Metal Gear Rising: Reviewgeance thread of reviews and EatChildren

ThoughtsOfSpeaking said:
I have to say, reviews are a lot less divisive than I expected, even more so when you remove the ones that don't understand how the clock works.

I'm really impressed. Amazing what platinum acheived in just over a year.
Click to expand...

dat Kenji Saito mojo.

RISING AVENGEANCE announcement, pls.
 
Nice to see that Platinum managed to salvage a failing project into an 8+ game. Good job guys.
Most of the review comments are fine by me : short life and minor technical issues are not a problem as long as the gameplay is satisfying.
 
rvy said:
dat Kenji Saito mojo.

RISING AVENGEANCE announcement, pls.
Click to expand...

Metal Gear Rising Avengeance as the sequel?

animation1dfg2zq7g.gif


The final part of the trilogy will be called Metal Gear Rising Vengeance.
 
RyougaSaotome said:
Jesus, I wasn't expecting it to review this highly in all honesty.

Even complaints about the length are a lot fewer than I anticipated.
Click to expand...

Maybe game reviewers are finally wising up about games full of filler not necessarily being superior to tightly-paced experiences.

(And, maybe, even better, they've opened themselves up to the possibility you can replay good games, if they offer compelling reasons for it.)
 
NoirVisage said:
depends on where you died, just look at your save game file playtime.
Click to expand...

I'll check and see what the save file says next time I have the chance to get my hands on our debug unit. I'm curious to see how the actual playtime compares to what the in-game menu says.


MTMBStudios said:
So game journos using the timer at the end of the game to incorrectly state their entire play length for a run of the game is going to be a bad meme with this game, isn't it?
Click to expand...

To be fair, when the game tells you a completion time, you tend to expect that that's what it's telling you. There's no real explanation in the game (at least that I remember) of how that playtime counter works, so it's perfectly reasonable to expect that it works like most other games out there (where actual playtime is counted, not fastest-completion time).
 
MTMBStudios said:
So game journos using the timer at the end of the game to incorrectly state their entire play length for a run of the game is going to be a bad meme with this game, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I still can't believe journos don't time themselves using a timer to determine how long a game is. If you're going to include that in your review, do it the right way. You're paid to write reviews, is it too much to ask to get accurate information ffs?
 
DR2K said:
So it's more Ninja Gaiden than DMC/Bayo? It's the vibe I was getting from the reviews.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I am not a huge fan of Ninja Gaiden but I really, really love Revengeance. >_>

Hypron said:
I still can't believe journos don't time themselves using a timer to determine how long a game is. If you're going to include that in your review, do it the right way. You're paid to write reviews, is it too much to ask to get accurate information ffs?
Click to expand...

This is why I absolutely love reviewing 3DS and Wii U games. Makes it incredibly easy to highlight the disparities between in-game timer and the actual console timer.
 
shidoshi said:
I'll check and see what the save file says next time I have the chance to get my hands on our debug unit. I'm curious to see how the actual playtime compares to what the in-game menu says.




To be fair, when the game tells you a completion time, you tend to expect that that's what it's telling you. There's no real explanation in the game (at least that I remember) of how that playtime counter works, so it's perfectly reasonable to expect that it works like most other games out there (where actual playtime is counted, not fastest-completion time).
Click to expand...
Admittedly its an asinine system, thats already comming back to bite them..
 
What I don't get is how somebody who's clearly spent a single or multiple sitdown playthrough - spread across one day or several - for 7-8 hours can trust a timestamp that says 4 hours, without investigating further.
 
shidoshi said:
To be fair, when the game tells you a completion time, you tend to expect that that's what it's telling you. There's no real explanation in the game (at least that I remember) of how that playtime counter works, so it's perfectly reasonable to expect that it works like most other games out there (where actual playtime is counted, not fastest-completion time).
Click to expand...


No I'm sorry. This is a cop out. You are a professional reviewer paid to play games. You should have enough affinity with a gaming experience to realise when the timer of a game doesn't reflect the total amount of time playing a game.

I will accept that excuse from some of the people in here, especially ones unfamiliar with the genre, but not from reviewers. It's lazy.
 
ricochetguro said:
Edit: Playstation Lifestyle seems to be a banned site, must have missed that development. They gave it a 3/10 though, just for a complete picture.

Is there a comprehensive list of banned sites?
Click to expand...

PS Lifestyle is in metacritic. Why is it banned here? and 3/10???? Wow!
 
Are these people stupid? Do they not realize how much time they spend playing a game without a total play time tracker? My God. How do they keep track of time in real life? iPhone alarm?
 
Even with the timer only showing the best time, it still seems the game is pretty short. In Jeff Gerstmann's review he wrote that he finished it in an afternoon.
 
Tookay said:
What I don't get is how somebody who's clearly spent a single or multiple sitdown playthrough - spread across one day or several - playing for 7-8 hours can trust a timestamp that says 4 hours, without investigating further.
Click to expand...
Didn't this same thing happen with Bayonetta, MadWorld, and Vanquish? A lot of "3-5 hour game!" talk in reviews.
 
Tookay said:
Maybe game reviewers are finally wising up about games full of filler not necessarily being superior to tightly-paced experiences.

(And, maybe, even better, they've opened themselves up to the possibility you can replay good games, if they offer compelling reasons for it.)
Click to expand...

So much this. I love RPGs but I would rather have them be higher quality more condensed experiences. I really wonder what a Skyrim with 50 hours of content might have been like or a Ni No Kuni that was 25 hours. Of course at some point games can get too short if they start to fall below $10/hour of gameplay so MGR is cutting it a little close IMO.
 
DR2K said:
So it's more Ninja Gaiden than DMC/Bayo? It's the vibe I was getting from the reviews.
Click to expand...

That's how I feel from the demo and playing through the prologue. I can only imagine the emphasis on active defense will be more prevalent on higher difficulty levels.
 
ThoughtsOfSpeaking said:
No I'm sorry. This is a cop out. You are a professional reviewer paid to play games. You should have enough affinity with a gaming experience to realise when the timer of a game doesn't reflect the total amount of time playing a game.

I will accept that excuse from some of the people in here, especially ones unfamiliar with the genre, but not from reviewers. It's lazy.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is, in my case, I would be shocked if what my timer read—5:04—was far off from what I put into the game. I played and beat it in an afternoon, and while I don't remember exactly my start/stop times, I do know it was definitely a length where five hours made sense.

If it were a case where I had played eight hours of the game, my timer read five, and I went, "Well, that must be right," I'd totally agree with you. That wasn't the case, at least for me.

However, I definitely agree that if you are going to review a game and point out the game's length in your review, you should have a more accurate system for keeping track than just an in-game timer. (Because, really, games are so unreliable in such options being available.)
 
I've posted most major review outlets, are there any I am missing? I've sorted it by score, from highest to lowest.

That's the right way to do a review thread, right? >_>
 
action games don't suffer for being short. more upsetting are the gears of war, finger in ear exposition parts... Molasses on a race track. :-/
 
Where do I begin?
Awful parry system.
Constantly obstructed camera and narrow rooms blocking view.
Enemies are overly difficult, and circle out of vision.
Bosses cannot be hit at times, adding to the ample frustration.
Bosses, grunts, even supporting characters are bland and forgettable.
Stealth and exploration are only partially done, and useless.
Story? What story? Oh, that mess.
VR Missions aren't worth playing. Offer no training opportunity.
Upgrades have little effect.
Did I mention how bad the parry and camera system are?
This game should have remained cancelled.
Click to expand...


Fuck.
 
rvy said:
They don't access extra content like VR Missions? Weird.
Click to expand...

For a lot a people, once through the campaign is what they expect and do play. Like I said, usually that is me as well. I know that I do not plan on ever playing the VR missions in this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GVMERS: The Rise and Fall of Twisted Metal
18
1K
violence replied
MindsEye - Reviews Thread
2
51
910
StreetsofBeige replied
The Alters - Reviews Thread
2
75
2K
kpopSuperstar replied
Metal Gear Production Hotline Annoucned for 6/13
2
81
685
Embearded replied
Metal Gear Solid Delta Opening Intro Cinematic
2
90
1K
Liopleurodon replied
Top Bottom