GHG
Gold Member
You don't understand the point I'm making do you? Maybe you had to be there.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Prey review thread
- Thread starter Cyberia
- Start date
You don't understand the point I'm making do you? Maybe you had to be there.
Booker.DeWitt
Member
GHG
Gold Member
And Halo MCC's bugs were what then...?
And no, they didn't need to put anything out ASAP. In fact, they get all the time in the world to publish a review in this case unless they are chasing clicks.
Singleplayer was fucked too.
Booker.DeWitt
Member
greendomo's ghost
Member
I would not score it. I would give it an NS (non scored)
"I was unable to progress on this game so I am unable to score it."
"I was unable to progress on this game so I am unable to score it."
Do the reviews reflect that tho? That was his point. The game was broken in MP and had a lot of SP bugs yet the reviews were positive
Jawmuncher
Member
The consensus was the MP was trashed. Every reviewer assumed it would work fine thinking of previous games. So they all got bit in the ass there.
I can't recall any big SP issues though. I recall some coop one's but nothing huge.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
It'd be one thing if the game wasn't already out and in stores.
Booker.DeWitt
Member
Main issues were MP, SP had issues but not to the degree of corrupted data. Apples and oranges in my opinion
So unplayable MP for a large portion of the player base isn't comparable to a save bug that has been fixed it seems and who knows how many people would have been affected? Even tho from what I recall the MCC reviews didn't really say anything about that?
GHG
Gold Member
There were save issues with some of the campaigns.
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/...ns/4c64b69f-2840-4b88-b99d-21e4c6e34894/posts
Apples to oranges indeed.
If you want a full list of bugs even after several patches look here:
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/...15/f6493eeb-e892-4523-88f5-cf5883bb2276/posts
Comrade Crunch
Member
Actually, the single player for most of the games were screwed as well. There were save bugs, co op bugs, bugs big and small, it's was a bugapalooza.
Coriolanus
Banned
If you test a product and it dies from a mechanical failure in the middle of the test, you dont say you're unable to score it, you say exactly what happens, dock major points from the score and warn your readers to stay the fuck away from it,
old manatee
Banned
classic IGN.
GHG
Gold Member
https://mobile.twitter.com/DanStapleton/status/862466362500718592
The review is final according to the reviewer.
They also updated Watch Dogs 2 score, it was 6.5 before multiplayer began to work, it's 8.5 now
greatnorthern
Member
I haven't gone to IGN for reviews in years and years, so I was unfamiliar with:
Doom 7.1
Arkham Knight 9.2
and now...
Prey 4.0
Good lord what is going on.
Doom 7.1
Arkham Knight 9.2
and now...
Prey 4.0
Good lord what is going on.
I think that's drawing a distinction between IGN's new "provisional review" system versus their "final score."
They still update their "final scores" in some situations, like Splatoon and Watch Dogs 2.
IGN's Arkham Knight review was for the PS4/XB1.
iirc, no advanced copies of Arkham Knight's PC version were sent out. A large part of the shock was that no one was expecting the PC trainwreck after a great showing on the PS4/XB1.
Games journalism at its finest.
DeaDPo0L84
Member
Are you always this easily swayed by one persons opinion without doing your own research?
GHG
Gold Member
It's pretty clear what's going on there but I'm not going to explicitly say it. There is a correlation. One of those games came in a gift wrapped box, two didn't.
Fair enough, let's see if they see sense then.
wild wild rice
Member
Edit: I don't want to get too caught up in the ugliness of a review thread
DeaDPo0L84
Member
I dont give much credence to IGN anymore but what really sucks is a lot of people who may or may not have been on the fence will use that one review to make up their minds. It'll be a "haha fucking prey, such a shitty game, bet it only sold FOUR copies am I right". Arkane DESERVES better, they made such a well crafted fps game with an awesome world to explore and people are just looking for reasons to shit on it for some reason.
MetalliCabombination
Member
People liking the game doesn't invalidate the issues that are obviously there and were obviously not very public at release for whatever reason.My purchase was always dependent on its technical state because i found the demo unplayably bad, i asked about the same in the ot several times and acg's review came out day 1 and failed to mention any significant problems with the console versions and i almost always trust his verdict.
You don't have to take it so personally,
just tell me the rare issue of the bad sound mixing, horrible input lag on ps4 and no pro patch despite claiming otherwise have been fixed and i will literally buy the game within the next minute of your post and present proof of it.
MR ARCADE FOREVER
Member
IGN gave a freaking 4 it the pc version lol
Are they giving a 0 to the console version?
Are they giving a 0 to the console version?
GHG
Gold Member
Not taking it personally but there is a big difference between what you just posted and your previous drive by shitpost where you basically discredit anybody who thinks the game is good.
A lot of us are not playing the PS4 version nor care about the issue with the Pro version (or lack thereof), and as such what we write in our impressions is not going to factor that in. It's only natural. It doesn't mean those who only have positive things to say are not trustworthy however.
For what it's worth, on the sound front I found that turning everything other than voiceover down to 60% makes things a lot better. It's not perfect, but it doesn't assult my ears anymore.
Hence I refrained from explicitly saying it
. We would need to go through all the data before any conclusions can be drawn. But even still, different individual reviewers might put more weight into something like getting a review copy or not. Some won't care at all whereas it's pretty clear that others get petty about it.Basileus777
Member
Praise be to Dan Stapleton for making it clear that this is indeed a neogaf review thread.
Lancelot
Member
LOL
Indeed, the console ports are bad comparing to PC, 30 FPS with numerous missing graphical effects according to Digital Foundry.
Rexatality
Member
I just find it absurd that he scores the game over a bug that got fixed. And a rare one at that, mind you
ChimpBottle
Member
I think I would agree with this.
If you're unwilling to wait until the game runs fine on your hardware and would rather just review the experience you had in the time you gave yourself, I actually think that's completely fine, though if I were a reviewer I myself would want to publish a review that wouldn't become obsolete in a week.
However, by the sounds of it, he could hardly play the game at all after the first few moments. How the hell did it get a 4?
phant0m
Member
Please don't be serious
Sidenote, unsubbed from their YouTube channel. Reporting on a bug is one thing, but. 2:50 review of a 25 hr game is downright embarrassing.
Bobo Dakes
Member
How is that even remotely the same thing?
SunBroDave
Member
I guess Schreier is no longer top of Colantonio's shit list lol. Now it's Stapleton's turn to get his own achievement/trophy in the next Arkane game
ArkkAngel007
Member
That IGN review came from a bad place it seems. Every reviewer is different, but games from Tell Tale and Bethesda make it through just fine despite save corrupting and game breaking bugs.
If the game was overall decent-great despite that, and knowing that it was being patched, then why throw it in the gutter? I would think a well written editorial and articles would serve the point better than this route.
Edit: Also a good example on not taking a score at face value and dive into the actual review content.
If the game was overall decent-great despite that, and knowing that it was being patched, then why throw it in the gutter? I would think a well written editorial and articles would serve the point better than this route.
Edit: Also a good example on not taking a score at face value and dive into the actual review content.
Is it actually out, or you are referring to the beta version? I guess it doesn't make that much of a difference, but don't think I dived into these beta stuff for patches.
Rexatality
Member
It's out on Steam beta
Basileus777
Member
Were this a Bethesda game people would be applauding him for taking a stand and doing what a reviewer is supposed to do. Game breaking bugs are a perfectly reasonable thing to score a game poorly for. Reviews are a subjective expression of one person's experience with a game, and if bugs ruined it for him then of course he scored it poorly.
GHG
Gold Member
Dan Stapleton actually previously wrote this article on Bethesda's review policy:
http://me.ign.com/en/ps4/125928/news/a-response-to-bethesdas-review-copies-policy
http://me.ign.com/en/ps4/125928/news/a-response-to-bethesdas-review-copies-policy
Portugeezer
Member
GameAddict411
Member
the IGN score is definitely click bait. I mean, they have reviewed a lot of broken games before and they didn't brutally score them like this. I think the embargo plus the fact reviewers were trying to finish the game, but ended up having to start over because of the bug must have had a very negative impact on the review. In that case I understand, but I think the game deserves more regardless. I just hope that Bethesda reverses their review policy because it's certainly not helping anyone. I don't even understand the reasoning behind it so far.