Support NeoGAF

[pretty done]

It wouldn't be an Obsidian game if it weren't a technical mess.

You'd think they could get their act together for a cartoony 2Dish game like South Park.

They're still gonna be releasing 720p, sub30fps games on PS4/Xbone aren't they?

 

[ANDS]

If you can't get enjoyment out of this game, there's not much left for you I feel. I see that yes it's a bit less than ideally optimized, and I'm assuming some complaints are going to be "It's basically a SP episode stretched too long", but at the end of the day it's still a fun adventure. I think the real question is whether they should have slapped the 60 buck entry fee on it.

I hope it does well. Can you imagine (assuming Stone and Parker are up to it) a game freed from the limitations of South Park and set in Imaginationland?

 

[matrixman92]

I still dont see an issue with preordering, unless u ONLY preorder at places that do it automatically without pickup(amazon, other websites, digitally). Gamestop, best buy, walmart, target, other physical stores hold your preorder for 48 hours after release if I remember right. I never order online anyway because I am one of the most impatient people ever, fuck waiting for something in the mail. If you preorder from a store, it gives u time to read reviews and cancel your preorder if u don't think u will be satisfied.

 

[jschreier]

That's not necessarily true, like in the case of Skyrim PS3 or some games with save corruption glitches (Virtue's Last Reward). Although admittedly with publishers being able to pick and choose the code they want reviewed the only thing you can do is disclose the format you've played the game on, and even if review conditions were ideal there's no guarantee the relatively smaller sample of reviewers will get hit with the bug.

Yeah, that's true - there are always anomalies. But speaking generally, if a game has obvious flaws or bugs or w/e, it benefits gamers (I don't like the word "consumers") more when reviewers agree to embargoes and get early copies. An embargo is never going to be after release day, so at worst, you'll find out what those reviewers know on the day the game comes out.

 

[Megasoum]

I'm not sure why I need to keep explaining this.

Your options are A) I agree to an embargo and, at worst, I inform you about a game's issues the day it comes out; or B) I buy the game myself when it comes out and you don't find out about its issues until even later because it's already out. Is there some magical third option in which I can buy a game and tell you about it before it's released?

The problem is that a lot of people don't trust reviews to know about game issues (see BF4 or Simcity for example) so in the end it doesn't matter when the reviews comes out (or if it even comes out at all) since we learn about the issues from the "real" users on day 1 or even prior since the games always leak nowadays.

Embargos are one thing but the fact that the publishers controls the reviews enviromment so much means that reviews often ommit many issues with the games (willingly or not).

 

[Sorian]

I got inside word from Schrier posting on a "secret" forum, he says it's a "technical mess" and "shorter than I expected" but "the combat system owns tho".

So, no new information then? This isn't exactly crystal ball knowledge.

 

[Milennia]

If you can't get enjoyment out of this game, there's not much left for you I feel I see that yes it's a bit less than ideally optimized, and I'm assuming some complaints are going to be "It's basically a SP episode stretched too long", but at the end of the day it's still a fun adventure. I think the real question is whether they should have slapped the 60 buck entry fee on it.

I hope it does well. Can you imagine (assuming Stone and Parker are up to it) a game freed from the limitations of South Park and set in Imaginationland?

Wot

 

[k4n3]

how can this game be a "technical mess" hasn't it been delayed like a year due to the whole THQ thing, you'd think they could of ironed out the bugs in that time unless they just gave up on the game

 

[razgriz417]

The problem is that a lot of people don't trust reviews to know about game issues (see BF4 or Simcity for example) so in the end it doesn't matter when the reviews comes out (or if it even comes out at all) since we learn about the issues from the "real" users on day 1 or even prior since the games always leak nowadays.

Embargos are one thing but the fact that the publishers controls the reviews enviromment so much means that reviews often ommit many issues with the games (willingly or not).

What I wish more reviewers would do is tell people in the review how it was reviewed (like over course of how many days/weeks, at a closed review event or at their leisure), especially for the multiplayer aspects of a game. Was a review event setup specifically for the multiplayer? How much time did they spend with it? Things like this could help alleviate mistrust from gamers/readers and put into context the reviews they're reading.

 

[SketchTheArtist]

Well actually, this thread and the anticipation of impressions/reviews show that people indeed view them as relevant still.

Heck, you've seen review threads on here, right?

Yeah . It's a depressing sight.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Well, Matt and Trey really wanted to make a game worth playing, as oppose to the sheer shit games they had before. So i mean, if the game sucks, its gonna be a real bummer, they seemed to really want to make a good game.

The game is incredible. Don't fall for some perceived negativity from some cryptic posts on here. It's the most fun I've had with a game in a long time. To be honest, I will seriously question a review from someone that says they love the show and doesn't like this game. I really really hope they get enough support for this to make a second one, because I want more more more.

 

[SparkleMotion]

Honestly, I hope the game is 8-10 hours. I have too much shit to play to be stuck on one game for 30 hours.

 

[jschreier]

The problem is that a lot of people don't trust reviews to know about game issues (see BF4 or Simcity for example) so in the end it doesn't matter when the reviews comes out (or if it even comes out at all) since we learn about the issues from the "real" users on day 1 or even prior since the games always leak nowadays.

Embargos are one thing but the fact that the publishers controls the reviews enviromment so much means that reviews often ommit many issues with the games (willingly or not).

That's another issue entirely. I'd be furious if I bought SimCity because of an early review.

 

[Acorn]

It wouldn't be an Obsidian game if it weren't a technical mess.

Buf if was Bethesda's/Publisher x/publisher y/publisher Z's fault!

 

[Kovet]

The problem is that a lot of people don't trust reviews to know about game issues (see BF4 or Simcity for example) so in the end it doesn't matter when the reviews comes out (or if it even comes out at all) since we learn about the issues from the "real" users on day 1 or even prior since the games always leak nowadays.

Embargos are one thing but the fact that the publishers controls the reviews enviromment so much means that reviews often ommit many issues with the games (willingly or not).

was gonna post this but u beat me to it. almost every bf4 review i check out feels like its being forcefully praised with every reviewer following the same template of mentioning how everything is improved and putting emphasis on levolution (which is a pretty minor aspect of the game in the 3 month ive been playing it)

I also feel that reviewers who are under embargo are influenced or paid off or are given such positive review environments it effects the actual review of the game.

 

[Green Yoshi]

Are there no people who got a PS3/360-copy early and never signed any embargo?

 

[abundant]

Honestly, I hope the game is 8-10 hours. I have too much shit to play to be stuck on one game for 30 hours.

The average playtime seems to be 12-16 hours.

 

[matrixman92]

Are there no people who got a PS3/360-copy early and never signed any embargo?

pretty much all people playing a pirated copy on twitch, u could go ask in their chat if u can find a stream

 

[Data West]

Luckily, this is the kind of game where I will exhaust every bit of dialogue I can.

I remember in San Andreas sitting in the car for over an hour to hear all the commercials/reports/etc because they changed as major story events happened, and I didn't want to miss them

 

[BoboBrazil]

Are there no people who got a PS3/360-copy early and never signed any embargo?

Read my posts in this thread and read some of SlasherJPCs posts on it. This game is great.

 

[Peff]

Yeah, that's true - there are always anomalies. But speaking generally, if a game has obvious flaws or bugs or w/e, it benefits gamers (I don't like the word "consumers") more when reviewers agree to embargoes and get early copies. An embargo is never going to be after release day, so at worst, you'll find out what those reviewers know on the day the game comes out.

Right, short of legislating how reviews are handled, which would be a big mess, that's probably the best compromise. Besides, when we find out that a game has a release day embargo there's almost always something the publisher doesn't want people discussing too early, be it bad overall quality, tons of glitches, short length in this case or whatever, so that in itself is also helpful

 

[antitrop]

Buf if was Bethesda's/Publisher x/publisher y/publisher Z's fault!

Derrick's permbanned now. We can now safely talk about how Obsidian is a great developer that just can't get their games in quite the state they're supposed to be in, without him making excuses for them.

 

[SneakyStephan]

http://blog.jeffgerstmann.net/post/43215496882/game-reviews-embargoes-and-a-reality-check

The press can't protect us from the inherent risks of buying games the minute they're out The simplest solution is to stop doing that. Or at least understanding that if you day one a game it's your own damned fault if you end up with a big dick in your mouth. It is their job to inform us, but demanding they do so before the game is out is what leads to bullshit like review events. Accurate reporting and analysis is what should be demanded, not info ASAP. It's us who are doing it wrong.

But outlets that fail to disclose having gone to a review event can lick my balls. Reviews of that ilk are of questionable value at best, and bamboozling us about it is just shitty.

I fully agree with not preordering games and the whole dick in your mouth aspect of it

that said, they know the game is broken (if it is broken) but will not share that info with the consumer because it hurts their relationship with the publisher
(even if they want to, like schreier telling people to wait for the reviews before buying)

that is what almost all those gaming journalism threads and the frustration of readers/gamers/consumers in them always boils down to, that they are beholden to the publishers and that it hurts their ability to do their job and especially the reader/consumer's ability to get the information he or she needs

And then the question rises (as always) what exactly is the purpose of the games press right now from the reader/consumer pov if they are unable to look out for our interests and in the end act as little other than an extension of PR (especially leading up to the launch) with the information they share being carefully controlled and shaped by publishers.

As always the responsibility gets passed on to the consumer (noone's ever accountable in this industry, probably why noone outside of it has any respect for it)
You tell people to stop pre ordering (which I fully agree with) while it's publishers who work so hard to control the message up to launch through marketing to create this pre order culture in the first place.
And then when I point out that the games press are acting as an enabler the response is that they do what they need to do to get theirs along with a facefull of shit slung at me in that typical twitter agressive defensive circle jerk manner (and from one of the people who is supposedly on our side in all of this and hates not being able to tell us, imagine what the people like Gies will say and think)

Sorry if I don't have any sympathy for them, they don't have any for the consumer either

 

[jschreier]

"Reviewers should stop agreeing to embargoes! It hurts consumers!"

"Then you'll find out this information even later than you would if we agreed to them."

*silence*

*ten posts later*

"Reviewers should stop agreeing to embargoes! It hurts consumers!"

 

[03sho]

How much is this going to be on the US psn store?

 

[pretty done]

How much is this going to be on the US psn store?

$60

Spoiler

or $30 if you split it with someone since every account has 2 slots

 

[jacksepticeye]

"Reviewers should stop agreeing to embargoes! It hurts consumers!"

"Then you'll find out this information even later than you would if we agreed to them."

*silence*

*ten posts later*

"Reviewers should stop agreeing to embargoes! It hurts consumers!"

Welcome to the internet lol

 

[DryvBy]

I also predict most game reviewers acting above South Park humor and knocking points off for being 'offensive'. It's the same industry where we knocked points off for the name of an achievement in God of War.

And when Ben K ragged on Duke Nukem Forever for making Duke Nukem jokes.

 

[WanderingWind]

I fully agree with not preordering games and the whole dick in your mouth aspect of it

that said, they know the game is broken (if it is broken) but will not share that info with the consumer because it hurts their relationship with the publisher
(even if they want to, like schreirer telling people to wait for the reviews before buying)

that is what almost all those gaming journalism threads and the frustration of readers/gamers/consumers in them always boils down to, that they are beholden to the publishers and that it hurts their ability to do their job and especially the reader/consumer's ability to get the information he needs

And then the question rises (as always) what exactly is the purpose of the games press right now from the reader/consumer pov if they are unable to look out for our interests and in the end act as little other than an extension of PR (especially leading up to the launch) with the information they share being carefully controlled and shaped by publishers.

As always the responsibility gets passed on to the consumer (noone's ever accountable in this industry, probably why noone outside of it has any respect for it)
You tell people to stop pre ordering (which I fully agree with) while it's publishers who work so hard to control the message up to launch through marketing to create this pre order culture in the first place.
And then when I point out that the games press are acting as an enabler the response is that they do what they need to do to get theirs along with a facefull of shit slung at me in that typical twitter agressive defensive circle jerk manner

Sorry if I don't have any sympathy for them, they don't have any for the consumer either

The consumer is also to blame though. We are the ones preordering. If consumers didn't continue to preorder Assassin's Creed and other million-pressed titles, the system would've been forgotten like online passes. We are the ones who can't wait a couple of days for a guaranteed non-biased review. If we could, then embargos wouldn't matter because game reviewers could safely buy their own copy and be beholden to nobody.

You say the games press doesn't care about you, but you clearly do not care if they lose their livelihood for absolutely no reason. Let's say Jason or any of the other dozen games media ITT (myself included) break embargo. They will be without a job. You, on the other hand, will be affected in no way that isn't under your control - if you just wait to purchase a game the day of its release.

The sides of the scale are not even here. The writer loses his job. You are disappointed in a game that you preordered for 60 bucks. How does this imbalance seem to be to you a fair position to launch an attack at the guy with his job on the line?

 

[AstroLad]

I just treat late embargoes like I would movies that refuse to screen for reviewers. There isn't much of a difference. If people continue to look upon them negatively, then the incentive to have them will diminish and it will get to a point where it's very meaningful information (i.e., publishers with titles they have confidence in will allow them to be reviewed earlier, and vice versa). I wouldn't mind that at all.

Just a general point. No opinion on SoT of course. If it's good I'll pick it up.

 

[CrimsonCommie]

Well this thread has taken a turn for the worst. I'll be back tomorrow night.

 

[water_wendi]

This game better have some major issues for this ominous warning to be issued. If fucking Skyrim PS3 (and console release in general), SimCity, and Battlefield-fucking 4 can make it out without so much as a whiff of a problem from reviewers before release there better be fucking blue screens and hard locks every three minutes.

 

[Milennia]

$60

Spoiler

or $30 if you split it with someone since every account has 2 slots

Can you explain how this works, I'm interested?

 

[diffusionx]

I would never preorder an Obsidian game. Never ever ever ever.

 

[matrixman92]

Well this thread has taken a turn for the worst. I'll be back tomorrow night.

I was hoping everyone would get into a debate about the meaning of the universe next...

but this

 

[k4n3]

this thread forced me to go watch some twitch streams and it looks fine to me and now i cant stop watching!!!

 

[erawsd]

I fully agree with not preordering games and the whole dick in your mouth aspect of it

that said, they know the game is broken (if it is broken) but will not share that info with the consumer because it hurts their relationship with the publisher
(even if they want to, like schreier telling people to wait for the reviews before buying)

that is what almost all those gaming journalism threads and the frustration of readers/gamers/consumers in them always boils down to, that they are beholden to the publishers and that it hurts their ability to do their job and especially the reader/consumer's ability to get the information he needs

And then the question rises (as always) what exactly is the purpose of the games press right now from the reader/consumer pov if they are unable to look out for our interests and in the end act as little other than an extension of PR (especially leading up to the launch) with the information they share being carefully controlled and shaped by publishers.

As always the responsibility gets passed on to the consumer (noone's ever accountable in this industry, probably why noone outside of it has any respect for it)
You tell people to stop pre ordering (which I fully agree with) while it's publishers who work so hard to control the message up to launch through marketing to create this pre order culture in the first place.
And then when I point out that the games press are acting as an enabler the response is that they do what they need to do to get theirs along with a facefull of shit slung at me in that typical twitter agressive defensive circle jerk manner (and from one of the people who is supposedly on our side in all of this and hates not being able to tell us, imagine what the people like Gies will say and think)

Sorry if I don't have any sympathy for them, they don't have any for the consumer either

So what do you want the press to do?

As others have said there are only two options: 1. Make this compromise with publishers. or 2. Be shut out and become entirely ineffective.

 

[razgriz417]

this thread forced me to go watch some twitch streams and it looks fine to me and now i cant stop watching!!!

stop! don't spoil yourself anymore!

 

[Ogimachi]

Derrick's permbanned now. We can now safely talk about how Obsidian is a great developer that just can't get their games in quite the state they're supposed to be in, without him making excuses for them.

Even if there's confirmation that the game is filled with bugs, nobody knows how long they were paid to work on the game by THQ, or if Ubisoft funded additional development at all.

"Reviewers should stop agreeing to embargoes! It hurts consumers!"

"Then you'll find out this information even later than you would if we agreed to them."

*silence*

*ten posts later*

"Reviewers should stop agreeing to embargoes! It hurts consumers!"

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

I find your perspective amusing. You seriously think you're doing us a great favor by agreeing to embargoes and releasing reviews on launch day. It's a game with pre-order bonuses, what difference does it make? There's no difference between buying on release or 2-3 days later. Those who can't wait have already paid for it.

 

[pretty done]

Can you explain how this works, I'm interested?

Find a buddy to buy the game with, make a brand new PSN account, have one of you go on PSN with that account and find a game for $30 and add funds to your wallet but don't actually buy it, log off account, have other person log on the new PSN on his PS3 and add South Park to cart, add the funds to buy South Park, download, log off account (this will not stop your download) and have the other person go on the account and start the download as well. You can each play on your own PSN accounts. I got GTA V and TLoU at launch for $30 like this.

This is why I wanted to go with PS3 instead of PC but Obsidian gargles my balls so I'm forced to go PC.

 

[BoboBrazil]

This game better have some major issues for this ominous warning to be issued. If fucking Skyrim PS3 (and console release in general), SimCity, and Battlefield-fucking 4 can make it out without so much as a whiff of a problem from reviewers before release there better be fucking blue screens and hard locks every three minutes.

The only issue is some stuttering in the city when you go to the next screen once in awhile. It doesn't always happen, and usually seems to be when there is more going on on the screen. I also had one hard lock on an inventory screen at one part in the game, but it only happened once and never again. Like I've said over and over if you love South Park you should love this game. It's incredible.

 

[Gintoki313]

this thread forced me to go watch some twitch streams and it looks fine to me and now i cant stop watching!!!

I went to Twitch to go see how it played on the PS3. Turns out the guy was near the end when I clicked on it. Had to hurry and click out before I saw too much. I'll stick to just knowing how the game begins for the first 15mins.

 

[Milennia]

Find a buddy to buy the game with, make a brand new PSN account, have one of you go on PSN with that account and find a game for $30 and add funds to your wallet but don't actually buy it, log off account, have other person log on the new PSN on his PS3 and add South Park to cart, add the funds to buy South Park, download, log off account (this will not stop your download) and have the other person go on the account and start the download as well. You can each play on your own PSN accounts. I got GTA V and TLoU at launch for $30 like this.

This is why I wanted to go with PS3 instead of PC but Obsidian gargles my balls so I'm forced to go PC.

Interesting thanks.

 

[Ravensmash]

Even if there's confirmation that the game is filled with bugs, nobody knows how long they were paid to work on the game by THQ, or if Ubisoft funded additional development at all.

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

*Complains about games journalism criticism*

I find your perspective amusing. You seriously think you're doing us a great favor by agreeing to embargoes and releasing reviews on launch day. It's a game with pre-order bonuses, what difference does it make? There's no difference between buying on release or 2-3 days later. Those who can't wait have already paid for it.

I don't think Jason was implying that he was doing people 'favours' but just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Players/consumers WANT reviews as close to launch as possible - I want reviews as close to launch as possible.

There is no tangible way for reviewers to meet demand without agreeing to these embargoes, otherwise they won't get copies early again. So then when the next big game comes along and we're all jumping for information, we (the consumer) will have to wait even longer to find out impressions.

What do you want them to do?

 

[Wotanik]

If you want to be spoiled (and interested if it's worth the pre-order), there's some streams going on at the moment.

EDIT: Too slow.

 

[ekim]

What's going on here? /o

 

[razgriz417]

Find a buddy to buy the game with, make a brand new PSN account, have one of you go on PSN with that account and find a game for $30 and add funds to your wallet but don't actually buy it, log off account, have other person log on the new PSN on his PS3 and add South Park to cart, add the funds to buy South Park, download, log off account (this will not stop your download) and have the other person go on the account and start the download as well. You can each play on your own PSN accounts. I got GTA V and TLoU at launch for $30 like this.

This is why I wanted to go with PS3 instead of PC but Obsidian gargles my balls so I'm forced to go PC.

wow lol I wish I knew this last gen, woulda been nice to share my games with some of my more wary friends

 

[JaseC]

What's going on here? /o

Shut up, Butters.

 

[theytookourjobz]

If critics don't agree to embargoes then you get reviews even later. How is that better? Games are never supply constrained now so dumb pre-order bonuses aside, there is literally no reason to blindly pre-order a game.

 

[Timu]

this thread forced me to go watch some twitch streams and it looks fine to me and now i cant stop watching!!!

Wait, people are streaming it now???