Nope just uninformed apparently.
Nice! And a 3/10? Now that's what I'm talking about!
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Death Stranding - Review Thread (see staff post for discussion guidelines)
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
Found it odd, and concerning that once he picked it up and the pizza went vertical he couldn't place it down horizontally again. He literally had to go through his inventory to find something that allowed him to snap it into place so it was flat. Surely he just missed how to place it down flat again, surely? Seems like a massive oversight if not.
Fucking discussing stacking pizza now
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.
Completely agree. If playing games is your job, then you should be completing them before giving a score.
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.
Thank you, what would your personal score for Death Stranding be?, how did you like the boss fights?
Easy Allies said the fighting mechanics are pretty flawed and it shows in the boss fights.
To be honest this is my first time in a Kojima review thread so maybe my expectations from his fans are off the mark. Apologies if I was patronizing.
I know what the game is, I was in the spoiler thread since the beginning. What I'm saying is it doesn't fit one genre since it's a mix and match.
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 watching that review I'd say it's higher than it should be.
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.
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 viewpoints
Few film critics walking out of a movie doesn't make it any more professional so to speak. I find it staggering how anyone in a job can publish a piece without fully digesting the said piece/topic they are working on. In this case, a video game or a film.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on that one. It's not fair to formulate an opinion (for a professional critic/reviewer) on any entertainment product without absorbing them in their entirety, no matter the length.
Sure, I just think a reviewer that says "I can't finish this" isn't a reviewer I would ever put much stock into. Unless it was a case of the game being too dificult, not because they were bored. Geuss what work is boring sometimes, for many people most of the time.
Unless it is literally broken, that isn't an excuse.
The person who began this discussion doesn't even think they should publish a review of a game they didn't finish.
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.
Do people actually expect "good" stories from Kojima? As in deftly written, well considered stories and characters? I love his games, but the appeal of his stories is just how crazy they are and the emotions he manages to elicit.
I feel like going in expecting something...on the level of Planescape or Final Fantasy Tactics or whatever is kind of asking for disappointment. Especially considering his history of writing. Not to say his stories shouldn't be judged accordingly.
I feel like going in expecting something...on the level of Planescape or Final Fantasy Tactics or whatever is kind of asking for disappointment. Especially considering his history of writing. Not to say his stories shouldn't be judged accordingly.
Kirk's review for VG247 is a really great write-up, very entertaining and it got me laughing fairly loud at 6am
this bit is the standout for sure
this bit is the standout for sure
Playing 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.
I agree and I disagree. IMO
if you're going to review a game you didn't finish, you should clearly state you didn't finish.
however
reviews that are counted in metacritic and open critic should be for finished reviews. You can't comprehensively critique something when you didn't get the full picture.
We should all agree reviews should state whether the game was completed.
But it also has high & fulsome praise for its concept, lots of the execution, for the whole way the game approaches being a game,m.
Its almost as if it's saying 'Yeah the lows can be low, but the highs are very high, and compensate for the lows to a score of 8/10'
Last edited:
User Warned: Drive-By
I honestly can't tell if most of these positives are Kojima fanboys or not it's hard to tell at this point
I reckon the deadline for a reviewer for a magazine to finish it before it gets printed is much more limited than online publications.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a good thing. Bizarre ADD culture rant aside, they stick with the contract, doesnt dish out a review based on an unfinished campaign, and there is less outrage about Edge being biased and tries to be edgy by putting out a lower score for a highly anticipated game in a review thread.
Especially on the last part.
You could say the same about some of the other reviews that scored higher.
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.
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.
This is just dumb. They played the game for 40 hours and hated it. They should be able to convey that in a review every bit as much as the person who played to the end.
Literally all this does is inflate the aggregate by eliminating every reviewer who didn't like the game enough to finish.
So any idea how this review embargo is working if you haven't 'beat' the game? Is it just about giving the game a score/grade at the end and effecting the almighty metascore?
I was listening to the Kinda Funny Death Standing review and 4 out of the 6 people haven't beat the game yet with one of them straight out given up, but they don't grade the game in their review.
I'm a bit confused.
I was listening to the Kinda Funny Death Standing review and 4 out of the 6 people haven't beat the game yet with one of them straight out given up, but they don't grade the game in their review.
I'm a bit confused.
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.
