Nope just uninformed apparently.
Nice! And a 3/10? Now that's what I'm talking about!
Nope just uninformed apparently.
Nice! And a 3/10? Now that's what I'm talking about!
15 minutes into the quick look, 30 hours into the game...
Brad: "ok I'm going to deliver this pizza, this is a highly technical delivery because the pizza has to be held horizontal!"
*Brad picks up the pizza by hand*
Brad: "See! It's gone vertical! My pizza is taking damage!"
Brad in menus: "oh my god, the clock is really ticking, my pizza is really taking a lot of damage."
My pizza is taking damage is one of the best quotes I've ever seen about a game.
Nope, I mean Outer Wilds, the space exploration/puzzle mystery. The Outer Worlds is also brilliant, but I haven't played much of it yet.Do you mean Outer Worlds?
Honest question because I keep getting the two confused, but I think I've heard more people rave about Worlds.
Completely agree. If playing games is your job, then you should be completing them before giving a score.My favorite Roger Ebert review was what he wrote about the first 90 minutes of Badlands and assumed the rest.
Cant believe people are advocating completion as optional for professional reviews.
Nope, I mean Outer Wilds, the space exploration/puzzle mystery. The Outer Worlds is also brilliant, but I haven't played much of it yet.
I see, I had the same issue with MGS V, that the world was pretty barren, glad that it is a little bit different with Death Stranding here.I don't think the open world stuff in MGSV was great and the world itself wasn't especially interesting to explore.
The difference here is that you're weighed down by your cargo and inventory - so you really need to think about how to get it to the objective and I found the stuff that unfolds along the way interesting. The terrain itself is a challenge - I don't recall that ever being true in MGSV.
Wait a minute, didnt that other User on the spoiler thread said to expect a MC score of 90-94?
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.
How in the hell is this supposed to be a new genre as claimed by Godjima?
I want to read reviews from people who are fully informed on the totality of the game in question.
Not saying they're bad, but big AAA tentpole releases like this almost never go below 80, that would be bad. And many of the reviews themselves are very critical of the game, while a lot of people who liked it gave it 10/10. So it seems somewhat divisive for AAA standards.By the reactions I thought it was getting bad scores then I looked at metacritic
never change era
Uh, disagree. We can afford 5-6 reviews from people that don't finish a game. Hell, I'd argue these reviews are as valuable as any other reviews and they are viewpoints that should not be discarded. If a high profile game can't hold the attention of these reviewers, why? Who are they? Do they have the same taste like mine? It's good for diverse viewpointsCompletely agree. If playing games is your job, then you should be completing them before giving a score.
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.
Especially in the case of video games where the vast majority of the audience isn't going to finish it the product it's totally legitimate.
Games aren't just the sum of their parts though. It's not just about the totality. It's also about the experience along the way, which includes the parts that make some people say "I can't finish this".
Unless it is literally broken, that isn't an excuse.Games aren't just the sum of their parts though. It's not just about the totality. It's also about the experience along the way, which includes the parts that make some people say "I can't finish this".
after their 5-range review for Alien: Isolation I stopped giving a shit about their scores.
Ebert did walk out of movies on occasion. He famously walked out of Caligula about three quarters through.My favorite Roger Ebert review was what he wrote about the first 90 minutes of Badlands and assumed the rest.
Cant believe people are advocating completion as optional for professional reviews.
Like I said earlier, it's Icelandic – the end credits show that they shot on location in Iceland – but it's meant to be the US. It bears no resemblance at all to the US, except for how fractured it is and how it only takes 22 hours to get a gun.
Completely agree. If playing games is your job, then you should be completing them before giving a score.
Yeah but I think most people expected it to be divisiveNot saying they're bad, but big AAA tentpole releases like this almost never go below 80, that would be bad. And many of the reviews themselves are very critical of the game, while a lot of people who liked it gave it 10/10. So it seems somewhat divisive for AAA standards.
You don't need to have finished the game to give a review/final verdict on something. If your verdict is that you hated it so much you couldn't finish it, that's the verdict.
What's important is that you communicate that you didn't finish it.
In the case of DS, the review embargo made it clear that if you want to post your review today - you must have finished the game. Whether or not you think it's scummy to do so from Sony's end, it's part of the NDA agreement to get the review code early. Otherwise, you wait until release day.
That easy allies review, it paints a lot of the gameplay and boss fights to be mundane boring and technically weak...yet it get's an 8/10 GTFOH.
I reckon the deadline for a reviewer for a magazine to finish it before it gets printed is much more limited than online publications.It speaks to our ADD culture when even reviewers perceive they don't even have time to complete the products they are reviewing. I understand how job constraints work, but I also think it isn't a good thing. Even if the game is shit, if you are going to review it you should complete it. Otherwise, don't review it. it is pretty simple. Well I suppose there are exceptions where a game might take 1,000 of hours to review or may be an online rpg or some such which you can't complete in a traditonal sense.
After watching that review I'd say it's higher than it should be.
You don't review a five-course meal if you walk out after the appetizer. I mean, you can, but I wouldn't take a review like that seriously.Uh, disagree. We can afford 5-6 reviews from people that don't finish a game. Hell, I'd argue these reviews are as valuable as any other reviews and they are viewpoints that should not be discarded.
Hmmm, I definitely agree that MGSV's open world was largely dead at times and felt half-baked in a number of areas but it did allow the player to sandbox how to complete a particular mission. So I feel that focus on strategizing was present in MGSV but in a different way. What I'm primarily concerned about is that MGSV gave the player a lot of freedom in how to complete a mission which could result in a number of completely different situations, while here it feels a bit more restrictive. I read your earlier post so it does seem like emergent gameplay is definitely present in the game but I'm wondering how much of that is there.I don't think the open world stuff in MGSV was great and the world itself wasn't especially interesting to explore.
The difference here is that you're weighed down by your cargo and inventory - so you really need to think about how to get it to the objective and I found the stuff that unfolds along the way interesting. The terrain itself is a challenge - I don't recall that ever being true in MGSV.
Easy Allies was not happy with the combat either.
I mean they should finish a game before they review. If they can't finish it to review it then the responsibilty is on them. of course they don't have an onus to actually review the game. I mean imagine actually making an issue of this? I mean I don't think it should be mandated, I think it should be standard period. Otherwise, keep it as a preview. Moaning about it seems ridiculous and also unprofessional. It is kind of an implicit admittance of shody practice. Also, good to get his wifes input though. I will be looking out for Nathan Brown's wife's thoughts next time I am looking for an definitive opinion.
Lots of 10s and lots of 0s, like every big exclusive
Even the positive reviews say so, I didn't read any review that praises any gameplay aspect tbh, at the best they say that walking alone for minutes feels evokative and makes you think how to approach the traversal, but none of them said that the game was a blast to play.
What review did thatPlaying 10s of hours of a game and not finishing it because it's so boring is 100% a valid review-approach.
The last 5 hours aren't going to magically make the game good.
Look no further than Dark1x post to alleviate that fearHmmm, I definitely agree that MGSV's open world was largely dead at times and felt half-baked in a number of areas but it did allow the player to sandbox how to complete a particular mission. So I feel that focus on strategizing was present in MGSV but in a different way. What I'm primarily concerned about is that MGSV gave the player a lot of freedom in how to complete a mission which could result in a number of completely different situations, while here it feels a bit more restrictive. I read your earlier post so it does seem like emergent gameplay is definitely present in the game but I'm wondering how much of that is there.