For people that already have this, how easy is it to download PS3 DLC? Do you have to download content individually or is there something like a "download all" button?
9.2 from Gametrailers....daaaamn
http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/rgxow7/littlebigplanet-3-review
Some really high praise.9.2 from Gametrailers....daaaamn
http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/rgxow7/littlebigplanet-3-review
CVG: "LittleBigPlanet 3 is undoubtedly the best entry in the series"
Score: 9/10
Link: http://www.computerandvideogames.co...oubtedly-the-best-entry-in-the-series-review/
CVG and PSNation = nopeJust out of curiosity, are CVG not recognised as a Metacritic publication anymore? I've noticed that their reviews don't seem to be included in the review listings as of late.
CVG and PSNation = nope
But as far as I know, PSNation were never on Metacritic. CVG on the other hand used to have their reviews posted on Metacritic, and they're still included in the publications list here. So what the hell happened?
1) Somebody(meaning the same person) scoring one game an 8 and another a 7 means *they* felt the game with the 8 was the better game. They cant objectively say which is better, obviously.If I can't look at a game with a score of an "8", and know if that's better than a game with a "7", then the scores don't have any meaning. Period.
You've nicely summarised why the use of scores for reviews - in any medium - are inherently silly even if popular for the masses.1) Somebody(meaning the same person) scoring one game an 8 and another a 7 means *they* felt the game with the 8 was the better game. They cant objectively say which is better, obviously.
2) Sometimes a site uses more than one reviewer. Again, since objectivity is impossible, all anybody can do is score a game what *they* thought it was.
3) Standards and biases change over time. Between two releases of a franchise, another game might have come in and stepped things up and raised that person's standards of how good that sort of game could be. Or maybe a game shows little change from the past and the old 'franchise fatigue' has set in a bit for somebody.
You're basically asking for reviews to all be these objective, static scoring systems that are mathematically chosen purely for the sake of providing an analytical buyer's guide for others. And that isn't possible. And so judging reviews or reviewers based on these expectations is not reasonable.
Edit: Another issue with 4-player. To play online, all 4 local players need to have a PSN account. At least that's what it seemed like when trying to use guest accounts. A lot of my friends don't have PSN accounts, so this is a pretty big annoyance that they need an account just to play local co-op with me. If somebody knows a way around this, please let me know.
Yeah, that's weird.But as far as I know, PSNation were never on Metacritic. CVG on the other hand used to have their reviews posted on Metacritic, and they're still included in the publications list here. So what the hell happened?
They haven't received the latest Edge issue yet.Edge and their 9 review aren't on there either. Oo
I think I've read you saying something similar before, but you seem a bit preoccupied with this idea that 'numbers = objective', when that's not the case at all. They are another completely subjective component of a review in this situation. There is nothing about numbers that says they have to be 'objective'.You've nicely summarised why the use of scores for reviews - in any medium - are inherently silly even if popular for the masses.
Using objective numbers - 7,8,9 - to try and summarise an subjective review is just silly, particularly as people do use them to compare as of course the numbers lend themselves to that.
In reality they might as well simply use single word summaries as numbers.
As you can tell I cordially dislike use of numbers as a "score" for subjective reviews.
Edge and their 9 review aren't on there either. Oo
I think I've read you saying something similar before, but you seem a bit preoccupied with this idea that 'numbers = objective', when that's not the case at all. They are another completely subjective component of a review in this situation. There is nothing about numbers that says they have to be 'objective'.
Review scores *cannot* be objective. It is not possible. That doesn't make them useless, it just means you are misunderstanding what they are and what they mean.I'm saying majority of people take numbers as being objective not that they have to be - although technically I'd say if they're not you're not using them right, as in review scores.
I've also noticed some gameplay issues, most noticeably when playing with multiple people. Why would they ever have grab and using items be the same button? It is extremely frustrating with 4 players trying to use the blinker ball thing, but instead we keep grabbing each other because there's only one very small platform that we're all standing on. The increased layers (which I love otherwise), also makes 4-players extremely chaotic, especially on the story levels. It got to the point that I would just leave people behind because they couldn't follow what was going on, and of course LBP still has the weird camera thing where it follows only the person closest to the goal even if you have to go the other way to actually get to the goal. I've also had a couple issues with sticky layers where it seemed impossible to jump one layer ahead, I've been frustrated with this in the past games but never quite this bad.
Edit: Another issue with 4-player. To play online, all 4 local players need to have a PSN account. At least that's what it seemed like when trying to use guest accounts. A lot of my friends don't have PSN accounts, so this is a pretty big annoyance that they need an account just to play local co-op with me. If somebody knows a way around this, please let me know.
.
CVG and Edge might take it up 80 on MetaCritic.
But I'm sure we'll still see people talk about it getting "disappointing" reviews like I've seen with Infamous SS.
Can you clarify if you are talking about online or local co-op here, because you start with online and finish with local co-op. Thanks.
Couldn't you just set up 3 guest accounts that friends can sign in as if they don't have their own accounts?
And then IGN continue showing their confusing message with 6.8/6.5. It's like they struggle to stay relevant.
This only ever becomes an issue when you come across a game that is simply better than you could have imagined any game to be. So, not that often. But fair enough, it might happen, so what does that mean? Well it means that your standards have been raised. I suppose you'd then ask, "Well does that mean a game you previous gave an 8 to is suddenly no longer an 8?" And the answer would be a 'yes', basically. But only if you were to re-evaluate a game. The only thing you can ever do is rate a game based on how you feel *at that time*.I've always struggled with the concept of review scores. I'm very glad I'm not a reviewer. For example, how are you meant to display a huge gulf in quality between something which is still very good and something which is actually great?
Let's say Uncharted 2. When that game came out, it was universally acclaimed, and for good reason, it was such a leap in that 'cinematic action' thing, so it was plastered in 9s/10s, and those seem well earned, but then how do you distinguish TLoU which I think makes UC2 seem pretty much crap? If you've given UC2 a 9, the best you can give TLoU is a 10, indicating to some an incremental improvement in quality.
Do people really think like this?They will conveniently change the score after Black Friday. Need to keep the negative reviews up through then to persuade fence sitters to buy Xbone instead.
And then IGN continue showing their confusing message with 6.8/6.5. It's like they struggle to stay relevant.
9.2 from Gametrailers....daaaamn
http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/rgxow7/littlebigplanet-3-review
Quick question for someone not too familiar with the series. How kid friendly is it? And by that I don't mean content-wise, but rather can an 8 year old grasp the controls and reasonably play through at least some of the levels?
Do people really think like this?
Quick question for someone not too familiar with the series. How kid friendly is it? And by that I don't mean content-wise, but rather can an 8 year old grasp the controls and reasonably play through at least some of the levels?
Awesome, thanks.Easily dude. Kids generally do love the LBP series, and they're pretty forgiving games platforming wise, so an 8 year old should have little trouble progressing through the campaign..
Quick question for someone not too familiar with the series. How kid friendly is it? And by that I don't mean content-wise, but rather can an 8 year old grasp the controls and reasonably play through at least some of the levels?
I don't really know if we can assert with certainty that the game reviews are due to bias, I mean some people don't like LBP, the IGN reviewer was just shit no question but most people gave the game props. As for Driveclub, it had an air around it that was very unhelpful from a critical reception prospective...Well, can't blame people for being wary...
There's been a "feeling" lately of a general anti - Sony/ PS4 vibe, both on Forums and the media.
Evolution didn't help with the botched release of Driveclub, or Sony itself with the hiccups in the 2.0 patch, but it goes far beyond that.
Case in point, Driveclub was torn to shreds (mostly deserved when relating to online performances) but not even for its actual problems, but for "Lack of Soul". Thing is, Driveclub was almost the story of a predicted failure all year long, as it seemed that most media outlets had already writen it down as a failed "corridor" racer ... cf Giant Bomb.
OTOH IGN had a month long coverage of MCC. The whole frickin' month of October was all Halo, all the time (or so it felt).
Other exemple, Shareplay should have been celebrated, but as soon as a hiccup showed up (not even Sony's fault, it -had- to have a clause for Publishers to opt out), many apparently started to report it as a failed experiment.
Eurogamer's Digital Foundry has had a very interesting way of reporting, particularly lately. Halo's problems were mostly brushed over, while they really reported a LOT it seemed on the AC:U "parity". For GTA V, same, they seem to want absolutely to have both versions to be mostly the same "overall".
One of the most damning comparison was COD: AW. There's no two way around it, read the text, in between lines, and the PS4 version is clearly vastly better.
But read sumaries/ conclusions? Not that big of a difference according to them.
Still about Eurogamer: Where is the PES 2015 comparison? Far Cry 4 is a comparison PS4 / PC, no mention of the XB1. No mention of the Dragon Age: Inquisition tech stuff either.
Instead of that, and while they missed the lack of vegetation detail / quality of shadows/ lighting the first time around, let's make sure to run an update that emphasizes that, in spite of the PS4 version advantages in GTA V, everyone should know that there are some intersections in town that sometime drop a little more fps on PS4 than XB1. Nevermind that at some other points in the city the XB1 drops actually more (pointing out to a lack of optimization). The unmissable sub text: Tech differences -unlike in the PS360 era- aren't that big of a deal, even if "technically" they are actually bigger.
Current week?
LBP3 was demolished in some medias (before day 1 patch) for bugs that were (mostly) solved day 1, while MCC (which is also buggy, and still is) enjoyed a far better reception before it.
6.8 from IGN?
For them BF4 was 8.5. What about Sim City (2013), borderline unplayable at release? 7.
Long story short: Can't really shake the feeling that some media outlets (it's expected from Xbox fans) would like to take Sony down a notch this Holiday.
Not putting it out as fact. It's all about the feels.
Eurogamer's Digital Foundry has had a very interesting way of reporting, particularly lately. Halo's problems were mostly brushed over, while they really reported a LOT it seemed on the AC:U "parity". For GTA V, same, they seem to want absolutely to have both versions to be mostly the same "overall".
One of the most damning comparison was COD: AW. There's no two way around it, read the text, in between lines, and the PS4 version is clearly vastly better.
But read sumaries/ conclusions? Not that big of a difference according to them.
Still about Eurogamer: Where is the PES 2015 comparison? Far Cry 4 is a comparison PS4 / PC, no mention of the XB1. No mention of the Dragon Age: Inquisition tech stuff either.
Instead of that, and while they missed the lack of vegetation detail / quality of shadows/ lighting the first time around, let's make sure to run an update that emphasizes that, in spite of the PS4 version advantages in GTA V, everyone should know that there are some intersections in town that sometime drop a little more fps on PS4 than XB1. Nevermind that at some other points in the city the XB1 drops actually more (pointing out to a lack of optimization). The unmissable sub text: Tech differences -unlike in the PS360 era- aren't that big of a deal, even if "technically" they are actually bigger.
Disappointed at a 4-5 hour campaign considering this is a £40+ game on PS4 in the UK. I've no interest in the level building side of LBP, so this quickly becomes a decent rental for me.
Quick question for someone not too familiar with the series. How kid friendly is it? And by that I don't mean content-wise, but rather can an 8 year old grasp the controls and reasonably play through at least some of the levels?
Disappointed at a 4-5 hour campaign considering this is a £40+ game on PS4 in the UK. I've no interest in the level building side of LBP, so this quickly becomes a decent rental for me.
Disappointed at a 4-5 hour campaign considering this is a £40+ game on PS4 in the UK. I've no interest in the level building side of LBP, so this quickly becomes a decent rental for me.