This is the worst review I've ever seen on this site and represents a new low in any form of entertainment criticism. Usually if I don't like a review it's due to an opinion-based discrepancy, but this reviewer simply didn't do his due diligence as a critic. The job of critic might as well not even exist if what this reviewer did was representative of what they all do.
Give it whatever grade you like, but to neglect to highlight the price relative to the content length is inexcusable. That should be the focal point of this review, and it's clearly not. Warnings like that are the whole reason game reviewers exist in the first place. "It may only take you 2 hours or so." Nope, it's about a half hour less than that for even the worst MGS player, which is pertinent considering that 30 minutes represents 25% of the main game. Many finish in under an hour, and speed-runs can do it in 10 minutes. One guy finished it on a speed run in 6 minutes.
This review helps to open a dangerous precedent where formerly free demo-length content will not only be sold to begin with, but sold at the price of half a full game. This game is shorter than most movies and yet costs 3 times a movie ticket. I can go see an IMAX 3D movie in Manhattan (where it's much more expensive) and buy popcorn and a drink for similar to what this game costs, and actually get between 30-60 minutes more content (depending on how good you are at the game).
I'm sure this comment won't make that wacky "look at how stupid the comments are" video you do, however, because it actually might make the site look foolish for a change. I won't be visiting this site again, as there's plenty of other options when it comes to game reviews. All the reviewer had to do was put a disclaimer that the review didn't represent the value of the purchase and I'd respect the review much more. I'd still dislike it because I think games are products and should be reviewed for their value, but at least I'd understand the perspective and not feel as though the site were trying to lie to me.
@reza_razor so somehow a 50 minute game is justifiable to you because of this? a 50 minute game that costs half as much as some 50 hour games? The idea that they can't be profitable without selling you a bite for half the cost of a meal is insane, and they deserve to fail if that's actually true (which it clearly isn't or else they wouldn't be making a sequel).
You're being misled and taken advantage because you're a fan.
@Viktor737 Dude, the game is being completed in 40 mins by some people. There are speed runs that can finish it in 10 minutes. Add the side missions and it's a barely 3 hour game if you know what you're doing already. And it's $30. So somehow this game, which is priced as half a full game but has only about 1/10 the content a game should have deserves a 10/10? Are you that much of a fanboy that money means nothing to you?
They clearly downgraded the graphics. I's just not up for debate. One video shows a game that looks like the original Saints Row and the other shows a game that looks revolutionary. Either release more footage to prove it's not downgraded or admit to it. I'm tired of the lies in marketing. Some still images I've seen are so low-res that they look like they were taken on a PS2.
The game was literally why I got next-gen, and now I'm not even planning on buying it until at least two weeks after release (to let all the problems, if there are any, be reported by the preorder people). I just don't like being misled this way.
The game looks fantastic but I doubt I can run this on my computer and they don't seem to offer a console copy in the rewards. The game really looks amazingly good. I would love to support this but I'd like to play it if I'm gonna support it. This is also the first game I would like to support after seeing it, even though I've been interested before. This one really is far too good looking to let die.
That no publisher is signed on does seem a bit odd, though they do acknowledge this in the Kickstarter page. I'm shocked that Paradox wouldn't publish this, since they claim the problem is the lack of magic and emphasis on realism and Paradox seems to like realism/historicity. This also seems like the kind of game that would really make a lot of money for them, more than most of their strategy niche games.
@riotinto876 this is a review of part 1. the same criticism could be made (And was made) about The Hobbit film, for example. If both parts released at the same time and weren't split then it would make more sense to take issue with the criticism.
The game is really frustrating, and this frustration makes me feel less satisfied with the on-court action as a result. I'd rate the game a 5 out of 10. MyCareer still suffers from the same horrendous teammate AI issues that it has since its inception (even on Hall of Fame difficulty). Your teammates still miss what feels like 70% of the open shots they take, while more often than not passing away those open shots in the first place. They discredit me for calling for the ball when there's a mismatch, and the game doesn't even reward mismatches in the first place despite announcers recognizing them and commenting on them (so the game knows it takes place on some level). I literally cannot think of one instance in which my 6'10" PF, whose Player Efficiency Rating was 40 (highest ever in real life was 31) was able to execute a post move (which he'd done constantly over much taller defenders) against anyone below 6'7". Not once. Even in normal games, the players you don't control do a horrendous job on defending the perimeter, leading to 40 point games from 3 pt specialists constantly unless you always shift to the active defender (sometimes you want to control the big man because AI rebounding for your team is similarly horrendous, thus you give up 3-5 offensive rebounds in a single play every now and then).
MyGM would be the mode I play most, as it is the real reason I bought the game in the first place, but the gouging which takes place in the form of real money transactions for VC has rendered this mode unplayable unless you dedicate yourself to playing an entire 82 game season. I don't find the on-court games satisfying without playing at least 10 minute quarters. Playing full games is the only way to get VC. VC is required to purchase any GM abilities short of basic trade and drafting functions. The amount of time I would need to buy basic upgrades is insane. You get nothing for simulating games, the reason I assume is because they think people would continuously simulate on MyGM modes to farm currency, thus not spending real money for fake money or putting in the hours necessary to "earn" them. How about making something different for MyGM? Far too much money is required in the form of VC to unlock the most basic of managerial abilities, such as changing the player lineup or firing employees. It is a disgusting practice, and one that doesn't even begin to show people an ounce of respect for the money they pay to play the game in the first place. It's actually worse than Pay-To-Win. It's Pay-To-Be-Able-To-Play. The game has a system of money within it that isn't related to VC, why is that not used to pay for stadium upgrades or anything else in this mode? Contextually it makes beyond no sense how the game is set up, unless you take a step back and realize that 2k wants to milk this franchise's integrity until it shrivels up and dies like Madden did.
Other problems include a crippling contract negotiation bug and a lack of information in many scenarios, such as when your coach wants you to draft a certain player, and says his name, yet you have no ability to even see the player's position or your report on him. So I'd have to memorize the names of fake players to comment on my coach's demands at all. If I say I'll draft him but he gets taken before I can pick, I get penalized for some reason. Or when he asks you for a film room and you can't respond by saying you don't have the ability to buy one because you haven't unlocked the "GM skill" yet. So I get penalized for not respecting his wishes, even though the game itself is the only hindrance and not my refusal to act.
Considering the kind of relationship we think gaming media has with publishers exists in far more important areas of our lives, such as the relationship between politicians and lobbying firms, or the relationship between banks and credit rating agencies, it's insane to act as though it isn't possible on this much smaller level.
Then you take the fact that the most notable firing of a guy for his low score of a game (Kane and Lynch) happened on this very site, that makes me take this video with a large grain of salt.
Furthermore, when I see ads for EA plastered all over a site, then read the review which is more positive than your peer reviewing sites by a noticeable amount (which happens occasionally for all the review sites) it obviously raises questions. Even if not done consciously, there are many ways that you may think to yourself "Well, they ARE an advertiser," and not go as hard on their game as you otherwise would. Just basic unconscious judgment making.
The point is that a conflict of interest CLEARLY exists when your only advertisers are also the people whose products you review. And it doesn't have to be a "Cash under a table" transaction between GS and publishers for the site to give better or worse grades to games. Of course sometimes a game being advertised will get poor scores, this isn't always the case, but I definitely get suspicious because of how blatantly obvious the conflict of interest is.
downloadthefile's comments