Clint Hocking has a solution for a particularly vexing problem. The Ubisoft Creative Director says game review scores have been artificially inflated over the years, thanks in large part to the use of the 100-point scoring system. The fix? All game critics should switch to a five-star system instead.
GB: "We take a look at 15 amazing games that had the perfect length."
Pretty good list. Botany Manor would be the newest addition that encapsulates that title.
Talal writes: "I'm talking about having that rush of excitement - that feeling you get when you know you've just made a memory for a lifetime."
There are different games. Some have gamplay at it highest priority, some have the story, some have the replay value and choices... There are a lot of different game experiences.
It is laughable that just now graphics does not have anything to do with that experiene. We have had many games of that type over time. This is just the one that have come closest to feel like playing an actual movie. Just look the the Digital foundry walkthrough it is a masterpiece in that perspective and hence wrth trying. But yes do not do it for the gameplay - but that was never the goal of this experience.
It's because it's on Xbox. When Xbox has amazing graphics, they don't matter. When PlayStation does, it's a game changer!
Pretty much my thoughts. They were technical marvel's on PS and still are. The moment Xbox puts out a graphically intense game is doesn't matter suddenly.
4 years ago this month would the UE5 tech demo debut with the girl flying (tech demo said it was only possible on PS5 because of the SSD. Glad to finally see it in its glory.
FFS, gaming journalism has really gone downhill. At least hire people with a basic grasp of grammar... "Me neither" means the exact opposite of what the "author" is trying to say. That's like saying "I could care less"... lol.
Maybe because the gameplay being dull allowed it to have the amazing graphics and people are not as impressed by graphics alone anymore? I mean there is a lot of sites saying the story and the gameplay are lackluster. So what are we supposed to enjoy then? Cgi graphics are beautiful but since they arent interactive, they dont impress me as much as they used to. Thats an extreme example, but you get my drift.
When Playstation (Sony) does it..its usually a great game and not a cinematic experience..or at least something new at the time..like Until Dawn back in 2015.
@gamer:” It's because it's on Xbox. When Xbox has amazing graphics, they don't matter. When PlayStation does, it's a game changer!”
The game looks as good as any other PlayStation game in my eyes why can’t you and the other hardcore Xbox be happy about it and drag PlayStation into every conversation and force PlayStation hardcore to look into the game and find flaw that most games have in one way or another.
@light: “ 4 years ago this month would the UE5 tech demo debut with the girl flying (tech demo said it was only possible on PS5 because of the SSD. ”
Yes at that time it was only possible on PlayStation SSD how ignorant of you to think that after 4 years the technology wouldn’t evolved and move to a industry standard 🤦🏿I wish your mentality wasn’t so naive and narrow to post stuff like that 😩 in a year or 2 a new game will come out that might look better, it’s the nature of the industry.
Now that the distraction is gone I feel that is a good thing that the graphics in games are starting to hit the rooftop and hopefully the developers will put more thoughts into story and gameplay mechanics than just the next shiny oily skin of old.
So true. Not surprised by all the negativity. It's a really good game and looks better than any game I've ever seen. GOTY nominee for sure. Like I said before, sony screwed up big time by not purchasing Ninja Theory.
Pretty much. It's like how the Switch and Steam controller using haptic feedback in their controllers wasn't a big deal but then Sony did it and it was then a "game changer".
The game runs at as low as 21fps... That isn't much to brag about no matter how good it looks.
We've had graphical gamechangers before, such as Crysis but those games still had gameplay to compliment it. Hellblade pretty much has none, and only achieved such graphics through being incredibly linear and having very small, closed off environments where very little is happening.
GFX does not mean anything if the game is boring. It is simple like that and these major companies need to understand this simple concept.
Games are like your lady, she may be beautiful to look at for a while but then it gets boring if her character isn't interesting and fun to be with.
Replies(7)
So until dawn, too human, or whatever those series of games were... Graphic masterpieces it garbage with no gameplay?
I agree and I actually think Forbidden West looks better than Hellblade 2. I easily prefer looking at it at least.
It does look better in my opinion as well. I don't know why it looks better but there's something about the Decima engine or that guerrilla games is using tricks that we don't know of
Can you fly a mount under water in Hellblade 2? I think not! One of the best moments this Gen
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
Due to the lack of modern stealth games, and me constantly playing the MGS series, I've been looking for alternative stealth games to play, and went back and re-played the SC series recently. I wouldn't call SC1 or SC:PT masterpieces, there are AI issues, they're very much trial-and-error games, and that can lead to a lot of frustration. I also found the stories in this series to be boring, uninteresting, and just sloppily told. Cinematics are also of poor quality for both in-game scenes and CG cut-scenes, the soundtrack didn't leave any impression on me either.
Chaos Theory is better, but there was still a lot of room for improvement, and Double Agent (old gen ver.) was a sloppy mess that ended up a regression from CT. But still, at least they tried back then, these days Ubi-junk doesn't even try to make good games!
Everyone needs to quit with all of the unnessacery Ubi-hate. SC Conviction and Blacklist are both still good games.
Everyone needs to quit with all of the unnecessary Ubi-hate. SC Conviction and Blacklist are both still good games, they just weren't 100% focused on stealth with Conviction and they remedied that in Blacklist. The only thing they have released recently that I was disappointed with was Watch Dogs Legion, and Skull & Bones. Everyone seems to be salty about the misleading trailer for the original Watch Dogs and The Division. Which are also, both good games, and actually Watch Dogs seems like it was ahead of its time even with all the trailer drama (having gone back and played recently, can say the game didnt deserve all the flak). Yeah the misleading E3 trailer that had better graphics than release is understandable to a very small degree, when most Teaser Trailers, or Game Demo's only have that portion of the game developed so they use the highest quality assets of w/e they have being showed, or what they are showing was made purely for the showing, allowing for extra polish . As to the gripes about minor game design changes, or cut features upon a games release just goes to show how unknowledgeable most gamers are in terms of how game development works or to even understand what what the hell a WIP, let alone titles still in early development.
Good games from Ubi since 2014 (Year that SC Blacklist Released) include:
Watch Dogs 1 & 2
The Division 1 & 2 (Although I had a hard time getting into The Division 2 at first)
R6 Siege
Ghost Recon Wildlands & Breakpoint
Immortals Fenyx Rising
AC Origins, Odyssey, MIrage (Haven't finished Valhalla games too damn long)
Far Cry Primal, and 5 (6 also has a length issue)
Avatar Frontiers of Pandora
Prince Of Persia The Lost Crown
Haven't played a couple of titles those being For Honor (played at launch but didn't honestly give it an actual go), The Crew, R6 Extraction and at the time of writing this xDefiant.
Even if you absolutely hated any of the above titles, they aren't inherently bad games, they're just good, but not always top quality either.
I say give Ubi credit where credit is due, they at least fix games post launch if they start out rough, Breakpoint is an excellent example this and is such an enjoyable experience now compared to it's launch.
metascores imo
if u stick with the sites you trust you can pretty much gage how good/bad a game is no matter what system they use as long as they keep that system.
These 'metasites' seem to put their own tint on scores, some even give more credence to some sites over other sites. Worst thing is, is that they are meant to be serving us but we have little say in their methods. Best thing is to leave those sites alone and have your own top 3-5 sites metascore IF you need to have an average.
@DIRTYHAIRYJOYSTICK
don't get me started on bias reviews/sites as half the people on n4g feel it/they don't exist at all. They point to scoring anomalies and say 'how can it be bias if...' You just cant reach some people even though the truth or questionable practices are right there for all to see if you look past the surface
In truth truth the gaming media is rife with double standards, payoffs and inconsistencies but some cant or just chose not to see it. Its not all bad though so i don't wanna sound like some conspiracy theorist i'm just staying in theme of the article
not the number given but the criteria for the evaluation.
A single player game without multiplayer should not be hit because it doesn't have multi.
A single/multi game that doesn't have co-op shouldn't be hit because no co-op.
and so forth.
If they kept consistant reviews it would be better but the way it goes it just seems bias to marketing and personal preferences.
Compiling a subjective and complex experience into a numerical representation of the affair, is something that is not accurate in the least.
the real problem is that reviewers have become critics and are starting to demand content in games insead of reviewing what is there. the perfect example is if a game doesn't have co-op, they put it down in score. this should never happen. it should be reviewed on what is there and how good what is there is.
Just be like kotaku and abandon scores.
Love them or hate them you have to like their review system. You don't have to always agree with their opinions in the review but at least they leave out the stupid scores that serve no other purpose than to fuel fanboy wars.