Yeah, most seem to have legit reasoning (whether for a low or high score) except that Powerup site that gave it like a 3, that just read like a Kojima hater shooting for clicks.
Hm. This game is getting 9s and 10s, sub 5s, and a few in the middle. That almost makes me want to get it immediately, but I'll probably wait and see what users think about it. Which to the me of 10 years ago, not buying a Kojima game day one would have been unheard of, but here we are.
Obviously you exaggerate the expectations, but yes, we do expect them to sell us a package worth more than what we pay for it, because 1) Sony won't pay what we would pay to get the same components, and 2) we expect them to take losses on the console up front, with the understanding that this gets more people in the door and buying games, which will eventually turn into a win for them long term (this is especially true with more people switching to digital games). They take losses on the ...
Let's be real, we all know half the people who post about how Morrowind was the last great Elder Scrolls game found out about Bethesda through Oblivion, Fallout 3, or Skyrim. People really want to be the "hardcore" player who was into the series before it got all casual and "ruined."
I think it kind of proves my point that you have to admit how hard it is to do what Bethesda does that almost no one pulls it off. I mean, you have a handful of supposedly better games since 2010.
And let's be real about Kingdom Come; as impressive as it was that they actually pulled that off after starting off in crowdfunding, it doesn't run the greatest and it also has bugs like a Bethesda game.
Basically, if you want a polished, first person rp...
This is a great point. Capcom of today to Capcom of mid-PS3 is a pretty significant difference, and it didn't look like it would improve this way.
Who needs Bethesda when so many other studios are putting out engaging First Person RPGs?
What other dev makes a comparable Western, First person perspective RPG? It's telling that we've been complaining about Bethesda screwing up this entire gen, but it's not like they are being replaced. I mean, you've got Kingdom Come: Deliverance, a game that came out this week (Outer Worlds), and a game coming out in April of next year (Cyberpunk).
It's telling that everyone always resorts to a third-person action focused RPGs like Witcher or Horizon the...
Is it? Both games faced criticism, but the one that faced more criticism for its MTs sold worse, despite having more consoles to sell on. 33 million is a big number, but if it's much lower than expectations, using one of the biggest licenses in existence, EA won't be happy.
Think of it like movies. Solo made $390 million dollars, which is a lot of money in absolute terms, but it was less than anticipated for such a major franchise, that it was still considered a fai...
I know this looks bad, and like the partial boycott of BF:2 failed. However, there is a reason they are combining the two into one big number rather than splitting them (as they would if 2 surpassed 1 in sales, so they could emphasize the improvement).
BF (2015) clearly sold significantly better than the sequel. By January 2016 it sold 12 million and by may 2016, 14 million ( 2421d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment
Don't get me wrong, I loved BF:1, but people need to stop pretending it was radically different from BF:V in terms of being a live service. It may not have launched with MTs, but they were introduced into the game, and in both games the MTs were dumb cosmetics. Biggest difference is that DLC maps were free in BF:V, but you had to buy them in BF:1.
I understand people liked BF:1 better substantively, mostly because they didn't play BF:V due to the bad press, and the ...
Sigh. Using shipped numbers for something like a console is a viable measurement, because the PS4s that are on store shelves are going to sell in the next few months. The same logic goes for a big game (i.e. if we see shipped numbers for Call of Duty in a few weeks, those will be reliable because the copies on shelves are going to keep selling).
Really the only scenario where shipped numbers aren't going to become sold-through numbers relatively quickly is when a game i...
It's not even that. Fake outrage is when people who aren't actually upset pretend to be mad. This is a case of people who want to criticize fake outrage pretending that the fake outrage is happening about Death Stranding PC, but it isn't. No one cares.
Unlike some people on here, I don't hate the idea of an all-digital option. However, to make it worth it, I feel like it needs to be cheaper (as in, it should have already been 200, and the sale should be 149 or 175 or something), and they need to have additional discounts. As in, if your primary console (I use PS4 but I'm assuming XONE has some sort of similar system where you can use your games on multiple systems but one is designated as your main system) is an all-digital version,...
Putting aside all the MT issues, I never saw anyone identify a reason to play this game rather than just continuing to play wildlands (assuming you want to play Ghost Recon at all). I mean, the consensus seems to be that it's just a worse version of that game.
I think we all expected delay to be a key component of streaming-based gaming.
Price drops are "moot"? That's probably the most significant factor I mentioned. The more Nintendo cranks down the price in the upcoming years, the more people who already have a primary console will be willing to take a "sure, why not?" Attitude towards the switch as a side console (again, not freaking out about power because they already have a primary console for higher end stuff). It's actually crazy that they've had this much success keeping the price for ...
The thing is, I don't think that many people strictly game on the Switch. I think that setting up as a side option, particularly with a staggered launch compared to the other manufacturers, is part of what has made switch so successful.
You really think streaming to a smartphone can replace the Switch? Because it doesn't. People don't want to stream games (look at the reaction to Stadia). I just don't see how people can't see that it's a side console. People aren't buying it instead of PS4, they are buying it in addition to PS4, and I'm sure the same will be true for PS5.
I mean, Ubisoft has had two major MT-based releases fail recently (this and division 2). All we can do is not buy the games and be vocal about the reason why.