You are just playing a semantic game. My post was never about downplaying. Downplaying is not the same as accusing someone of dishonesty. Either you do not understand what the word actually means, or you are taking a piss. Either way, have fun arguing with yourself.
If my comment was about "people downplaying reviews", then yours was about unicorns. You built a nice strawman to argue against, I wish you all the luck in the world.
I made a post about people accusing bad reviews of being dishonest. This is not a matter of downplaying, its an accusation based on conspiracy theories.
Downplaying: "Yeah the review is bad but maybe this just isnt the kind of game the reviewer likes. Its ok to have differe...
Who were you replying to then? None of these things have anything to do with my post or the point I raised. Im specifically adressing people calling bad reviews shams and outright telling people that any reviewer that gives a negative score "has an agenda!". I have even seen posts theorising that these reviewers were conspiring to harm the game's metacritic score. Go down this thread and others like this and you will find dozens of exemples.
If this is not...
You really believe that, do you? My goodness gracious, you really do! Mind blowing.
You do know people are allowed to dislike a game you desperatly want to like, right? You realize this? And they are allowed to question why you attack them for having an opinion that differs from yours.
"Omg anyone who dislike the game is involved in a conspiracy theory to attack Kojima and operates out of bad faith based on an obscure agenda!"
Care to elaborate? Cause right now you come off as a high school kid going "No youre it!".
I have never seen so much outrage at bad reviews. Its an opinion, some people think it looks like a shitty game with boring mechanics, stop fanboying.
"He must have an agenda!" No, you do. That is why you take bad reviews personally, you have an agenda when it comes to this game: it MUST be good. You get offended that someone else thinks it isnt. Ask yourself: why?
It is easy to define. I already have. You seem indeed confused, but not because its some mystical definition no one can quite grasp, but because you so badly want to the label not to apply here that you are going through mental gymnastics to dismiss the argument.
Yes, its a chicken and egg argument. You have a core gameplay, and then you have complementing elements. A game is defined mostly by its core gameplay, with the secondary elements being what either supports t...
@rainslacker
In most games you walk somewhere to go do something.
In walking simulators, you do something so you can walk somewhere.
@Christopher
Now you are just playing dumb, this is just semantics. You are the one getting hung on misunderstanding my intent. Listen to what I am saying:
I said particular mechanics are more tedious than others. In any given cathegory, be it puzzles, stealth, RPG, FPS, there are some games that are considered more boring and tedious than others by critical concensus, and if you take 100 reviews for those games, you will find references to these mechan...
Can you actually explain that one to me? The entire point of the game is to walk from point A to point B. There is no other objective, other than ''avoid X to keep walking''. Your gear is designed to enhance your walking. The customization options are geared towards maximizing your walking. The mechanics revolve around balancing while walking. How in the blazes is this anything BUT a walking simulator? What would you call it if not that?
Don't tak...
First off thank you for the well thought out response. You make great points. That being said, I disagree to an extent with you
1) Walking simulator
All the games you mentionned have one thing in common: they are not, have never been, and never will be about walking.
People who use ''walking simulator'' pejoratively are not lazy, they simply don't like that type of gameplay. Even the titles you brought up are more about puzz...
By all acounts its almost all there is.
Here is how I see your post:
"So you didnt see the obstacles to your hiking? The places you can rest from your hiking? The roads and bridges that will help your hiking? The combat that distracts you from the hiking for about 4% of the game? You didnt hear the reviewer explain the tools you can use for hiking?"
Be honest. This is a walking simulator with a frame. Yes, there is a frame, things...
Serious question to those who downvote my post: can you explain to me what it is I said that you have a problem with and why? I genuinely want to understand, because right now I am baffled.
Nah, its got nothing to do with Sony. Its all about Kojima. He's the name that is driving the raving hype, not Sony. To those who downvote my post, can you take the time to explain why? Im seriously confused and would love to understand, but so far no one who has been able to articulate why these concerns are not valid.
I don't understand the comments calling this review a sham. And I definitly don't understand all the 10/10 reviews. It sounds like people are reviewing Kojima rather than the game itself!
This is a game that takes the most tedious parts of any RPG, the parts that generally make it into the CON section of any review, and makes them the core of the experience. Dislike fetching quests in most game? Well you MUST love them here, cause its Kojima! Dislike cluncky in...
Inventory management and fetch quests are in most games. But they are not the core system of those games, they are a side-mechanics, complementing a more exciting gameplay. Here, they ARE the gameplay. Inventory management and fetch quests are not IN death stranding, they ARE death stranding. And since those are two of the most often-cited negative points about games, being considered by most to be the most tedious parts of a RPG, you can see how the entire game revolving around them migh...
Im of the opposite opinion. This is how every microtransaction SHOULD be: pay to unlock something early that you can get by playing the game otherwise. It doesn't lock any content behind a paywall and doesnt affect gameplay.
So many things wrong in the comments....
1) We know we all signed a TOS and that Sony has the legal right to do what they did, what we are questioning is not the legality of the act but the morality of it. We are not asking ''is it legal?'', we are asking ''is it ethical?''.
2) No, the OP did not excuse or attempt to justify this guy's blatantly abusive behavior. He is not saying the gamer in question shouldn't be punished....
hahahaha I love this stuff.
You know there is a problem somewhere by how defensive people get when their beloved game gets talked about negatively. And why would it even matter to you if the game gets a 3/10 if YOU enjoy it? Does it detract from your enjoyment of the game? How? An online game I get, you want it to have a good population to play with, but this? Could it be that you are so in love with the idea of a Kojima game and the emotional attachment that was crea...