Same reaction, once Baldur’s Gate 3 was out I haven’t touched this game, and probably I’ll wait for a couple of months until they fix the mess they have
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.
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.
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.
The game is great and easily the best japanese fighting game experience for casuals. (Mechanically I prefer anime fighters though.) For once a Japanese game has all the bells and whistles instead of almost purely focusing on the multiplayer.
The cosmetics are what they are. At least it’s not p2w but it’s up to consumers to not spend if they don’t agree with paying more in a game they already bought.
Edit: downvote me all you want but the truth is that street fighter 6 was a very big step forward for japanese fighting games in terms of what they offer consumers. The fgc hasn’t had games that can truly appeal to and bring in new players so I can’t help but be happy for it. The only exceptions would be NRS’s games and smash.
I’d say that’s okay if only the company is credited by name, but the execs names were included. If they’re including names, include all the names. It’s not a long list from what I saw on Twitter.
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.