Games

[icycalm]

Original review thread: http://culture.vg/forum/topic?f=11&t=3133

Review: http://culture.vg/reviews/in-depth/army ... 0-360.html

I was going through the Submissions forum, tidying it up and picking whichever articles had potential, and came upon this forgotten thread from a while back. If you bother to go through the thread, you'll see that I gave poor Francis a really hard time in there -- and it is true that the original version of the review was lacking in several important areas. The second version, however, posted further down the same thread, is pretty much excellent -- at least as far as I can make out without having played the game. So I've no idea why I kept giving him shit even after he posted it. Perhaps I was bummed out on something at the time, and merely skimmed it while focusing on his inability to critique the visuals (which he calls with the blanket term "graphics", and says that they are better than Gears', but without any attempt at substantiation). The point is that no one who reviews modern Western games for this site seems to be capable of talking about visuals, nor even to so much as notice them really, and if I insisted on this point I'd either get no submissions, or it'd force people to talk about things they don't care about and hence manufacture idiocies to appease me. Pretty much every one of the new "modern Western game" reviews published on Insomnia 3.0 are lacking in this area (though I've done my best to add the odd comment here or there, but it's hard to do a good, accurate job when you are only going by screenshots and trailers...) So basically, we'll take what we can get in this area, and whenever I get around to trying any of these games I'll stealth-add my comments in the respective reviews and get this issue over with. Or people could post their comments re: graphics in the various forum threads, and if they seem to be reasonable I'll add them to the reviews.