Avowed (Obsidian RPG)

Dan_D said:
I never said IGN gave everything 9's and 10's. Like film critics, their scores are often way out of touch with gamers. They seem to give every shitty game a 7/10 and sometimes even higher scores. Its interesting because IGN USA scores tend to be completely out of alignment with their sister publications in other countries. Those reviews for their alternate sites around the world seem to be much more in line with those of actual gamers. IGN USA can't be trusted because its staffed by activists and not people with anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity. For the record, occasionally IGN will score something lower than a 7/10. They gave Alien Isolation a 5.9/10 as one example.

Oh, and you mean like this reviewer who admits he'll take points off a review if a game ever refers to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America? That pretty much says it all about IGN as a publication.
Click to expand...

currently on Steam Avowed has a 'Very Positive' rating...on OpenCritic the total average of all reviews is currently 81...so a 7 score from IGN seems right in line if not a bit lower than the average...I don't see the problem

have you ever considered the fact that you are the outlier and not IGN or all these other sites you claim to be corrupt?...no one is saying that Avowed or Veilguard is a 10/10 game but to say it's some disaster 2/10 is silly...Veilguard sounds disappointing but it doesn't mean it's a 0/10 game...a 6/10 in the video game world means it's disappointing...7/10 is average...you want all these sites to rank games on your scale and give it a 2/10 when it's not a 2/10 game.

even objectively bad or disappointing games are not 2/10...you can find good things in a lot of these games...there are very few games which are total disasters...maybe you should start up your own review site and grade everything according to your scaling system...let's see how popular your reviews are

the Gulf of America comment was obviously a joke from that person...you take things way too literally when you want it to feed your narrative
 
polonyc2 said:
currently on Steam Avowed has a 'Very Positive' rating...on OpenCritic the total average of all reviews is currently 81...so a 7 score from IGN seems right in line if not a bit lower than the average...I don't see the problem

have you ever considered the fact that you are the outlier and not IGN or all these other sites you claim to be corrupt?...no one is saying that Avowed or Veilguard is a 10/10 game but to say it's some disaster 2/10 is silly...Veilguard sounds disappointing but it doesn't mean it's a 0/10 game...a 6/10 in the video game world means it's disappointing...7/10 is average...you want all these sites to rank games on your scale and give it a 2/10 when it's not a 2/10 game.

even objectively bad or disappointing games are not 2/10...you can find good things in a lot of these games...there are very few games which are total disasters...maybe you should start up your own review site and grade everything according to your scaling system...let's see how popular your reviews are

the Gulf of America comment was obviously a joke from that person...you take things way too literally when you want it to feed your narrative
Click to expand...

whats the point of having an "out of 10" rating but only use 6-10? shit games should be below five. from what ive seen, this is a 6-7.
it wasnt a joke. dont defend it.
 
polonyc2 said:
currently on Steam Avowed has a 'Very Positive' rating...on OpenCritic the total average of all reviews is currently 81...so a 7 score from IGN seems right in line if not a bit lower than the average...I don't see the problem
Click to expand...
When you compromise your credibility, you have no credibility. What IGN rates a game at can't be trusted. Even if it aligns perfectly with everyone else, it still fails the smell test. Case in point, IGN walked back their rating of Veilguard so that the review was in line with other reviews to try and make it look they weren't obvious shills. After that, being in line with everyone else doesn't matter. It's not a sign of credibility. A broken clock happening to be right twice a day does not indicate that it can be relied upon.

Also, Veilguard reviewed well among mainstream media outlets like IGN and its ilk. It's still doing OK on Metacritic even if it took hits since release. You can't blindly trust the aggregators. The reason for this is simple: People didn't show up to play Veilguard. It got HALF its predicted engagement of 3 million players. EA stated this on their quarterly earnings report. This is FACT. That means only 1.5 million people played the game. That doesn't mean 1.5 million copies were sold either It means that between Gamepass and copies sold it only had half the predicted player engagement. We can see what those numbers did in Steam. They fell off a cliff.

I'm not saying aggregator data is totally useless. But like anything else you have to place that information in the proper context. In this case, Steam numbers, player engagement numbers, and so on. If hardly anyone plays the game but the few reviews out there are generally positive, It doesn't make it a good game. You have to look at the reasons why the game failed to find an audience. It means that the people who were interested in it generally liked it well enough but that the majority of people weren't interested. They didn't hate it so much as they were apathetic to it which is why you don't see more negative review scores.
polonyc2 said:
have you ever considered the fact that you are the outlier and not IGN or all these other sites you claim to be corrupt?...no one is saying that Avowed or Veilguard is a 10/10 game but to say it's some disaster 2/10 is silly...Veilguard sounds disappointing but it doesn't mean it's a 0/10 game.
Click to expand...
I never said Veilguard was a 2/10 game. IGN said it was a 10/10 then what they looked like obvious shills they changed their minds. I've actually mentioned both of its positive and negative aspects in the various threads about it. I also never said Avowed deserved any specific rating. Much less a 2/10.

What I've said about it is that they copied Bethesda's homework and thus the game appears to have a lot of the same dated mechanics and designs of Bethesda's games. I don't like the art style or the character models. They are all shit. However, I don't have any knowledge of the narrative or its quest designs. On a technical level it seems to be a technical disaster, meaning Obsidian absolutely pulled their best imitation of Bethesda here. So I wouldn't say I know enough about the game to give it a specific score much less a 2/10. I would say that so far, what I've seen isn't encouraging.
polonyc2 said:
..a 6/10 in the video game world means it's disappointing...7/10 is average...you want all these sites to rank games on your scale and give it a 2/10 when it's not a 2/10 game.

even objectively bad or disappointing games are not 2/10...you can find good things in a lot of these games...there are very few games which are total disasters...maybe you should start up your own review site and grade everything according to your scaling system...let's see how popular your reviews are

the Gulf of America comment was obviously a joke from that person...you take things way too literally when you want it to feed your narrative
Click to expand...
The reason why anything below 6/10 makes it a horrible game has already been discussed. In the mind of the masses a 5/10 or 6/10 would be average/above average. By giving bad games scores like these it placates the publishers and PR firms that provide early access copies to sites like IGN. They don't call it the access media for nothing. As far as I know there were no indications that reviewer was joking. So, not "obvious."
 
Dan_D said:
Case in point, IGN walked back their rating of Veilguard so that the review was in line with other reviews to try and make it look they weren't obvious shills. After that, being in line with everyone else doesn't matter. It's not a sign of credibility. A broken clock happening to be right twice a day does not indicate that it can be relied upon.
Click to expand...

the IGN review of Veilguard shows it got a 9/10


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LCv2aMoFCY
 
Armenius said:
They made a follow-up article heavily criticizing the game's story, but they didn't re-score it. You would think they did given how the internet talks about it, though.

https://www.ign.com/articles/dragon-age-the-veilguard-is-at-war-with-itself
Click to expand...
I actually remember them dropping the score in that second article to a 7/10 but going back through it I guess I'm remembering it wrong. It's still listed as a 9/10. Regardless, I stand by my statements about their lack of integrity as that piece serves to try and salvage their credibility or lack there of for propping up another EA shitshow.
 
Dan_D said:
I actually remember them dropping the score in that second article to a 7/10 but going back through it I guess I'm remembering it wrong. It's still listed as a 9/10. Regardless, I stand by my statements about their lack of integrity as that piece serves to try and salvage their credibility or lack there of for propping up another EA shitshow.
Click to expand...

how on Earth do you stand by your statement when you were completely wrong and that was a main part of your argument?...you said that IGN changed their score from a 10 to a 7 after they saw other sites give it low scores lol which shows their lack of journalistic integrity...which sounds even more ridiculous as I just typed that out...now you're just saying to hand wave that all away and forget you said it yet you still stand by your statement that IGN is corrupt without any proof?

now you want to change your argument about IGN and say that no they didn't change their score but you still got them because they kept their high score lol?...so no matter what IGN did you're saying you got them right?
 
polonyc2 said:
how on Earth do you stand by your statement when you were completely wrong and that was a main part of your argument?
Click to expand...
Your flawed understanding of my argument does not mean that was my argument or that my actual argument hinged on that one statement or observation. I used that as an example to support my argument but its far from the only shady or egregious thing IGN has done in terms of its review scores. I already linked to something a reviewer at IGN said about how they would unfairly take points off of any game that dared to go against his political views by referencing the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. This is someone who works at IGN now. I'd bet money that he's one of many people there who have views like that and are just as "objective." The fact that there was no new score doesn't change the fact that the piece is designed to attempt damage control for either criticisms IGN received from giving the game a 9/10 or IGN noticing that no one else thought it was that good. It was to save face. Even people who generally liked the game wouldn't give it a 9/10. Naturally, there are some exceptions to that rule of course, but that doesn't seem to be a majority opinion.
polonyc2 said:
...you said that IGN changed their score from a 10 to a 7 after they saw other sites give it low scores lol which shows their lack of journalistic integrity...which sounds even more ridiculous as I just typed that out...
Click to expand...
I admitted I remembered things incorrectly. I admitted I was wrong about something. What more do you want?
polonyc2 said:
now you're just saying to hand wave that all away and forget you said it yet you still stand by your statement that IGN is corrupt without any proof?
Click to expand...
The proof as you put it is in their articles. IGN gave Concord, the biggest fucking entertainment failure probably of all time a 7/10 score. It also gave Dustborn a 7/10 score. Do you really think these games are better than Alien Isolation? I doubt anyone agrees with them but IGN gave that a 5.9/10. So for them, Concord and Dustborn are better games. IGN's well deserved reputation for being shills goes back years. We've already discussed the flaw in their scoring system and how it lacks objectivity and is designed to placate publishers and PR firms. The fact that you don't find it suspicious that IGN gives every game that flops, fails to meet expectations or is negatively received by the public a 7/10 or better store is telling. The fact that they grade on a supposed scale of 1-10 and almost never drop below a 7 tells you something about what's going on. Terrible, mediocre and even good games all seem to get 7's. Sure, great games get 8's and 9's (or occasionally close to a 10) but their rare alignment with everyone else shows you how out of touch they are with audiences and gamers.
polonyc2 said:
now you want to change your argument about IGN and say that no they didn't change their score but you still got them because they kept their high score lol?...so no matter what IGN did you're saying you got them right?
Click to expand...
Again, you missed the point entirely. This is not an isolated incident and the only incident to judge IGN by.

I just skimmed over their Avowed review which surprise, surprise is another 7/10 score. This again seems generous given what people are saying about it. Especially the part about the game's stability. Now, try and follow along here. I have not verified this information myself or done the research the way I had on Veilguard. All I'm saying here is that once again IGN seems to be going easy on another studio and publisher the way they pretty much always do. Time will tell on this one as more and more videos and reviews come out about the game from people who don't have to suck on the teets of publishers for early access.

Look, if you still think IGN is a trusty worthy source after actually reading their reviews I don't know what else to say to you. I am getting sick of is having to explain my arguments to you every time because you have reading comprehension issues. Other people seem to understand me fine most of the time so I'm going to go out on a limb and chalk this up to being a you problem.

I'm pretty sure you are one of the few people on this forum that put any stock in what IGN says about anything. Maybe you should do some research and figure out why that is before you leap to IGN's defense.
TaintedSquirrel said:
Mac is really old school he hates everything.
Click to expand...
To be fair there is a lot to hate in the AAA space right now. They are pushing out some serious slop these days. We are seeing regressions in animation and graphics for character models, regressions in writing quality, voice acting and gameplay is stagnant at best in a lot of cases.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Mac is really old school he hates everything.
Click to expand...

Nah, he loved KCD2 despite its issues. Even said he doesn't care if devs lie in that game's drama. Anyway, not surprised he doesn't like Avowed. I've enjoyed watching streams and reviews with everyone's weird mushroom face characters.
 
Dan_D said:
I just skimmed over their Avowed review which surprise, surprise is another 7/10 score. This again seems generous given what people are saying about it. Especially the part about the game's stability...
Click to expand...

everything I've read says the game runs incredibly smooth with almost no major bugs, performance issues or crashes...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAyhpRHKhXk
 
It seems I have shitty taste in games according to reviewers. I've put at least 10 hours into it and I've enjoyed every second of it. At 4k with everything maxed it's been buttery smooth, no issues at all. easily a 7/10 for me.
 
grifter_66 said:
It seems I have shitty taste in games according to reviewers. I've put at least 10 hours into it and I've enjoyed every second of it. At 4k with everything maxed it's been buttery smooth, no issues at all. easily a 7/10 for me.
Click to expand...
If this is indeed a 7/10 game in the eyes of most people who score it (which is honestly what I would've guessed based on what I was seeing), that leaves plenty of room for enjoyment.

I mean, this and Veilguard look like absolute gutter trash to me. That doesn't make them terrible, 2/10 games. Ultimately who cares what anyone thinks if you’re enjoying it? Look how much hate I got for liking Callisto Protocol more than the average person. Doesn’t change my enjoyment of the setting and gory combat even if it wasn't everyone's cup of tea. Guess what scores that game mostly received? Yep, right around a 7. And that game was very polarizing. Folks like me tend to rate it more around an 8 while others acted offended that it even existed next to Dead Space. And that's fine.

At the end of the day, just play the games you like and ignore the noise. That applies whether you seek out the gems in the indie space that 95% of gamers won't ever pay attention to or you're only happy playing AAA slopfests that continue to deteriorate in quality while the prices and padding of gameplay continue to increase.
 
polonyc2 said:
everything I've read says the game runs incredibly smooth with almost no major bugs, performance issues or crashes...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAyhpRHKhXk
Click to expand...

I've seen some of that too. I probably have seen more positive than negative on the game's technical aspects going through some stuff this morning. That being said, I read some more negative comments and stuff about how the game runs and how stable it is, but admittedly a lot of people try to run games on a potato and bitch when it doesn't work all that well. So I'm sure there is plenty of that.

All I know for sure about Avowed is that the character models are trash from top to bottom. All of them look like they are about 15 years out of date and the animation looks like its from the early 2000's. There is something else I noticed about the character models too which is inline with the art directors public comments prior to the game's release. I won't get into all that so much because I don't want to soapbox the thread. Like Starfield, the environments can look pretty good but unlike Starfield I haven't ever been blown away by any of them. Starfield really can look good at times but like any Bethesda game it suffers from being a Bethesda game. Character models and animation aren't their strong suit and everything is designed to be as safe and inoffensive as possible.
 
Based on my understanding of the reviews to date, this is a dialogue heavy game with bland non-memorable characters and generic conversations. Offsetting this is a great combat and decent visuals. So the questions is if I can stand bland characters and tedious dialogue to get to the good bits. Its "free" on Gamepass so I may give a try.
 
From what I have seen the game looks to graphically be a 7/10, character models look to be a 5/10 mostly from the animations and blandness of the body types. The story looks pretty generic.

So a good $10 or less game.
 
imsirovic5 said:
Based on my understanding of the reviews to date, this is a dialogue heavy game with bland non-memorable characters and generic conversations. Offsetting this is a great combat and decent visuals. So the questions is if I can stand bland characters and tedious dialogue to get to the good bits. Its "free" on Gamepass so I may give a try.
Click to expand...
All the dialog options I've seen in various videos are absolutely cringe inducing.
 
imsirovic5 said:
That is what I was afraid of - no matter how good game mechanics are or how pretty the world is, it will not be worth playing if I am subjected to cringe dialog. Especially for a game that has ton of dialog.
Click to expand...
Yep, at a certain point even if it's free, a game can become not worth the time spent playing it.
 
Reviews are Very Positive on Steam usually Steam is really hard on any game. If anything I might pick up the regular version.
 
I'm taken aback by how positive the reception is to this game! good for the team who made it. But I have yet to see anything that makes me want to hop into this world.
 
sounds like a good 8/10 game...the problem with some gamers nowadays is they want everything to be a perfect 10...anything that falls below a 10 is automatically trash
 
Advanced access user reviews on Steam are 81% positive. Generally I find if a game is above 75% positive on Steam it is usually good. 60-70% is usually just split opinions. Under 60% usually means the game is bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top