I prefer to think of him as a commentator who uses humour to get his review points across. Besides he put it one of his earlier videos that his systems is that everything is shit until it proves itself otherwise. He called the Guantanamo Bay approach to reviewing.Hawki said:
Are they really THAT popular though? In the sense that they sell millions. I just don't see those type of games being that popular to have merited the interest No Man's Sky saw. I just think people imagine games doing things they can't possibly do for some reason. Even assuming everything said about the game was true, would millions of gamers have actually liked the game? Very little of the character actually doing anything was shown. Plus, just the fact that it was a huge and randomly generated meant those great moments of what you saw were probably going to be few and far between. At its best, was NMS going to be anything other than an extremely stretched out Journey in space with light survival mechanics? I just think gamers don't pay much attention to actual known facts. I could tell Destiny was going to be shit from the developer interview when the game was revealed at E3 as he said something along the lines of 'we have classes but they all play pretty similar so you won't have regrets of picking the wrong class'. My initial reaction was what's the point of classes then? The game was built on a fundamentally flawed concept.Worgen said:
There's nothing wrong with people not liking stuff. Games getting rated in the 90s is utterly ridiculous whether I like the game or not. Ghostbusters (original of course) has an average rating of 8.1/10 with the same amount of negative reviews as FFXIII, GTAV, and Uncharted 4 COMBINED. FFXIII is clearly a love/hate game and has a higher average score by "professional" critics than Ghostbusters, a beloved classic of a movie. Don't you find something wrong with that? How many of just your close friends also love the same movies you love? Moviegoers don't really care about reviews, they go and see movies that get panned by critics and still love them. Why does gaming have to be any different? If someone finds writing to be important to an RPG, they aren't going to like a Bethesda game. I don't see how that's being negative, that's a valid reason to not like a game. Jim Sterling honestly rates a game based on how much he enjoyed it, I think he's one of the few reviewers that rates games properly and I respect that but his tastes don't align with mine so his reviews don't effect me at all.Samtemdo8 said:And I also blame people like Yatzhee and Jim Sterling for ruining gaming and fostering this utter negative outlook in gaming.
Appearently playing Halo or a Nintendo game is not good anymore because the companies they belong to are the devil
Very debatable, on both counts.Phoenixmgs said:
I'm not sure if that is the "best" way to review something though. I'd like to think that a published review is based on as objective an assessment as possible, not level of enjoyment, which is far more subjective.Phoenixmgs said:
They are pretty damn popular, right now 4 are sitting on the top 10 list on steam and none of those are out of early access. Which is also one weird quark of the big open world survival games, they almost never seem to actually launch. I mean Dayz was one of the first big ones and I think its still in beta, it took minecraft forever to actually go gold also. There is a real rabid fanbase for survival games of that ilk. Personally, I don't get it, I don't really like those games, I make my log cabin on top of a hill, look around, ask whats next and go play something else. NMS promised something no other survival or space game really has, a seamless universe. It actually delivered it too, there just wasn't much to it. Really I think pretty much all the lies would have been forgiven if people could actually find other people in the game. Cause people love coop in those games.Phoenixmgs said:
DoPo said:
Of course a conclusion to the story is a given; I meant in terms of game play; what do gamers want from Half-Life 3 as a game? Story aside, Half-Life 2 hasn?t aged very well as a shooter; what it had going for it 13 years ago was shiny new physics which have since been done to death and better; what could Half-Life 3 do to set itself apart in an industry flooded with sci-fi shooters other than ?finally come out? and not be mediocre at best? Because let?s be honest, if HL3 came out tomorrow and was adhered closely to the HL2 formula (long stretches of nothing between character-driven exposition sprinkled with the occasional setpiece encounter,) would fans be satisfied? Don?t get me wrong, I loved Half-Life 2 and Episodes 1 and 2, and I?m not saying Half-Life 3 couldn?t happen, I?m just not sure if it should and run the risk of sullying the fondness with which so many regard the franchise, incomplete as it is. Sometimes, one night of hot, firey passion best ends with the other person kissing your sleeping forehead before slipping out soundlessly into the night versus your waking up the next morning to find them in the kitchen scratching their ass with one hand and digging burnt toast out of the toaster with a fork with the other.Asita said:
Only if you are aiming forHawki said:
What you said is what is the expectation. I stated what mine is. If you are asking for gameplay, then I am, not really bothered. I'd expect it to be an FPS and have smart-ish opponents... Other than that and the story, I don't think I have much else I'm looking forward to. I certainly don't expect it to revolutionize all games everywhere, because that's a silly thing to want.Xprimentyl said:
Maybe not all of them but why are you talking about "fans" - your initial question was individual, hence I answered as one. If you want me to speak for "all the fans", I'm sorry but I can't - there is no great hivemind of them.Xprimentyl said:
Jim has done objective reviews [https://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml]. I still find the subjective ones he does WAY more informative. And I don't even get the big deal with scores - it's also something Jim has spoken against many a time. I don't particularly care for a score - I've played and enjoyed games that he didn't (low scores or bad reviews) and I've found some he scored highly boring. In fact, that's the case with every single score system in the world. What does it matter if a game is objectively 4/10 or 7/10 if you like it? In fact, how would you even derive such a score to begin with - let's say Might and Magic 7 is rated as 8/10[footnote]Managed to find one review [http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/might-and-magic-vii-for-blood-and-honor-review/1900-2542599/]. Annoyingly the Heroes series finally caught up in numbers, there are a lot of hits for that[/footnote] - would that make it equivalent to Deus Ex: Mankind Divided [footnote]Metacritic [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/deus-ex-mankind-divided], for the record, I just picked the first game I found with a similar score and, roughly, genre[/footnote] or FIFA 17[footnote]Metacritic [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fifa-17]next game I found of a different genre[/footnote]? If you compare M&M to them it would feel like a lesser game, since technology has marched on, so how come they deserve the same score? If we only compare to games of the same era, it would be more fair, but then isn't it admitting that games cannot be really be judged objectively as they need to be kept in a specific context?Hawki said:
I felt like it's more fair because a game is a bit lacking in one department does not necessarily suffer but if it does severely lack, then the overall score would reflect it. But then there is the question what criteria do you even have? Sound, visuals and story are fine, but there are other "components" of a game - say, performance, so an overall pleasant to look and play game that is plagued with performance problems or crashes will also get a lower score. You can then add more things, as you see fit - depth, replayability, etc. So, for one, there is a problem of deciding what are important parts of a game. And even then, there is another problem - a game is more than just the sum of its parts. Sire a game that looks and sounds gorgeous (10/10s) but doesn't play well, has atrocious story and crashes every 5 minutes can still get an overall rating of, say, 5/10 or 6/10. Does that make it an average game? I wouldn't say so, I'd say it makes it a very bad game, yet the score won't really indicate that.
Sorry, but my questions were largely rhetorical, for each to ponder unto themselves, not directed at you or any one individual, then I put my own thoughts out there. I reference ?fans? as those gamers who?ve played Half-Life up to now and have been anticipating the third installment and, again, I wasn?t asking anyone to speak for all fans, simply keeping in spirit with the OP?s title question ?Are we gamers our own worst enemy?? We gamers have a reputation for displeasure; not all, not half, not most, no definitively quantifiable amount of us, but a given amount of us are vocal enough often enough in our displeasure when anticipated games don?t meet our expectations or hype that it?s perceived, from within and without, that nothing is ever good enough.DoPo said:
This... so SO SO much this.Asita said:
Deus Ex was a classic for a reason... I agree with that. But then for me HL2 was as well with what IT did.aegix drakan said:
The missile Launcher where the missile followed the laser pointer... and Enemy AI that would try to shoot the rocket down so you had to weave it around to hit them? That was cool...
Art can't be reviewed objectively though. I can come up with plenty of objective reasoning for why I think Witcher 3, GTAV, Uncharted 4, and more are average at best games meaning I'd score them somewhere in the 4-6/10 range. Just look at any other medium's reviews and then compare it to gaming. Game reviews are very similar across the board and it's very much a hivemind mentality. It's OK for one critic to find a game bad and another to like it. Yet constantly you see someone say Game XYZ is at worst 8/10 and that 6/10 review should be removed. How does that at all make sense? That wouldn't be said anywhere else but gaming. How about FFXIII having a single negative review yet that was clearly a love/hate game with both sides having legit reasons for their opinions? The only legit gaming criticism going on in gaming is outside the professional community. For example, Errant Signal did a video on how role-playing is basically absent from Fallout 4, which is kinda a big thing for a role-playing game to have. There's quite a few YouTube gaming channels that do game analysis far far beyond any "professional" reviewers.Hawki said:
I guess I underestimated their popularity. Just how hyped NMS got seemed far beyond something like even DayZ to me.Worgen said:
I don't really get it either, but I think some of it is also that most survival games like it tend to just come out. There usually isn't some huge lead up to them, they just suddenly appear on early access or something. Maybe there is a patrion or some kinda crowd funding but nothing like the marketing push NMS got.Phoenixmgs said:
There's not much lying going on though. Yeah, you had NMS and Aliens obviously, but beyond that I don't find much deception going on besides for in the graphics department but graphics don't make the game. And graphics do legitimately change during the development of the game as more and more systems come online, especially in regards to open world games. I admit that the NMS trailers grabbed me, but I was still waiting to see how the game played moment-to-moment especially when it was going to be at least a decent time sink.Worgen said:
It doesn't have to reinvent the wheel in terms of gameplay. A game with average gameplay and a great story is as much an above average product as a game with great gameplay and an average story. Don't get me wrong, actually being bad in any given field can turn a decent product into a bad product (See Mass Effect 3), but by the same token, excelling in any given field can turn a decent product into a good one (see Undertale).Xprimentyl said:
I don't know, we had gearbox lying out their ass about colonial marines. The trailers they had up till launch of NMS also was very graphically misrepresentation. If early trailers show something different from launch thats fine, things change as dev goes on, just don't relentlessly pimp things that will be cut.Phoenixmgs said:
