South of Midnight - Reviews Thread

Microsoft funding Hellblade 2 and South of Midnight type games will never happen again. Gameplay is king, and gamers won't buy games that emphasize story with minimal/repetitive gameplay mechanics, even if the story is told well
 
Tacrovy said:
Watched some people playing...visuals are nice and ost is nice but the gameplay...lacks something combat looks too basic and slow.
Click to expand...
Yeah weak combat argument appearing in most of the reviews it seems like. Low number of enemy types too. Platforming on the other hand is mostly praised.
 
Haven't played, don't intend to and probably more to the point there isn't any dialog out there that seems to be telling me it would be a good use of my time. Seems to be a poster child for GP filler. MS is a bit like Ubisoft in that they need titles that set the world on fire right now, and it isn't happening.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting take from the gamer:

"South of Midnight doesn't reinvent anything, but it does a competent job of everything it attempts. With all that's going on in gaming right now, that's worth something. South of Midnight respects your time, delivers an emotional narrative, trusts that you know how to play it, and is bursting with texture and taste. This is a future classic for someone, and it might just be you."

Deffo going to give it a go this weekend based on that.
 
"South of Midnight respects your time, delivers an emotional narrative, trusts that you know how to play it, and is bursting with texture and taste. This is a future classic for someone, and it might just be you." - The Gamer

With that summary, you'd think this game would at least scored a 9/10, but no, 7/10. So much glazing for so much mediocrity.
 
If anyone enjoys games like Witcher 3 or RDR2, they might be able to enjoy it.

Games that are carried by graphics, music, story/dialogue/characters.

I haven't played it but thats the feel I get.

Will give it a shot for sure at some point. Seems competently made.
 
xenosys said:
"South of Midnight respects your time, delivers an emotional narrative, trusts that you know how to play it, and is bursting with texture and taste. This is a future classic for someone, and it might just be you." - The Gamer

With that summary, you'd think this game would at least scored a 9/10, but no, 7/10. So much glazing for so much mediocrity.
Click to expand...

I agree, thats why I want to play it. Has this reviewer underscored it, as it reads more like an 8/10 at least. Need to play it myself and see. OR, is the reviewer sugar coating the comments.
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
Well someone did sculpt her. Its called makeup and photoshop. She probably spent 3 hours in the makeup chair and didn't eat for several days before that shoot. And the professional photographer charged hundreds of thousands of dollars to make her look that good.
Click to expand...
Major Buzzkillington over here! Let me dream 🥲
 
Dr.Morris79 said:
You know as well as I do that anything like this, in this weird day and age, is cancer to your sales.

This isn't the 90s anymore, practically everyone has an Internet phone and these type of brainlet ideas spread like wildfire.

If a 45 year old man, who has three kids sends me this story via WhatsApp, who had no idea this game was even going to exist.. you can bet your arse 16+ year olds have seen it

Anything like that turns regular people off. Quite a few have had enough of any politics or racial slurs, especially when it's near their hobby.
Click to expand...

No, what I know is that there's a small subset of people that are hopelessly terminally online, and have completely skewed perceptions of the reality and the society around them.


Look at the shock around here at Assassin's Creed Shadows being a success. All the anti-DEI folks were convinced the game was dead on arrival yet the vast, vast majority of consumers clearly either don't know or don't care.
 
Last edited:
People labeled as "defenders" when I haven't seen anyone saying it's the best game ever or something, just that it's pretty good, they'll check it out sometime, it looks interesting, etc. Some of y'all are silly, lmao.
 
analog_future said:
No, what I know is that there's a small subset of people that are hopelessly terminally online, and have completely skewed perceptions of the reality and the society around them.


Look at the shock around here at Assassin's Creed Shadows being a success. All the anti-DEI folks were convinced the game was dead on arrival yet the vast, vast majority of consumers clearly either don't know or don't care.
Click to expand...



but the clockwork mang ...

16030.jpg



💚
 
Baemono said:
Nah. A mid game is a 7. Performance is okay, no crashes, but nothing spectacular gameplay or story-wise.

A 5 would be a game that barely works in the first place, frequent bugs, performance issues and has meh/terrible gameplay/story.
Click to expand...

7/10 means the game is good. Not great, just good. That's not a mid score. Folks suggesting 7 is mid goes back decades and it has never been accurate. It is a narrative born out of the console war where, somehow, if a game isn't a 9 then it is mocked because it cannot be put on some absurd pedestal that one side can use to proclaim their platform's superiority. This idea that we are going from a 9, meaning fantastic, to 7 being "mid" is just ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
It's free-ish and I'd rather try this than work my way through TLOU2 again. A lot of the time the 6.5 and 7s indicate a good if unremarkable experience, which is fine. I don't care about the character's appearance (nothing will ever be as off-putting as Aloy 2).
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
7/10 means the game is good. Not great, just good. That's not a mid score. Folks suggesting 7 is mid goes back decades and it has never been accurate. It is a narrative born out of the console war where, somehow, if a game isn't a 9 then it is mocked because it cannot be put on some absurd pedestal that one side can use to proclaim their platform's superiority. This idea that we are going from a 9, meaning fantastic, to 7 being "mid" is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
it's the shifting window. Most people NOW think a 7 is just OK because of inflated reviewing int he first place lol.
 
Topher said:
7/10 means the game is good. Not great, just good. That's not a mid score. Folks suggesting 7 is mid goes back decades and it has never been accurate. It is a narrative born out of the console war where, somehow, if a game isn't a 9 then it is mocked because it cannot be put on some absurd pedestal that one side can use to proclaim their platform's superiority. This idea that we are going from a 9, meaning fantastic, to 7 being "mid" is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

it is not ridiculous if you consider you have 5 points for the technical aspects (if the game works, the performance is okay, has no or little bugs) and then 5 points for the game itself.

For eg Cyberpunk 2077 on PS4 and Xbox One on MC is a 5/10 because of the technical mess it is, and the game being good.
 
DenchDeckard said:
This is an interesting take from the gamer:

"South of Midnight doesn't reinvent anything, but it does a competent job of everything it attempts. With all that's going on in gaming right now, that's worth something. South of Midnight respects your time, delivers an emotional narrative, trusts that you know how to play it, and is bursting with texture and taste. This is a future classic for someone, and it might just be you."

Deffo going to give it a go this weekend based on that.
Click to expand...
I am done with meciocrity. I am ok if a game isn't great in all aspects, but if the game is not great at anything, I am out. A game needs to excel at something for me to buy it

And what's going on with gaming? Monster Hunter Wilds, KCD2, AC Shadows, Khazan, Avowed. It's been pretty good start to the year, with much more coming
 
Last edited:
Sounds cool, love the setting, but since I had weird Kena deja-vu from the get go (arenas specifically), it's weird how even the story sounds very Kena-ish.
 
Baemono said:
it is not ridiculous if you consider you have 5 points for the technical aspects (if the game works, the performance is okay, has no or little bugs) and then 5 points for the game itself.

For eg Cyberpunk 2077 on PS4 and Xbox One on MC is a 5/10 because of the technical mess it is, and the game being good.
Click to expand...

I don't know where this 5 point minimum for technically sound games comes from, but I don't buy it. Southpark Snow Days got a three from IGN and that was all about the game being incredibly boring. Most other games that received less than a five do not even merit conversation so we are generally not even aware of them. Games like Broken Roads which received a 4 from IGN. Most reviewers don't even reference performance of a game or the number of crashes, etc., because they know they are not playing with the day one patch. So are they judging technical aspects at that point. Nah...I don't see it.
 
Topher said:
7/10 means the game is good. Not great, just good. That's not a mid score. Folks suggesting 7 is mid goes back decades and it has never been accurate. It is a narrative born out of the console war where, somehow, if a game isn't a 9 then it is mocked because it cannot be put on some absurd pedestal that one side can use to proclaim their platform's superiority. This idea that we are going from a 9, meaning fantastic, to 7 being "mid" is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how people forgot how a number scale works.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 5 or 6 are usually seen as normal or average. 1 is the lowest, and 10 is the highest.
  • 1-3: Generally considered poor or negative.
  • 4-6: Represents the average or neutral range.
  • 7-10: Typically seen as good or excellent.
  • 5: is often considered the midpoint of the scale.
  • 6: is often considered the upper end of the average range.
  • 7: is considered above average."
 
Last edited:
Looks fine enough for a gamepass title, though not something one would easily buy full price. I really dislike how the main character looks and the low animation framerate kinda kills the fluidity for me, looks like the entire thing is running at 20fps at times.
 
MiguelItUp said:
I don't understand how people forgot how a number scale works.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 5 or 6 are usually seen as normal or average. 1 is the lowest, and 10 is the highest.
  • 1-3: Generally considered poor or negative.
  • 4-6: Represents the average or neutral range.
  • 7-10: Typically seen as good or excellent.
  • 5: is often considered the midpoint of the scale.
  • 6: is often considered the upper end of the average range.
  • 7: is considered above average."
Click to expand...

Here are what the numbers mean according to IGN and Gamespot. If we are saying this is just bullshit then there isn't any point in review threads at all, regardless if a game is a 5 or a 10.

sBAlkEd.png
0kakQ6J.png


www.gamespot.com

About GameSpot Reviews

Want more information on how GameSpot reviews and assigns scores to games? We're here to help.
www.gamespot.com www.gamespot.com
www.ign.com

Announcement: IGN's Review Scale Just Got Simpler - IGN

We're adopting a simplified new scale for a new decade of games, movies, TV, and comics reviews.
www.ign.com www.ign.com
 
Topher said:
I don't know where this 5 point minimum for technically sound games comes from, but I don't buy it. Southpark Snow Days got a three from IGN and that was all about the game being incredibly boring. Most other games that received less than a five do not even merit conversation so we are generally not even aware of them. Games like Broken Roads which received a 4 from IGN. Most reviewers don't even reference performance of a game or the number of crashes, etc., because they know they are not playing with the day one patch. So are they judging technical aspects at that point. Nah...I don't see it.
Click to expand...

I thought my Cyberpunk example was a good one, but I can extend to most of Switch 3rd party ports. Like Mortal Kombat 1 which is a 8/10 on other platforms but 3-4/10 on the Switch, despite being the same game, because of its technical shortcomings.
 
Game looks honestly fine to me. I don't think it looks bad, but it's also not a stand-out in any way. With that said, I would honestly take this game ahead of something like Hellblade 2, which looked to me like all visuals with zero substance to it at all.

My big issue is the price doesn't do a lot for me given the amount of content on offer, but that's my issue alone, if you are a Gamepass subscriber this is probably the perfect game for you to play through and move on to the next game.

Just don't count on a sequel because I don't see this selling much. The Switch 2 reveal has completely devoured all the air in the room these days, like I don't even see many outlets and channels reviewing this to begin with.
 
Topher said:
Here are what the numbers mean according to IGN and Gamespot. If we are saying this is just bullshit then there isn't any point in review threads at all, regardless if a game is a 5 or a 10.

sBAlkEd.png
0kakQ6J.png


www.gamespot.com

About GameSpot Reviews

Want more information on how GameSpot reviews and assigns scores to games? We're here to help.
www.gamespot.com www.gamespot.com
www.ign.com

Announcement: IGN's Review Scale Just Got Simpler - IGN

We're adopting a simplified new scale for a new decade of games, movies, TV, and comics reviews.
www.ign.com www.ign.com
Click to expand...
Not to be that, but since even Xbox fans trash Hellblade 2, IGN gave it an 8:
www.ign.com

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II Review - IGN

Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II is another Viking-worthy feast for the senses that meets the high bar set by its predecessor, even if it never really manages to clear it.
www.ign.com www.ign.com

And as people complain about HFW being boring, IGN gave it a 9:
www.ign.com

Horizon: Forbidden West Community Reviews - IGN

See community ratings and reviews and write your own for Horizon: Forbidden West
www.ign.com www.ign.com

People tend to fit reviewscores to whatever narrative suits them best.
 
Last edited:
Baemono said:
I thought my Cyberpunk example was a good one, but I can extend to most of Switch 3rd party ports. Like Mortal Kombat 1 which is a 8/10 on other platforms but 3-4/10 on the Switch, despite being the same game, because of its technical shortcomings.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but games getting their score reduced for being technically broken are extreme cases. Either way, there is a difference between a game getting docked for technical reasons and a game automatically getting five points added right off the bat for simply being not having any technical issues. That means a game could be the worst game ever made and still be a 5/10 because it has no bugs. Just doesn't fly.
 
GHG said:
Image going from championing Halo and Gears of War in their peak to defending this.

This thread is wonderful.



Like clockwork.

Not many people want to, and that's the point.
Click to expand...
Nothing to defend, the guy is labelling a game as mediocre without even touching it, just a troll. You've come in with a nothing post with absolutely nothing to add to the conversation, why even bother?
 
Killjoy-NL said:
Not to be that, but since even Xbox fans trash Hellblade 2, IGN gave it an 8:
www.ign.com

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II Review - IGN

Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II is another Viking-worthy feast for the senses that meets the high bar set by its predecessor, even if it never really manages to clear it.
www.ign.com www.ign.com

And as people complain about HFW being boring, IGN gave it a 9:
www.ign.com

Horizon: Forbidden West Community Reviews - IGN

See community ratings and reviews and write your own for Horizon: Forbidden West
www.ign.com www.ign.com

People tend to fit reviewscores to whatever narrative suits them best.
Click to expand...
Reviews are subjective, in the long run it doesn't matter what they/others say, it's how you feel about it. 🤷‍♂️

I personally don't care about either of those games, but hey, lmao.
 
Last edited:
Killjoy-NL said:
Not to be that, but since even Xbox fans trash Hellblade 2, IGN gave it an 8:
www.ign.com

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II Review - IGN

Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II is another Viking-worthy feast for the senses that meets the high bar set by its predecessor, even if it never really manages to clear it.
www.ign.com www.ign.com

And as people complain about HFW being boring, IGN gave it a 9:
www.ign.com

Horizon: Forbidden West Community Reviews - IGN

See community ratings and reviews and write your own for Horizon: Forbidden West
www.ign.com www.ign.com

People tend to fit reviewscores to whatever narrative suits them best.
Click to expand...

Not a coincidence that this stuff only comes up with first party or console exclusive games. You'll have folks in this thread trashing the next Sony game that releases claiming the reviewers were paid. Meanwhile, no one gives a shit that Atelier Yumia got an 8.
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
Not a coincidence that this stuff only comes up with first party or console exclusive games. You'll have folks in here trashing the next Sony game that releases claiming the reviewers were paid. Meanwhile, no one gives a shit that Atelier Yumia got an 8.
Click to expand...
MiguelItUp said:
Reviews are subjective, in the long run it doesn't matter what they/others say, it's how you feel about it. 🤷‍♂️

I personally don't care about either of those games, but hey, lmao.
Click to expand...
That has basically been my point every time people get mad about me calling any game mediocre.
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
a game automatically getting five points added right off the bat for simply being not having any technical issues.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said. It's not automatic 5 points, but the quality of a game comes also from its technical aspect. Star Wars Oultlaws technical shortcomings definitly impacted its score for eg. Cyberpunk's scores went up when the bugs were fixed when Phantom Liberty launched.

And if you still don't agree, at least you tried to argue with me, which is already fine. I give our interaction 8/10
 
Topher said:
Here are what the numbers mean according to IGN and Gamespot. If we are saying this is just bullshit then there isn't any point in review threads at all, regardless if a game is a 5 or a 10.

sBAlkEd.png
0kakQ6J.png


www.gamespot.com

About GameSpot Reviews

Want more information on how GameSpot reviews and assigns scores to games? We're here to help.
www.gamespot.com www.gamespot.com
www.ign.com

Announcement: IGN's Review Scale Just Got Simpler - IGN

We're adopting a simplified new scale for a new decade of games, movies, TV, and comics reviews.
www.ign.com www.ign.com
Click to expand...
IGN being IGN.

While I agree with you that 7 should represent a good score, it rarely is in gaming. In movies and TV shows, reviewers use the full rating scale. That's not the case in gaming.

Let's look at a few past examples to see what review scores actually mean in gaming, and I'll take the total aggregate MC scores:
  • Redfall = 56 (it's closer to 6/10 than a 5/10. And it's an absolute dogshit of a game but 0 redeeming quality)
  • Immortals of Aveum = 69 (pretty much 7/10. A complete failure of a game)
  • Concord = 62 (hot garbage)
  • Suicide Squad = 60 (crap of a game)
  • Biomutant = 69 (pretty much a 7/10 game as per scores, which should be Good, but it isn't).
These are only a few recent examples.

All these games were considered bad and commercial failures. Yet, according to the scoring charts by IGN and GS, none of them would qualify as a bad game (which starts with 4).

In gaming, games rarely get a score of 4 out of 10, even the absolute dogshit games like Redfall and Concord. Nobody uses the full scale in video games, which makes 7/10 games quite mediocre.

Again, I don't agree with this. They should use the full scale. But this is how it has been.
 
Baemono said:
That's not what I said. It's not automatic 5 points, but the quality of a game comes also from its technical aspect. Star Wars Oultlaws technical shortcomings definitly impacted its score for eg. Cyberpunk's scores went up when the bugs were fixed when Phantom Liberty launched.
Click to expand...

Ok....sorry if I misunderstood. As far as Outlaws, the reviews I read didn't mention any technical issues. Cyberpunk's scores also went up because CDPR revamped many aspects of the game itself. It wasn't all technical.

And if you still don't agree, at least you tried to argue with me, which is already fine. I give our interaction 8/10
Click to expand...

lol.....9/10. You get an extra point for correct grammar. :messenger_beaming:
 
Heisenberg007 said:
IGN being IGN.

While I agree with you that 7 should represent a good score, it rarely is in gaming. In movies and TV shows, reviewers use the full rating scale. That's not the case in gaming.

Let's look at a few past examples to see what review scores actually mean in gaming, and I'll take the total aggregate MC scores:
  • Redfall = 56 (it's closer to 6/10 than a 5/10. And it's an absolute dogshit of a game but 0 redeeming quality)
  • Immortals of Aveum = 69 (pretty much 7/10. A complete failure of a game)
  • Concord = 62 (hot garbage)
  • Suicide Squad = 60 (crap of a game)
  • Biomutant = 69 (pretty much a 7/10 game as per scores, which should be Good, but it isn't).
These are only a few recent examples.

All these games were considered bad and commercial failures. Yet, according to the scoring charts by IGN and GS, none of them would qualify as a bad game (which starts with 4).

In gaming, games rarely get a score of 4 out of 10, even the absolute dogshit games like Redfall and Concord. Nobody uses the full scale in video games, which makes 7/10 games quite mediocre.

Again, I don't agree with this. They should use the full scale. But this is how it has been.
Click to expand...

Eh....I played all those games except for Concord and I think the scores are pretty accurate, tbh. I think one of the issues is that we have so many really good games coming out these days that just being "ok" (like most of those) is simply not good enough.
 
MiguelItUp said:
People labeled as "defenders" when I haven't seen anyone saying it's the best game ever or something, just that it's pretty good, they'll check it out sometime, it looks interesting, etc. Some of y'all are silly, lmao.
Click to expand...

If you don't immediately shit on a game you've never played then you're a defender and probably a shill too.

But if you're routinely in Xbox threads shitting on games you've never played, well that's just dandy 😆
 
Which one of y'all is Doctor Disaster on Youtube? Some of the posts here reek in the same fashion as his cringe videos that pretends to call out "bad" games, but in reality he's just a PS shillboy.
 
coachmcguirk91 said:
Microsoft funding Hellblade 2 and South of Midnight type games will never happen again. Gameplay is king, and gamers won't buy games that emphasize story with minimal/repetitive gameplay mechanics, even if the story is told well
Click to expand...
Microsoft have an online forum troll's level of understanding of Playstation first party games. It's hilarious they fell for their own disinformation campaign that labeled all Sony games as walking simulators.

Had they played them they wouldve quickly realized that Uncharted, TLOU, GOW, Days Gone, Infamous, Horizon, and Spiderman are all excellent video games with great combat systems. Maybe not as deep as say DMC but deep enough to be engaging. The games are fun to play.
 
I'll preface this by saying I hated Hellblade, and played both for about 15 minutes each, but it's really annoying that some people can't accept not every game is built for them, and gaming needs more experimental games, more risky games. I'm glad Hellblade got funded and released, even if I'm not going to play it. I'm not sure if I'll like South of Midnight, we'll see, but I like that these less 'blockbuster' style games are given room to exist, not least because I find the Sony output that people seem to love so much (the third person adventures at least) to be the gaming equivalent of a Fast and the Furious movie - technically competent, but largely pandering and soulless affairs. I can feel like that, but still be glad they exist and happy for the people that enjoy them.

I've really enjoyed Indy, Avowed and even Starfield so Game Pass is fantastic for me. I wish people would stop sucking the fun out of gaming. I need to stop reading it, but I come for the news, not the opinion as much as anything.
 
Topher said:
Eh....I played all those games except for Concord and I think the scores are pretty accurate, tbh. I think one of the issues is that we have so many really good games coming out these days that just being "ok" (like most of those) is simply not good enough.
Click to expand...
As per IGN's and GS's scales, those scores are not accurate. It puts most of these games in the 'Good' category. Yet none of these games can be considered 'Good' by anyone. Every single one of these games - maybe with the exception of Biomutant - is considered atrociously bad by pretty much everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Battlefield 6 - Reviews Thread
2 3 4
192
993
Ocean Dweller replied
Gears of War: Reloaded - Reviews Thread
2 3 4 5 6
299
3K
Walliwallipaloo replied
Ninja Gaiden 4 - Reviews Thread
2 3 4
155
614
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
  • Featured
South of Midnight |OT| Don't stop me-weavin'
|OT|  3 4 5 6 7
306
17K
Timberwolf25 replied
Borderlands 4 - Reviews Thread
2 3 4
153
3K
winjer replied
Top Bottom