Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ghost of Tsushima
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Must buy from ACG also currently 84\85 on opencritic and metacritic
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50016
Deleted User wrote: »Finding select reviews that suit your own already made up opinion is not something I bother with anymore.
Id rather someone like ACG give a fair assessment which it seems he has.
In the sea of garbage reviews on metacritic I don't see anything wrong in picking actual trustworthy opinions out about the game.
Seems like the game is how I feared it would turn out, usual generic open world game that's been done to death. I can file this under ignore.
0 -
-
Shockingly I really like it ! I tend to like most games so it's not a massive leap.
It looks amazing, it plays really well, it has some great mechanics that make everything flow. The wind is brilliant
Picking up collectables without having to dismount or even stop your horse running, just hit R2 as you Wizz by.
It is designed to make you feel like the hero of a Samurai movie and be enjoyable rather than something that feel like a chore. As you learn more skills you get better and combat becomes more enjoyable.
The "morality" part isn't a simple good or bad path. It is your approach to combat. You can walk up to a Mongol encampment and call them all out to face you head on like an "honorable Samurai" or you can use the sneaky ways of the thief or assassin to sneak in around them and pick them off. (The Samurai look down on these methods).
In short it is amazing. Of course if you don't like open world games you would be daft to play it and then moan about it. But for most people who do like them it offers a good 50 hours of enjoyment.1 -
-
-
Grumpypants wrote: »Shockingly I really like it ! I tend to like most games so it's not a massive leap.
It looks amazing, it plays really well, it has some great mechanics that make everything flow. The wind is brilliant
Picking up collectables without having to dismount or even stop your horse running, just hit R2 as you Wizz by.
It is designed to make you feel like the hero of a Samurai movie and be enjoyable rather than something that feel like a chore. As you learn more skills you get better and combat becomes more enjoyable.
The "morality" part isn't a simple good or bad path. It is your approach to combat. You can walk up to a Mongol encampment and call them all out to face you head on like an "honorable Samurai" or you can use the sneaky ways of the thief or assassin to sneak in around them and pick them off. (The Samurai look down on these methods).
In short it is amazing. Of course if you don't like open world games you would be daft to play it and then moan about it. But for most people who do like them it offers a good 50 hours of enjoyment.
Best summation so far and I didn't even have to watch some "Hi Guys!!" twat on youtube!
Thanks Grumpypants0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 50016
Polygon not so hot on it either. Tagline to the review is 'you've played this before' and pretty much says it looks gorgeous but it's a game that's stuck in open world game design that it 5 years out of date. Fun but vapid.Deleted User wrote: »Kotaku and Eurogamer are also listed on Metacritic
ACG is well respected among the gaming community but I'm not going to use his assessment as confirmation of already perceived bias
I know they are, I'm not saying all review outlets on metacritic are bad just the vast majority of the are.
As for ACG, wouldn't rate them as a reviewer either although he isn't the worst. He's more a youtuber than an actual journalist in my eyes. Find him entertaining but rarely informative.
0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »Polygon not so hot on it either. Tagline to the review is 'you've played this before' and pretty much says it looks gorgeous but it's a game that's stuck in open world game design that it 5 years out of date. Fun but vapid.
I know they are, I'm not saying all review outlets on metacritic are bad just the vast majority of the are.
As for ACG, wouldn't rate them as a reviewer either although he isn't the worst. He's more a youtuber than an actual journalist in my eyes. Find him entertaining but rarely informative.
I think he is commonly known for being incredible informative tbf and his reviews are descriptive and broken down fairly.
Opinions on here and youtubers like himself provide me more balanced opinions thus helping aiding a purchase decision but never flat out driving that decision.
It's the fundamental biggest problem right now when it comes to scores and reviews.
Based on previous assumptions it sounds like yourself and jultimate have already made up your minds even before reviews were posted and you are kind of just selecting certain reviews that confirm your assumptions while completely dismissing and other opinions or thoughts and boiling it down to 'the vast majority are bad'
Again only discussing in a friendly manner, not having a go
0 -
EoinMcLovin wrote: »Must buy from ACG also currently 84\85 on opencritic and metacritic
Just finished watching this video, I think he does a great job and pretty much nails it.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50016
We are just doing what you are doing, picking reviews from journalists we trust and usually can rely on to have accurate reviews. Eurogamer would be one of my favourites as would be polygon as their reviewers tend to give opinionated informative reviews rather than to just blindly follow the herd mentality. I just find their approach more journalistic, critical even, more like a professional film critic than a traditional old school game review or youtuber.
I notice you cite ACG a lot and I always go with Eurogamer and Polygon as my first impression on how good a game is but I always get called out for cherry picking reviews despite always looking to them and quoting those two site
I'd normally also go with Usgamer but Mike Williams is reviewing it there and he absolutely adores generic open world ubisoft games (even Assassin's Creed, yes the awful first one) so this was always going to review well with him. I like him but when it comes to open world games I know our tastes don't align.
0 -
-
Retr0gamer wrote: »We are just doing what you are doing, picking reviews from journalists we trust and usually can rely on to have accurate reviews. Eurogamer would be one of my favourites as would be polygon as their reviewers tend to give opinionated informative reviews rather than to just blindly follow the herd mentality. I just find their approach more journalistic, critical even, more like a professional film critic than a traditional old school game review or youtuber.
I notice you cite ACG a lot and I always go with Eurogamer and Polygon as my first impression on how good a game is but I always get called out for cherry picking reviews despite always looking to them and quoting those two site
I'd normally also go with Usgamer but Mike Williams is reviewing it there and he absolutely adores generic open world ubisoft games (even Assassin's Creed, yes the awful first one) so this was always going to review well with him. I like him but when it comes to open world games I know our tastes don't align.
I think the difference is that when the overwhelming majority of the reviews are quite positive and you pick out the handful of negative reviews to fit a narrative that has been spun pre reviews, it just comes across as simply finding the echo among the small few that suit.
Not that your opinion isn't valid but peddling it as the common feeling or consensus because 'most other reviewers are not credible or valid' is nonsense.
I think objectively it cannot be argued that the game isn't enjoyable to most and that most reviewers enjoyed it more than not.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50016
Polygon always seemed like a bunch of edgelords to me, their reviews rarely line up with my own opinion.
Personally I really only bother with Easy Allies nowadays.
Can't stand Easy Allies. Think they are awful and always thought they were since Game Trailers. Pretty much think they are everything wrong with populist games journalism.Exclamation Marc wrote: »I think the difference is that when the overwhelming majority of the reviews are quite positive and you pick out the handful of negative reviews to fit a narrative that has been spun pre reviews, it just comes across as simply finding the echo among the small few that suit.
Not that your opinion isn't valid but peddling it as the common feeling or consensus because 'most other reviewers are not credible or valid' is nonsense.
I think objectively it cannot be argued that the game isn't enjoyable to most and that most reviewers enjoyed it more than not.
Again as I said I always go for reviews and sites I trust. I'm not cherry picking reviews but people have preconception already about games and think I am. I always talk about reviews from the the same very small pool of sites, eurogamer would be my main go to. I'm also interested what Polygon say as they usually fly in the face of the populist reviewers but usually are bang on with their criticism or at least back it up well.
Yet I'm the one always accused of cherry picking and having preconceptions! Get out of here.
0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »We are just doing what you are doing, picking reviews from journalists we trust and usually can rely on to have accurate reviews. Eurogamer would be one of my favourites as would be polygon as their reviewers tend to give opinionated informative reviews rather than to just blindly follow the herd mentality. I just find their approach more journalistic, critical even, more like a professional film critic than a traditional old school game review or youtuber.
I notice you cite ACG a lot and I always go with Eurogamer and Polygon as my first impression on how good a game is but I always get called out for cherry picking reviews despite always looking to them and quoting those two site
I'd normally also go with Usgamer but Mike Williams is reviewing it there and he absolutely adores generic open world ubisoft games (even Assassin's Creed, yes the awful first one) so this was always going to review well with him. I like him but when it comes to open world games I know our tastes don't align.
The difference here is I have not made a decision on getting the game or not. It seems you already have made that decision on the basis I just described.
Confirmation bias to an extent.
I actually had this pre ordered and then cancelled it to note as I should know better than to pre order games.
I will chose to buy this at a later date if the time is right and I can invest in the game and make my own judgement.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,105 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 27819
How to read Metacritic: skip to the scoreless reviews at the bottom
Slight exaggeration, but also kinda true? Couldn't care less about what 90% of the featured reviewers on Metacritic have to say, so like Retr0 typically go to four or five sites that I tend to find 'tough but fair' when it comes to blockbuster games - Eurogamer, Polygon, Waypoint, Kotaku, Metro... all of whom are varying degrees of down on Ghost ('mediocre at best' fare). When they're all reiterating the fear I got from the marketing - an immensely pretty but very generic open world 'em up - there's no cherrypicking necessary, that's just the consensus across the gaming sites I read regularly and whose critical assessments I tend to find reliable and robust (which is absolutely not the same thing as saying I always agree with them!)
I hope those who were looking forward to it enjoy it - certainly sounds like there are plenty of people who will find something cool here. But it sounds like everything that frustrates me personally about many modern AAA games, so I'll happily leave you to it
Also, love this description:falling into the category of a pretty good one of those0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 50016
Deleted User wrote: »The difference here is I have not made a decision on getting the game or not. It seems you already have made that decision on the basis I just described.
Confirmation bias to an extent.
I actually had this pre ordered and then cancelled it to note as I should know better than to pre order games.
I will chose to buy this at a later date if the time is right and I can invest in the game and make my own judgement.
I had no interest in the game if it was another ubisoft formula game but would have liked to be pleasantly surprised if it was a breath of the wild game changer or even something fun like Spiderman. The reviews from the usual sources I trust back up my fears that the game really isn't for me.
No confirmation bias at all. The only bias here is what's being flung at me.
Have to say I'm fond of Metro gamecentral as well.
Even the more negative reviews do state there's fun to be had with the game it just does nothing to push forward the open world game design template that's been used so much in so many games. And as I don't enjoy those games I know it's not for me.
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxZbY84Fd9I![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement