Ign reviewed Grimm and gave it a 6.0 saying that it was a bit of a stinker. Hopefully if you work with American McGee or help make this game , just maybe you could add some improvements by reading this article. Such as health and maybe CHALLENGE!!!! I like the game but the critics don't!
http://pc.ign.com/articles/897/897060p2.html

I have a feeling Grimm will really heat up when it get's going!

Bah, what do the critics know? It's all an opinion thing, most of the games I like get mediocre reviews. To like this game you got to at least have a passing interests in the fairy tales they are telling most likely. Or maybe just a twisted sense of humour.

I love how they can call a free game "too short" with a straight face.

More specifically a weekly episodic game. ;) Yes that's right, i want a 5 hour a week game.

Grimm didn't make that good a first impression on me. But the more I play it, the more I like it. Especially when I go for the secret coins and other optional goodies (like time records) rather than just play it straight through. Getting from beginning to end by itself isn't terribly challenging, or, by extension, interesting.

I wonder if it might be better to make some of the currently optional goodies necessary for progression? Or to add some new types of skill-based challenge?

Being rewarded with a much darker "Dark Theater" for transforming every object/surface that's possible to transform would be pretty cool.

The fact that you use IGN at all is a pretty sad realization indeed.

IGN is kind of a "big dog" in the gaming review arena, so even if you don't agree, it's good to know what they're saying.

I feel like their review was based in that same kind of gaming expectation that has led a lot of other people to not enjoy it so much: they're expecting +Counter Strike+ or +Alice+ or +Doom+ or something else entirely, but having that expectation means that you don't necessarily appreciate the game for what it is.

It's a matter of personal preference, which, unfortunately, doesn't leave a lot of room for the objectivity that's required for a really useful review.

well i saw a certain loading screen talking about power-ups, which instantly brought me back from my doubts about the game.

they gave it 6, if they hated it then it would have been a 3-5. it seems no one on gametap understands the rating scale, and most people will complain about their favorite games getting a 7... 7=good, not amazing, but not bad at all. almost every games grade on gametap is a 7-10 with about 10% of the games being less. its like most of you think:

10=great
9=good
8=worth you while
7=okay
6=not worth anyone's time
5=horrible
4=so awful
3=terrible
2=dont bother
1= it burns!!!

its more like this to all critic sites and gamefly.com etc.:
10= PERFECT
9=excellent
8=really good
7=good
6=above average
5=fair (not horrible, not amazing)
4=bad
3=really bad
2=horrible
1=BrOkeN

im not yelling at anyone specifically but the rating system on gametap is useless what with all the 10's and 9's being thrown out there, its okay if you really like the game, just grade it fairly not just a 10 because you want to raise its grade a little

thanks.

Either way I've never listened to reviews, if I like a game I like, I could care less what others say about it. I don't buy games because everyone else is doing it, I buy and play them because I like doing it.

But I hold true to my previous statement. IGN is a trash website, all they care about is money as evidence by all the advertisements on the website.

> {quote:title=Zorlac666 wrote:}{quote}
> all they care about is money

IGN is a business out for profit just as much as GameTap or any other business.

I don't understand all the capitalism bashing that happens on these boards when if we didn't have capitalism we wouldn't have GT (or many, many other things).

Indeed. GameTap funded the development of +Grimm+, which wouldn't be possible if they were not a profit-based company.

Blatant gouging... now that's another story, but I definitely don't see GT doing that. IGN I can't speak for.

I stopped reading IGN way back when they started using interstitial ads. :P

Yea, you can't really rate a game that is episodic because you would have to rate every episode. So, you are going to have ups and downs. I think the game is good.

Just really lame. A waste of programming. 1 out of 10 1 being awful

> {quote:title=Notzorro wrote:}{quote}
> Just really lame. A waste of programming. 1 out of 10 1 being awful
Hey now, IGN's website isn't +that+ bad...

Ok Ign isnt that bad. Ok so it has advertisments whoop de do! Better stop reading Gamespot then too! I just read it cause it has reviews of what most websites dont have!

Run around, textures change to filthy.

Did I miss anything..?

You can't spell ignorance without IGN...

I dislike IGN as much as the rest of you guys, but I don't think they're wrong here.

I've played all of the Grimms to date, and I have to say I am starting to get pretty discouraged. It's disappointing as I was really looking forward to them because I did enjoy Alice a lot, but these are certainly no Alice.

It's pretty hard to explain my discontent, but it's almost like I'm watching the game be played, not like I am playing it myself. Nothing in the game seems to even realize I am playing it, even the cleaners seem to move quite randomly, until I get my stench meter up high enough to convert them. And yes, I realize that statement seems to be contradictory, but playing Grimm is more like riding one of those old 'love tunnel' rides at carnivals, where a story progresses as you move through the tunnel. I'm there, and I'm progressing the game, but there's no real challenge, no sense of strugle between the dark and light stories. Completing the game gives me no real sense of victory.

Give me a puzzle somewhere, make the main characters get upset that I'm screwing up their happy ending and try to fight back, tempt me to do something that may cause a stiffer punishment than falling in the water/lava. There needs to be more to it than just "run around for a while, then butt stomp this area".

it sorta reminds me of an interview I read a while back that was from some second party Nintendo publisher. They talked about how Miyamoto came to test a build of the game, and he told them something along the lines of "You have a game here, and it is a good game, but you just haven't found the 'fun' yet. Call me back once you've found the fun." I have a few other minor complaints, but none of them really matter in the face of Grimm's real problem: it's just not that fun to play.

But, since you're reading this already, here's my list. :P

-> I play Grimm on a computer that has less than stellar stats. It's annoying that for each episode I have to first go into options and turn things down. Perhaps there could be a singular "Grimm config" file that all episodes pull from, since the system requirements aren't likely to change from episode to episode. I'd assume that since this is a GameTap exclusive that could be pulled off, since GameTap likely has a ton of control over how the games are stored locally.
-> (This one is likely impossible to change, but here goes anyway) Based on the screenshots and gameplay footage I've seen, I see very little reasoning behind using the Unreal 3 Engine. I'm confident that similar graphical presentation and better performance could have been had should it have been based on the id Tech 3 engine, like Alice was.
-> Is 'Vile' even attainable?
-> Squishing the 'dark' cleaners requires you to be too precise, or Grimm needs inirtia/air control, one of the two.

while i can agree somewhat with most of what you said (lives, better clean AI, health bar) i cannot agree that bosses would be good in any shape or form, the reason being is that the way the gameplay is set up the boss fights would just be difficult and frustrating (i would be mad if we lost out on a level because they replaced it with a boss fight inside an invisible walled arena ewwww)

the time limit idea is already in the game BUT they need to add something extra that you can gain from beating a gold time which would push people to try

To the three posters above....

h1. [b]+_YES_+[/b]

I've tried out the first episode and I hate to say I agree the game deserves poor reviews.

I mean seriously, you can't even really call it a game because that implies some sort of gameplay which this title lacks. You just run in circles, make the occasional small jump, and 'butt stomp' the highlighted object. That's it as far as I can tell.

I don't understand who the game is supposed to appeal to. The 'gameplay' is more basic and less challenging then edutainment tiles meant for small children, and yet the subject matter seems to be targeted to adults (or at least teenagers). Who's supposed to enjoy this game again?

That Gametap is shelling out for 24 episodes of this really strikes me as kind of hilarious and also terribly sad at the same time.