|
TheCoon posted:Why we (still) haven’t reviewed Tomb Raider - PC Gamer There's also an embargo on showing video footage until after the game's released. I don't think anyone of it is indicative of a lack of faith in the product, given that they allowed reviews out both early and relatively close to the launch date, but it is a bit strange. Maybe just someone at Square Enix or Crystal Dynamics trying something new or safer than usual? Didn't Deus Ex basically get a third of it leaked early and the developers and Square Enix just said 'yeah, have fun'? EDIT: Now that I think about it, for the video footage thing, they probably just don't want random video footage undoing the good will the reviews/their revised marketing strategy with the talking head trailers have done for the game after their earlier, supremely lovely marketing campaign.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
Dan Didio posted:There's also an embargo on showing video footage until after the game's released. I don't think anyone of it is indicative of a lack of faith in the product, given that they allowed reviews out both early and relatively close to the launch date, but it is a bit strange. Maybe just someone at Square Enix or Crystal Dynamics trying something new or safer than usual? Didn't Deus Ex basically get a third of it leaked early and the developers and Square Enix just said 'yeah, have fun'? They seem pretty happy with the game overall, which is why they're letting reviews out so early for the console versions. The PC review copies getting pushed back almost 2 weeks is a little concerning as it means they're probably still working on it. I have every faith in Nixxes though, their recent record on PC ports has been fantastic. You're right that the video embargo is probably to do with them controlling the games PR until the last minute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
TheCoon posted:They seem pretty happy with the game overall, which is why they're letting reviews out so early for the console versions. Now that they've found their marketing 'groove' as shallow and low-impact as it might be, they seem to be displaying a lot more confidence in it, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
TheCoon posted:Why we (still) haven’t reviewed Tomb Raider - PC Gamer I'd imagine last-minute issues with porting it, especially as they've added a ton of cutting-edge DX11 features onto the PC version. And the video embargo is likely due to wanting to control spoilers, as it's a story-driven game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Mordaedil posted:The way I see it, review scores are meaningless and they should just give the highest possible to make a mockery of the industry not paying its developers. This is the thing, after the whole DmC fiasco, I officially have no confidence in reviewer scores whatsoever. Anything from 6-10 could mean the game is just mediocre and ultimately shallow at the end of the day. The only time triple-A releases are going to get lower than that is if they're unplayable (A: CM) or are virtually flipping you the bird most of the time (RE6). So the high reviews for this game tell me absolutely nothing other than it has a lot of money behind it. It could just be me projecting, but I feel like we're going to see a steady increase in consumer lack of confidence in game reviews as long as the industry continues to ignore the issues pervading it (yes man culture propagated by publishers, fear of constructive criticism, amateur journalists with no writing skills, etc).
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:This is the thing, after the whole DmC fiasco, I officially have no confidence in reviewer scores whatsoever. Anything from 6-10 could mean the game is just mediocre and ultimately shallow at the end of the day. The only time triple-A releases are going to get lower than that is if they're unplayable (A: CM) or are virtually flipping you the bird most of the time (RE6). So the high reviews for this game tell me absolutely nothing other than it has a lot of money behind it. I think we're likely to see this slowly become par for the course for all other media as time goes on, rather than see game criticism get better. I may just be a cynic, but I don't think society is actually going to improve in the realm of arts criticism at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Dominic White posted:You misunderstand me. I think it's a great thing. I'm one of those guys constantly being yelled at for being a 'white knight' or 'feminazi sympathizer' for having the nerve to suggest that women might want to have a say in this industry, or even just be considered as equals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I thought you lived in the UK, not Mississippi. You really get yelled at? Just on the internet, thankfully. Not met anyone quite that noxious face to face. There seems to be plenty of them out there, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:This is the thing, after the whole DmC fiasco, I officially have no confidence in reviewer scores whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
I haven't had faith in reviews since everyone crapped on God Hand. Sweet merciful jebus, that game ruled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Hair is something a lot of developers ignore because it's really really hard. A big reason that so many protagonists are short-haired, bald, or wearing helmets/hoodies/ect is because it gives them a convenient excuse to not have to try to make hair not look like poo poo. It's less that Square has a thing for hair and more than most developers just don't give a poo poo so any focus on making hair look good is surprising. I've probably heard more about hair from Square than every other developer combined, starting back with The Spirits Within. Again, I'm not complaining about it and I think it's great. It's just kind of amusing how often it comes up with Square vs almost never for anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Just pre-ordered this from GMG for £21.60 using code KPTKN-VP3NR-M6T6Y. Really excited for this. Yesterday I finished Underworld which I didn't really like and now I'm playing through Anniversary which I'm enjoying. It just feels much more like traditional TR which I never got bored of. Rich and varied architecture VS kicking vases basically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 13:12
|
|
|
Oh boy oh boy oh boy! 89.9% pre-installed! I know what I'm doing this Tuesday and for the next few days! --- I remember seeing trailers of Lara escaping wolf attacks and that it is apparently really close to the beggining of the game. I wonder how it will be implemented? Prehaps it'll just be a cut scene with some QTE segments or maybe Lara will have to pull a Solid Snake and equip a wolf scented handkerchief to have the wolves lick her with joy!.... ...I don't think I'm the main demographic for this game....
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
PC gamer here. Anyone else find the Gametrailer review a little bit off?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:This is the thing, after the whole DmC fiasco, I officially have no confidence in reviewer scores whatsoever. Anything from 6-10 could mean the game is just mediocre and ultimately shallow at the end of the day. The only time triple-A releases are going to get lower than that is if they're unplayable (A: CM) or are virtually flipping you the bird most of the time (RE6). So the high reviews for this game tell me absolutely nothing other than it has a lot of money behind it. A 6 or a 7 is a D or a C, in an age where (even in academia) mediocrity earns a B. The only time AAA games get scores of 5 or below is when they're either unplayable or "flipping you the bird" (whatever that means), which to me just sounds like "the only time AAA games get scores of 5 or below is when they're bad". Given that a 5 on a scale of 1-10 is literally below average, it's even worse by the academic metrics most 1-10 and 1-100 game reviews use. Your post basically comes off to me as "games only get bad scores when they're bad". A game doesn't deserve a 4/10 for being kind of shallow or whatever. Most games, and this hasn't actually changed as much over time as industry gloom-and-doomers say, either have shallow mechanics or empty souls and games are reviewed relative to other games. miscellaneous14 posted:It could just be me projecting, but I feel like we're going to see a steady increase in consumer lack of confidence in game reviews as long as the industry continues to ignore the issues pervading it (yes man culture propagated by publishers, fear of constructive criticism, amateur journalists with no writing skills, etc). The problem here is that if you ask ten people what the issues pervading games are, you'll probably get five different answers. Fear of criticism is a knife that cuts both ways, for example; game developers certainly have it about their work, and reviewers are afraid to be real critics because it'll gently caress them unless every other reviewer agrees to as well. At the same time, gamers and members of game fandoms live in ridiculous loving echo chambers about their hobby and their preferred titles. The amount of vitriol directed at anybody who writes an editorial about how games might be addictive, or too violent, or misogynistic is completely absurd and out-of-line. To some extent, I think it inadvertently proves that videogames can have harmful social effects, because videogames must on some level be responsible for making loving gamers. There's a massive amount of childish ear-plugging going on at every level and every end. Those lovely industry figures and journalists are just inmates running (and maybe losing control of) the asylum, not moronic dictators oppressing a thoughtful and enlightened populace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:A 6 or a 7 is a D or a C, in an age where (even in academia) mediocrity earns a B. The only time AAA games get scores of 5 or below is when they're either unplayable or "flipping you the bird" (whatever that means), which to me just sounds like "the only time AAA games get scores of 5 or below is when they're bad". Given that a 5 on a scale of 1-10 is literally below average, it's even worse by the academic metrics most 1-10 and 1-100 game reviews use. Your post basically comes off to me as "games only get bad scores when they're bad". A game doesn't deserve a 4/10 for being kind of shallow or whatever. Most games, and this hasn't actually changed as much over time as industry gloom-and-doomers say, either have shallow mechanics or empty souls and games are reviewed relative to other games. Mediocre games get high scores of 9's and 10's all the time, that's the point he was trying to make. It's hard to take reviews seriously when time after time you play a game critics fell over themselves to heap praise upon only to find it was merely 'alright'
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Bland posted:Mediocre games get high scores of 9's and 10's all the time, that's the point he was trying to make. It's hard to take reviews seriously when time after time you play a game critics fell over themselves to heap praise upon only to find it was merely 'alright' I mean to be honest as long as we're sticking with numerical reviews at all, I agree that 1-10 and 1-100 systems suck. Too much granularity gives too much wiggle room for mediocre games to get "high but still lower than Fallout or OoT or whatever so hey we know it's not perfect" type scores, and on the fan end lead to stupid people going apeshit when a Zelda game gets a 91 instead of a 95 or whatever. The 1-5 systems used by stuff like X-Play and Giantbomb are perfect if we stick with numbers at all. A 3 is a decent but unremarkable game, a 5 is an amazing one, and a 4 is for the stuff that falls in between. But for some reason a 3 looks like a respectable score when a 6/10 or 60% look like abject failures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:I think we're likely to see this slowly become par for the course for all other media as time goes on, rather than see game criticism get better. I may just be a cynic, but I don't think society is actually going to improve in the realm of arts criticism at this point. I think part of the problem is that game reviews are not criticism at all. They're basically a consumer report. This is true for review of new releases of movies as well (and probably lots of other kinds of media.) Extra Credits has a pretty interesting presentation on this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/game-reviews
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
So, I know it was mentioned previously. But the Tress.FX (The PC hair graphics), is there a third party mod I need to install for an Nvidia card? I know it was hinted at briefly.. Or is this something I can enable in the game and have it not work as well as an AMD chipped card (i.e. take up more processor power) but still doable. I have a very beefy system, but it is Nvidia and I am quite intrigued by the hair physics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd love to see reviews ditch the numberical thing and go for more of a "This game is good if you like _____" or something like that, but you can't get a metascore off of that so publisher would deal with a reviewer who did it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
I pre-ordered the PS3 version on Amazon a couple of days ago. They dispatched the game yesterday and it arrived today.  Really looking forward to playing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
drat... that's a good bit of luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Yeah, I'd love to see reviews ditch the numberical thing and go for more of a "This game is good if you like _____" or something like that, but you can't get a metascore off of that so publisher would deal with a reviewer who did it. It's actually the audience that holds this back more than publishers, oddly enough. Plenty of outlets have access to publishers and review copies of games even though they don't show up on Metacritic. Most of the people who read gaming sites just focus on the score, and if you fail to include it you'll lose a ton of traffic. When you go for something deeper than a buyer's guide, you'll also get overwhelmed with negative feedback from people who are resistant to anything they perceive as being too serious or pretentious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Bardlebee posted:So, I know it was mentioned previously. But the Tress.FX (The PC hair graphics), is there a third party mod I need to install for an Nvidia card? I know it was hinted at briefly.. Or is this something I can enable in the game and have it not work as well as an AMD chipped card (i.e. take up more processor power) but still doable. I have a very beefy system, but it is Nvidia and I am quite intrigued by the hair physics. It should work fine on an Nvidia card. It's just a DX11 effect instead of a proprietary thing like PhysX. edit: Here's a comment from one of the guys doing the port. quote:Its created by AMD, but its a DirectX 11 feature.. so GOOD DX11 cards should be able to play it, on both sides of the gaming fence.. I have a GTX680 and i run it lovely
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Corin Tucker's Stalker posted:It's actually the audience that holds this back more than publishers, oddly enough. Plenty of outlets have access to publishers and review copies of games even though they don't show up on Metacritic. Most of the people who read gaming sites just focus on the score, and if you fail to include it you'll lose a ton of traffic. When you go for something deeper than a buyer's guide, you'll also get overwhelmed with negative feedback from people who are resistant to anything they perceive as being too serious or pretentious. Gamers ruin everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
If anyone is still waiting for a deal on the PC version, Nuuvem are selling Tomb Raider for R$50, which google says is ~£17/$25. I didn't buy it from them but people on the Steam forums are saying it activates outside of Brazil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
TheCoon posted:If anyone is still waiting for a deal on the PC version, Nuuvem are selling Tomb Raider for R$50, which google says is ~£17/$25. Worked fine for me, £17.50. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Zombies' Downfall posted:Reviewers and game critics You just have to look at the reviews and press DmC received to see how utterly worthless gaming journalism is. It's a complete farce where big bucks = good reviews because of pressure from publishers. It's all a joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:This is the thing, after the whole DmC fiasco, I officially have no confidence in reviewer scores whatsoever. Anything from 6-10 could mean the game is just mediocre and ultimately shallow at the end of the day. The only time triple-A releases are going to get lower than that is if they're unplayable (A: CM) or are virtually flipping you the bird most of the time (RE6). So the high reviews for this game tell me absolutely nothing other than it has a lot of money behind it. User0015 posted:You just have to look at the reviews and press DmC received to see how utterly worthless gaming journalism is. It's a complete farce where big bucks = good reviews because of pressure from publishers. It's all a joke. A fiasco surrounding Devil May Cry?! Color me shocked. Can't help but think that these comments miss the mark by quite a bit. That fiasco shouldn't have happened; not saying there were no valid complaints about the quality of the new DmC but the way that outrage manifested didn't exactly give a lot of credence to the people that were complaining about it. Same line of thinking right here: the incredible leap of logic from 'review I don't agree with' to 'this must have been payed for'. Excuse me but what? Are you children? First of all, you shouldn't have confidence in review scores. See that big o' wall of text right before the arbitrary number? That's worth caring about. If someone reviews DmC and really likes it - now stick with me here - that does not necessarily mean that this person is corrupt. In fact, it probably should never be equated to something like that. On the contrary, it might still help you decide if the game is any good or not. When the reviewer did a good job describing why he likes or dislikes something and you are fairly familiar with that person's tastes and sensibilities, you are still able to make an informed decision. Maybe you like something he disliked because you don't care about reason X. That is the philosophy behind sites like GiantBomb, whose Brad Shoemaker was flamed relentlessly for his positive review of DmC. Why? Because he liked elements you don't want to see in DmC games??? Nice to see that this complete lack of empathy and knowledge is still celebrated. Stay classy, gamers! So when I see people flaming reviewers for their good marks on the new DmC and all they really add to the discussion is babyspeak about Dante's hair being white and the combat system not being complex enough, I don't really know if I can take the majority of complains seriously. Same with the countless accusations of corruption going on right here. Something I don't like or agree with? CORRUPT FFS! MONEY! BLarhbalwarhblaj. // Turns out Tomb Raider spawned some really interesting discussions all over the place. I've seen some fairly good reviews, while others have serious reservations about the game. Mechanics like the skill system (not the weapon upgrade stuff) are not universally liked, while the backtracking and introduction of new mechanics (rope arrows) is being received quite well. Apparently they do find ways to make backtracking interesting and give it good enough story justification, with different entry and exit points into and out of the same areas. Combat is meaty, the bow is silent and makes stealth viable. Gameplay is a varied mix of climbing and then open combat as well as some stealth. Then there are the narrative concerns, which are a little harder to talk about. Actually, I quite liked this review by Maddy Myers. Don't know how often reviews like that are linked here but I would consider them to be a little bit more interesting than the usual stuff that only focuses on mechanics. Diversification of game journalism for the win, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Regenherz posted:Actually, I quite liked this review by Maddy Myers. Don't know how often reviews like that are linked here but I would consider them to be a little bit more interesting than the usual stuff that only focuses on mechanics. Diversification of game journalism for the win, I guess. Yeah, I linked that one a while back. It's a really well written review, much more up to the standard that I think we should hold games journalists to. In the end she really liked the game a lot, but she had more than just quality judgements to say about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Regenherz posted:So when I see people flaming reviewers for their good marks on the new DmC and all they really add to the discussion is babyspeak about Dante's hair being white and the combat system not being complex enough, I don't really know if I can take the majority of complains seriously. Same with the countless accusations of corruption going on right here. Something I don't like or agree with? CORRUPT FFS! MONEY! BLarhbalwarhblaj. Similarly, when I see DmC reviewers gushing about a mature and interesting story, Borderlands 2 reviewers praising the game's humour and Dragon Age 2 reviewers talking of "The best RPG of the decade" I don't really know if I can take the majority of anything they say seriously. I don't know how or why game journalists in general have such a huge disconnect from most gamers when it comes to games, if it's CORRUPT FFS! MONEY or whatever and I don't really care tbh because it's easier to just ignore it and see what goons and users of other sites think about new games. vvvv Sorry Doctor but I prefer humour that aspires to being more than pop culture and meme references Bland fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Bland posted:Borderlands 2 reviewers praising the game's humour Don't worry Bland, one day you'll break through that robot programming and discover what it means to laugh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Dominic White posted:Yeah, I linked that one a while back. It's a really well written review, much more up to the standard that I think we should hold games journalists to. In the end she really liked the game a lot, but she had more than just quality judgements to say about it. Sorry, my bad! I should have checked! Indeed, I would like more people to read articles like that - there is a weird attitude people have about reviews that I don't think should be encouraged anymore. Games Journalism has a long way to go but I doubt many people actually read the stuff that is attempting to be somewhat different and interesting. Similarly, I think a lot of mainstream sites might actually catch some of this and talk about similar issues. I really enjoyed the recent GiantBombcast because Brad Shoemaker, who reviewed Tomb Raider for them, didn't completely avoid the outrage about Tomb Raider and some of the comments Crystal Dynamics made about it previously. Equally enjoyed that short Tara Long review on rev3games and Conan's Clouless Gamer, which exposed those horrifying death animations to me the first time. Some weird stuff but I am intrigued to play it as well. Bland posted:Similarly, when I see DmC reviewers gushing about a mature and interesting story, Borderlands 2 reviewers praising the game's humour and Dragon Age 2 reviewers talking of "The best RPG of the decade" I don't really know if I can take the majority of anything they say seriously. I don't know how or why game journalists in general have such a huge disconnect from most gamers when it comes to games, if it's CORRUPT FFS! MONEY or whatever and I don't really care tbh because it's easier to just ignore it and see what goons and users of other sites think. See, that's what I don't quite understand. If someone likes something you clearly don't, why is that person completely banished from your realm of understanding? I think it is worth trying to understand why some people think story in the new DmC is somewhat more mature or serious than what is found in its predecessors or why someone might love Dragon Age 2 or Borderlands 2's humor. People attach different value judgements to different things, that doesn't make their intellect questionable as long as they can explain their preference to others. The disconnect of critics and 'normal' gamers is not surprising; every type of criticism will have some sort of disconnect with general audiences. In gaming, it's because a lot of value is attached to the mainstream opinion and that opinion is highly specialized and compartmentalized into different sub-communities anyway. I don't really care about that disconnect or necessarily believe it is detrimental in any way. I don't think hegemony of opinion is preferable. I actually like this disconnect, because I don't really care about what the gaming community at large has to say about something (I think most critics are aware of this, they have comment sections on these reviews). On the humor in Borderlands 2, I loathe the gameplay in that series but I do enjoy some of the characters, even when I don't laugh at them - which is really weird considering I like writer Anthony Burch's humor in his webseries quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Regenherz posted:A fiasco surrounding Devil May Cry?! Color me shocked. ... While the whole DmC thing is offtopic, I'm assuming you haven't read any reviews about Tomb Raider that sound like this, "Having been a big fan of the original Tomb Raider, I can safely say this game beats that one hands down!" The fact is, reviewers are terrible at their jobs. AAA games that come out don't get less than a 9, and DmC is the golden child on why that is. In that exact same vein, games like Tomb Raider get hit with B's and people think it's garbage due to review score inflation and games are unplayable sub-80%, and a lot of that is exactly because of AAA games, reviewers being nothing more than PR shills for those AAA games, and the publishers paying out bonuses for metacritic scores. Reviewers inflate lovely games to 9's which makes good games at 8's look like trash in comparison. Even the "big o' wall of text right before the arbitrary number?" is usually nothing but praise for AAA games and niggling details (load times are slightly long, it doesn't massage my feet quite as well as I'd like, etc...) are the only criticism offered, while people will harp on little details in smaller games for entire reviews, only to end up giving it a nice 8. It's obvious dissonance. AAA games should be reviewed more critically than smaller games specifically because of their larger financial backing and access to better development resources, and yet it's never, ever the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
Regenherz posted:See, that's what I don't quite understand. If someone likes something you clearly don't, why is that person completely banished from your realm of understanding? I think it is worth trying to understand why some people think story in the new DmC is somewhat more mature or serious than what is found in its predecessors or why someone might love Dragon Age 2 or Borderlands 2's humor. People attach different value judgements to different things, that doesn't make their intellect questionable as long as they can explain their preference to others. Well they're "banished from my understanding" in the sense that it becomes immediately apparent to me that we don't see eye to eye on that game, and if that happens repeatedly then you start to think that you won't see eye to eye from them on any game. It becomes especially problematic when they start making claims that aren't just disagreeable (My borderlands 2 example for instance, I think it was a bad example for my case in hindsight because plenty of people do enjoy the humour in that game and it's kind of a subjective thing) but rather completely baffling (Like the other 2 examples I gave). As a result it becomes apparent that there's little point in consulting their opinion any longer, especially when there's a much more useful alternative in the form of consulting the opinions of wider communities. Of course that isn't perfect either but it's steered me well so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Regenherz posted:Actually, I quite liked this review by Maddy Myers. When I first read this review, I didn't like it very much. No focus on the mechanics at all. Game's are a sum of mechanics unlike other forms of media, so neglecting that feels like a weak review. You wouldn't see a movie review solely discuss the mechanics of a movie: prop design, number of actors, number of chapters and scenes, etc..., so why should a game review drop all intent on reviewing the mechanics? On second thought, what's the point of a game? To engage the player. And here, the reviewer routinely reminds us how much she cared when something happened in the game. The character Lara, her trials and struggles, the events surrounding her and the other people in the story. She's completely engaged in that, and she levies her criticism at the game when it fails to keep her engaged by pandering with the camera and such. All in all, it's not really the mechanics of the game that matter, but how engaged the player is with the game as a whole. Given her review in that light, maybe reviewing mechanics isn't really necessary after all and it simply comes down to how engaged a player is with the game? Interesting piece.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Dominic White posted:I'd imagine last-minute issues with porting it, especially as they've added a ton of cutting-edge DX11 features onto the PC version. It's likely they also are waiting for drivers from AMD and NVIDIA before they want people reviewing the PC version.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
User0015 posted:When I first read this review, I didn't like it very much. No focus on the mechanics at all. Game's are a sum of mechanics unlike other forms of media, so neglecting that feels like a weak review. You wouldn't see a movie review solely discuss the mechanics of a movie: prop design, number of actors, number of chapters and scenes, etc..., so why should a game review drop all intent on reviewing the mechanics? I think you have a good point. I think that the mechanics I like best in games are intuitive enough that I'm not actively thinking about them, but rather spending time becoming engaged with the environments and the characters that populate them. If I am spending too much time learning the mechanics or dealing with a less than intuitive camera or interface, then they've hosed up. This obviously isn't true for some games, but it's definitely something to consider when it comes to games that attempt to draw you in to the story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Is it better to pre-order from amazon or steam for the digital download version?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
FWIW, when I worked a contract at a game company releasing somewhat of a high-profile title, they said something to the extent of "any reviews below 8 or 9 aren't allowed to be put up early".Corin Tucker's Stalker posted:It's actually the audience that holds this back more than publishers, oddly enough. Plenty of outlets have access to publishers and review copies of games even though they don't show up on Metacritic. Most of the people who read gaming sites just focus on the score, and if you fail to include it you'll lose a ton of traffic. When you go for something deeper than a buyer's guide, you'll also get overwhelmed with negative feedback from people who are resistant to anything they perceive as being too serious or pretentious. I know most people just don't like Yahtzee, but this is something I notice a lot in regards to his reviews. People will flip out if they have to hear anything from him that's even slightly besmirching their favorite game. As others have said, I'm waiting for the general goon opinion on this, and will probably pick it up later if it turns out to be any good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 21:24
|
|