See. It’s easier to use but of an axe to hammer the nails rather than to use the handle of saw to hammer the nails. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
Most of your write ups seem decently done if you clicked with the game at all, but if you’re going to continue to review things, you might want to do reign in your personal biases a bit.
Low scores for games you didn’t play or realize you don’t understand the appeal of are pretty bad takes.
Vampire Survivors was quite literally one of the hit games of the year when it came out, to call other games of the genre that are following on its coattails “not really a game” and saying people shouldn’t buy a literal genre is just ridiculous. Is FatalZone trying to be some huge blockbuster, no, it’s just iterating on the survivor concept (same as Deep Rock Galactic is doing, which has more polish but less features than most). The game is literally $5 to buy right now in early access and as one of the many who do enjoy the genre, it’s probably worth the price with the content it has now (unknown if it’ll be same insane value VS has been).
Isn't that exactly what lead us to the "every AAA game is an 8/10" meta of current videogame reviewing? I think it's totally valid to make subjective game reviews. Big outlets trying to make their reviews objectives is IMHO the reason why they are totally worthless (for me).
Everyone has a bias and that’s expected and the stating of opinions as opinions is good, the line is stating opinion as fact or review bombing.
I didn’t play it because I didn’t want to log in, isn’t a review of the actual game, it’s at best review bombing against secondary logins. It tells anyone interested in playing the game nothing other than that a secondary login is needed.
The definition of the minimum criteria for what makes a game is pretty nebulous, but survivor styles are well above all but the most disingenuous definitions of what makes a game. Saying it isn’t a game because you don’t enjoy it is not having a bias that causes you to like something less.
The trending of most games to be 7+/10 is largely driven by idiots who tied the success of a game to metacritic scores and publishers who retaliate against games journalists for “hurting” that success by not cooperating with them on future products by providing review codes.
the line is stating opinion as fact
I totally understand what you mean and I usually don't like it either but I think this post is easily recognized as an highly subjective opinion. So I'm fine with the way it's written and wouldn't take it as a fact.
review bombing
This is definitely not what review bombing even means (yes, that's a fact).
People should have spicy takes. I love when someone goes, “I don’t like Dark Souls because it’s too hard.” Or “Not a fan of gore so Doom isn’t for me”. It tells me more about the writer and seeing their perspective.
There’s enough annoying fanboys out there. If I wanted a tamed review, Ill go read some gaming blog thats too afraid to piss off their advertisers.
“I don’t like X game/genre” is a fine take, calling something you don’t like “not really a game" is not, unless you can really justify it not meeting some minimum criteria to be called a game (doesn’t present a challenge or problem to overcome, doesn’t have a fail-state, has no player agency, etc)
I don’t even know where to begin on the question of “reining in my personal bias”, other than to note all reviews are based on a person’s personal bias, and what they know about the gaming format and industry as a whole. I know it’s a tired trope, but everyone has personal bias, and game/game demo reviews should not try to be objective looks at games (it’s near useless). Reviewers should instead make their experience and opinions known from the start, or throughout the review. That way if their opinions are diametrically opposed, readers who don’t share the same opinions can readily discount it.
Also, while you can empathize with and realize that someone might like a game if they’re into that genre, you can only go so far. I have not played Vampire Survivors, but if it’s anything like FatalZone, I will gleefully state it’s not really a game. Or if I want to be less glib, not really a game I’d recommend for others. Again, for you this might be a good cue to discard my reviews as worthless for you. You should make your own reviews in this subreddit in that case, as it could certainly use more posts.
Sidenote: Pioneers of Pagonia is by the actual developer of the actual old The Settlers.
I loved it. And yeah, it’s a simple management game without much depth or fuss, but that chill easygoing settling of the landscape is what enchanted me about the original right around 30 years ago, and it worked just as well with the demo. In fact I found that comparing Against The Storm, I kinda prefer the less gameplay that PoP has, exactly because it has less gameplay. ATS sits a bit in the middle, still being a chill town builder but also wanting to be deeper, and in that case I just want a proper 4X or Grand Strategy game instead. PoP is then the exact opposite of that for me, it appeals to the chill&relax part of gaming, a bit like playing Dorfromantik or something.
I’m a bit in a not-yet-released slump. “Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous” gets a new DLC in late November, so not playing that until then. The same company releases their new game “Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader” in December, so I’m not playing the Beta until then. “Vagrus - The Riven Realm” gets a new DLC some time this year, so also waiting there. “Colony Ship” gets out of EA and releases November 9, so obviously not playing EA either.
I had enough of BG3 for now (finished it only twice, it’s not as captivating as the Pathfinder games) and will only eventually replay it with one of those “make it like actual D&D5” modpacks. Regarding D&D5, I should some time check if there are updated fan campaigns for Solasta that use the higher DLC level cap :D
I did plan to replay Wasteland 2, but that will take quite some time, and as I mentioned, upcoming releases.
So after telling you what I have not been playing, what I currently do play is alternate between my typical fallback games: Stellaris (a game I never once finished despite 1080h of time played) and Civ V with the amazing and mandatory Vox Populi mod.
Absolutely adored robocop and cobalt core. Definitely picking up both of them. Robocop nailed everything that made the movie great, cobalt core oozed charm and had fun gameplay.
I had meant to try the thaumaturge but by the time I got around to it, next fest was over and I couldn’t play the demo anymore. These time limited demos are a really stupid idea. I’m way less likely to buy it now because those sorts of games are hit or miss for me.
I agree on the annoying timed out demo, I thought the same thing when I missed out on a demo during the last steam next fest. Crazy how even demos are impacted by the ethereal nature of digital storefronts and their sometimes inconsistent access.
It took a lot out of me making time for these demos when I work a full-time job, but I just knew something like that was going to happen if I didn’t get around to them.
the games/engines you cite as being “extremely well optimized” are both a lot older than UE5 and do a lot less than some of the “less optimized” games discussed (i.e. simpler lighting, no geometry virtualization, simplistic simulation, very static environments, etc.)
Mass Effect Legendary Edition (ME1), just got Liara & did the DLC mission as well as a bit of uncharted worlds & rogue VI on Earth’s moon.
The game looks a lot better and most controls are nicer. Although somehow the Mako is even worse to control in LE than the original ME and I get some stutter/loading while running around in presidium.
Being able to skip while in the elevator is nice, but I would’ve liked to see the option to be moved directly into normandy added to the rapid transits like in ME2 & ME3. Having to go to C-Sec, take the elevator, and wait for the decontamination process every time is really tedious, and it’s why I rarely visited the Citadel in the original ME1 as well.
Honestly ME1 LE is looking pretty nice and I would recommend it to anyone who hasn’t played it yet, but it was always the story that was the highlight of ME1, the gameplay isn’t actually that great and I’ve already replayed the original several times so I think I’m just going to go ahead and play ME2.
It’s fun when done right. Humor is a thing. And we can joke about these things. At least I can, you can do what you want. :)
If you think about it, humor is much needed in the world today. It’s healthy and good for you to joke and laugh about these things, unless you are pointing at a specific person. You have to know the difference between bullying and humor.
I only recently watched Guardians of the Galaxy because a coworker whose opinions I hold in high regard recommended it. I enjoyed it very much and thought it would make a fun video game. Lo and behold, there is one! So I bought it and have been playing that when work and school allow.
I haven’t played too deep into it, only gotten past 2-3 boss fights, but it’s fun so far. I’m enjoying the gameplay and the music. The story is pretty much the same flavor as the movie.
Optimization is extremely complex and the game engine, while factoring into the equation, doesn’t determine if something is optimized or not inherently.
Yes, this is all a horrible post, game engines can’t really be compared directly. There is no one size fits all.
EA thought that and tried to apply Frostbite to their entire catalogue. What worked amazingly for Battlefield/Battlefront was a disaster for Dragon Age: Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, and let’s not forget Anthem. Engine was optimized for small maps and quick gameplay, but was horrible for large open worlds and RPG elements.
The reason Unreal requires such heavy hardware is because they’re trying to be a one tool fits all, but that requires making sacrifices.
OP’s entire post here is incredibly naive. It’s apples to oranges.
bin.pol.social
Najnowsze