Journey PS4 Review - 10

You don't know what a review is, and the crux of your argument boils down to them liking things you don't like which is childish and petty.

Mate you can't actually debate, you're a fool.

The **** is this shit?... The **** is that?

Very indifferent about this.

I love this game. Long time reader. I don't post here as often but this game does not deserve a 10. 8 at best. C'mon gamespot! Me love you long time but this is ridiculous. Lol.

ICONIC.

It's still a port though, so a remastered 10 dampens the impact.

I know exactly what a review is and I never said I liked or disliked anything I commented on what the reviewer said. Reading comprehension: 0.

'you're a fool' masterful debating, I am so impressed. At least I don't quote someone else to try to get a point across which I myself could not articulate. I'd rather be a fool than a loser.

I'm off to bed, you can have the last word. I'm sure it will be memorable. Try to type it yourself this time.

Sure the witcher 3 also has a 10 and journey and the witcher 3 are in the same league

Nobody takes this 10 serious, gameplay is one thing but they didn't reinvent the wheel here.

This is a niche game and amongst that niche audience I can understand that some people think that this game is 10 worthy. I mean I think magic 2013 was an amazing game and some reviewers scored it a 9 but i would never score that game a 9, a 7 at best. I mean 9/10 then you're coming into skyrim, fallout, gta red dead redemption territory.

And a 10, oh my, what game deserves a 10, skyrim maybe, dark souls, but this ....this game isn't a 10, 7 at best.

@commander said:

@ConanTheStoner said:

@blueinheaven:

Yeah, a 1/10 would have been some great fun and easily justifiable if he wanted to be a dick. The only redeeming quality of Journey to me was the art. The graphics may have been nothing from a technical standpoint, but there are some scenes in that game that look brilliant.

Then again, art doesn't make a game.

@commander said:

lol by van ord

he who gives indie games 10 and big productions 4.

The game looks like it's from 1991 lmao

Eh. To be fair, Kevin did just recently give TW3 a 10. He also gave MGS4 a 10 years ago. Maybe we can say that he overlooks notable flaws when handing out 10/10, but that's about it.

He also gave Bloodborne a 9/10.

I don't think you have an argument here.

Also, I don't think you were gaming in 1991 if you believe that.

it looks kinda like another world and that's 1991

This game doesn't deserve a 10 imo, maybe 10 years ago,

I know this is the recent trend to high games higher scores because they are at a cheaper price, but that's really missing the point imo. That's like giving b-movies high scores if you can buy em for less.

You are missing the point, you don't need a big budget to make a great game. It helps, but it's not required.

You could've written down practically every name of this thread's butthurt brigrade without even looking. You lose all credibility when you become this predictable.

GS gives the best version of a GotY winner a 10. Cry me a river.

I've played many games reviewed by Kevin VanOrd. Haven't agreed with him in any of them. The nicest thing I can say is "he seems to value different things in gaming"

Sony games in general tend to get very generous reviews on mainstream sites.

@jereb31 said:

@commander said:

@ConanTheStoner said:

@blueinheaven:

Yeah, a 1/10 would have been some great fun and easily justifiable if he wanted to be a dick. The only redeeming quality of Journey to me was the art. The graphics may have been nothing from a technical standpoint, but there are some scenes in that game that look brilliant.

Then again, art doesn't make a game.

@commander said:

lol by van ord

he who gives indie games 10 and big productions 4.

The game looks like it's from 1991 lmao

Eh. To be fair, Kevin did just recently give TW3 a 10. He also gave MGS4 a 10 years ago. Maybe we can say that he overlooks notable flaws when handing out 10/10, but that's about it.

He also gave Bloodborne a 9/10.

I don't think you have an argument here.

Also, I don't think you were gaming in 1991 if you believe that.

it looks kinda like another world and that's 1991

This game doesn't deserve a 10 imo, maybe 10 years ago,

I know this is the recent trend to high games higher scores because they are at a cheaper price, but that's really missing the point imo. That's like giving b-movies high scores if you can buy em for less.

You are missing the point, you don't need a big budget to make a great game. It helps, but it's not required.

Yes you do, or you need to do something extremely original so that the game stands out in a very special way but this is pretty much impossible right now, everything pretty much been done on low budget. Do realize that games in the past resemble low budget games today. So if you want to be original and good in 2015 on a low budget, then you pretty much want the impossible. This game may be original is certain ways, but this isn't 10 materiel.

It's a cute little game that you play once and forget.

Not a 10 material by any stretch of the imagination.

It wasn't on PS3, it certainly isn't now.

@kinectthedots said:

Jesus fucking christ this looks like a fifth grader's first photoshop from 2001.

I wonder if PS4 library is 4th place when you take out remaster rehashes.

@commander said:

@jereb31 said:

@commander said:

@ConanTheStoner said:

@blueinheaven:

Yeah, a 1/10 would have been some great fun and easily justifiable if he wanted to be a dick. The only redeeming quality of Journey to me was the art. The graphics may have been nothing from a technical standpoint, but there are some scenes in that game that look brilliant.

Then again, art doesn't make a game.

@commander said:

lol by van ord

he who gives indie games 10 and big productions 4.

The game looks like it's from 1991 lmao

Eh. To be fair, Kevin did just recently give TW3 a 10. He also gave MGS4 a 10 years ago. Maybe we can say that he overlooks notable flaws when handing out 10/10, but that's about it.

He also gave Bloodborne a 9/10.

I don't think you have an argument here.

Also, I don't think you were gaming in 1991 if you believe that.

it looks kinda like another world and that's 1991

This game doesn't deserve a 10 imo, maybe 10 years ago,

I know this is the recent trend to high games higher scores because they are at a cheaper price, but that's really missing the point imo. That's like giving b-movies high scores if you can buy em for less.

You are missing the point, you don't need a big budget to make a great game. It helps, but it's not required.

Yes you do, or you need to do something extremely original so that the game stands out in a very special way. This game may be original is certain ways, but this isn't 10 materiel.

I agree it is not a 10/10 game, however if the ps3 version recieved a 10 on this site and the ps4 version only improves on it, then it should receive the same score if not better. In 5 years as people look back at games to buy the review should accurately reflect the best version of the game. This is why many reviews on this site don't work. For example, there may be a Madden or Fifa game--say they score a 9/10--and then the following year makes minor improvements and it scores a 7/10.

There's a perfectly logical reason as to why they only had 7 or 8 games with a 10/10 score in 15 years of GS history, and then gave 3 in less than 1 year...

It is to do with the changing of score system. Removing increments have now made 10s almost completely lose their meaning. LoZ: OOT, Soul Calibur, MGS4 etc were "true 10s" as they were handed out during a time when GS effectively had a 100 point scale (1-10 with .1 increments) How many games in that same time period got 9.9? 9.8? 9.7? 9.6? You get my point. Around 2009 they changed from .1 increments to .5 increments but during that era still only gave a 10 to SMG2, while giving 9.5 (second highest score) to a couple of games each year.

Now since Gamespot completely fucked up by removing increments, pretty much anything can get a 10 these days, like The Witcher 3, Bayonetta and even Journey. With the old system they would have most likely received something like 9.8/10, 9.7/10 and 9.5/10 respectively.

Some excellent ring sting in this thread :)

I warned people of this the very second Gamespot changed from 20 point scale (1-10, 05 increments) to a pure 1-10 scale system. I actually remember most people here thought it was a great idea.

Now you guys are all shocked that GS handed out three 10s in under a year. Well thats what happens when you only have 10 scores to hand out, and not 20 or 100 (like in the old days, pre-2009)

10/10s on Gamespot lost their meaning the same day Bayonetta 2 received a 10.

Now I hope Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain gets an 11. Yeah, 11/10.

Do you see that 10/10, lems? This is something you will never see on your console. Now go back hyping your Holiday season sales!

Haha, I was shocked when I saw this on the home page, but then looked at the review and saw that Kevin reviewed it, reminding me of how emotional it was for him on the PS3.

I've played through it once on the PS3, and downloading the PS4 version for free now. It was OK for me, not one of the best games ever, but that's Kevin's opinion. Games being awarded 10 isn't as rare as it used to be. Gamespot just seem to be making more use of the full scale, which is a good thing.

SW is all about the butthurt. Good, good.

PS4 won people.

Seriously, it shows how bad Van Ord was...

Absolutely agreed with this score.

Have you even played it? You come across as someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

Also, if something brings you to tears (not of sadness, obviously), it doesn't matter how, that means it's a great game. No other game has brought me to tears, not the Witcher 3, not Rocket League, not Dota 2, not fucking Super Mario. IDGAF if the gameplay has simplistic gameplay, if the game is beautiful. I don't understand why you would limit your gaming pallet over trivial categorizing.

@commander said:

@jereb31 said:

@commander said:

@ConanTheStoner said:

@blueinheaven:

Yeah, a 1/10 would have been some great fun and easily justifiable if he wanted to be a dick. The only redeeming quality of Journey to me was the art. The graphics may have been nothing from a technical standpoint, but there are some scenes in that game that look brilliant.

Then again, art doesn't make a game.

@commander said:

lol by van ord

he who gives indie games 10 and big productions 4.

The game looks like it's from 1991 lmao

Eh. To be fair, Kevin did just recently give TW3 a 10. He also gave MGS4 a 10 years ago. Maybe we can say that he overlooks notable flaws when handing out 10/10, but that's about it.

He also gave Bloodborne a 9/10.

I don't think you have an argument here.

Also, I don't think you were gaming in 1991 if you believe that.

it looks kinda like another world and that's 1991

This game doesn't deserve a 10 imo, maybe 10 years ago,

I know this is the recent trend to high games higher scores because they are at a cheaper price, but that's really missing the point imo. That's like giving b-movies high scores if you can buy em for less.

You are missing the point, you don't need a big budget to make a great game. It helps, but it's not required.

Yes you do, or you need to do something extremely original so that the game stands out in a very special way but this is pretty much impossible right now, everything pretty much been done on low budget. Do realize that games in the past resemble low budget games today. So if you want to be original and good in 2015 on a low budget, then you pretty much want the impossible. This game may be original is certain ways, but this isn't 10 materiel.

You have never required a big budget to get a perfect score game. All the budget does is help. You said it yourself "you need to do something extremely original so that the game stands out in a very special way", that is the secret ingredient.

I would like you opinion on what the cut off is for a low budget game? Is it less than a $Million, more than a $Million, more than $100 Million?

Low budget games today =/= old games, you can choose to use the tools to create an old school looking 8-bit game or you can license out yourself a modern engine and do it yourself. Look at anti-chamber, great game low budget. On the other hand look at some of the huge budget games, the elder scrolls online, pretty average. Budget does not mean a successful or great game any more than a low budget means a bad game, never has. It's a helping hand or a hindrance only.

@jereb31 said:

@commander said:

@jereb31 said:

@commander said:

@ConanTheStoner said:

@blueinheaven:

Yeah, a 1/10 would have been some great fun and easily justifiable if he wanted to be a dick. The only redeeming quality of Journey to me was the art. The graphics may have been nothing from a technical standpoint, but there are some scenes in that game that look brilliant.

Then again, art doesn't make a game.

@commander said:

lol by van ord

he who gives indie games 10 and big productions 4.

The game looks like it's from 1991 lmao

Eh. To be fair, Kevin did just recently give TW3 a 10. He also gave MGS4 a 10 years ago. Maybe we can say that he overlooks notable flaws when handing out 10/10, but that's about it.

He also gave Bloodborne a 9/10.

I don't think you have an argument here.

Also, I don't think you were gaming in 1991 if you believe that.

it looks kinda like another world and that's 1991

This game doesn't deserve a 10 imo, maybe 10 years ago,

I know this is the recent trend to high games higher scores because they are at a cheaper price, but that's really missing the point imo. That's like giving b-movies high scores if you can buy em for less.

You are missing the point, you don't need a big budget to make a great game. It helps, but it's not required.

Yes you do, or you need to do something extremely original so that the game stands out in a very special way but this is pretty much impossible right now, everything pretty much been done on low budget. Do realize that games in the past resemble low budget games today. So if you want to be original and good in 2015 on a low budget, then you pretty much want the impossible. This game may be original is certain ways, but this isn't 10 materiel.

You have never required a big budget to get a perfect score game. All the budget does is help. You said it yourself "you need to do something extremely original so that the game stands out in a very special way", that is the secret ingredient.

I would like you opinion on what the cut off is for a low budget game? Is it less than a $Million, more than a $Million, more than $100 Million?

Low budget games today =/= old games, you can choose to use the tools to create an old school looking 8-bit game or you can license out yourself a modern engine and do it yourself. Look at anti-chamber, great game low budget. On the other hand look at some of the huge budget games, the elder scrolls online, pretty average. Budget does not mean a successful or great game any more than a low budget means a bad game, never has. It's a helping hand or a hindrance only.

it's the same thing as with a low budget movie,, pretty much everything has been done before on low budgets. the chance you're able to make an original low budget movie that's perfect will not happen anymore, movies exists for too long

Same with games, but not with Virtual reality. If you are a developper, vr is a goldmine because it's a new medium

I only rigorously bash games that I've played, so yes, I have and own Journey on the PS3.

Any "game" that has to completely rely on the player being suckered by emotion is a terrible game in my eyes. Gameplay is the defining feature of this medium, and Journey has none. You can still have an artsy fartsy game, and do gameplay, and do it well no less (see for example, NiGHTS into Dreams, a game which not only is capable of instilling emotion, it provides the same depth and difficulty as an arcade game). Stuff like Journey, I find to be completely dull and lazy in comparison, because I'm not using even a minimal amount of skill, nor am I using my head in any regard. As a video game, it fails at the most basic level, and so I find it comical that anyone can put it on an industry defining pedestal. I'm not limiting myself by talking negatively of it. I'm doing it because I think it's a bad and boring video game, and that's all there is to it.

@commander said:

@jereb31 said:

@commander said:

@jereb31 said:

@commander said:

@ConanTheStoner said:

@blueinheaven:

Yeah, a 1/10 would have been some great fun and easily justifiable if he wanted to be a dick. The only redeeming quality of Journey to me was the art. The graphics may have been nothing from a technical standpoint, but there are some scenes in that game that look brilliant.

Then again, art doesn't make a game.

@commander said:

lol by van ord

he who gives indie games 10 and big productions 4.

The game looks like it's from 1991 lmao

Eh. To be fair, Kevin did just recently give TW3 a 10. He also gave MGS4 a 10 years ago. Maybe we can say that he overlooks notable flaws when handing out 10/10, but that's about it.

He also gave Bloodborne a 9/10.

I don't think you have an argument here.

Also, I don't think you were gaming in 1991 if you believe that.

it looks kinda like another world and that's 1991

This game doesn't deserve a 10 imo, maybe 10 years ago,

I know this is the recent trend to high games higher scores because they are at a cheaper price, but that's really missing the point imo. That's like giving b-movies high scores if you can buy em for less.

You are missing the point, you don't need a big budget to make a great game. It helps, but it's not required.

Yes you do, or you need to do something extremely original so that the game stands out in a very special way but this is pretty much impossible right now, everything pretty much been done on low budget. Do realize that games in the past resemble low budget games today. So if you want to be original and good in 2015 on a low budget, then you pretty much want the impossible. This game may be original is certain ways, but this isn't 10 materiel.

You have never required a big budget to get a perfect score game. All the budget does is help. You said it yourself "you need to do something extremely original so that the game stands out in a very special way", that is the secret ingredient.

I would like you opinion on what the cut off is for a low budget game? Is it less than a $Million, more than a $Million, more than $100 Million?

Low budget games today =/= old games, you can choose to use the tools to create an old school looking 8-bit game or you can license out yourself a modern engine and do it yourself. Look at anti-chamber, great game low budget. On the other hand look at some of the huge budget games, the elder scrolls online, pretty average. Budget does not mean a successful or great game any more than a low budget means a bad game, never has. It's a helping hand or a hindrance only.

it's the same thing as with a low budget movie,, pretty much everything has been done before on low budgets. the chance you're able to make an original low budget movie that's perfect will not happen anymore, movies exists for too long

Same with games, but not with Virtual reality. If you are a developper, vr is a goldmine because it's a new medium

You make it sound like there is no such thing as an amazing low budget anything anymore? Minecraft started out as an indie game, so did anti-chamber, super meat boy was low budget, the binding of isaac was as low budget as it gets. All of those games, very successful (not 10/10). Journey is a great example of what a low budget game can be. Even ori and the blind forest was a lower budget than many AAA titles.

http://mmgn.com/xboxone/articles--what-ori-and-the-blind-forest-can-teach-other

And look at the reviews it has, originality is not a nebulous unobtainable concept, it does not mean you need to create a whole new genre outside of platformer, fps etc.

@blueinheaven said:

@jg4xchamp said:

@Desmonic said:

@blueinheaven: Quite simple, actually: Graphics mean nothing. Amazing concept, right? :D

Crysis 2&3 looked amazing (even on PS3 and X360)! The rest of the actual game? Boring, generic, not fun.

A game needs to be first and foremost good at what it's trying to do, if possible even fun! Graphics can take a considerable hit if the game manages to do (almost) everything else right. On average a large part of the budget of any given AAA game (with the exception of the marketing budget) is spent on graphics + animation. These two categories also contain sub-categories that also delve into the gameplay aspect of the game (performance and limited level design, for example). But at the end of day none of that is spent on the game systems (AI, combat, exploration, story, etc) thus it matters little how bloated the budget is.

Big budget projects =/= 10's nor do low budget projects == 10's. There are plenty more indie games that score terribly. However, since there are more indie games this gen than AAA projects in general, you'll see more good scoring indie games than good scoring AAA games. Plus, do remind youself that each review is merely the opinion of 1 person. 1 person does not dictate the average score.

No conspiracy, no plot against a platform, none of that.

Oh dear, reduced to copy and pasting other people's arguments because your own were ridiculous. That sucks dude. Better luck next time.

Man, this guy is rich.

I think it was intended more as a minimally interactive story.

Minimal sure is right.

Alright, I'll bite. Why?

Gamespot should make it to where quote chains don't get bigger than 2, maybe 3 at the most.

Another reason why NeoGAF is superior

I lurk there on occasion, but I doubt I'd last a day on their forums.

Plus I'm just too infatuated with the d-tier trolling and Fisher Price school of debate that is SW. Zero effort, plenty of lulz.

If mile long quote chains are my punishment, then so be it.

This site used to be brilliant about limiting post chains. Now it's a fucking mess at best, and goddamn horrendous at worst (on mobile)

So gamespot is tossing out 10s like candy now.

Haha, yes.

One of the most overrated games last and now this generation. I didint feel emotional from playing it at all. I give it props in that its pretty and can be fun,but nothing mind blowing.

You did not just say journey pushed the medium. How the hell did it do that by being artsy?

I will probably never play this game again. My first experience with the game was magical. I found an online partner in the game, but I honestly thought it was just an AI following me around. However, as I progressed through the game more and more, I started to notice that my partner seemed more human then I originally let on. By the end of my journey I was convinced it was a human player with me the whole time. I managed to create my own little story in my head just through that experience.

I feel that playing it a second time would only somewhat soil my praise for the game. It seems like an experience that you should play once and remember forever.

Too true.

Yay...a shitty game for hippies

Nxt thing youll be hyping flower

Don't know what to make of this considering I never played it. But with MGS5 coming in about a month that'll be three 10s in one year!

Upon skimming the review, it seems like a lot of verbose fluff that describes how the game made Kevin feel. It doesn't tell me much about how the game actually plays. I'm not seeing the compelling reason as to why this deserves a 10 just because it's running at a higher resolution and higher framerate. Should all remasters that were formerly 9s on their original platform now be scored 10s? But whatever, it's one of Kevin's last reviews here and he really wanted to push a game he really liked...

lol wow that's just so sad, and its quite insulting not only to ps4 users, but to readers of gamespot.

That's how it used to be. Now it's just one big mess where people don't clean them up. It goes beyond depressing, but here is something that might lessen the blow you see every time you walk into a quote chain riddled thread.

Ketchup.

HOLY **** YES!

Dude... awesome.

I don't even know what to do right now? Should I jerk off, or just go to sleep?

Seriously though, that's great news.

Indeed.

And as far as your predicament - go full betty and cut off your big toe.

To be honest I suddenly have the urge to play a WiiU, then another Wii U, then a Wii.

First thing that came to my head when they announced the WiiU lol.