I still haven’t played Wasteland 3 or Divinity Original sin 2 even though I own both. And Balder’s Gate 3 is due to get discounted at Christmas. At some point, you have to measure RPG purchases against your life expectancy.
No I did not, you seemingly want a by-date system for the site, which feels quite a bit weird considering how people usually use review sites. Hence the prod at your comment. Basically, adding a site like opencritic to an RSS-reader makes no sense, and I say this with someone running multiple custom filters over nearly 120 subscriptions for my daily news dose.
Hrm, I’ll be honest then, you’re the very very first time I hear someone wanting to consume game reviews meta aggregation in a chronological way (instead of by-game). Not once seen this sentiment before.
I dunno, it’s just not how people use these pages I would assume. You create search shortcuts for them, not RSS feeds. You want to look up what various reviewers at large say about a specific game, more so because this changes over time (so would a feed udoate each time the score changes? Only once on the very first review? Only once it stops updating for X time? What if that takes months?). It’s the polar opposite of once you have 2-3 reviewers who mirror your personal take well where you might want to know each time these people post a new review.
Here’s a second person, then. It shouldn’t be too surprising; anyone that works in games media will tell you that new releases are what drive peak engagement.
RSS can be similar to their Twitter feed, with a curated set of highlighted games once a certain amount of reviews are in. I already get a dozen feeds that have reviews in them anyway, and I often read them even if I’m not already interested in the game. Why not an aggregate? I’d subscribe in a heartbeat.
There’s no exact point in time at which “the aggregated reviews” are one finished article of news. One bootlicking review site will have its review of a game out in the first 3 hours to be the first place people read. Then, another detailed reviewer will spend a week investigating the game’s systems before providing a more nuanced review.
Ehh… lack of user reviews are exactly what made OpenCritic better than MetaCritic.
It will probably just end up the same as MetaCritic. Where anyone, including people who never played the game, can leave reviews. And it’ll sooner or later just degrade into yet another review-bombing platform where you’ll find absolutely nothing constructive in the user reviews (both negative and positive review spam).
Also, walling the user score details behind a forced registration is just shit tier level.Apparently that’s just to post reviews, can’t see individual user reviews yet I think(?)
I’m curious what argument the people that are just downvoting comments in this thread actually have. These days nothing good comes from gaming platforms that have user reviews. It’s just a cesspool of haters, trolls and fanboys circlejerking over 0s or 10s and hardly anything constructive and unbiased in between.
There is the summary of the review notes and the evolution over time. Then there is the text comments associated to the notes which is sorted by helpfulness. To me this is a good system and by browsing 2-3 pages of reviews I think I get an accurate idea. I think I never got misleaded by a game with overwhelming positive reviews rating. Of course there are still players with 1000 hours in the games giving 0 stars review with comment « this game bad » but there are also plenty of useful reviews.
When I see a game on sales on the Epic store, I first go to the steam reviews before deciding. I don’t think I’m the only one doing that.
I’ve found that Steam reviews are especially useless for visual novels and games with anime girls. I am open to the concept of a visual novel, and really enjoy the Ace Attorney games, but maintain 99.9% of them are trash, with none of their excess dialog trimmed down. They all have reviews saying Overwhelmingly Positive though, because anyone who would take the chance to try that genre - a small segment of people - will enjoy it.
I also really wish Steam would implement a Helpfulness system for Guides, since most games have Guide pages that are just filled with meme posts, eg; “How 2 win: Pick OP character, enjoy victory”.
I’m really not a fan of this. Opencritic’s entire point is to filter out the garbage and be a great way to see a summary of reviews from professional critics. One look at Metacritic’s user reviews and you know it’s just going to be flame wars of fanboys and haters.
Absolutely love this game. Its a real gem for people that like puzzles and detective stuff. BUT i have had multiple times where a case was unsolvable because of a bug. Which is incredibly frustrating because you never know if its bugged or you’re just overlooking something.
A lot of people that played the previews were quite optimistic about the game, save for a few gripes that seem to reflect in most reviews now. But the online community has been rather toxic about a variety of things, ranging from valid concerns to pointless hate. There was one IGN preview that looked pretty bland and bad, but everything else looked alright.
It’s not an innovating game, but frankly I never expected it to be. It looks like a fun immersive experience for SW fans (the actual fans, not the ones that hate literally everything about SW lol).
Have you seen the actual “criticism” lately? Like 99% of the stuff I’ve read from SW “fans” are anything but legit criticism, just trolls incessantly bitching for the sake of bitching in an attempt to raise their social media scores by lifting on the circlejerks just hating without any constructive feedback.
I wasn’t even talking about SW here, just how fan is used these days. I’m not and never was part of the SW fanbase, but from what I’ve seen from the outside that’s because all the legitimate criticisms were ignored years ago and everyone that cared moved on from the new corporately-stoked toxic fanbase.
My comment applies to industries beyond SW as well, it has become part of the cancel culture these days. SW is just an infamous example since the new Disney movies released. Thing is that these huge corporations try to appeal to a much larger crowd than previously (this goes for other companies too) and that doesn’t always fit within people’s personal narrative.
I get that some don’t agree with choices being made, but these aren’t being made just for them. Yet a lot of people abuse this excuse to make it like a religious crusade against these corporations, a ride that a lot of people hop on to, who had nothing to do with the whole thing in the first place and just tag along for their entertainment instead of just moving along.
This game is a good example too, a lot of people just tag along with the collective hate for Ubisoft. But when you ask them the general response will be “bEcAUse iT’s uBiSOft” and have no constructive argument. Some will say it’s because the game is using the usual Ubisoft formula (it doesn’t, but that aside), so what? A lot of people do enjoy that formula, and all the people that don’t like it can move along, big enough of a world out there to find something they do enjoy, including other SW games in a variety of genres.
The funniest part of Ubisoft hate is when every other open world game uses “towers” (a logical high-altitude system to increase map coverage), for instance in Zelda, Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth, etc, while every Ubisoft game is banned from using them now.
They honestly weren’t even a bad system in Far Cry. They designed the climb to use different mechanics each time.
Didn’t Ubisoft or Disney send people to Disneyland and pay for vacations or whatever in connection with them being invited to play the game? In a legal context, that could easily be seen as veiled bribery. It psychologically makes people more inclined to speak positively because it abuses their desire to be grateful and show gratitude. Basically, a company that wants honest feedback would not do that. Especially not the company with a direct financial incentive to gain from the most expensive marketing campaign they have ever done.
All the gameplay I have seen looks mid at best, and bad at worst. Especially when comparing it to previous Ubisoft games such as AC Black Flag. Comparing AC Black Flag to Star Wars Outlaws demonstrates modern Ubisofts profound lack of attention to detail. Facial animations, water interactions, stealth, all of the major mechanics of the game demonstrate significant degradation in Outlaws’ gameplay footage.
These are criticisms purely based on the technical aspects of visible gameplay footage. This isn’t even touching stuff like story or writing.
This right here is why critic scores are almost always higher than audience scores. Becauee the audience doesn’t care about being blacklisted because they honestly scored a product.
Companies have a financial incentive to get high scores. Review outlets have a fincancial incentive to get review copies for free. Put two and two together and it really isn’t hard to see why the critics give whack scores.
Starfield was the same. Looked pretty meh, but almost all (initial) reviewers gave it high marks. It wasn’t until people started playing that the truthful reviews surfaced. Guessing either paid reviews, or reviewers having a skewed view of what makes a game great.
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
I’ve played through the entire main story, but only a few of the optional side missions (I am planning on playing through them, just haven’t had the time yet). I picked it up because I love their earlier game, Gunpoint.
It took me around 15 hours, and there’s at least probably 5 more hours for me to get all the optional objectives in the main story missions, plus the optional side missions.
I would highly recommend the game - the story and gameplay are both pretty entertaining. The little bits of character conversations you get at the start of each mission are pretty funny and well-written. It’s not very difficult (as there’s no % chance to hit like in x-com, actions are guaranteed when you execute them, and there’s unlimited rewinds within a “turn”) - more puzzle-like than tactical combat, but the added “Confidence” objectives are fun to try to get.
more puzzle-like than tactical combat, but the added “Confidence” objectives are fun to try to get.
Yeah it’s giving me Into the Breach vibes, and that was a game that also felt very “puzzle tactics”.
EDIT: actually I have a question for the group. How do y’all feel about “puzzle” tactics games like this versus more open-ended tactics games like XCOM? Personally I can sometimes get turned off from games that feel like all the levels are predesigned with a “best” solution that i have to work out. XCOM can feel freeing because when you come up with an incredibly efficient turn that synergizes everyone’s abilities, it can feel like you “got one over” on the game.
Considering you can go back and play the levels again with a completely different team and more powerful perks (you unlock some new characters as the game progress), while the devs certainly have some solutions in mind (and may hint at those through the confidence “challenges”), there are definitely plenty of different solutions to each level. So while sure, there might be an optimal solution, there’s also a solution where you defenestrate every enemy.
Which is kinda fun, because it’s also fun to go back and replay some earlier missions that had a “survive 5 rounds” with a challenge of “survive 7 rounds” and deciding “I bet I can survive 9 rounds” (though I was a bit disappointed the enemies stopped coming after 9 rounds. But I think there is a bonus side-mission with infinite rounds, so that one might be fun to go try.)
Or a mission that had the confidence perk of “defeat all enemies in 2 rounds” and being able to do it in 1, when the first time took 3.
So while this one is maybe more “puzzle-tactics”, the puzzles are very open-ended.
The writing is exceptionally well done as is everything else about the game. The story is nothing crazy but the dialogue and characters are where the writing really shines. If you’re a fan of the genre, this is definitely worth picking up especially since it’s only $20.
opencritic.com
Aktywne