@boodger: My thoughts exactly. At first I thought that it's going to be a Remaster. Game looks dated. Usually it wouldn't bother me. But considering how much I am waiting for the Switch 2 and that it took them 7 years to develop this game, it's pretty underwhelming. Even if they juice it up on the Switch 2 - it couldn't look that much better. A flagship game this won't be. But what do I know? Breath of the Wild didn't look amazing either...
I love how people dissect one photo :D When Snyders Superman would destroy an entire city in a brawl with Zod, everybody rushed to defend his version. Now everyone complaints about a picture in which Superman looks like he doesn't care.
I really hope for Gunns Superman to be a huge success. The best Superman movie ever made. Just so every annoying little a** on the internet who defends Snyder religiously could just shut the f up already.
Seriously it's getting tiresome. Even if I would like Man of Steel and BvS and Justice League, I would hate those movies by now.
Just be patient folks. You can piss all over Gunns movie and DCverse as soon as the movies are actually out.
I think we should move away from rating systems. A grade is just not appropriate for something subjective. What is a bad game really? I would consider bad anything that is technically not finished or is generic. Does something like Death Stranding deserve a 6 for instance ( I think IGNs rating)? The game is masterfully put together, just the concept isn’t for everyone. Most of the games that got 10 I’ve played and I would recommend all of them to anyone. But there are so many other games I personally played more and would prefer over games on this list. And they didn’t get a 10. But they are just as good- not just from an experience point of view- but also how well all the parts are put together.
@barnold81: I’ve played it multiple times, yes. There is this great moment in the book Brave New World where one character introduces another to the works of Shakespeare and first the guy who doesn’t know Shakespeare laughs at his example - a sonnet- of why Shakespeare is great but then he shows him a passage from another text of Shakespeare and it profoundly connects with him because he can relate and sees himself in it. That’s how everything that is slightly artistic works - it may connect with you or not - because even a game is made by people who essentially use their own experiences and tastes and personalities into what they are creating. Experiencing a game is like meeting a new group of people, you may connect with them and become your friends or you may realize you have nothing in common and remain strangers. And often times it’s just a middle ground.
@deactivated-648f26c075524: Journey got released just after a surgery I’ve had and it was such a great experience.,I recently replayed it and it still holds up. It’s a game that is short but you wouldn’t want it to be any longer. It’s more of an experience than a traditional game. I am an atheist but Journey really nails the aspect of spirituality and made me understand why some people go on pilgrimages.
@jenovaschilld: But why does it matter though? What is your or my gain from them succeeding or failing? Same with Sony, Nintendo etc. So many companies failed in the past: Sega. Atari and it didn’t really affect games. I am not really a fan of Microsoft but Starfield being good or bad or whatever should only be relevant to your enjoyment of it and not whether a huge corporation with deep pockets “wins” a race. Because what does winning mean? If any of them wins, it means monopoly and it means you who fought their battles are their b*tch now. Paying whatever they want, never getting improvements.
@schwacko77: I mean what about NoMansSky? It seems to me like it laid the groundwork for and endless universe and seamless transitions. Considering it was made by a small studio, I think someone like Bethesda with the financial support of Microsoft could have implemented the same kind of tech.
@schwacko77: A game studio needs to evolve. If you look at many other studios you can clearly see an evolution from project to project, especially when they start a new IP. I won’t judge Starfield just based on reviews, I will eventually play it. But from what I’ve seen and the reviews I’ve read it confirms what I’ve said: Bethesda always did great open world rpgs, but have been surpassed by others. Larian comes to mind, but also Obsidian, CD Project. They seem stuck. It’s ok to approach a project the same way, because it worked, but I don’t see an improvement where an improvement was needed.
I think Bethesda is good at what it does but it hasn’t evolved as a studio. All their games have the same “flaws”. When I saw the deep dive a few weeks ago I immediately was underwhelmed by the character design. Same stiff, lifeless NPCs delivering exposition. After so many games and considering the competition today, why couldn’t day improve such an important aspect of an rpg? They have the same tried and true approach that just isn’t cutting it anymore with the sole ambition to outdo themselves through quantity rather than quality. Bigger worlds whatever the cost. No thank you.
Search_for_Vali's comments