Divinity: Original Sin 2, Larian’s previous game is #13 and they did that one when the studio was a fraction of the size it is now and on a miniscule budget when compared to BG3. It’s just a wonderful studio, full of talent and enthusiasm that starts from the top.
Yeah and dos2 they really figured out the formula. Bg3 feels basically like dos2 but with a lot more story and cinematics, but not to say dos2 didn’t already have a ton too. It’s a good thing though, both games are amazing.
I really like that dice roll mechanic they added in BG3, it’s highly satisfying. But yeah, mechanically D:OS2 and BG3 are pretty much the same. I hope BG3 makes people give D:OS2 a try.
Honestly that’s my biggest complaint tbh. I just don’t like DnD combat. Miss rates are way to high and feel awful. It’s way too RNG and I have to save scum like crazy.
I absolutely adore their feedback/early access system.
All games should have an early access like that. Not a shitty way to release a crap full of bugs to steam out, but a very analytic/data and feedback base way to improve the game. Basically giving the players a very large demo that can be easily changed in order to improve it.
The TLDR of the steam reviews seems to be to just buy and play the old ones. They are less pretty but much better mechanically and story wise. They also lack intrusive Denuvo DRM and data collection policies. I haven’t played the game personally but that seems to be the consensus from the top couple of reviews.
Personally this one will be staying on my wishlist for a few years.
At least you can already try it, it’s on EA on Epic store, and from what I saw trough streams, it’s already a worthy successor despite not being complete.
It’s the same game fundamentally, but improved and properly modernized in everyway.
The campaign is a little cutscene-heavy and a little short, but the story isn't much worse than HW2's, maybe a little better imo.
Mechanically though, it's (probably) better than the remasters. Directional damage is still there, homing projectiles are gone, fighters dynamically form squads instead of staying in a big blob or fixed-width squads in 2. I read some of those reviews at most of them don't appear to have played more than the first 2 missions? Like, there was one lore error in one line of dialogue and people lost their goddamn minds.
I think it was really just a victim of 1) Embracer's implosion meaning it had to launch now or not at all and 2) people's expectations being all the way up at 11 since the last game was so long ago. Really, a little bit of story DLC to flesh out the main campaign and there would be no problems.
Have you played Baldur’s Gate 1 recently? 2E is a nightmare of THACO and instant death waiting around every corner. Weapons break constantly, mages inevitably hold your entire party, it’s very easy to wander off in the wrong direction and die, NPCs have wonky stats that cannot be respecced. Save scumming is mandatory unless you really, really know your stuff.
The lethality of the world in 1&2 contributed to so many memorable moments in them, for me at least.
There’s something different about figuring out step by step how it is even possible to beat the enemy that wrecked your shit as soon as you walked into the room, versus grinding out a more typical battle. I’m not saying it’s better, or that BG3 has to be that way, but it is definitely a big part of this particular series for me.
For example, I have vivid memories of running into mind flayers, and fights with certain dragons, and the demogorgon, and Kangaxx, and even the first time getting to the gnoll stronghold.
I noticed this. I was thinking in my head that critics means they usually be critical but a lot of the times it just feels like an ad with these big studios. I loved game informer tho, but unfortunately it got shut down this year and now I have no reliable site to check :(
Yeah as much as I’d like to take credit, donate a few bucks to Open Critic if you enjoy this. They offer a readymade format for this, and they’re a fantastic service in comparison to Metacritic anyways.
I wouldn’t expect that to last long though, a lot of reviewers still haven’t played enough of it to give it a rating so right now the sample size is pretty small. Even IGN hasn’t submitted their review yet, and usually they’re early. The game is just really big.
I agree with a lot of your post - but it started at 92, after a few days it was 95, then 2 weeks after release its 97. If anything, more reviews will mean a higher score.
That assumes everyone is going to be rating it in the 90s, which is far from a guarantee even for games that absolutely deserve it. Especially when the cRPG genre isn't exactly an industry darling.
People downvoting you is fucking hilarious. I hate to break it to them, but both movie and game reviews were bought out quite some time ago. Watch gameplay, read multiple reviews not from the critics, but from real people who actually tried to enjoy the game instead of doing some mediocre checklist.
I think if it was not the case we would have seen a lot more failing grades lately. I mean some of the titles did not even work on launch yet somehow 9/10?
Exactly. The same critics they are desperately waiting for their approval are the same ones who will give a trash and micro transaction bloated piece of shit game over a 90, but then a well developed and labor of love below a 90 because the better game was indie and didn’t pay them for the review.
For those that live under a rock, Pokémon heavily relies on a weakness/strength system based on 'types'. Both the Pokémon and individual moves have types. Hitting weaknesses will wreck faces, while hitting strengths is practically useless. This is an important preface to my point.
In the regular land terrain, you can find Pokémon of pretty much all types, which forces you to change up your own Pokémon to adapt.
In water terrain though, the Pokémon you'll find, both in the wild and on trainers, is 99% water as a main type, and it is here where we come across the real problem.
Without any grinding, you can absolutely blitz through any challenges in those areas with a few reliable Electric or Grass types or even moves, to the point where it's just not fun to do.
But at the same time, you have to go through these areas to progress, and the game heavily encourages you to use Pokémon/moves that hit weaknesses. It's been teaching you to do this the entire time. which means most players will experience the drag and not set their own fun to counteract this. That is a legit negative.
I think they just summed it up really badly. At the end of an IGN score, you've got compliments and criticisms at the bottom, summed up in short sentences.
'over-reliance on Water Pokémon' or 'some routes are boringly easy' would both be infinitely better sentences than 'too much water', which on the face of it, and without context, does sound like a bullshit bullet point.
The “too much water” was intended to talk about too many water pokemon, as well as the poor navigation of water levels.
To me, when people try to discredit ign because of “too much water” I immediately know their opinion is worthless because they didnt read the review and couldn’t piece together what the criticism was in the first place.
'too much water' was a summary negative point in the IGN review of Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire games.
On the face of it, that complaint sounds fucking ridiculous, but is actually very valid due to the way those games handle waterways; they are the only terrain filled almost entirely with a single Pokémon type, with all others having wide varieties.
This makes large sections of the game a pathetically easy and boring breeze even by Pokémon standards; one reliable Electric or Grass type and you're set.
However, that sentence was in the TL;DR bullet points of the review, which sounds fucking ridiculous without context.
However, there are:
• Jumping puzzles dependent on either high strength or specific spells.
• Inventory management is critical, particularly grabbing a few emptied crates/chests/backpacks and dumping them into your personal storage chest so you can quickly sort.
Both of those, based on previous reviews, make a decent score from IGN unlikely.
it’s a joke… play single player, connecting to online services* "okay whatever… 3 minutes in every single time… error failed to connect to online services and proceeds to kick you to title screen… what a fucking joke
shit like that is annoying, especially if the game does not really need an online connection if you want to play solo. It seems like you already played it, is it possible to habe multiple characters in the game like two Deadshots or Boomerangs?
I mean, isn’t the point of OpenCritic to get as wide an opinion base as possible? Of course you’ll have a bunch of weird ones in there, but you hypothetically get the best overall view of a game.
Because at this point it is their stylistic choice, same as Ace Combat or like asking Kojima not to make a convoluted vomit of a narrative. You kind of know what you are getting into. And with how much long cutscenes and exposition takes you out if the game (I’m looking at you FFXVI) I like this approach to pure action games.
Ace Combat and Kojima games do get criticism for their plots, though.
If you include a narrative, it’s fair game.
Would y’all be lenient on mediocre mechanics of a “cinematic, narrative” game if it had a great story because “you know what you’re getting into”? From my experience, most of a certain type of gamer wouldn’t be.
85 average and 8/10 scores are hardly big knocks, either.
Of course you can, but I prefer judging a game on what it focuses on. Kind of like judging undertale on its graphics, it’s not the main point. AC is all about the combat and customization, and anything that gets in the way of that is what I would judge harshly.
If the story or it’s presentation is lacking then it’s something a lot of players may want to know before buying the game.
Now how much it should affect the actual score depends on the reviewer.
Because that’s not the focus of their game. That’s why. Witcher 3 chose to focus on the story and the combat is bland and boring. Dragon’s Dogma has great combat and a lacking story. Your point makes no sense.
Yes. It was boring. Not sure how to misinterpret that lol. It’s bland. I’ve tried to finish the game twice and no matter how good the story is I can’t finish it because it’s a drag to play.
From games have tried to branch out into a different genre and didn’t quite pull it off. If a racing car game dev made an RPG and it was just a game where you raced cars would you also say it doesn’t matter? Makes no sense.
It shows they’re not quite as versatile as their fanboys make them out to be.
What do you mean by branch out? They set out to do an action game like they did 10 years ago where the story is entirely secondary to the gameplay and mechanics. If anything having a super cutscene heavy character development drama would be branching out from what the series is all about.
Well that’s the point right? It’s been 10 years. A lot has changed in games and people expect more. That’s reflected in why the game has reviewed ok, but for a FromSoftware game it’s kinda done pretty poorly. This isn’t going to win any game of the year awards and they’re demonstrating that they can’t just take any game and make it great.
As respectfully as I can say this, so what? I don’t care about it trying to be a mass appeal GOTY art piece that pushes boundaries. I want an AC game with the stupid silly robots blowing shit up. Anything that tales me out building said robots or blowing said shit up is a negative for me. If anything having more bloat with cutscenes and dialogue and exposition detracts from the experience.
My comment is just a reply to the original comment that someone said it was laughable that reviewers complained about the lack of story which I think is just oblivious/attempts to excuse the developer for making a certain type of game. Again, the industry has evolved to expect certain things so when it’s not there it’s a valid complaint and reason why this game doesn’t live up to expectations.
But it’s completely valid for people to just want an action game or movie without a story so if that floats your boat then great.
Didn’t live up to your unrealistic expectations. It’s an action game with multiplayer based around mechs.
For this type of game the industry evolved to shoving loot crates, skins, and battle passes down our throats, not a “great story”. This game has none of that. Which I’m sure most people are happy about.
The “story” in Armored Core exists to give you a reason to play their mech action game. Mech action being the focal point. It gives you a reason to play the game, get used to the controls, and then maybe play some multiplayer.
Not just my expectations, it has a metacritic score of 87. That’s good, but it’s only in the top 50 games this year.
Again, I don’t really care, I don’t actually plan on playing it. Just saying why it’s completely justifiable that reviewers downgrade the score because it’s not doing anything new/has no story.
Just fyi - but I’d rate games with microtransactions as below this. I just have learnt to enjoy action games with story. Otherwise it’s just another action game. If you play a hundred action games then they start all being the same unless you start doing more. Mech combat is not that exciting or new for me.
Elden Ring is their best attempt at story telling imo. I could follow most of the NPC storylines without much effort in the first playthrough. It wasn’t really obtuse like their previous titles. There is a bit of hope they can improve.
Just remember, it’s Ubisoft, and it’s on their cloud dependent engine. Treat everything about it as if it was a rental, because someday they’ll take it away. If they do that that’s their choice, but I’ll be waiting until it’s rental prices before I play.
Does the game require an online connection? I can’t seem to find the information on the web but I’m also not looking that hard so maybe I’m just dumb lol
Well first I don’t know for sure, but I would be very surprised if it didn’t require it just from a game aspect because every Ubisoft game has lately even assassin’s Creed games.
Second, I was talking about the engine itself that they’re using. If it’s the one I think it is, they’re streaming data from the cloud constantly which would mean that it has to be always online
Seriously. The Switch is a piece of shit and it looks beautiful and plays well and has so much depth and complexity. Sure, it doesn’t have raytracing, but have you seen those sunsets?
BG3 is immensely good and I’m really enjoying it so far. I have to say I had more pure fun playing TotK and would call it the better game. I love them both though.
Idk about that, it’s very very hard to compare the two and to which is better. Objectively, they’re both amazing games and very high quality. Think from there, what determines what’s better is what your preference is. I like them both for different reasons and can just tell you I’m immersed and having tons of fun with both.
I haven’t even played BG3 yet, but I wouldn’t fault anyone for saying this. I lost a month and a half to TOTK and enjoyed every second. It fixed every gripe I had about BOTW, but that’s kind of the problem as well. I always felt like BOTW was a glorified tech demo, and after playing TOTK, it felt more like the game BOTW should have been.
TOTK also has its own issues, especially with the story. The story just being told to you and not being something you’re really experiencing was a weird choice. I was hoping for Ganondorf’s involvement to be more than “it was me Link!” leading up to the final confrontation.
The final boss fight was an insanely awesome sequence though. Easily my favorite part of the game.
I agree with not really being a part of the story. You do play a part a little more in Totk, but it’s still mostly watching cutscenes from the past again. Such a weird narrative to stick to.
I’m excited for BG3 but I guess I struggle to see why it needs to be compared to TotK at all. Feels like that is selling both games a bit short. They aren’t really that similar.
Which is a perfect example of the irrelevance of awards, and not just in gaming but pretty much any other subject. The fact I like pizza doesn’t influence how much I love cake and people who love soup are also right.
My argument would be that one doesn’t transcend over the other. It’s probably obvious but I also think numbered review scores are inherently flawed, because the metric is subjective and meaningless.
I much prefer a tiers system. These are both top tier games. Anyone can agree they are of exemplary quality and represent some of the best their genre has to offer. Any argument beyond that very quickly devolves into squabbles over subjective preference and that is a bit pointless to me.
As an example, a few of my favorite games of all time are Earthbound, Half-Life, Super Mario World, Metroid Prime, and Skyrim. I would rank all 5 of these games in my top tier. But what point is there in trying to rank them amongst each other? They have nothing to do with one another, so I have no meaningful way to compare them. If I use numbering, would I rank Earthbound a 9.7 and Metroid Prime a 9.5 and that means Earthbound is a better game? 2 tenths better? What does that even mean? I just don’t find value in that kind of arbitrary comparison.
maybe it’s not that bad? I mean the only big outlet who actually think its that bad and is riding this meta is IGN and I dont understand why people suddenly follow IGN or give a shit about their review/oppinion so much. Youtubers like Skillup for example actually liked the game, it sure won’t be a GOTY nominee or will get 9’s and 10’s, but I personally still can have fun with a 7 out of 10 which where I see the game could be landing.
It might just be in-context. For all I know it’s a quite solid live service game now - unlike in the previews, which were truly terribly bad and laughable.
But that’s the thing, it’s still a soulless and styleless and barely suicide squad live service game. But the bar for those is so low overall, this might be quite good in comparison, so if you enjoy the near-endless time investment and this is your genre of choice for those, this might be a good fit for you. Personally I have FFXIV for that, so eh, not really interested at all. 🤷
I have FFXIV for that, so eh, not really interested at all. 🤷
Gameplay looked quiet fun to be honest and I always like a good coop game. And gameplay is actually the thing I care for, this is also one of the reason I quit FF14 after 800+ hours because in the end it was just a “run to the next text passage” in between the LFG instead of actual gameplay but I have Guild Wars 2 for this.
But how long do you wanna fight the same 2 or 3 enemies and do e different missions, of which most seem to be escort missions. The gameplay can't ve that fun. And it's a 70 dollar game
If they nailed the 30s gameplay loop it could be fun. Of course the rest like the loot also has to work, because of their service game approach and therfore I wait for final reviews.
From what i saw, the gameplay looks kinda fun and the story isn't cringe and alright. But man, i wouldn't rate a game that high that has 3 enemies and 3 different missions. Apparently the boss fights are even more of a joke. So it's just game journalism
Watched a few reviews now and … it seems very disappointing. Some good ideas in there, but the characters aren’t who they are, guns are all anemic and samey stat vessels, enemy variety is inexistent, and the core endgame loop is boring and clearly just exists to sell you mtx.
What a shame.
At least with the tepid reviews (60/100 at time of writing) plus the low player count, there’s a good chance this’ll not be long before it is put out of its misery.
opencritic.com
Ważne