@ramb1402 @pidow That's a baseless and unfair remark. Gamespot was promoting Hitman with it's Playing Now feature. It's not fair to claim illegal or immoral activity unless you have good reason to believe that that has occurred.
@NTM23 I would say that people are upset because they come to a games site in order to get reviews in order to help them make a purchasing decision. They need those reviews to be accurate, to make sense, and to be consistent.
In addition to that, we want to see that developers get a fair crack of the whip. We've all seen how many developers have closed shop this generation, and it would be a shame to see these guys get shafted due to a lack of consistency when reviewing.
To me, as with others, this review lacks consistency. That is based on the understanding that 7.5 is a pretty ho-hum score. If we were to take it that 7.5 is a great score then I don't suppose anyone would take issue.
I've not played the game but it looks to me as good and enjoyable a game as Mafia II, superior to LA Noire, at least on par with Deus Ex, maybe approaching the Batman. Those games got good scores, so why didn't this one? If the tone of the review was more negative then a lower score would be expected, but that wasn't the case (in my interpretation).
@NTM23 @nu1mlock I think that slipping below an 8.0 means that a lot of potential customers will decide not to buy it. I think it's fine that the reviewer gives the game 7.5 if that's what they believe, but the problem is that the review sounded positive throughout. If it were given an 8.0 or so then a lot of us would be more confident in buying it. With a 7.5 we're more inclined to give it a miss despite the review not really explaining why we should.
@nu1mlock Ýeah. Battlefield 3 had a really poor and disapointing single player campaign. It was boring. A real let down. Yet the game score 9.5s across the board.
@NTM23 @Biggs613 @Steba93 Hmmm. It is a difficult subject.
For me, 7.5 isn't bad. It's good. A solid game. But a game that is in no way genre leading and can be regarded as easily dismissed. A non AAA game.
Given that there are plenty of 8.5 and higher games out there (not necessarily recently released games) then for me there's not much point in investing in a 7.5 game, or certainly not at full retail price.
From my interpretation of the review, and another that i've seen, such a determination would be a little low.
To me, the graphics look strong - ok, we're in the latter part of the generation so we can't really be impressed by the characters, but the lighting, the setting, the environments all look very nice - they have the element of style that say Mafia II has.
The gameplay seems solid, and fun, and there's no lack of options to play style. It has a story, it has dialogue, vibe, ambiance and voice acting. It looks pretty solid to me.
I enjoyed Silent Hill Homecoming. Sure, it wasn't a great game, but it was enjoyable, worth playing, I'd give than a 7.0 or so. This game deserves more.
I don't get where the game falls down. Why doesn't it deserve a higher score?
I totally disagree with "if this game doesn't do well, then the low score must have been correct".
Firstly, low scores are likely to result in the game not doing well. So unjustified low scores really are a kick in the nuts.
Secondly, I don't think a reviewer should guess, or make judgements, as to what will or won't be popular. I don't want Shadows of the Damned to be given a 6.0 because we all know it won't sell. I want it to be given a score based on what it deserves, how much it deserves my dollars.
@lpsyco666 Yep I was thinking the same thing, Looked like a good review. I watched the Playing Now earlier today and that seemed very positive too.
I've never had any interest in any Hitman game before, they looked kind of non AAA, but just after seeing a few videos of this game I'm very close to buying it. This or Far Cry 3. Possibly both.
The game looks a little batman to me, but with guns. And i've read that it's about a 12 hour playthrough? Which for me is good because I don;t have time to pick up a 40 hour game. I can pick this up, finish it, sell it. Can't do that with a huge game.
@BestJinjo @deathstream @Albaficas It is awesome. Not so much of a perk - for me it really is the only reason I would pay for PSN+ - automatic updates and free themes and wallpapers doesnt interest me.
Below is a list of the free games I've gotten since joining in June:-
Borderlands Darksiders Deus Ex: Human Revolution inFamous 2. Just Cause 2 LittleBigPlanet 2. Motorstorm Apocalypse Red Dead Redemption Saints Row 2 Warhammer Space Marine Virtua Fighter Resident Evil 5 Bulletstorm Starhawk Crysis 2 Ratchet & Clank All 4 One
And some smaller games:_
Chime Super Deluxe. Lara Croft - Guardian of Light Machinarium Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath HD. Outland. Renegade Ops. Retro/Grade Scott Pilgrim Hell Yeah Cubixx HD
I know, it sounds ubelievable doesn't it? Remember they already gave us LBP and Infamous for free last year.
The downsides to PSN are:-
- these games are taking up alot of HDD space, but you're always able to delete them and re-download them at any stage
- I owned most of the large games already, but getting the PSN version allowed me to sell those games
- I don't have time to play them!!! and probably won't before the subscription expires
For me, PSN+ giving away this amount and this level of games has convinced me that I'll be a PSN+ member for life now, and that I'll stick with Sony for all my gaming. I think Android will put up a fight for my time in the future, and so will F2P PC gaming, and I think that Microsoft are arguably in the strongest position of all by being able to offer entertainment and business oriented solutions - if a Windows phone, tablet or PC can handle games, movies and work that'd be handy, but I think Sony have done enough to win my dedication to them for games, and I can keep my other devices relatively game free if I need to.
I also think it's a little unfair that there isn't a lot of media excitement about PSN+ and the Instant Game Collection. It is amazing. The most amazing thing I've ever seen in games, maybe. I remember the Atari ST got into trouble when it bundled with 40 free games - the developers didn't like it because people wouldn't have an incentive to buy any more games. I think that's kind of true for the Instant Game Collection. I've bought about a dozen or so smaller PSN games in the past but I can't see myself buying anymore as i'm disapointed that about half of them have been given away for free since I've been a PSN member. There's a couple that I'd like to have but I can be confident that there's a strong likelihood that they'll be part of PSN+ for free before long.
Same with full release titles. I now have even less incentive to buy games - even budget games. I bought Deus Ex for $12, a bargain, then the next day PSN+ give Deus Ex away for free.
I'm not quite sure if PSN+ is a genius move or extremely damaging, but either way it's great for me.
davedrastic's comments