Reviews are out...

[KingGuy420]

35 minutes ago, Aponac1987 said:

Can you tell us who that is? Just so I know who to avoid.

 

Compromising your credibility like that is a death sentence. Once people learn about you that you're a sell-out, you're marked for life. And rightfully so.

 

1. No I wouldn't tell anyone. He did it for valid reasons IMO. That's more the fault of the review system as a whole as opposed to that one person.

 

2. If you think this isn't happening on a massive scale, you're crazy. The second someone cashes a paycheck, they have to play by certain rules to keep that paycheck coming, and they will.

[JoaLoft]

Just now, Dreakon13 said:

 

This is where previews, reviews, etc and general public opinion become important... to educate yourself and know (as best we can) these sorts of things ahead of time.  No matter how much some just want to trust their gut on everything.

 

That being said, the point stands about people demonizing pre-ordering across the board and the short sightedness of advocating for everyone to "wait for sales" to buy their games.  If you want to pay bargain bin prices for all of your games, bargain bin games is what you'll get... and no, things could be a lot worse than they are now.  Games like RDR2, God of War, Spider-Man, etc... don't happen on indie game prices.

 

Well, I never said all games should be purchased at discount prices. I'm saying people should be wary of big titles from certain companies that have a tendency to release half-baked products, infected with countless microtransactions.

 

When Bobby Kotick claims he's in the industry "to make money, not make good games", that should tell you plenty about Activision's work ethics for example. Think twice about who you're giving your hard-earned money to, is all I'm saying. And don't spend the full amount on every single game, because that is just ludicrous.

[DarkestBOO]

I'm not saying this always works but... Just take a peek at the company's catalog. The syphon filter games 20 years ago and a couple of handheld games. I know you gotta start somewhere, it's just, going from an Uncharted card game on the vita to a almost perfect sandbox style AAA title didn't seem unlikely to you? 

 

 

[Dreakon13]

29 minutes ago, Aponac1987 said:

 

Well, I never said all games should be purchased at discount prices. I'm saying people should be wary of big titles from certain companies that have a tendency to release half-baked products, infected with countless microtransactions.

 

When Bobby Kotick claims he's in the industry "to make money, not make good games", that should tell you plenty about Activision's work ethics for example. Think twice about who you're giving your hard-earned money to, is all I'm saying. And don't spend the full amount on every single game, because that is just ludicrous.

 

It's an imperfect science.

 

My general thought is... I'll do my thing, you do your thing, and let the market figure itself out.  If too many companies get too greedy, consumers will back away and the industry will suffer (we aren't at this point yet).  If companies get lenient and consumers flock to them, they'll be tempted to get greedy.  That's how it works, that's how it'll always work.

 

EDIT: Personally, as long as I can afford to, I'll gladly lean towards supporting the industry of this hobby I love.  And I'll occasionally get burned.  I wouldn't buy "every single game" full price... but I do plenty, I respect that other people choose not to, and I expect others to respect the role we both play in this thing.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Dreakon13

[MidnightDragon]

I had a feeling this might be the case when GameStop announced they'd be the first game in the 48 hour promo. Still, at least the people who get it there have nothing to lose.

[W571WE]

3 hours ago, Kezzai said:

What happened to playing something to decide how you feel about it?

These Days are long Gone I suppose. 

[JoaLoft]

21 minutes ago, KingGuy420 said:

 

1. No I wouldn't tell anyone. He did it for valid reasons IMO. That's more the fault of the review system as a whole as opposed to that one person.

 

2. If you think this isn't happening on a massive scale, you're crazy. The second someone cashes a paycheck, they have to play by certain rules to keep that paycheck coming, and they will.

 

I still think you're betraying yourself by selling out like that. Maybe I have principles, and maybe he doesn't. But - pardon my French here - I'd feel incredibly filthy as fuck if I'd have to sell my soul to the devil, cashing a paycheck and turning my back on loyal readers and visitors who want to know what game to give their money to. I know what it was like, I've gotten the short end of the stick and I'm proud that I stood my ground. So forgive me for stating that your contact does not have the heart in the right place, but that's exactly what it is. It's people like him that are destroying the general image of "video game journalism" and are making it a lot harder for proper journalists/reviewers to be taken seriously.

 

I know some big outlets are in cahoots with publishers (read one of my previous posts), but not all of them are. There are some who are reliable. The problem is telling them apart without any prior knowledge.

 

I don't know if you can tell, but I find it unacceptable to state he did it for valid reasons. If you need to sell-out to feed your kids, you stand for nothing decent, you're in the wrong business and you should GTFO. Find another damn job.

 

I stand by very firm honest principles, so compromising a code of ethics like that is displaying you lack any backbone. Pathetic behavior.

 

If I didn't make my point clear yet: I condemn this kind of crap to the fullest.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

It's an imperfect science.

 

My general thought is... I'll do my thing, you do your thing, and let the market figure itself out.  If too many companies get too greedy, consumers will back away and the industry will suffer (we aren't at this point yet).  If companies get lenient and consumers flock to them, they'll be tempted to get greedy.  That's how it works, that's how it'll always work.

 

Correct. It's part of the conjuncture, and it'll always work like that, generally speaking.

[ResoluteRock]

The main problem that I've been seeing from reviews is technical issues (like textures not loading, frame rate drops, etc.). If there's going to be something wrong with a game, that's the best "mistakes" to make.

 

Technical issues can be patched. In a few weeks/months, this could be a considerably better title.

 

However, story / core gameplay mechanics can't just be patched. At least those seem to be doing well (at least, to me they are).

[KingGuy420]

6 minutes ago, Aponac1987 said:

you stand for nothing decent

 

I find that line hilarious lol. If you think they stand for anything more than a paycheck, you're crazy. They're not revolutionaries lol. They're guys that went to journalism school and want a job in their field lol. I'm sorry but I can't stop laughing at that.

Edited April 25, 2019 by KingGuy420

[MidnightDragon]

So much salt here. You all need to ease up...salt’s bad for your blood pressure. ?

[lucky0ne16]

i usually play games for enjoyment and dont usually care about reviews, i loved fallout 76, i might get to days gone someday, backlog is high up

[JoaLoft]

Just now, KingGuy420 said:

 

I find that line hilarious lol. If you think they stand for anything more than a paycheck, you're crazy. They're not revolutionaries lol. They're guys that went to journalism school and want a job in their field lol. I'm sorry but I can't stop laughing at that.

 

And blatantly abusing a code of ethics while they're at it.

 

So what are you saying, exactly? That I stood for nothing as I turned my back to a former employer because he thought I should have cashed out in my work?

 

Thanks, I suppose. Glad to see you're throwing us all into one big pot. Very respectful.

 

I could stoop to your level, but I guess we'll agree to disagree. I'll let others work out whether or not it's acceptable to willingly fool consumers like that.

[Undead Wolf]

17 minutes ago, DarkestBOO said:

I'm not saying this always works but... Just take a peek at the company's catalog. The syphon filter games 20 years ago and a couple of handheld games. I know you gotta start somewhere, it's just, going from an Uncharted card game on the vita to a almost perfect sandbox style AAA title didn't seem unlikely to you? 

 

You mention the card game, but that was more of a side project to their proper last game which was Uncharted: Golden Abyss. It's a game I would argue is just as good as the mainline entries in that series, and I think most people would assume Naughty Dog made it had they not known otherwise. So yes, Days Gone is definitely more ambitious than their previous titles, but it's not as big of a leap as you're making it out to be.

 

9 minutes ago, Fat Chocobo said:

I had a feeling this might be the case when GameStop announced they'd be the first game in the 48 hour promo. Still, at least the people who get it there have nothing to lose.

 

I don't see how this has any relation to the quality of Days Gone. GameStop are a dying company and they're trying anything to retain business. It just so happens that Days Gone is the first game this is happening with, they didn't specifically choose the game because they thought it would be bad. 

[MidnightDragon]

1 minute ago, Undead Wolf said:

I don't see how this has any relation to the quality of Days Gone. GameStop are a dying company and they're trying anything to retain business. It just so happens that Days Gone is the first game this is happening with, they didn't specifically choose the game because they thought it would be bad. 

Well, in fairness, probably had to get the OK from Sony to do so, but who knows?

[majob]

47 minutes ago, Aponac1987 said:

When Bobby Kotick claims he's in the industry "to make money, not make good games", that should tell you plenty about Activision's work ethics for example. 

That's literally Kotick's job though. He was brought in as a CEO to make his shareholder's money, not to make games, that's the job of the developer. You don't hire an electrician to do the job of the pipe fitter

[tjoe1bkhjtqxm]

well now I can totally understand why there are sales everywhere for this game... I've bought the retail Special Edition for only 64,99€ lol

[Fr_0zt]

1 hour ago, ObliviousSenpai said:

Giving it some thought, I think I will pick this up tomorrow. I'm willing to support a decent single-player game with no microtransactions or political agenda. I've also played games with glowing reviews like Wolfenstein 2 and HZD and I found them to be very underwhelming. Also, it seems a lot of reviewers for this game played it pre-patch, so certain bugs and glitches may have been fixed.

 

Buy games done with heart and not by business men.

 

 

 

Wolf2 = pure garbagery.  Hope YB and Wolf3 are more like the older games.  Oh and please, no Mein Leben trophy.

1 hour ago, Afro_Gear said:

Between IGN's comments about "gruff white male" and Gamespots' "over-the-top libertarian" I'm kind of wondering if there's an agenda in these recent reviews?

 

Also to mention that Kallie Plaggie at Gamespot is former IGN. 

 

Don't take metacritic or any other reviewer seriously, specially IGN.  Most of them are non gamers, haters or sheep.

 

 

 

Buy games done with heart and not by business men.

[OnlyCass]

Im sorry but theres no way its as jam packed with useless openworld garbage as AC: Odyssey. I couldnt care less what anyone else is saying about this game. There is just no way it as repetitive, uninspiring, watered down or as dull as Assassins Creed. I just finished my platinum at level 63 with 68 hours game time and after a really enjoyable frontloaded fisrt 20 hours, the game drags on and on. Chapter 5 through 7 was so painful, i would have given up on it had i not just bought it off amazon. Secondly, i fail to really see much difference in any other open world games ive played, but maybe thats the problem. Maybe its not different enough. Maybe its more longwinded as Red dead redemption 2, maybe is more predictable than Horizon zero dawn, maybe its more cookie cutter than Skyrim, but you know what? I fucking doubt it and i dont care what any website says about any game i played. I can wipe my own arse.

[FireFoxie]

I'm surprised that people still take gaming journalism or reviews from places like IGN, GameSpot, and Kotaku seriously anymore. Especially with all that's happened with IGN lately. Gaming Reviews haven't been creditable in years which is sad considering some people rely on reviews to help them decide whether or not to spend their hard earn cash. 

 

Because I feel that gaming journalism is kinda of corrupt and unreliable, I tend to take everything they said and do with a can of salt. Same with metracritc since they just take every review with a number without taking in account who wrote it and their credentials. There are so many sites on there I've never even heard of or knew exsisted and a lot of them just seem like click bait. 

Edited April 25, 2019 by FireFoxie

[dmland12]

Honestly, a 72 on metacritic is not that bad.  If the game looks interesting to you, it'll probably be good enough for you.  I've played games rated lower than that and don't regret it.  Generally, I don't find metacritic to be that helpful in figuring out whether I'll enjoy a particular game, and pay little attention to it.

[Neef-GT5]

4 hours ago, Kezzai said:

What happened to playing something to decide how you feel about it?

 

It’s more about spending 50+ euros/dollars/pounds/else to decide how you feel about it... Unfortunately I longer have a money-growing tree in my backyard.

 

Agregators like Metacritic are quite handy in my opinion because they give a quite accurate vision of a game’s quality - when I see dozens of people making similar statements, I tend to assume it’s somewhat accurate.

 

3 minutes ago, dmland12 said:

Honestly, a 72 on metacritic is not that bad.

 

For an exclusive game with such a marketing campaign behind it, it is. Particularly when you arrive after other exclusives like Horizon, God of War or Spider-Man...

 

[RevengeancePrime]

19 minutes ago, Vizard-Ichigo-- said:

Buy games done with heart and not by business men.

 

Wolf2 = pure garbagery.  Hope YB and Wolf3 are more like the older games.  Oh and please, no Mein Leben trophy.

 

That's what I try to do. One of the biggest reasons I decided to pick this game up is because you can see the passion from the devs during their interviews. 

 

I didn't expect Wolfenstein 2 to be as bad as it was considering New Order was so enjoyable.

[dmland12]

4 minutes ago, Neef-GT5 said:

For an exclusive game with such a marketing campaign behind it, it is. Particularly when you arrive after other exclusives like Horizon, God of War or Spider-Man...

 

Knack has a 54 on metacritic and that was released with the launch of the PS4 when there was a lot of hype.  It could always be worse.

[Ashbo]

Pretty straight forward, if you rely on reviews before you buy games, then if what you see and hear lights yer candle then get the game and the same goes for the opposite if you think it won’t be good.

 

Failing that, if you aren’t sure, don’t buy it day one when it’s gonna cost full price and wait for a sale?

 

If the hype and Sony Exclusiveness has you riddled with excitement and want to review it yourself (play it) rather than base your decision off someone you may or may not know then hell, go wild and get involved.

 

This game like with other AAA’s will never tick everyones box and the hype/expectation levels will always differ regardless of what the game offers, promises or does/doesn’t deliver on. 

 

But I think bashing the game if you haven’t played it, kind of makes zero sense as you have no real honest opinion on it, only what someone else has said and maybe slated it for?

 

Just chill, don’t worry and take it easy.

[DarkestBOO]

40 minutes ago, Undead Wolf said:

 

You mention the card game, but that was more of a side project to their proper last game which was Uncharted: Golden Abyss. It's a game I would argue is just as good as the mainline entries in that series, and I think most people would assume Naughty Dog made it had they not known otherwise. So yes, Days Gone is definitely more ambitious than their previous titles, but it's not as big of a leap as you're making it out to be.

 

 

I don't see how this has any relation to the quality of Days Gone. GameStop are a dying company and they're trying anything to retain business. It just so happens that Days Gone is the first game this is happening with, they didn't specifically choose the game because they thought it would be bad. 

 

I did not find Golden Abyss to be as good as Uncharted 1-3. Also, looking at a company's previous body of work for an idea or base line on quality of upcoming projects is a logical step to take regardless of what sized "leap" you think it is.