Support NeoGAF

[TheIconizer]

I don't know what should I expect from this game. I have read a couple articles and reviews and seen the first 30-40 minutes. I like it, but I can't figure out where to put this game. To me it's like a combo of Mirror's Edge and Dead Island. I liked both. The release is still a bit further away me being in Europe and all. I've read a couple 8-9/10 reviews but I've also seen worse.

 

[toddhunter]

Information? It's unfounded speculation - which he admits!

That doesn't belong in reviews.

It provides me with a lot of information in a very compact form. The bit about Warner Brothers may or may not be true, but what is important is the end result and that seems pretty clear.

 

[GHG]

From Jim Sterling's review:



That right there is all I need to hear about this review. It is exactly the kind of information I want to know right before I buy the game and this criticism here clearly points out to all the red flag concerns I had for this game. So far, no other review or impression has even contested these criticisms solidifying the fact that it is an integral criticism to this game.

Its not a fact.

And how does this kind of information influence whether you buy a game or not? If a game is good, then its good. A publisher's involvement (regardless of whether its for better or worse) influence your decision on whether or not to buy a game. If you do this you are basing a decision on politics rather than whether a product is good or not (or even, whether that product is actually aligned to your tastes).

The things he's mentioning shave no place in a review. He should review a product for what it is, not for "what it could have been" or what he "wishes it was".

It provides me with a lot of information in a very compact form. The bit about Warner Brothers may or may not be true, but what is important is the end result and that seems pretty clear.

Its not "information". Its speculation. Information needs to be based on fact.

 

[Metal B]

The sentence with the part coloured in red. The part underlined before it also, if I'm honest.

You mean the part, where he mention it is speculation, since he can't understand, why there is such a big different between the end product and an older version, which he played? Can you please point out the problem here?

Its not a fact.

And how does this kind of information influence whether you buy a game or not? If a game is good, then its good. A publisher's involvement (regardless of whether its for better or worse) influence your decision on whether or not to buy a game. If you do this you are basing a decision on politics rather than whether a product is good or not (or even, whether that product is actually aligned to your tastes).

The things he's mentioning shave no place in a review. He should review a product for what it is, not for "what it could have been" or what he "wishes it was".

One sentence of fair comparison doesn't undo all the other point of his review. It is clear for me, that some here people didn't wrote an "conclusion"-part of a research paper in there life.

 

[nOoblet16]

Asking for complete originality is nuts and it seems to be awfully dependent on the reviewer from a case by case basis.

Destiny for example is just like Borderlands, but that was not what the reviewers and people complained about. In fact they praised the core gameplay. Dying Light does a LOT of things that none of those games it borrows from does it all. Show me one open world zombie game with parkour, asymmetric multiplayer, invasions...there are none. Hell show me one open world first person parkour game. There...that's the only game in market that does that.

It's funny to say that a Techland game has conformed to the homogeneous AAA standards, when this is pretty much the Dead Island + Mirror's Edge with higher production values.

 

[Klyka]

I'm pretty weirded out that a game with such a simple premise and such straightforward gameplay is making people so torn about it.

Like, the game is pretty damn open about what exactly you will be doing and what exactly it is. I feel even watching 10 minutes of it will tell you "Yes I would enjoy this" or "Nope,not for me".

 

[TheIconizer]

Asking for complete originality is nuts and it seems to be awfully dependent on the reviewer from a case by case basis.

Destiny for example is just like Borderlands, but that was not what the reviewers and people complained about. In fact they praised the core gameplay. Dying Light does a LOT of things that none of those games it borrows from does it all. Show me one open world zombie game with parkour, asymmetric multiplayer, invasions...there are none. Hell show me one open world first person parkour game. There...that's the only game in market that does that.

It's funny to say that a Techland game has conformed to the homogeneous AAA standards, when this is pretty much the Dead Island + Mirror's Edge with higher production values.

Originality is overrated now days. It can be done, but it's really hard as a lot of ideas were already used in the past 20+ years. There are remakes that seem original to some people, but others remember their first SNES version. Originality shouldn't influence the overall rating of a game in 2015, but this is just my opinion.

 

[TheIconizer]

I'm pretty weirded out that a game with such a simple premise and such straightforward gameplay is making people so torn about it.

Like, the game is pretty damn open about what exactly you will be doing and what exactly it is. I feel even watching 10 minutes of it will tell you "Yes I would enjoy this" or "Nope,not for me".

I still don't if I can enjoy it for many many hours which I would call enough. I usually have this problem with open world games for years now. I just can't seem to finish them or I get bored. Hopefully it won't be the case with this one. What do you mean torn about it?

 

[Metal B]

Originality is overrated now days. It can be done, but it's really hard as a lot of ideas were already used in the past 20+ years. There are remakes that seem original to some people, but others remember their first SNES version. Originality shouldn't influence the overall rating of a game in 2015, but this is just my opinion.

Like you said between the SNES era and now, there are 20+ years. So yes, those ideas by now feel original again. If you don't have original ideas, you should at least make them feel original. But using the ideas of products of the same year and don't make them feel original, than you have an unoriginal product in your hands.

 

[Klyka]

I still don't if I can enjoy it for many many hours which I would call enough. I usually have this problem with open world games for years now. I just can't seem to finish them or I get bored. Hopefully it won't be the case with this one. What do you mean torn about it?

Just that I read a lot of comments from people saying "I don't know about this game, I can't tell what it's like" or "Will I really enjoy this? is this any good? it looks ok!"

Maybe "torn" was the wrong word, sorry, not native speaker

 

[toddhunter]

The things he's mentioning shave no place in a review. He should review a product for what it is, not for "what it could have been" or what he "wishes it was".

I disagree.

Not so much with what you said, but what he wrote because he seems to be describing exactly what the game is. The point of contention is how the game got to that point, but does it matter?

Homogenized AAA is how he describes it and that is very telling information. It might have been Warner Bros or it might have been a plague of radioactive monkeys coming in at night. Either way it still results in a game I don't want to buy and I now know exactly why.

 

[GHG]

I disagree.

Not so much with what you said, but what he wrote because he seems to be describing exactly what the game is. The point of contention is how the game got to that point, but does it matter?

Homogenized AAA is how he describes it and that is very telling information. It might have been Warner Bros or it might have been a plague of radioactive monkeys coming in at night. Either way it still results in a game I don't want to buy and I now know exactly why.

The point here is that if he wants to call it homogenized AAA then that is fine if that's how he feels having played the game. I disagree with him but we are all allowed to have opinions.

The issue is not what he is calling it but it is how. He is using speculation in an attempted to back up his opinion as if it is a fact. That has no place in a "professional" review.

Saying the game does nothing new or unique is also factually incorrect.

 

[nOoblet16]

Like you said between the SNES era and now, there are 20+ years. So yes, those ideas by now feel original again. If you don't have original ideas, you should at least make them feel original. But using the ideas of products of the same year and don't make them feel original, than you have an unoriginal product in your hands.

Mirror's Edge came out 6.5 years ago though, and very few zombie games (much less open world) are actually based on survival. Dead Rising for example is an open world zombie game but there is no survival aspect and you'd have killed thousands of zombies by the end of the game. I can't think of many such games except DayZ and Techland's own Dead Island.

 

[Brutalitops]

For all the shit IGN gets (often rightfully so), I really do like their "reviews in progress" approach to games rather than rushing a score without the time to review it.

 

[c0Zm1c]

You mean the part, where he mention it is speculation, since he can't understand, why there is such a big different between the end product and an older version, which he played? Can you please point out the problem here?

There could be any number of reasons why the two versions are different - some much less cynical than the one presented here. So why bother speculating about the development process at all?

 

[toddhunter]

The point here is that if he wants to call it homogenized AAA then that is fine if that's how he feels having played the game. I disagree with him but we are all allowed to have opinions.

The issue is not what he is calling it but it is how. He is using speculation in an attempted to back up his opinion as if it is a fact. That has no place in a "professional" review.

What does a professional review even mean?

It is a guy telling you about a video game. I think he gets the message across.

 

[Seanspeed]

The point here is that if he wants to call it homogenized AAA then that is fine if that's how he feels having played the game. I disagree with him but we are all allowed to have opinions.

The issue is not what he is calling it but it is how. He is using speculation in an attempted to back up his opinion as if it is a fact. That has no place in a "professional" review.

Saying the game does nothing new or unique is also factually incorrect.

Its pretty clear some people are reading these reviews to confirm their preconceptions, not to really see whether the game is for them or not.

Their minds were basically already made up, they just enjoy when they have a quote from somebody else they can point at and feel justified.

 

[toddhunter]

Its pretty clear some people are reading these reviews to confirm their preconceptions, not to really see whether the game is for them or not.

Their minds were basically already made up, they just enjoy when they have a quote from somebody else they can point at and feel justified.

People reading reviews to confirm how the think about a game?

How absurd!

 

[Metal B]

There could be any number of reasons why the two versions are different - some much less cynical than the one presented here. So why bother speculating about the development process at all?

Because it is an conclusion! An conclusion is an opinion based on the interpretation of the beforehand given researched facts, analyses and the knowledge of the writer. He felt this way, just means this, "He felt this way".

Mirror's Edge came out 6.5 years ago though, and very few zombie games (much less open world) are actually based on survival. Dead Rising for example is an open world zombie game but there is no survival aspect and you'd have killed thousands of zombies by the end of the game. I can't think of many such games except DayZ and Techland's own Dead Island.

There is no point in argument about this point with me, since i didn't play the game. But Jim Sterling did and he felt, that the games doesn't make any of there ideas feel fresh or original. You don't need to agree with him. There many different reviewers out there and you have to find someone with a similar taste. If you agreed with Jim Sterling up to this point, you should have trust in him, if he says, that 6.5 years isn't enough time to have those ideas feel fresh again.

 

[Seanspeed]

People reading reviews to confirm how the think about a game?

How absurd!

How they think about a game before they've even played it.

Yes, its absolutely absurd.

 

[Conkerkid11]

What does a professional review even mean?

It is a guy telling you about a video game. I think he gets the message across.

Someone whose review counts toward the Metacritic score. Someone who makes a substantial amount of money from that review.
Someone who makes it into the first post of one if these review threads, and who Gaffers are literally saying is correct in giving Dying Light a particular score because of who they are and how well established they are in their field.

 

[Metal B]

Its pretty clear some people are reading these reviews to confirm their preconceptions, not to really see whether the game is for them or not.
Their minds were basically already made up, they just enjoy when they have a quote from somebody else they can point at and feel justified.

Even worst, if they don't agree with somebody and can't make a counter argument, they simply attack the creditable of the writer: "He is wrong, because he is a dick!".

Someone whose review counts toward the Metacritic score.

Only shows, how horrible the influence of Metacritic is. Guilt trip journalists into better scores, since people could directly lose there job or money because of them.

 

[toddhunter]

Someone whose review counts toward the Metacritic score. Someone who makes a substantial amount of money from that review.
Someone who makes it into the first post of one if these review threads, and who Gaffers are literally saying is correct in giving Dying Light a particular score because of who they are and how well established they are in their field.

And how does any of that matter? His job is to write in an entertaining and colourful manner, the only reason he is actually on there.

I don't think he has a mandate to fix the game industry or make people feel better about a game they purchased by seeing a bigger number.

 

[c0Zm1c]

Because it is an conclusion! An conclusion is an opinion based on the interpretation of the beforehand given researched facts, analyses and the knowledge of the writer. He felt this way, just means this, "He felt this way".

Regarding the part of the review in question, it's inconclusive though. Based on speculation, not facts, as he admits. As I said in a previous post, it has no place in a review.

 

[GHG]

What does a professional review even mean?

It is a guy telling you about a video game. I think he gets the message across.

A professional reviewer is some of who reviews products as a profession and usually makes a living in doing so.

I urge you to read some film/book reviews to understand that there are correct and tactful ways to critique something.

The issue with the majority of the gaming press is that they do not treat it as a profession, but instead a popularity contest. As such, we end up with dross like this where speculation and falsified information ends up in a "review".

But that's ok if that's what keeps his fans (groupies) happy.

Jim Sterling for gaming president.

Its pretty clear some people are reading these reviews to confirm their preconceptions, not to really see whether the game is for them or not.

Their minds were basically already made up, they just enjoy when they have a quote from somebody else they can point at and feel justified.

Yep, this as well.

 

[Sevenfold]

Surely Gaf knows that impressions are worth ten times what a review's worth.

 

[Klyka]

Surely Gaf knows that impressions are worth ten times what a review's worth.

Wait, isn't a review just impressions?????

 

[toddhunter]

A professional reviewer is some of who reviews products as a profession and usually makes a living in doing so.

I urge you to read some film/book reviews to understand that there are correct and tactful ways to critique something.

The issue with the majority of the gaming press is that they do not treat it as a profession, but instead a popularity contest. As such, we end up with dross like this where speculation and falsified information ends up in a "review".

But that's ok if that's what keeps his fans (groupies) happy.

Jim Sterling for gaming president.

Do you also complain about zero punctuation reviews? I'd imagine so.

If that review style upsets you, then why read or pay attention to it? If you are worried about the metacritic score, why would you be?

There are going to be thousands of different reviews of the game. Why does his get attention? Because people enjoy his style and understand what he tries to get across. That is simply if you should buy the game or not in his opinion.

That is much more important than some sort of fake intellectual standard for what a game review should be coupled with an arbitrary number.

 

[jfoul]

I'm having a lot of fun with this game. It's like a mix of Dead Island, FarCry, Mirror's Edge and Chivalry.

 

[Sevenfold]

Wait, isn't a review just impressions?????

Not when all anyone is interested in is the number at the end.

 

[Nabbis]

Yeah, i think im going to wait for a steam sales. I have bought enough seemingly generic open world games to last me a lifetime. Love Sterlings review, i like speculation.

 

[Metal B]

Regarding the part of the review in question, it's inconclusive though. Based on speculation, not facts, as he admits. As I said in a previous post, it has no place in a review.

Let's turn this around: Where is your proof, that review can't have speculation? Because all of them have some by design! Question like "Why did the developers put this in here?" or "What could the artist trying to say here" can't be answered, unless you speculate or interpret. There is only the difference between good or bad speculation.

But here, have your 100% Objective Review from Jim himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMU1_-_4WKg

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Regardless of reviews, I feel that this game starts out strong. The prologue is pretty well balanced given how weak you are.

 

[Conkerkid11]

Only shows, how horrible the influence of Metacritic is. Guilt trip journalists into better scores, since people could directly lose there job or money because of them.

Nobody in here is guilt tripping Jim though. We're legitimately criticizing the negatives which he based the score of Dying Light off of. He attacked it for not being unique, even though he couldn't possibly name another open world parkour game currently available.

And how does any of that matter? His job is to write in an entertaining and colourful manner, the only reason he is actually on there.

I don't think he has a mandate to fix the game industry or make people feel better about a game they purchased by seeing a bigger number.

Because you wanted to know what makes him a professional critic, and that's exactly it. I couldn't care less about how entertaining he is. His review impacts a number that is forever affiliated with Dying Light's rating on the most viewed video game ratings website. A website that frequently determines whether or not someone is going to buy that game.

Why are all of the people defending Jim not defending his flawed review? You're supporting mine and everybody else's opinion regarding his review by avoiding the issue.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

Guys if you find a review please pm me with it and I will add it to the op

 

[c0Zm1c]

Let's turn this around: Where is your proof, that review can't have speculation? Because all of them have some by design! Question like "Why did the developers put this in here?" or "What could the artist trying to say here" can't be answered, unless you speculate or interpret. There is only the difference between good or bad speculation.

I think you answered the question yourself. In this review it's just bad speculation with no other interpretations offered. It brings the reviewer's integrity into question. But perhaps toddhunter is right, and his style of review, whether you like it or not, just isn't to be taken seriously.

 

[DocSeuss]

From Jim Sterling's review:



That right there is all I need to hear about this review. It is exactly the kind of information I want to know right before I buy the game and this criticism here clearly points out to all the red flag concerns I had for this game. So far, no other review or impression has even contested these criticisms solidifying the fact that it is an integral criticism to this game.

I think he's wrong. Yes, it does imitate lots of different stuff. Absolutely. But y'know what? It takes all of these disparate elements and blends them into a game that, over the past five hours of gameplay, has been one of the most enjoyable games I've played in a good, long while. There's neat environmental storytelling at play here. Some of the SQs are way beyond what you'd see in other peoples' games. There are towers you can climb, but for different reasons than Far Cry 4 (one is actually an abandoned base, another is for a mission).

There is literally nothing wrong with using elements from other games. It's all in the implementation, and Techland has implemented this stuff WELL.

 

[Alkastelca]

Jim Sterling review.

How the fuck did he finished the game so quick AND wrote a review ?

Edit:

He didn't finish it.

 

[toddhunter]

His review impacts a number that is forever affiliated with Dying Light's rating on the most viewed video game ratings website. A website that frequently determines whether or not someone is going to buy that game.

If you think a number on a website is what determines if people buy a game, then one review should be the least of your worries. Shouldn't all reviews then be completely consistent? Would you like the IGN scale?

Why are all of the people defending Jim not defending his flawed review? You're supporting mine and everybody else's opinion regarding his review by avoiding the issue.

You don't seem to understand it. I'm not defending Jim at all. I'm actually defending the information he put in his review as extremely informative. Being a checklist of mechanics drawn from modern games is an extreme negative to me. Some people might like him to write this in Shakespearean english, but otherwise it just comes down to you not agreeing with that and hence being upset about the score.

Alternatively as above, you might think that all still comes together. That is fine, that is just a different opinion. To suggest that a negative one is "wrong" simply because it lowers an arbitrary number on one website that somebody might look at one day? That is just plain silly.

 

[Psykoboy2]

Jim Sterling review.

How the fuck did he finished the game so quick AND wrote a review ?

He didn't finish it.

 

[Zeus7]

Reviews go too far these days. The game is about killing zombies with an array of weapons and combos which can be crafted from loot. This is done while scaling buildings Mirrors Edge/AC style.

No major bugs or glitches.

If you like the sound of that you will enjoy the game.

 

[Hasney]

Because you wanted to know what makes him a professional critic, and that's exactly it. I couldn't care less about how entertaining he is. His review impacts a number that is forever affiliated with Dying Light's rating on the most viewed video game ratings website. A website that frequently determines whether or not someone is going to buy that game.

Why are all of the people defending Jim not defending his flawed review? You're supporting mine and everybody else's opinion regarding his review by avoiding the issue.

Surely that's a flaw of the industry and Metacritic then rather than anything else? If Metacritic feel that Jims reviews are noteworthy enough to be included, then it should be taken up with them.

Jim has given his opinion on the game and I'm not here to agree or disagree with it as I haven't played it, but I do know that away from Dynasty Warriors, his opinions jive with mine. I like a review to be completely subjective and just be one mans (or multiple peoples depending on the format) opinion on the game. I never visit Metacritic, so what they do or don't do is none of my concern. But if the content of a review I enjoy reading, have taken things away from and enjoy the scoring scale of has to be changed to fit in with the way Metacritic has changed things, they I take issue with that.

There should be multiple formats of reviews, not something to easily contrast and compare at the end of an article just for harmonies sake. If it doesn't fit with Metacritic, then it's on them to remove his content, not for Jim to change his content to fit in.

 

[TheIconizer]

Like you said between the SNES era and now, there are 20+ years. So yes, those ideas by now feel original again. If you don't have original ideas, you should at least make them feel original. But using the ideas of products of the same year and don't make them feel original, than you have an unoriginal product in your hands.

I agree. It's like Darksiders to me. That game (both of them). Had elements from various action/adventure titles, yet the idea seemed fresh and the theme of the game seemed to be working well.

I'm kinda on edge here. Like Mirror's Edge and Dead Island were fused. I loved both of them and to be honest I was fine with most of Techland's products. I just can't see that originality there, sure the idea is good, fresh feels somewhat original.

Just that I read a lot of comments from people saying "I don't know about this game, I can't tell what it's like" or "Will I really enjoy this? is this any good? it looks ok!"

Maybe "torn" was the wrong word, sorry, not native speaker

Me neither, but it's like I can see some potential in it. Like I can picture myself having fun climbing building and running from zombies. I really liked Dead Island, but I never really finished it. Too big. Like there was so much to do I never go to the end of it.

 

[KageMaru]

Great reviews so far (for the most part). I've been loving the game.

You don't seem to understand it. I'm not defending Jim at all. I'm actually defending the information he put in his review as extremely informative. Being a checklist of mechanics drawn from modern games is an extreme negative to me. Some people might like him to write this in Shakespearean english, but otherwise it just comes down to you not agreeing with that and hence being upset about the score.

Alternatively as above, you might think that all still comes together. That is fine, that is just a different opinion. To suggest that a negative one is "wrong" simply because it lowers an arbitrary number on one website that somebody might look at one day? That is just plain silly.

I'm sure there are other games you love that could be considered to have a checklist from other games. You can see there are similar elements as other games but I don't see much in the way of direct imitation. I like Jim's opinions and reviews most of the time, but it definitely seems like he scored it lower because of what he wishes it would be and not by what it actually is. I know it's hard not to inject an opinion into a review, but these authors should strive to look at things objectively for what is there and how the quality measures up.

Does the game look and run good? Are the mechanics solid, well thought up or just cobbled together? Are any new ideas introduces? Does the design of the mechanics and level/world allow for an ebb and flow that is entertaining and fun? Do the objectives and/or story drive the players to keep playing? All of these questions and more are things that I think reviewers should be looking at and answering. Not why can't this game be like this or that?

 

[Alkastelca]

He didn't finish it.

So it's like writing a film review but without watching the whole movie.

How can this even be a review ? Seriously what the fuck ?
This kind of reviews shouldn't even be allowed on metacritic imo.

 

[epmode]

Would u read a review of a game that got 5/10? THAT score says it all.

Of course I would. I did, even. Why wouldn't I?

 

[SlasherJPC]

Someone whose review counts toward the Metacritic score. Someone who makes a substantial amount of money from that review.
Someone who makes it into the first post of one if these review threads, and who Gaffers are literally saying is correct in giving Dying Light a particular score because of who they are and how well established they are in their field.

So the site I work for, is completely freelance, no one makes their living off it and no ad money is gained. Yet our scores appear on metacritic so that's still something that affects it's overall rating to mass consumers. So I'm sitting here with just under 10 hours of play and at a 11% completion rate. Yeah... no way I'm ready to review this yet. Still so many more skills, weapons, missions, and co-op to play. I'm still a bit shocked just how fast some of these pro reviewers pumped the review out a day or two after codes went out.

 

[toddhunter]

Does the game look and run good? Are the mechanics solid, well thought up or just cobbled together? Are any new ideas introduces? Does the design of the mechanics and level/world allow for an ebb and flow that is entertaining and fun? Do the objectives and/or story drive the players to keep playing? All of these questions and more are things that I think reviewers should be looking at and answering. Not why can't this game be like this or that?

You did read the full review right?

 

[Mr Git]

One of Jim's key points was that the finished build of the game was very different to the slice of gameplay preview he played years ago - he is free to speculate as to why this is as much as he wants. The somewhat tongue-in-cheek speculation about Warner Bros. may seem to offend some for being baseless, but when you consider how heavy handed many publishers are in development it might not necessarily be an outrageous thing to posit.

I'm not sure why people get so worked up over review scores, if you are absolutely loving this game that is fine, but others might not think it's the fucking tits due to preference. There's always a few points of leeway: a game gets a 5 but happens to be your absolute favourite genre/developer/thing then you know you can add a few points for personal preference.

 

[DOWN]

He didn't finish it.

Yeah, not into that decision.