General gaming discussion

Robert ninja

Since everyone's taking a swing at IGNorant how about that time they just regugitated fake news with no fact checking. Or that infamous football manager review.

Zero-Cool

I miss the 3 Prepare to Try lads on IGN. Used to really look forward to their videos (noob playing dark souls why 2 veteran players watch and laugh) but they left to form their own group called RKG. Now i see very little from them but turns out they have a Patreon. 3 dollars a month gets you access to their posts where they tell you what they're working on and chat in their discord server. 10 dollars gets you early access to their lets play videos and 20 dollars gets your name on their credits. Made me think who would pay a tenner a month for that and then saw they currently receive 25 grand a month through patron.

Holy jaysus I'm in the wrong game.

https://www.patreon.com/rkg

The Phantom Pain

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm not a fan of review scores at all (and I'm not a fan of IGN in general), but I'd take them over 'buy / don't buy' criteria. I'm really fussy about reviews, granted, and believe their main worth is always to offer a critical appraisal of whatever's being reviewed. Advising a vast audience whether to buy or not buy a game is a fool's errand (it works much better when you're chatting with friends), so a reviewer is best off properly digging into a game and articulating their personal response to it in an interesting, well-argued way. That's how reviews have always worked, and the reader can make their decision accordingly based on what has been argued.

This is also wrapped up in far too much of the conversation about games being about them as 'products' in the first place - loot boxes, pre-order bonuses, subscription plans, DLC, sales etc... You don't get that in the discussions about any other medium really. But games are far, far more interesting than mere products, and deserve to be written about in a much more interesting way - something a well-written review will always do. It's a good thing we've moved away from the once dominant 'graphics/music/gameplay/lasting appeal' method of reviewing games.

Could you elaborate why it's a fool's errand? If you look at ACG's rating system most of it is recommending that you buy a game, the only difference is the price at which you get it at (full price, sale, deep deep sale etc). His other two are 'rent' and 'never touch' which very, very few games would get. You can't really go wrong with that scale. Most of the time I ignore the rating at the end of a review anyway. If the reviewer says it's possible to encounter a game breaking bug that halts progress that to me is an instant fail/'wait for a deep, deep sale' no matter what they recommend in terms of price.

The Phantom Pain

ERG89 wrote: »

People take the piss of their reviews now for a reason. Stuff like; too much water & makes you feel like <insert protagonist or joke> are memes due to their work.

They had the plagiarism issue also, their ****e review of Prey where they couldn't get their code to work so they gave it a 4 & then they re-reviewed it, some of their reviews of games like DOOM, God Hands, Evolve & Alien Isolation are borderline comedy for being so wide of the mark.
They really seem a bit lost at times now; the whole "gruff white male protagonist" with Days Gone & the faux anger they tried so hard to generate about Modern Warfare at E3 last year were not balanced journalism or anything to generate a needed conversation.

All the "too much water" memes prove is that people don't actually pay attention to what is said in review. That Pokemon review was actually very good, unfortunately she ruined it with a conclusion that did not actually reflect what she said before and people just ran with it.

The plagiarism issue was one scumbag individual who has been dealt with. It's not a reflection on their entire company or the other good journalists who work there.

The Prey review clearly stemmed from anger at the game breaking bug that stopped the reviewer's progress so of course he was going to dock points off - and I love Prey. No, it's not a 4/10 game but if your game literally does not work for some people then I can see why somebody would score it that low.

The "gruff, white male protag" thing was blown out of proportion by people looking to be easily offended without actually attempting to understand the point.

I'm not saying IGN is perfect, no company is but I feel like the hate towards them is rabid and unwarranted at times.

TitianGerm

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I miss the 3 Prepare to Try lads on IGN. Used to really look forward to their videos (noob playing dark souls why 2 veteran players watch and laugh) but they left to form their own group called RKG. Now i see very little from them but turns out they have a Patreon. 3 dollars a month gets you access to their posts where they tell you what they're working on and chat in their discord server. 10 dollars gets you early access to their lets play videos and 20 dollars gets your name on their credits. Made me think who would pay a tenner a month for that and then saw they currently receive 25 grand a month through patron.

Holy jaysus I'm in the wrong game.

https://www.patreon.com/rkg

Only Koops had played Dark Souls. Gav is terrible at it.

They're doing Sekiro soon.

EoinMcLovin

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I miss the 3 Prepare to Try lads on IGN. Used to really look forward to their videos (noob playing dark souls why 2 veteran players watch and laugh) but they left to form their own group called RKG. Now i see very little from them but turns out they have a Patreon. 3 dollars a month gets you access to their posts where they tell you what they're working on and chat in their discord server. 10 dollars gets you early access to their lets play videos and 20 dollars gets your name on their credits. Made me think who would pay a tenner a month for that and then saw they currently receive 25 grand a month through patron.

Holy jaysus I'm in the wrong game.

https://www.patreon.com/rkg

Yeah its crazy what online gaming communities can make via patreon. Kinda Funny had their annual Kinda Funny Day 12 hour stream on Friday and made $51,000 in one day. I'd say alot of them rely on Patreon to fund them

Doctor Nick

TitianGerm wrote: »

Only Koops had played Dark Souls. Gav is terrible at it.

They're doing Sekiro soon.

Sekiro starts next week!!!! 11th. Three lads are great.

Doctor Nick

Zero-Cool wrote: »

I miss the 3 Prepare to Try lads on IGN. Used to really look forward to their videos (noob playing dark souls why 2 veteran players watch and laugh) but they left to form their own group called RKG. Now i see very little from them but turns out they have a Patreon. 3 dollars a month gets you access to their posts where they tell you what they're working on and chat in their discord server. 10 dollars gets you early access to their lets play videos and 20 dollars gets your name on their credits. Made me think who would pay a tenner a month for that and then saw they currently receive 25 grand a month through patron.

Holy jaysus I'm in the wrong game.

https://www.patreon.com/rkg

Their first series of Retry started last year. Dark Souls 2. One very memorable episode had Rory getting eaten by a mimic 3 or 4 times in a row. Seriously funny. They have their one year anniversary on the 7th. As I stated above, Sekiro starts next Saturday. Really looking forward to that. They are the only gaming channel I watch regularly. Enjoy the banter.

gizmo

I honestly can't understand how folk fail to recognise the utter futility in directly comparing the scores received by different games on a site like IGN when they're reviewed by completely different people.

Speaking of which, had a wee poke around to see where the reviewer from God Hand was these days. Turns out, he and a number of other people were let go from IGN a few years later. His departure was lamented by some online while others joked about the cause of his departure possibly being his God of War 3 review. Evidently there were quite a few people upset when he "only" gave the game a 9.3. The review thread is definitely a...thing.

On a related note, IGN posted a piece in May last year called "In Defense of God Hand" so I guess that makes them good again.

TitianGerm

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Sekiro starts next week!!!! 11th. Three lads are great.

Unfortunately there'll be no Finchy this time

Robert ninja

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko1sklmOR9E

Retr0gamer

Things you need to take into account with review scores that the internet seems to ignore:

1. A review is a single person's opinion and not the view of the publication (no matter what Edge magazine says. It's an excuse for them not to give a writer a by line and they can go **** themselves)

So a lowish scoring game that the rest of the reviewing staff love getting GOTY is not totally beyond the realm's of possibility.

High scoring games being ignored can also happen (for example Ray Barnholt having to fight with his editor over his A rating for Demon's Souls for 1up)

Reviews also depend on the reviewers experience and personal biases. Take for instance Easy Allies hyperbole filled God of War review and the IGN Football manager review. Neither reviewer probably should have reviewed either game but if you understand where both reviewers are coming from it's easier to understand where they are coming from rather than throwing the toys out of the pram over the score.

2. Opinions can change over time.

The Hype Machine effect. Highly anticipated game comes out. Gets rave scores from reviews. A year later the same publication is writing reviews about how over rated it is/a steaming pile of ****e.

Ref: Fallout 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Bioshock Infinite, etc.

The same can also be true of the opposite. See the morons at Giantbomb give out about how awful Demon's Souls is.

TL;DR reviewers are human and can make mistakes.

pixelburp

Retr0gamer wrote: »

2. Opinions can change over time.

The Hype Machine effect. Highly anticipated game comes out. Gets rave scores from reviews. A year later the same publication is writing reviews about how over rated it is/a steaming pile of ****e.

Ref: Fallout 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Bioshock Infinite, etc.

The same can also be true of the opposite. See the morons at Giantbomb give out about how awful Demon's Souls is.

TL;DR reviewers are human and can make mistakes.

Actually, that'd be an interesting segue: I'd wonder myself what folks here might have changed their minds on, both for good or worse? Can't immediately think of an example myself, but I'd wonder what games, if any, people have found themselves either liking that bit more, or hating that bit more, upon a later play?

Retr0gamer

I usually stick to my initial assessment of a game. I've matured and don't get caught up in hype cycles anymore. Kind of leads you to getting shouted down by people online when you point out something is garbage around launch and get attacked. At least you get to be smug when those retrospective articles start coming out

However there's plenty of old games I've gone back to and realise now they were a bit rubbish.

Stuff like Megadrive Aladdin, Robocop vs. Terminator, Soldier of Fortune.

Games I hated but appreciate now I can't really think of but Final Fantasy VIII is the one off the top of my head.

There's a few games I've done a big about face on. FFVII for instance went from 'zomg best game ever' to 'overrated garbage' to finally settling on 'it has it's flaws but you know what it's still a whole heap of fun'. MGS2 probably fits in there but that game would be more interesting than actually fun.

Grumpypants

pixelburp wrote: »

Actually, that'd be an interesting segue: I'd wonder myself what folks here might have changed their minds on, both for good or worse? Can't immediately think of an example myself, but I'd wonder what games, if any, people have found themselves either liking that bit more, or hating that bit more, upon a later play?

Loads can influence my enjoyment, if I'm tired and cranky great games can seem terrible. If im in good form and having a few beers then an average game can seem great.

Most recently prob Fallout 4. I hated the way you got so many guns, ammo and the power armor right away. Ended up not playing it beyond that point. Eventually months later I went and restarted it and ended up loving it. Still not as good as 3 but good in it's own way.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

However there's plenty of old games I've gone back to and realise now they were a bit rubbish.

Stuff like Megadrive Aladdin, Robocop vs. Terminator, Soldier of Fortune.

Oh god, you weren't one of those "BUT THEY HAD THE DISNEY ANIMATORS!!" people, were you? :pac:

Curious about SoF though, I always treated it as more of a Michael Bay-esque action game so I didn't mind that it wasn't as interesting as some of the other shooters out at the time. I did notice it's available from GoG again so I might grab it since my disc copy is buried in a box somewhere.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I usually stick to my initial assessment of a game. I've matured and don't get caught up in hype cycles anymore. Kind of leads you to getting shouted down by people online when you point out something is garbage around launch and get attacked. At least you get to be smug when those retrospective articles start coming out

However there's plenty of old games I've gone back to and realise now they were a bit rubbish.

Stuff like Megadrive Aladdin, Robocop vs. Terminator, Soldier of Fortune.

Games I hated but appreciate now I can't really think of but Final Fantasy VIII is the one off the top of my head.

There's a few games I've done a big about face on. FFVII for instance went from 'zomg best game ever' to 'overrated garbage' to finally settling on 'it has it's flaws but you know what it's still a whole heap of fun'. MGS2 probably fits in there but that game would be more interesting than actually fun.

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

Oh god, you weren't one of those "BUT THEY HAD THE DISNEY ANIMATORS!!" people, were you? :pac:

Curious about SoF though, I always treated it as more of a Michael Bay-esque action game so I didn't mind that it was interesting as some of the other shooters out at the time. I did notice it's available from GoG again so I might grab it since my disc copy is buried in a box somewhere.

No. I was just a Sega fanboy.

I've noticed most of those old 16 bit games that have aged badly were all Western developed. Virgin made a lot of nice looking games back then but they were all pants in retrospect.

As for Soldier of Fortune, play it again. Since the gore is no longer appealing as I've gotten over my teenager edgelord phase it's actually a really bland shooter like most post Hexen games from Raven. After the first level it takes a massive nosedive into the banal. It's not as bad as the sequel with enemies with their laser guided grenade throws. **** that game.

pixelburp

Yeah, Soldier of Fortune was a gimmick which traded almost entirely on its then controversial gore & dismemberment technology; the actual game itself was just dull and tedious IMO.

I suppose to answer my own question, I'd agree that the most common occurrence is to return to games from ones past & find them wanting, or nowhere near as fun as they were. Certainly any game built before the era of common gamedev approaches probably qualifies here - Castlevania II springs to mind (despite some masochists insisting it might be underrated )

quokula

Shadow of the Colossus was my long time go-to "favourite game of all time" but when I played the remake last year it didn't grab me at all. I don't think the controls and climbing mechanics that were revolutionary at the time have aged well compared to stuff we've seen in more recent years from the likes of Uncharted. The music and atmosphere were still great, but not enough to make me want to stick around. The fact I'd been burnt by the disappointment of The Last Guardian shortly before it probably didn't help.

Racing games as a whole are another one. I used to put so many hours into Gran Turismo. And I'd play every Codemasters racer. And Need For Speed every other year, and Burnout of course, and more recently Forza and Horizon. But for the last 10 years or more I don't feel like any of them have brought anything new to the table and I'm getting more and more disinterested. I think there's actually a problem with too much content. Will there ever be a game where I care as much about getting a new car as I did when upgrading from my second hand MX5 to an Impreza in the first Gran Turismo? It doesn't seem like it. I guess the fact I've never been too interested in online play is a big factor too, as devs use that as an excuse not to give a compelling career mode.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I've noticed most of those old 16 bit games that have aged badly were all Western developed. Virgin made a lot of nice looking games back then but they were all pants in retrospect.

I mainly associated them with licenced titles from back then. SNES wise I really enjoyed Aladdin, The Lion King and Cool Spot but their Jungle Book port was definitely mediocre even back then. I was reading TOTAL! at the time and I distinctly remember them absolutely savaging Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story though. Of course, they also published Cannon Fodder and Earthworm Jim so I'm happy to give them some bit of slack.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

As for Soldier of Fortune, play it again. Since the gore is no longer appealing as I've gotten over my teenager edgelord phase it's actually a really bland shooter like most post Hexen games from Raven. After the first level it takes a massive nosedive into the banal. It's not as bad as the sequel with enemies with their laser guided grenade throws. **** that game.

Aye, definitely gona give it a shot as some filler in-between some big open world games I have coming up in the backlog. As for the Raven comment, while I'd certainly agree that Quake 4 and Wolfenstein were pretty bog-standard, I still have a lot of love for earlier titles like Elite Force and the later Jedi Knight games.

And then there was this...

Retr0gamer

Elite Force wasn't great when you take the License away and even at the time of release I was playing the Raven Jedi Knight games I was thinking how much they felt like bog standard Raven software guff.

Pity they never managed a game as good as Hexen again. Just loved that game. The central hub mechanic was great and exploring stages felt quite metroidvania in a way. I never got around to the sequel though.

J. Marston

quokula wrote: »

Shadow of the Colossus was my long time go-to "favourite game of all time" but when I played the remake last year it didn't grab me at all. I don't think the controls and climbing mechanics that were revolutionary at the time have aged well compared to stuff we've seen in more recent years from the likes of Uncharted. The music and atmosphere were still great, but not enough to make me want to stick around. The fact I'd been burnt by the disappointment of The Last Guardian shortly before it probably didn't help.

But the climbing in Uncharted is nothing. You spam X to hop up or side to side. There is no control. It's a QTE, more or less.

At least there is some strategy and gameplay involved with SOTC since you have a stamina bar. Nathan Drake can hang off a cliff for a week without getting tired.

one armed dwarf

Changing my mind on a game: Probably Dark Souls II. But it's a bit of a complicated one, the first half of the game is actually terrible ****e. But when you get over the hump with the way ADP works and start doing the DLC/piecing together the story (which is much more intelligible than DS usually is) then it becomes an excellent game.

In a way it both does and doesn't deserve its reputation as the worst one. It's the most interestingly flawed game and I much prefer it to the safe and boring Dark Souls III

Retr0gamer

Dark Souls 2 is a weird one alright. It's got the worst level design and bosses yet the RPG mechanics and combat system are probably the best and give players the most options.

And then there's the DLC which is probably some of the best gameplay in the soulsborne games.

Wouldn't call the base game a bad game though. Just disappointing.

J. Marston

Crown of the Ivory King is my favourite Souls content across the whole trilogy.

Best area, best boss, best music, best weapon (Bone Fist!).

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Elite Force wasn't great when you take the License away and even at the time of release I was playing the Raven Jedi Knight games I was thinking how much they felt like bog standard Raven software guff.

The licence issue with EF is fair to a point but at the same time, it's also what makes the game in a way. For instance, an enemy gaining an immunity to a particular type of weapon after you've used it for a period of time is one thing, but if that enemy is the Borg and they start walking towards you with their best Michael Myers impression, chanting their usual lines, you get something very different imo, at least for someone even mildly familiar with the show.

As for Jedi Knight, objection.jpg.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Pity they never managed a game as good as Hexen again. Just loved that game. The central hub mechanic was great and exploring stages felt quite metroidvania in a way. I never got around to the sequel though.

Aye, with the likes of AMID EVIL doing relatively well I do hope the next step is something more Hexen-like from some indies.

quokula

J. Marston wrote: »

But the climbing in Uncharted is nothing. You spam X to hop up or side to side. There is no control. It's a QTE, more or less.

At least there is some strategy and gameplay involved with SOTC since you have a stamina bar. Nathan Drake can hang off a cliff for a week without getting tired.

The wow factor of the original SOTC came from seeing your guy climbing up these Colossi. The actual mechanics, coming back to them now, of moving and watching a meter on the UI go down then stopping and waiting for it to go up again, are not actually that much fun, especially combined with fairly awkward controls. (there's a whole host of other things that were great about SOTC like the atmosphere and the melancholy after defeating a colossus, but speaking specifically of the battles here, and they were enough of a chore to make me stop playing this time round)

I mentioned Uncharted because it gives those kinds of big cinematic feeling moments (climbing your way out of a sinking ship or burning building) while feeling much less of a chore. I don't care that Nathan can hang off a ledge without a stamina bar going down, that would make it more annoying rather than more entertaining. There are many other games these days with similar mechanics too of course.

one armed dwarf

For modern climbing I think it's hard to beat BOTW. At least for that tactile feeling of progress without being too finnicky.

It's a pity Death Stranding doesn't really have climbing mechanics, when you do try and climb things it still feels a bit like Skyrim

Sabre0001

Royal Mail has announced the release of a set of stamps to celebrate classic UK-designed video games: https://shop.royalmail.com/special-stamp-issues/video-games

I like the Sensible Soccer and Lemmings ones