Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Feb 17, 2019.
That or metacritic is protecting the game from the review bombers.
In the same sense that the publisher is entitled to publish their game on Epic and not Steam (though it was a total dick move how they did it, after using Steam for free advertising and then just switched with no warning right before release), people are entitled to review the game and publisher as they see fit for that move. The platform the game is on is a part of its presentation and experience, and so can be factored into a review of the game.
Review bombs tend to be expressions of a genuine discontentment over something.
Those are the "critic" scores and not the gamer scores. So, they're not very susceptible to review bombs.
The gamer score was at 5.8, last I checked. Though, Metacritic could be removing some of the negative ones.
This game is very much niche just like previous installments. I don't get the brouhaha about this one (except for the Steam/Epic 'controversy'). I've played and enjoyed 1 and 2, and I'm enjoying this one (on Steam ), even with the scenery change. The play mechanics feel like a typical Metro game, same goes for the production values (rough around the edge/not quite triple-A). I'm not sure it can appeal to heavy Apex/Fortnite players but it's perfectly fine for what it is.
I wasn't saying that user reviews have no purpose, but like professional reviews, you also have to look at them in context and take everything with a grain of salt. A lot of people will blow minor issues out of proportion, or simply find issues annoying that you may not mind.
I don't think I've ever used a metacritic score as a reason I bought (or didn't buy) a game. I just checked the site and BFV has an 81 and user of 2.9 lol. They must have review bombed that one as well!
That's why aggregate scores don't matter. But I can gleam much more by reading steam user reviews on a game than by reading a pcgamer review for example. If you actually read the reviews you can immediately spot the trolls.
So you're essentially saying "lameos" from both sides are going to be abusing the review system in a way that it was not intended to be used and as a result cancel each other out?
Not ideal, but good.
If they put it back up on Steam tomorrow, I'd be happy to play through it, and give my honest opinion.
I have the first two games. I looked with interest for the open wold I was told about as I was very disappointed in the second game and played just bit of it. Its not there. They have outside stuff but the same level of COD like channeling is there.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. A game telling you "go over here and do that" does not a corridor shooter make. No, it isn't fully open world (something the developers have been clear about from the get go) but it isn't a corridor shooter either. The best term for it is semi-open. Its large open areas. Something more akin to what Crysis did years ago, except with actual reasons to explore and the game doing something with the open areas instead of them being entirely empty.
I still have my Orange Box.
yea it's 2002 open world... hell even the first zelda is still considered "open world"
I can't wait... at some point if game doesn't let you rummage through every drawer in every house in every city then it isn't open world... and sim games that don't have believable AI when talking or interacting to NPCs (to the extent that you can develop deep fulfilling friendships with them) will be considered "dumb as poop"
LOL. They are all COD now so its OK. No its pitiful. Its also a cop out as its much easier to do Metro than deal with the complexity and possibilities of a game with real choices.
You really, really, have no idea what you're talking about.
I really really do. I have been playing since Doom and have watched the steady deterioration of the genre. Its not make it to the end of the level anymore. Its go here, do this. The new Metro and Anthem and the Division 2 are all like this and for me, suck mightily.
EDIT: I think the great popularity of Battle Royal games comes from the lameness of modern single player games.
I can shoot straight and after a lot of Fallout 76 I'm good, both aimed, and hip shooting my big ass pistol. My talents however are far more tactical and there's no room for me in these games. I cannot do something other than what they want me to and after making it through the first Metro, I found the second, I paid very little for, was just too much of this corridor crap and did not make it far.
My "fellow gamers" are the idiots who review bomb games because they're butthurt over some unrelated industry bullshit. If they got their way and destroyed the publisher, taking the developers with them, they'd smirk and cheer their success, and then moan that all they had left to play was the next CoD.
Most people write why they think what they think in a review, I suppose it should't be surprising that you don't read past the headline though or you would know this. (Ie it is pretty easy to discard reviews that just say its not on steam, or I hate epic and be left with a decent aggregate verdict)
Hehehehe. What, you don't want to walk into someone's house, steal some clothes, trim your beard, grab a piece of toast, and turn on their game console? What's the matter with you?!?!
It doesn't cancel out because critic and gamer scores are separated.
Also, ME PC gamer scores don't seem to be review-bombed after all:
They're all pretty much the same, so the PC gamer score can't be due to the Epic exclusivity.
This MSpoweruser score of 45 / 100 is the lowest I've yet seen: Metro Exodus is a larger game with nothing interesting to fill it
Hardly. 90% or more of the people who were planning to play this game weren't going to use a HOTAS. It certainly is a bit of a let down but it affects so few people. That hardly qualifies for being highly disappointing. They had an exclusivity deal with manufactures which is likely why you can't use other HOTAS. Same reason as PS VR being exclusive for a year, the game and genre are dead. Getting manufacture support and the marketing it provided was the only way this game would've got made. They tried the westernized approach and then the free to play approach. Everyone assumed the genre died after that.
The bottom line is though, a flight stick would be a massive pain in the ass in certain missions. It doesn't surprise me that you haven't played a minute. Spending a few minutes playing the game would reveal the flight model is very unrealistic and a stick/throttle wouldn't help. The issues exist, but they're so minor it is almost irrelevant. By all metrics it is easily one of the most bug free, good performing games I've played in the last 5 or so years. That easily outweighs support for peripherals that you won't actually use when playing. Had this been a semi realistic flight sim or racing game the issue would be notable, but it isn't.
I don't see why you're not playing it; just use a controller. Gameplay is good, story is an outright mess.
And the idiots. At least half, if not more, of the reviews on Steam are written by outright idiots. Even the ones that aren't by trolls.
I'll just use Ace Combat as an example since I already mentioned it. A few seconds and I found this review with this excerpt:
Yes, this idiot read the description and saw the word "realistic", which is used in practically all games and expected a highly realistic flight sim. This idiot was too lazy to browse through the screen shots where they show planes carrying 84 or more missiles, literally the second screen shot. How damn stupid can you be?
He also mention there is no 4K support even though there clearly is if he had checked the graphics settings. I assume his monitor is not 4K and he blamed the game or something.
So we have around 50% idiots, and around 30-40% troll reviews. We're lucky if we even get 20% semi decent reviews on Steam. Even browsing through them is an utter pain because some are semi coherent but filled with outright falsehoods. If you haven't played the game yourself you probably wouldn't be able to separated the nonsense from the facts. That is why I put such little faith in Steam reviews these days.
I haven't played since the day I bought it. That doesn't mean I haven't played at all.
You don't need manufacturer support to be able to map a damn joystick, you just need to implement basic directinput support in the game, which takes a few hours at most. Same goes for the ability to re-map the controls. Sorry, but there is just no excuse for not including either.
The only reason I'm not using a joystick is because it doesn't allow me. I'm baffled that you're actually trying to convince me that I'm better off with a broken all over the place stupid keyboard setup than an actual joystick in a flying game, no matter how simple the physics are.
I tried with a controller, and hated it. Not the game, the controls. I was struggling to destroy the most basic stationary targets. There is no fun for me in that.
You gloss over a lot of high points in gaming, it has not been a steady decline, but corporations have made a royal mess of it these days. Hell this whole metro controversy has nothing to do with the game and everything to do with corporations abusing their powers, ethics are a thing of the past.
As for rails v. Open world, its not that simple nor does everyone need to like the same thing.
Open world gives more player freedom but it also makes crafting a story and plot difficult, for story heavy games a rail is more appropriate and allows for more scenic environments. An example of a excellent rail shooter is Titanfall 2, that was the first time in a long while I enjoyed a shooter. It has plot, fun gameplay, great set piece battles and a satisfying conclusion. Open world games can't weave the same narrative because their structure ultimately makes things disjointed, and I say this as someone who owns every AAA open world game and most Indy ones.
I agree. I'm hoping Cyberpunk will prove that this is a rule with exceptions though. We'll see I suppose.
I also feel like Breath of the Wild was a step in the right direction. It felt a little more empty than previous Zelda games in the story department, but it gives freedom and still keeps things relatively story based. (at least in comparison to many open world games)
I had thought of using Zelda games as an example of the best open worlds get. They are not perfect, but they do it right more than they do t wrong.
I replayed Singularity last month. 50 fov, almost every door closing behind you, only two weapons, stupid AI, a lot of bugs, etc, etc. But it's good, damn it. GOOD. I miss Raven.
As fir Metro, crap shooting was expected. I gave the Metro 2033 Redux another try - after I was hugely disappointed by it back in 2011 - and I have to say it sucked just as much. It's NOT a shooter, just pretends to be one.
I also miss Raven. I didn't play much of Singularity. (though maybe I still will at some point) I'm one of the three and a half people that loved Quake IV.
One of my Unreal Tournament pro friends is the biggest fan of Quake 4. He loved the SP. I found it too slow. Their 2009 Wolfenstein game was pretty good, too. They also did Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force. Loved that game. Most Quake 3 engine games had that amazing feel of responsiveness to them.
On cyberpunk, it might, witcher 3 is one of the best open world games ever, but even it suffered from disjointed plots and some subpar quests.
Unlike that one story designer (I think she was bioware) who said open world games can't have good stories, I believe they can but the hours required to make it would be insane. Imagine having to make a 80hr Titanfall 2, it would be exhausting.
I actually partially agree there. It does start off a bit slower than say Quake 2. Later in the game both the story, and actual physical movement speed pick up though due to an even in the game. From that point on it feels more Quakey.
Hopefully after several years of work, and such a huge design team they will have pulled it off. I remember there was one point maybe two years ago, when they hired on an additional 400 (IIRC) staff to work on CP. That's pretty significant. Hopefully they were well directed is the only stipulation there.
It could work, but then you also have quality control and story tone issues because you have so many people working on it. You can see it in Witcher 3, some of the side quests are better than the main quest (the serial killer for example) while others are almost tone deaf and disconnected. Its a legitimate problem with huge open world games.
Babies get what they want...
Babies get NOTHING! You hear me!?!?!?!