I watched a few demo gameplay videos on YouTube and wasn't really
enthralled by what I saw. I didn't bother with the demo myself based
on those impressions.

I then watched a few review videos after release, most of which
concluded that you needed to be a RoboCop fan to really
'understand/get' what the game is about. I passed on buying the game
at £44.00

I bought it for £25.00 from GMG yesterday in a moment of weakness and
had a mild attack of buyers remorse after a few minutes playing. If
you don't like RoboCop, and indeed, as one reviewer put it, if it was
called anything else but RoboCop it would probably get panned.

It's not terrible, but at the same time it's hardly engrossing or
makes me want to play more than a few minutes at a time. I'm not quite
sure what a comparatively small number of reviewers are so excited
about.

It's RoboCop. It's sort of OK as a shooter. It's also a bit bland and
samey after even a short while.

--
Rob

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 11:41:04 AM UTC-7, Mr Rob wrote:
> I watched a few demo gameplay videos on YouTube and wasn't really
> enthralled by what I saw. I didn't bother with the demo myself based
> on those impressions.
>
> I then watched a few review videos after release, most of which
> concluded that you needed to be a RoboCop fan to really
> 'understand/get' what the game is about. I passed on buying the game
> at £44.00
>
> I bought it for £25.00 from GMG yesterday in a moment of weakness and
> had a mild attack of buyers remorse after a few minutes playing. If
> you don't like RoboCop, and indeed, as one reviewer put it, if it was
> called anything else but RoboCop it would probably get panned.
>
> It's not terrible, but at the same time it's hardly engrossing or
> makes me want to play more than a few minutes at a time. I'm not quite
> sure what a comparatively small number of reviewers are so excited
> about.
>
> It's RoboCop. It's sort of OK as a shooter. It's also a bit bland and
> samey after even a short while.

You can always play the old game from 1988. Not bad, that one.

- Justisaur

Justisaur wrote:

>
> You can always play the old game from 1988. Not bad, that one.
>
> - Justisaur
>

The hours we would spend at the hotel watching somebody play it (we were
little kids and lasted less than 5 minutes). If somebody got to a new
level, a crowd would form around the arcade cabinet.

As for me, I put most of my robo-time on the Amstrad CPC port, which is
"interesting". The music is different and IMHO superior to the more
standard nes based ports, and it even had digitised voices reading the
prime directives.

As for the new one... No time to try the demo. I heard something
interesting things like that Robocop can sit on a desk and do paperwork,
or that shooting at the crotch of a felon will trigger a different
animation or sequence.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 10:06:53 +0100, H1MEM <wipnoah@gmail.com> wrote:

>As for me, I put most of my robo-time on the Amstrad CPC port, which is
>"interesting". The music is different and IMHO superior to the more
>standard nes based ports, and it even had digitised voices reading the
>prime directives.

My fist RoboCop gaming was on the C64, I played the 2003 PC iteration,
I remember that it was OK. I liked the RoboCop comic entries when I
was younger.

Looking back through the history of RoboCop gaming, according to what
I can read on the internet, it hasn't been a prolific or terribly
successful franchise as far as games go.

I played a little more of Rogue City last night. It is fairly dull and
repetitive thus far.

--
Rob

On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 18:40:59 +0000, Mr Rob
<noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:

>
>I watched a few demo gameplay videos on YouTube and wasn't really
>enthralled by what I saw. I didn't bother with the demo myself based
>on those impressions.

I haven't played it either and have only seen it on Youtube gushingly
promoted by fanboys, and I too can't understand the enthusiasm for the
game.

I mean, sure, it's Robocop, and it seems a more honest conversion of
the license than any we've seen so far. It is a lot more gory than
previous video-game iterations of the franchise (although, from what I
could tell, nowhere nearly as gory as the movie itself). But the
gameplay seems to repsect the property a lot more than other games.

But the gameplay seems entirely unexciting. The enemies are completely
braindead and that - coupled with the protragonist's tank-like ability
to absorb punishment - makes the combat look like a complete and total
grind. Oh, I'm sure later in the game there are some tougher enemies
but - given the movement speed at which our eponymous hero moves - I
can't imagine those would be anymore fun either.

Its open world doesn't impress me either. Its side missions seem
pointless filler and the world itself doesn't seem to have a lot of
life or interactivity to it. Robocop is a killing machine; it's not
like he's going to be solving crimes by talking to people, or
sneaking, or looking for clues. It's just clunk-clunk-clunk into the
nearest hotspot, shooting bad-guys and picking up collectibles. It's
not the sort of gameplay that even REQUIRES an openworld, except as a
time-killer.

"Robocop: Rogue City" reminds me a lot of "Terminator: Resistance",
which similarly nailed the look and feel of its license, but failed to
provide a fulfilling game-play experience (Similarly, the "War for
Cybertron" video games from the 2010s that utilized the
"Transformers" IP). These games are love-letters to devoted fans of
their franchises but do not have the game-play that makes the game
entertaining to more casual fans (or people who don't know or really
care too much about) of the IP.

But, again, maybe "Robocop: Rogue City" isn't really that bad. Like I
said, all I really know about it is from what I've seen on YouTube.
But what I have seen hasn't convinced me to rush out and buy the game.

On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 09:57:07 +0000, Mr Rob
<noemailformethx@jsjsaiiowppw.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 10:06:53 +0100, H1MEM <wipnoah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>As for me, I put most of my robo-time on the Amstrad CPC port, which is
>>"interesting". The music is different and IMHO superior to the more
>>standard nes based ports, and it even had digitised voices reading the
>>prime directives.
>
>My fist RoboCop gaming was on the C64, I played the 2003 PC iteration,
>I remember that it was OK. I liked the RoboCop comic entries when I
>was younger.
>
>Looking back through the history of RoboCop gaming, according to what
>I can read on the internet, it hasn't been a prolific or terribly
>successful franchise as far as games go.
>
>I played a little more of Rogue City last night. It is fairly dull and
>repetitive thus far.

I think one of the problems is that the "Robocop" franchise isn't
really a good fit for video-games. It really only has the one titular
hero to differentiate it from the 'real-world', and there's only so
much that character can do. Were the developers allowed to EXPAND the
universe - add more Robocops! - maybe it would work, but restricted to
only using Alex "Super-Cyborg" Murphy? The character really doesn't do
anything but walk slowly and shoot (okay, sometimes he drives a car).
There's just not enough space to move the story.

Thus, bound by such a severe restriction, it's no wonder we get such a
watered down experience. It's even worse because they forced this game
into an open-world. It MIGHT have worked as a linear corridor shooter
where the developers had better control of the pacing and story, but
in an open world? What little gameplay there is has to be spread ever
more thinly.

TL;DR: Other franchises translate well to the video-game genre.
Robocop, not so much.