Someone asked if he saw something and he said yes, he saw it?
What did you expect?
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
IGN retracts large portion of RE2 review and updates score after it becomes clear their reviewer missed a large chunk of the game.
- Thread starter Datajoy
- Start date
Someone asked if he saw something and he said yes, he saw it?
What did you expect?
If it's like the original, just two. You can do either Leon A -> Claire B, or Claire A -> Leon B. In the original, either path let you see virtually all of the content with the exception of a few scenario-specific, but still similar, dialogue.
When you're a designer, you want an interface element to reflect the importance and significance of its function. That's why buttons to delete important things are often big, red, and interrupt the entire screen with a "No, really, this deletes all your stuff and you can't get it back if you go through with this," pop-up.
"Second Run" is ambiguous and does not concretely communicate "This is what you press to play the entire second half of the game." In fact, I'd argue that, if anything, it implies the opposite—that this option gives you largely the same content.
"For my second run of Mass Effect 2, I romanced Garrus instead of Yeoman Chambers."
And saying "Well, that's why they put something about a 'second scenario' on screen," isn't a great counterpoint when you examine how they did it. "Second scenario" is a bit clearer, but that text looks like it's almost specifically designed to be ignored. It's significantly smaller than all the other text, located on the absolute periphery of the screen (move it down a couple pixels and parts of the letters would get cut off), and the contrast between it and the background is relatively low. In terms of information hierarchy, the game is saying "This is the very least important thing I am showing you." I wouldn't blame someone if they never even noticed it was there.
Regardless of whether or not you think a reviewer should be more thorough in exploring all of a game's menu items and options (and I personally do), this is bad UI design. I expect that a lot of average gamers will make this same mistake.
"Second Run" is ambiguous and does not concretely communicate "This is what you press to play the entire second half of the game." In fact, I'd argue that, if anything, it implies the opposite—that this option gives you largely the same content.
"For my second run of Mass Effect 2, I romanced Garrus instead of Yeoman Chambers."
And saying "Well, that's why they put something about a 'second scenario' on screen," isn't a great counterpoint when you examine how they did it. "Second scenario" is a bit clearer, but that text looks like it's almost specifically designed to be ignored. It's significantly smaller than all the other text, located on the absolute periphery of the screen (move it down a couple pixels and parts of the letters would get cut off), and the contrast between it and the background is relatively low. In terms of information hierarchy, the game is saying "This is the very least important thing I am showing you." I wouldn't blame someone if they never even noticed it was there.
Regardless of whether or not you think a reviewer should be more thorough in exploring all of a game's menu items and options (and I personally do), this is bad UI design. I expect that a lot of average gamers will make this same mistake.
I guess I'll take that before simply axing the feature. Does Mr. X only appear in the B scenarios?
From what I understand, no. You'll have to do a first run, with whichever character you want and then the 2nd run, which is automatically with whichever character you didn't choose in the first run.
No need to play it 4 times to get the true ending.
And the interface for this fucking sucks guys, sorry, but it does. It's not that clear and I could see where he could make that mistake. I don't like that he blocked people on Twitter when it was pointed out, but some of you are taking it way too far asking for him to be fired. It was a mistake, move on.
I can see that he missed it, it's not made very clear that this is a different run. "2nd" can be interpreted as "repeating the same run".
It's very unfortunate that he did this mistake. But they corrected it and it's fine now.
It's very unfortunate that he did this mistake. But they corrected it and it's fine now.
I didn't have a time to read his review at first, but now I'm reading it and I'm confused by this paragraph.
He misunderstood the part about unlocking so he crossed that out, ok.
But isn't it true that there're a lot of overlapping puzzles? Why he had to cross that out?
And If he didn't beat full story then how can he reach the full ending, which is unlocked by beating both campaigns?
He misunderstood the part about unlocking so he crossed that out, ok.
But isn't it true that there're a lot of overlapping puzzles? Why he had to cross that out?
And If he didn't beat full story then how can he reach the full ending, which is unlocked by beating both campaigns?
If I understand it correctly there are two paths, A and B, and can be played with either character. So Leon A is pretty much the same as Claire A with the only difference being in the way you meet your sidekick which provide some unique areas. Other than those "meeting points" and obviously gun loadouts there aren't any differences between Claire A and Leon A. The B versions are supposed to be different from A but even those appear to be shuffled versions of A.
From what I understand without playing the original release, Capcom added areas and story points from the original's path B to path A in order to provide a more cohesive experience (and also make the playthroughs longer) and also provide you with the option to play any path with any of the two protagonists. But as a result, path B isn't that unique any more.
I've only read the first few pages of the thread and granted I haven't played even the original Resident Evil 2 but I'm satisfied that mistake(s) were made and I think people should just move on. I can see based off of the menu how he made the mistake, though I can also understand that he should've realised it a lot sooner, but as it stands it has been acknowledged and rectified and it's certainly not like the last IGN fiasco so yeah I at least can forget about it.
It does however and unfortunately give further credence to the notion that reviews- even from the biggest sites for the biggest games- are not extensive in their critique and/or coverage, albeit there are conflicting claims here as to how clear Capcom made the inclusion of this missed content and as to how substantial it is but regardless it's disappointing definitely that IGN missed it.
It does however and unfortunately give further credence to the notion that reviews- even from the biggest sites for the biggest games- are not extensive in their critique and/or coverage, albeit there are conflicting claims here as to how clear Capcom made the inclusion of this missed content and as to how substantial it is but regardless it's disappointing definitely that IGN missed it.
What is wrong with that tweet that makes it an absolute joke exactly?
Definitely. But he's not a casual player. He's a reviewer for one of the largest video game site. I think we expect those reviewers to actualy TRY every options from one of the biggest game of early 2019, no ?
The fact that he didn't even TRIED to see how this "new game +" work tells a lot about the dude's attitude toward his work.
I know they have a shit ton of games to play, but come on. It's, with KH3, the biggest release of Q1 2019. I'm sure it took him only 10 or 12 hours to complete it. He didn't even CLICKED on the fucking "2d run" to see what are the changes.
But serious answer: He's now downplaying the game. Downplaying scenario B, downplaying the ending. And I can't trust that is a genuine assessment of the game compared to the original rather than damage limitation because he fucked up. I think he's handled it all very poorly.
Last edited:
OP
OP
He ostensibly didn't finish the story or reach the final ending or boss, which is part of the issue.
I didn't have a time to read his review at first, but now I'm reading it and I'm confused by this paragraph.
He misunderstood the part about unlocking so he crossed that out, ok.
But isn't it true that there're a lot of overlapping puzzles? Why he had to cross that out?
And If he didn't beat full story then how can he reach the full ending, which is unlocked by beating both campaigns?
Didn't you see his tweet? "It's fine". Lol. I guess that is IGN level analysis though tbf.
I think he has played both paths and has seen the true ending. Based on his original review, I think what happened is that he missed the second path inititally (so he had to go through the same campaign twice, just with two different characters) but eventually played path B as well. So he beat the game 3 times. His annoyance was that he inititally thought you had to play the game 3 times instead of 2 to experience the true ending. Also based on his review, it appears that just swapping between characters and playing the same route (A or B) only changes the playthroughs very slightly while even route B isn't THAT much different.I didn't have a time to read his review at first, but now I'm reading it and I'm confused by this paragraph.
He misunderstood the part about unlocking so he crossed that out, ok.
But isn't it true that there're a lot of overlapping puzzles? Why he had to cross that out?
And If he didn't beat full story then how can he reach the full ending, which is unlocked by beating both campaigns?
I didn't have a time to read his review at first, but now I'm reading it and I'm confused by this paragraph.
He misunderstood the part about unlocking so he crossed that out, ok.
But isn't it true that there're a lot of overlapping puzzles? Why he had to cross that out?
And If he didn't beat full story then how can he reach the full ending, which is unlocked by beating both campaigns?
This is what that section of the review currently says.
Yea "New Game 2nd Run" doesn't sound like new scenario it just sounds like NG+. And it will sound like NG+ to anyone who's not played the original but has played games released in recent years.
I don't know why they even did this when they could just have a character select at the start of the game and take things from there till the end. So if you pick Leon then you automatically switch to Claire after you finish Leon and vice versa. What is even the point of calling it "2nd run"?
Nier does this bullshit as well with calling its middle portion "route B" and the last portion "route C" and you can't even play those out of order in that game and the story is incomplete without playing all 3...so what's the point of inserting a credit sequence mid game?
I don't know why they even did this when they could just have a character select at the start of the game and take things from there till the end. So if you pick Leon then you automatically switch to Claire after you finish Leon and vice versa. What is even the point of calling it "2nd run"?
Nier does this bullshit as well with calling its middle portion "route B" and the last portion "route C" and you can't even play those out of order in that game and the story is incomplete without playing all 3...so what's the point of inserting a credit sequence mid game?
Yeah, he seems to really go into defensive mode about the entire thing. Doubling down on the idea that the scenario B campaign isn't worth playing, despite it increasing the score? And I'm still not convinced he even played scenario B. And the review has zero mention of the unlocked hunk and tofu modes either. It's all a bit embarrassing.
Guys, how many other reviewers made the same mistake? I mean, when everyone get it right, except you, most likely you are the problem.
Bizarre that one of the most profilic releases of this year seems to be reviewed by someone who had no prior experience on the game. Reviews are suppose to clarify any doubt that reader have, not confuse them even more.
Too many mistakes in a row from IGN to call a mistep. It's incompetence, sorry.
Bizarre that one of the most profilic releases of this year seems to be reviewed by someone who had no prior experience on the game. Reviews are suppose to clarify any doubt that reader have, not confuse them even more.
Too many mistakes in a row from IGN to call a mistep. It's incompetence, sorry.
Tbf, it's silly that the menu calls it a "second run" (which implies a do-over) when really it's a second scenario.
Still I'd think a reviewer would do a little digging before assuming that half of the original wasn't remade. Doubling down on the notion that the second scenario isn't that different is just... Ugh...
Still I'd think a reviewer would do a little digging before assuming that half of the original wasn't remade. Doubling down on the notion that the second scenario isn't that different is just... Ugh...
I mean he clearly did not play the Hunk and Tofu modes because he states that he played Leon A, Claire A, and Leon B, and you need to play all four routes to unlock it.
Yea, nothing scream "competent" more than making a honest mistake like this and then banning those who point it out on twitter.
Telling people there is little difference between the campaigns and not touching on Hunk or Tofu mode is a big deal.
In the original they were sufficiently different. So... what gives?
In the original they were sufficiently different. So... what gives?
i still don't see why y'all are so weird about being blocked on twitter.
given how much of the game's repetition seemed to grate on him, "congrats after beating the game four times you get to run through the police department again" probably would have soured his opinion on it.
Wrong.
Source: this reviewer and therefore likely many other as well.
It probably seems more repetitive if you play the same campaign twice in a row...
The original has been out for 20 years, it was always like this.
The original also came out in two discs clearly labeled as two different perspective...this one doesn't.
The original also came out 20 years ago...a lot of people even in their late 20s might not have played it.
And oh lets not forget that the developers themselves said they "ditched the A/B scenario" and had two campaigns instead. So I certainly expected "two campaigns" to seem like how RE6 has 4 campaigns and you select them based on the character from the main menu. Not calling your 2nd part of the game "2nd run/route B" helps too. What they should've done is automatically switch perspective after scenario A was over regardless of who you picked at the start.
Last edited:
so are you agreeing with him that the campaigns are really similar...?
did they expand on hunk and tofu in this, because in the original those minigames were like, twenty minutes at the absolute worst
it's a linear game that takes place in confined, mostly dark locations. see those mountains? they're on a postcard and you can't go there because you're trapped in a police station full of zombie mutants.
This is the same guy who sneakily edited a review after being caught lying about the content of a game.
Good to know he's learnt his lesson. Quality stuff IGN!
Good to know he's learnt his lesson. Quality stuff IGN!
Shit I guess he really is incompetent, he can't even downplay a game properly.
Hey, I think I remember about someone finishing a game on easy and called that there was 0 extras and then the creator of the game sent a message saying that if you complete on normal it would appear
So the reviewer deleted the paragraph
This is what that section of the review currently says.
+ On Twitter