• 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.

Quantum Break Review Thread

On another note, due to intentional or unintentional omission of scores and skewed weighting both open critic and metacritic are an exceptionally poor means of representing the aggregate score here.

N4Gs 'review grid' is a lot better, as no scores are weighted, and all reviews that are published are factored into the critical average. All of this is done in a much faster manner than metacritic or open critic too.

http://n4g.com/channel/quantum-break/reviews/all/default/default/1/reviewgrid

On N4Gs review grid, Quantum break holds an 8.1 aggregate, which is much more flattering than metacritic or open critic represent. Maybe including this in future review aggregation threads would be a good idea, because the N4G review grid actually has many more reviews listed than even this thread.
 

papo

Member
And this is exactly where I'm coming from. The "boom or bust" mentality that permeates the industry is extremely worrying. It leads to a very risk-averse industry where people bank on "safe bets" and lots of "me-too!" projects. I'm not saying that there's going to be a crash like some like to say, but something has to give. Things can't stay like this forever.

Could this be the reason there are so few "B" games this gems?

Like I think there is Just Cause nad there might be some other, but last gen was filled with smaller cool B games. Saboteur, REd Factions etc Now it seems it's AAA or Indie or bust.
 

StoveOven

Banned
And this is exactly where I'm coming from. The "boom or bust" mentality that permeates the industry is extremely worrying. It leads to a very risk-averse industry where people bank on "safe bets" and lots of "me-too!" projects. I'm not saying that there's going to be a crash like some like to say, but something has to give. Things can't stay like this forever.

Games that get mixed reviews can still sell well. I feel like your getting worried over pure conjecture and no actual information. If you have numbers that state otherwise, then by all means prove me wrong, but I have never seen solid evidence that supports the idea that Metacritic has a high impact on sales on a broad scale.
 

Joohanh

Member
I kind of wish there were some undeniable authority on video games that was so well-versed, knowledgeable and intelligent in reviewing you'd only need to check their review out. With games these opinions are all over the place.

I mean, with movies for like 20 years there was no point to read any other review than Roger Ebert's. The situation might have changed though as there isn't anyone close to his level nowadays.
 

chubigans

y'all should be ashamed
Surprised this game got any high marks at all, the gameplay looks bad and the story looks even worse. Definitely on par with the Order, another game I aggressively hated. :p
 

papo

Member
I kind of wish there were some undeniable authority on video games that was so well-versed, knowledgeable and intelligent in reviewing you'd only need to check their review out. With games these opinions are all over the place.

I mean, with movies for like 20 years there was no point to read any other review than Roger Ebert's. The situation might have changed though as there isn't anyone close to his level nowadays.

Well apparently there is? And it's Jeff Gertsmann? Because people are saying it has mixed reviews, but I am only seeing his review, gamespots and a few other being bad. The rest are a majority of 8s and above.
 

FuturusX

Member
This is going about how I expected.

Both this and The Order felt like they fell out of a time portal from 2010.

I don't understand why people are greenlighting these kinds of singleplayer only linear third person shooters these days, especially as $60 titles.

Hmmm.

I kind of wish there were some undeniable authority on video games that was so well-versed, knowledgeable and intelligent in reviewing you'd only need to check their review out. With games these opinions are all over the place.

I mean, with movies for like 20 years there was no point to read any other review than Roger Ebert's. The situation might have changed though as there isn't anyone close to his level nowadays.

EDGE
 

Gator86

Member
Wait, hold up.

Are we going to sit here and pretend that 78 isn't a fantastic aggregate score for a game? Not calling you out specifically for this, but I've never gotten why we're so obsessed with games getting less than 80 on MC.

1) MC is a terrible way to judge a game
2) If you're rating on a 10 or 100 scale, 50 is an average game that does nothing new or special and hits all the expected notes in a genre.

Really I'm sick of 79 being treated like a 50, and suddenly 80 is this must own gem of a game.

People pouting about reviews is always great. Why is MC a terrible way to judge a game? Most of the reasons people normally give are hilariously inaccurate or untestable.

And why would a 50 be an average score? Are you assuming that review scores are perfectly normally distributing with a range from 1-100? There are literally zero games where that has ever been the case, especially if you're thinking about video game scores in the aggregate.

Personally, I think 79 is a solid score, but I'm not going to criticize people who think it's low enough to promote some doubt about the game.
 

Velkyn

Member
Games that get mixed reviews can still sell well. I feel like your getting worried over pure conjecture and no actual information. If you have numbers that state otherwise, then by all means prove me wrong, but I have never seen solid evidence that supports the idea that Metacritic has a high impact on sales on a broad scale.

http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/news/pdf/130326slides.pdf

It's from 2013, but check out page 9. They look at this sort of thing, they set targets, and if things fail to meet those targets, they step away.

But anyway I feel like I'm derailing the thread a bit. Interested to pick this up, but will probably wait a bit.
 
On another note, due to intentional or unintentional omission of scores and skewed weighting both open critic and metacritic are an exceptionally poor means of representing the aggregate score here.

N4Gs 'review grid' is a lot better, as no scores are weighted, and all reviews that are published are factored into the critical average. All of this is done in a much faster manner than metacritic or open critic too.

http://n4g.com/channel/quantum-break/reviews/all/default/default/1/reviewgrid

On N4Gs review grid, Quantum break holds an 8.1 aggregate, which is much more flattering than metacritic or open critic represent. Maybe including this in future review aggregation threads would be a good idea, because the N4G review grid actually has many more reviews listed than even this thread.

8.1 is "much more flattering" in the same way 8.1 pounds is "much more heavy" than 7.8 pounds.

I think this game looks great but people are getting more and more obsessive about aggregate scores to an unhealthy degree.
 

VinFTW

Member
Surprised this game got any high marks at all, the gameplay looks bad and the story looks even worse. Definitely on par with the Order, another game I aggressively hated. :p

I don't know how people can make these statements without playing it
 

nynt9

Member
On another note, due to intentional or unintentional omission of scores and skewed weighting both open critic and metacritic are an exceptionally poor means of representing the aggregate score here.

N4Gs 'review grid' is a lot better, as no scores are weighted, and all reviews that are published are factored into the critical average. All of this is done in a much faster manner than metacritic or open critic too.

http://n4g.com/channel/quantum-break/reviews/all/default/default/1/reviewgrid

On N4Gs review grid, Quantum break holds an 8.1 aggregate, which is much more flattering than metacritic or open critic represent. Maybe including this in future review aggregation threads would be a good idea, because the N4G review grid actually has many more reviews listed than even this thread.

Just let it go. It is what it is. No need to move goalposts. People who want the game will get it anyway. Review scores, especially as aggregates, are meaningless.
 
People arguing about weighting averages with overall differences still being less than half a point on the 10 point scale, seem like the perfect representation of review threads..

Find one or more reviewers you often agree with and respect and use their opinion to make up your mind. Everything else is kinda useless to me, since it's just a big pile of subjective opinions from people I don't know.
 

Velkyn

Member
People pouting about reviews is always great. Why is MC a terrible way to judge a game? Most of the reasons people normally give are hilariously inaccurate or untestable.

And why would a 50 be an average score? Are you assuming that review scores are perfectly normally distributing with a range from 1-100? There are literally zero games where that has ever been the case, especially if you're thinking about video game scores in the aggregate.

Personally, I think 79 is a solid score, but I'm not going to criticize people who think it's low enough to promote some doubt about the game.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not pouting in the slightest, I don't actually really care too much about QB. MC is terrible because a review's words matter, not the score slapped on it. When you aggregate the numbers with snippets of reviews, I feel like it de-values the work the critics are doing, high scores or low. Companies really hold their MC scores in high regard; they're lauded on job applications in the industry everywhere/
 
And this is exactly where I'm coming from. The "boom or bust" mentality that permeates the industry is extremely worrying. It leads to a very risk-averse industry where people bank on "safe bets" and lots of "me-too!" projects. I'm not saying that there's going to be a crash like some like to say, but something has to give. Things can't stay like this forever.

While I agree, it does make high budget, experimental game development near impossible due to risk aversion, I do not necessarily agree that it's a problem.

Incremental innovation is still present, as we see gradual adaptation of the medium as new ideas are popularised, it merely moves the industry slower than it otherwise would. The industry and development of game mechanics moved very rapidly, two geneations ago and prior to that, but it's much more incremental now. It would be a mistake however, to suggest that games don't still evolve.

Still, there's plenty of room for innovative products in independent, smaller budgeted titles, but for the most part people appear to resent those experiences. It's very clear that most people on neogaf and sites alike do not view the industry with the same mindset as the typical consumer, at least in some cases.

The biggest problem however is that consumers are happy to purchase and spend time with titles like The Division, Assassins Creed and Far Cry, these games offer no meaningful evolution for the industry or the genres they occupy. It's not Ubisoft's fault though, the games sell very well and consumers and critics appear to enjoy these titles.

As for a video game crash, I think that's absolute nonsense and in many cases, wishful thinking. It's like suggesting the film industry is going to crash because Marvel movies are all pretty similar. I think it's possible we will see a crash of particular genres and types of game with time. I expect it will be the 'icon janitor genre', known as Ubisoft branded open world experiences, but that may be wishful thinking on my part.
 
Just let it go. It is what it is. No need to move goalposts. People who want the game will get it anyway. Review scores, especially as aggregates, are meaningless.

Except they're not, not at all.

The reason developer jobs and bonuses ride on the aggregate critical performance is because these critical averages are in fact, highly predictive of commercial performance.

Aggregates and individual scores are debatably meaningless to an individual, but to the games developer, publisher, and the industry as a whole? They are incredibly meaningful, and it's naive to deny that.
 
Really I'm sick of 79 being treated like a 50, and suddenly 80 is this must own gem of a game.

Reviews are practically useless, unless you depend on the opinions of others to determine whether or not you enjoy something. There are plenty of other ways to see whether or not a game is worth investing time and money into.
 

Guerrilla

Member
Easy Allies 4.5 is all I need to keep my hype up. Trusting huber on this one. I would try it either way since I love everything remedy, but it's nice that he apparently really really liked it too.
 

nynt9

Member
Except they're not, not at all.

The reason developer jobs and bonuses ride on the aggregate critical performance is because these critical averages are in fact, highly predictive of commercial performance.

Aggregates and individual scores are debatably meaningless to an individual, but to the games developer, publisher, and the industry as a whole? They are incredibly meaningful, and it's naive to deny that.

Of course they're meaningful industry wide. But they're meaningless to players. Industry wide they're harmful to the industry IMO, and this obsession over them isn't helping.
 

DirtyLarry

Member
I am slightly worried that the aspect I was looking forward to the most, and that is the gunplay, seems to be the aspect a lot of reviewers are citing as the weakest link.
Oh well, I already have it preordered digitally, but I really hope people are just being extra hard on that aspect for some reason.
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Wow, I knew some of the larger sites were heavily weighted, but I'm kind of shocked that they have this much weight.

The vast majority of reviews are 8+ but the MC score doesn't suggest it. If these score are correct, An unweighted average would have it at 81% if I'm not mistaken.

Makes me feel kinda bad for all those companies that have MC clauses in their publishing contracts. The deck is stacked.

Open Critic is unweighted and the score is lower than MC.
 

Jingo

Member
So quantum break is repetitive, but the division(most repetiivegame ive pkayed in years) isnt?

Sometimes i think people just like to complain when someone tries anything new.
 

NotMyPsn

Banned
That's a average score...do you guys think remedy will rebound from this, or are they the next shutdown ? This gen has been brutal to studios.
 

malfcn

Member
I'm still hyped for Tuesday.
Reviews can be very subjective.
Having highs and lows just says it's for some and not others.

I'm more worried or skeptical when it's all high or all low scores.
 

VinFTW

Member
Jeff Gerstmann hated it which means I'll probably like it

I hate to be a dick about it, because I actually really enjoy Jeff as a person, but he has opposite tastes to me.

I didn't enjoy Super Mario Maker at all, love Rocket League, and will probably enjoy this.

We rarely align opinions, which is fine.
 
That's a average score...do you guys think remedy will rebound from this, or are they the next shutdown ? This gen has been brutal to studios.

This gen hasn't been brutal to studios at all. Just that people realized after last generation that "Oh yeah that's right there are other numbers on this scale besides 7-10." I remembered that giving a game a 6 or a 7 doesn't necessarily mean the game is a pile of garbage like modern review sales seem to be right now.

I'm still hyped for Tuesday.
Reviews can be very subjective.
Having highs and lows just says it's for some and not others.

I'm more worried or skeptical when it's all high or all low scores.

I get that.
 
So quantum break is repetitive, but the division(most repetiivegame ive pkayed in years) isnt?

Sometimes i think people just like to complain when someone tries anything new.
This is always weird, like there is no consistency on what people think is repetitive and what is not. I think I often comes from how much they like overall game and then think it's repetitive if it isn't really for them anyway.
 
Of course they're meaningful industry wide. But they're meaningless to players. Industry wide they're harmful to the industry IMO, and this obsession over them isn't helping.

It's very debatable whether they're harmful to the industry. One thing you have to consider however is that it actually gives consumers and critics a lot of power, unlike with the movie industry.

In the movie industry bad films will sell well (see Batman vs Superman) despite bad critical receptions, so regardless of what critical standards they are held to, producers can 'do what they want', and provided they have a popular IP, people will buy into it, even if the movie is offensively stupid.

In the video game industry, review scores have a lot of influence on comercial performance and in turn, can shape what the industry outputs. That then could become a powerful tool in saying no to certain types of experiences, The Order is a good example, where I feel the critical performance ensured that pseudo-interactive cinematic style of game design wasn't pursued further. I feel like similar could be done with features like online only, if a developer pushes all their games out as online only, and critics blast them for that, that feature is likely to disappear very quickly. That's why the critical standard that games are held to is very important though, and unfortunately I think in many cases journalists (collectively) do a terribly poor job in shaping our industry.
 
I hate to be a dick about it, because I actually really enjoy Jeff as a person, but he has opposite tastes to me.

I didn't enjoy Super Mario Maker at all, love Rocket League, and will probably enjoy this.

We rarely align opinions, which is fine.

couldnt agree more.

i go to giant bomb for the personalities. i like jeff the most. i like jeffs opinions on games the least.

no big deal at all
 
Top Bottom