Support NeoGAF

[Collateral22]

I was almost certain this game was going to review well with critics and users. Are the critic scores getting bogged down by multiplayer?

It has a 92% positive rating on Steam. Probably mostly people playing single player and not caring about the multiplayer.

I know IGNs was just off SP. This topped the cake for me. Literally like the person does not like FPS games at all. IMO, it's an FPS fans dream.

"People will be talking about the first two Doom games for decades more – those two games may well be remembered as true classics of the gaming medium a century down the track. This Doom won’t. This new Doom is terrible...Like the greedy organisation that unleashes hell on Mars, this is the product of exploitation; the developers at ID Software and Bethesda are playing with fire in treating a property as valuable as Doom this way."

 

[impact]

Metacritic has its uses... a 76 itself is NOT a bad score, but it is nowhere near reflective of the quality of the game.

Tons of games on metacritic are mid-high 70s and are absolutely phenomenal games that should not be missed.

Just one of many avenues to get opinions on a game... by no means an end-all be-all like some people make it.

Driveclub has like a 71 and it's the best racing game in years. Anything above 70 has potential to be great, below that tho....

 

[marrec]

The more I play the MP the more I love it and feel like it's getting a weirdly bad rap.

I hope they do eventually add on a "classic" mode for some of you though.

 

[Freki]

IGN gives it a 7.1.
IGN Video Review

SP is to close to the originals - MP is to close to modern shooters...

 

[GHG]

Driveclub has like a 71 and it's the best racing game in years. Anything above 70 has potential to be great, below that tho....

Anything above 70 is worth a play if you are a fan of the genre. Whether you deem it to be worth much more than 70 will be subjective however.

 

[danowat]

Driveclub has like a 71 and it's the best racing game in years. Anything above 70 has potential to be great, below that tho....

That's not a fair comparison, the Driveclub score is (mostly) based of the shocking state the game was at launch.

You could argue that the score would have been higher if the game had been re-reviewed by everyone a year later.

 

[Joaby]

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

 

[marrec]

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

I'd love to read your review but the site is blocked at work so, if you don't mind, what's specifically and measurably bad about the MP?

I'm having a blast with it, but I suppose it could be an "ignorance is bliss" situation.

 

[Sephzilla]

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

*Shrug* This comment isn't going to do you any favors since it comes off very snide, in my opinion. Saying that people who like something are just trying to push an idea/agenda isn't a good way to phrase that.

 

[mdsfx]

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

I'm not sure if having the multiplayer helped or hurt Doom's scores. I'm kind of curious how it would have been received as a single player only game.

 

[danowat]

*Shrug* This comment isn't going to do you any favors since it comes off very snide, in my opinion. Saying that people who like something are just trying to push an idea/agenda isn't a good way to phrase that.

You're missing the point between the job reviewers are doing, and the experience a consumer has when playing a product they paid for, they are polar opposites.

That said, reviewers really should refrain from giving the impression that their opinion is gospel, and need to understand that their (somewhat jaded) view of a product isn't always inline with the buying public, too many reviewers on too many high horses.

 

[potatohead]

That's not a fair comparison, the Driveclub score is (mostly) based of the shocking state the game was at launch.

You could argue that the score would have been higher if the game had been re-reviewed by everyone a year later.

It wasn't even that bad at launch.... the online was shits for a month but the game still played brilliantly.

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

It really isn't that bad. Sorry. But nope.

You guys still need numbers to "complete" your reviews, that says enough.

 

[wwm0nkey]

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

Idk I guess I have 2 different ratings for the game since MP was 100% out sourced. Also I hope snapmap does take all the MP numbers because snapmap is amazing

 

[Sephzilla]

You're missing the point between the job reviewers are doing, and the experience a consumer has when playing a product they paid for, they are polar opposites.

That said, reviewers really should refrain from giving the impression that their opinion is gospel, and need to understand that their (somewhat jaded) view of a product isn't always inline with the buying public, too many reviewers on too many high horses.

That's specifically why that line bothered me

 

[NecromorphTX]

IGN gives it a 7.1.
IGN Video Review

SP is to close to the originals - MP is to close to modern shooters...

Too much dust.

-IGN

 

[Gold_Loot]

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

I happen to enjoy the multi player. Yes, it has warts but it's fast and fun. Sure you have your opinion, but nobody has to tell themselves to like something they don't.

 

[tuxfool]

I'd love to read your review but the site is blocked at work so, if you don't mind, what's specifically and measurably bad about the MP?

I'm having a blast with it, but I suppose it could be an "ignorance is bliss" situation.

This highlights the pain points:

Here are just some of my personal complaints:
- Loadouts. A terrible idea. It removes the fun of what others call 'map control'. Where players have to think about weapon spawn times and the built-up arsenal of enemies. It's also practically the reason why the rocket launcher is such a sad, sad display.
- The maps are pretty damn dull. None make themselves really interesting or unique from another. Except one has a Hell theme, the other has a space station theme, and another has a Hell and space station theme.
- No server browser.
- Slow transition from one map to the other. When a game ends, take us to the next one immediately. Don't dump us in a lobby, dammit! Keep the fast pace going.
- Demons are an interesting concept - but why the fuck are they in Team Deathmatch? Or why can they capture Souls in Soul Harvester? And why can they capture the zone in Warpath? That shit 's unnecessary. When a demon sees you, you're as good as dead. They really should've balanced this.
- No free-for-all Deathmatch. And with the player model customization in this game, I wouldn't be surprised we'd never get this mode either. Considering you can nearly turn your player model into a walking neon sign.
- No music. The game sounds really, really dull in multiplayer. More so with VEGA as the announcer. I mean I understand it from a 'narrative' perspective... but nah, that was a weird decision.
- Burning cards. Why?
- Terrible feedback when getting hit and when hitting other players.

Now these are all of course my personal pet peeves and complaints. I'm not going to claim everyone else shares my views.

It just seems the multiplayer would've had a much warmer welcome had they made it simpler. Because that's what DOOM 2016 seems to be about. Back to simpler times.

I wouldn't say it is bad, but it is absolutely plodding. It has nothing special about it whatsoever and feels about as deliberate as the typical tacked-on multiplayer mode. Unfortunately the game presents this mode as one of the pillars of the game, which it shouldn't.

There are people claiming that this goes back to old-skool, but it really doesn't. I'm not sure how one could call this that without a free-for-all Deathmatch.

It would have been better if they had gone fully modern (or unique) or gone back to the basics.

 

[marrec]

This highlights the pain points:


I wouldn't say it is bad, but it is absolutely plodding. It has nothing special about it whatsoever and feels about as deliberate as the typical tacked on multiplayer mode. Unfortunately the game presents this mode as one of the pillars of the game which it shouldn't.

There are people claiming that this goes back to old-skool, but it really doesn't. I'm not sure how one could call this that without a free-for-all Deathmatch.

It would have been better if they had gone fully modern (or unique) or gone back to the basics.

I saw that earlier but simply don't agree with many of those being negative.

I do agree that the transitions are too slow and I'm often alt-tabbing out in between rounds while waiting. I think the maps are very well crafted and the loadouts aren't a problem. The Demons are a blast to play as and play against, the powerups are just as rare and impactful as they need to be, and all the weapons feel like they have a useful place on a team.

Only thing I would change is that slow transition between rounds.

 

[MiamiWesker]

The IGN review is mine. I wrote it and I didn't change the score from the review in progress. I wrote 3100 words about how Doom is a 7.1 /10. I think it's off that people who know the process would question the score, but that's ok. What I find interesting is that people who have played the multiplayer are trying to still push the idea that it's good -- it's specifically and measurably bad. I guarantee you SnapMap will dictate most of Doom's mp numbers in 3 months time regardless of Bethesda's optimistic DLC plans

Most of your points on the review are totally on point which is the most important part, so good job. Personally I would score it higher, I'm loving the campaign, it's one of the best FPSs in years. Yes it's repetitive in design but that action is so intense and fun. It's long, secrets are actually well hidden and the snap map adds loads of value. Yeah multiplayer sucks, but I'll mostly ignore that, obviously you can't in your review.

7 is a good score, I feel doom is much better than just good.

 

[mugurumakensei]

I guess this is why aggregate scores don't make sense, when one outlet considers 50 to be average, while another would rate that at 70 or even 80.

This is why I value forums and word of mouth so much.

It's also why text of the reviews matter. I really think reviews should only have three "scores": buy, don't buy, no recommendation. Then, with the review, a list of pro/cons. No recommendation means weigh the pros and cons yourself/the reviewer is conflicted.

 

[Whompa02]

IGN gives it a 7.1.
IGN Video Review

SP is to close to the originals - MP is to close to modern shooters...

Disagree.

 

[Joaby]

*Shrug* This comment isn't going to do you any favors since it comes off very snide, in my opinion. Saying that people who like something are just trying to push an idea/agenda isn't a good way to phrase that.

You're on point here, I didn't mean to come across that way. To be 100% honest I spent my entire weekend on this review and I definitely celebrated it's submission by getting drunk. The reality is I spend a lot of words in the review explaining why I personally think it's not GOTY, but there's actually more to it.

Like, in the review I didn't get the opportunity to talk about how I worked out the location and management of the dedicated servers running the multiplayer, and I also worked out (using the information that the game had local dedicated servers for Australians, as well as other information I attained) that the game had poor functioning netcode. My local server is located in the same farm as Rainbow Six Siege, but while I have a (mostly) flawless connection to Siege I regularly find myself with a 3 graph bar ping (because the game doesn't do numbers) for Doom's Amazon run servers. For those of you experiencing a flawless multiplayer this might not be a problem, but it absolutely informed and impacted my review of the game - my experience and measurement regarding Doom's mp indicate that the netcode is subpar at best.

That's just an example of something on top of what I already griped about in the review.

 

[Momentary]

Only reviews that seem to paint this game as the most damn refreshing thing since water are the ones that don't put a stupid ass number at the end of their review.

I find multi-player enjoyable, but at the same time it is mediocre. Most of these reviewers point that out. But on the other hand they are beyond hyped about single player.

You're basically getting two games created by two different companies being rated as a whole and it's pretty bullshitty if you ask me.

And the whole mediocre graphics and plain settings... what are these people smoking man? This game cranks up to 100hz on ultra is as smooth as the aftermath of a high grade laxative. Not only is the performance in this game's campaign damn near untouchable on ALL platforms, it is good looking too. There isnt a current generation shooter out there now with the this kind of skill based combo centric gun play that this game has.

Doom is the mother fucking Street Fighter III: Third Strike of FPS's right now. Consumers love it while "reviewers" are finding it mediocre because of "no innovation" bullshit. What happened to a game being rated for how fun it is.

Thank Doomguy these dudes don't rate shoot'em ups.

 

[Brian_FETO]

This highlights the pain points:

Complaints about lack of weapon spawns/map control, but then complaints about demons? Demons and power weapons are your spawns/map control dude

I haven't played anything beyond team deathmatch but I could totally see demons being obnoxious as hell in a "capture" mode. Still, I don't see a problem with them in team deathmatch. Adds a fun objective to the killing, that only leads to more killing

Loadouts are obviously just there because of controllers, for sure. It's not ideal but then again I'm fine with just having super shotgun/plasma rifle

 

[Sephzilla]

Doom's single player being so close to the originals is precisely why I like it. If it was a slightly slower paced set-piece driven campaign like more modern shooters it would be worse off and would get lost in the ocean of other shooters out there. Doom being a run and gun current generation version of a classic Doom game is what makes it stand out.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Doom's single player being so close to the originals is precisely why I like it, though. If it was a slightly slower paced set-piece driven campaign like more modern shooters it would be worse off and would get lost in the ocean of other shooters out there. Doom being a run and gun current generation version of a classic Doom game is what makes it stand out.

Yep.

 

[Boogdud]

I'd love to read your review but the site is blocked at work so, if you don't mind, what's specifically and measurably bad about the MP?

He didn't like that there are loadouts, and they limit you to 2 weapons, and that there aren't weapons positioned on the map.

Then he essentially complains that because 'good weapons' aren't spread out in positions on the map that it doesn't funnel players into conflicts. But then he says in another paragraph that the demon runes are overpowered and force people to run to them (which creates areas of conflict) and that they can turn a match to one side's favor easily.

It's a bit of a headscratcher, since those couple things are the only things he complained about with the multiplayer. So there's your "measurably bad"?


edit: holy crap dude, you're complaining about Oceania netcode and using that as a basis for your review? Is this an IGN Australia review? This review is on the US site. That kind of taints the results doesn't it? You didn't mention any of that in your review.

 

[jim2point0]

I can't stand Mac for the most part. I really want to like his reviews but he can be incredibly obnoxious and he's absolutely closed off to any counter-arguments. He's irrational a lot of the time and get's so much wrong. I like him as a person because I think he's funny but I have to take everyone of his critiques with a pinch of salt.

I clicked off his channel and vowed to never ever go back when he said Dark Souls should be first person. He has the most obnoxious opinions and refuses to budge on them. Even insisting on not using a controller for any PC game even if it is the far superior input method for that game.

Fuck that guy.

 

[Joaby]

I happen to enjoy the multi player. Yes, it has warts but it's fast and fun. Sure you have your opinion, but nobody has to tell themselves to like something they don't.

I'd never, ever, ever attempt to tell someone to like someone they don't or vice versa. If you're enjoying the MP I genuinely think you're in luck. I envy you. That's not derision or condescension, I think it's awesome you're having a good time with it. But as you say, nobody must tell themselves to like something they don't.

 

[BigDug13]

This game reminded me why I hate current "realistic" shooters with slow movement, sprint button, ADS, reloading, etc. Just pure fun. Who gives a shit if a real gun won't hold 400 rounds of ammo in one magazine. I don't play for the realism.

 

[super-heated plasma]

I watched a bit of this on Twitch, and I gotta say, it looks cool, and graphics are good, but it doesn't have the scare factor that DOOM 3 had. It feels more like straight shooter, which is guess I fine, but DOOM 3 also had some great survival horror atmosphere this one is lacking.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

lets not pretend that thinking the multiplayer is bad is some bizarre opinion that needs to be proven with formulas or some shit. The MP beta was almost unanimously disliked. Many people hated it, including myself.

 

[tuxfool]

Here is what I want from an id multiplayer game. A more modern form of the purity of Quake 3.

That is it. They could have taken the same route as the campaign, replicate that feeling with some small smart additions. But instead they went that bullshit hybrid route in the same way as Battleborn.

 

[cheesekao]

Doom is the mother fucking Street Fighter III: Third Strike of FPS's right now. Consumers love it while "reviewers" are finding it mediocre because of "no innovation" bullshit. What happened to a game beine rated for how fun it is.

Thank Doomguy these dudes don't rate shoot'em ups.

Ratchet and Clank was released not too long ago and that's a balls to the walls shooter that did nothing new for the franchise and yet was widely considered to be pure unadulterated fun and scored well.

 

[Momentary]

"People will be talking about the first two Doom games for decades more – those two games may well be remembered as true classics of the gaming medium a century down the track. This Doom won’t. This new Doom is terrible...Like the greedy organisation that unleashes hell on Mars, this is the product of exploitation; the developers at ID Software and Bethesda are playing with fire in treating a property as valuable as Doom this way."

I don't know who wrote this, but they tried REALLY hard to be edgy here and create some sort of drama that isn't even there.

This new DOOM trumps classic DOOM for me. I cannot go back. This is coming from someone who mailed Id as a kid to get the other episodes of Wolf and DOOM back in the day.

 

[marrec]

lets not pretend that thinking the multiplayer is bad is some bizarre opinion that needs to be proven with formulas or some shit. The MP beta was almost unanimously disliked. Many people hated it, including myself.

No no, I get it, but "measurably bad"?

Lots of people seem to be liking the MP now that it's released. *shrug*

 

[Ricerocket]

He didn't like that there are loadouts, and they limit you to 2 weapons, and that there aren't weapons positioned on the map.

Then he essentially complains that because 'good weapons' aren't spread out in positions on the map that it doesn't funnel players into conflicts. But then he says in another paragraph that the demon runes are overpowered and force people to run to them (which creates areas of conflict) and that they can turn a match to one side's favor easily.

It's a bit of a headscratcher, since those couple things are the only things he complained about with the multiplayer. So there's your "measurably bad"?

I'd rather fight over a rocket spawn / red armor and still have a chance than someone manage to walk into the demon rune and obliterate. Also the rune time isn't long for you to make it unless you have powerup hack for item pickup timers on.

 

[tuxfool]

He didn't like that there are loadouts, and they limit you to 2 weapons, and that there aren't weapons positioned on the map.

Then he essentially complains that because 'good weapons' aren't spread out in positions on the map that it doesn't funnel players into conflicts. But then he says in another paragraph that the demon runes are overpowered and force people to run to them (which creates areas of conflict) and that they can turn a match to one side's favor easily.

It's a bit of a headscratcher, since those couple things are the only things he complained about with the multiplayer. So there's your "measurably bad"?

Because in well balanced multiplayer maps the "powerful" weapons are not so overpowered that you cannot win against them. As you traverse the map you have to make tactical adjustments to the way you play according to your current loadout.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Ratchet and Clank was released not too long ago and that's a balls to the walls shooter that did nothing new for the franchise and yet was widely considered to be pure unadulterated fun and scored well.

Ratchet & Clank had a more widely appealing aesthetic with its visual design and music, a lighter tone, and a wider variety of gameplay ideas over the course of its 8-10 hour playtime. Im not surprised by it having a better reception with a wider amount of people.

and again, we're talking about a game that received mostly 8s vs one that received mostly 7s. Not exactly a huge gulf here, regardless.

 

[dlauv]

lets not pretend that thinking the multiplayer is bad is some bizarre opinion that needs to be proven with formulas or some shit. The MP beta was almost unanimously disliked. Many people hated it, including myself.

Except it wasn't. That was gaf and Steam. Console ratings (on the Beta's page on PSN or XBL) were quite high in spite of some console players not enjoying it (like you, I assume).

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

I watched a bit of this on Twitch, and I gotta say, it looks cool, and graphics are good, but it doesn't have the scare factor that DOOM 3 had. It feels more like straight shooter, which is guess I fine, but DOOM 3 also had some great survival horror atmosphere this one is lacking.

Yeah, if you're wanting a sequel to Doom 3, this will leave you disappointed. Feels way more like a true sequel to Doom 2. Less horror and jump scares, more pure intensity from waves of bad guys flooding at you from all around.

 

[marrec]

Because in well balanced multiplayer maps the "powerful" weapons are not so overpowered that you cannot win against them. As you traverse the map you have to make tactical adjustments to the way you play according to your current loadout.

I dunno, people are getting pretty good at limiting the effectiveness of demons, and the scramble for the pickup with the subsequent scattering and peppering of the demon is hectic chaos but in a good way.

 

[Joaby]

He didn't like that there are loadouts, and they limit you to 2 weapons, and that there aren't weapons positioned on the map.

Then he essentially complains that because 'good weapons' aren't spread out in positions on the map that it doesn't funnel players into conflicts. But then he says in another paragraph that the demon runes are overpowered and force people to run to them (which creates areas of conflict) and that they can turn a match to one side's favor easily.

It's a bit of a headscratcher, since those couple things are the only things he complained about with the multiplayer. So there's your "measurably bad"?

You're being a bit uncharitable right?

My complaints are that the MP is entirely team based shooting, and those team based shooters hinge on a team's success in exploiting the way the game uses weapons. So because its primary use of weapons is via loadouts (all players get to pick two weapons from the MP player list which they will get upon spawn, and BFGs, Gauss Rifles and Chainsaws are excluded from this) the game's level design is counter-intuitive to its game design. The level design adheres to old-school classic architecture (as it should, because the game doesn't allow you to regen health) but the loadouts imply and support a game wherein weapons are not permanently available on the map.

It's hard to describe in full without fully copy and pasting my description of what I think is critical for Arena Shooters I guess.

 

[Nirolak]

Metacritic has its uses... a 76 itself is NOT a bad score, but it is nowhere near reflective of the quality of the game.

Tons of games on metacritic are mid-high 70s and are absolutely phenomenal games that should not be missed.

Just one of many avenues to get opinions on a game... by no means an end-all be-all like some people make it.

This type of game in general hasn't been reviewing all that well honestly.

Wolfenstein: The New Order got a 79 on Metacritic, and my thought process prior to this thread was that this would review a bit worse given it's coming out later in the generation, where people who didn't like playing an older style shooter would likely be even more opposed to that type of game design.

The multiplayer isn't strong enough to carry the review score upwards and Doom isn't exactly a series that's going to be carried by its plotline so...

 

[Miles Quaritch]

X1 has a lot of resolution drops and some framerate drops. I'd get it on PS4.

DF based on the beta, not sure if it changed since:

I put up a video on the DF YouTube channel showing the differences. PS4 has better image quality and runs more consistently at 60 but it's still pretty good on XO.

If you have the choice I'd go ps4 better res/iq and more stable frame rate.

The only thing that the XB1 version might have is a controller that is more suitable for your taste.

Otherwise if you're fine with the DS4 there is no reason to buy the XB1's version, and don't worry your console won't be insulted if you'll buy the PS4 version.

If you're asking about how the XB1 version is in general, than it seems to be great, just that the PS4 version is better, holds the 1080P and barely drops below 60 unlike the XB1's, but either way you will be satisfied technically.

Awesome. PS4 is it.

Thanks all.

 

[Boogdud]

Because in well balanced multiplayer maps the "powerful" weapons are not so overpowered that you cannot win against them. As you traverse the map you have to make tactical adjustments to the way you play according to your current loadout.

I haven't played a ton of multi, maybe 15 games or so, but I have had several matches, and not one where one team won on the merits of the rune. Anecdotal, but I've had several matches where we didn't get the rune once, and they had it at least 3-4 times and we still won. Used ranged, if you don't have ranged you can still win... just get the hell out of the way. A demon with nobody biting his ankles means he's getting no points and he'll just run out of time. I mean, these are fairly obvious strategies aren't they?

I'm not saying the multiplayer is the next coming of UT99 or anything, but it's not any more 'measurably bad' than friggin overwatch. Which, btw, I can't wait to see the reviews for Waifu Fortress 2 and how it gets a pass because the characters are pretty....

 

[cheesekao]

Ratchet & Clank had a more widely appealing aesthetic with its visual design and music, a lighter tone, and a wider variety of gameplay ideas over the course of its 8-10 hour playtime. Im not surprised by it having a better reception with a wider amount of people.

and again, we're talking about a game that received mostly 8s vs one that received mostly 7s. Not exactly a huge gulf here, regardless.

Right. I forgot about the major difference in aesthetics between the two.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I'm not saying the multiplayer is the next coming of UT99 or anything, but it's not any more 'measurably bad' than friggin overwatch. Which, btw, I can't wait to see the reviews for Waifu Fortress 2 and how it gets a pass because the characters are pretty....

Yeah, thats why everybody likes that game. Because its pretty. Not because a lot of people find its class-based, objective focused, highly polished game/art/sound design good...

 

[Gamezone]

Gamer.no (Norway) - 8/10

http://www.gamer.no/artikler/anmeldelse-doom/347244

 

[Sullichin]

I don't think multiplayer should be dragging the score down here at all. Maybe if you were reviewing the value of buying a season pass.