Hydrophobia Prophecy

Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
1,011
http://store.steampowered.com/app/92000/

What do ya think, looks ok for a $10.19 game, (pre-order price, then goes to $11.99) not like I need another game to stuff in the backlog, but I kinda have this problem see... :(

At least its not just a shat out port job, plus, I just love digital water... Joy! :p

"But that doesn’t temper the enthusiasm with which this PC conversion is being promoted. To be released on Steam, they explain that it’s a “comprehensive reinvention” of the game, rather than a port."

“[It] includes upgraded graphics, brand new gameplay mechanics, exclusive new levels, a reworked back story, a dramatic new ending, recast voice acting and much, much more. The long list of new features and enhancements is also augmented by changes Dark Energy have made in response to data gathered from the Hydrophobia Listening Post where players voted and commented on the features of Hydrophobia Pure.” - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/04/26/back-in-the-water-hydrophobia-prophecy/
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,803
I hope the developer fired their PR people and changed their policy about calling reviewers liers that didn't play games before reviewing them because their game was called out on its problems.
 

Parmenides

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
6,578
So what's the story about this game? (not ingame story but developement and it's previous iteration)
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
The reviews are pretty lukewarm but I'm a huge fan of survival horror games and I am hydrophobic so this has been on my want list since the xbox live release.

However $10 is steep for what is supposed to be a pretty short game.
 

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
The reviews are pretty lukewarm but I'm a huge fan of survival horror games and I am hydrophobic so this has been on my want list since the xbox live release.

However $10 is steep for what is supposed to be a pretty short game.
Uhh, a seven hour game that costs $10 is too steep? What then is Batman Arkam Asylum?! That's only 20 hours and was $60 back in the day!

Also, I love how the PS3 version is listed as "TBA" - wonder why...
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
Uhh, a seven hour game that costs $10 is too steep? What then is Batman Arkam Asylum?! That's only 20 hours and was $60 back in the day!

Also, I love how the PS3 version is listed as "TBA" - wonder why...
I can never tell you know some games are supposed to be 7 hour and only 2 some that are 3 hour can be quite a bit more. I want it I'm just not supposed to be buying anymore games right now so I'm on the fence.
 

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
Reviewers said 7, so while I take that with a grain of salt, I also think it's a decent number to go with. I may be able to rush it to 5, but playing at a normal pace...I can hit 7.
 

450

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
20,983
Considering portal 2 was $35-50 and about 6-7 hours I don't think 7 hours out of a $10 game is too bad.
 

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
Considering portal 2 was $35-50 and about 6-7 hours I don't think 7 hours out of a $10 game is too bad.
Exactly my point....As you approach a $1/hour I become less annoyed with shelling out the money. Portal 2 is a bargain bin buy for me...no more, really.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,803
Exactly my point....As you approach a $1/hour I become less annoyed with shelling out the money. Portal 2 is a bargain bin buy for me...no more, really.
I hate the argument that games should be judged on value based on the number of hours. Its stupid and doesn't in any way talk about the quality of a game. The 6.whatever hours it took me to beat the SP of Portal 2 is more fun than I've had in a game in a long time. Games should be judged on the quality of the experience, not how long it took.
 

limitedaccess

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
7,570
Are you telling me Portal would not have been better off with a feature requiring you to scan all the walls inch by inch to add more game length?
 

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
I hate the argument that games should be judged on value based on the number of hours. Its stupid and doesn't in any way talk about the quality of a game. The 6.whatever hours it took me to beat the SP of Portal 2 is more fun than I've had in a game in a long time. Games should be judged on the quality of the experience, not how long it took.
Weee, I had fun for 5 hours. There's no point replaying it, so it's still just 5 hours. No way to change it.

That said, don't bring up portal 1. It was part of the OB, and all together OB provided tons of fun. Portal 2 however, at $60 a pop...is way overpriced. Length DOES matter...because frankly, it's about how long you're entertained for. Would you like a crazy 15 second roller coaster, or 5 minutes of flying around a 60mph? Both for the same price, of course.

MP games provide tons of fun, for tons of hours. Long RPGs provide tons of fun by yourself...for tons of hours. Portal 1, were it to stand alone, would have been tons of fun for 5 hours at best...and then when you're done you look back and wonder if it was worth THAT much money.

In other words, time figures in; it's not the only judge, but when you're paying for a full game, there's the expectation of being entertained for quite some time, be it that the game is just THAT long, or that the game is worth replaying.

Are you telling me Portal would not have been better off with a feature requiring you to scan all the walls inch by inch to add more game length?
Don't act so dense - you know that's not what is being said. Portal should have had more content to it. More FUN to it. IE, Mass Effect 2 isn't better because it had scanning, even though it added more playing time.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,803
Weee, I had fun for 5 hours. There's no point replaying it, so it's still just 5 hours. No way to change it.

That said, don't bring up portal 1. It was part of the OB, and all together OB provided tons of fun. Portal 2 however, at $60 a pop...is way overpriced. Length DOES matter...because frankly, it's about how long you're entertained for. Would you like a crazy 15 second roller coaster, or 5 minutes of flying around a 60mph? Both for the same price, of course.

MP games provide tons of fun, for tons of hours. Long RPGs provide tons of fun by yourself...for tons of hours. Portal 1, were it to stand alone, would have been tons of fun for 5 hours at best...and then when you're done you look back and wonder if it was worth THAT much money.

In other words, time figures in; it's not the only judge, but when you're paying for a full game, there's the expectation of being entertained for quite some time, be it that the game is just THAT long, or that the game is worth replaying.
No point in replaying it? You mean you don't see a point in replaying it. I, however, don't see a point in only playing games once.

I'll take the short crazy coaster. 60MPH isn't remotely fast and I don't and will never fly.

Fuck multiplayer. Long RPGs also tend to have long stretches of time where they are boring as all hell. I actually enjoy grinding in some RPGs, but I'm not about to call it all fun. Portal 2 was a constantly fun experience with the only break from the fun being the short time between levels. And its not a $60 game its $50 at most and I don't regret a penny of the $50 I spent on it. I love RPGs, but a 15 hour Portal 2 game would, quite frankly, be complete shit. Puzzle games are supposed to be short, you can't keep that up for too long or it gets annoying and people just start wanting it to end.
 

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
No point in replaying it? You mean you don't see a point in replaying it. I, however, don't see a point in only playing games once.
Let's see. I remember this puzzle! Portal 1 here, then 2 there....then jump through, portal 1 over there, go through again, pick up cube, jump on switch, go through open door.

Hey, I did it faster this time! Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Yeah, that shit ain't fun for me. I did it once, and I'm done. I remember the level and remember the solution, the fun is gone. About the only thing I'll redo in Portal 1 is replay the credits. The rest is just all repitition. And is Oblivion fun? No. It's long boring ass nonsense. Is DA:O fun, well it drags at SOME points but generally seems pretty fresh to me. Second play through though? No thanks. Mass Effect 2 though...second play through? Sure. I'll play as [a different class] this time as [opposite moral path than I did the first time] and choose different options! Weeee. There's fun there. There's no fun in replaying Portal 1. Or Narbacular drop. Or most any puzzle game out there.
 

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
Hey I decided to not read 95% of what you said and instead focused on not even a full sentance, but just a few words. I'm cool, amirite?
Holy shit guys.

HOW LONG YOU'RE ENTERTAINED FOR. Scanning a planet in Mass Effect 2 is BORING. It's NOT entertaining, so it doesn't add to the value of the game.

Wow. Just...wow.
 

Intel_Hydralisk

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,743
It's super easy to mock a game and defend the stance "i didn't like it"

I'm not sure what the argument is here. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But beyond that there's really no merit.
 

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
It's super easy to mock a game and defend the stance "i didn't like it"

I'm not sure what the argument is here. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But beyond that there's really no merit.
Uhh, I think this started with piscian saying 7 hours wasn't worth 10 USD. Then admitting that he really just couldn't spend more on games. I know, you didn't read the thread and all, sorry for not offering a tl;dr version for you...but go back and read it, if you want to post about it.

And yes, I'm saying that at 7 hours of play time for $10, if it's fun, it's possibly worth more than $10.

Also, wow...we're off topic.
 

Intel_Hydralisk

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
4,743
Uhh, I think this started with piscian saying 7 hours wasn't worth 10 USD. Then admitting that he really just couldn't spend more on games. I know, you didn't read the thread and all, sorry for not offering a tl;dr version for you...but go back and read it, if you want to post about it.

And yes, I'm saying that at 7 hours of play time for $10, if it's fun, it's possibly worth more than $10.

Also, wow...we're off topic.
I understand that you think the thread revolves around you. However it was never directed towards you. There are clearly other people in this thread who believe the length of the game dictates the buying price.

Mocking the gameplay of portal and claiming it wasn't worth the money because you personally didn't like it doesn't really hold merit to anyone else except yourself. Good for you, you hated portal *pat on back*.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,803
Let's see. I remember this puzzle! Portal 1 here, then 2 there....then jump through, portal 1 over there, go through again, pick up cube, jump on switch, go through open door.

Hey, I did it faster this time! Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Yeah, that shit ain't fun for me. I did it once, and I'm done. I remember the level and remember the solution, the fun is gone. About the only thing I'll redo in Portal 1 is replay the credits. The rest is just all repitition. And is Oblivion fun? No. It's long boring ass nonsense. Is DA:O fun, well it drags at SOME points but generally seems pretty fresh to me. Second play through though? No thanks. Mass Effect 2 though...second play through? Sure. I'll play as [a different class] this time as [opposite moral path than I did the first time] and choose different options! Weeee. There's fun there. There's no fun in replaying Portal 1. Or Narbacular drop. Or most any puzzle game out there.
I grew up playing Sierra and LucasArts adventure games and those were basically just a series of insane illogical puzzles tied together with equally insane illogical stories. I've played some of them more than a couple times. So for me I see nothing wrong with running through Portal 1 or Portal 2 multiple times. Whether its to grab achievements or just to see how quickly I can do it or in some cases how much I can break the flow of how the developers wanted the puzzle to go. The challenge rooms for Portal 1 help quite a bit and that is something sadly absent from its sequel.

In games like Oblivion I actually like picking a direction and just seeing what I run across. I don't find exploring boring. I find it more interesting than most other things in that game, especially since its no where near as good as its predecessor (at least without mods). For me the entire main plot of DAO was a drag, but thats a different argument all together. I will admit that I am a bit of a completionist with games I enjoy though so that has something to do with it.
 

Parmenides

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
6,578
I hate the argument that games should be judged on value based on the number of hours. Its stupid and doesn't in any way talk about the quality of a game. The 6.whatever hours it took me to beat the SP of Portal 2 is more fun than I've had in a game in a long time. Games should be judged on the quality of the experience, not how long it took.
Oh no, time is an important factor. The worst part of an awesome game is when the game ends. If you're ever wanting a game to end, (which is different than being anxious to find out what happens at the end of the story) then the game isn't all that great.

Think about the extreme, a game that takes 3 hours to complete. Would you say that time shouldn't factor at all into it's rating? If game reviewing for you is just like restaurant reviewing, then I suppose time doesn't matter because you're only playing the game to sample the flavor. For me, I like to get to get sucked in to my games. I'm not in for the sample. The only thing that reduces the importance of time is re-playability. If the first 10 hour playthrough is a lot different than the 2nd 9 hour playthrough, then I'd give that weight as almost a 19 hour game.

Your right about inflating game time with grinding or monotonous activities though. That shouldn't be used to get better ratings.

Still yet, I'm still curious about Hydrophobia since it doesn't cost much.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,803
Oh no, time is an important factor. The worst part of an awesome game is when the game ends. If you're ever wanting a game to end, (which is different than being anxious to find out what happens at the end of the story) then the game isn't all that great.

Think about the extreme, a game that takes 3 hours to complete. Would you say that time shouldn't factor at all into it's rating? If game reviewing for you is just like restaurant reviewing, then I suppose time doesn't matter because you're only playing the game to sample the flavor. For me, I like to get to get sucked in to my games. I'm not in for the sample. The only thing that reduces the importance of time is re-playability. If the first 10 hour playthrough is a lot different than the 2nd 9 hour playthrough, then I'd give that weight as almost a 19 hour game.

Your right about inflating game time with grinding or monotonous activities though. That shouldn't be used to get better ratings.

Still yet, I'm still curious about Hydrophobia since it doesn't cost much.
Portal 2 is the first game I've played in a while just to play it and have fun. When I'm not playing a game to judge it, my main concern is fun and the "experience" of playing it. I guess saying time isn't a factor is a bad thing, but my problem is when people use it as the only factor to judge value.

I am also curious about Hydrophobia. The original game seemed to have a lot of problems, but apparently they fixed a lot of things in Pure and supposedly 70% of the game is new and any level that isn't new was reworked.
 
Last edited:

Parmenides

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
6,578
Portal 2 is the first game I've played in a while just to play it and have fun. When I'm not playing a game to judge it, my main concern is fun and the "experience" of playing it. I guess saying time isn't a factor is a bad thing, but my problem is when people use it as the only factor to judge value.

I am also curious about Hydrophobia. The original game seemed to have a lot of problems, but apparently they fixed a lot of things in Pure and supposedly 70% of the game is new and any level that isn't new was reworked.
Portal 2 is so unique that time might be less of a factor than others. A good deep RPG, you want some time for your character to grow and an engaging plot to unfold. Kind of like adult books vs. kids books. (yes many adult books can still suck bad)
Puzzle games... I suppose time is less important.

70% is new for Hydrophobia? so a 7 hour game might be more like 12 hours now? hmmm..
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,803
Portal 2 is so unique that time might be less of a factor than others. A good deep RPG, you want some time for your character to grow and an engaging plot to unfold. Kind of like adult books vs. kids books. (yes many adult books can still suck bad)
Puzzle games... I suppose time is less important.

70% is new for Hydrophobia? so a 7 hour game might be more like 12 hours now? hmmm..
I think it means they went back and redesigned 70% of the game and tweaked whatever levels they didn't replace.
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
I am also curious about Hydrophobia. The original game seemed to have a lot of problems, but apparently they fixed a lot of things in Pure and supposedly 70% of the game is new and any level that isn't new was reworked.
I heard something to the same effect. I'll probably just wait on a review, however RE5 got excellent reviews but ended up taking me around than 3 hours to beat (and I'm one of those slow bastards that has to stop and look at every picture.)and was generally a total waste of $50 for a survival horror fan.

I just wanna see a review saying the game isn't a broken mess as PC ports tend to be with no continuing support.

As long as it's playable and decent I'll pick it up. I'm a sucker for survival horror.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,803
I heard something to the same effect. I'll probably just wait on a review, however RE5 got excellent reviews but ended up taking me around than 3 hours to beat (and I'm one of those slow bastards that has to stop and look at every picture.)and was generally a total waste of $50 for a survival horror fan.

I just wanna see a review saying the game isn't a broken mess as PC ports tend to be with no continuing support.

As long as it's playable and decent I'll pick it up. I'm a sucker for survival horror.
RE5 was fun co-op, SP was like a few hours of wanting to kill Sheva.
 

Hornet

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
6,615
I hate the argument that games should be judged on value based on the number of hours. Its stupid and doesn't in any way talk about the quality of a game. The 6.whatever hours it took me to beat the SP of Portal 2 is more fun than I've had in a game in a long time. Games should be judged on the quality of the experience, not how long it took.
To be fair, I don't see any problem in his comments.

We all have our own way of deciding what's worth paying for, based on different requirement. For some of us, while the quality of games is important, the length do have a major impact on the value as well. If something is not up to what we expect for that price, then we'll just wait until the price is right.

For those who are willing to pay full price, by all means go ahead. But the point is everyone is entitled to their own ways of judging how much a game is worth

Its not a crime to wait for major price slash if we don't feel a game is worth its full price. As long as we don't pirate it.;)
 

spindoctor

Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
820
I hate the argument that games should be judged on value based on the number of hours. Its stupid and doesn't in any way talk about the quality of a game. The 6.whatever hours it took me to beat the SP of Portal 2 is more fun than I've had in a game in a long time. Games should be judged on the quality of the experience, not how long it took.
I agree. The length of a game is not completely invalid as a metric to decide it's value, but it should not be the deciding factor. I know people who paid 50$ for Dragon Age or Oblivion or Fallout and got 200-300+ hours out of the game. So if we use that price per hour as the benchmark, an 8 hour game is worth 2$ and not more. If you enjoyed Mass Effect 2 (30 hours for 60$), then that 8 hour game is now worth 16$. If you bought a multiplayer game like Bad Company 2 and got 1000 hours from your 50$ investment, you might as well give up on single player games altogether because you'll never get close to that much value for money from one. How does this work?

The value of a game should be based on how much fun it was rather than how many hours it lasted.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
The value of a game should be based on how much fun it was rather than how many hours it lasted.
For most people its a mix of the two. I'm not going to pay $50 or $60 for a game that is boring as all fuck but lasts 200 hours, likewise I'm not going to pay $50-60 for a game that is enjoyable but only offers one nights worth of entertainment. I'll probably still buy it, but not until its dropped to a price that I think is worth it for only one nights entertainment, maybe $20 or so.

Time spent enjoying a game is a pretty big factor in deciding whether a game is worth anything close to full price, at least for me.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,803
For most people its a mix of the two. I'm not going to pay $50 or $60 for a game that is boring as all fuck but lasts 200 hours, likewise I'm not going to pay $50-60 for a game that is enjoyable but only offers one nights worth of entertainment. I'll probably still buy it, but not until its dropped to a price that I think is worth it for only one nights entertainment, maybe $20 or so.

Time spent enjoying a game is a pretty big factor in deciding whether a game is worth anything close to full price, at least for me.
The problem is a lot of people on the forum seem to argue solely based on length and nothing more. Length has its place in a value argument, but for me its lower down the line than how much fun a game is, beyond that its also taken into comparison based on the genre of the game and if I think the game would be fun much longer than it was.

To paint a picture of what I'm talking about lets look at Portal 2 and Bioshock. Bioshock is a longer title, but I honestly think it would have been better without pretty much everything after meeting Andrew Ryan, not just from a story perspective but from a gameplay one as well. The level of quality of the game dropped drastically and it felt like they were trying to artificially extend the game. With Portal 2 I think it ended at the right time. You can only recycle the same set of mechanics so many times before it gets annoying and too many more puzzle rooms would have started to feel reptative. The high point of the game had come and gone by the end and it was a nice steady slope to the ending. So for the same amount of money I see Portal 2 as having more value to me because it was more fun and I didn't have any moments where I felt like the developers were grasping for straws. Also I will probably never play through Bioshock again since I don't want to play that part of the game again, so there is that added to the value argument as well.
 

limitedaccess

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
7,570
I agree. The length of a game is not completely invalid as a metric to decide it's value, but it should not be the deciding factor. I know people who paid 50$ for Dragon Age or Oblivion or Fallout and got 200-300+ hours out of the game. So if we use that price per hour as the benchmark, an 8 hour game is worth 2$ and not more. If you enjoyed Mass Effect 2 (30 hours for 60$), then that 8 hour game is now worth 16$. If you bought a multiplayer game like Bad Company 2 and got 1000 hours from your 50$ investment, you might as well give up on single player games altogether because you'll never get close to that much value for money from one. How does this work?

The value of a game should be based on how much fun it was rather than how many hours it lasted.
This is what is missed as well, it is worse when you start comparing across genres. Even if you want to compare Portal 2's length, you need to compare it to similar games.

RPGs for instance have certain elements and mechanics in them that will always make them by far the longest type of game. These same game play elements however if transferred over to a game like Portal 2 or COD or etc, would not add anything positive to the experience and in some cases would make it worse.

And yes my comment on the scanning alludes to this. Scanning is one of these game mechanics (basically a farming/grinding element) that works in a RPG type game but is pointless in a Portal 2 type game.

All this ties into the point I always try to make, if you personally just want purely long game lengths with RPG style games that is merely a personal preference, you should not universally condemn a game for everyone simply because it does conform to your views.
 

RIPATI

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
365
IMO, the world needs more $10-$15 games that take 4-5 hours to complete.

I'm not a kid anymore. I don't have hours and hours each week to spend gaming. These games are exactly the right size for me. I can get in, get 4-5 nights worth of playing, and walk away satisfied.

The list of games that I've never beaten after sinking 3-5 hours and realizing I wasn't even 1/3rd the way through... too long to write down.

More short, cheap games, please!
 

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
The problem is a lot of people on the forum seem to argue solely based on length and nothing more.
And that isn't me. Some people in this thread didn't read my posts.

Its not a crime to wait for major price slash if we don't feel a game is worth its full price. As long as we don't pirate it.;)
Exactly. I have zero tolerance for people pirating the game. The devs deserve money for what they've done...and if a game is worth pirating, it's worth waiting to buy it. (Yes, I know - Valve paid the devs already - but if one wants to see games like Portal continue to exist - and it's a fun little game - then you need to pay up. I just won't pay more than $10 for it.)

IMO, the world needs more $10-$15 games that take 4-5 hours to complete.

I'm not a kid anymore. I don't have hours and hours each week to spend gaming. These games are exactly the right size for me. I can get in, get 4-5 nights worth of playing, and walk away satisfied.

The list of games that I've never beaten after sinking 3-5 hours and realizing I wasn't even 1/3rd the way through... too long to write down.

More short, cheap games, please!
Same here. So many games I haven't finished. However, some games ARE worth the length - Batman Arkham, ME1, ME1, DAO to name a few. Then there are the games I never finish: Fable 2, Dead Space, Oblivion, Fallout etc.

But the short, insanely fun 5 hour games can be great - Trine, Shadow Complex...the arcade titles.
 

pigwalk

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
8,422
IMO, the world needs more $10-$15 games that take 4-5 hours to complete.

I'm not a kid anymore. I don't have hours and hours each week to spend gaming. These games are exactly the right size for me. I can get in, get 4-5 nights worth of playing, and walk away satisfied.

The list of games that I've never beaten after sinking 3-5 hours and realizing I wasn't even 1/3rd the way through... too long to write down.

More short, cheap games, please!
The folly of finally making enough money to buy all the games I want. But not having enough time to play them!
 

g1xx3r

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
5,496
With all that said,any idea on the gameplay..Im about to bite..$10..why not? :)
 

Thuleman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
5,834
35 replies and at the very most 2 of them are about the actual game in the OP. Well done!
 

Kevin5255

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
381
The reviews are pretty lukewarm but I'm a huge fan of survival horror games and I am hydrophobic so this has been on my want list since the xbox live release.

However $10 is steep for what is supposed to be a pretty short game.
you have hydrophobia? YOU'RE RABID?!?
 
Top