Sure if it's coming from a standard consumer. If you are a professional reviewer I think it should stand to reason you'd be held to a higher standard.
The job is to review, not to play.
I don't need to watch the entirety of Jack & Jill to tell you it's irredeemable garbage.
Yeah, true. Just like Hollow Knight: Silksong could absolutely be a contender next year, but it won't even get a mention in amongst the Cyberpunk and FFVII storm (not that competition is bad or anything).In a just world, it would be. It probably didn't get played by enough people though.
I'm serious homie :) A Respawn-made-Star Wars game launching late in the year before GotY season has a very good shot. And this is coming from someone that loved Sekiro. I'm being a bit cheeky though since none of us have got to play it ourselves yet.
Remember that reviews aren't school assignments. You don't start at 100 and subtract points for every flaw. If the reviewer feels that a game's positives massively outshine its negatives, then that's the score you'd expect.
So can we all agree that Outer Wilds is a lock for GOTY, as if it wasn't already?
Both known for complexity of plot but Kojima isn't close to as great of a writer so he can't pull it off is how I interpret most of it.People keep mentioning Pynchon, what's the Pynchon allusions about?
Well, I do think they're interpreting mission objectives in the standard way - the objective itself (reaching the point) isn't what is interesting. It's what happens along the way.I did and it still sounds like a miserable experience for huge chunks of it.
This mostly just exposes the fact that you don't read a lot of film criticism, because there are absolutely examples of perfectly legitimate critics walking out of a movie before it's finished and then formulating a a critique based on the time that they spent with the product, which as long as they mention that they did not finish the work is perfectly fine.Well, you don't see movie/music critics write a review without actually watching/listening them so I don't see why it has to be different for a game.
Although, when it comes to DS it doesn't surprise me at all. Listening to KindaFunny, there is one guy who stopped within first 5 hours. Another, also gave up on it (almost) until something hooked him during that time period. If you read the reviews, almost all of them mention that game starts extremely slow. So Sony/KojiPro knew that initial few hours may shape a narrative which is not truthful over the course of the game. Hence, this mandatory guideline to finish the game before writing a review.
Why do you think that is the case? That words aren't matching up to final score? Most of them mention that they can't say anything beyond Chapter 3, so maybe things pick up steam at that point forward, and just maybe with all its flaw(s), it delivers a satisfying conclusion when the end credits roll?
I don't expect things to be much different when normal people on this forum to get to play the game too, patience runs thin on this place and I expect lot to give up on it due to a slow start. But, to balance it all out there will be plenty who'll point out positives after putting an extended time in it. The game as a product in itself is divisive.
so it's a spiritual successor to paperboy?
So can we all agree that Outer Wilds is a lock for GOTY, as if it wasn't already?
People keep mentioning Pynchon, what's the Pynchon allusions about?
People keep mentioning Pynchon, what's the Pynchon allusions about?
hmmm? I wonder....If he was talking about another game would any of these posts had bothered you?
The job of someone who reviews games is to provide a critique and give their opinion on the game they've been playing.
Obviously if they tried it for 5 minutes and stopped then I wouldnt even try to suggest anyone take that review seriously, but if they've been playing for tens of hours and that game is so unenjoyable to them that it can't be finished, I don't see why that can't be a valid criticism in a review (along with justification in the review itself)
You are saying that in a thread where the most anticipated game of the year is getting a lot of bad reviews. So whats your logic here? All the good reviews are there to keep the crazy fanboys happy and only the bad reviews are genuine? This is some conspiratorial stuff you are claiming with 0 evidence.
it definitely gets significantly better after chapter 3 and that's a common sentiment i've seen echoed in my private discussions with other people reviewing the gameI think if it got better after Chapter 3, more reviews would put an emphasis on that. Some do mention it gets better as you get more tools and such. Without playing the game myself I can't say for certain if there's a particular element that outweighs all the negatives except for maybe the 'experience'. In that it's something relatively new and unique and so maybe the originality aspect comes into play.
It's an inflammatory exaggeration sure, but is it wrong? The Cuphead dev's were brave, putting their houses on the line for the base game, then going even further to make it more than just a boss rush, with run'n'gun gameplay that isn't what's big and popular. Team Ico were brave, being unknown developers creating a game unlike most had ever seen.
I'm slightly concerned that, by enjoying Death Stranding, I'll have to face the same shit.
Say, is the mission structure similar to MGS V?Well, I do think they're interpreting mission objectives in the standard way - the objective itself (reaching the point) isn't what is interesting. It's what happens along the way.
While there is no technical requirement, it makes sense that by completing a book or game or film, you have a fuller basis to judge the product.
My favorite Roger Ebert review was what he wrote about the first 90 minutes of Badlands and assumed the rest.Reviewers should absolutely give a game a fair shot, but to say they need to finish a game they don't like to review it is flawed. It means scores would be artificially inflated because some portion of the people that didn't like it enough to finish it could never post a review. They should be upfront with the portion of the game they played in their review though.
Did you watch or read any review? It's basically you delivering stuff here and there in an open world while avoiding some and fighting other baddies who wanna hurt you along the way, with the occasional boss fight. It sounds a lot like the fears and memes of it being a walking simulator with more interactivity is actually becoming real.Most reviewers don't even know which category this game fits in.
That reminds me a lot of MGSV actually. I'm not sure how I feel about that as I loved the freedom MGSV gave but hated how the story was handled. I'm hoping the huge emphasis on story here, despite some criticisms I've read about aspects like the exposition, make up for MGSV's shortcomings in that area.Well, I do think they're interpreting mission objectives in the standard way - the objective itself (reaching the point) isn't what is interesting. It's what happens along the way.
That's what I'm hoping for, mainly in terms of gameplay mechanics. Although hearing about the backtracking is offputting for me.it definitely gets significantly better after chapter 3 and that's a common sentiment i've seen echoed in my private discussions with other people reviewing the game
See the funny thing is people trying to claim that critics in other fields absolutely 100% always finish every product that they view and it's like I'm not to sure about that one chief.The job is to review, not to play.
I don't need to watch the entirety of Jack & Jill to tell you it's irredeemable garbage.
am i the only one who gets frustrated when people who haven't played a game try and tell people who have actually played the game what it's like based on a reading of someone else's subjective opinionWell, I do think they're interpreting mission objectives in the standard way - the objective itself (reaching the point) isn't what is interesting. It's what happens along the way.
Why? What's the purpose in that standard other than just to say it exists? What is actually being accomplished with it?
I don't think the open world stuff in MGSV was great and the world itself wasn't especially interesting to explore.Say, is the mission structure similar to MGS V?
Is is true what Ars Technica wrote, that the ending is pretty much you still do not go what is going on?
Sorry to bother you with those questions, but I never finished MGS V because I was quickly bored of it, because of the whole open-world stuff.
So I was not the only one thinking MGS V then....That reminds me a lot of MGSV actually. I'm not sure how I feel about that as I loved the freedom MGSV gave but hated how the story was handled. I'm hoping the huge emphasis on story here, despite some criticisms I've read about aspects like the exposition, make up for MGSV's shortcomings in that area.