Chit-Chat: Back to the Grind(stone)

[JJ Styles]

I just got back home. The amount of money i spent for some survey papers were much more than the 1-ish hour that i spent in the nearby PC Bang.

So is anyone else laughing at Capcom for Umbrella Corps. Even if you don't believe in review sites holy crap I've never seen such low scores! It looks about as entertaining which I more likened to a slightly interactive movie.

Laughing at it right here. Capcom trying to make their own 3rd person call of dudes ESPURTS title... when the game itself is just as fun as watching some RE4/RE5 cutscenes.

Review complaints about the game:
- EXTREMELY repetitive missions, refering to the "Single player campaign" of the game. I put that on quotes because the game is essentially just a mission gauntlet. The training sections of a Halo game were much more fun.
- "SAMPLE OBTAINED!" yep people heard that 2000 times every time the player avatar picks up a DNA sample, the main objective of the game. not even exaggerating. 2000 times is probably the smallest minimum that i can think off.
- Straying too far from the franchise (we've heard that line from a million more times)

WELL IT HAS A 4.2 / 5 REVIEW SCORE IN THE PLAYSTATION SCORE... T___T
36/40 Famistsu score.. WUT!?

However, Michael McWhertor from Polygon, praised the game after trying it. He added that the game can offer "quick" fun despite being odd, and thought that it suits its budgeted price

POLYGON PLZ....

Sigh. I wanna laugh but i can't. Because... I feel like a part of my soul became a ResiEvil Zombie...

To be fair:

The box art isn't that bad for me. I mean it looks appealing. Playing as some Umbrella soldiers who btw are some of the cooler looking enemy soldiers in any video game. I mean this could have just been a 3rd person KILLING FLOOR with a Resi Skin but Capcom's way of thinking isn't in-line with most people who have a degree of common sense.

 

[Arsenic]

Are those the lowest scores you've seen? IGN gave it a whopping 3.8/10. I've never seen them score so low!

From the game play I've seen it just looks awful

 

[pkmin3033]

Well, there hasn't been a proper Resident Evil title in years now, so this isn't too surprising really. Resident Evil 7 looks alright, but I won't be putting any faith in it until I either play it or watch a Let's Play...the latter seems more likely; Resi 5 was more or less the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned.

 

[JJ Styles]

I was only pointing out some of the more F**cked up review scores.. the ones that gave the game positive reviews or some crap. Like HOWWWWWWWWWWWEEE? I dunno how Famistu works. 36 out of 40 Famitsu score? Famitsu plz!

As for the obviously low scores of Umbrella Corps, it was already a given.
39% Metacritic (Should be lower, but i think even some of Metacritic are trolling)
3/10 Destructoid
2/10 AngryJoe (sorry about that guys, but i did watch his episode)

Its the thing.. i mean, there exist "poor" games that at least look like there were some efforts given to them. Sure some of them may have been bad, but at least they are quite playable, to the point where they can be enjoyed because the game feels like it was given some effort. Aliens: Colonial Marines is one. Sure it was bad but at least it can be enjoyable especially the multiplayer. At least that game looks like it was given effort, even if the said efforts were quesionable, but at least it feels complete.

Umbrella Corps is basically this year's epitome of bad. Its lacking in content and structure, bland gameplay, performance issues for PC, and it feels like Capcom didn't even give a damn in making this game feel good. Like it was just literally shat out of Capcom's pants and they said "LETS SELL THESE TO THOSE WHO LOVE RESI EVEIL! YEY!"

 

[pkmin3033]

Ultimately, all review scores mean is that the person who wrote the review didn't like the game; it's no real measure of the quality of the title or how much you personally will enjoy it unless you actually give it some weight. This is why I'm so against point-scoring systems: they're archaic and in no way representative of any experience other than a single individual's. All reviews should be are a description, not a judgement.

 

[pkmin3033]

I used to put a lot of emphasis on review scores back when I only played Nintendo games...well, the official Nintendo magazine's scores, anyway. That was the only real resource I had at the time, so it was kind of important. But when I bought my PS2 I tried a lot of games I'd never heard of before on recommendation, and it was only after the fact that I found out they'd been given low review scores. Yet I'd really enjoyed them.

Then once I started getting into JRPGs proper I noticed that few reviewers would give them the time of day, and those that did gave them low scores almost by default. So I stopped caring. These days all I really do is look at the early information available and make my mind up based on that.

 

[pkmin3033]

I suppose it's something of a double-edged sword - you might enjoy something more than you otherwise might if it gets a good score, but if you go in with low expectations because of low review score you almost certainly won't enjoy yourself. I quite like going in with no expectations at all, because a game has to be absolutely diabolical - like, Mugen Souls or Dungeon Travelers 2-level diabolical - for me to actively dislike it. I might not enjoy it, but I can usually persevere with it and derive some enjoyment from it. It leads to a lot of mediocre experiences I could have done without, but I like making that call for myself now.

Ultimately as long as you can justify playing the game for whatever reason - taking care not to use the word "fun" here, haha - I guess it doesn't matter why you do, whether it's because of a good review score or whatever else. Reviews are there to help you decide whether or not to buy a game anyway, so it's not like you're not using them incorrectly or anything.

 

[JJ Styles]

Come here kiddies, daddy Doomguy has something to tell us.

Back in my day, as long as we had fun killing demons, collecting key cards, running across levels, picking up health and armor shards, and grabbing weapons as we go, it was a great game. Nobody said that my game was repetitive. I'm sure, its 20+ levels of doing the same thing. Kill demons, collect key cards, grab pick ups, traverse through dangerous territory, explore for secrets. At least we were doing it in different dungeons with different situations on how to solve them, and the demons get more and more angry, and we just did the same. Killed them. They said my game was great. 10/10 REVOLUTIONARY! THE ICON! THE LEGEND!

Chibi D.VA: But daddy! When your awesome new 2016 game came out, some of them said that it was "repetitive" ya know those turds from IGN who said it was "repetitive!" But the other reviewers liek GGmanlives said you were basically back! THE KING DADDY!

Chibi Pharah: JUSTICE SHALL RAIN FROM ABOVE AGAINST THOSE IDIOTS WHO RATED THE LAST OF US REALLY LOW!

Chibi NepNep: Well to be fair, Daddy's game was indeed great, but it was weakened by a really poor Multiplayer that didn't know what it wanted to be, but that's beside the point.

Doomguy: D.Va, those writers in IGN had different values and perspectives in life and gameplay. They simply forgot the core essense of a game really.

The Chibis: What's that Daddy!?

Doomguy: Core Gameplay.

O__O YOURE THE BEST DADDY!

Dunno if ya'll can get it. Every game has a definite core pattern. I hate it when reviewers blatantly just say that the greatest flaw of a game is its "repetitive" without even properly stating out the context, nor even getting the whole jist of a game. Then again, the whole "repetitive" gameplay arguement swings in different directions...

But i mean, it does take skill, discipline, and execution to make sure that the core aspect of a game is very much there. That's why its so important to know the different aspects of level design, challenge factors such as increasingly stronger enemy types and enemy encounters, different situations the player ends up with, etc.. dang, I should have taken Game Design as a course and I would gladly make any discussions regarding gameplay design even more articulate than what I'm trying to do right now.

if every map in Mario was basically the same World 1-1 but with reskins then Mario would definitely be "repetitive" but i think that's already way too much of an exaggeration.

Going back to the Umbrella Corps corpse explosion, the repetitive gameplay argument is in context because every level in its what i would loosely call a "single player" campaign is basically the same map but with different tiles and texture work, and the same objective over and over "Collect DNA Sample!". Then again, Capcom didn't know what to do with Umbrella Corps anyway. A CoD style shooter with a Resi skin? Come on now Capcom...

 

[Unknown#]

As far as reviews go, if I'm on the fence about a game I may check 4-5 reviews, usually on youtube as I don't tend to trust the major review sites (like IGN and GameSpot and what not).

 

[Arsenic]

Ultimately, all review scores mean is that the person who wrote the review didn't like the game; it's no real measure of the quality of the title or how much you personally will enjoy it unless you actually give it some weight. This is why I'm so against point-scoring systems: they're archaic and in no way representative of any experience other than a single individual's. All reviews should be are a description, not a judgement.

I definitely am an advocate of this concept... for the most part. My support wanes when there is a large amount of extremely negative reviews (ala this game) from both "professionals" and normal consumers alike

I think Umb Corps has like... 30% positive reviews on steam. That's cause for concern to me

 

[ZetaZaku]

Steam reviews aren't really reliable, since people tend to give out bad reviews for random not so relevant things. I remember people downvoting a game for lacking achievements and trading cards. But at least it's easy to just read a couple positive and negative reviews on Steam and figure what exactly is wrong with the game.

 

[Arsenic]

I get what you mean, but I find those people dont much destroy a games rating on steam to that extent.

Take PAYDAY 2 for example. Microtransactions dropped during a event celebrating the community that was funded by the community (what a way to say f*** you by the way!) and everyone who gave 2 craps about the game made or switched their review to negative (myself included) and the approval rating dropped to about 70% I believe. Didn't go any lower.

Now I'm not saying the system is perfect... but when you get terrible critic reviews and an extremely low steam approval rating... not a good sign for the quality...

 

[Satoshi Ookami]

36 out of 40 Famitsu score? Famitsu plz!
39% Metacritic (Should be lower, but i think even some of Metacritic are trolling)
3/10 Destructoid
2/10 AngryJoe (sorry about that guys, but i did watch his episode)"

Seems like a good game considering there is only one relevant score out of these.

 

[pkmin3033]

I miss the days when high Famitsu scores were hardly ever given out...I used to place a lot of stock in that magazine too, because they seemed to genuinely criticise games and give them scores that were well-reasoned and deserved, rather than just handing out high scores like candy just because a game was part of a certain franchise. That ended years ago, though...

 

[JJ Styles]

So i just played my first few matches of Overwatch and wow, I can't believe that I can hard carry a game if I have to...

One as Reaper were we won round 2 but lost the best of 3 because of unfortunate allies, Lucio that never heals, people being afraid to fight tanks...
One as Soldier 76 where i spent a majority of the time picking off any lone targets, AS A DEFENSE FORCE xD...

In both games I played with my friend, I dealt the most damage to enemy champions in the team... Wow, I can't believe how fired up I was..

Yes.. for the first time in Overwatch, I was taken to the limit where i was literally screaming in chat "DIE BITCHES! TASTE THE WRATH!!!!!" and I almost went toxic... and I'm just a relative rookie to the game...

Not to be a braggart but when i play with a friend and my friend really wants some wins..... I stepped up really well. I love my purchase <3

My friend was right. It is possible for me to play in the NA region while I'm here at my own country. Blizzo really knows how to make great international servers. Screw Riot.

 

[Sir Codin]

Famitsu kind of lost all credibility when they gave Skyrim a 40/40.

Not because it's a Western game but because it just simply didn't deserve that score.

 

[pkmin3033]

They lost their credibility long before that...although I'd be inclined to agree with you; the Elder Scrolls titles are made great by their modding community, and not by virtue of their gameplay. If my laptop could run Skyrim - I'm not sure that it can, my default is 1.7GHz but it goes up to 2.7GHz Turbo Boost and I don't understand these things, I just know I need/want a new laptop - I'd get it and mod the hell out if to make it actually fun.

...but then, this is coming from someone who is, admittedly, very short on patience with open world titles. I don't like having my hand held, but I do like some clear structure to my gameplay. Not having my hand held, but enough so that I know where to go when I get bored of exploring. Sandox games usually just cut you loose and leave you to figure it out, and I've never been overly keen on that. So perhaps I'm biased. But I wouldn't call Skyrim a perfect game even then.

 

[machomuu]

I would call it culture shock. So I can call it, really. What with it's flawed console release and generally the only thing seeing it be muddy, which really, if you didn't get it on PC and used to enjoy yourself… Good for you. Seriously. Because I certainly couldn't justify paying the price that I did for the experience I got out of the box at launch.

That in mind, Let's talk about "the time versus value proposition," because I don't think we've discussed it before.it's the idea that you pay a certain price and the time that the game actually takes to complete, or at least it's the idea that you pay a certain price and the time that the game actually takes to complete, or at least how long it holds you, should be proportional to how much you pay. So Skyrim, for instance, would be considered a solid purchase psalm simply because you can get 100 hours in it easily. And yes, it is a big game, because that make it more deserving of a $60 price tag than, say, an Uncharted title? Or Bioshock Infinite? Both being significantly shorter than Skyrim but being a similar or better quality. And going the other way, if I can spend several hundred hours in both being significantly shorter than Skyrim but being of similar or better quality. And going the other way, if players can spend several hundred hours in a multiplayer game like Counter Strike or the cheaper Garry's Mod, both of which don't even reach the $20 price tag, then what are we paying for here?

I assume some would say "content", because that makes sense I suppose. With multiplayer games, The hours mostly come from the player recycling the same content repeatedly rather than exploring new content overtime. But I do see that, all things considered, that shouldn't matter. Because regardless, you were still spending your time with that game-The same time that you would have if the content was vastly expanded made for more linear play rather than repetition.

This is kind of disorganized, but I just woke up and I had it on my mind. Bringing up Skyrim is a toxic thing for me @_@

 

[ZetaZaku]

What I found funny about Skyrim is that even the console version got a lot of praise. It seems like half of the fanbase played it exclusively on the console. Which is ridiculous as the game really is bland and empty without any mods. And I'd argue that even mods can't really fix Skyrim's bad combat and lifeless world, BUT at least you can make the game look pretty, which makes walking around feel better. And stuff like Frostfall really make the game feel good. I can't imagine playing the game anymore without Frostfall.

 

[JJ Styles]

I think i should become a video game reviewer soon once i get even more GUUD with playing video games and have a much more controlled composure. That way, at least I become the very thing that I've wanted to be better in the future.

In other regards:

Rich, you need more subs and views.

Also, Overwatch has solidified my love for multiplayer first person shooting once again. That feeling of getting to outduel and solo kill people through actual hand-eye coordination, mechanics, and mouse aim. <3, then having the team, my allies' blessing and wishes to go Rambo on people's faces <3 M3 ;3 :3 <3 <3. Its like my counter strike days only more colorful, with Pixar esque presentation, and more DAKKA. And don't worry, I've gotten my fair share of me being solo killed myself X__X. Soldier 76 CANNOT deal with Genji ever. DO NOT EVEN TRY people.

Inb4 the Battleborn people go like "BATTLEBORN OFFERS MORE CONTENT OUTSIDE OF MULTIPLAYER COMPARED TO OVERWATCH AND HAS MANLIER CHARACTERS AND MORE OBJECTIVES TO DO oVO" XIN YOU TRAITOR WE THOUGHT YOU SUPPORTED BATTLEBORN!!!