This game is going to need the "No Man's Sky" treatment if it ever is going to be anything. Even then I doubt it will what they wanted it to be which is to say a Games As Live Services type of thing they could milk for lots of money. It will have a small cult following at best if they don't abandon it altogether.
EDIT: Bit of why I'm hands off on this game and topic in general. The fact there are issues is known, and we have a few threads now that mostly just boil down to people leaning on if the issues bother them enough or not to get in the way of enjoying the game. It'd only be a subject of opinion to say one enjoys the game in spite of issues, or dislikes the game because of issues, as they can be up-played or downplayed in either direction as it happens so often with other games.
Yes. You add "influencers" (both print and media) to this and then their followers parroting what they hear about something they have no hands-on experience with and an unstoppable social media avalanche is created making what is said about a game very suspect after some time.
It's easy to see for yourself, which is always best, with F2P games but not so much with B2P ones so there's a built in bias against games with a paywall since there are fewer hands-on opinions circulating.
"Waiting for the reviews" as you often hear people put their faith on is also a tricky proposition since many reviewers are also influenced by the buzz and consciously or unconsciously tend to go with the flow.
Short of seeing for yourself, zeroing in on a couple of reviewers you trust is the best you can hope for.
I disagree. If you go through aggregate scores, the great games are generally rated as such, while the poor games are rated poorly.
For example, Elden Ring has an aggregate score of 94%. Whereas Diablo Immortal, a F2P title, averaged a 59.
EDIT: Bit of why I'm hands off on this game and topic in general. The fact there are issues is known, and we have a few threads now that mostly just boil down to people leaning on if the issues bother them enough or not to get in the way of enjoying the game. It'd only be a subject of opinion to say one enjoys the game in spite of issues, or dislikes the game because of issues, as they can be up-played or downplayed in either direction as it happens so often with other games.
Yes. You add "influencers" (both print and media) to this and then their followers parroting what they hear about something they have no hands-on experience with and an unstoppable social media avalanche is created making what is said about a game very suspect after some time.
It's easy to see for yourself, which is always best, with F2P games but not so much with B2P ones so there's a built in bias against games with a paywall since there are fewer hands-on opinions circulating.
"Waiting for the reviews" as you often hear people put their faith on is also a tricky proposition since many reviewers are also influenced by the buzz and consciously or unconsciously tend to go with the flow.
Short of seeing for yourself, zeroing in on a couple of reviewers you trust is the best you can hope for.
I disagree. If you go through aggregate scores, the great games are generally rated as such, while the poor games are rated poorly.
For example, Elden Ring has an aggregate score of 94%. Whereas Diablo Immortal, a F2P title, averaged a 59.
Yeah maybe I'm taking it too far but I do think there's a pro-F2P bias and I have seen many examples of "piling on" especially by some streamers once they see negative social media happening and they want more clicks by going with the flow.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
EDIT: Bit of why I'm hands off on this game and topic in general. The fact there are issues is known, and we have a few threads now that mostly just boil down to people leaning on if the issues bother them enough or not to get in the way of enjoying the game. It'd only be a subject of opinion to say one enjoys the game in spite of issues, or dislikes the game because of issues, as they can be up-played or downplayed in either direction as it happens so often with other games.
Yes. You add "influencers" (both print and media) to this and then their followers parroting what they hear about something they have no hands-on experience with and an unstoppable social media avalanche is created making what is said about a game very suspect after some time.
It's easy to see for yourself, which is always best, with F2P games but not so much with B2P ones so there's a built in bias against games with a paywall since there are fewer hands-on opinions circulating.
"Waiting for the reviews" as you often hear people put their faith on is also a tricky proposition since many reviewers are also influenced by the buzz and consciously or unconsciously tend to go with the flow.
Short of seeing for yourself, zeroing in on a couple of reviewers you trust is the best you can hope for.
I disagree. If you go through aggregate scores, the great games are generally rated as such, while the poor games are rated poorly.
For example, Elden Ring has an aggregate score of 94%. Whereas Diablo Immortal, a F2P title, averaged a 59.
Yeah maybe I'm taking it too far but I do think there's a pro-F2P bias and I have seen many examples of "piling on" especially by some streamers once they see negative social media happening and they want more clicks by going with the flow.
I think some reviewers attempt to review the "game" as a separate thing from the monetization. I think that's foolish and definitely agree some microtransaction heavy titles receive a higher score than I'd give them because of it. That said, I guess it's not technically "wrong."
That's why I do generally try to avoid taking one review too seriously. I look at the aggregate to get a general idea of quality, but I agree we also have to look at the drama surrounding the game pre-release to get the full picture cone review time.
EDIT: Bit of why I'm hands off on this game and topic in general. The fact there are issues is known, and we have a few threads now that mostly just boil down to people leaning on if the issues bother them enough or not to get in the way of enjoying the game. It'd only be a subject of opinion to say one enjoys the game in spite of issues, or dislikes the game because of issues, as they can be up-played or downplayed in either direction as it happens so often with other games.
Yes. You add "influencers" (both print and media) to this and then their followers parroting what they hear about something they have no hands-on experience with and an unstoppable social media avalanche is created making what is said about a game very suspect after some time.
It's easy to see for yourself, which is always best, with F2P games but not so much with B2P ones so there's a built in bias against games with a paywall since there are fewer hands-on opinions circulating.
"Waiting for the reviews" as you often hear people put their faith on is also a tricky proposition since many reviewers are also influenced by the buzz and consciously or unconsciously tend to go with the flow.
Short of seeing for yourself, zeroing in on a couple of reviewers you trust is the best you can hope for.
I disagree. If you go through aggregate scores, the great games are generally rated as such, while the poor games are rated poorly.
For example, Elden Ring has an aggregate score of 94%. Whereas Diablo Immortal, a F2P title, averaged a 59.
Yeah maybe I'm taking it too far but I do think there's a pro-F2P bias and I have seen many examples of "piling on" especially by some streamers once they see negative social media happening and they want more clicks by going with the flow.
I think some reviewers attempt to review the "game" as a separate thing from the monetization. I think that's foolish and definitely agree some microtransaction heavy titles receive a higher score than I'd give them because of it. That said, I guess it's not technically "wrong."
That's why I do generally try to avoid taking one review too seriously. I look at the aggregate to get a general idea of quality, but I agree we also have to look at the drama surrounding the game pre-release to get the full picture cone review time.
Reviewers do not all review games in the same way, there is no code they have to follow, we have seen cash shop absent reviews, suggestions they should not be scored, discussions on how much "potential" should play a part and so on.
As you say though the aggregate is a reasonable (ish) guide to the game as long as there are enough reviews. I accept what Iselin was saying about the effect of influencers, the follow the crowd effect and that F2P seems to get a boost to scores. Also anything "great with friends", small group multiplayer games often have their solo shortcomings overlooked.
But I stand by waiting for the reviews because that's not just Metacritic its Steam reviews and then checking videos of the game. The only thing I don't do that you guys often seem to do is play it myself as a trial before I buy, that may be a hole in my purchasing strategy.
Bethesda fighting the uphill battle. They have not delivered since Skyrim and the games in between have been straight up trash. Would even consider calling some titles a scam. To have sold and resold Skyrim a numerous amount of times doesn't help either.
Starfield will most likely flop. The previews shown so far have been pretty damn bad if you ask me.
Elder Scrolls V will have to be their saviour, whenever it comes out.
Comments
https://biturl.top/rU7bY3
Beyond the shadows there's always light
For example, Elden Ring has an aggregate score of 94%. Whereas Diablo Immortal, a F2P title, averaged a 59.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
That's why I do generally try to avoid taking one review too seriously. I look at the aggregate to get a general idea of quality, but I agree we also have to look at the drama surrounding the game pre-release to get the full picture cone review time.
This is just... mean. Like, who hurt you?
As you say though the aggregate is a reasonable (ish) guide to the game as long as there are enough reviews. I accept what Iselin was saying about the effect of influencers, the follow the crowd effect and that F2P seems to get a boost to scores. Also anything "great with friends", small group multiplayer games often have their solo shortcomings overlooked.
But I stand by waiting for the reviews because that's not just Metacritic its Steam reviews and then checking videos of the game. The only thing I don't do that you guys often seem to do is play it myself as a trial before I buy, that may be a hole in my purchasing strategy.
Starfield will most likely flop. The previews shown so far have been pretty damn bad if you ask me.
Elder Scrolls V will have to be their saviour, whenever it comes out.