• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Infamous: Second Son Review Thread

L

LookAtMeGo

Member
Why do so many people take metacritic scores as gospel and use it to dissmiss a game without even giving it a chance even when the score is high?
If all of my girlfriends Ive ever had wrote a review about me nobody would ever give me a chance based on my low meta score but I'm a nice guy. I'm repetitive, can be boring at times and lazy but if you give me a chance I can give you the ride of a lifetime before it gets old. Much like inFAMOUS here.
 
V

VanWinkle

Member
Ansatz said:
Think of the "PS4/XBO gen is an extension of PS3/360 gen" statement I've seen pop up. It's the same types of games, but refined.

Counter examples:

Mario 64 -> Sunshine -> Galaxy -> 3D World

As you can see, in each console cycle the fundamental level design direction and gameplay mechanics have been changed. The feeling of "yeah, this feels new and shiny" is lacking from the PS4 lineup. They're are direct sequels in other words. Indies are the ones who cook up brand new experiences, whether it's the unique combat system in Transistor (try describing it to someone) or the abstract puzzles of The Witness. These are games that makes us think in new ways, makes us approach the obstacles from different angles.
Click to expand...

So new gameplay mechanics. Which could happen within a generation. There is no "last-gen" and "next-gen" gameplay. For the vast majority, games within the same series have very similar gameplay mechanics. They only change it a little in games that have been around for decades like Mario and Sonic. But on the subject of Mario, Galaxy gameplay is extremely similar to Mario 64, and 3D World gameplay is extremely similar to 3D Land.
 
F

Fotos

Member
LookAtMeGo said:
Why do so many people take metacritic scores as gospel and use it to dissmiss a game without even giving it a chance even when the score is high?
If all of my girlfriends Ive ever had wrote a review about me nobody would ever give me a chance based on my low meta score but I'm a nice guy. I'm repetitive, can be boring at times and lazy but if you give me a chance I can give you the ride of a lifetime before it gets old. Much like inFAMOUS here.
Click to expand...

Woah. Really took a leap on that one.
 
F

Fallout-with-swords

Banned
Dr. Kaos said:
I've watched hours of gameplay of this game throughout the month.

Game graphics / design / animation / lighting / effects all look top notch and radically next-gen.

Actual gameplay looks repetitive, unimaginative, rote, definitely last-gen. Not terrible or anything, but most definitely does not rise up to the game visuals.

It's sitting at 81 right now on Metacritic, which is pretty generous in my opinion. It should probably be in the high 70s, but 81 is close enough, really.

I won't be buying it. I'll give it a shot if it ever shows up on PS+.
Click to expand...

Judging the game without having played it ... arguing a game should be literally 2 or 3 points lower on meta-critic

This is like the definition of what I hate about the games industry.
 
D

Dr. Kaos

Banned
Slurmer said:
You haven't played the game :|
Click to expand...


Fallout-with-swords said:
Judging the game without having played it ... arguing a game should be literally 2 or 3 points lower on meta-critic

This is like the definition of what I hate about the games industry.
Click to expand...

No I have not. For some reason, Sony "forgot" to send me a free review copy. I'll happily play it if you buy it for me though! I promise I'll be open-minded :D

I'm not part of the "game industry". I'm a private gamer giving my personal opinion and, in my personal opinion, you should hate DLC, microtransactions, DRM and about a thousand other things before you even think about what some random dude thinks about some random metacritic score.

More seriously, I wasn't offering a review. I was offering my reasons for not buying it for my PS4.
 
RiccochetJ

RiccochetJ

Gold Member
LookAtMeGo said:
Why do so many people take metacritic scores as gospel and use it to dissmiss a game without even giving it a chance even when the score is high?
If all of my girlfriends Ive ever had wrote a review about me nobody would ever give me a chance based on my low meta score but I'm a nice guy. I'm repetitive, can be boring at times and lazy but if you give me a chance I can give you the ride of a lifetime before it gets old. Much like inFAMOUS here.
Click to expand...

I'm going to venture a guess that nowadays a lot of people aren't using metacritic to help them purchase a high profile game. They're using metacritic to affirm their already made up decision.
 
C

Card Boy

Banned
Dr. Kaos said:
I've watched hours of gameplay of this game throughout the month.

Game graphics / design / animation / lighting / effects all look top notch and radically next-gen.

Actual gameplay looks repetitive, unimaginative, rote, definitely last-gen. Not terrible or anything, but most definitely does not rise up to the game visuals.

It's sitting at 81 right now on Metacritic, which is pretty generous in my opinion. It should probably be in the high 70s, but 81 is close enough, really.

I won't be buying it. I'll give it a shot if it ever shows up on PS+.
Click to expand...

This post is why we can't have nice things. You have never played the game and are saying it should be lower based on what you have seen?

what_the_fuck_am_I_reading.png
 
G

Glorified G

Member
Ansatz said:
Think of the "PS4/XBO gen is an extension of PS3/360 gen" statement I've seen pop up. It's the same types of games, but refined.

Counter examples:

Mario 64 -> Sunshine -> Galaxy -> 3D World

As you can see, in each console cycle the fundamental level design direction and gameplay mechanics have been changed. The feeling of "yeah, this feels new and shiny" is lacking from the PS4 lineup. They're are direct sequels in other words. Indies are the ones who cook up brand new experiences, whether it's the unique combat system in Transistor (try describing it to someone) or the abstract puzzles of The Witness. These are games that makes us think in new ways, makes us approach the obstacles from different angles.
Click to expand...

This is such a poor example. Sunshine and 3D World are just similar and worst versions of their predecessor. What does Sunshine do design wise that was so different than Mario 64? Shitty blue coins that you had to collect that was frustrating and shouldn't have been added? Water pump? Is that any more different than the new powers in Infamous or any new weapon or mechanic in any sequel ever made? Sunshine was just a worse open 3D platformer than Mario 64.

And don't get me started on 3D World, which is a sequel to a 3DS game with worse pacing(in my opinion) that follows the same formula, (easy 6-8 worlds, bothers to show a challenge in the last two.) It's is objectively worse than Galaxy in every way while following a similar design path. Linear but semi open 3D worlds, but it does it worse in almost every angle. From music, to length which was worse, to game design. Galaxy was unquestionably one of the best games last gen, you can make an good argument 3D World wasn't even the best platformer last year. It was a scaled down Galaxy in every way.

Your counter examples are doing the exact same thing critics are accusing Infamous. But it's Mario, so you don't notice or care.
 
A

Ansatz

Member
VanWinkle said:
So new gameplay mechanics. Which could happen within a generation. There is no "last-gen" and "next-gen" gameplay. For the vast majority, games within the same series have very similar gameplay mechanics. They only change it a little in games that have been around for decades like Mario and Sonic. But on the subject of Mario, Galaxy gameplay is extremely similar to Mario 64, and 3D World gameplay is extremely similar to 3D Land.
Click to expand...

Well technically true, but we associate new gens with fresh new experiences. I wouldn't use that terminology but I understand what it's refering to.

Hehe @ bolded, I had a feeling you would say that. Respectfully disagree, they are vastly different video games to the point that Tomb Raider is more similar to Uncharted than Mario 64 is to Galaxy. To each their own.
 
O

Omnistalgic

Member
Ryu751 said:
Like I said in other review threads reviewers place a lot of weight on new experiences. Infamous is beautiful to look at. Gameplay wise it's not anything different than previous Infamous games. Hence why it's only rated in the 8 range. For me the only thing I was looking for in reviews was if Infamous lost gameplay from previous games. I was afraid of Forza scale down.
Click to expand...
Why do ppl keep saying this...some sites gave this game a 9.5 out of 10...I don't understand???? I thought everyone would be happy with these reviews they are awesome!! I'm sure sucker punch is. It isn't that far away from the most hyped game this year and sales will probably hit a million...man I thought gaf was playststion nAtion???! We don't get botherd by what critics say...we go and play the games that matter! Critics would right off demons souls when it was one of the best games of this gen. Everyone was talking about Mario galaxy when ratchet and clank ACIT was absolutely fantastic! We define our own meta scores! We are the real power because our money is what funds sequels and studios! Stand up and take pride, our collective voice is bigger than any review site! People looking at infamous being streamed are blown away! I don't give a fook what Adam sessler and his low dexterity skills have to say lol...
 
R

Rogue_Ledr

Banned
Friggin reviews are truly BS nowadays.

You really need to add 5 or more points to any PS exclusive game average on Meta.

MS always get the better end of the deal when it comes to reviews.

I guess all that money being thrown around lands in the right spots.
 
C

Card Boy

Banned
Rogue_Ledr said:
Friggin reviews are truly BS nowadays.

You really need to add 5 or more points to any PS exclusive game average on Meta.

MS always get the better end of the deal when it comes to reviews.

I guess all that money being thrown around lands in the right spots.
Click to expand...

Careful. MommaRobotic might make a wall of shame and this post will be in it.
 
A

Ansatz

Member
Glorified G said:
This is such a poor example. Sunshine and 3D World are just similar and worst versions of their predecessor. What does Sunshine do design wise that was so different than Mario 64? Shitty blue coins that you had to collect that was frustrating and shouldn't have been added? Water pump? Is that any more different than the new powers in Infamous or any new weapon or mechanic in any sequel ever made? Sunshine was just a worse open 3D platformer than Mario 64.

And don't get me started on 3D World, which is a sequel to a 3DS game with worse pacing(in my opinion) that follows the same formula, (easy 6-8 worlds, bothers to show a challenge in the last two.) It's is objectively worse than Galaxy in every way while following a similar design path. Linear but semi open 3D worlds, but it does it worse in almost every angle. From music, to length which was worse, to game design. Galaxy was unquestionably one of the best games last gen, you can make an good argument 3D World wasn't even the best platformer last year. It was a scaled down Galaxy in every way.

Your counter examples are doing the exact same thing critics are accusing Infamous. But it's Mario, so you don't notice or care.
Click to expand...

Absolutely the water pump could have been a mere powerup in Mario 64. In Sunshine it's like they took the FLUDD and created an entire video game around it.

Sunshine lacks variety, but it's unique from any other Mario game much like how the stone powerup / goron suit stage in Galaxy 2 plays radically different from the Yoshi red pepper stages.
 
R

Rogue_Ledr

Banned
Gez said:
Careful. MommaRobotic might make a wall of shame and this post will be in it.
Click to expand...

Well. I'm sorry but it really seems that Sony's scores always seems lower than they should be and Microsoft's often higher.

Its not just on games released lately either. Its been this way for years now. Look I've owned all the systems this gen, last gen and the gen before and IMO Sony always get the shaft when it comes to reviews.

I play games on all systems and their games definitely deserve better.
 
D

Dupree

Neo Member
DanteGhost said:
I really liked the first inFamous, which in my opinion is easily one of the best games released on ps3. I was day 1 for inFamous 2 and for me it was a big downgrade from the first one, and is the reason I have a love/hate relationship with this franchise. Festival of blood was amazing though and I still play it from time to time. From the footage Second Son appeared leagues better than 2, but the Sessler review has me worried.

Most of the time Sessler is spot on my likes and dislikes of games. This has me really worried since I just bought a ps4 to play this game, and if I end up disliking it there is no other game that I actually want to play for ps4. My copy arrives Saturday, I'm really hoping I'm going to like it. For the people that had played it, is it better than 2?
it has to be please please
Click to expand...



Just played infamous 1/2 and then got to second son. I'm not sure if Im gonna be able to go back, I got a new PSN ID so I had no trophies and was going to plat all 3 this month



So far completed infamous 1/2/second son all on good side



Infamous second son made so many improvements, that I don't know If I can go back to infamous 1/2 so soon for a complete evil run. The powers are better (so good), but the real catch is how much better it is to go around the town, especially as Neon (and the 3rd power) Side missions are the same as they have always been "clear the district", still as repetitive. Main missions are a lot better, story telling has improved drastically.
 
P

PBY

Banned
How long is the main game? Not gonna do any side stuff, generally dislike that kind of thing in open world games. And I like short games too lol.
 
T

TsuWave

Member
DanteGhost said:
I really liked the first inFamous, which in my opinion is easily one of the best games released on ps3. I was day 1 for inFamous 2 and for me it was a big downgrade from the first one, and is the reason I have a love/hate relationship with this franchise. Festival of blood was amazing though and I still play it from time to time..
Click to expand...

pretty much my relationship with the franchise and every time i tell people i think the first infamous was better than the second i get weird stares
 
S

Solid Samus

Banned
Glorified G said:
This is such a poor example. Sunshine and 3D World are just similar and worst versions of their predecessor. What does Sunshine do design wise that was so different than Mario 64? Shitty blue coins that you had to collect that was frustrating and shouldn't have been added? Water pump? Is that any more different than the new powers in Infamous or any new weapon or mechanic in any sequel ever made? Sunshine was just a worse open 3D platformer than Mario 64.

And don't get me started on 3D World, which is a sequel to a 3DS game with worse pacing(in my opinion) that follows the same formula, (easy 6-8 worlds, bothers to show a challenge in the last two.) It's is objectively worse than Galaxy in every way while following a similar design path. Linear but semi open 3D worlds, but it does it worse in almost every angle. From music, to length which was worse, to game design. Galaxy was unquestionably one of the best games last gen, you can make an good argument 3D World wasn't even the best platformer last year. It was a scaled down Galaxy in every way.

Your counter examples are doing the exact same thing critics are accusing Infamous. But it's Mario, so you don't notice or care.
Click to expand...

Sunshine, yeah, it can be argued that it's a worse game than Mario 64, but it certainly wasn't as identical as you claim, and the water pack mechanics and world design with an overarching theme had an impact on gameplay mechanics and the overall feel of the game. Is a water pack different from a new power? A water pack, which lets you hover and launch into the air, in a 3D platformer, a genre which at the time was notorious for camera control issues and resultant whiffed jumps and maneuvers... The game was designed around the water pack because the water pack served as a sort of 3D platforming easy button to mitigate the same kinds of issues that would later be mitigated through tightly designed and very linear levels with each and every sequel. Of course it has more of an impact than just 'a new power', it's an integral game mechanic with a constant purpose.

I don't even know how someone could make the claim that 3D World is worse than 3D Land based on pacing alone. Seriously, that part was entirely lost on me. What is so wrong about 3D World's pacing that its level design, which is often much more varied and sometimes much more inspired than 3D Lands, its music, which sure ain't Galaxy but as far as I'm concerned is the nearest thing in platformers that aren't DKCTF, multiplayer functionality, etc. don't push the game way far over the edge of being better than 3D Land? It's also a more challenging game than 3D Land the whole way through but I'm not going to pretend that that means much. If you're referring to Galaxy as 3D World's predecessor, then sure, I'll give you that with the stipulation that YMMV. 3D World got a lot of love out of me simply because I have a couple buddies who are good at Mario games and it makes for an infinitely better multiplayer romp than NSMB ever did.
 
F

Fixed2BeBroken

Member
LookAtMeGo said:
Why do so many people take metacritic scores as gospel and use it to dissmiss a game without even giving it a chance even when the score is high?
Click to expand...

the same reason people take rotten tomatoes as gospel.

Ironically though...a movie with a 50-60% on rotten tomatoes is considered a average to decent movie.

a videogame with that 50-60 metacritic score is considered a flaming turd. go figure.

possibly it could be due to price of admission...
 
I

infiniteheteroskdasticity

Member
Good reviews. I don't know what all the fuss is about. I couldn't give a f*ck about metacritic - that thing is a cancer on the gaming industry and needs to die but some of my most respected reviewers have liked the game - a lot. Metacritic isn't used to make a purchasing decision - its used by fanboys as ammo in the endless console war. Even if you believe in Metacritic I struggle to understand how a 80+ metacritic is "disappointing" in any way.
 
Dr. Kitty Muffins

Dr. Kitty Muffins

Member
Fixed2BeBroken said:
the same reason people take rotten tomatoes as gospel.

Ironically though...a movie with a 50-60% on rotten tomatoes is considered a average to decent movie.

a videogame with that kind of metacritic score is considered a flaming turd. go figure.

possibly it could be due to price of admission...
Click to expand...


This is why gamers to lighten up some. We're killing off developers by being so uptight about scores below a 9. The scores can stay but the close mindedness needs to vanish (and quickly I might add).
 
P

Poimandres

Member
Rogue_Ledr said:
Well. I'm sorry but it really seems that Sony's scores always seems lower than they should be and Microsoft's often higher.

Its not just on games released lately either. Its been this way for years now. Look I've owned all the systems this gen, last gen and the gen before and IMO Sony always get the shaft when it comes to reviews.

I play games on all systems and their games definitely deserve better.
Click to expand...

This makes sense... If you ignore the several extremely well reviewed PS exclusives. MGS 4, LBP, Uncharted, Last of Us etc are some of the highest rated games of last gen.

The conspiracy is only in your mind.
 
M

methane47

Member
Opiate said:
There's all sorts of potential considerations in threads like this. Fans of other systems delighting in low scores, fans of the system in question discounting those low scores instead, or fetishizing the high scores. Lastly, there are a very few people in between just looking for information.

For the most part, if the score is above (let's say) 80, these threads tend to just be a celebration by people who had already decided to buy the game or a rebuke of idiot stupid head critics if the score is lower instead.
Click to expand...

I still remember when the Gaf MEGATON Bomb dropped when Zelda got an 8.8
Most hilarious review thread ever
 
D

Dead

well not really...yet
The only criticism I find to have any validity (for me at least) is the lack of activities to do in the city. The Paper Trail missions seem like they fix that omission hopefully, but kind of fucking stupid to have them spread out over 6 weeks. Prototype 2 did something similar with its side activities.
 
V

Vylsith

Banned
erawsd said:
Of course reviews will compare similar products in some regard. However, they do not "exists to compare products" -- which was your original statement. The lack of improvement over Infamous 2 is exactly why some reviews are dinging SS on its lazy design. If a game doesn't make any attempt to push gameplay forward then I think that is a perfectly valid critique. You don't, and that's fine.. that's your opinion. As a reader, your responsibility is decide what is/isn't valuable criticism for you. Some of the South Park reviews dinged that game because they were uncomfortable with some of the humor, it doesn't bother me but I'm glad that viewpoint is out there for people that may feel the same.
Click to expand...

They DO exist to compare products. That's why we read reviews. To determine which products we would like to buy when presented with different choices. If there were no other choices, the review would be pretty useless. Especially when reviews have a rating system. There is no other reason for a rating system to exist other than to compare a variety of similar products to one another.

Why are we comparing Infamous 2 to Second Son? I never even mentioned the two. Besides, are we really pretending that lack of new gameplay elements is a problem for reviewers when games like Call of Duty manage to do the exact same thing all generation and still get low 90s? That's not a very valid defense for reviewers. At all. Besides, there are new gameplay elements in Second Son. You can argue that there aren't enough new gameplay elements, and it's possible you're correct. That's not what the discussion was about.

The discussion was about reviewers complaining because Infamous doesn't "feel next gen". I'll agree that past Infamous titles could use more (and more varied) side quests. That's one of the main reasons I wouldn't give them a 90+. I'm not arguing that Infamous is perfect. I'm not arguing Infamous has no problems. I'm arguing that the "doesn't feel next gen" argument is illogical nonsense. That's because it is.

erawsd said:
What I'm saying is that reviews are nothing more than opinions and an arbitrary review scale does not change that. Someone's personal expectations and preferences are going to be factor. That review score can swing in either direction depending on who reviews a game, which is why its folly to try comparing scores of games in anyway.
Click to expand...

Obviously reviews are subjective. Again, that's not what people are complaining about. "Doesn't feel next gen" is just a ridiculous complaint. It means almost nothing. What do they expect from next gen? Do they say in the article? No. They just make an arbitrary claim that the game may look next gen, but it doesn't "feel next gen". That could mean anything. It's purposefully ambiguous. It's not a valid criticism. You won't point to a game and say "This is next gen!" Three years from now you'll look back and say, "Wow games sure have evolved." That's how it works.

erawsd said:
No one is expecting SP to introduce some mindblowing new mechanic that turns the industry upside down. Instead, the game is being picked at because it sounds like it, literally, does nothing new except look prettier than anything else. It even sounds like side content might be worst than Inf2. Quite honestly, its fine if they want to keep pumping out the videogame version of comfort food but they should be criticized for a lack of ambition just like everyone else has so far.
Click to expand...

Hey, that's my subjective opinion on what the reviewers mean when they say "feels like next gen." Feel free to provide your own. Your comment seems a bit biased given that there were quite a few glowing reviews for the game that stated the exact opposite of what you're saying (though I'll agree that additional content is probably still limited). I guess you believe what you want to believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons Remake | Review Thread
Analysis Review
10
2K
Magic Carpet replied
Famitsu Review Scores: Issue 1835 | Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth awarded a perfect score
Review
44
3K
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Animal Well | Review Thread
Analysis Review
4
809
Fbh replied
Homeworld 3 | Review Thread
Analysis Review
22
2K
amigastar replied
Star Ocean The Second Story R | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
108
9K
PanzerCute replied
Top Bottom