And yes, Jaws is awful. Sharks using ID cards, what the hell now?
I never got D.O.A, granted I'm not the biggest fan of 3-D brawlers but if they are well done I can enjoy myself a lot. But DOA just seemed, well bland. The gameplay felt average to me and none of the characters ever stood out. Also it was one of the few games that made me feel emberessed to be male.[/QUOTE]
^^ yeah how come?
[QUOTE=Adamant]Yeah, I like FSW s well, but I do understand it requires a specific taste in games that not everyone has.
And yes, Jaws is awful. Sharks using ID cards, what the hell now?[/QUOTE]
Because FSW was a military tool revamped into a game, it didn't start out as a game from scratch.
Shawn the whole point of Bros in Arms is the multiplayer. I refuse to play the single player because I disagree with the very idea of it. But the multiplayer is the most strategic, frenetic game 4 players can have.
You know, thinking about it, is it really a surprise that Jaws: Unleashed turned out so bad? It did look pretty dreadful all throughout the development process. And what's up with those graphics? The developers also made Ecco the Dolphin: Defender of the Future (Dreamcast/PS2) six years ago and it still looks much better than Jaws.
The real reason that everyone should have known the game would be bad was the concept. Upon hearing that you control the shark I think the only positive reaction you could possible have is; "awesome, sharks are awesome, eating people is going to be awesome. Yay." But that only works if you are five, otherwise you would have to know the game would be awful, and the developers hoped people would find there was enough poorly animated blood and gore to cover the bad gameplay.
Post your thoughts.
I gotta say that despite how nice DOA 3 looks on Xbox, it's still not as fun to play as the Dreamcast version of DOA2. That game is near perfection when it comes to 3-D fighters.