I wish i had grades like that when i was young. But agree, first party offering is bad.
-
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
I wish i had grades like that when i was young. But agree, first party offering is bad.
Where did you state that in your previous post? If you can't answer a question say so, don't move the goalpost.
Bad isn't the word your looking for, it's average.
https://www.eurogamer.pt/articles/2018-05-17-state-of-decay-2-analise-zombielandia
Eurogamer.pt - "Recommended"
"State of Decay 2 it's the most genuine experience of zombie survival that you can find."
Eurogamer.pt - "Recommended"
"State of Decay 2 it's the most genuine experience of zombie survival that you can find."
If in fact the reports of all the bugs and jank are true then I'll be sorely disappointed. The first game was very fun but the jank marred the experience.
I played it on Windows 10 and yes, there are some bugs, but I didn't found as many as some reviews are pointing.
I don't know if that's really "interesting", cause it's pretty obvious to me.
If that's the case, you should mention in your review that some people had these bugs, but it should definitely not affect your own review score.
Oh the irony, it was right there in the post you originally replied to and started this conversation:
So it's you moving the goalposts!
The reviews I've read don't make it sound like it has charming jank (like a lot of Eastern European games I like to play) but rather tedious and tiresome jank that brings the whole game down. I didn't really enjoy the first but I thought there were some neat ideas.
I hear ya. If it wasn't for Gamepass I wouldnt have played it at all. But now, I might as well give it a whirl, lol.
https://attackofthefanboy.com/reviews/state-of-decay-2-review/
State of Decay 2 follows a similar pattern of the first game. If you can put up with a game that isn't quite state of the industry when it comes to visual fidelity and performance, there's a fun zombie survival game underneath it all.
State of Decay 2 follows a similar pattern of the first game. If you can put up with a game that isn't quite state of the industry when it comes to visual fidelity and performance, there's a fun zombie survival game underneath it all.
were you this upset when every outlet under the sun kept giving BGS games good scores
So not "at release" but "was released" no mention of timeframe. Again moving goalposts.
Another average first party game by MS...just about a month after the average God of War...right?
Man MS is so disappointing this gen when it comes to games which makes it sad since they have the best hardware.
Man MS is so disappointing this gen when it comes to games which makes it sad since they have the best hardware.
You know what I'm going to do? I'll wait for CD3 and get both on PC with GP :D
Perhaps English is not your first language then, because when someone says a game is/was released in a certain state, they obviously mean at release. A game doesn't keep being released, it is released. Hence 'release date'.
User Warned: System Wars
Comparing MS to Sony is unfair tbh, Sony has gaming DNA, Microsoft doesn't.
Sony is simply vastly superior.
MS were doing fine until Kinect came out where they seemed to throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't think you could ever build a whole new AAA studio these days - it's simply too expensive and takes years and multiple games for a studio to find its feet
BGS? Do you mean Bethesda? I'm not upset; simply making a general comment. My gaming purchases are not guided by professional reviews and I'm happy to report that I have not bought a buggy game in many, many years. I'm not 100% sure where you were going with your question though...
Not what i'm saying - but if they advertise it like one, you can't blame people for having higher expectations. - i was just responding to the sentiment of trying to somehow downplay the mixed critical response and the apparently high amount of bugs by saying "it was never meant to be a system seller, it's a budget title, it's a niche title, it's a small studio". (none of which is wrong, per se). But if you create buzz around a game beforehand, if you put it front and center as one of your 3 platform exclusives for the first half of 2018, you're making a bet. So it's certainly a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for MS here.
I think if you enjoyed the first one you'll probably enjoy this one. If, on the other hand, you never played the first one you might find yourself scratching your head at why people bother playing it after watching a few streams. Twitch isn't doing this game any favors.
Pretty much. If you express concern in the review thread but never set foot in the OT, chances are you weren't even picking the game regardless. It's pretty sad.
It was always going to be a niche game with scores all over the place. I'm playing it now with a friend(not coop, just watching and playing) and it's a classic sequel. More polished and deeper game mechanics. A lot more to do "sim" wise than the first game, but it's definitely more of the same.
I think critics needs to tell what version they are playing when they are reviewing games. They can only review whats in front of them, but readers need to know about a possible day 1 patch. At least mention it in the end of the review.
I'm definitely biased, because i did not encounter any game breaking bugs like the UI disappear, crashes or the need to reload the save. The biggest bug i had was that i sometimes had to push an extra time to interact with people, but that rarely happened and was more of a nuisance than game breaking. My friend did tell me he had to reload his save though. Yes it's janky and there are a lot of smaller bugs, but we both agreed nothing was game breaking. I'm not saying that Eurogamer didn't encounter all the bugs, just that there are others who didn't. People just tend to cling onto the review with the lowest score.
I think it comes down to if the critic likes the game loop or not. They are more likely to focus on the bugs if they don't like the gameplay. You know it's gonna get a low score when the critic mentions "busy work", because there really isn't much to the game if you don't like all the sim/management aspects. The "busy work" is the meat in the game. It's sorta like playing Sim City or Football Manager and not liking the management part of the game.
If you don't like that, then the game is not for you and a low score is justified. But if you like that part of the game, then it's easily a buy now game. 7/10, 8/10 hell even 9/10 is perfectly justified because there really isn't anything like State of Decay out there. There is a huge amount of fun to be had if you are into that kinda game.
I think personally it's a 8/10 game, just because reviewing games isn't just crossing out a checklist and giving a lower score because of bugs. I really don't agree with people saying that a buggy game shouldn't get a high score. If the game shines in other parts, like in the fun department, then it doesn't have to get a low score because it's buggy.
But you could also easily give the game a low score like 4/10 or 5/10 if you don't like the gameplay. There really is no fun to be had if you don't like the management part of the game. It can't be stressed enough. Newcomers might not realise how big a part of the game that is. The gameplay loop is basically find supplies -> manage your base and people, rinse and repeat. If that sounds like busy work then stear clear of State of Decay 2.
I think critics needs to tell what version they are playing when they are reviewing games. They can only review whats in front of them, but readers need to know about a possible day 1 patch. At least mention it in the end of the review.
I'm definitely biased, because i did not encounter any game breaking bugs like the UI disappear, crashes or the need to reload the save. The biggest bug i had was that i sometimes had to push an extra time to interact with people, but that rarely happened and was more of a nuisance than game breaking. My friend did tell me he had to reload his save though. Yes it's janky and there are a lot of smaller bugs, but we both agreed nothing was game breaking. I'm not saying that Eurogamer didn't encounter all the bugs, just that there are others who didn't. People just tend to cling onto the review with the lowest score.
I think it comes down to if the critic likes the game loop or not. They are more likely to focus on the bugs if they don't like the gameplay. You know it's gonna get a low score when the critic mentions "busy work", because there really isn't much to the game if you don't like all the sim/management aspects. The "busy work" is the meat in the game. It's sorta like playing Sim City or Football Manager and not liking the management part of the game.
If you don't like that, then the game is not for you and a low score is justified. But if you like that part of the game, then it's easily a buy now game. 7/10, 8/10 hell even 9/10 is perfectly justified because there really isn't anything like State of Decay out there. There is a huge amount of fun to be had if you are into that kinda game.
I think personally it's a 8/10 game, just because reviewing games isn't just crossing out a checklist and giving a lower score because of bugs. I really don't agree with people saying that a buggy game shouldn't get a high score. If the game shines in other parts, like in the fun department, then it doesn't have to get a low score because it's buggy.
But you could also easily give the game a low score like 4/10 or 5/10 if you don't like the gameplay. There really is no fun to be had if you don't like the management part of the game. It can't be stressed enough. Newcomers might not realise how big a part of the game that is. The gameplay loop is basically find supplies -> manage your base and people, rinse and repeat. If that sounds like busy work then stear clear of State of Decay 2.
Was
exist.
"there are no easy answers"
synonyms: exist, have being, have existence
At
(used to indicate a point or place occupied in space); in, on, or near: to stand at the door; at the bottom of the barrel. 2. (used to indicate a location or position, as in time, on a scale, or in order):
Bethesda game studios. Not Bethesda the publisher.
Congrats on being such a great researcher and selective consumer to buy 100% bug free games during all this time. You're not representative of the whole market though. And my point was if you need to express that IGN giving 7.5 to a game like SoD is bad, you should feel even stronger by every other outlet making games like Fallout 3, 4 and Skyrim their GOTYs by pure logic.
People usually seem to care more about some dumbdumb numbers than the actual enjoyment of the game.
That is actually a fair point. I mean yeah bugs suck. But if I really did love the first one. So I'm excited.
Probably, it's simply a bit sad that UL didn't fix some of the problems of the first in addition to add complexity.
Lol
Was
exist.
"there are no easy answers"
synonyms: exist, have being, have existence
At
(used to indicate a point or place occupied in space); in, on, or near: to stand at the door; at the bottom of the barrel. 2. (used to indicate a location or position, as in time, on a scale, or in order):
You've just posted the definition of 'be' of which 'was' is a past tense. You should read what you just googled.
Not sure if it's been posted as I didn't see it in the OP but here's Karak's (ACG) review:
https://youtu.be/2mxtaoUEqCI
Maybe that's what I'm not understand. How do you advertise a game as a AAA game versus a AA game? You either properly advertise a game or you don't in my view. They didn't preview a prettier game that was later downgraded, they didn't say the game would have more than it does, and they didn't hide from what the game was. So I'm confused to how the advertising for this game is wrong.
https://youtu.be/2mxtaoUEqCI
Maybe that's what I'm not understand. How do you advertise a game as a AAA game versus a AA game? You either properly advertise a game or you don't in my view. They didn't preview a prettier game that was later downgraded, they didn't say the game would have more than it does, and they didn't hide from what the game was. So I'm confused to how the advertising for this game is wrong.
Well, yes actually I do think that's bullsh*t that bugginess in those games is overlooked. That was kind of why I made my comment. It's not just this game but a general trend with these games writers that overlook serious bugs in order to dish out high review scores and they do it again and again. Makes you wonder: are they actually attempting to advise the consumer or simply being part of the publisher marketing plan? Or maybe they just genuinely think it's not that important. Who knows?
That's a big part of the reason why I ignore them. My comment was not to highlight this specific game for any other reason than it's the latest example of this trend that I have come across - hence my comment.
https://www.3djuegos.com/juegos/analisis/25933/0/state-of-decay-2/
" If we don't mind about it's roughness, we have in our hands a very genuine survival game, with lots of hours of fun, tension, and inversive gameplay" Score 8
" If we don't mind about it's roughness, we have in our hands a very genuine survival game, with lots of hours of fun, tension, and inversive gameplay" Score 8
Reviews are pretty much expected. Fun game, but janky. That is how the first one was as well but people loved it. There is some games that i just dont listen to reviews on, and think word of mouth is the better route. This is one of those games.
Anybody who thought this game was going to be a highly rated game was fooling themselves.
Anybody who thought this game was going to be a highly rated game was fooling themselves.
Touche!
Was
- 1.
used with a present participle to form continuous tenses.
"they are coming" - 2.
used with a past participle to form the passive voice.
"it was done".
Why? Game reviewed on Xbox One (not X, i suppose) which way most of players will play it.
