Support NeoGAF

[EmCeeGramr]

I'm somewhat conflicted about the situation, because on paper, yes, you review your own experience, you don't assume that the game will be better in a hypothetical future, and it'd be nice if Bethesda got a wakeup call about bugs.

That said, there's two things about the situation that bug me greatly:

1) As others have said, it highlights how useless numbers are as summarizing thoughts. It was difficult enough as it is, but 4 feels like an arbitrary thing. Stapleton said he wanted it to be a red flag, but how do you decide which number to use as a red flag? Why not a 0? Why not also an article titled "Don't Buy Prey, It's Broken?" (that would surely reach a lot of eyes fast) I get the idea: that Prey has worth but it falls below recommendation, but trying to sum up "this is a great game, except for this one thing that might be fixed which may or may not effect you at all" with a single integer is a futile task.

2) The more annoying aspect is that Stapleton knew that Arkane was working on a patch to be out in days' time. The day before the review and beta patch both went live, IGN themselves published an article saying that Arkane had told them they were aiming within the week, with more details promised for the next day. The next day, Arkane did as promised with the beta patch. I've seen conflicting reports on the exact time frames involved (I've seen "within minutes of each other," that the patch came out slightly after, that the patch came out a short while before, which would certainly change the situation a lot, etc.). Arkane put out the news themselves on Twitter, and their president Raphael Colantonio has personally been spending the last few days tweeting to people affected by bugs to tell them about patches or reassure them that fixes are coming for their problems. IGN had to seemingly be informed that the beta patch was live some time afterward it had already come out, and Stapleton's response was basically (and this is the core thing I find somewhat off) that he's heard companies say patches are going to come soon that don't, so essentially... he assumed that Arkane was lying. The next day I saw him telling someone on Twitter that the patch still wasn't live for everyone several hours after it had come out (and Arkane had once again publicly announced that on their Twitter feed) at which point the other person informed him.



I don't doubt that Dan was coming from a position of utmost sincerity of taking bugs to task, but seemingly not paying attention to whether the fixes are out or not while essentially saying that you outright disregarded the developer's word on fixes is obviously an ironic way for it to play out. It has to be extremely awkward to make a gamble that the developer and publisher are being dishonest with the timeframe, only to discover that they were actually ahead of schedule and your grand stand for consumers now looks like tilting at windmills.


There's also a bit of irony that if someone had disregarded Dan's warning and bought the game on PC at the exact moment the review hit, it would have been nearly impossible for them to have reached the bug in question anyway before the patch hit unless they were speedrunning it.

 

[Xe4]

I'm glad Dan updated the score. It takes a lot of guts to do that, and it's he came around. I wish it hadn't happened in the first place, but oh well.

I basically also agree with EmCee's take on the matter, above.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

Wired's UK review mirrors the US site: 6/10.

So why were we bored, or frustrated? Chiefly, because Prey feels like a mish-mash of other games, wearing its influence far too clearly on its sleeve. There are elements of Dead Space, BioShock, and even shades of Half-Life to be picked out here, plus Arkane's own Dishonored series. Its constituent ingredients may all work, but they don't coalesce in any way that makes Prey distinct from the games it's reading over the shoulders of.

So imagine 40+ hours of that – of thinking "oh, it's like that bit in Dead Space" or "Dishonored would have done this stealth bit better" or "didn't I have this power in BioShock?". Imagine thinking that while simultaneously being battered by the mercurial space-thing that used to be a desk lamp, and then being attacked by Talos I's gun turrets when you dare to use the game's most fun abilities. It's boring. It's frustrating.

Prey is neither more nor less than the sum of its parts – it's simply all those parts thrown together, to be easily picked apart by the player, while they quietly swear under their breath.

 

[Sini]

People really started to chafe against this in... I want to say it first started to become a discussion in 2012, when there was a review of Natural Selection 2 that had a handful of odd factual errors in it and got pulled for a new review, and Metacritic still listed the original.

It wasn't just factual errors, the reviewer hadn't actually played the game outside of running around empty map of team-based multiplayer game. Even the screenshots were awful - just walls or floors.

 

[Dantrist]

Metacritic should be updated so tentative reviews can be a thing.

IGN should not be blamed for scoring a game low when it's broken and then update the score when it's fixed. This seems entirely reasonable, and gives an incentive to devs to make the game as good as possible before release. Of course some bugs simply won't be discovered until later on, so they don't deserve the bad score forever, but I think it's fine to serve as a warning to early buyers.

 

[pa22word]

Wired's UK review mirrors the US site: 6/10.

Dishonored, Dead Space, Half-Life, and Bioshock....two games on that list at one point were tentatively titled System Shock 3, the other takes leaps and bounds from Looking Glass games. The comparison falls apart completely with Half-life. Like, wtf is he talking about? Half-life's main contribution to gaming is it's tightly scripted, linear format. Half-life was a reaction to games like DOOM and System Shock's openended, sprawling level design. This game is essentially the antithesis of that. If it's aping Alien's facehugger in the form of the mimic neither Half-Life nor Prey nor any of the probably hundreds of games out there that have done the same have any ownership over the idea of such an enemy.

Reviews like this are just so starkly ignorant I can't really do much but laugh at them. I wonder what the guys who designed Dead Space or Bioshock think about someone saying they're the foundations of this genre? Must be pretty amusing to see a System Shock successor be slammed for being too much like the games that without its influence laying the ground stones for them wouldn't even exist.

 

[More_Badass]

Wired's UK review mirrors the US site: 6/10.

Again, that whole "why give the player powers but then have turrets attack?" criticism. On one hand, I can get why one might find that frustrating, but on the other, the turrets clearly state they're scanning for Typhon material when you walk in front of them and thus if they do become hostile, now they're just another threat to deal with, through hacking, powers, EMPs, direct damage, or avoidance. I guess the issue is that since they're presented as helpful tools from the start, then perhaps them attacking you might feel like a loss of a weapon in your arsenal and you having less freedom now

 

[Sinatar]

The turret thing is such a non issue. 95% of the turrets you encounter are broken and need to be repaired before they can hurt you. You can hack them first and voila, friendly turrets.

 

[His Majesty]

Again, that whole "why give the player powers but then have turrets attack?" criticism. On one hand, I can get why one might find that frustrating, but on the other, the turrets clearly state they're scanning for Typhon material when you walk in front of them and thus if they do become hostile, now they're just another threat to deal with, through hacking, powers, EMPs, direct damage, or avoidance. I guess the issue is that since they're presented as helpful tools from the start, then perhaps them attacking you might feel like a loss of a weapon in your arsenal and you having less freedom now

Yeah. It's like people don't want any negative consequences for the choices they make. I'm just past the point where you start acquiring Typhon skills and both the pro's and cons are very clearly stated. It's up to you to decide whether you want to make use of them or not.

 

[Truant]

The turret thing is such a non issue. 95% of the turrets you encounter are broken and need to be repaired before they can hurt you. You can hack them first and voila, friendly turrets.

Even if it was, the Typhon powers are pretty OP and that should come at a price. This is literally the very concept that Bioshock was sold on, yet never executed on in neither gameplay nor story.

 

[Nere]

Maybe instead of blaming ign we should start blaming Bethesda a bit? I mean the company as a whole should really invest more in bug fixing. Skyrim, Fallout NV, Fallout 4, Dishonored 2, Prey all good games but filled with bugs or perfomance issues. A harsh review from a big review site might be enough to serve as a wake up call for Bethesda in general.

 

[pa22word]

Again, that whole "why give the player powers but then have turrets attack?" criticism. On one hand, I can get why one might find that frustrating, but on the other, the turrets clearly state they're scanning for Typhon material when you walk in front of them and thus if they do become hostile, now they're just another threat to deal with, through hacking, powers, EMPs, direct damage, or avoidance. I guess the issue is that since they're presented as helpful tools from the start, then perhaps them attacking you might feel like a loss of a weapon in your arsenal and you having less freedom now

Again: they don't want real agency and consequences, they want to be told their choices matter even if they don't and they want to have "fun". This is my biggest problem with press reviews. So very little of them take the time to think "why?", why did the designers make this choice, and how does it impact the games mechanics in context of the other mechanics? They don't see a careful balance of security, fireballs, and shootbang, they see "not fun" and don't bother thinking out the rest of it. If "notfun" then bad, regardless of that being completely meaningless barometer of anything because its immeasurable. This gives these reviewers cover for an otherwise totally surface level review because you can't attack how I feel, right?

 

[Rexatality]

I think it's fair to say a number of people want choices, but they don't want consequences.

Choices don't have meaning if they don't have consequences.

 

[His Majesty]

Maybe instead of blaming ign we should start blaming Bethesda a bit? I mean the company as a whole should really invest more in bug fixing. Skyrim, Fallout NV, Fallout 4, Dishonored 2, Prey all good games but filled with bugs or perfomance issues. A harsh review from a big review site might be enough to serve as a wake up call for Bethesda in general.

Really? I would praise Prey for both its performance and its lack of bugs. Solely based on my gameplay experience so far but still, it has been a very pleasant surprise.

 

[Nabs]

I'm somewhat conflicted about the situation, because on paper, yes, you review your own experience, you don't assume that the game will be better in a hypothetical future, and it'd be nice if Bethesda got a wakeup call about bugs.

That said, there's two things about the situation that bug me greatly:

1) As others have said, it highlights how useless numbers are as summarizing thoughts. It was difficult enough as it is, but 4 feels like an arbitrary thing. Stapleton said he wanted it to be a red flag, but how do you decide which number to use as a red flag? Why not a 0? Why not also an article titled "Don't Buy Prey, It's Broken?" (that would surely reach a lot of eyes fast) I get the idea: that Prey has worth but it falls below recommendation, but trying to sum up "this is a great game, except for this one thing that might be fixed which may or may not effect you at all" with a single integer is a futile task.

2) The more annoying aspect is that Stapleton knew that Arkane was working on a patch to be out in days' time. The day before the review and beta patch both went live, IGN themselves published an article saying that Arkane had told them they were aiming within the week, with more details promised for the next day. The next day, Arkane did as promised with the beta patch. I've seen conflicting reports on the exact time frames involved (I've seen "within minutes of each other," that the patch came out slightly after, that the patch came out a short while before, which would certainly change the situation a lot, etc.). Arkane put out the news themselves on Twitter, and their president Raphael Colantonio has personally been spending the last few days tweeting to people affected by bugs to tell them about patches or reassure them that fixes are coming for their problems. IGN had to seemingly be informed that the beta patch was live some time afterward it had already come out, and Stapleton's response was basically (and this is the core thing I find somewhat off) that he's heard companies say patches are going to come soon that don't, so essentially... he assumed that Arkane was lying. The next day I saw him telling someone on Twitter that the patch still wasn't live for everyone several hours after it had come out (and Arkane had once again publicly announced that on their Twitter feed) at which point the other person informed him.



I don't doubt that Dan was coming from a position of utmost sincerity of taking bugs to task, but seemingly not paying attention to whether the fixes are out or not while essentially saying that you outright disregarded the developer's word on fixes is obviously an ironic way for it to play out. It has to be extremely awkward to make a gamble that the developer and publisher are being dishonest with the timeframe, only to discover that they were actually ahead of schedule and your grand stand for consumers now looks like tilting at windmills.


There's also a bit of irony that if someone had disregarded Dan's warning and bought the game on PC at the exact moment the review hit, it would have been nearly impossible for them to have reached the bug in question anyway before the patch hit unless they were speedrunning it.

It seems that the IGN review went live around 8pm est (I even scrolled through pages of ign comments and hurt myself in the process), and the beta patch went live 2-3 hours before.

 

[nynt9]

I think it's fair to say a number of people want choices, but they don't want consequences.

Choices don't have meaning if they don't have consequences.

Wow, this is so true. In many choice-driven games, I've seen people complain about them when your choices have negative consequences. One of the most common ones I see is Dishonored's chaos system. The game reacts to you acting like a murderous psychopath terrorizing the city? And that reaction is that things go to shit? How dare Arkane do such a thing. It's not even really a bad ending, it makes total sense, but many people seem to take that so personally. They think of high/low chaos as evil/virtuous routes and the endings as bad/good endings, but that's just not the case. Some low chaos resolutions to missions are incredibly creepy and fucked up, and you'd be better off killing the person. It's just that leaving a trail of bodies destabilizes Dunwall. Those discussions really frustrate me, and I think it's because of what you said.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

Wired's UK review mirrors the US site: 6/10.

I ind reviews like that completely absurd, i feel like someone like that shouldn't be doing reviews in the first place. So what if it's influenced by other games? How does that have any bearing on if the game is fun in itself?

This part is the worst:

"oh, it's like that bit in Dead Space" or "Dishonored would have done this stealth bit better" or "didn't I have this power in BioShock?"

Games shouldn't be reviews in isolation but neither should that just be compared to other games. If it was a sequel then sure, take into account other games, but saying "It's boring because it isn't the best at everything it does" is just crazy. This isn't an outright horror game like Dead Space, it isn't an outright stealth-focused game like Dishonored, so of course it isn't going to do those things as good as those two games. His complaint seems like he's basically saying a game can't be considered good unless it's suddenly better at what it does than any other similar game, otherwise he'd think it's "boring" because other games do those aspects better.

He also seems to be entirely missing a very significant point with his comparison to Dishonored, Half Life, Bioshock and Dead Space..those are all which are games that go out of their way specifically to try to immersive the player in the environment and setting, at leats 2 of which are heavily influenced by System shock 1/2, something which he doesn't even acknowledge or even seem to realize exists as he makes no mention of that.

Not even putting into any thought into why those turrets might attack the player for using those alien powers and complaining about how he just wants "fun" with no consequence in an immersive rpg really shows they have no idea what they're talking about. The powers are like that for balance and immersion reasons, it's something that should be pretty obvious.

 

[benzopil]

Hardcore Gamer -- 3.5/5

Overall, Prey is a fun game with its highlights rooted in beautiful yet creepy levels that contain a lot to explore, but its lack of originality sadly holds it back quite a bit. It’s a classic case of “jack of all trades, master of none,” except with a couple of flaws in some of its trades as well. It’s a lengthy beast that still provides a lot to check out and has a generous amount of well-crafted action, so Prey still may be worth checking out for some, but it’s one of the lesser works from an otherwise amazing developer and publisher. Maybe it would have done better if it had a few anus portals like in the original game as well. At least those were memorable…

PS Site -- 8.5/10 (Polish)

It's no Half-Life 2 of current gen, but deep, demanding and exploration-rewarding gameplay with mind-twisting story makes unforgettable experience.

IBTimes UK -- 4/5

Prey's greatest success is its approach to choice and exploration. For players looking for a direct and focused single player shooter experience, this will undoubtedly disappoint and perhaps even frustrate, but for players looking for a smart and immersive world rife with intrigue and tension, Prey is a quality companion for some true classics.

 

[His Majesty]

Where are all these immersive sims I have missed this last decade that make Prey such an unoriginal game?

 

[Lionel Richie]

People need to spend more time playing games and less time worrying about review scores.

I very much agree with this, but I also think we need to hold videogames journalism to higher standards. The reaction to the thing was awkward as fuck, but the thing shouldn't have happened in the first place.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

Where are all these immersive sims I have missed this last decade that make Prey such an unoriginal game?

It seems the reviews saying "It's unoriginal!" aren't talking about the fact that it's an immersive sim, they're just comparing individual aspects to other games that have something even slightly similar...which seems to miss the point. I doubt they've even heard of the term "immersive sim", the way they talk about Prey and those other games like Bioshock or Dishonored 2 suggests they don't think they're fundamentally that different from a typical FPS in terms of mechanics and what they set out to do.

 

[CollectedDust]

I found it odd that IGN updated the score to an 8 on all platforms, not just pc.

I still can't finish the x1 version due to a game breaking bug (see OT for details). Based on their logic, the x1 version should still be a 4 until it's patched.

 

[big fake]

It seems the reviews saying "It's unoriginal!" aren't talking about the fact that it's an immersive sim, they're just comparing individual aspects to other games that have something even slightly similar...which seems to miss the point. I doubt they've even heard of the term "immersive sim", the way they talk about Prey and those other games like Bioshock or Dishonored 2 suggests they don't think they're fundamentally that different from a typical FPS in terms of mechanics and what they set out to do.

It always seems reviewers come in with a state of mind on what they think the game will shape up to be, positive or negative. It ends in the score being skewed by that POV heavily. That's why people should review the game on what it is not on what they wanted it to be and quit soley comparing it to others. All I hear from others who are really enjoying it is of what it does new on its own and that's something I don't see in most of the reviews coming out, especially the ones with the "does nothing new/is Bioshock clone* negative reviews.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Speaking as someone who has been writing reviews for close to a decade:

Comparison reviews only work when the games are either direct sequels or clones.
Otherwise they tend to come off as intellectually bankrupt.

If the reviewer isn't capable of judging a game solely on its own merits, then they should probably quit playing new games altogether. It's obvious that they'll never find one that compares to their favorites.

 

[General Lee]

It seems the reviews saying "It's unoriginal!" aren't talking about the fact that it's an immersive sim, they're just comparing individual aspects to other games that have something even slightly similar...which seems to miss the point. I doubt they've even heard of the term "immersive sim", the way they talk about Prey and those other games like Bioshock or Dishonored 2 suggests they don't think they're fundamentally that different from a typical FPS in terms of mechanics and what they set out to do.

To be honest, I'm kinda agreeing that Prey was somewhat slavishly following the immersive sim formula and didn't really bring much new innovation to the genre. It's just a modern version of System Shock, without really having legs of its own. Immersive sims were groundbreaking back in the day, but today retreading that same concept is no longer enough. It's still a good game and there's fun to be had, but it doesn't live up to its industry inspiring predecessors by pushing gaming forward in any way. A lot of the ideas you see in Prey have been adopted by other genres at this point, so it just doesn't impress people anymore. Arkane and other LG offspring devs need to push the genre forward with bigger steps if they want to gain that critical acclaim the original immersive sims gained. If they can't, even a solid game like Prey won't ever hit 90+ on Metacritic.

 

[Wanderer5]

Easy Allies review - 4/5

 

[More_Badass]

To be honest, I'm kinda agreeing that Prey was somewhat slavishly following the immersive sim formula and didn't really bring much new innovation to the genre. It's just a modern version of System Shock, without really having legs of its own. Immersive sims were groundbreaking back in the day, but today retreading that same concept is no longer enough. It's still a good game and there's fun to be had, but it doesn't live up to its industry inspiring predecessors by pushing gaming forward in any way. A lot of the ideas you see in Prey have been adopted by other genres at this point, so it just doesn't impress people anymore. Arkane and other LG offspring devs need to push the genre forward with bigger steps if they want to gain that critical acclaim the original immersive sims gained. If they can't, even a solid game like Prey won't ever hit 90+ on Metacritic.

I think, like the Souls game, not many games are really doing what immersive sims do, especially in the AAA space. Saying a lot of genres have adopted elements is like saying a lot of games have RPG elements. But those games with RPG elements are not on the level of say Age of Decadence, Divinity, or Pillars, in the same way Demons' Souls stood out among games

And I think that the notion of "pushing the industry forward" being the key is a bit off. You don't have to be revolutionary to be masterfully executed.

 

[Human Trashcan]

<snip> good post

This is all right on the money and I have nothing really to add. This was just the perfect illustration of how arbitrary and useless review scores are on their own, especially when it comes to a game that is basically broken but otherwise excellent. Coupled with a reviewer who seemingly had an axe to grind with Bethesda's policies and against broken games, but choosing possibly the worst venue to make that stand. A perfect storm of shit.

Kudos on him for changing it I guess, but boy, it sure is hard to take him seriously after this (I wasn't really aware of him before because I don't frequent IGN)

 

[Bloodporne]

Cool to see that IGN revised their score after the patch hit.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

Cool to see that IGN revised their score after the patch hit.

Obviously it's better to have them change it rather than leave it like that permanently, but the damage is already done. It's a situation that shouldn't have even occurred in the first place if they maintained any sort of integrity in this case and cared about something other than getting it out as fast as they could, or this stuff about "sending a message" I've seen mentioned.

I don't think they should be actually praised for changing it. That should be the minimum expected to try to make up for this situation, really. This isn't just about the score they gave the game but what it shows about their (or at least, this reviewers) whole attitude towards it. It's not so much a case of "The gave a game a score i don't like, how dare they!" but more how they purposefully didn't wait for the new patch (although I've seen mentions that it was already out) and how one rare bug affected the score so much. Was there even anything to indicate he tried it on a different computer rather than just trying a different save file that he was given?

 

[Gator86]

Where are all these immersive sims I have missed this last decade that make Prey such an unoriginal game?

I want to live in a world where so many immersive sims come out the genre is staid and oversaturated.

 

[The_Spaniard]

Metacritic has had a policy since 2003 (in the age when things like the Shenmue GameSpot review were still in recent memory) where they don't change video game scores with the intent of protecting reviewer's work by preventing companies from pressuring reviewers into changing scores.

People really started to chafe against this in... I want to say it first started to become a discussion in 2012, when there was a review of Natural Selection 2 that had a handful of odd factual errors in it and got pulled for a new review, and Metacritic still listed the original. Then when websites started doing rereviews/changing scores in the case of things like SimCity and following the aftermath of Master Chief Collection, Metacritic still didn't budge, which is why sites like IGN now do "reviews in progress" including that one Battleborn review where they even had a score but had to specify "that's what I'd give it now, but it's not my official score," just so Metacritic wouldn't lock it in forever.




edit: Also, please try to be mature, people. I think this entire thing has been handled... awkwardly, given the circumstances, but the childish name calling is beyond the pale.

In principle the policy is a good one, but it falls apart in the rare instance that a reviewer gets caught with their pants down, reviewing a game they haven't even played/finished, and the website has to post a retraction/re-review. In that way their all or nothing, score can never be changed for ANY reason, stance doesn't work. In those admittedly rare instances it really sucks for the dev/pubs to have to see a bad faith non-review permanently affixed to their game's MC ranking, even after their game is more accurately re-reviewed. With that in mind the policy should be, "Once a final review score is posted it is permanently reflected on MC, unless..." and then have a few logical provisions, like the example given.

 

[Bloodporne]

Obviously it's better to have them change it rather than leave it like that permanently, but the damage is already done. It's a situation that shouldn't have even occurred in the first place if they maintained any sort of integrity in this case and cared about something other than getting it out as fast as they could, or this stuff about "sending a message" I've seen mentioned.

I don't think they should be actually praised for changing it. That should be the minimum expected to try to make up for this situation, really. This isn't just about the score they gave the game but what it shows about their (or at least, this reviewers) whole attitude towards it. It's not so much a case of "The gave a game a score i don't like, how dare they!" but more how they purposefully didn't wait for the new patch (although I've seen mentions that it was already out) and how one rare bug affected the score so much. Was there even anything to indicate he tried it on a different computer rather than just trying a different save file that he was given?

I don't disagree with you but felt like making the comment on my end for balance's sake since I had made a post or two in here pointing out what I felt was bullshit about it earlier. I'm certainly not praising them by saying 'cool they did it' but more just acknowledging it actually despite how I phrased it. For me as someone who didn't have feelings towards IGN either way, the damage is done, I think it's idiotic that it happened in the first place. However, they could've just said fuck it and left the game stuck at a crushingly shit 4/10 because it'd be blowing over rather quickly anyway.

 

[phant0m]

This game is so strange. Seems to be connecting a lot better with gamers than the press, I wonder why?

I mean, say what you will about Steam reviews, but 89% positive on 2700 user reviews is pretty damn good. And a lot of those reviews call it a GOTY contender to boot.

 

[CaptainSmirnov]

This game is so strange. Seems to be connecting a lot better with gamers than the press, I wonder why?

I mean, say what you will about Steam reviews, but 89% positive on 2700 user reviews is pretty damn good. And a lot of those reviews call it a GOTY contender to boot.

I'm often finding steam reviews to be accurate of my score of a game &#129300;

 

[Sumio Mondo]

This game is so strange. Seems to be connecting a lot better with gamers than the press, I wonder why?

I mean, say what you will about Steam reviews, but 89% positive on 2700 user reviews is pretty damn good. And a lot of those reviews call it a GOTY contender to boot.

It's what we call a "cult" game. Immersive sim games, over the years, have more or less been very hit or miss with the gaming press.

 

[His Majesty]

This game is so strange. Seems to be connecting a lot better with gamers than the press, I wonder why?

I mean, say what you will about Steam reviews, but 89% positive on 2700 user reviews is pretty damn good. And a lot of those reviews call it a GOTY contender to boot.

Even the rpgcodex is very positive about the game that should tell you enough of its quality.

So far my GOTY 2017.

 

[Dmax3901]

Here's mine.

I took my time with it. Couldn't believe how fast reviews started coming out, especially after I spent 20 something hours on Talos 1. Let me know what you all think.

 

[Bydobob]

Here's mine.

I took my time with it. Couldn't believe how fast reviews started coming out, especially after I spent 20 something hours on Talos 1. Let me know what you all think.

You nail my biggest complaint about the game: uninspired, repetitive locations make exploration less interesting than it should be. I feel this is the game's biggest downfall. Graphically it looks a bit flat too, with lighting a generation behind the likes of Alien Isolation and Doom. This could have done a lot to the atmosphere, which never quite generates as much tension as you hope.

Props for mentioning the sound design and Sunshine - a vastly underrated film in my view!

 

[BeeDog]

You nail my biggest complaint about the game: uninspired, repetitive locations make exploration less interesting than it should be. I feel this is the game's biggest downfall. Graphically it looks a bit flat too, with lighting a generation behind the likes of Alien Isolation and Doom. This could have done a lot to the atmosphere, which never quite generates as much tension as you hope.

Props for mentioning the sound design and Sunshine - a vastly underrated film in my view!

Couldn't disagree more. The level design and the interconnected world of Prey is by far its biggest strength, and provides some of the best level design in a very long time. Each section/floor of the ship is unique and serves a purpose, both gameplay-wise and story-wise.

 

[ZoddGutts]

It's what we call a "cult" game. Immersive sim games, over the years, have more or less been very hit or miss with the gaming press.

Definitely has cult status feel to it, it's better than what gaming press are giving it. Game feels like a more true successor to System Shock than any of the Bioshock games ever were. Prefer this game over Bioshock and Dishonored, both games which I really liked. Hopefully it does well enough that we get a sequel, it might not do crazy sale numbers but hoping it at least becomes a sleeper hit.

 

[Bydobob]

Couldn't disagree more. The level design and the interconnected world of Prey is by far its biggest strength, and provides some of the best level design in a very long time. Each section/floor of the ship is unique and serves a purpose, both gameplay-wise and story-wise.

Don't confuse visual design with architectural design. I agree there's a lot to like about the level layouts themselves.

You should play Dishonored 2 though if you want reference quality level design. That wasn't such a long time ago!

 

[Dmax3901]

You nail my biggest complaint about the game: uninspired, repetitive locations make exploration less interesting than it should be. I feel this is the game's biggest downfall. Graphically it looks a bit flat too, with lighting a generation behind the likes of Alien Isolation and Doom. This could have done a lot to the atmosphere, which never quite generates as much tension as you hope.

Props for mentioning the sound design and Sunshine - a vastly underrated film in my view!

Appreciate the feedback! I loved the performance, but agree that Prey is nothing all that special visually.

Couldn't disagree more. The level design and the interconnected world of Prey is by far its biggest strength, and provides some of the best level design in a very long time. Each section/floor of the ship is unique and serves a purpose, both gameplay-wise and story-wise.

I feel the purpose these areas serve is kinda arbitrary though, especially storywise. You're only in a new place cause you need to fix something or retrieve a key card that just happens to be there. But I suppose this stuff is more suited to the OT.

 

[benzopil]

Jim Sterling -- 5/10

 

[haveheart]

Here's Destructoid's review: https://www.destructoid.com/review-prey-435993.phtml

Spoiler

8

 

[Shari]

Jim Sterling -- 5/10

Oh Jim. I was sure I made the right decision when I stopped following you after the zelda "everybody look at me" review. Confirmation has arrived earlier than expected.

 

[grandwizard]

I finished this recently and am really surprised by the scores and general consensus of the critics on this one. For me it's probably the best immersive sim of the modern era. Better than Deus Ex Human Revolution, much better than Mankind Divided, and my favorites Dishonored 1/2 I'd put right alongside it just for their amazing level design but they don't have the awesome interconnected world of Prey.

I do think critics usually playing on console might have hurt it's reception with the input lag on PS4 and in general the combat seems to be made for a mouse. Arkane weren't BSing about them developing for PC first when they talked about this game. The way mimics jump around you and some phantoms warp around was definitely not made with dual analog in mind.

 

[GrayFoxRJ]

Does the PS4 v still have input lag? Couldn't find this info anywhere