Reviews are supposed to be provided by the best in the industry, but with an exceptional amount of hype running through almost every game the question of judging reviews becomes an arduous task, as exclusive world reviews are given prime importance their validity translates into a running line in fiction. The argument in the article is not being directed to a specific game or console but analyzes the amount of money that is spent on paying reviewers to induce a mass of people into a perpetual state of trance.
They don't make games like this anymore.
Too dated in my book. The AI is way too unpredictable to be acceptable today. It's definitely a game of its time.
Agreed with those sentiments. The quality of the CPU controlled characters make or break a stealth game and they are pretty poor in all the Splinter Cell games by today's standard. This is what led me to playing Spies vs Mercs all the time in later games just to get a better stealth experience from a real person. Arguably Sony are making better stealth games albeit not Tom Clancy stuff.
You should stick with fortnite or one of the countless bloodborne style games then. What a joke.
I had a good time with the game. It is a product of its time. But when it came out it was a must have game for a lot of people. I wish Ubisoft would make another game in the series or at least a reboot.
They are making a remake, I think. I loved the original game when it was released, but I tried to play it again in recent years and just couldn't get on with it. The same with the older Hitman games.
Yeah chaos theory still holds up though I gotta say. If you’re a fan of the series I highly suggest you go back to that one. Ubi has said they are remaking sc for “modern audiences”. I don’t have a lot of faith for the future of that company
Skewed and Reviewed have written an Opinion Piece covering issues in the gaming industry, how current issues were issues years ago, and what can be done to help restore consumer trust.
Nothing. It's up to the gamers to stop consuming content from companies that they don't agree with.
How do you know if you agree with it or not unless you play it? Which without conventions forces gamers to rely on trailers. Perhaps Demos should be made more frequently. But companies need to do better as well.
But is that not what they have now? Tons of gameplay or are you talking about watching actual gamers play it versus the trailers and streams? The big issue is that some companies pay streamers and influencers and they create content but for me; that is hardly a fair, unbiased, and factual look at a game.
They usually are attached to the money sadly. It would be nice to have gamers in charge but you have so much money invested that business people are needed. Hence the issue; you need people who know business but are also gamers who know have an eye to the community. It sounds simple in theory that if you give gamers quality games that they want to play; money will be made. But that is not always so.
Marie Dealessandri speaks to Borislav Slavov and Gustavo Santaolalla about “the new golden age of games music”.
I think its best to follow a few ones and then try the game out for your own self...
the reviews I used to trust not anymore...heard PLay is good as well...
say reviews are pretty subjective...I read horrible reviews of Too Human and rented the game found it pretty entertaining not one bit like what the reviews professed of it being too unplayable was attached in my play experience...
is my question, since reviews are ultimately generalizations they tend to be obscured by the reviewer and all the interactions he goes with it...
times are changing there are far too many opinions floating around...