toxicitizen

Yeah, finding reviewers whose opinions you generally respect or agree with really is the best thing to do here. I disagree with Jim Sterling's reviews more often than not but I certainly respect his opinion. A 5/10 from him won't make me write off a game entirely but I'll certainly want to know what it was that made him feel it deserved that score. Yeah, this is all subjective as hell. But I tend to favor smaller-range scales, like the 5 stars system Ethan mentioned. None of that 100 points decimal scale bullshit. I mean, shit, for all the garbage that's on that site, I think Kotaku's Yes/No system is actually a good idea.

You do realize that Call of Duty has a story-based campaign, right? I get what you're saying here but I think you're looking at it wrong. You're certainly not wrong that DXHR is cyberpunk and Fallout 3 is post-apocalyptic. But you're only describing their narrative settings here. Again, you're using your personal preferences of story-based games as hard limits to define them. Some games simply don't have stories or take place in more generic settings. How would those narrative descriptions be helpful, then? I mean, what does "cyberpunk" really tell you about Deus Ex as a game? I agree that First-Person Shooter is a stupid name, but really, it tells you everything you need to know about how it plays, doesn't it? Telling me Deus Ex is a First-Person RPG tells me what kind of game it is, cyberpunk tells me what kind of story/universe it has. Transistor is also cyberpunk but beyond that it has very little in common with Deus Ex. Simply saying "cyberpunk" is fine for purely passive story-based mediums like books or movies, but for something interactive like a video game it's simply inadequate because of how varied the experiences can be. When looking for something new to play, I'll think about it in terms of what type of mechanics I'd like to play (FPS, RPG, Turn-Based strategy, etc...) over what kind of narrative genre it is, but that's just me. Miscommunication it was, then. Like I said, describing the mechanics is every bit as important (if not more) as describing the narrative setting when it comes to video games. Games are by their very nature interactive experiences and trying to categorize them purely in terms of passive ones is doing the medium a disservice. Fair enough. I just thought some of your points were kind of illogical and poorly constructed. When I encounter that, my first instinct is to doubt the authenticity of the argument. Especially when I see phrases like "I'm clearly right", which is something a troll would say to try and get a rise out of people. This is the internet, after all.

Oh, I'm not offended. I just think you're saying very silly things. Don't misunderstand my tone for anger, that's just how I tend to talk. Also, your analogies were so bad that I was suspecting a troll and, well, the "I'm clearly right" part doesn't help you there. I'm not sure why you keep going back to that football match example because it makes no sense. It's a sporting event that just happened to have cameras pointed at it, it's not a crafted piece of filmed entertainment. It's really more akin to a concert DVD. Almost everything else you listed is fair game, though. The only reason a "film critic" wouldn't pay attention to those other things would because it's not his job to review them. But the rules of doing so would be largely the same whether it's a movie, live-action TV or even animation. Hell, I'd expect a film critic to review a feature documentary because why not. That's fine. I'm not particularly into multiplayer games either. But you're confusing mediums with genres, here. Just because you wouldn't play it doesn't make it a different medium. No, handing you a COD game is like handing you a copy of The Shining when you don't like horror films. It's still very much a film. And I really need to point out that the inherent contradiction with what you're saying while calling something else an oversimplification blows my freaking mind, here. You are trolling, yes? Well, you're right about them being different genres... Why should being based around social interaction or competition magically make it a different medium? Different type of experience, sure. But that's about it.

And I'm the one with a flawed understanding of what a review system needs to be? I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. COD is as much a video game as anything else. Your own personal preferences are absolutely irrelevant here. Plus, I'm not sure the review system you've been describing actually exists anywhere in the real world... Again, this makes no sense whatsoever. You can't draw arbitrary lines to define which video games qualify as being video games. I mean, I can kinda see where people are coming from when they say that Dear Esther or Gone Home aren't games. I strongly disagree but I can at least see why they might feel that way. What you're saying here, though, is absolute fucking nonsense. This analogy simply doesn't work. With games, framerate is directly related to performance. It's irrelevant to films because they all run at the same one. But when The Hobbit came out in 48 FPS, reviews made mention of it because it was suddenly very relevant and actually had an effect on the viewing experience. If a movie has bad lighting or contrast, then any reviewer who knows what he's talking about will make mention of it. But the same goes when it's particularly good. You think the artistic merit of a film only goes as far as the script and acting? Holy shit, man, there's so much more to it.

Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker. Oh man, what a disappointment. It's kind of hilarious, actually. Because of all the talk around its initial release about how it was basically MGS5 in all but name, combined with Ground Zeroes' use of some of its characters, I kinda figured I was missing this big chunk of Metal Gear canon by never having played it. Turns out that's simply not the case. The story is kind of garbage and those characters just aren't fleshed out at all. I don't really feel like I know more about them now than I did before. And I had only played like 6 hours of the story back then. Also, the graphic novel presentation would've probably bothered me if I wasn't such a big fan of Yoji Shinkawa's art style. It just kind of undermines some of the bigger moments in the story. But that's just the story. This is Metal Gear Solid, so the gameplay was still a lot of fun. Surprisingly so, considering the small size of the maps, but this was a PSP game so that can't be helped. Abducting guards using the Fulton system looks so fucking stupid (especially when doing it from inside a fucking building) that it actually added to my enjoyment. I'd just Fulton everything that moved while giggling like an idiot. That being said, one major complaint would be how grindy it can be. I'd heard of it but it wasn't an issue for most of my playthrough. Then I got to the final battle against Peace Walker and... it was just fucking impossible. So I had to grind to get better R&D dudes in my base, so that I could research a better rocket launcher so that I could actually stand a chance against PW. That was about 3 hours of mindlessly replaying side-missions. It seriously killed what little momentum the story had going for it. I might keep playing it a bit more since all the Mother Base stuff is oddly addictive and kinda fun. But overall, I wouldn't rank it anywhere near the main series as far as quality goes.

I'm on the same side as far as how I personally view games. I'm a big fan of both the Youtube channels I linked and it sounds like you'd enjoy them as well, so I strongly recommend you check them out. I just don't think that's the right way to look at reviews. Artistic value is insanely subjective and most people buying a game couldn't give two shits about it. I mean, one of the (if not THE) best-selling IPs of all time is Call of Duty, for fuck's sake. That should tell you something. Games are expensive as hell, so yeah, I think when it comes to launch reviews then it's more relevant to evaluate them as a product. I don't want to pay 60 dollars for an interesting game that barely works. I'd feel ripped off if I'd bought Battlefield 4 day one and gotten the broken mess that it was at launch. I mean, I'm not trying to be exclusionary here. There is room to comment on a game's artistic merit in a review. It just shouldn't be the entire point like you're suggesting. I want a review to tell me whether a game is thematically interesting and whatnot. It just really needs to focus on "but it's also fucking broken right now so maybe wait until they patch it up before you drop 60 bucks on this".

I don't think my view of a rating system is flawed, I think what you're talking about is something completely different. Reviews in general have nothing to do with artistic value, they're an evaluation of the product to inform consumers. They score games based on tangible aspects: gameplay, graphics, sound, replay value. Is it even fun?! And yes, the game can very much fail. In that regard, then yes, you would start at a "perfect" score and knock points whenever you think there's a problem. If I research it and read only bad reviews, then it fails to generate a sale from me. The games industry is a business, how is that not a failure on their part? If we're talking about purely artistic merit then we're in critical analysis territory and those are a completely different thing. They have no score attached to them because that's simply not the point. They explore what the mechanics are saying rather than whether or not they're solid. They're not asking "should you buy this game?" but rather "is this game thematically interesting and why?" and they do so while ignoring its value as a product. It doesn't matter here if the game is buggy or broken. This is where concepts like ludonarrative dissonnance become relevant. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, check out Errant Signal on youtube. I'm also a pretty big fan of SuperBunnyhop's Critical Close-Up series. (edited for typos and added links)

8/10 was never a bad score. Gamers are just fucking stupid. Even a 6/10 can have some redeeming value and be worthwhile for a playthrough. edit: I'm not sure I agree that 5 should be the average, though. I don't think game review scores should necessarily follow a normal distribution. And at 5/10 you're still looking at a game that somehow lost half the points. At that point you kinda have to wonder what the problem is. Hence the importance of actually reading the review, as the score on its own is meaningless.

Uncharted 2 won't feel samey coming from Uncharted 1. From 2 to 3, though, now that's another story.

Yeah, so far I'm not crazy about the story. Kinda disappointing since the main reason I'm playing it is because it felt like I was missing this important chunk of canon. The stealth gameplay is still the best part despite the small size of the maps. And I didn't realize there were audiotapes to find. I guess that explains what the walkman is used for? But man, yet another similarity between PW and MGSV/GZ. I couldn't help but be a little bit bummed out when I found out that MGSV wasn't going to be a traditional MGS but I dunno... I'm kinda worried about it being too similar to Peace Walker. That game structure is fine for a handheld spin-off but it's not exactly what I want from a mainline game. Anyway, if there's a true ending involved I guess I'm gonna have to look some of that shit up.

You're not the first one I've seen describing it as grindy. What do people mean when they say that? Is there a point in the game where you're forced to replay missions or something? I haven't really experienced anything like that yet and I'm close to 10 hours in. I just met your avatar for the first time, actually.

Yeah, I wrote a pretty lengthy mini-review about Remember Me in the Games You Beat thread. My thoughts were mostly the same. Combat brings it way down but everything else is pretty good, especially the art direction and soundtrack. I also really enjoyed the story, there's a few really interesting bits if you stick with it to the end. As for me, Metal Gear Rising made me hungry for more so I decided it was time I finally beat Peace Walker. I'd been planning to do it before Phantom Pain comes out, anyway. It's been a while so I just started over from the beginning. I wasn't that far into it, anyway. The short mission structure really makes me wish I was playing it on Vita. I downloaded the PSP version a couple months ago but I could tell right away that I wouldn't be able to stand that shitty framerate. Anyway, so far, I'm having fun with it but it's just not up to the series' usual standard of quality. And did I just watch a cutscene that basically retconned MGS3's ending?!? Also, all that Mother Base micromanagement bullshit is fine for a handheld game but I'm not sure how I feel about it being in MGSV proper...

I FUCKING DID IT!! I beat the final boss of MGR on very hard!! Holy shit, that was intense. I think the game counted ALL my attempts, even those from previous play sessions, because the final timer for the level was almost 3 hours. When he was down to the last quarter of his health, my heart was pounding and my hands were shaking so much I actually failed the final QTE like 3 times. Thank fucking God, at that point the game acknowledges your win and just re-triggers it without dealing you any damage. If I had failed at that point, I don't think I would have a PC anymore. Nor a window. But man, it's been so long since I've done something like this purely for the challenge, i.e. with no achievement or trophy related to it. Feels pretty good.

Shovel Knight. Man, I really need to get a fucking tattoo that says in big bold letters "Hey asshole! You hate platformers with a burning passion! STOP BUYING THEM!" because I keep forgetting and doing it anyway. The last couple levels of this game pissed me off so goddamned much, it's not even funny. Okay, maybe it's a little funny... And yet, it's a testament to how truly great this game is that I still fucking loved every second of it despite that. And it's not like I'm looking at it purely through nostalgia goggles, either. I mean, the NES vibe they went for does have a certain charm to it but I don't have particularly fond memories of the NES era. Whenever I revisit one of those games through emulation or the actual NES I have hooked up in my room, I always end up going "well, this is shit" and turning it off within minutes. Except for Punch-Out. That game is still fucking great. But I digress. That being said, the NES style is pulled off rather flawlessly. Not just through the visuals, music and Mega Man-like progression but also through the gameplay. It's kind of refreshing how simple and pure the core mechanics are. It doesn't bog itself down with unnecessary bullshit. And that simplicity somehow translates into pure fun. Also, I think another big part of it is that it doesn't restrict itself to the limitations of that era. I probably would've hated it if it didn't have mid-level checkpoints and a save system. As much as I want to love the Mega Man series, whenever I tried it I'd just end up giving up after failing a boss because I didn't feel like replaying the entire level. There's a limit to how retro I like games to be and Shovel Knight doesn't go too far in that regard. So yeah, really neat little game. I'm really glad I took a chance on it. Well worth the 15 bucks. Oh and I guess I replayed Dust: An Elysian Tail and Metal Gear Rising. Does Rising still count if it was my second time playing it this year? Whatever, I don't care.

So, I've been playing an awful lot of Metal Gear Rising over the past week. First, I cleared normal, which was significantly easier than when I did it on PS3 6 months ago. Even accounting for me being already familiar with the game, the difference was so jarring that I actually started wondering if I'd accidentally played on hard back then. I guess I was just fucking terrible at it? I redid it on hard and with new game plus progression it was no challenge at all. Then I moved on to very hard. Very hard lived up to its name. The tutorial level, which usually takes no more than 10mins when you know what you're doing, took me an entire hour to beat. You don't have access to any of your upgrades so you die pretty fucking fast. I'm talking like 3 hits. After that, it got a bit easier. Once I had access to my maxed out meters and OP gear, it was kind of hilarious how easily I breezed through the levels by comparison. The first main boss was no trouble at all. But then I got to Monsoon and shit got real. Holy fuck, that was challenging. Took me almost 10 tries before I managed to beat him. Sundowner wasn't too bad but then I got to Sam. That motherfucker was so intense. I don't think I've ever had this much fun failing outside of the Souls series. Then came the final boss. My first attempt, I ended up at the final phase of the fight with no health packs left and the damage not fully upgraded on the specific sword you have to use. It was basically impossible. So I went to farm BPs a bit, upgraded the sword, filled up on health packs and replayed the entire last level. Not using any health packs throughout the fight was no easy feat because that fucker has a couple of phases that are downright bullshit. If it wasn't for the possibility to abuse checkpoints to get a full health refill, I don't think I'd have made it. But I did it and now I'm back at the final phase with full damage on the sword and 5 health packs. And still it's so fucking difficult! I intend to keep trying but I'm actually not sure I have the skills to beat him. If I do manage to clear it, I'm seriously worried about tackling Revengeance mode. I'm not sure my sanity would be able to withstand the challenge. Yet I love the game so goddamned much I just want to keep playing it! If I end up losing my mind in the near future, you guys will know why.

What issues? I haven't played the game yet but the only big one that I'm aware of was the save system. Wasn't that patched into the original without needing the DLC? What other issues are there?

And with that, I believe I should be done. I've wanted the rest of the Bit.Trip games for a while now but I also really wanted to get the soundtracks along with them. I had just been waiting for a good deal on the pack because the regular price is like 50 bucks, which seemed kind of fucking insane. 20$ was a bit more reasonable and I was able to knock an extra 11 bucks off the price by saving up all my card money during the sale. The Ironclad Tactics upgrade was a surprisingly good value. It's half bonus stuff (soundtrack and the likes) and half season pass, so it also includes both DLC campaigns. Also a gift copy of SpaceChem and its DLC, the latter of which I don't think I owned. It's been on my backlog since our last Secret Santa so now I'll probably get around to playing it soon.

Does Revengeance PC version count since it came out this year? If so, definitely that. I just can't stop playing it. I'm somehow loving it even more than when I first played it on PS3. I mean, it's a 6 hours game yet I just hit 30 hours of playtime according to Steam. Otherwise, Dark Souls II wins by default, I suppose. Although, Transistor was pretty damn amazing too. I'm actually not sure which one I liked the most.

Feels kinda wrong to buy a full price, non-discounted game during the summer sale but all the praise I keep hearing about Shovel Knight got me really curious so I said fuck it and went for it. Besides, there's so little that I want this time around that I was actually starting to consider dropping 30 bucks on Wolfenstein... This feels a bit more reasonable.

Am I the only one who thinks Unbreakable was alright? Also, Signs is a guilty pleasure of mine.

July line-up has been revealed. PS4: Towerfall Ascension, Strider PS3: Dead Space 3, Vessel Vita: Muramasa Rebirth, Doki-Doki Universe Kind of a shit month for me. Oh well, they can't all be winners, I suppose.

Yeah, I was just pointing out that having at least one or two of those exceptions isn't all that rare but that Avatar still lacks it. That being said, looking into it a bit more it seems there hasn't been as many unique Avatar games as I thought. Turns out most of the big ones were all part of the same trilogy, so it makes sense they'd all be of similar quality, I guess. Oh God, there's also been one based on the M. Night Shyamalan live-action movie. Just... whyyyyy?

Really? Batman had some decent beat-em-ups back in the day. Matrix had at least one game that was alright (can't remember which one, it's been a while). There's been some amazing Star Wars and TMNT games. Some solid Dragon Ball games as well. Do I really need to go on? It's really not that hard to find decent licensed games. Not necessarily great or even good games, but fun and serviceable enough to be enjoyed. Basically, anything that's not rushed because it's a movie tie-in has potential.