Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Review | MMORPG.com

System

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor Review | MMORPG.com

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor picks up five years after the events of the excellent Jedi: Fallen Order. How does the latest adventure with Jedi Knight Cal Kestis fare? Here's our review of Star Wars Jedi: Survivor.

Read the full story here

Raagnarz

Already bought just waiting for tomorrow to Download. EA has had 2 good star wars games launch in recent years. Fallen Order and Squadrons. So I'm hoping this one continues the streak, and based on this review it seems to be.

Nanfoodle

Dropping all games I'm playing when this drops Friday. Will be exploring every corner of this game.

Tokken

Nice to see it has an open world and not linear.

Gorwe

Tokken said:

Nice to see it has an open world and not linear.

Uhm. No. I prefer linear.

Incomparable

I think the fact it is buggy is quite an understatement from what I am reading from other reviews.

How can anyone give it a good score when its basically as bad as cyber punk in releasing a rushed product.

The devs literally said they will patch it up in the weeks after release. Meaning people are paying for a beta at this point.

If PC users want to avoid this, they should not buy into beta testing single player games for $70.

I get that people are excited and want to be positive, but this quite a bad trend to continue if it is somewhat normalized to have a terrible experience...

Which makes no sense. Once I play it, I will be done with the game. Do they think people will repeatedly play it, and change their opinion on 2nd time, or 3rd time they play the game since it finally got patched to be good enough?

Good launches are important, and this game will get a negative review from regaular customers. Even in this review, it states it impacted his enjoyment, yet still gets a good score.

What is the score if there is no fixes to the game? 4/10?
edit; Also apparently EA does not do refunds, or they are tricky to do.
Also HDR on PS5 does not work as seen on a different review... atm.
So if people want to try their luck downloading 150 GB at least buy from steam where they can do refunds after 2 hours of play through.
Good luck, and may be they do pull a rabbit out of this stuttering unoptimized mess. But that should be the main message to customers in how not to be completely disappointed in what can be an amazing experience once optimized by knowing their options and facts and not continue the hype train.

Scot

Incomparable said:

I think the fact it is buggy is quite an understatement from what I am reading from other reviews.



How can anyone give it a good score when its basically as bad as cyber punk in releasing a rushed product.



The devs literally said they will patch it up in the weeks after release. Meaning people are paying for a beta at this point.



.......

This is why I don't buy anything before I see the reviews and it has been launched for at least a month.

So what can the site do? Does it wait to way past when all the other reviews are done to actually get round to the review? That would solve our issue but put the site on the back foot compared to other gaming sites. They could do a follow up amendment review, but that takes time and money, to me that would be well spent. In fact for MMORPG's a follow up review a year later would be a good thing. Clearly they don't see that as viable which is a shame but no other site bothers to go to that expense so it is hard to justify.

Maurgrim

Is it still built as a 3D Donkey Kong gameplay?

Incomparable

Scot said:

Incomparable said:

I think the fact it is buggy is quite an understatement from what I am reading from other reviews.





How can anyone give it a good score when its basically as bad as cyber punk in releasing a rushed product.





The devs literally said they will patch it up in the weeks after release. Meaning people are paying for a beta at this point.





.......

This is why I don't buy anything before I see the reviews and it has been launched for at least a month.



So what can the site do? Does it wait to way past when all the other reviews are done to actually get round to the review? That would solve our issue but put the site on the back foot compared to other gaming sites. They could do a follow up amendment review, but that takes time and money, to me that would be well spent. In fact for MMORPG's a follow up review a year later would be a good thing. Clearly they don't see that as viable which is a shame but no other site bothers to go to that expense so it is hard to justify.

Well, I put an edit; and I think that is what they should do. At the end of the day I think most people will only do 1 play through. So its in their interest to give a review based on that and the current situation.

Not what it could be. That's what the review is by saying what it could be and reviewing that.

And may be give options to consider in how it is a gamble to buy now and recommend people to wait. Otherwise I would expect most people to have a non pleasant experience and that is what a positive review will promote.

Angrakhan

I played the first one and refunded it. While beautiful, it's just a platformer/puzzle solver with obnoxiously difficult combat sprinkled between the puzzles. Basically Jedi God of War. A lot of people love that formula. I just don't. Happy fans are getting another solid entry, in their genre, though.

ACommonMugger

Angrakhan said:

I played the first one and refunded it. While beautiful, it's just a platformer/puzzle solver with obnoxiously difficult combat sprinkled between the puzzles. Basically Jedi God of War. A lot of people love that formula. I just don't. Happy fans are getting another solid entry, in their genre, though.

I can only recall one enemy, that giant frog in the beginning, that was exceedingly difficult. Turns out, you were suppose to ignore it and come back later.

I stubbornly didn't do that and bashed my head against the frog-wall until I killed it.

TheDalaiBomba

Incomparable said:

I think the fact it is buggy is quite an understatement from what I am reading from other reviews.

How can anyone give it a good score when its basically as bad as cyber punk in releasing a rushed product.

The devs literally said they will patch it up in the weeks after release. Meaning people are paying for a beta at this point.

If PC users want to avoid this, they should not buy into beta testing single player games for $70.

I get that people are excited and want to be positive, but this quite a bad trend to continue if it is somewhat normalized to have a terrible experience...

Which makes no sense. Once I play it, I will be done with the game. Do they think people will repeatedly play it, and change their opinion on 2nd time, or 3rd time they play the game since it finally got patched to be good enough?

Good launches are important, and this game will get a negative review from regaular customers. Even in this review, it states it impacted his enjoyment, yet still gets a good score.

What is the score if there is no fixes to the game? 4/10?
edit; Also apparently EA does not do refunds, or they are tricky to do.
Also HDR on PS5 does not work as seen on a different review... atm.
So if people want to try their luck downloading 150 GB at least buy from steam where they can do refunds after 2 hours of play through.
Good luck, and may be they do pull a rabbit out of this stuttering unoptimized mess. But that should be the main message to customers in how not to be completely disappointed in what can be an amazing experience once optimized by knowing their options and facts and not continue the hype train.

You could've paid $15 bucks, instead.  And receive the option to purchase it for less than $70 after that, iirc how EA Play works reference buying titles under your sub.

TheDalaiBomba

Angrakhan said:

I played the first one and refunded it. While beautiful, it's just a platformer/puzzle solver with obnoxiously difficult combat sprinkled between the puzzles. Basically Jedi God of War. A lot of people love that formula. I just don't. Happy fans are getting another solid entry, in their genre, though.

It also included a strong narrative with excellent voice acting, which is key for a story-driven action adventure game.

Incomparable

TheDalaiBomba said:

Incomparable said:

I think the fact it is buggy is quite an understatement from what I am reading from other reviews.



How can anyone give it a good score when its basically as bad as cyber punk in releasing a rushed product.



The devs literally said they will patch it up in the weeks after release. Meaning people are paying for a beta at this point.



If PC users want to avoid this, they should not buy into beta testing single player games for $70.



I get that people are excited and want to be positive, but this quite a bad trend to continue if it is somewhat normalized to have a terrible experience...



Which makes no sense. Once I play it, I will be done with the game. Do they think people will repeatedly play it, and change their opinion on 2nd time, or 3rd time they play the game since it finally got patched to be good enough?



Good launches are important, and this game will get a negative review from regaular customers. Even in this review, it states it impacted his enjoyment, yet still gets a good score.



What is the score if there is no fixes to the game? 4/10?



edit;

Also apparently EA does not do refunds, or they are tricky to do.


Also HDR on PS5 does not work as seen on a different review... atm.


So if people want to try their luck downloading 150 GB at least buy from steam where they can do refunds after 2 hours of play through.


Good luck, and may be they do pull a rabbit out of this stuttering unoptimized mess. But that should be the main message to customers in how not to be completely disappointed in what can be an amazing experience once optimized by knowing their options and facts and not continue the hype train.

You could've paid $15 bucks, instead.  And receive the option to purchase it for less than $70 after that, iirc how EA Play works reference buying titles under your sub.

That is another good option for those that only want to do 1 play through and finish it under a month. Something people can consider when weighing the prospects of being a 'beta' tester for a AAA single player game then the option of $15 might be worth it for them.

ValdemarJ

If it's anywhere near as good as Fallen Order then it should do well.

I'm not a huge fan of Action/Adventure games with a lot of platforming, but the real deal breaker for me is the Jedi focus. I'm burnt out on Star Wars in general and dislike the Jedi in particular. It's a fragile construct that has aged poorly and should be shelved until some future date. Bring Force users into a more plausible focus in their world. Do something fresh.

Theocritus

ValdemarJ said:

If it's anywhere near as good as Fallen Order then it should do well.

I'm not a huge fan of Action/Adventure games with a lot of platforming, but the real deal breaker for me is the Jedi focus. I'm burnt out on Star Wars in general and dislike the Jedi in particular. It's a fragile construct that has aged poorly and should be shelved until some future date. Bring Force users into a more plausible focus in their world. Do something fresh.

I've been burnt out on Star Wars for years, but I know people that will buy everything Star Wars until the day they die.

Nanfoodle

Some of the comments make me giggle. Not every game needs to be open world. Crafted experience can add to story telling.

Incomparable

Seems like the unfortunate reality has come to pass, as the previous reviews indicated the game is badly optimized, and now the rest of the consumers are reviewing it as the same issues as before as badly optimized as seen now on steam reviews.

May be there is still hope, but for those that want to take a risk then know what kind of experience you are getting into. May be the hype is worth the hassle? Seems pretty bad, and most recommend to wait as well.

Aeander

Nanfoodle said:

Some of the comments make me giggle. Not every game needs to be open world. Crafted experience can add to story telling.

Agreed. As someone who has seen some of his favorite franchises bastardized through adding open worlds, I find the notion offensive.

Developers can do things with linear handcrafted experiences and instances that the simply cannot do in an open world, especially in an online context.

Nanfoodle

Incomparable said:

Seems like the unfortunate reality has come to pass, as the previous reviews indicated the game is badly optimized, and now the rest of the consumers are reviewing it as the same issues as before as badly optimized as seen now on steam reviews.

May be there is still hope, but for those that want to take a risk then know what kind of experience you are getting into. May be the hype is worth the hassle? Seems pretty bad, and most recommend to wait as well.

The first game also had optimization problems that were fixed with patches. The first level is Coruscant and thats where people are reporting the bad performance. Forum post of people who get past that starter level, say things are fine past that and even the FPS get a nice jump. My guess this will become a moot point quickly.

Gorwe

Nanfoodle said:

Incomparable said:

Seems like the unfortunate reality has come to pass, as the previous reviews indicated the game is badly optimized, and now the rest of the consumers are reviewing it as the same issues as before as badly optimized as seen now on steam reviews.

May be there is still hope, but for those that want to take a risk then know what kind of experience you are getting into. May be the hype is worth the hassle? Seems pretty bad, and most recommend to wait as well.

The first game also had optimization problems that were fixed with patches. The first level is Coruscant and thats where people are reporting the bad performance. Forum post of people who get past that starter level, say things are fine past that and even the FPS get a nice jump. My guess this will become a moot point quickly.

Yeah, it's Coruscant, who knows what's being rendered. No reason for antics and dramatics.

Nanfoodle

Played in Quality mode on my Xbox Series X for 3 hours tonight. Couple on studders but was just fine and wow, this is the next gen game I have been waiting for, for 2 years. Its here and the combat and story is right on point. 

Scot

Nanfoodle said:

Some of the comments make me giggle. Not every game needs to be open world. Crafted experience can add to story telling.

I only half agree, for what you are saying to be true you need a good story and too often we get "on rails" and a so-so story. Meanwhile in open world land you can have issues with content and direction. I am more an open world fan myself but there is room for both types of game they just have their downsides as well as positives.

Nanfoodle

Scot said:

Nanfoodle said:

Some of the comments make me giggle. Not every game needs to be open world. Crafted experience can add to story telling.

I only half agree, for what you are saying to be true you need a good story and too often we get "on rails" and a so-so story. Meanwhile in open world land you can have issues with content and direction. I am more an open world fan myself but there is room for both types of game they just have their downsides as well as positives.

So if its well done its acceptable but if its not its not. Same could be said with many open world games. So I half agree as well =-) Both open world games and hand crafted experience are valid games types. Im about 5-6hrs into this game and the story is very compelling already.  

TheDalaiBomba

Aeander said:

Nanfoodle said:

Some of the comments make me giggle. Not every game needs to be open world. Crafted experience can add to story telling.

Agreed. As someone who has seen some of his favorite franchises bastardized through adding open worlds, I find the notion offensive.

Developers can do things with linear handcrafted experiences and instances that the simply cannot do in an open world, especially in an online context.

What's more, games like Dead Space show you can have tightly controlled corridors while still giving players plenty of exploration to do.

The Ishimura is full of tight corridors and rooms where devs can create intricate set pieces, but it also includes locked areas and the ability to return to almost any part of the ship so you get a sense of exploration and discovery, too.

What it doesn't do is stuff the ship full of meaningless side quests right out of an MMORPG.  Looking at you, Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Iselin

I don't get all this stuff about open worlds being bad because they're not strictly guided and have side quests.

I mean... you guys do know that side quests are optional, don't you? If you stick to the main quest line of an open-world game the experience is virtually indistinguishable from a linear experience.

Is it a completionist thing that if side quests exist you feel compelled to do them?