The game has some problems. 
For one, the physics and controls are a tad odd. You’re often unable to jump over things like small fountains, even though a person in the real world would easily clear them. The loading times are a little too frequent and sometimes too long, though a zombie-killing minigame helps take the edge off. Finally, the fighting can get very repetitive if you let it be. Or if you weren’t aware of various online guides that make up for the horrible manual, it might get dull because you simply wouldn’t know how to use any of the more in-depth parts of this game’s combat engine.
Ultimately, some people will love what I’ve just described and feel it’s a great way to turn one’s mind off and relax. Others will hate it as a shallow game. That probably sounds like a cop-out, but this is one of the few times I feel that summary is very justified.
My 5.5 overall score does not mean this is a bad game; that would be 4.9 or below. It means I think this is a fantastic rental and the game seems to draw very sharp “love it or hate it” reactions. I just can’t give a universal suggestion on whether you’d like it or not, so do yourself a favor and rent it. You’ll know soon enough whether this game is worth the full purchase price or not. And at $40, it might well be a great buy.
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
276 days ago
I hate to do this, but I have to take some issue with your last paragraph. If you’re using a full scoring scale from 1-10, how can you depict a 4.9 score to represent a "bad" game when a 5.0 should be average?
It’s more of an issue with the overall scoring scale than anything else, but the scale doesn’t begin at 5. "Bad" games would ideally receive scores of 3 or less, you could argue. Instead, by setting the low benchmark to be 4.9, you invalidate any lower scores and unconcsciously cut your numeric scale in half.
I really do enjoy reading your work (and please keep it up), but I recommend caution when trying to justify game scores.