We have very different definitions of paragraphs evidently.Lol, the Washington Post gave it 6/10 and did not once mention combat, narrative, gameplay, or anything of substance. It's two paragraphs bitching about the car and Cindy.
Take a look. How is this acceptable? Same for Time and they have it at 9/10. It's just as vapid. How is metacritic accepting this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ration-of-a-road-trip/?utm_term=.59de32b35029
This.We have very different definitions of paragraphs evidently.
wow its all Metal Gear Solid now :-O
Lol, the Washington Post gave it 6/10 and did not once mention combat, narrative, gameplay, or anything of substance. It's two paragraphs bitching about the car and Cindy.
Take a look. How is this acceptable? Same for Time and they have it at 9/10. It's just as vapid. How is metacritic accepting this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ration-of-a-road-trip/?utm_term=.59de32b35029
Lol, the Washington Post gave it 6/10 and did not once mention combat, narrative, gameplay, or anything of substance. It's two paragraphs bitching about the car and Cindy.
Take a look. How is this acceptable? Same for Time and they have it at 9/10. It's just as vapid. How is metacritic accepting this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ration-of-a-road-trip/?utm_term=.59de32b35029
The review literally has only two sentences about Cindy.Lol, the Washington Post gave it 6/10 and did not once mention combat, narrative, gameplay, or anything of substance. It's two paragraphs bitching about the car and Cindy.
Take a look. How is this acceptable? Same for Time and they have it at 9/10. It's just as vapid. How is metacritic accepting this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ration-of-a-road-trip/?utm_term=.59de32b35029
It's certainly a thoughtful and unusual review, but yeah, all of that stuff is "substantive" and ultimately talking about "gameplay" and "narrative."Review has a well written lengthy exegesis on the mood, the theme of travel and how it relates to the author's own experiences, the sense of worldbuilding, the quest design, and the odd east-meets-west design manifest in the world itself...
... response is to whine it's not a normal gamer review and the score is too low.
Nah. The only good thing is MGS5 was the gameplay.
MGSV story > FFXV story
MGSV story sucking is just a meme. It was actually pretty decent, just left up in the air which a lot of people can't deal with.
The review literally has only two sentences about Cindy.
Even more importantly, an analysis about how the car informs the progression of the game is to tantamount to talking about the "gameplay." It's an inextricable cornerstone of the game.
I guess we shouldn't expect more from a "hardcore gamer" with an insular and narrow-minded view like this:
The review literally has only two sentences about Cindy.
Even more importantly, an analysis about how the car informs the progression of the game is to tantamount to talking about the "gameplay." It's an inextricable cornerstone of the game.
I guess we shouldn't expect more from a "hardcore gamer" with an insular and narrow-minded view like this:
Don't ever try reading a Kill Screen review. It'll probably explode your poor little head.
I like how The Last Guardian and FFXV are always tied together.
It's not necessary to point out when people have a regressively insular view of the gaming industry and critique?I don't know if all that was necessary, dude.
It's not necessary to point out when people have a regressively insular view of the gaming industry and critique?
And when they lack basic reading comprehension of and appreciation for thematic and game design critique?
Nah, I think it's perfectly necessary.
Review has a well written lengthy exegesis on the mood, the theme of travel and how it relates to the author's own experiences, the sense of worldbuilding, the quest design, and the odd east-meets-west design manifest in the world itself...
... response is to whine it's not a normal gamer review and the score is too low.
The "personal attack" is evidently true given how you talked about that Washington Post review.That's cool, man. It's perfectly reasonable to stoop to personal attacks, right? So edgy and full of 'tude, brah. You sure showed me.
I don't even agree with his conclusion but that review, like most everything Matt Peckham write, is perfectly substantive.Huh, you must have missed the part where I mentioned Times 9/10 review.
The "personal attack" is evidently true given how you talked about that Washington Post review.
So yeah? I guess it's reasonable to attack an unreasonable character.
I don't even agree with his conclusion but that review, like most everything Matt Peckham write, is perfectly substantive.
Ok, lets see.
MGSV had the weakest villain in the series. It had no boss battles, which are a staple of the series. The game also felt unfinished. It had 'open world' but it was so bland and boring that nothing happened in it. A lot of the missions were set in the same location. Vehicle driving was total shit and didn't serve any purpose. Presentation was shit. Travelling to any location required long boring ride in a helicopter.
Calling MGSV having 'masterful Stealth' is laughable when it was so easy to cheese the game's AI that Stealth became non-essential. I easily managed to exploit the AI to finish some of the difficult missions and unless you were going for the S ranking, which was useless, you could have easily played the game without bothering with Stealth.
MGS 4 was more of a MGS game than MGSV. It had the boss battles, story elements, even if it lacked a proper cohesive world liked MGS3. It did stick a little closer to the series' roots.
If I had to compare both games, I'd say that MGS4 is closer in term of series to FFXV. Both have flaws but both still build a solid foundation for the series going forward.
MGSV doesn't deserve its 93 score, should have received 80-85. But the game being the last Kojima MGS game, reviewers ignoring the important and repetitive second half, made the game get very high scores.
Ok, lets see.
MGSV had the weakest villain in the series. It had no boss battles, which are a staple of the series. The game also felt unfinished. It had 'open world' but it was so bland and boring that nothing happened in it. A lot of the missions were set in the same location. Vehicle driving was total shit and didn't serve any purpose. Presentation was shit. Travelling to any location required long boring ride in a helicopter.
Calling MGSV having 'masterful Stealth' is laughable when it was so easy to cheese the game's AI that Stealth became non-essential. I easily managed to exploit the AI to finish some of the difficult missions and unless you were going for the S ranking, which was useless, you could have easily played the game without bothering with Stealth.
MGS 4 was more of a MGS game than MGSV. It had the boss battles, story elements, even if it lacked a proper cohesive world liked MGS3. It did stick a little closer to the series' roots.
If I had to compare both games, I'd say that MGS4 is closer in term of series to FFXV. Both have flaws but both still build a solid foundation for the series going forward.
MGSV doesn't deserve its 93 score, should have received 80-85. But the game being the last Kojima MGS game, reviewers ignoring the important and repetitive second half, made the game get very high scores.
MGSV is one of the very few games that does open world design right. The open world is nothing but a backdrop. You're not actually supposed to go into it other than for extended chase sequences now and then. The promise of open world games is that "you can go all the way over there!", but they never answer "but why would you want to?" MGSV actually answers this question, and gives the correct answer. You wouldn't. It's just an interactive background. Go ahead and focus on small scale infiltration. I love that.
I will say that part of MGSV's greatness requires placing limitations on yourself, which is something I generally don't like in games. I never ran into a base with bazookas. I always entered with the mindset of wanting to outsmart the opponent. When you buy into that approach the game is absolutely divine. It may be one of the top 5 or so ever in terms of raw gameplay. I definitely understand not getting into a game when you're always aware of the fact that easy mode is available to you though (playing a Nintendo sidescroller, dying several times, and then getting the easy mode option available cheapens the game even when I continue trying to beat it normally), and a game saying "Just do whatever you want!" generally irritates me to no end.
I've mentioned before and I will maintain that "It's not a good MGS game" is not a valid criticism. Every game deserves to be judged on its own terms. MGSV doesn't have great boss battles, but I don't judge it on its boss battles. I judge it on what it chooses to focus on, which for the most part is great.
Oops, didn't realize I was in the MGSV review thread. Don't mind me.
Ok, lets see.
MGSV had the weakest villain in the series. It had no boss battles, which are a staple of the series. The game also felt unfinished. It had 'open world' but it was so bland and boring that nothing happened in it. A lot of the missions were set in the same location. Vehicle driving was total shit and didn't serve any purpose. Presentation was shit. Travelling to any location required long boring ride in a helicopter.
Calling MGSV having 'masterful Stealth' is laughable when it was so easy to cheese the game's AI that Stealth became non-essential. I easily managed to exploit the AI to finish some of the difficult missions and unless you were going for the S ranking, which was useless, you could have easily played the game without bothering with Stealth.
MGS 4 was more of a MGS game than MGSV. It had the boss battles, story elements, even if it lacked a proper cohesive world liked MGS3. It did stick a little closer to the series' roots.
If I had to compare both games, I'd say that MGS4 is closer in term of series to FFXV. Both have flaws but both still build a solid foundation for the series going forward.
MGSV doesn't deserve its 93 score, should have received 80-85. But the game being the last Kojima MGS game, reviewers ignoring the important and repetitive second half, made the game get very high scores.
The rumor about FFXV getting the famous Famitsu's 40/40 is debunked : it "only" got 38/40
https://twitter.com/bk2128/status/808677578798043136
Final Fantasy I - 35
Final Fantasy II - 35
Final Fantasy III - 36
Final Fantasy Ⅳ - 36
Final Fantasy V - 34
Final Fantasy VI - 37
Final Fantasy VII - 38
Final Fantasy VIII - 37
Final Fantasy IX - 38
Final Fantasy X - 39
Final Fantasy XI - 38
Final Fantasy XII- 40
Final Fantasy XIII - 39
What a disappointment.FF13 better confirmed, thanks Famitsu
Final Fantasy XIII - 39
What a disappointment.
Selling my deluxe and day one edition.
MGSV is one of the very few games that does open world design right. The open world is nothing but a backdrop. You're not actually supposed to go into it other than for extended chase sequences now and then. The promise of open world games is that "you can go all the way over there!", but they never answer "but why would you want to?" MGSV actually answers this question, and gives the correct answer. You wouldn't. It's just an interactive background. Go ahead and focus on small scale infiltration. I love that.
The rumor about FFXV getting the famous Famitsu's 40/40 is debunked : it "only" got 38/40
https://twitter.com/bk2128/status/808677578798043136
FFXV's story even with its narrative issues runs circles around MGSV's but then again many things do. Even if I didn't like FFXV's story I would argue that the emotional aspects, the bond between the characters gave me a lot more to care about. The payoff in FFXV was resounding. It had a good villain with a strong personal attachment to the protagonist. It has a good ending and palpable conflict. It goes on. The areas in which XV is better in its story are virtually endless.
Ok, lets see.
FFXV had the weakest villain in the series. he had a pushover battle followed by QTEs. The game also felt unfinished. It had 'open world' but it was so bland and boring that nothing happened in it. A lot of the missions were horrid MMO style fetch quests, find X in a circle, or kill X mobs in a circle. Vehicle driving was total shit and didn't serve any purpose. Presentation was shit. Travelling to any location required a very long boring ride in a car until you get fast travel unlocked.
Calling FFXV having 'masterful combat' is laughable when it was so easy to cheese the game's AI that strategy became non-essential. I easily managed to exploit the AI to finish some of the difficult fights by activating one of 10 different options that cause invulnerability.
FFXIII was more of a FF game than FFXV. It had the boss battles, story elements, even if it lacked a proper cohesive world liked FFX. It did stick a little closer to the series' roots.
Ok, lets see.
FFXV had the weakest villain in the series. he had a pushover battle followed by QTEs. The game also felt unfinished. It had 'open world' but it was so bland and boring that nothing happened in it. A lot of the missions were horrid MMO style fetch quests, find X in a circle, or kill X mobs in a circle. Vehicle driving was total shit and didn't serve any purpose. Presentation was shit. Travelling to any location required a very long boring ride in a car until you get fast travel unlocked.
Calling FFXV having 'masterful combat' is laughable when it was so easy to cheese the game's AI that strategy became non-essential. I easily managed to exploit the AI to finish some of the difficult fights by activating one of 10 different options that cause invulnerability.
FFXIII was more of a FF game than FFXV. It had the boss battles, story elements, even if it lacked a proper cohesive world liked FFX. It did stick a little closer to the series' roots.
XV's villain was amazing, easily my favorite since Sephiroth/Kefka.
It's a bit pointless to rate a Final Fantasy game's combat by stating how easy it is to cheese it, especially if FFX and XIII are your examples of a better game
XIII sticking to series roots is an....interesting opinion, but it's yours to have lol
FF13 better confirmed, thanks Famitsu
Final Fantasy XIII - 39
You clearly have bad taste since The villain is among the best if not the best in the entire series.Ok, lets see.
FFXV had the weakest villain in the series. he had a pushover battle followed by QTEs. The game also felt unfinished. It had 'open world' but it was so bland and boring that nothing happened in it. A lot of the missions were horrid MMO style fetch quests, find X in a circle, or kill X mobs in a circle. Vehicle driving was total shit and didn't serve any purpose. Presentation was shit. Travelling to any location required a very long boring ride in a car until you get fast travel unlocked.
Calling FFXV having 'masterful combat' is laughable when it was so easy to cheese the game's AI that strategy became non-essential. I easily managed to exploit the AI to finish some of the difficult fights by activating one of 10 different options that cause invulnerability.
FFXIII was more of a FF game than FFXV. It had the boss battles, story elements, even if it lacked a proper cohesive world liked FFX. It did stick a little closer to the series' roots.