BinarySplit » Reviews » BloodNet
View Store Page
View Community Hub
Find More Like This
19 people found this review helpful
4 people found this review funny
Not Recommended
0.0 hrs last two weeks / 0.1 hrs on record
Posted: 9 Jan, 2015 @ 11:34pm

Don't bother. The premise sounds interesting, but it's really just a tedious and old game that hasn't aged well. It runs at a resolution of 320x200 and has painfully bad midi music. The control scheme is completely unintuitive, and reading the manual (bundled with the game as a PDF) before playing is pretty much necessary. I barely got past the intro before I just couldn't take it anymore.
Was this review helpful? Yes No Funny Award
3 Comments
< >
RIP Hideki Sato 22 Apr, 2016 @ 10:36am 
I don't understand why people are buying games that are older than them and they never played before. Just to leave a bad review? Mission accomplished.
BinarySplit 18 Mar, 2015 @ 6:11pm 
I don't think games that require you to read manuals are necessarily bad. In fact, for modern games I'd prefer a one-page cheat sheet over a 10 minute unskippable tutorial section.

Unfortunately, BloodNet's manual is big and boring and even after you've read it, the controls are still very awkward. Also, I had no idea the manual even existed when I started playing - Steam didn't give me the usual "View Manual"/"Play Game" option and there was nothing to indicate that it had downloaded a PDF alongside the game.

IMO, they should have just copied the control scheme from Neuromancer (1988) or Monkey Island (1990). I think I was able to get a decent way into both of those games before I got stuck and had to refer to the manual.
Debatra 17 Mar, 2015 @ 7:25pm 
Wait, so needing to read the manual is a bad thing now? Does anyone remember when reading the manual instead of having your hand held through tutorial after tutorial was just another part of games? You guys wouldn't have survived the S/NES era.