Onimusha78
Member
Only an hr in but I'm loving it, makes me feel like a kid again. It's also beautiful to look at
Edit: Okay I'm a 'newcomer' (sort of) so most of the criticism doesn't apply to me
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Easy Allies |EZOT| Good Vibes and Good Hype
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Only an hr in but I'm loving it, makes me feel like a kid again. It's also beautiful to look at
Edit: Okay I'm a 'newcomer' (sort of) so most of the criticism doesn't apply to me
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Huber seems to be harsher on remakes and remasters. Remember him talking about some other remake or remaster and he brought up a point that the oringinal always has the advantage of being the original, fresh, and new. Even if improvements are made that is still lost.
IdreamofHIME
Member
At the end of the review he should have said something like; "Insomniac, for the 9th game it's disappointing that you didn't up your arsenal".
I saw somebody on twitter saying this to Bloodworth and maybe it is indeed a good idea for them to add the meening ratings below the stars as well
They have this in the description of the video (which is good), but people who are using the Xbox or Playstation app (like myself) can't read the description.
I think it is refreshing that they use the whole 5 point system to rate their games. Most people review stuff from 5-10 out of 10 and 0-4 is hardly ever being used. The problem is that because most people are used to this, they think 3 stars means a bad game (which is not the case in EZA's system).
I think it would be much more clear if they added the ratings below the stars.
They have this in the description of the video (which is good), but people who are using the Xbox or Playstation app (like myself) can't read the description.
I think it is refreshing that they use the whole 5 point system to rate their games. Most people review stuff from 5-10 out of 10 and 0-4 is hardly ever being used. The problem is that because most people are used to this, they think 3 stars means a bad game (which is not the case in EZA's system).
I think it would be much more clear if they added the ratings below the stars.
Just throwing my hat in the ring at the risk of Blood going SKELLIGEEEEE on me.
I think they should've stuck to a 100-point scale. I appreciate and listen to the words they write as they're what's most important in a review but the scores feel sort of broken, I'd rather they didn't have a number score at all instead of a 100-point.
I think they should've stuck to a 100-point scale. I appreciate and listen to the words they write as they're what's most important in a review but the scores feel sort of broken, I'd rather they didn't have a number score at all instead of a 100-point.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Only because metacritic has broken the 5 and 10 point scales. If you view it in isolation or I don't know as an independent opinion then it is just fine. It actually is easier to understand as well.
Well, no. I can think for myself. I just feel like the GT crew have spent years honing a feeling for the 100 point scale and it allows the score to be more specific. It's all arbitary anyway.
j0hnny_385
Member
Serious Q: what's the difference between 72 and 79?
How about 84 and 85? Now that's a couple o' million dollar question right there.
Never bothered with scores and kinda despise them in any medium but I'm curious as to why some (many?) want the old system back? Nostalgia? Some weird sense of number validation? ...
I just watch the review and enjoy the editing and Trailer Jones.
I'd rather they have the Eurogamer system (nothing, Recommended, Essential). Perfect system, IMHO. Makes you read the actual review (gasp) and go into subtlety.
uomoartificiale
Member
I guess I understand what you're saying, but to me the100 scale has always seemed absurd, and it is now a relic of the past. It actually contributes to the senze of arbitrariness you are talking about.
With the five point scale (10 points with the half stars), I can ask: did Hber liked this game? And get the response: it's not a masterpiece, but he found it more than excellent. While before you had to guess what a 82 meant compared to a 78...
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Not so sure specific is the word I would use for a 100 scale. Actual think a 5 or 10 allows you to be more specific. 3/5 is recommended by EZA, so a 3.5/5 is highly recommend (especially for fans of _____) but falls short of being excellent.
Serious Q: what's the difference between 72 and 79?
How about 84 and 85? Now that's a couple o' million dollar question right there.
Never bothered with scores and kinda despise them in any medium but I'm curious as to why some (many?) want the old system back? Nostalgia? Some weird sense of number validation? ...
I just watch the review and enjoy the editing and Trailer Jones.
I'd rather they have the Eurogamer system (nothing, Recommended, Essential). Perfect system, IMHO. Makes you read the actual review (gasp) and go into subtlety.
Don't try and make out that people who look for scores aren't as intelligent or require validation.
If you actually read my post, I made it quite clear that I don't care about the score and that I just listen to the review anyway (because im really smart and i can understand 'subtlety'). I'm just saying I think the current system feels pointless. It feels confusing or misleading for casual fans and doesn't add much to the actual review. I was saying that I'd rather have a 100 point scale or nothing at all.
Anyway, I'm sure Blood and the reviewers had this conversation a 100 times over before the first review.
MisterR
Member
You're going to skip a game with great reviews and tons of praise on Neogaf, because one dude gave it a 3/5?
Itchy//Tasty
Member
(edit) ignore, got it wrong.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
And the guy who gave it 3.5/5 loves the game and still hasn't started DS3 as he's wrapping up a new game + mode of the game.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Guess I would need to know what is confusing and misleading to casual fans. 3 stars is recommended, what range on a 100 point scale would tell a person a game is recommended? Many movie sites and other forms of media use a 5 star system or some variant of it. Including iTunes and Amazon reviews. At this point it is much more prevalent to a casual than a 100 point system.
BladeSinner
Neo Member
3.5 out of 5, which is halfway between "Recommended" and "Excellent" according to their star rating lexicon.
Also, I will add that this is a fantastic game (Im a few hours in), and Huber and the rest of the crew seemed to enjoy it quite a bit during their group stream this week.
Going by what games they will review the reviews will probably always be between 3 and 4 ½ stars. At which point the scores will already by somewhat predictable and the whole thing makes the review less of a spectacle.
It might make the ending screen too cluttered, but adding what the score stands for in a word under the stars would work well. So you'd get the 4 stars at the end of the video and after the stars the "Excellent" would show up underneath the stars.
Either way, the reviews or what they do with them isn't all too important to me.
It might make the ending screen too cluttered, but adding what the score stands for in a word under the stars would work well. So you'd get the 4 stars at the end of the video and after the stars the "Excellent" would show up underneath the stars.
Either way, the reviews or what they do with them isn't all too important to me.
IdreamofHIME
Member
I thought the Codemasters segment was more weird.
Hey guys. Codemasters have hired Evolutions staff as part of their plans to become a racing powerhouse. What do you think?
I liked Mad Max!
I want Road Rash!
I want a non-racing game!
...should have saved that question for when Blood was on the couch.
I can't believe people are struggling with a 5 star score system. It's the most basic system in the world, with 3 stars being an "average" or "recommended" game. I've always felt my whole life that the 5 star system makes way more fucking sense then some silly 100 point system where you get into these arbitrary score debates of a 7.3 vs a 7.2. Especially for video games where for some reason a 70 is average.
Good on you guys at EZA for going forward with the 5 star system. It encourages the use of the full range of the 10 point scale and gives a better idea of how the game performed.
Good on you guys at EZA for going forward with the 5 star system. It encourages the use of the full range of the 10 point scale and gives a better idea of how the game performed.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Or better yet just end the review with a VO from Brandon saying "Blankitiy blank is blank"
Also to the person earlier I do expect many of the early reviews to fall in the 3.5-5 range at the start. They are going to be selective in what they review for time sake and they might as well review games they are interested in. Maybe in the future when they get more of a groove then they will review a wider spectrum of games.
Just watched the R&C Review and really good written by Mr. Huber and as always presented by Mr. Jones.
Only thing and that is my problem, the score at the end. I like Hubers opinion, but how he gets to his score, I just can not align, but have to wait for the digital release of R&C in germany to form my own opinion. At the moment for me the score is a half star to low.
As preparation unintended I am playing the HD Remaster of the first game and you feel it is the first one in the series, but charming and still very enjoyable.
For me ACIT was my last R&C game and I am excited to play this reimagination of the game.
Only thing and that is my problem, the score at the end. I like Hubers opinion, but how he gets to his score, I just can not align, but have to wait for the digital release of R&C in germany to form my own opinion. At the moment for me the score is a half star to low.
As preparation unintended I am playing the HD Remaster of the first game and you feel it is the first one in the series, but charming and still very enjoyable.
For me ACIT was my last R&C game and I am excited to play this reimagination of the game.
Like I said before, no matter what review scale you use, most games are going to be somewhere between the middle and high range. That doesn't mean the scale is broken. It just means most games that are worth reviewing are going to get scores there. Think of it this way. How many games out there that they review are really THAT bad? Not a lot. The only advantage to bringing in the 5 star system is that it is a little easier to understand and compare games.
Honestly don't think it'll be a lone low score. Watched GBomb play it as well and sweet Jesus they were just bored of everything. They were more interested in Guilty Gear 2 of all things.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
Yea Battleborn has not impressed for years and have a feeling the final release will just reaffirm that and will score accordingly. Talk about a game that would have benefited from a short pr cycle, this campaign has ruined any hype this game had at announcement.
I watched that but it went by so fast that I don't remember much from it lol
GalacticMouse
Member
Listening to the EA Podcast right now and the
just absolutely cracked me up. Too funny.
"Podcast Halftime" music
What I meant is a low score for EZA. The fans are realizing the games they will play will typically be higher quality games just because of time. Even Ian was freaking out over their first two scores being 4.5s
Please someone tweet this to Ben and Kyle:
It's quite hilarious.
It's quite hilarious
.RE: ratchet and clank review
I think Huber is on point. Much like him I am a huge fan of the series, and the amount of recycled ideas, enemies, weapons, etc in the game are cringeworthy. Still a great, fun game but for series fans I think there is definitely a little bit of letdown.
I think Huber is on point. Much like him I am a huge fan of the series, and the amount of recycled ideas, enemies, weapons, etc in the game are cringeworthy. Still a great, fun game but for series fans I think there is definitely a little bit of letdown.
Agree 100%
Still a nice review.
Good for you, man.
I'm loving the game, its amazing graphics, charming characters, funny dialogue, good story, and the tons of fun in every corner of it... but you can skip it, sure. Go ahead, please.
Liked this week podcast.
Ben especially was on point for 99% of the things he said (more on this in a second).
The only thing that I found a little "grating" was the R* lawsuit moment, because a lot of the questions they had were plainly answered in the published documents of the lawsuit, posted in the thread. I get that they don't have the time to go into detail, but it did feel like a whole bunch of time wasting, like this, nobody knew anything and the only thing they could realistically say was "oh well, both parties seem to have a point".
Regarding what Ben said in the end, I totally appreciate the sentiment, regarding Nintendo doing new things leaving their past behind, but fuck if 3d Mario platformers aren't, consistently, in my top 10 every single generation.
Mario 3d world is some of the most fun I've had this Gen, by a long shot, too, and I'm far from being a Nintendo big fan.
And at the end of the day, it's all about gameplay and level design (and a bit about the fantastic art design).
Stick Mario in there, stick a ball of fur and hair in it, little changes.
The argument really goes both ways, I play Mario 3d worlds because of excellent level design and gameplay; they could totally take out Mario and still have the excellence, but at the same time, the Mario element is not what is important, and not really what you should be focusing on, if you ask them to move on.
He said it before, when mentioning story in the difference between Disney and Nintendo.
Zelda's and Mario's worlds and stories are just templates to let their real creative target, game design, shine.
And it does.
Every single time.
I have yet to play a 3d platformer coming even close to the level of excellence, creativity and innovation that this series got, from Mario 64, through Sunshine and Galaxy, all the way down to 3d worlds.
If they want to use an old template to frame such brilliant design ideas, so be it, they should focus on what matters.
This doesn't mean they shouldn't have new ips, of course, just that bringing back old IPS, doesn't mean playing it safe or not evolving in areas beyond setting and story (which aren't really a focus for them).
If I "stomp my feet", so to speak, for a new 3d Mario on NX, it's not really because I can't move on from that franchise, but because as 3d platformers, they are so far above any other competitor in the genre, it's not even a contest.
It's not Mario I want, necessarily, but as a 3d platformers fan, that's the best (only?) chance I have of playing an excellent one.
The genre is mostly dead, and they are the only ones keeping it alive.
I think Smash fans could make a similar argument.
Ben especially was on point for 99% of the things he said (more on this in a second).
The only thing that I found a little "grating" was the R* lawsuit moment, because a lot of the questions they had were plainly answered in the published documents of the lawsuit, posted in the thread. I get that they don't have the time to go into detail, but it did feel like a whole bunch of time wasting, like this, nobody knew anything and the only thing they could realistically say was "oh well, both parties seem to have a point".
Regarding what Ben said in the end, I totally appreciate the sentiment, regarding Nintendo doing new things leaving their past behind, but fuck if 3d Mario platformers aren't, consistently, in my top 10 every single generation.
Mario 3d world is some of the most fun I've had this Gen, by a long shot, too, and I'm far from being a Nintendo big fan.
And at the end of the day, it's all about gameplay and level design (and a bit about the fantastic art design).
Stick Mario in there, stick a ball of fur and hair in it, little changes.
The argument really goes both ways, I play Mario 3d worlds because of excellent level design and gameplay; they could totally take out Mario and still have the excellence, but at the same time, the Mario element is not what is important, and not really what you should be focusing on, if you ask them to move on.
He said it before, when mentioning story in the difference between Disney and Nintendo.
Zelda's and Mario's worlds and stories are just templates to let their real creative target, game design, shine.
And it does.
Every single time.
I have yet to play a 3d platformer coming even close to the level of excellence, creativity and innovation that this series got, from Mario 64, through Sunshine and Galaxy, all the way down to 3d worlds.
If they want to use an old template to frame such brilliant design ideas, so be it, they should focus on what matters.
This doesn't mean they shouldn't have new ips, of course, just that bringing back old IPS, doesn't mean playing it safe or not evolving in areas beyond setting and story (which aren't really a focus for them).
If I "stomp my feet", so to speak, for a new 3d Mario on NX, it's not really because I can't move on from that franchise, but because as 3d platformers, they are so far above any other competitor in the genre, it's not even a contest.
It's not Mario I want, necessarily, but as a 3d platformers fan, that's the best (only?) chance I have of playing an excellent one.
The genre is mostly dead, and they are the only ones keeping it alive.
I think Smash fans could make a similar argument.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Yeah I enjoyed the podcast, but it felt forced from them.
I agree with them, or a damn good arcade racing game. I doubt I'd buy another Driveclub like effort.
I'm already in for Dirt, Grid and F1. Give me a new Motorstorm or Burnout/Road Rash type romp and I am so fucking in.
Don Draper's Hat
Member
Bosman been watching Community recently? He seems to be saying "Cool. Cool cool cool" a lot just now.
It's a Remaster of the first game, not a new title. Why on Earth would you expect a radical departure or loads of new content? Do you think they priced it $40 for fun?
Grayfox341
Member
Please someone tweet this to Ben and Kyle:
It's quite hilarious
You have no idea how happy this makes me. All the love for Sakaguchi.
Great, that doesn't stop it for recieving criticism if it doesn't feel fresh. Most remasters from last gen are the same and while I applaud them for trying to add new things to this one, I'm struggling to get through it because I've done all this before.
Doesn't help with all those PS3 games they churned out either. Might have felt nicer if it was an old friend returning rather than a guy who overstayed his welcome before.
Criticising a Remaster for not being new enough, is like criticising a platformer for being a platformer, or a game for being a game. You might as well say you don't agree with Remasters and leave it at that.
Yes, if the genre is old and tired and the game currently being reviewed isn't bringing anything new to the table in that reviewers opinion, it should be called out for the same thing. They called it a re-imagining anyway and it's beentotally rebuilt. This isn't a port.
it's not a bad thing in the context of the review to say that if you've played the first one and it's fresh in your memory, you might not get into this one. It's quite clear that in the review as a whole, it's being recommended that you should grab this if you've never played R&C.
TheCowboyPoet
Member
It's a remaster? My understanding was it was a remake. Remaster would be like God of War 1 and 2 on PS3, just upresing the game and making it run well on the new platform. This game has entirely new models, a different story, and other enhancements. So yeah, Huber is right, they had plenty of opportunity to put in new weapons.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked