Support NeoGAF

[Dawg]

There are games I reviewed in the past that I wouldn't give the same score now. I just accept that my opinion won't always stay the same.

But I also make sure to complete most games I review. There are some exceptions. I'm talking about games that are REALLY long and where the gameplay hardly changes.

I think it's weird he admits to not having completed Assassin's Creed: Unity though. It's a short game imo. Unless you want to do every single bit of sidecontent, but that's only for completionists and trophy hunters. Feels like a cheap excuse to explain why his score was so high or whatever.

 

[King of Custard]

I wrote a review on Monster Hunter Tri having logged in over a hundred hours and playing with every class but didn't 'complete the game'. Does that not count?

By not looking in to all the content you have to except responsibility for any game breaking bugs or broken shit you haven't tested, you are giving the product an endorsement after all. Granted in your circumstances its very very unlikely.

 

[Bedlam]

You didn't need to complete AC: Unity to see the issues he is basing his retraction on now.

All it takes to understand that what Ubisoft did with this game micropayment-wise is problematic and downright devious is just some common sense. But nope, this reviewer ran into the same trap that many of his colleagues and also normal gamers do when they get their hands on a fresh, hyped-up game: being blind to the issues due to superfluous spectacle.

Hopefully at least this guy will do a better job in the future. Late retractions like this one aren't worth anything except for highlighting the problems that exist within the gaming press.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Well I just don't know how I'll ever be able to trust psxextreme again....

lol..

 

[Hollabootsey]

Why don't reviewers just say, I've finished the story missions and have completed X% of the game on patch whatever. That seems pretty straight forward for everyone.

 

[Kusagari]

By not looking in to all the content you have to except responsibility for any game breaking bugs or broken shit you haven't tested, you are giving the product an endorsement after all. Granted in your circumstances its very very unlikely.

In an open world game that could take 50+ hours to make sure some random content doesn't cause a game breaking bug.

It just isn't humanly possible in a tight window while likely juggling other games for review at the same time.

 

[Dawg]

You didn't need to complete AC: Unity to see the issues he is basing his retraction on now.

All it takes to understand that what Ubisoft did with this game micropayment-wise is problematic and downright devious is just some common sense. But nope, this reviewer ran into the same trap that many of his colleagues and also normal gamers do when they get their hands on a fresh, hyped-up game: being blind to the issues due to superfluous spectacle.

Hopefully at least this guy will do a better job in the future. Late retractions like this one aren't worth anything except for highlighting the problems that exist within the gaming press.

I recently completed the game and I really do not understand the microtransaction problem.

I have way too much money. I can buy every single thing in this game and I'd still have money left. I would have a bigger problem with it if you had to grind lots and lots of money while there's microtransactions available.

 

[Pyro.]

So he wrote his original review before completing the game, mmmm

Sadly this is more the norm than not. I've had reviewers tell me as much.

 

[King of Custard]

In an open world game that could take 50+ hours to make sure some random content doesn't cause a game breaking bug.

It just isn't humanly possible in a tight window while likely juggling other games for review at the same time.

Why this is true I feel people are using it as an excuse if you don't think you've put enough time in to a game then release it as an in-depth look. But oh no can't do that because gotta be first who cares if the game bricks people's consoles or breaks their game save at least I'm getting my clicks.

It's unprofessional.

 

[joey_bone_bomb]

Fair enough. Why anyone would have an issue with this is beyond me.
I'd like to encourage more reviewers to finish the games they had to review unfinished, just for them to see how misleading first impressions can be in some cases.

 

[oni-link]

I'm sorry, you need to complete a game before you review it. I know that many reviewers have not been doing so and in many cases you see it in their writing when you play the game yourself. This is like watching the intro or half a movie then reviewing it.

This would render games like Tetris unreviewable

I agree with you in principal, but if you play though 90% of a games story mode and don't think it's a good game, you don't need to see the credits rolling to be able to confidently say that

They do need to play a ton of a game before reviewing it though, but it's not very useful to say "it only counts of they beat it" or "it only counts if they play over 20 hours"

The greater concern is how many reviewers see huge problems like bugs and broken mp and don't mention it because they assume it will be fixed and patched, as they're writing a review that is meant to be applicable for years to come, not just a "well it's like this as of the release date" otherwise most modern AAA game reviews would be half review half ranting about the bugs and glitches

Until a game is fixed and all patched up as much as the publisher cares to do so, the review isn't even reviewing the finished product anyway, and is barely worth anything in the long term

 

[Crossing Eden]

Better late than never. It doesn't excuse the first one he published (and automatically calls into question every other early review of his), but at least he did have his epiphany finally and went back to correct his incorrect first review.


I think his realisation and observation about how much Ubisoft tries to manipulate the player by design choices that have fewer to do with "game design" in the traditional sense and more with psychological hooks and sociological, well, manipulation, is particularly valuable.

It often feels like design by a bunch of marketing and monetisation experts instead of game designers, and that's something we usually see in exploitative facebook and mobile games, not in the AAA gamespace (that has changed now).


Required reading.

Him complaining about co-op specific missions being more difficult when played solo items being locked off from the free dlc when it was btw, added in patch 4 is ridiculous. And no Dead Kings wasn't in the base game, it was developed by a different studio altogether and not so coincidentally is integrated with the main interface of the game. but it wasn't there at launch, which is why he never noticed until it was added into the game, this was announced to be part of the season pass like Freedom Cry. How anyone could take this person's reviews seriously in the future is beyond me.

 

[LapinAgile]

Him complaining about items being locked off from the free dlc when it was btw, added in patch 4 is ridiculous. And no Dead Kings wasn't in the base game, it was developed by a different studio altogether and not so coincidentally is integrated with the main interface of the game. How anyone could take this person's reviews seriously in the future is beyond me.

They were visible in the in-game menus for quite some time. And I think the more attention that is brought to this overwrought second-screen and purchasable currency to pad out the collectibles needs a lot more attention. Unity was a pretty game with a lot going for it, the only reason I bought it was because I thought black flag was a step in the right direction. It really did feel like a very pretty mobile game. I had a map full of things begging me to spend more time in Ubisoft's banal and overwrought ecosystem they have created to monetize my time. Optional? Absolutely, but the base game suffered from it in my opinion. Combat was easier than the previous entries and we got giant stages full of NPCs that looked impressive but really just acted as new hallways for us to take to our targets. It just felt sloppy.

 

[oni-link]

They were visible in the in-game menus for quite some time. And I think the more attention that is brought to this overwrought second-screen and purchasable currency to pad out the collectibles needs a lot more attention. Unity was a pretty game with a lot going for it, the only reason I bought it was because I thought black flag was a step in the right direction. It really did feel like a very pretty mobile game. I had a map full of things begging me to spend more time in Ubisoft's banal and overwrought ecosystem they have created to monetize my time. Optional? Absolutely, but the base game suffered from it in my opinion. Combat was easier than the previous entries and we got giant stages full of NPCs that looked impressive but really just acted as new hallways for us to take to our targets. It just felt sloppy.

It would have gotten more attention had it been in the review he wrote when the game came out, almost everyone who read that review will not be aware of his follow up

I really hope this fleecing of the customer is paying off for Ubisoft, because they're turning more and more people off each year with these kind of tactics, and with the non stop release of annual games with copy and pasted mechanics, it can only last so long before it blows up in their faces

 

[Crossing Eden]

They were visible in the in-game menus for quite some time. And I think the more attention that is brought to this overwrought second-screen and purchasable currency to pad out the collectibles needs a lot more attention. Unity was a pretty game with a lot going for it, the only reason I bought it was because I thought black flag was a step in the right direction. It really did feel like a very pretty mobile game. I had a map full of things begging me to spend more time in Ubisoft's banal and overwrought ecosystem they have created to monetize my time. Optional? Absolutely, but the base game suffered from it in my opinion. Combat was easier than the previous entries and we got giant stages full of NPCs that looked impressive but really just acted as new hallways for us to take to our targets. It just felt sloppy.

They weren't visible in the game until patch 4. And since the dlc wasn't released yet obviously they wouldn't be accessible, which makes sense. And no the combat is not easier than the previous, enemies(especially level4-5) dodge bullets, parry sword attacks followed by a stun, and shoot much faster than previous games, they also have a bigger line of sight.

 

[BHK3]

What a god damn idiot, you didn't need 50 hours to view the tons of bugs or to see that Ubi wanted your money to open things. Sure finding out about the DLC is one thing but a 9/10 from the start is bs.

 

[May16]

Why don't reviewers just say, I've finished the story missions and have completed X% of the game on patch whatever. That seems pretty straight forward for everyone.

Because it would expose how few of them finish the game, and some of them would be even FURTHER exposed as not having gotten very far at all.

They want the game completion issue to be an issue that is discussed only during rare occasions like this, rather then put out there unsolicited -- or else they'd look bad.

(People can justify it whichever way they want. It still looks inferior to have "I played 17 hours of this 50-hour game" at the bottom of your review, when Joe J. Gamer's review is of the completed product. The whole industry -- as many things -- is built around doing just barely enough.)

 

[Alucrid]

What a god damn idiot, you didn't need 50 hours to view the tons of bugs or to see that Ubi wanted your money to open things. Sure finding out about the DLC is one thing but a 9/10 from the start is bs.

Well it took him over 9 weeks to retract his score. It makes sense that it might take him 50 hours to see that.

 

[oni-link]

Why don't reviewers just say, I've finished the story missions and have completed X% of the game on patch whatever. That seems pretty straight forward for everyone.

Well, he could just be trying to save face

In future if he reviews a game, and you check out his other reviews and see a 9/10 for Unity, that undermines his opinion and makes him easier to dismiss

It would be like reading a music review that sounds promising, only to look at the reviewers other reviews and seeing he gave a Nickelback album a 9/10

 

[LapinAgile]

They weren't visible in the game until patch 4. And since the dlc wasn't released yet obviously they wouldn't be accessible, which makes sense. And no the combat is not easier than the previous, enemies(especially level4-5) dodge bullets, parry sword attacks followed by a stun, and shoot much faster than previous games, they also have a bigger line of sight.

All you need to do to remedy all of that is throw a smoke bomb and tap and hold the attack button with the occasional parry. It felt loose and completely bereft of challenge even compared to the earlier games. It's a poor path to follow they need to get back to the drawing board with a number of things... but being an annual franchise farmed out to ten studios to finish I doubt there is enough (pun not intended) unity on the team to really focus down on the actual gameplay experience.

 

[Crossing Eden]

All you need to do to remedy all of that is throw a smoke bomb and tap and hold the attack button with the occasional parry. It felt loose and completely bereft of challenge even compared to the earlier games. It's a poor path to follow they need to get back to the drawing board with a number of things... but being an annual franchise farmed out to ten studios to finish I doubt there is enough (pun not intended) unity on the team to really focus down on the actual gameplay experience.

Snipers can shoot through smoke bombs. Where was the challenge in counter killing people and then one shotting everyone else? In fact, if you used a smoke bomb in previous games all enemies would become an instant kill.

 

[LapinAgile]

I know that you are a fan of the franchise but even you have to see the major issues that are developing here. We saw the decline with AC3 and how sections of the game felt completely disjointed... now we get a pretty game with fluff meant to spread us thin over all these interconnected money traps. There is no defense for f2p systems being included in AAA games like this... there is no defensible position when they touted they had ten studios making this. I would rather have smaller focused teams making a game that plays well over what we are getting year after year.

 

[tim.mbp]

This "reviewer" always brings the fun.

Don't you guys remember the Killzone 2 mess? "EDGE MAGAZINE IS LYING TO YOU GUYS WITH THEIR REVIEW!!!"

"IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE SUN ISN'T HOT!" - Ben Dutka


A song was even written for him

lol

This guy is weird. Losing his shit cause Edge gave Killzone 2 a 7.

 

[StevePharma]

lol

This guy is weird. Losing his shit cause Edge gave Killzone 2 a 7.

Original article HERE

"They're not speaking their mind. And I'm sorry, there are such things as wrong "opinions." It's my opinion that the sun isn't hot......mm-hm.

It's their opinion that Killzone 2 is inferior to about 25-30% of all games that are currently available. ......mm-hm." - Ben Dutka

♫ ♫♫ A Letter To Edge ♫ ♫ ♫

"Look, we're not saying that we're right
We're just saying that you're wrong
With your quote-unquote review of Killzone 2
Edge, you're desperate for attention
Yet barely worth a mention
Except to take contention with your desperate grab for hits

You gave Killzone 2 a seven
I wanted an eleven on our site
Our scale doesn't go that high but I had to try

And who are you to say Killzone 2 is a good game?
Because it's not
It's a perfect video game
Yes, it's a perfect video game
Oh, it's perfect

You can't give Citizen Kane a seven
Everybody knows, just ask Roger Ebert
He would tell you that's a disgrace
Citizen Kane gets two thumbs up
and therefore so does Killzone 2
The SDF [Sony Defense Force] said so

I would give it three thumbs up
But I don't have three thumbs
So you can lend me one
And together, three thumbs up for Killzone 2!
Me and you, giving Killzone 2 its due

 

[Shining Sunshine]

Most reviewers did review the game before Ubisoft pulled the wool over their eyes.

The microtransaction stuff wasn't in review builds, and it's disgusting.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I know that you are a fan of the franchise but even you have to see the major issues that are developing here. We saw the decline with AC3 and how sections of the game felt completely disjointed... now we get a pretty game with fluff meant to spread us thin over all these interconnected money traps. There is no defense for f2p systems being included in AAA games like this... there is no defensible position when they touted they had ten studios making this. I would rather have smaller focused teams making a game that plays well over what we are getting year after year.

The series has had microtransactions since AC3, and it hasn't hindered the progression at all. And the only thing that I felt was disjointed from AC3 was the crafting system, which was added late into development. Think we can give them the benefit of the doubt at this point when it comes to microtransactions since they are actively making progression more accessible instead of having a bunch of activities that yield little or no rewards.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

So he wrote his original review before completing the game, mmmm

Temper your unrealistic expectations. You'd have to be INCREDIBLY naïve to think they complete every game they review. Especially in todays world.

 

[Guile]

This is exactly the reason why I pay zero attention to reviews. Most are full of shit anyway.