Posts posted by BadgerFarmer
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Outer Wilds springs to mind. I really like open investigation games of this sort and it's obviously well structured and full of interesting stuff to discover. But I found the tight time loop plus awkward first-person platforming to be a frustrating combination, and I guess I'm just not really into all the clever quantum-sciencey wrapping, which made it hard to follow.15
9 minutes ago, bumgut said:
Ah the FF7 remake style.
I still didn't get along with it, I still wanted it to play like an action game.
It is much more like an action game, because there's no ATB stuff, but the controls have been adapted to fit with the feel of Remake.
A lot of battles come down to simple dodge-attack patterns, but you also need to use materia attacks and spells to take advantage of enemy weaknesses. You can equip up to six at a time and trigger them quickly by holding L1 then pressing whichever button you've assigned the materia to.
Still though, it gets repetitive. But at least it's slick.1
I like the word 'hoogtepunten'.1
The only bit that's working for me is the top 5:
Elden Ring 132 hours 32%
Sifu 27 hours 6%
Weird West 26 hours 6%
Saints Row 23 hours 5%
Stranger of Paradise 20 hours 4%
(I didn't actually like Weird West, Saints Row or Stranger of Paradise much, but had to see them through for reviews.)
The card thing displays like this:0
4 hours ago, Wiper said:
The only character I tend to avoid unless needed is Blade, who I just can't figure out — maybe I've been unlucky with drops, but all of his abilities seem to revolve around bleed, but the only way I have to cause bleed is a self-buff card of his, so it rarely comes up.
Blade was one of my stronger characters. He's got good chain attacks like Wolverine, and combined with Make 'em bleed that can cause a lot of damage over time. Plus his life steal Stake, and another ability that regenerates health for free from bleeding enemies, makes him self-sustaining.0
6 hours ago, Mortis said:
3 as far as I’m aware
Yeah. By the end, according to Steam, I'd been playing forSpoiler
I think Magik became my favourite combat character. Her ability to move enemies around, create free portals, and use knockback gives you a lot of options to work with.0
A lot of places got review code late (as in today), and the handful that got it early are mostly not the more critical outlets.0
Found time to go back and finish this off finally. It's a whopper alright. But I think it gets even better in the later stages, once you've got more options to play with, and the finale is pitched just right.0
God of War Ragnarok
I've played a dozen or so hours, and there's just no part of its neatly boxed play chunks that I want to see any more of. Puzzles are all the same, and the same as they were last time. Combat barely evolves, leaving the tiers of upgrades feeling superfluous. And the just-so design feels like some experiment in psychological control.
If I thought it was going to wrap up soon, I'd probably see it through - there are some great locations and sights, and the story is intriguing enough - but knowing that I'm around a third of the way through, I just can't.6
So the rest of the studio 'does not share his sentiment'.2
You can look at the review summaries from Days Gone on Metacritic, starting from the bottom of the page to get straight to the more negative ones, and see the most common complaints are along the lines of generic open-world bloat, failing to stand out from similar games, and so on. A few mention the main character.
Personally, I never played it because it looked exactly like that even from the pre-release trailers. There was nothing about it that suggested it would be interesting. I'm not surprised people only gave it a shot when it came to PS Plus.1
But there aren't even any bad guys to beat up in Forza Horizon 5.0
I found it necessary to nudge the difficulty up as the new levels unlock, or at least soon after, else you tend to get gradually overpowered. It's a neat system to have so many difficulty levels and unlock them during the game.1
I think it's a great way to emulate the pace of that rural life, in contrast to the digital nature of the game. Most games, even investigations games, are about instant judgements and logical clues that snap together immediately. This is about generating time to mull over the details of characters, using processes such as craftwork as a background to let the mind wander and formulate ideas.4
13 hours ago, thesnwmn said:
Absolutely. Scores shouldn't really be removed from the text they were delivered with. But then we are in a monthly thread entirely based on debating scores that most people haven't read the text to which they relate. And Meta/Open-critic have become the de facto way to summarise the quality of a title.
You're right, but it's also therefore a bit of a strange exercise going round and round on scores divorced from the reasoning behind them. I suppose it's almost a game in itself, or a tradition of sorts, but (IMO) not a very interesting one.
And Metacritic is definitely to blame for some of this.0
26 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:
I think the real issue with scores as a piece of information is what people think they mean.
Most people only play a few games. And they want them to be good ones. It doesn't really matter that 3* might be the "average" score. most people aren't buying a 3* because it's not worth their time when they are so many 4* or 5* games.
In fact, most outlets aren't even reviewing most 3* and below games either. The ones they do are just those with a high enough profile to mean there's some level of hype or expectation around them. Most of them just sneak on to a store without much fanfare.
The result then is 3* and below reviews are often a body blow for a community who was expecting something. A game they have waited for and suddenly turns out to be just average (or worse).
True, but then some games that get 3 stars were of course a whisker away from 4 stars (while others were a whisker away from 2, and others are nailed-on 3s). So again, you have to read the review for it to mean anything. It might still be a better fit for you than any 4 star game and some 5s.0
54 minutes ago, Timmo said:
The problem with videogame reviews is that broadly speaking you’re having to rate two things, and how you weight the scoring between them is basically impossible. You’re looking at good the game is technically, and then how good it is artistically. I’d use Deadly Premonition and Ghost of Tsushima as examples. One is a technical dog which is incredibly entertaining and surprising throughout, whereas the other is a technical marvel whilst showing its entire hand in the first hour and turning into a very, very repetitive and dull game. How the fuck are you supposed to grade these games? You can’t. Review scores are a nonsense and if you want to use them as a buying guide, you are far better watching videos and listening to opinions. Eurogamer saw this a long while ago, few other places have. Skillup is good, but generally I find the overall tone of a thread in this place far better than any review score. If certain ones here are talking about how fun the combat is in a game, I know I need to play it.
It's not necessarily a problem with reviews, as with the culture around them, which emphasises scores above all else. I don't think it's the same with, say, film reviews, where people get het up about Metacritic scores or whether a certain outlet gave the latest Avengers 3 or 4 stars. Or maybe I just don't see it.
Anyway, as a reviewer, I don't see the score as that big a deal. They're a rough and vaguely helpful quick reference, but beyond that they're meaningless without the accompanying text. They're a number at the end of the piece of writing that I actually spent my time on. Half the time I'm left with a quandry whether I should give something a 6 or a 7, 3 stars or 4, and it could go either way, but I have to make a decision. The people complain because they think 3 stars means it's terrible while 4 stars means it's great.
I don't think publications should do away with scores - they have their use. I just don't think they should be treated as the be-all and end-all of criticism either.1
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I haven't played all of it yet, but for me God of War is a game where everything about it is good. Every rough edge has been filed off the level design. The combat feels solid. The characters and script are engaging, etc.
But then nothing, or hardly anything, about it is brilliant. It doesn't surprise me. It never really asks for my full focus. I auto-pilot through most of it because it's put together in a just-so way that's largely transparent. I know if I go that way I'll find a puzzle and a chest, and if I go that way I'm walking into a fight, and the parameters of the puzzle and the fight will be made clear.
It seems to follow the rules of good level design and writing and user interface and everything else to a fault. It's a 7/10 all the way.10
I think there's a bit too much of it, but I really like that it's a bit cheesy and silly. It provides a fun contrast between the confident personas of the characters in battle and their awkward attempts to get on while sharing a house, or simply the fact that there's a version of these superheroes that starts a book club or enjoys a stint of birdwatching now and again, even when the world is in danger. Their commitment to work-life balance is commendable.5
15 hours ago, thesnwmn said:
Any of Sony's third person action/adventure games.
All the same developed by numbers and focus tested mediocrity. Dressed up in pretty clothes and employing the same tricks on repeat.
In terms of production values, they're very much high end, though. In terms of big budget games, something like a Far Cry 4-6 feels far more middling.0
2 hours ago, moosegrinder said:
Oooh I'm only one off a full house of Edge Bingo!
3rd strike and you're out.4
Making decisions based on partial information is very much part of the experience, so it's best if you can just go with it. If you feel guilty later, that's part of the experience too.3
1 hour ago, JoeK said:
Watching Skill-Up's reviews leads me to suggest that however good the actual game is the story element of it all could possibly be the most appalling shite ever.
Read the Eurogamer review as a counterpoint:Quote
It's a blockbuster about the apocalypse, but it's also the story of a particularly taxing house share.
Personally, I always look forward to book club night.0
What is your most Disappointing and Surprising game you played this year?
Disappointment - Somerville. We didn't know much about it before it was released, but I expected a certain level of quality and storytelling craft, and it just wasn't there at all.
Surprise - Immortality. I played a demo a few months before it came out and didn't get the point of it. Like previous Sam Barlow games, but with the investigative technique of using key words to dive deeper into the story replaced by seemingly random jump cuts, robbing you of any sense of control. But of course it turned out to be an extraordinarily layered experience, and the links between the jump cuts were fascinating to explore.