"I bought a Vic 64 on launch day" Is that supposed to impress me? That only makes your comments even more pathetic and laughable than they already are."
But who threw the age card first? "it provided me with an emotional experience that I never felt before or after with any other game and I have been gaming for 30 years."
You were trumped at your own play. If there is something pathetic here it is casting down a gauntlet only to b...
Except ACG is like most people. Karak doesn't always understand what and how he is looking at things. Or he doesn't see things. The tech people like NXG show you pre-patch why these issues are more game affecting than you realize. It wasn't just the patch that did this. And judging bugs that shouldn't be there but you feel are okay is making a choice to let some games slide and some not. And the PC version is the worst offender of all. Yet it was thrown into a multiplatform sc...
Complete ridiculous. A 10 means nothing when you get one even though you launched with gameplay affecting issues. As I said elsewhere, who draws the line on where you get to leap to a 10. What bugs do you get to overlook? What issues do not stand in the way? Even more laughable is the fact certain games get the bug overlook and it is obvious some do not. Based on feels apparently. Yeah, that's the solution, movie even further away from standards and muddy the water completely. Enjoy your ...
"... Reviews are literally the reviewer's subjective take on what it is they're reviewing."
But that is the problem here. It isn't supposed to be subjective but rather objective and there was no objectivity. Reviews originally were not what one person liked but how it would be perceived by the likely buying public. Yeah, removing themselves from the equation requires objectivity and skill, something writers and their egos lack in this day and age. The...
Outside of all of this is the technical side. NXG is an expert at what he does. He is the guy IGN hired. When he does a technical review and all platforms have the issues which he clearly pointed out, prominent issues, then such a game does not deserve a 10 no matter who reviewed it or what they 'felt'. End of story. You do not get to overlook major, MAJOR tech issues. As I stated elsewhere, the only reason for not considering these is lack of objectivity or sheer incompetence. Pick o...
No it hasn't. You are wrong on this, completely wrong. You must be a young. In the late 80s and 90s they had editors with an iron hand that strained out as much of personal like as possible. Also they had multiple takes in a publication's office offering up what different people on the staff thought. Some publications would have the RPG guy review an RPG then offer a column from a non-RPG gamer. No, you are wrong p...
"How did review sites not at least mention these issues?
A handful of sites did mention it. Very few. Those that did offered no detail. NXG that runs tech reviews for IGN was very clear about these problems existing, before and after the day 1 patch. In the same breath IGN gave the game a 10. Standard reviewers are idiots. This game garnered 10s for a couple of reasons.
First, unprofessional reviews that could not be objective and placed their likes abo...
Well Zeke, it isn't supposed to be about what one reviewer likes. Are they reviewing the game for themselves, or for the general target audience. If it is for themselves they need to just shut up because their self inflated ego doesn't matter to us. Just Shut Up. If it is for the target demographic then their personal wants, likes, and such do not matter. Pick one because you can't have both. Their feels are not important. They should be objective and supplant the desires and idea...
Because you dock a game .5 for these frame issues that get you killed doesn't mean it isn't a great game. How is a 9.5 not a great score. Or a 9. I saw Horizon Forbidden West getting lower scores than that and people here were saying it is still a great score. Overlooking these issues with a pile of unjustified 10s sends the message it is okay to release games in this state when it should not be.
@Jeece, the combat capabilities and other features have been greatly e...
A game being good is in many ways, not all, but in many ways subjective. A tech analysis pointing out undeniable issues is as impartial as it gets. And the analysis says they existed both in review code and after the day one patch. Otherwise you are just grading on a curve and bending it to help the student you like. That isn't grading or scoring, it is favoritism.
Maybe they exist. If you find one let me know. This one isn't. And these issues were in prelaunch code on all platforms. NXG, who does tech analysis for IGN, one of the sites that threw out a 10, discussed it clearly. Issues were there on review code on all platforms. And they remain still after the patch. Not turning away from this doesn't mean the game isn't great or you do not love it but it means you put objectivity and analysis above your feels...
No, a 10 is supposed to mean something. Instead it is now given out just because someone liked something. The review is supposed to be about whether the gamer will like it. It is also not supposed to excuse issues or pretend they do not exist. It shouldn't overlook quite serious matters. Karak from ACG gave the game a Buy Now rating and then changed that after the Day One patch to a Wait. I watched people that are Souls vets trying to get the parry right but were having issues because of ...
If it was perfect, then yes. 10s are not supposed to be there because the game aspired to something. Or because the reviewer really really really liked it. In fact it shouldn't matter what the reviewer felt. They are supposed to be objective and concerned with how the prospective gamer of the series will see it. There is either a standard or there is not. Are we grading the game or just reading about the writers feelings?
There is nothing in my last remark that is opinion. It is pure, 100% fact. I might as well have said the sky is blue. If you disagreed have the guts to disprove a simple fact.
Earlier today, Karak from ACG changed his score. He normally rates games as Buy, Wait for a Sale, Never Touch. His initial score was Buy Now. He released a new short vid a few hours ago explaining why he has gone to a Wait score.
"we can only review what we have and not future updates"
Reviewers didn't have the Day 1 patch which means any writer not dead asleep at the controller should not have forked over a 10. You can't miss some of these issues unless you just looked at the box art and scored the game which may have happened since completion is apparently no longer necessary.
As several other people said this is just a case of reviewers wanting to give it a 1...
Reviewers on twitter have admitted to scoring the game and yet not even being close to completing it. They want to blame the review time instead of bad editorial policy. They are only anxious to get that review out and seen during the 72 hour, prior to release, viewer click period. Ever played a game that just went to hell at the end? I have. One that left you thinking, WTF happened. Not saying th...
For me personally, and this was only my take, I finished Valhalla, platinumed it once the disappearing fish, but didn't really care for it. I see it as a disservice to my heritage. It did have one great moment for me, an amazing moment, but only one - and it was a cutscene of all things. Nothing wrong with that, I love cutscenes but for me, again only me, there was just the one.
Switch sales should not be compared to PlayStation and Xbox sales. I their games are not held to the same standards then they must be some other kind of gaming device.
