As an avid gamer, I'm also an avid reader of gaming media. I regularly check N4G for material to satisfy my insatiable hunger for gaming media. I also regularly visit sites like IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku and more.
This lends itself to being a game review junkie. I love reading game reviews and finding out which games are worth my money, and which games aren't. I regularly base purchasing decisions on reading reviews. Some people might say 'how retarded- game reviews don't mean squat'. Believe me, I know. I often purchase games only to find out this point. I've been slowly learning this lesson too. For example, some major gripes a reviewer has won't annoy me too much or some elements they consider a weakness I consider a strength, and so on.
So naturally with the release of GT5 recently, I was a little perturbed at the scores it was getting. This was one of the most hyped games of the decade, with one of the longest production schedules and it got mostly 8's. In context, that seems like a let down. I have to admit here, that I have what I consider to be a fair sized PS3 library at 23 games (most of my friends don't have close to 10 games), and most of them I've purchased based on reading reviews.
Gran Turismo 5 I purchased without reading its review, as I pre-oredered it- not something I do often. A pre-order locks in your decision to purchase a game, and once it arrives at your door there's no turning back. So a game I figured I'd hold out on, I ended up getting. Reviews I read the night previous had me believing I'd be more than a little disappointed with GT5. But how wrong I've been.
I personally am loving GT5 right now. I'm really into just about every aspect of the game. The standard/premium car divide isn't bothering me that much at all (one of my favourite cars to drive right now is a 'standard' Mugen/Motul Honda Civic), I think the graphics are stunning and the driving experience is just unrivalled. I personally like the course editor and the way it creates tracks, I really dig photo mode and I think the way online is set out is actually a good thing. I can see where a lot of the criticisms lie, but the point is- I really don't care about them. I'm not bothered by loading screens, jagged shadows. In a day and age where every big release game seems centered around killing or maiming people, aliens or monsters in some way or another, GT5 has been a breath of fresh air for me.
Then it got me thinking. Those review scores. Did they matter? Not in the slightest. What matters is how much I like the game. Not how much some guy does, who is paid to play games and write good and bad things about it.
Then how about all the other games I own? Well many that have had great review scores didn't turn out so good. Heavy Rain for example. The reviews I read labeled it as revolutionary and a great game. I played it and found it was just poorly executed and I never finished it. I just didn't like it. One day I might try at it again- but that's just my opinion of it.
Another game I previously owned, NBA2K10, was reviewed very highly at the time. But I found it to be horrible, and wished I had not traded NBA2K9 for it (sports games are the only ones I trade). It was full of glitches and issues and really pissed me off. Luckily 2K11 saved the franchise.
Black Ops is another classic example. Gamespot's review in particular is that it's a tremendous game worth every accolade, and many sites gave this game a glowing endorsement. Yet to me its the most disappointing release of the year. It's buggy, it has worse graphics than its predecessors and its campaign is confusing and at times very boring. This isn't to mention its near unplayable (on PS3 at least) multiplayer, which is plagued with issues, glitches and bugs. I loved Modern Warfare 2 (online at least, I didn't touch the campaign), and in comparison Black Ops is just a let down to me.
The point is, reviews in many cases don't matter. For someone who bases a lot of decisions on reviews, I often come to a different conclusion to the reviewers. It's not to say I don't agree with all reviews either. Many encapsulate exactly how I feel about a game too. Yet what needs to be remembered is they're just opinions, and opinions will always differ.
So the lessons learned? Review scores don't determine what a good game is- you do. If you think GT5 sucks and was a major disappointment, then it is, because your the one that matters. If you love Black Ops to death, then it's the best game ever- to you at least. But just don't be too peeved to find out that someone thinks differently to you and writes it down in a review,.
The Final Fantasy VII Rebirth combat director has expressed that he wants the final part in the trilogy to offer players "even more freedom".
I love the game so far but please don’t make the final part a mini game fest
Everytime I get to a new part in Rebirth it’s “mini game time”
Hope ya don't mind me asking since it seems like you've played it, did it feel like a decent step up from the last game or was it more like the best from the last but more polished?
It makes Remake feel like a demo.
9.5/10 imo. And I think the “mini games” did a great job of adding variety to the gameplay. Purely optional as well.
Here's my thoughts
I think it's a big step up from the first instalment, I'm enjoying it way more.
I thought keeping it just in Midgar was silly, it felt dragged out and it didn't have much variation in terms of the scenery.
However with Rebirth, as soon as you get out of Kalm you have a big world to explore and it's great to just wander round and explore.
Now that I'm half way in though, despite still liking what I'm playing, the gameplay loop is now starting to slow down on me. I've got to a new region and I'm like "Yaaay...need to go and find those towers again, oh look another special beast marker, is that a bird I see in the distance? Better follow it to another Mako Crystal"
It's like....you know how Peter Jackson was only supposed to have two Hobbit films then Warner Bros wanted a third film so he stretched the second film out as much as he could so he could keep stuff for the third film making a trilogy? Yeah it feels like that, so these mini games are a part of that overall gameplay loop to keep us going and stretch the game out overall so they have something for the third and final game.
I personally think you could have had the first instalment get you out of Midgar and through to Grasslands / Junon and the second game finishes things off.
I had a weird cycle of love/hate for all the mini games as I played through. At first I really hated the seeming need to check all these boxes while exploring the grasslands. I didn't enjoy the Gilgamesh quest initially, and thought Queen's blood was fine but didn't want to commit to it. The side quests didn't really grab me either.
Then for some reason everything in Junon region changed my mind and I did pretty much everything. I liked most of the side quests, I actually liked playing fort condor (didn't care for it in the intergrade dlc). And my interest for completing these quests stayed pretty much through to Cosmo Canyon.
Then they added that horrible Lifestream memory/battle mini game and I started getting so burnt out of it all. I just wanted to do the story. I didn't do any side quests in neibleheim and beyond except for the summon. I abandoned Gilgamesh.
So what I'm saying is I would like the third part to go back to the focused progression from remake. Keep the mini games to the gold saucer. Start the game snowboarding if you want, but from there keep the story rolling.
That's funny you say that because I did everything in the Grasslands but once in Junon I started to slow down a little until Corel where by the end I was burnt out. I'm still currently going but I'm just doing what I can while things keep getting thrown at me.
I would have preferred half of these mini game side fillers / collectibles for some really beefy side quests that really adds onto the world of FFVII.
Sounds like they hadn't really figured out what they wanted to do with Remake and this one is more of what they thought of doing which is probably why they're dragging it out to make a trilogy. Disappointed to hear it has towers cause man do i hate towers lol. It's been a while since I've played the first and it'll be a while longer to play the sequel, but it sounds like I'll enjoy it. 7 really impressed me especially after being disappointed with 15, felt like Square finally realized that FF was THEIR big franchise again.
How many hours are you into it at this point?
My friend got like 20-30 in and pretty much quit because of its mini game era. He loved and basically binged through Gran Blue compared to Rebirth
As long as it comes out on PS5 to have the entire series on one platform, do whatever you want
The combat is my favorite thing about Rebirth. Would be really cool if they can improve it even more.
I hope after FF7 Square will either give a new FF game the remake treatment. Or give some of their older titles a remake treatment like Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, even Xenogears.
Wccf tech writes: "Kingdom Come Deliverance 2's scope was impacted by the Xbox Series S hardware limitations, as developers could only make a game that was 25% bigger than its predecessor."
This is the issue with things like this
Xbox Series X is apparently to MS the worlds most powerful console
However the Series S is obviously a limitation because it’s underpowered and developers have to go for parity.
So what’s the point of the world’s most powerful console if you are holding third party developers back? They aren’t going to push themselves if they have to think about the weakest console.
The issue wouldn’t be as bad if it was just Xbox but you are also affecting the PS version aswell
I think developers need to start just taking advantage of a console and if one of them can’t do X Y and Z then f*** them…why should the others suffer. What’s MS going to do? The bigger the franchise the least chance MS are going to tell them to f*** off. Baulders Gate 3 seemed to have stood their ground and suddenly their “strict” parity rule didn’t really matter. We suddenly got super optimisation efforts for the Series S that got things sorted.
I agree, and the sad part is use normal folk saw it the second they announced their plans.
Agree 100% this is why I didn’t want the M$ Monopoly, now PS5 version will be held back too.
If PS5 Pro comes out and Series S is still a thing it’ll be interesting what differences and what devs choose to do. Really hoping Rockstar pushes the PS5 pro with GTA6 and we get the best version possible.
Good ole S indeed. Everyone knew this all along. S was holding games back...Now where the hell is Orchard i want a word with him.
More info from the author of the article, I think: https://www.reddit.com/r/ki...
Quote:
"1) I was told this info from the producer of the game Martin Klíma.
2) He specifically said the game will have only one mode.
3) And this mode is 4K 30 on PS5/XSX and 1440p 30 on XSS.
4) He said that the game is already running north of the 30 FPS cap so the performance should be stable on launch, much better than KCD1.
5) The limitation was XSS because of the 10GB memory. He said that's why they wanted to make the game 25% larger.
6) Speculation on my part: the output resolution is probably upscaled and the reason why there won't be a 60 FPS mode is because it'll most likely be very CPU heavy, like Dragon's Dogma 2 for example."
Doesn't seem like they're adding a 40fps mode on PS5/Series X for launch even if they can handle it.
I'd much rather have 1440p/60fps or even 45fps. Having just one, even with the Series S in mind, is disappointing.
Remember when xbots were adamant that the series s won’t hold back the gen?
Microsoft just needs to let go of the mandatory parity. Who cares if your grandma doesn’t understand that a game cannot be played on the S. It’s not like it she can buy you a physical game for it anyway. Before buying the game put up a notice that it only works on series X. If you’re buying for a friend-allow for a refund.
Bam. Everyone is happy. Most series s owners are for casuals that want Game Pass anyway and most likely don’t purchase most games.
If the developers want it to run on S, let them figure it out.
If it were Series X only then they'd only be selling to 25% of the Xbox Series userbase, and that's certainly not worth the time and effort into doing a port. Could just do PS5 & PC instead. No compromises needed.
“During the event, the Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 producer also revealed that on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X, the game will run at 4K resolution and 30 frames per second“
Another “creative decision” right? 🤦♂️
Since you're not an amateur and clearly know more than them, can you over there and help get the game running on the S without having to sacrifice their true vision. Us gamers would really appreciate you using your wisdom for good 🙏
Thousands of games run just fine on S.
But Kingdom Come is the game that can’t. Must be one hell of a game!
Thousands of games run on PS4 and on Switch. If developers want them to run on those systems. Fine. Those two platforms still get new games. Sony isn’t making studios also make a ps4 pro version, or Nintendo a wiiu version. Microsoft technically is.
If games like Alan Wake 2, GTA6, COD, hellblade all run on S, no excuse for this 100x smaller and 100x worse looking game to be held back.
"Thousands of games run just fine on S.
But Kingdom Come is the game that can’t. Must be one hell of a game!"
Kingdom come 2 runs just fine alright. Its the SCOPE that they want. They had to cut it because of the stupid S series. Hellblade2 ran just fine too..but im pretty confident if it was just the X in mind, the scope of the game would have been much bigger.
Custom Controller Company HexGaming launched a Kickstarter campaign for their latest pro controller, Hex Phantom. - IS
Reviews usually overrate and underrate some great games- looking at GTAIV and Nier as two examples. I'd point out some more games that got, in my opinion, underrated. That didn't stop me from enjoying said games, though, albeit I know they are flawed. Even with these flaws, they're enjoyable, wich is why I usually find myself disagreeing with reviews.
However, as a side-note, I do not think any review up until now has even said GT5 is a "bad" game. The scores GT5 got are not bad, people. In fact, they usually mean the game is good or great, getting mostly 8s. So, yeah, people, stop overreacting.
As I said, sometimes you just overlook flaws the games have, and are great experiences. Even so, reviewers, as critics, have to point out these flaws, and usually lower scores because of them (though alot of reviewers usually don't give mediocre scores to high profile games, yet give smaller games bad scores without fear, god knows why). I can totally understand that, and even so, it doesn't affects my enjoyment while playing a game.
52 on Metacritic. I also loved WKC, Folklore, Kingdom Under Fire COD and Bulletwitch. Reviewers are adequate enough at determining the general reception of a game/ movie/ whatever, but they almost always miss the niche market or whatever opinion isn't popular. If your tastes veer from the norm (and everyone's do to some extent), chances are the review will not match your own opinion.
I have noticed though, that the gaming media are particularly aggressive and polarized in their views. I think that this comes from the fact that the media are made up predominantly of people who are gamers themselves, so they have difficulty separating their own preferences (consoles, genre, whatever) from the subject that they are reviewing.
Knowing this, and seeing as the level of education, ethics and integrity is likely not to change anytime soon, I think reviews should generally be handled by a gamer who is passionate about the genre that they are to be examining. Having the FPS guy review FPS titles will give the fans an idea of what they're in for. Having the FPS guy review a JRPG or party game is just a recipe for frustration.
Ideally, we would have balanced, platform-agnostic, intelligent gamers who could look at a game, outline it's merits and flaws and explain their reasoning behind them.
Oh, and numerical review scores should be abolished. We'd have far more civil discussions around here if people could only argue "merits" and "flaws" instead of resorting to harping over a number.
I agree with your blog. It comes down to personal preference on what you like or not. However review determine two major things.
1st. How the game is going to be received. Is there going to be tons of praise for the game or is it going to be cast off.
2nd. They determine how much a game sell. Take a look at Medal of Honor After IGN and others (I say IGN because they're one of the biggest gamming sites) gave Medal of Honor "bad" reviews the value of EA's stock dropped 10%.
The problem with many reviews it that someone will play a game once and love it. While still in the Adrenaline of the game they will write a glowing review for it. Than later never play it again. I'm not sure about IGN but I'll willing to bet that they get excited over major games like Mass Effect, Gears, COD, AC, and they play them once than do a review.
Another major problem with reviewing sights is that the review lets their own personal opinion get in the way of review. Take for instance the inFamous review. The person who reviewed it marked the game down because he thought Cole's voice was to "rough". I personally liked Cole's voice. Another example would be Rock Band 3 where the review bashes on people spending money for the new guitar.
We should all just decide what we want to play and not let a reviewer influence our decision. I have bought and played several games that IGN didn't like but I loved.
After seeing GT5 and Castlevania LOS reviews from big sites like IGN and Gamespot... No my friend. Hell, no.
Not even in a thousand years. They don't determine anything at all. It's solely the writer's opinion, nothing else.
There's an old saying around here, a bit rude, that says:
Do you have sex with someone else's dick or with your own ???
Think about it.
the sooner you learn the truth, the better off you are.
With journalistic integrity at an all-time low, review scores are absolutely meaningless. Personally, i find review articles useful only for assessing the amount of content,bugginess and features of a game. Subjective quotes like 'it's a blast to play' or 'derivative,boring and uninspired gameplay' are best left ignored. Obviously even that doesn't work sometimes since there are retarded sites like IGN who are hellbent on spreading misinformations and half-truths.
GT5 is everything i wanted in a driving sim - hard,satisfying,chokefull of content,jaw-dropping gfx and lighting,superb presentation....f*ck the haters, i'm having an awesome time with the game! :)