What made you think we were past those days? It will always be suspicious to me.
-
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.
Kingdom Hearts III - Only selected outlets have received the review code in time for the review
- Thread starter Rodjer
- Start date
358/2 Days is what I'd call a bad game.
All the other KH games range from great to mediocre (Even Re:CODED which gets a lot of flak for it's barebones plot and its love of reusing pretty much everything KH1 probably has the best game play out of the handheld titles)
I'm very curious about this one. I hated Kingdom Hearts but not because of its themes or story. I hated how every area consisted of tiny rooms divided by loading screens with repetitive combat. They weren't worlds at all - just a few random, unrelated rooms strung together. It drove me nuts for some reason.
KH3 might just be able to solve those issues due to its new technology base.
KH3 might just be able to solve those issues due to its new technology base.
it's only clunky if you stupidly try and play like kh1/kh2. Recharging the deck is hardly a problem even early on due to how fast it goes, and late game is non existent due to certain cards. Generating rooms was also a non issue since every encounter dropped a card and a fight screen for battles isn't a problem when it loads in like a second. Calling another game clunky in relation to kh1 is pretty funny considering how janky that game was originally with a bad camera and really mediocre melee until late game.
Doubt it. Aqua was same shit with slower fps and HD graphics. RDR2 this is not.
It'd be really messed up if you guys didn't get an early copy from Square. You'd make a fantastic analysis on the tech and whatnot, which is something they should have pushed in marketing (outside of one interview).
There's no way that early reviews have been limited due to a lack of confidence in the game. Why would they even bother lifting the embargo before release date if that was the case? The biggest outlets are still receiving codes for the game and Kingdom Hearts 3 will almost definitely have enough reviews to receive a Metacritic score. Whether they're being overly cautious about leaks (despite the fact that the story is already out in the wild, much to my chagrin) or something else is another matter entirely. A healthy dose of skepticism is understandable but I wouldn't put much stock into the idea that they're hoping this game quietly releases so they can run away with everyone's money.
It's Kingdom Hearts, for goodness' sake. This is their biggest release of the year by far.
It's Kingdom Hearts, for goodness' sake. This is their biggest release of the year by far.
If they were afraid of leaks then it should've been a worldwide release, the fact that Japan will have it for 4 days before everyone else means spoilers will be everywhere.
Agreeing that it's probably due to spoiler-paranoia on their end (which is ironic because I believe the entire plot is out in the wild on teh Internetz). That was the reason why they're keeping a certain something off of the actual pressed discs until Jan. 31 iirc.
I'm the great example of this. I'm not KH fan but I play all mainline ( well, 1 and 2 ... ) because I like the aestistic of the game. I don't really care much about review score so I will buy it as soon as I finish RE2. But if tomorrow the review score come out like 1/10 ( extreme case ) I'm not sure I would want to buy it. And there are lots of people like me. So yes, it's the still the case where the company is not confident about their game and would delay the review copy just to get the early buyer.
Not that I think KH3 will be bad, I'm sure it will be great, confusing, emotional, and fun to play anyway.
It still looks like it plays too much the same and might feel PS2-ish. Some outlets may down it cause that which is probably why they limited reviews.
If the story leaked would anybody be able to understand it anyway?
I doubt this has anything to do with minimizing spoilers. Square Enix has many eggs in this basket, so they want to minimize the chances of not great reviews before launch, which is why they are cherry-picking the outlets they have good relationship with or they know are more pro-SE (or yes, the outlets they have bought). Thinking otherwise seems naïve to me. Of course, only SE really knows why they are doing this, so the above are just my 2 cents.
Last edited:
This doesn't make sense to me because some of the outlets left out are KH fan sites. If those sites were given a copy, I could see what you're stating.
If that were the case, they would have had all of the JRPG-focused sites, KH influencers and fansites on board. They don't, so that isn't what is going on.
Have you tried out KH3? This plays nothing like a PS2 game. It certainly borrows from KH2's gameplay style, but that's like saying DMCV is too much the same and might feel PS2-ish because it borrows from the gameplay style it is known for. KH3 is much more than that.
The reach of those sites pales in comparison with the big review sites. Not to mention that people going to those sites are the most likely to buy the game day one regardless of scores.
What general impressions? You can't have a general impression from only people watching some leaked videos so the narrative about the game being rushed has no base at all.
Doom was a masterpiece despite this, but I would be worried about such a decision...
And the general impressions by those people have been mostly positive.
People had no idea DOOM would be good until after the fact. I remember surprise on how well it reviewed and how good it actually was.
But in terms of marketing, if you give a site a copy that you're pretty certain will give a 10/10, you'll have another perfect score to slap on your poster.
(He says, as the editor of a site that's had scores on posters and trailers before despite being 'small')
I completely disagree with this assessment. If they had no confidence in the product they wouldn't have made an entire dedicated event to it, alongside a DLC and patch plan that lasted more than a year, and put money into an anime and film to promote the game. Additionally, they wouldn't have funded a smaller sized pocket edition either. Square Enix showed no lack of confidence in FFXV and they were right because it reviewed well and pushed them more than back on track in terms of commercial reception. KHIII may be a diffferent situation but I doubt it. Quite why they've decided to make such a strange decision with regards to the distribution of review units says little of their confidence, as they are just as likely to be hammered by a small number of publication (if the game doesn't stack up) as they are a large number. More than anything you can infer that this is just Square Enix making a strange decision that causes negative perception among a core base (the mainstream audience this game will also want to capture will probably not even notice the impact of the late review copies).
Last edited:
Then your statement isn't exactly true. You are saying they are trying to garner good press from sites they know give them good press, so why wouldn't they include influencers who would, in theory, compound on the good press and just help to reinforce it?
I get what you are saying, though.
That's a good point. Cover quotes and scores are nice and all, but I think for big releases the most important thing are day-one sales, and the quotes on the back of the box don't help with those. Having a good review before release reaching a big part of the potential market on the other hand...
I haven't played it I said it looks. I'm honestly not seeing too much difference from the other games as far as the animations. I'll find out myself next week. I'm not seeing the "much more" you're talking about and rather more of the same which is fine with me. Its not a slight or anything.
Exactly this. I wrote a review for 2.8 for a kh fan site and Square Enix requested to use some quotes from my review on their post-launch marketing.
Fan sites and influencers are an easy grab for easy, good reviews lol
I'll be 100% honest here:
Speaking entirely as a fan: Kh is the one series where I don't need reviews. I know I'll like it (unless it's a CoM remake, but even then the story was damn good and you could find ways to break it and force it to be ok). I know I'll 100% like this game.
But it's still lame to be doing review sites like this.
Speaking entirely as a fan: Kh is the one series where I don't need reviews. I know I'll like it (unless it's a CoM remake, but even then the story was damn good and you could find ways to break it and force it to be ok). I know I'll 100% like this game.
But it's still lame to be doing review sites like this.
You all use nomal logic against square enix here, the same company who mockingly published an accolade video about the quiet man, the same company who announce a stream that cancel their dlcs and publicly fire their director.
358 had a preetty good story that kept you going, and Re Coded had good gameplay. which means none of them were bad. bad design choices? Sure, but not bad games
So you're saying they haven't given the game to KH sites because they don't have "the reach" but they're also not giving it to smaller outlets because it can affect them.
Also, they're giving it to IGN and other big outlets that traditionally have bashed the series for the gameplay and the story instead of lifting the embargo the day of release to avoid a possible bad review from those big outlets.
Sorry, but I can't see the logic.
I'm also pretty sure KH3 wouldn't be hurt by reviews that aren't "good" (Meaning <80 meta) sales-wise. Everybody knows that. I don't think many of the potential sales the game will have will be from people that where awaiting reviews to buy it. I mean, we have Fallout 76 as a recent example that certain franchise aren't bothered about reviews.
Isn't Fallout 76 a commercial failure? There are even rumors of it going F2P.
