Anybody who hangs out on GameTrailers or visits Metacritic.com every once in a while knows this – some websites give out perfect scores in reviews more frequently than Gordon Ramsey makes people cry on national television. But why does this happen? Are the reviewers playing their first game ever, ejaculating over the magical fact that a man on the televisional doo-hickey is talkin' to them? I believe that it's detrimental to the progress of games development and their individual achievements to give them a perfect score. Why?
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!
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”.
They need to take a look at PS1-N64 metacritics. Now that's too nice. A lot of games in that era got 96-99 easily.
Most reviewers are scared....the label of fanboy is being thrown around like bras in a whorehouse so much that..its safer to
1.Have a disclaimer stating that you aren't a fanboy
2.Point out that you have all consoles ever created, so you cant be biased.
3. change(reviews articles...not scores) and answer to any fans that disagree to something your mis-spelled, mis-quoted, ect ect right in your forum.
4. give all the "supposed good games" 90 and above, even if its a 85 or below, or be cast into fanboy damnation hell, and have your site boycotted.
Halo 3 has a better story than MGS4? Only if you're 12 or have a brain of one.
No other game this gen have made me feel happy to be a gamer today, and at the same time sad that it has to end, than the Epic Story that is called MGS4.
The only games that could possibly rival the story of Metal Gear games are:
1. Suikoden 1
2. Suikoden 2
3. Xenogears
4. Final Fantasy Tactics
and those are still subject for debate.
they're only too easy on 360 games so they dont upset the average 12 year old age group for the 360.
Game developers got clever, not only are they developing games but relationships with popular reviewers and review sites. They got smart with the PR aspect essentially. This friendly relationship helps ensure over inflated review scores and the cause for a lot of head scratching when reading most of them.