-
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.
State of Decay 2 Review Thread
- Thread starter Napalm_Frank
- Start date
Love the gameplay of SoD, so I'll put up with the bugs, but this is another prime example of MS not ensuring their titles are shown in the best light. Hopefully the day one patch improves things, but it's too late from a review perspective.
For everyone talking about MS not giving UL enough time:
SOD2 had a fairly long development time. There is little chance "a few more months" would make any difference.
SOD2 had a fairly long development time. There is little chance "a few more months" would make any difference.
Open world or generally "big" (in terms of virtual space to explore) indie games are very buggy and junky, actually. Look at the state PUBG, ARK, The Culling, the first State Of Decay even when they reached 1.0. The first game got quite a cult following despite being a janky little XBLA game. This one is a sequel to that sold at a budget price. Gameplay videos were very clear: this is still a janky experience, but the things that made the first game great are also back with a vengeance. Unless there are MAJOR technical issues or critical problems not specifically mentioned in any of the reviews above, it seems like the same as SoD 1.
Why? Consoles arent far behind now. Master race bullshit needs to stop.
It will be the same experience, these guys arent exactly masters of their craft.
I'll try it with GamePass this month and then I'll stop my sub until SoT has content and this is fixed.
The service seems a lot like paying for 'AAA' early access games as of right now.
The service seems a lot like paying for 'AAA' early access games as of right now.
The Eurogamer review is listed on Metacritic in the "unscored reviews" section.
Unfortunately, this seems pretty accurate to me.
Shame about the scores and bugs, I havnt followed this game much (Dont have an xbox) but a couple of the videos I saw at E3 etc it looked like it had a lot of promise and would be a fun co-op romp.
i really wonder why there are 85/100 reviews if the game is so bugged as it is described in the Eurogamer review...games should be judged on their "now status" not "after patches in a few months it will be great"
No, it'll score higher on PC. It seems to run much smoother on PC, at least. That along with the smaller review sample size will likely result in a Metacritic score a fair bit higher. Hardly the score most people will be looking at but...
Eurogamer:
This was also a problem with Metal Gear Survive, though your community did have some options in that you could assign certain teams to go out and scavenge for supplies in different missions. It does kill some of the communal feel when your companions seem so static.
Jesus some of these reviews man. If it's really that bug ridden, why not delay it until it's all smoothened out?
As it stands now it's still the Forza franchise, Halo and Gears where you can expect it to be fine as in polished and little real glaring issues. MS really needs more studios like that.
As it stands now it's still the Forza franchise, Halo and Gears where you can expect it to be fine as in polished and little real glaring issues. MS really needs more studios like that.
Well you know when people mention that sony exclusive template with those pictures that all have trees? This is Microsofts.
It could be a $5 game, but if it is launched in a buggy state then reviewers are still going to knock it for it. The retail price is not an excuse for launching an unfinished or unpolished game.
OP
OP
Ben Moore of EZA had an interesting conversation on that some time ago. What to do when you review a game and personally don't encounter any big bugs but it's supposed to be full of them?
People can and will feel very differently about the same elements of a work. For some, the bugs might be easier to forgive or forget; for others, they might be incredibly frustrating and off-putting. Not really an objective matter.
devil's advocate...sony's exclusive is buggy as well...
GoW launch with a SERIOUS bug.................small text :P
On the flip, MS feel like they're a middling Halo or Gears away from being in dire straits for their development side.
Wait, what? Why in the world is that weird?
They should review the game that is, not the game that might be.
i guess we'll find out if/when they release bug fixes in a few more months.
tbh this feels like a recore situation to me. a game that should have been more than it turned out to be. i'll wait to see if they fix the issues.
What conversation is there to hold? The review is YOUR experience, not anyone else.
Considering the fact that they have Microsoft's backing and have been given more budget & time is it not fair to expect that the situation should evolve and improve from the first game? Some of the reviews do mention major issues BTW.
Depends on what those extra people are assigned to do... You can hire all the people in the world but if all you do is get them to add more features on top of the already buggy framework then the outcome doesn't really change.
Huh? A lot of things can be fixed by patches. You review the game as it exists when you play it.
imagine the state crackdown 3 is in, that this and SOT were released without extra time but they keep delaying the crackdown 3 .
Sony just delayed the days gone by almost a year when few elements needed more polish like transition from gameplay to cut scenes .
You rate it based on your experience, those who did encounter bugs rate it based on theirs.
Review aggregators will paint a somewhat accurate picture of the actual quality of the product.
With the exception of MCC, Gears 4, Halo 5, and practically any Forza game aren't weighed down by bugs.
Game breaking bugs that delete game saves, crash a game, or destroy progress etc should be marked down. A few oddities with stuff going on should be mentioned but should not drop a review so badly. Personal opinion of course.
I would expect the reviewer to review the game based on its merits and not from other peoples experiences.
But it negatively affected the reviews experience. How can not not effect the score? It made the game less fun for them.
This is absurd. There is no guarantee that any of the bugs will be fixed, so for what reason should reviewers assume that in good faith?
Sure it does. To that reviewer, the bugs either didn't happen, or didn't dramatically impact his enjoyment. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion to arrive at.