The last few games you beat and rate them IV

[Live in the Now]

I cannot imagine playing a game as repetitive as Mafia III more than once. I just finished it yesterday. No chance I'd do that.

Also, 5/10

 

[John Price]

Spiderman - 10/10

It can get a bit difficult and

Spoiler

Octavius basically isn't beatable on anything over Friendly (too much debris flying too fast plus the game being unclear on what you do to beat him)

That being said it is pretty fun once you get used to the combat. Perfect dodging and (when you can do it) evading rockets can be entertaining

 

[John Price]

SpiderMan is 8/10. I rank it 2 down because Amazing is pretty hard and the logic is pretty flawed sometimes. The big guys and the whip guys can be a pain to take down. But once you master the mechanics the game becomes somewhat simpler.

 

[Shareefruck]

I always find that kind of rating strange. It's your rating, if you didn't like it, it's OK to rate it poorly. I feel like that way of rating games hurts because game companies just care about ratings and sale numbers. If there's something to improve on, and nobody brings it up, future games won't get improved.

As an example, I don't like Resident Evil's game design where you're better off shooting a zombie and then running by it while it staggers from the shot. As a result, I gave RE2 remake like a 7 because the world was nice, the puzzles and exploration was fun, but I thought the game play wasn't that engaging. People criticized my review of the game because "that was the point LUL," but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I thought it was bad game design and I dinged it a few points because of that. Obviously many people disagreed considering how popular the game was but that's my opinion and I think that's the point of writing a review.

That's fair, but for me personally, if I find I'm not having fun I will quit playing. This is why I haven't played RDR2 as I've seen the gameplay described as tedious.

I strongly disagree with the whole "I didn't like it but it was good" thing, and it always irks me-- to me, whether you like something and whether you think something is good (the subjective and the closest thing to objective than an individual can get) should be pretty closely aligned, if not identical, otherwise it's like, what are you even doing? There's no real point to rating something if you're just going to modestly defer to authority/known conventions and standards that don't actually apply to your own sensibilities and values.

That said, to argue in the other direction, I also think there are forms of satisfaction, appreciation, and admiration that are valuable besides raw entertainment, addictiveness, and fun, which are very overrated at times when they're treated like the be all end all. I don't see anything wrong with having an attitude of "this feels like tedious work that's hard to work up the enthusiasm to get through and I'll procrastinate at, and its tone isn't something that's easy for me to get into, but the substantative idea and reward is strongly appreciated when it's all said and done, and I like it a lot on that level."

So this one can go either way for me depending on where Unholy Driver is actually coming from

 

[HabsTown]

I cannot imagine playing a game as repetitive as Mafia III more than once. I just finished it yesterday. No chance I'd do that.

Also, 5/10

The story itself & the cinematics are one of the best but that gameplay is god awful. I played it last year as a free PS game & the last 5 hours were such a chore. I'm the type once I invested time in a game, I'll finish it but oh god it was time.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

I strongly disagree with the whole "I didn't like it but it was good" thing, and it always irks me-- to me, whether you like something and whether you think something is good (the subjective and the closest thing to objective than an individual can get) should be pretty closely aligned, if not identical, otherwise it's like, what are you even doing? There's no real point to rating something if you're just going to modestly defer to authority/known conventions and standards that don't actually apply to your own sensibilities and values.

That said, to argue in the other direction, I also think there are forms of satisfaction, appreciation, and admiration that are valuable besides raw entertainment, addictiveness, and fun, which are very overrated at times when they're treated like the be all end all. I don't see anything wrong with having an attitude of "this feels like tedious work that's hard to work up the enthusiasm to get through and I'll procrastinate at, and its tone isn't something that's easy for me to get into, but the substantative idea and reward is strongly appreciated when it's all said and done, and I like it a lot on that level."

So this one can go either way for me depending on where Unholy Driver is actually coming from

I think scoring inflation is a problem derived from three external factors:

a) It's hard for someone to grill a gameplay element because of personal preference while not highlighting objective design contradictions
b) Related to a), most people have an empathetic approach to critique, as such they try to achieve of a level of understanding regarding the developer's intentions and are willing to be forgiving
c) Scoring has had an inflationary issue in gaming media since the dawn of the medium, as such giving a game one could respect for its objective qualities but didn't enjoy (or even vice-versa) a 5/10 is perceptively damning, the equivalent of a 1/2 star film review (out of 4)

One thing that is important from a gaming media perspective is that reviewers for IGN, Gamespot have to be assigned towards games they'd be pre-disposed to liking on a conceptual level, for obvious reasons. This is not a problem when it comes non-professional writeups like these forums, so I agree that folks should feel at ease in being forthright. It's something I've become more comfortable with over time, and now feel fine in giving games like The Outer Worlds a below average score despite critical reception.

Also of note, while gaming criticism might have a scoring problem, I still prefer this downside versus the Tomatometer conundrum. The former at least rewards games across the board, while the latter only benefits mediocrity.

 

[WeaponOfChoice]

It can get a bit difficult and

Spoiler

Octavius basically isn't beatable on anything over Friendly (too much debris flying too fast plus the game being unclear on what you do to beat him)

That being said it is pretty fun once you get used to the combat. Perfect dodging and (when you can do it) evading rockets can be entertaining

I've beat the game 5 times. Once you have all the suits the game is super easy.

I'm stuck on my 6th playthrough at getting perfect in one of Hammerhead's hideouts. Evading rockets/bullets is my weakest attribute.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I think scoring inflation is a problem derived from three external factors:

a) It's hard for someone to grill a gameplay element because of personal preference while not highlighting objective design contradictions
b) Related to a), most people have an empathetic approach to critique, as such they try to achieve of a level of understanding regarding the developer's intentions and are willing to be forgiving
c) Scoring has had an inflationary issue in gaming media since the dawn of the medium, as such giving a game one could respect for its objective qualities but didn't enjoy (or even vice-versa) a 5/10 is perceptively damning, the equivalent of a 1/2 star film review (out of 4)

One thing that is important from a gaming media perspective is that reviewers for IGN, Gamespot have to be assigned towards games they'd be pre-disposed to liking on a conceptual level, for obvious reasons. This is not a problem when it comes non-professional writeups like these forums, so I agree that folks should feel at ease in being forthright. It's something I've become more comfortable with over time, and now feel fine in giving games like The Outer Worlds a below average score despite critical reception.

Also of note, while gaming criticism might have a scoring problem, I still prefer this downside versus the Tomatometer conundrum. The former at least rewards games across the board, while the latter only benefits mediocrity.

I think the bolded are also a result of gaming journalism being bush league. There have been tons of damning stories (reviewers receiving free stuff and swag from developers for a review embargo, Jeff Gerstmann getting fired for not giving Kane & Lynch a good enough score at Gamespot because they allegedly received donations from the developer for a better score, IGN plagiarizing their original Dead Cells review, IGN pumping their website full of Netflix content and sales/deals for obvious financial gain, etc.). It's just such a lower standard with less integrity when compared to critics/journalism in the other mediums.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think scoring inflation is a problem derived from three external factors:

a) It's hard for someone to grill a gameplay element because of personal preference while not highlighting objective design contradictions
b) Related to a), most people have an empathetic approach to critique, as such they try to achieve of a level of understanding regarding the developer's intentions and are willing to be forgiving
c) Scoring has had an inflationary issue in gaming media since the dawn of the medium, as such giving a game one could respect for its objective qualities but didn't enjoy (or even vice-versa) a 5/10 is perceptively damning, the equivalent of a 1/2 star film review (out of 4)

One thing that is important from a gaming media perspective is that reviewers for IGN, Gamespot have to be assigned towards games they'd be pre-disposed to liking on a conceptual level, for obvious reasons. This is not a problem when it comes non-professional writeups like these forums, so I agree that folks should feel at ease in being forthright. It's something I've become more comfortable with over time, and now feel fine in giving games like The Outer Worlds a below average score despite critical reception.

Also of note, while gaming criticism might have a scoring problem, I still prefer this downside versus the Tomatometer conundrum. The former at least rewards games across the board, while the latter only benefits mediocrity.

I tend to feel that personal preference is merely informed by your own understanding (whether it's limited, ignorant, or informed) of what design choices are valuable or relevant (which means that they'd naturally reflect your sincerest possible view of their objective worth). Acknowledging that something is poorly done on an objective level if you don't actually engage with it that way is essentially pretending to understand and agree with something that you fundamentally don't, in my opinion. It almost comes across like trying to meta-game your own opinions to be more agreeable or intelligent or something.

Like for example, I have a sense that Classical music is supposed to be this technically superior and more rewarding thing than the music I tend to listen to, but even if I understand the logical arguments for why it might be seen that way, I think I would be completely disingenuous and premature for me to consider it that without actually coming to that realization myself based on the experience.

I also feel that the desire that people have to be empathic and have a positive outlook compromises the effect of criticism.

Agreed on inflation-- I dislike the way most everyone uses their rating scale because the bottom half of the scale is never used. I tend to see it the opposite way, where I don't care to differentiate between the things that I dislike, so I would rather have more of the things that I do like make greater use of the entire scale. My natural desire/somewhat irrational impulse is to give everything I don't like a zero and let 1-5 represent the different degrees that I like things (because those levels of quality are most significant and meaningful to me).

I've also found that the way publications do it kind of defeats the purpose. I would much rather respected reviews be organized/associated by the specific reviewer, and for publications to have duplicate reviews of games rather than treat themselves like one large hivemind. If one person from IGN gives one game a certain score and someone else from IGN gives a different game a different score, I have zero sense of what the significance of those scores are in relation to each other, personally. The lack of personalization kind of makes them worthless to me, and oddly LESS objectively meaningful.

I actually wouldn't mind the tomatometer so much if it was properly understood, because that seems like a better system for people who are wishy washy about being critical and discerning-- An approval rating is sufficient and ideal for this mindset (not that I would have any use for it). The way it's so badly misused is frustrating though.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

I tend to feel that personal preference is merely informed by your own understanding (whether it's limited, ignorant, or informed) of what design choices are valuable or relevant (which means that they'd naturally reflect your sincerest possible view of their objective worth). Acknowledging that something is poorly done on an objective level if you don't actually engage with it that way is essentially pretending to understand and agree with something that you fundamentally don't, in my opinion. It almost come across like trying to meta-game your own opinions to be more agreeable or something.

Like for example, I have a sense that Classical music is supposed to be this technically superior and more rewarding thing than the music I tend to listen to, but even if I understand the logical arguments for why it would be seen that way, I think I would be completely disingenuous and premature to consider it that without actually coming to that realization myself based on the experience.

I get ya, but I also understand the notion of being agreeable. Plus, I never dismiss the idea of being so impressed by something despite not fully connecting. It might not be explicitly stated in the critique, but the score could suggest otherwise.

On a side note, I do not like comparing video games to other forms of media. The divide between books, music and film is insignificant, at least to me, compared to those and vidya.

 

[Shareefruck]

I get ya, but I also understand the notion of being agreeable. Plus, I never dismiss the idea of being so impressed by something despite not fully connecting. It might not be explicitly stated in the critique, but the score could suggest otherwise.

On a side note, I do not like comparing video games to other forms of media. The divide between books, music and film is insignificant, at least to me, compared to those and vidya.

Agreed, but being that impressed would be its own form of engagement that may as well be the same thing as connecting, IMO.

Understood. I'm pretty happy to compare any kind of media/art without finding apples and oranges to be a factor, personally. At the end of the day, it all ultimately converts into more or less the same currency.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Agreed, but being that impressed would be its own form of engagement that may as well be the same thing as connecting, IMO.

Understood. I'm pretty happy to compare any kind of media/art without finding apples and oranges to be a factor, personally. At the end of the day, it all ultimately converts into more or less the same currency.

Well yeah, but then comes in that scoring inflation again.

Apologies if I sounded too forward. I should have added that I feel this way because of the interactive element, especially when it comes to mechanics based games which often feel as close to playing a sport as it does watching art unfold.

Speaking of mechanics, new game to add.

TROPICO 5

Gonna give this one a 6/10. I enjoyed the concept of moving into different eras to shuffle priorities, and it looks good. Also appreciate the game making the swiss bank account actually worth a damn. Wish the rebels weren't so annoying, why are the commies continuously attacking my farms when they have social security, free food, free schooling, free internet and healthcare?

 

[John Price]

I've beat the game 5 times. Once you have all the suits the game is super easy.

I'm stuck on my 6th playthrough at getting perfect in one of Hammerhead's hideouts. Evading rockets/bullets is my weakest attribute.

The enemies pack such a punch especially the rockets that I haven't bothered to use any suit power other than the OG battle focus. One thing I will say though is that the game has high replayability and I don't often' like replaying games after beating them. I've left a ton of Yakuza quests unfinished but the Spider Man ones I actually have incentive to go back and complete

 

[Ceremony]

​

Hue (PS4, 2016)

Hue is a 2D puzzle-platformer. You play as Hue, a small child with an over-sized head and no agency, which is the default state for 2D puzzle-platformers. You progress through an assortment of corridors following letter narrated to you by a posh English woman, who explains where you are and why you're there.

Games like this generally need a gimmick and the clue this time is in the title. As you progress through the game you collect colours. You can then change the colour of the background to make certain objects appear or disappear, allowing you to solve the puzzles. As you add more colours, the puzzles themselves become more complex.

I'm pretty hopeless with puzzle games. For the most part though, Hue was the right mix of intuitiveness and experimentation. Only a few later levels had me searching for a guide, and the difficulty really scales quite well with your progression through the game. Puzzles are the usual mixture of object moving to press switches or avoid dangers, with the development of colours allowing for a wide range of possibilities in the design.

By the time you unlock all eight colours the controls can become a little cumbersome. They're on a wheel that you select from using the right stick. Having to change colours while doing some mild platforming very often sees you changing from one colour out of necessity and ending up removing the platform you're jumping to. It seems like a game that would be well suited to speed running, but when you're just trying to finish the puzzles, it can be frustrating. Especially if it's a later, more complex one where one mistake sends you back to the start.

Outside of the gameplay, there's usually an attempt at atmosphere and profundity in these kinds of games. Hue's mother was at university where she met Dr. Grey who was doing work with colour. He opened her mind to colours and she carried on his research after he was made to stop and... you know what I thought listening to her slightly too earnest, slightly too well-spoken pleas? I thought it was pretentious. With nothing to be pretentious about. I don't think it was annoying, I don't think it (or the game) was bad, but something just felt off.

It was short, it was fun, it was fairly unique. It was mostly fairly challenging, with only two or three proper galaxy brain levels thrown in near the end. I wouldn't not recommend this.

 

[Ceremony]

While I'm here, today I finished my first ever visual novel, Hatoful Boyfriend. I will not be playing another visual novel any time soon.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

While I'm here, today I finished my first ever visual novel, Hatoful Boyfriend. I will not be playing another visual novel any time soon.

I'm definitely not a fan of visual novels. I need some gameplay to all that reading. I did play Doki Doki Literature Club and while the final hour was nuts, it was such a drag getting there. Even with a crazy story towards the end of a short visual novel, I just have no desire to play another one.

 

[Ceremony]

I'm definitely not a fan of visual novels. I need some gameplay to all that reading. I did play Doki Doki Literature Club and while the final hour was nuts, it was such a drag getting there. Even with a crazy story towards the end of a short visual novel, I just have no desire to play another one.

You should look up how Hatoful Boyfriend ends. A dating simulator that takes 20-30 minutes for each story if you're a slow reader descends into about three hours of madness.

 

[542365]

After the announcement of the remaster of the first two Tony Hawk games, I decided to re-download THPS5. I grinded it out pretty hard and got the platinum trophy for it. I think people are a little too hard on it, but it’s definitely not great. Two of the levels, Rooftops and Mountain, are the two worst Tony Hawk levels I’ve ever played. Just dreadful. I did enjoy the more classic levels like School and Berrics. Some of the challenges, especially on the later levels, are insanely difficult and several are very stupid. Major frame rate drops happen in certain spots, but they’re especially bad on Rooftops. It crashed on me a few times also.

That said, the skating mechanics are okay(in the over-the-top Tony Hawk style) and I still had quite a bit of fun with it. Definitely some rough edges, but enjoyable if you’re just looking for some skateboarding fun.

5/10

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Filament - 6/10

Filament is a puzzle game where you have to guide a wire through each puzzle and hit nodes in a particular order without crossing your wire to reach the exit. Overall, the puzzle aspects are fun and challenging but I feel like the game overstays its welcome. It'll take you probably 20-30 hours, depending on how often you get stuck, to solve every puzzle in the game. I admittedly didn't really pay much attention to the story so no opinion there. It's pretty fun for a while but I'd recommend getting it on sale and don't feel as if you have to complete it entirely.

 

[robertmac43]

Celeste 8/10.

Overall a really fun 2D platforming experience. The controls are smooth and it's satisfying to direct Madeline through the levels. The story is meaningful and does not try to do too much.
I suck at 2d games and died a lot but that also added to satisfaction when I finally got through tougher areas. It also makes me want to replay things to see if I can improve on my death count, which was astronomically high!

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Halo 2: Anniversary (PC)
By 343 Industries

So I finally got to play the remaster of the original gaming blockbuster. My opinion on the campaign is similar to before, but with a bonus (upgrade in fidelity makes the monotonous parts easier to stomach) and a caveat (bugs).

If I were rating the game purely on mechanics, visuals and sound, this would likely get an 8.5. The gameplay formula stands out even more in 2020, and I hope Halo Infinite can return to the old Halo's more strategic approach to weapon loadouts. With the visual and sound glitches and framerate drops, closer to 7.5. It's a very good remaster, but the PC version released with glitches that suggest Microsoft is forcing 343 to get all these out in time for Infinite. I hope it was worth it (and for the record, at $10 it's worth every penny).

 

[x Tame Impala]

I've tried 3 times now to get into RDR 2. I played the absolute shit out of the first RDR but this one...I don't know if it's just because i'm older and don't have the patience for it or what. Things like cleaning my gun, taking care of my horse, shaves and haircuts, slowwwwwwwly flipping through items catalogues, etc...the game seems too tedious to me. I don't even remember where I am in the game. I think the last thing I did was get that blonde dude from my gang out of prison by ripping the bars off with my horse.

Am i overreacting here? Is the game not as tedious as I think and it's worth it to stick through?

 

[x Tame Impala]

@Ceremony

Completely agree about the trend of massive open worlds having nothing in them. It's not that fun anymore to be running around a big empty world just because its big. It's a trend I wish would go away

 

[robertmac43]

Completely agree about the trend of massive open worlds having nothing in them. It's not that fun anymore to be running around a big empty world just because its big. It's a trend I wish would go away

Recently I have found I need a break from the open-world formula. Played 5 or 6 open world games in a row - enjoyed all of them, but it's nice to play some more action heavy games every now and again.

Beat Celeste, and I'm now playing Hollow Knight and Gears 4 which are both pretty high pace. These games also just drop you into the game play more or less. The stories don't need any big introductions and there are not any time consuming tutorials.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Recently I have found I need a break from the open-world formula. Played 5 or 6 open world games in a row - enjoyed all of them, but it's nice to play some more action heavy games every now and again.

Beat Celeste, and I'm now playing Hollow Knight and Gears 4 which are both pretty high pace. These games also just drop you into the game play more or less. The stories don't need any big introductions and there are not any time consuming tutorials.

If you haven't played Hollow Knight yet you're in for a real treat