Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice - Review Thread
- Thread starter Savantcore
- Start date
Good. There are plenty of experiences I have "missed" because I don't like a mechanic or a system that is in place. I like having control over my own level of enjoyment regarding certain aspects, and a permanent death system has never, ever fallen into the "fun" category for me.
See, now this sounds more reasonable with this explanation laid out. Though it still won't push it out of my mind that the system exists and, lore-friendly or not, is not really something I necessarily want to be forced into.
No. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
publishers pay bonuses? isn't Hellblade produced, published and released by Ninja Theory, and only Ninja Theory? I don't think they pay bonuses for a Metacritic score .. ;o)
A reviewer should never be concerned with how their review will affect a game's Metacritic score.
Team Ninja?
SomedayTheFire
Member
The bug is part of the game buddy.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Ninja Theory. Easy mistake for someone to make.
ScaryShark
Banned
Not really a 1:1 analogy. What Jim encountered would be if the only way you got the book was through the author and when the author was printing it and binding it and making it for you, they made it so he couldn't read the end of the book.
They would 100% be on the hook for it getting a negative reaction.
ooooppsss Ninja Theory..
Team Andromeda
Member
No shock, this team are one of the best developers in the west .
If you don't even have the professionalism to finish a game, you should not be reviewing it. Yes, it might not be a pleasent experience, but I expect more from a professional reviewer than an average forum poster. Then again, how many reviewers are truly qualified in the industry? Two or three maybe?
Eh. The reality we're living in is that a negative Metacritic score can directly influence a game's sale and thus the livelihood of quite a bunch of people who worked on it for years.
It's obviously in every reviewer's right to give whatever score they think is right and if it's a 1/10 then so be it. However, if you give out the lowest score possible just because you ran into a bug that might be fixed in a week or might only ever affect 0.001% of all players then that's quite harsh and maybe unfairly so. Tons of games have game breaking bugs - you can't catch every bug pre release, that's just the way it is - and almost none of them get 1/10 scores. Bad luck it glitched out on the wrong person, I guess.
SomedayTheFire
Member
Depends if he got them or not, doesn't it.
If this is about Jim, he couldn't because his game was broken by a bug.
Anxiety is not supposed to be fun.
This games is about depression, anxiety and fear of failure and that system is apparently meant to convey these feelings onto the player.
If all you want to have is harmless fun this game isn't for you.
Stop. Books aren't video game software. They aren't comparable and you aren't going to make them so. Reviews are subjective experiences and if you experience a bug that makes your game literally unplayable, you can reviews how you want.
You get one save. You can not revert this save. The auto save function literally put his game in an unplayable loop. He would have to start over and hope it didn't happen again. Eight more hours of doing it all over again. For some people, that isn't going to be something they are up for. Nor should it be. So he scored it how he experienced it. Unless Ninja Theory literally reverts his save? He has to start over.
For some, you get one chance to make your impression. This is a blessing and a curse. Also, it is on Metacritic to adjust their stupid policy on not updating reviews, not the reviewer's.
Not an issue in this case and even if it were, that's simply a shitty practice that shouldn't exist in the first place. Reviewers can't and shouldn't approach a review thinking about a possible bonus the devs do or don't get because of how they rate a certain game.
I can tell you that if I lost my only save-file with no way to retrieve it due to a bug that is out of my hands, I would be pissed, no matter how good the game was until then. In fact, the more I liked the game until that point, the more frustrated I would be.
Sounds like a problem with the industry.
He personally never encountered them so they don't exist. That's how reviews work.
I guess not. So much for this game then. I suffer from enough real-world anxiety, depression, and fear of failure that I guess it was too far beyond me to expect that some stupid mechanic would at least be an option in a game I wanted to play in order to escape from that kind of crap.
It's harsh when you can pour hours into a game only to encounter a game ending bug.
It is how it should work. A single bug doesnt make everything else worthless. If you think otherwise you are wrong, sorry. Like I said, it is okay to give the game a lower score. But ignoring everything you like about the game because of this bug is to harsh.
Salty Rice
Member
Once again Jim with such a review...
He says he liked the game. How about reviewing the game you played instead of reviewing just one bug.
I dont care for Jims reviews for a long time now but it sucks for the developers that the Metacritic score is brought down by such a review.
He says he liked the game. How about reviewing the game you played instead of reviewing just one bug.
I dont care for Jims reviews for a long time now but it sucks for the developers that the Metacritic score is brought down by such a review.
Well, you could back-up your saves if that is the only thing holding you back. Still wouldn't be an ideal solution for you, but perhaps it makes it that bit more bearable to try it out. But from what I gather the permadeath doesn't really seems an issue with the amount of times you can die.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I get what you're saying, but none of this makes Jim's review any less valid or fair. I'm not saying his method is the only correct way of handling this situation (he could have released his review with no score and highly advised his audience to pass on the game until it is fixed, for example), but it's also not an incorrect way of handling it either.
I will admit I'd probably feel a bit differently if this review had been posted before launch. At that point, I would hope he would just hold back the review until launch day, to see if the issue is addressed.
Metacritic should really change their score policy. It makes sense for the other media they grade, but because games continue to change post-release I don't see the benefit to readers, consumers and/or devs to have the release score be the permanent score (should the publication decides to change it). Very few publications are going to bother with updated reviews/scores, and there should definitely be limitations in place for how Metacritic incorporates them, but for many modern games where issues can be patched quickly post-release sticking with initial scores just isn't beneficial for any of the parties involved.
I'm fine with reviewers like Jim giving games low scores and I don't think he should be influenced by aggregate sites; this is a problem Metacritic needs to address.
I'm fine with reviewers like Jim giving games low scores and I don't think he should be influenced by aggregate sites; this is a problem Metacritic needs to address.
ScaryShark
Banned
Being able to complete games are sort of important.
He should replay it from the beginning then, although I expect professional reviewers to know the importance of backing up save files, their most valuable assets.
Like I said, not a pleasent experience, but we don't always do our job because we like it.
That's how HIS review works, apparently. But not every reviewer uses the same standard if it is a standard he holds. Plenty of reviewers review the overall experience and note the bug as a negative in an otherwise good game, which this game seems to be.
I agree, and a reviewer should bring that up.
My point is, far too much credence is given to raw numerical scores (without taking the body of the review into account) and metacritic.
I reviewer shouldn't have to think 'If I give this a 5, it will affect metacritic and someone might not be able to eat', how on earth can someone remain objective with that kind of dagger over their head?
I'm not really sure why people still listen to him, he's proved time and time again that whilst he's influential and has a large audience, he's just a man-child who likes to have a tantrum.
ScaryShark
Banned
He's one of the most obnoxious personalities in gaming, that doesn't surprise me.
You better believe that people are able to see issues through different lenses and perspectives. And now we're discussing whether his review is unfair or not. He wouldn't care, because he got his response to the clickbait which is part of his marketing strategy.
I like the book analogy from the page before. That book reviewer could be just reviewing as-is or, if possible, cooperate with the publisher and tell them about the issue and receive a better review copy.
The worst part of his reasoning is that the game is a 8/10 for 99% of the time and one incident which is not triggered for everyone - and bugs do happen in every game - makes him drop the score that hard, even to the worst possible score. I see his frustration over this, but venting is not a good thing if you were to review something. Logically speaking, a 8/10 experience can hardly drop to the worst rating possible just because of one thing. I know that especially save-game related issues suck, but there's a broader perspective to that: the game is still good and that's what he actually tells us with his review.
If every reviewer was focused on *that one* bug, not many games would receive any good grade at all, especially during launch. Think Bethesda: Each game of theirs should receive a 1/10 from that point of view at launch. And now we can discuss why that is hardly the case.
Let's hope that he fixes the score after the launch-patch is released, because not doing so would definitely be unfair.
But I know: It's not his job to be fair and not our job to care. His job is to give a verdict, a numerical value, and that's it.
KZXcellent
Member
To me bigger issue is this TB opinion
For a person who said multiple times that he will do his work as he wants to come and call out other people who did their work how they wanted is just sad.
He's a critic of games. I don't see an issue with him having an opinion on games.
Welp! Guess Rogue-likes are done...
A reviewer has MANY games to play through and review... not all have the time to play through 8-9 hours of a game, just to see if the game has the same bug again.
And because the game has a perma death feature, where it deletes the save file, he couldn't back it up..
StrongBlackVine
Banned
To me bigger issue is this TB opinion
For a person who said multiple times that he will do his work as he wants to come and call out other people who did their work how they wanted is just sad.
It's fine if he doesn't want to play the game because of that mechanic, but his abrasive tone is not. Not surprised though. I have never liked that guy.
Stiler
Member
I usually like Jim's videos but knocking the game to a 1 after talking about how much he enjoyed it because he encountered a bug, that's a bit harsh imo.
i mean there are PLENTY of games that have bugs and surely he's encountered bugs in many of the more highly rated games he's reviewed. Even GTA and the likes have had bugs that caused peopel to lose progress/saves.
Just seems like he got super pissed because it was so late into the game and said "fuck it, 1/10."
I mean if you go to a restaurant and have the best dinner you've had in your entire life with great service and then get to the end and ont he last bite you encounter something that's burnt are you going to discard your opinion of the meal as a whole and rate it based on the last bite? Most people would not do that, it seems a bit hot headed.
i mean there are PLENTY of games that have bugs and surely he's encountered bugs in many of the more highly rated games he's reviewed. Even GTA and the likes have had bugs that caused peopel to lose progress/saves.
Just seems like he got super pissed because it was so late into the game and said "fuck it, 1/10."
I mean if you go to a restaurant and have the best dinner you've had in your entire life with great service and then get to the end and ont he last bite you encounter something that's burnt are you going to discard your opinion of the meal as a whole and rate it based on the last bite? Most people would not do that, it seems a bit hot headed.
Soul of the Beast
Member
Why can't he just replay the game again? Is it that big of a deal to play a game twice?
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I don't see how you see an issue with I was saying. If he's the only one encountering the problem, that means it is more probable than not that something may be wrong with his system instead of the game, yes?
Not that I am saying that the game is flawless, mind you.
His opinion is worthless because he hasn't played the game
If he would actually crtizise the game instead of ranting and calling the devs stupid there wouldn't be an issue yea
SomedayTheFire
Member
Or he reviews his experience with the game, which is what he did. It's not his job to make sure the game plays well or even finishes. It's the developers.
I guess Jim was running out of controversies for the Jimquisition. And people freaked out about Dan Stapleton's 4/10 for Prey on PC...
Read the review and it honestly doesn't seem reasonable to score the game like that, but that's just me. I'm going to buy the game today, which I planned to do regardless of reviews.
Read the review and it honestly doesn't seem reasonable to score the game like that, but that's just me. I'm going to buy the game today, which I planned to do regardless of reviews.