If you saw a movie, and 2/3 of it was awesome, but the last 3rd was utterly terrible, I doubt you be harping the film's praises. You have to deliver. You have to end as strong as you started or even stronger.
Ehh, I don't know, there are movies which fit that description which I still love. Sunshine is kind of like that. The ending wasn't what I wanted, necessarily, but the first 2/3 of the movie was strong enough that I still loved the overall film.
I'm talking about your apparent need to defend the game from people not being fair to it. Why do you feel that's YOUR responsibility and not the DEVELOPERS.
No need to get angry, I'm only defending it simply because it leads to conversation.
Why introduce this futuristic sci-fi aspect to something which you showed as mystery / horror. Its just not concise at all. Its like introducing a mech in to Silent Hill.
I wouldn't go THAT far. The sunglasses thing is odd, but I wouldn't say it's completely out of left field. It's not as if that is the focus of the story, you know? I know some people get really annoyed by things like that (in all forms of media), but it's never something that bothered me. If the story decided to go all sci-fi in the end, yeah, that would be disappointing, but there's no evidence that such a thing will occur. The sunglasses seem more like a method of adding something to the gameplay. They are unlikely to be the primary focus of the narrative. Do we even know what year this is set in? I dunno, just doesn't seem like a big deal to me and is something that we've seen in films many times before.
Then again, I also enjoy when stories DO throw completely insane shit at you. This doesn't work as well in a film due to set pacing, but an interactive experience that leaves you going WTF is enjoyable. I loved the switch to Raiden in MGS2 and the Arbiter in Halo 2, for instance. What happened with Indigo Prophecy is simply that 1) they abandoned the adventuring during the final third of the game and 2) they didn't really flesh out the final act of the story. I didn't mind the direction they were going in, simply the execution of it. Thus far, however, there is no indication that the story will do anything like that in this new game and they've directly mentioned many of the things that didn't work in the first game. That's why I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that they didn't understand the problems of the original. Some sci-fi glasses do not indicate their lack of understanding.
My problem with what has been shown is that the script and voice acting are nowhere near as good as they should be. They also did a poor job with handling the eyes (something critical to the creation of a believable virtual character).
I suppose I simply don't get the whole idea of completely giving up on a game based on an early demonstration. It seems like you should wait until it is complete and judge from there. I'm still interested in Assassin's Creed 2, for instance, despite the fact that the original was a deeply flawed, overly repetitive experience. The potential for a good game remains and I won't pass judgment until it is complete.
