NieR: Automata Review Thread

Automata is the best game in the DrakeNier series, but I still like Nier more because I believe the story is better. Hell I would even recommend Drakengard 1 and 3. Just need to keep in mind that they have elements you put up with for the good stuff.

Only heard of Drakengard; Didn't realise they were related. Something to look into after.

Anyway, thanks for your input!
 

Hektor

Member
Automata is the best game in the DrakeNier series, but I still like Nier more because I believe the story is better. Hell I would even recommend Drakengard 1 and 3. Just need to keep in mind that they have elements you put up with for the good stuff.

That sure is a way to describe the ginormous pain that is Drakengard 1's gameplay lol
 
A few years ago (Before D3 but after NieR), my friend bought me Drakengard 1 and 2 for my birthday.

I've never even put them in my PS2. I played D1 when it was new and I never got anywhere in it but I remembered it being crazy and a huge pain in the ass.
 
Japan @ the 2017 GOTY Awards



Pretty amazing when you think about it- not even five years ago everyone's going on about how the Japanese game industry is dead, and now three out of the top four (soon to be four out of the top five, most likely) new releases of 2017 are developed by Japanese studios.

(EDIT: And the one American (EDIT AGAIN: western) title up there is a big-budget SP-only original IP, another thing we thought was going to die out- and with a female protagonist, at that!)
 

silva1991

Member
I barely played it 2 days ago and can't play it today.

Tomorrow will be all about it.

Gonna be a long session <3

I played both and personally I give it to P5, even though I love Nier Automata's soundtrack. Very close call and I am sure there will be many people who prefer Nier's ost more than P5's.

Music aside, do you also think that P5 had superior story?
 
Automata is the best game in the DrakeNier series, but I still like Nier more because I believe the story is better. Hell I would even recommend Drakengard 1 and 3. Just need to keep in mind that they have elements you put up with for the good stuff.

Better to watch a movie of all the cutscenes to be honest.
 

Slater

Banned
Better to watch a movie of all the cutscenes to be honest.
Nah man play 3 with its single digit Frame rate and 30 dollars worth of DLC just for the story to make any sense and still doesn't even actually lead up to the game it's a prequel to, cause that's a good investment.
 
Nah man play 3 with its single digit Frame rate and 30 dollars worth of DLC just for the story to make any sense and still doesn't even actually lead up to the game it's a prequel to, cause that's a good investment.
shit I played breath of the wild on wii u

already played DG3 back when it released
 

Gbraga

Member
Pretty amazing when you think about it- not even five years ago everyone's going on about how the Japanese game industry is dead, and now three out of the top four (soon to be four out of the top five, most likely) new releases of 2017 are developed by Japanese studios.

(EDIT: And the one American title up there is a big-budget SP-only original IP, another thing we thought was going to die out- and with a female protagonist, at that!)

You mean Horizon? It's not american, though.

NA's gaming industry is dead.


Nah man play 3 with its single digit Frame rate and 30 dollars worth of DLC just for the story to make any sense and still doesn't even actually lead up to the game it's a prequel to, cause that's a good investment.

Eh, I don't feel like the DLCs are required at all. I didn't play them, only know their content from Clemps' videos, and it's mostly background stuff that isn't related to the main story. It's more to flesh out the sisters than to explain the story.

I also don't entirely agree with the problem people have with the ending not tying directly to Drakengard 1. The way it's done, each ending will give you more valuable information on that universe, which is, to me, more interesting than just seeing the exact chain of events that lead to Drakengard. Would you rather not have that final ending just because it didn't happen that way in the timeline that leads into Drakengard? I feel like showing us what they showed is far more important than knowing every detail.
 
Sometimes I think of writing up an OT for Yoko Taro's crazy universe since there really is a plethora of info out there.

Don't forget to include this copypasta. I find it to be the best summary for the first Drakengard.

"Drakengard is a weird thing to exist, man.
The gameplay is terrible. The music is terrible. The characters are terrible and terribly written, as is the plot. By all accounts the game should have nothing going for it whether you’re a pure gamer or after some kind of story-telling experience.
But people don’t remember Drakengard for what it wasn’t, that being good; people remember Drakengard for what it was, that being COMPLETELY INSANE.
Everyone in Drakengard is a dick. EVERYONE. You play as a mass murderer psychically linked with a misanthropic dragon. Your sister’s a passive waif and your best friend’s a moron who trades away his singing voice for his own dragon from a 6-year-old little girl who is actually possessed by a god. You hang out with a cannibal, a pedophile, an immortal runt, and an alarmingly racist member of the clergy. By the end of it you’ve racked up about as many kills as the sum of the first world war SINGLE-HANDEDLY, so much so that the evil empire can’t even one up you by inventing nuclear weapons (which they do) and drop them (which they do) from their flying continental fortress (which they have) before they summon pan-dimensional space babies (which exist) to kill everyone (which they accomplish).
The final battle has you hurling an alien deity through a rip in the fabric of space time to engage them in a rhythm battle over a monochromatic Tokyo, after which you get shot down by the Japanese air force and proceed to infect the entire world (our world) with magical aids that either kills you or turns you into a bloodthirsty salt giant. Yes, really.
Drakengard is a terrible game, but it is nonetheless a compellingly bizarre thing to exist.
"
 
Don't forget to include this copypasta. I find it to be the best summary for the first Drakengard.

"Drakengard is a weird thing to exist, man.
The gameplay is terrible. The music is terrible. The characters are terrible and terribly written, as is the plot. By all accounts the game should have nothing going for it whether you’re a pure gamer or after some kind of story-telling experience.
But people don’t remember Drakengard for what it wasn’t, that being good; people remember Drakengard for what it was, that being COMPLETELY INSANE.
Everyone in Drakengard is a dick. EVERYONE. You play as a mass murderer psychically linked with a misanthropic dragon. Your sister’s a passive waif and your best friend’s a moron who trades away his singing voice for his own dragon from a 6-year-old little girl who is actually possessed by a god. You hang out with a cannibal, a pedophile, an immortal runt, and an alarmingly racist member of the clergy. By the end of it you’ve racked up about as many kills as the sum of the first world war SINGLE-HANDEDLY, so much so that the evil empire can’t even one up you by inventing nuclear weapons (which they do) and drop them (which they do) from their flying continental fortress (which they have) before they summon pan-dimensional space babies (which exist) to kill everyone (which they accomplish).
The final battle has you hurling an alien deity through a rip in the fabric of space time to engage them in a rhythm battle over a monochromatic Tokyo, after which you get shot down by the Japanese air force and proceed to infect the entire world (our world) with magical aids that either kills you or turns you into a bloodthirsty salt giant. Yes, really.
Drakengard is a terrible game, but it is nonetheless a compellingly bizarre thing to exist.
"

this seems a woefully incomplete list

let me make an addendum

"Drakengard is a weird thing to exist, man.
The gameplay is terrible. The music is terrible. The characters are terrible and terribly written, as is the plot. By all accounts the game should have nothing going for it whether you’re a pure gamer or after some kind of story-telling experience.
But people don’t remember Drakengard for what it wasn’t, that being good; people remember Drakengard for what it was, that being COMPLETELY INSANE.
Everyone in Drakengard is a dick. EVERYONE. You play as a mass murderer psychically linked with a misanthropic dragon. Your sister’s a passive waif who is hilariously repressed and closets hardcore incestuous lust for you, and your best friend’s a moron who trades away his singing voice for his own dragon from a 6-year-old little girl who is actually possessed by a god. You hang out with a cannibal, a pedophile, an immortal runt, and an alarmingly racist member of the clergy. By the end of it you’ve racked up about as many kills as the sum of the first world war SINGLE-HANDEDLY, so much so that the evil empire can’t even one up you by inventing nuclear weapons (which they do) and drop them (which they do) from their flying continental fortress (which they have) before they summon pan-dimensional space babies (which exist) to kill everyone (which they accomplish).
The final battle has you hurling an alien deity through a rip in the fabric of space time to engage them in a rhythm battle over a monochromatic Tokyo, after which you get shot down by the Japanese air force and proceed to infect the entire world (our world) with magical aids that either kills you or turns you into a bloodthirsty salt giant. Yes, really.
Drakengard is a terrible game, but it is nonetheless a compellingly bizarre thing to exist.
"
 

Zaventem

Member
nioh is back to 88 too. These days it's hard to tell the cutoff point for reviews on metacritic. Edge will save us, keep the faith strong.
 

Zolo

Member
89 for Metacritic.
89 for user score.
89 for Opencritic.
89 for Contributor score.
89 turned upside down is 68 which is what the first Nier got.

Seems like it's very much an 89 consensus.
 
this seems a woefully incomplete list

let me make an addendum

I'm going to add an addendum on to your addendum.

"Drakengard is a weird thing to exist, man.
The gameplay is terrible. The music is brilliant. The characters are terrible and are terribly well written, as is the plot. By all accounts the game should have nothing going for it if you're after a pure gameplay experience.
But people remember Drakengard for what it was, that being good; people remember Drakengard for what it was, that being COMPLETELY INSANE.
Everyone in Drakengard is a dick. EVERYONE. You play as a mass murderer psychically linked with a misanthropic dragon (who hates humans). Your sister's a passive waif and closets hardcore incestuous lust for you and your best friend's a moron who trades away his singing voice for his own dragon (who killed the main character's parents and basically set off the chain of events of the entire universe) and shows signs of necrophilia (kisses Furiae's dead corpse), gets his pact with the Black dragon from a 6-year-old little girl who is actually possessed by a god. You hang out with a cannibal (who enjoys eating little children the most since she lost her own son in a village fire which drove her mad), a pedophile (who has the most annoying elf companion in existence), an immortal runt who never ages past ten (who has a domineering golem companion who enjoys killing), and an alarmingly racist member of the clergy (who is a coward despite knowing magic).

By the end of it you've racked up about as many kills as the sum of the first world war SINGLE-HANDEDLY (along the way Caim also kills child soldiers with much aplomb), so much so that the evil empire can't even one up you by inventing nuclear weapons (which they do) and drop them (which they do) from their flying continental fortress (which they have) before they summon pan-dimensional space babies (which exist) from "Heaven" to kill everyone (which they accomplish) by eating them alive. Also, the main character falls in love with his dragon companion.
The final battle has you hurling an alien deity through a rip in the fabric of space time to engage them in a rhythm battle over a monochromatic Tokyo, after which you get shot down by the Japanese air force and proceed to infect the entire world (our world) with magical aids that either kills you or turns you into a bloodthirsty salt giant. Yes, really.
Drakengard is a good game, and it is absolutely a compellingly bizarre thing to exist.
 

NeoRaider

Member
PCGAMER gave it 79: http://www.pcgamer.com/nier-automata-review/

Automata is a remarkable game with an incredible amount of style, personality, and flair. Its tendency to repeat enemies, locations, and bosses can dampen your enjoyment, however, and the PC port isn't great. Cutscenes are locked to 30fps, which make them look distractingly jerky. The mouse cursor kept appearing in the centre of my screen. And on one test machine running an AMD card, the game crashed to a white screen every ten minutes for seemingly no reason. A game this interesting deserves a better port, frankly. But tech woes aside, this is one of the most unique and compelling action games on PC.

Meh, i was expecting at least 85.
 

gngf123

Member
Since PCGamer are mostly reviewing port quality rather than game quality, I hope they go back and change the score when the problems are fixed. They clearly consider it a 9 or a 10.

Metacritic only take the first score a reviewer gives, right?
 

big fake

Member
lol

Nier: Automata the best game from Platinum Games yet. It's an action packed game that also has an incredibly engaging story and tons of fantastic characters. This is the best action game I have played in years and one of the best games I have ever played in my life. It's gonna take a lot to take my personal Game of the Year award from Nier: Automata as its currently sitting in the top spot.

This review is loaded to the gills with grammar, spelling, and organization issues. Does Metacritic even curate which publications it allows?

(Not that I'm complaining, 90+ or I microwave my disc)
 
lol



This review is loaded to the gills with grammar, spelling, and organization issues. Does Metacritic even curate which publications it allows?

(Not that I'm complaining, 90+ or I microwave my disc)

BTW what if I bought the game digitally from the Japanese store back when it was a superior game with a 94 meta? Should I burn my PS4 Pro? Can't have this filthy 89 game contaminating my console any longer.
 
It's at 88 again. :(



GameCritics - 65/100

Well, at least surely that reviewer played the game to the en-

I got about halfway through this second run and had no will to continue. Friends kept telling me I had only seen part of the story and that the third run was all-new (and make sure to come back for the fourth!) but I just didn’t care anymore – by this point I was more than 20 hours deep, and I wasn’t interested or excited enough to put more time in. I went to YouTube to see the rest of the story, and it was indeed good — just not good enough for me to sit through hours of it’s okay-ish, I guess?
 

Clear

Member
lol.

Granted if he thought route A and B was boring, route C wasn't going to change his mind. Route C is indeed the best route but its fundamentally the same game he was playing for the past 20 hours.

If a reviewer can't be bothered to finish a game, then why should I be bothered to finish their review? Or give their opinion any credibility?

Look, its kinda simple. Its a reviewers JOB to be thorough. Getting part-way and then half-assing the rest of it with Youtube viewings is showing open contempt not just for the game and its makers, but for their readership and his peers in the reviewing community.

The bottom line is this is a "professional" who decided that he'd rather spare himself playing a game for a few more hours (poor lamb) than do a thorough job of the task he's been assigned.

Frankly I'd rather he gave the game a lower score but actually stuck with it. Because that would be a proper review at least, not just some sloppy amateur blog.
 

Whales

Member
If a reviewer can't be bothered to finish a game, then why should I be bothered to finish their review? Or give their opinion any credibility?

Look, its kinda simple. Its a reviewers JOB to be thorough. Getting part-way and then half-assing the rest of it with Youtube viewings is showing open contempt not just for the game and its makers, but for their readership and his peers in the reviewing community.

The bottom line is this is a "professional" who decided that he'd rather spare himself playing a game for a few more hours (poor lamb) than do a thorough job of the task he's been assigned.

Frankly I'd rather he gave the game a lower score but actually stuck with it. Because that would be a proper review at least, not just some sloppy amateur blog.

I wish I could half ass my work like this too

Seriously... What a shameless review

'' I didn't finish the game but it was ok, story is good tho I youtub'd it''
 
Top Bottom