#1 by nano201102
2023-03-15 at 12:06 | < report >Steins;Gate is mid af compared to Noah. |
#2 by displaced
2023-03-15 at 15:51 | < report >You are talking about the tone but you gave AI: The Somnium Files an 8 while bashing C;H, yikes. |
#3 by Noelle1832
2023-03-15 at 16:30 | < report >I completely can’t understand what’s your voting standard and even you give Robotics;Notes a 3
while Robotics;Notes DaSH a 6 score and the DaSH is insanely bad, are you just getting something wrong in your mind? |
#4 by Noelle1832
2023-03-15 at 16:33 | < report >And,if you think the Noah is rubbish,then S;G is just nothing at all. |
#5 by SkankinGarbage
2023-03-18 at 22:35 | < report >Whoa, I've got people so upset that they're looking through my review history to judge me! That's interesting.
But, seriously. If a game that's supposed to be a thriller has me laughing out loud at what are supposed to be the most serious parts, that absolutely does not bode well for the game. If the parts I laughed at were intended to be funny - as with the funny parts in Somnium Files - that would be one thing. But, these are the emotional high points of the game - not the silly positive delusions, but the O-Front scene in Chapter 6, and Kozue's ending - and I'm cracking up. That shouldn't be happening.
Now, I don't know if that's because the game failed to draw me in from the beginning (it's hard to wonder along with the MC if someone's out to get him when the things he worries about are obviously fabrications), or if it's the actual writing in the translation (and yes, I did use the Commitee of Zero patch)...but, the feeling I'm supposed to be getting is definitely not coming across. So, if that's the case, is it all that surprising that I didn't enjoy it? |
#6 by solonggaybowsah
2023-03-19 at 23:14 | < report >It’s funny that of all things your post drew the Steins;Gate haters, which is far better than this mess of a game. |
#7 by carito728
2023-03-21 at 16:49 | < report >Very well written. I'm still trying to finish the game myself but I'm having trouble tolerating the incel MC tbh because just like how you worded it he's so pathetic. I think the key is gonna be taking it one step at a time and progressing really slowly rather than binging it... I still definitely wanna finish it sometime to reflect on whether it was all worth it
I find it amusing when people comment judging your opinion and stalking your past scores because you can tell they care so much about the opinions of others that they felt the need to do all that just because of a negative score from a complete stranger on their beloved game...Last modified on 2023-03-21 at 16:55 |
#8 by orius
2023-03-21 at 16:56 | < report >Your opinion is mid af.
Voted "not helpful."
At least if you bothered to write a full review, I might have taken your joke of a review seriously. But alas.Last modified on 2023-03-21 at 17:05 |
#9 by SkankinGarbage
2023-03-23 at 05:52 | < report >Seeing someone call my review "not helpful", while offering no discourse as to why they disagree with my opinion, is beyond delightful.
Pro tip: When you offer no discourse to counter what I'm saying, and just leave a comment whose subtext is "I'm throwing a fit because you don't like a game that I like", you aren't helping your cause in the slightest. Good luck out there!Last modified on 2023-03-23 at 05:52 |
#10 by cheekyman07
2023-03-23 at 08:14 | < report >I can tell you why it's not helpful.
I think it's pretty easy to talk about something objectively and explain what was good, average, and bad. Then come up with a conclusion. However you did not do that.
The review itself is one sided and vague. Given by the way you are talking down to people with your replies I think you posted it to seek attention and purposely anger the people that enjoyed this game, then ridicule people for being upset about it. Which unfortunately happens quite a lot on this site.
That being said, people are free to post how they feel about something and while I don't agree with your rating or the way you wrote the review im not going to try to change your mind. If you hated it then that's unfortunate but understandable since some of the points you made I do agree with, such as the choice system being unclear and my dislike for some of the anime waifu scenes.
I refuse to believe that there was nothing good about the game, that's the main issue I have with your opinions. If you want to know what my thoughts were you can read my own review since I would rather not turn this post into a book. |
#11 by SkankinGarbage
2023-03-23 at 08:41 | < report >A review is not and should not be a laundry list of positives and negatives about a game, and the idea of talking "objectively" about your experience of a art that is meant to be enjoyed subjectively is just farcical. A good review of a work of art should encapsulate the feelings of someone's experience as they engaged with it, and my review accomplished just that. If you want to read a positive opinion about Chaos;Head, go find any one of the many positive reviews and read them - there are plenty, even within the boundary of this very website. It's not every reviewer's responsibility to comb over all the details of everything, especially in a mini-review with an 800 word limit. Mini-reviews are meant for this sort of thing; if you want to read something more comprehensive, that's what the full reviews are for. Do you hop on glowingly positive reviews and leave comments like, "Well, this review isn't helpful cos you don't mention anything you didn't like - I refuse to believe there was nothing bad about the game"? I'm willing to bet you don't.
And to be honest, I can think of so few things I enjoyed about the game that they're not worth mentioning. Daisuke was a cool character, but he's also the most tragically underused character in a game where one of the big problems is that almost none of the supporting cast get adequate screentime. The "B" ending had a section that was very cool, but in the context of my enjoyment of the entire game, it doesn't move the needle significantly in the other direction. What else would you like me to talk about? The graphics? They weren't offensive, but they didn't change my life or anything. The music? It was sparse and generally not-good (I don't dislike this composer, either; I just think this soundtrack was a miss).
And sure, I have fun antagonizing other people who don't write anything constructive, but as you can see, if someone takes the time to write something thoughtful, I'll engage them in good faith, whether or not I agree with them. I'm not gonna take the time to respond thoughtfully like this to people who say "lol u gave somnium files an 8 lol"; I'm gonna write something that, if they read it, hopefully makes them reflect on why they are so upset about the opinion of a video game posted by someone on the internet that they don't know. You can already see this is true, since I've responded seriously to another comment, so it's unfortunate that you think I'm just trying to act like some sort of shock jock - the proof that this is false was already there for you to see.Last modified on 2023-03-23 at 08:46 |
#12 by cheekyman07
2023-03-23 at 09:42 | < report >You would be wrong, I have done that very thing with positive reviews that did not make sense. So please don't try to pin me as a hypocrite. You scalded somebody earlier for trying to judge you after all.
As for the talk about what a review should or should not be, like I said previously I don't agree with that line of thinking but at the same time I understand it. What you are saying does make sense. Which was why I said that I was not going to try to change your mind. I will say however, that nothing is stopping anyone from being both so why must that be a choice to begin with?
I am glad that there were some things that you enjoyed about the game, it would have been nice if that was reflected in the original post even if it were a few words. Like before, I admit that as for the things that were not enjoyable I have multiple agreements with you.
With all due respect, you are making it very hard to believe that you are not trying to be a 'shock jock' as you put it, but you do make some very good points. Mainly about how people should always be free to write down their thoughts in whatever ways they wish, which I agree with completely. I appreciate the sentiments so thank you, it's honestly pretty refreshing. |
#13 by Fey
2023-03-23 at 12:29 | < report >The problem with your review is that you're just throwing shit for the sake of throwing shit. People in the replies are just throwing shit back. There's very little constructive or interesting about it, it's just bait meant to enrage people that automatically reads to anyone who likes the game as someone misunderstanding the core text.
You're ultimately entitled to your own opinion, and I don't doubt those are actual issues you have to the game, poorly phrased as I think they are. But you've expressed it in a way that prioritizes outrage over criticism. In that sense, it fails as a review and has nothing of value to offer to either someone looking to read a different opinion or someone curious about the game. It's barely any better than the replies here trying to downplay your opinions because of your taste—purely immature ramblings with little substance. |
#14 by SkankinGarbage
2023-03-23 at 18:29 | < report >No, I wouldn't agree that my review is "throwing shit for the sake of throwing shit". A review, in my opinion, should not be a report; it should be a body of text that helps to readers understand the author's feelings as they engaged with the art. You may not like that style of review, but that doesn't mean that the review is incendiary for its own sake.
Besides, what isn't constructive in the review? The prose of the review is LITERALLY framed as advice, kept brief partly due to the character limit and partly to avoid spoilers. Let's take the first two bullet points of my review as an example (minor spoilers for anyone who hasn't played the game yet):
- The game keeps acting like it's going to become an action story for so long. Like, from the O-Front scene in chapter 6 at the VERY least, but it foreshadows the change even earlier than that. You would think it's going to go there, too, because it's not like the protagonist does anything to move the mystery subplot forward; it's all done by other characters. It would be a good way to finally have him included in the greater narrative. Instead, it keeps up the charade of being a mystery/thriller until the very last chapter. The tonal shift would have been great if it happened earlier, but at the end, it's jarring.
- On top of that, in between the meat of the story are these small segments that go into horror and comedy. I have no problem with a story having parts that are dramatic and parts that are funny. But, now the game's tone is being dragged all over the place, and it never fully commits to being any one of them. It's distracting, and it takes away from the feelings of suspense and paranoia that I assume were supposed to come across, considering how much of the narrative consists of the main character sitting in his room, 101% sure that people are coming to kill him that _very clearly_ are not coming to kill him.
I don't think I need to elaborate on all my bullet points like this, right? You get the idea. Explaining the mechanics of why the game's inability to pick a genre/tone causes the entire narrative to suffer doesn't encapsulate the fact that it made be FEEL bewildered and frustrated. The way I phrased it in the review, does.
And even without elaborating, it's very clear what I the problems of the game are, even through my review text: Genre-schizophrenic. Far too many characters that don't add any significant value to the story (could have been made into literally one character, or their infodumps could have been given to a relevant character). Game constantly ruins its most dramatic scenes with absurd writing and lampshading. You have to see all the endings to reach the true ending, but you do it via a system that feels random and has no clear impact on the narrative's course.
ALL of this is there in my review text. There's no way that someone reading the review isn't getting these things from what I wrote; I just wrote it in a way that mirrors how it made me feel when I played it. The information is fine. If you don't like my review...as I said before, there are lots of other reviews for you to read. But, your dislike of my style doesn't mean that my review is bad, invalid, or intentionally incendiary; it means that you dislike it, and nothing else. |
#15 by Fey
2023-03-23 at 21:15 | < report >The way I see it, the goal of any review is to communicate the writer's perspective on a piece of media through a critical lens, detailing why they feel the way they do so that readers are able to comprehend a different perspective or use it to make their own judgment on whether they should engage with that piece of media.
It is ultimately an art and not a science, and there are definitely different ways of communicating that idea. However, I do not think yours is at all constructive in the way you think it is. To say something terrible without fully explaining why is, in my opinion, not criticism. And when framed like frustrated ramblings (not advice), anyone who has strong opposite feelings about the work is bound to be enraged, because they do not see someone coming at a work from good faith, they see someone being vitriolic for the sake of being vitriolic.
Your presentation is vital to how you're going to be perceived. When you go to Chaos;Head fans, boldly and proudly declaring "Chaos;Head sucks! It's an unfocused mess that actively takes away from anything it tries to accomplish!", without even bothering or trying to be fair on why you feel that way, no one is going to assume you're coming from a place of actual criticism, they'll just think you're trying to get attention or trying to rile them up. It just comes off like you're asking for an argument, not trying to engage in honest discussion.
While a reader might be able to get a semblance of what your points are, they are still nonetheless poorly communicated. Take for example the first point:
Pick a genre. Be a thriller, or be action. Or, if you're gonna switch, don't wait until the climax.
This is a baffling point of criticism on the surface, and simply confusing once you understand what it's trying to say. It immediately reads as someone who has a hard time understanding stories inherently aren't just one genre, but an amalgamation of multiple ones. Furthermore, the example genres chosen make it even more baffling, as the vast majority of action stories are also thrillers. To say "either be action or a thriller" is like saying "either be a romance or a drama", y'know, as if many romance narratives aren't based on drama.
If you're being charitable (something you aren't showing being towards the work), you might come to the conclusion that you're trying to say "the game needs to pick its focus", but that will just leave people not understanding what you're talking about, because in the eyes of the fans... this never becomes an action story. It has like, scenes where people "fight" (bash their swords), but the goal of those scenes isn't action, not any more than a two guys punching each other in a drama movie might be.
You've written this point not in a way that doesn't attempt to inform of criticize, but a way that will actively cause misunderstandings due to how much it simplifies the core of what it's trying to say.
I also don't understand why you act like you can't write in a way that both details the game's issues while also communicating your own frustration. You can definitely do both. One is not impacted by the other—in fact, I would argue that having them side by side enriches your review and makes you come off as far more constructive, because you actually appear as someone who knows what they're talking about rather than as someone who tries to get a reaction out of people.
With all that said, I don't even fully disagree with your criticisms. Chaos;Head does have a tone problem with its script (and this is present in the original Japanese), it is needlessly frustrating to play without a guide, and I have my own issues that you did not outline, such as the story's structure being kind of a mess. But ultimately I can't come to an understanding with your review, because the way it reads does not come from a place of good-faith criticism. It reads like it comes from a place of someone not even trying to understand why people like the original work, or what it's trying to say, so they just assume they do and speak confidently anyway, offering their surface level take as "advice" as if they know better.
I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do, but it sure as hell comes off as that to me.Last modified on 2023-03-23 at 21:15 |
#16 by SkankinGarbage
2023-03-24 at 05:14 | < report >We are probably at an impasse, then, because my idea of what a review should do is significantly different than yours. You are also worried about things that don't even come into consideration when I write reviews.
For example,
the goal of any review is to communicate the writer's perspective on a piece of media through a critical lens
My review is not meant to be an analysis. Most people who try to write reviews do so by writing mediocre analyses, and they are, in my opinion, the least helpful reviews. They feel like reading an instruction manual for the game, but someone took a marker and wrote their opinions about it in the margins. An analysis is good when you're looking for an analysis, and when they are thoroughly researched and done well (most analysis-style reviews are not). That's not what this is, that's not what I'm doing, and that's not even what I'm pretending to do.
However, I do not think yours is at all constructive in the way you think it is. To say something terrible without fully explaining why is, in my opinion, not criticism.
Not all constructive criticism needs to be explained and spelled out. People are smarter than you are giving them credit for. Believe me on this - I am a teacher and a coach by trade, and based on the amount of students I have relative to the competition I have, it's safe to bet that I'm pretty good at what I do.
But, moreover, I want to be clear on something: whether you think it was constructive or not, it wound up the way it did purely as a stylistic choice - I don't care whether reviews give constructive criticism or not. Why would I care about being constructive, here? Are Chiyomaru Shikura and the rest of 5pb. reading my review? Are they my students in creative writing/game design? I have no obligation to go "well, you could do better if you did this or that". I'm not writing my review with regards to their feelings (Why would they care, anyways?), and I don't think that being constructive actually helps get anything in my points across; you just don't like that I'm arguing using solely pathos.
When you go to Chaos;Head fans, boldly and proudly declaring "Chaos;Head sucks! It's an unfocused mess that actively takes away from anything it tries to accomplish!",
...You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding, here. I'm not writing a review "for the fans". I'm not "going to the fans" to tell them anything. Why would I? They've already decided how they feel about the game! The review is meant to offer a negative take for someone researching whether they'll play the game or not. I'm not worried that the majority of prospective Chaos;Head Noah players will come straight to vndb.org first, of all places, read exactly one review, and say "welp, I dodged a bullet!"
The majority of the rest of your post continues to harp on these points, which are based on your own perspective of what a review should do, which is different than my perspective, so I'm not sure it's much worth going over. But, I will point out a few things:
anyone who has strong opposite feelings about the work is bound to be enraged, because they do not see someone coming at a work from good faith, they see someone being vitriolic for the sake of being vitriolic.
It's not as if readers have no choice except to get mad and come at me and dig through my review scores to use as "proof" that my review is invalid. Two of my favorite games of all time are maligned critical flops. People just hate them. I love them. I never went around the internet letting my anger out at anonymous haters. Readers can exercise some restraint. If someone wants to have a real discussion with me, I'm happy to have it, even if I disagree strongly. But, they've gotta try first instead of coming on to tell me that my opinion is "mid af". And, if they really are that mad about it...I dunno. Maybe they should rethink their life. Sorry! I'm not sympathetic about that in the slightest. It's a stupid thing to get defensive about, and it shows that they feel like a scathing indictment on one of their favorite games is somehow a scathing indictment of them.
It immediately reads as someone who has a hard time understanding stories inherently aren't just one genre, but an amalgamation of multiple ones. Furthermore, the example genres chosen make it even more baffling, as the vast majority of action stories are also thrillers. To say "either be action or a thriller" is like saying "either be a romance or a drama", y'know, as if many romance narratives aren't based on drama.
It's weird to be told that it looks like I'm not arguing in good faith, and then be told something like this.
Obviously, stories don't always stick hard to a single genre, but when I think of "action" and "thriller", I think of different types of stories entirely. When I hear "action", I think of something like The Kingsmen, or a Marvel movie. When I hear "thriller", I think of something like Memento or Ocean's Eleven. If you look up "thriller" in the dictionary, or even on the wikipedia page, the definition on either page does not use the word "action" even once. It's a non-critical aspect of thrillers, even if it can be a part of them.
But, let's be honest: Chaos;Head is not an action-thriller. It's a mostly-thriller that abruptly cuts to weird anime comedy scenes if you pick a positive delusion, abruptly cuts to horror if you get certain endings, and pretends like it's going to go full bore into the action genre for half the game's length. I know damn well I'm not the only person who thinks this.
Sorry, but again, I think the people reading what I'm writing are smarter than you're imagining them to be. I doubt they'll be confused by what I wrote; I don't think I need to spell it out in this level of detail for them. I don't even think I need to do that for you, either; it feels like you're either looking for the most likely thing in my review text to be misinterpreted in hopes of demonstrating why my approach is bad (and I think the possibility of misinterpretation is still extremely low), or that you're still looking at my review text through the lens of what you think is important in a review, even though I'd already made it clear that I have a different perspective in my previous reply. My money's on the first one.
With all that said, I don't even fully disagree with your criticisms. Chaos;Head does have a tone problem with its script (and this is present in the original Japanese), it is needlessly frustrating to play without a guide, and I have my own issues that you did not outline, such as the story's structure being kind of a mess. But ultimately I can't come to an understanding with your review, because the way it reads does not come from a place of good-faith criticism. It reads like it comes from a place of someone not even trying to understand why people like the original work, or what it's trying to say, so they just assume they do and speak confidently anyway, offering their surface level take as "advice" as if they know better.
Aaaand this is the rub. You don't disagree with what I'm saying in the review; you just don't like HOW I reviewed it.
"What seems to be the problem, officer?"
"It was your speed."
"Huh? But I was going 50 in a 50MPH zone?"
"Yeahhhhh buuuut the problem is, you got there just a liiiittle too fast." lmfaoooooo
You seem to be worried that I am not throwing a bone to the people who like this game, but why do I *need* to demonstrate that I've tried to understand why people like the original work in my review? That doesn't add anything useful to it! "Well, I hated this game, but some people really liked this and that and found deeper meaning in it, so maybe you will too"...how does this help the thrust of my message in any meaningful way!? The answer is, it doesn't, and you already know that. You want me to be nicer to the game, maybe because you feel that reviews should be more analytical or objective (again, something I'd already stated was not my mission statement before you even wrote this reply), or maybe because the review tilted you, and you feel the need to try and "prove" why my opinion is bad by attacking the style of my review so that it comes off as more substantive than some of the other people here who have come to flame me.
...so they just assume they do and speak confidently anyway, offering their surface level take as "advice" as if they know better.
1. ...Yeah, I confidently spoke about the things that made me dislike the game. I'm confident that, if those things were different, I would like the game more. This isn't actually perplexing to you though, right?
2. I'm not sure what basis you're using to call my opinion of the game a "surface level take"; I played the same game that everyone else did. Maybe you got more out of the game than I did. But, you're coming awfully close to calling my opinion wrong, here, lol. Don't chide me about being allegedly bad-faith (especially when I'm here, clearly arguing in good faith, whether we agree or not), and then proceed to make bad-faith arguments. Not a good look.
3. You're taking a jab at my "advice"-styled prose, saying "as if (I) know better"...but you want me to put constructive criticism in my reviews? Do I know better enough to give constructive criticism on how to improve a game, or don't I? Do I only know better if I'm being nicer to the game?! |
#17 by Fey
2023-03-24 at 08:34 | < report >To address the last point, the last quoted sentence is meant to portray how you came off to me and others without further context, not what I think you are. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to assume intentions.
Regardless, we are at an impasse, so I don't see a reason to further argue on the point here, but let me just further clarify my position so there aren't any misunderstandings:
Frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether you wrote a negative review on a game I like or not. I have no incentive to want it taken down. I saw this post a few days ago, disagreed and moved on with my life. I only felt the need to write something once I saw you respond to other people and you seemed surprised that people would take any genuine issue with your review or consider it not helpful.
To me, this is all lies in the nature of what the best reviews can be. I constantly look up opinions opposite to my own, because I like challenging my beliefs and opinions and see what other people took. I didn't like Eva the first time I watched it, but ended up looking up a bunch of reviews and history behind its making after being done, and now my opinion on it is far more nuanced. I still don't like it, even after a 2nd watch, but I have a deeper understanding of what it's trying to do and why it didn't work for me.
I don't think you need to be nice in your review, be as mean as you want, even if that's bound to get people riled up against you (although I agree the top replies on this post are just overgrown children that shouldn't be taken seriously). But in my opinion, attempting to show an understanding of a piece of media, of what it's actually trying to accomplish goes a long way into making your opinion more worthwhile, and makes you more media literate. If you want to genuinely come from a place of advice, you need to come from a place of understanding first.
I also think your idea of what a review can be is too close-minded. I'm not saying any of this requires being more "objective" or "analytical", that is not what "understanding" it means. Understanding means comprehending the work's intent, why it chooses the narrative decisions it does, what it's ultimately trying to say. For that, you'll probably need to understand opinions opposite to your own.
If I were your target audience (people who haven't played the game looking on whether they should), I'd be able to inform myself far better with a review that attempts this than what you've put out. Anyway, that's about all I have to say on the matter. Have a good day. |
#18 by darklinkpower
2023-04-16 at 02:45 | < report >I totally agree with this. I'm honestly disappointed in this VN considering how hyped it was by a lot of people. The premise was interesting but in my opinion the execution was far from good. The main character is one of the worst I've seen in any media, zero redeeming qualities, unlikable (Not to be confused unlikable with not being interesting, there can be unlikable characters that are well written and interesting), he doesn't develop and just serves as a stationary plot device for other characters to infodump into. The other characters aren't also very interesting and their little development is made by infodumping and they also "love" the main character just because.
I think it's not inherently wrong for a VN to be of many subgeneres, in my opinion the issue lies in how badly paced it was and how everything that was hinted throughout the story ultimately lead to nothing and fell flat on itself.
It's very childish to see how other people here immediately get all defensive and hostile for criticizing something they like.Last modified on 2023-04-16 at 03:09 |
#19 by hansdevx
2023-05-19 at 16:39 | < report >I disagree with your review when you say "pick a genre" but I do massively agree that this title is overrated af. I gave it a 5 because towards the end, it does gets good but I was falling asleep for the first 6 chapters. I don't dislike the incel MC and I also played the game keeping neutral delusions which totally ruined the experience for me because the positive delusions or negative can be real funny. The MC was way too pathetic but the reasoning behind it was explained towards the end.
The psychological horror aspect can be real diaturbing to some normie who hasn't been desensitized by these type of story telling.
It just takes way too long to take off and I really can't recommend anyone to slog through it when the ending isn't even that satisfactory, the grind is not worth the reward. Now I have to add to the list to ignore the SciADV fanbase as they are annoying af. |
#20 by SkankinGarbage
2023-05-19 at 22:02 | < report >Yeah, as I've had more time to ruminate on it, I don't necessarily think the problem was that it needed to pick a genre (although jumping between something like 3-4 was jarring), I think it's that none of them felt executed very well. I suppose my thought was, if they had focused more heavily on one, it could have benefitted from a narrower scope. |
#21 by mastag
2023-11-09 at 22:13 | < report >What a glorious review. I mean I know to each his own and all that, but let's be real here, how delusional do you have to be to compare this mess of a narrative to Steins;Gate.
The genre-switching was indeed jarring, but I reckon that's how this novel creates the illusion that it is greater than the sum of its parts.
But the biggest crime of this novel would definitely have to be the pacing. Numerous character perspectives I didn't care about just made this such a pain to read.
I liked the protagonist though. The only interesting character imho, and he did have an arc, his coming out of his shell moments were great too.Last modified on 2023-11-09 at 22:14 |
#22 by SkankinGarbage
2023-11-09 at 22:49 | < report >#21
To be fair, I'm not comparing the game to Steins;Gate (although I don't think that would be a stretch, either, considering that they had the same director, scenario writer, and the original concept for both games also came from the same person - all the key talent related to writing and style are the same across both games). What I AM saying is, "This is the first game in the series, but in my opinion, this game is terrible and you can safely skip to the second game without feeling like you've lost anything".
I'm sure really big SciAdv fans will disagree with me on that point, but I think hardcore SciAdv fans tend to really geek out over connections between one game and they next ("oh, they mentioned such and such in this game, and now it's a huge deal in this later game!"). For people who enjoy that stuff, I'm sure it's of paramount importance to play C;H. But, it's hard for me to remember really minute details, so I get no enjoyment out of that sort of thing. Thus, I don't think skipping games in this series - or even playing it out of order, as I did - makes a big difference. If anything, I think I would have enjoyed Chaos;Child - a far superior take on the same themes and concepts - a lot more if I HADN'T played Chaos;Head. |
| #23 | Post deleted. |
| #24 | Post deleted. |
| #25 | Post deleted. |