... game' he managed to get past his troath. With an evil grin on his face, the editor said 'i will be expecting it... have a nice day'
man I though bit-tech was taking some political path to express its views and opinions... then I started reading the actual article and my day its again quiet and calm
I don't know what I find more incredible: that you did a retrospective on this 'game'; that the retrospective ran to two pages; or that you played or even bought this in the first place.
Plus, I thought Joe was the perv. ;)
Why do a retrospective on a game which most people will have never heard of to tell us its awful and we should avoid it? Your Blur retrospective has a point; it was a good game by an established developer that went unnoticed due to poor advertising and its launch time. Doing retrospectives on classics to see how they have aged and what their legacy has been is interesting.
To be blunt some of the articles and opinion pieces that have appeared under the 'bit-gamer' banner have been the worst on the site.
Why do a retrospective on a game which most people will have never heard of to tell us its awful and we should avoid it? Your Blur retrospective has a point; it was a good game by an established developer that went unnoticed due to poor advertising and its launch time. Doing retrospectives on classics to see how they have aged and what their legacy has been is interesting.
To be blunt some of the articles and opinion pieces that have appeared under the 'bit-gamer' banner have been the worst on the site.
TO laught a litle bit? they offer some nice comedy momments!!
Comments 1 to 17 of 17
ReplyGame sounds dreadful and even farming simulator would be better
How did you know? I thought I kept so quiet.
and so here it is...
Can you imagine the newspaper ad for that?
"Wanted. Women for motion capture. Must have: boobs - huge. Self-respect - tiny. Must be willing to stand on the spot and jiggle for five days."
Can I judge? Hubba! Hubba!
Plus, I thought Joe was the perv. ;)
it is great! That is one of the funniest reviews I've read in ages, thank you!
Wha?!
http://fa.xmunkki.org/
E.g. http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/gaming/2009/06/29/games-i-own-sin-and-sin-episodes/
http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/gaming/2009/09/26/games-i-own-dungeon-keeper-theme-park-th/
You know it's true. ;)
Time for you to graduate to bishoujo... [shudders]
Why do a retrospective on a game which most people will have never heard of to tell us its awful and we should avoid it? Your Blur retrospective has a point; it was a good game by an established developer that went unnoticed due to poor advertising and its launch time. Doing retrospectives on classics to see how they have aged and what their legacy has been is interesting.
To be blunt some of the articles and opinion pieces that have appeared under the 'bit-gamer' banner have been the worst on the site.
TO laught a litle bit? they offer some nice comedy momments!!
-
« Previous
-
1
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums