2.0 on IGN. Reviewer calls it one of the worst game ever made.

#151 Posted by The_Nubster (2527 posts) -

@plainplease said:

Did anyone see the comment from the deva on Facebook? They claim the game is just hard and that is why it is getting such a cold reception. I haven't played it and can't comment on that, but I don't know exactly how to feel about them even commenting. I like having a voice that devs hear, but not if they are gonna try silencing critics with arguments about why the reviews aren't accurate. Professional reviewers know how to switch difficulty levels and many prolly use easy for review purposes anyway.

"AMY Hi all - we do appologize for our silence those last days. We're currently reading every comment, review and post in depth, and that takes time. We had horrible reviews along with quite good ones but what seems to be the biggest issue so far is the Checkpoint system. We're going to comment that quite soon. In the meantime, we suggest that you try the "easy" mode (in the settings); This should solve many issues for many of you. Once again, we wait to check out a few things before communicating. We've always been transparent with you and this won't change. Thanks a lot for your understanding."

That one? They're not claiming their game is too hard, they're acknowledging that their game is fucked up and are recommending lowering the difficulty to ease the pain. They're not trying to silence the critics, they're saying they're going to fix their game. And if reviewers are using "Easy" to review a game, that's shitty, because "Easy" is not the baseline experience. It's easy.

#152 Posted by plainplease (200 posts) -

@The_Nubster: maybe i minced their words a bit, but i still don't know if they needed to comment at all. if the problem had to do with checkpoints, reviewers would be saying that, right? we don't need the dev to help the reviewers figure out why the game is crap, do we?

#153 Posted by The_Nubster (2527 posts) -

@plainplease said:

@The_Nubster: maybe i minced their words a bit, but i still don't know if they needed to comment at all. if the problem had to do with checkpoints, reviewers would be saying that, right? we don't need the dev to help the reviewers figure out why the game is crap, do we?

Reviewers have been saying that checkpoints are a problem. If you're playing a game that isn't very good to begin with, having to deal with replaying large portions of the game become all the more egregious. Of course, that isn't all they're saying, but it's a point of focus for the developer. Did they need to comment at all? No, absolutely not. But amid all of the comments in this thread, there are people wondering if they even gave a shit about their product. By commenting, they've shown that they do care; they're going to take this game back in and improve it, try to make it more accessible and friendly to the public.

I don't understand why you're holding this against the developer. It's not as if it's an Ocean Marketing stint, or the PR guy in charge of Duke Nukem threatening blacklisting; this comment is friendly, well-worded and shows that care is being put into this game. They're not, as you suggest, trying to tell reviewers why their game was shit. They're simply picking out a running theme in reviews, and then saying "Yeah, we messed up, we're gonna fix it."

#154 Posted by plainplease (200 posts) -

If the point is to acknowledge the problem and suggest ways for people to enjoy it more, then you've swayed me. I do like the idea of devs hearing gamers' perspectives and taking it to heart. I think I was mistaken in reading it as the dev ignoring the gist of the reviews which are fairly negative across the board.

#155 Posted by GoofyGoober (941 posts) -

That really is a shame since it did look kinda interesting. Maybe if they patch in better checkpoints and some other shit I would consider buying it for the low price.

#156 Posted by johnwaynegacy (28 posts) -

Well, IGN are definitely NOT chasing Amy this time.

#157 Posted by Nottle (1931 posts) -

I wouldn't really pay much attention to IGN. They did give God Hand a 3.0 or something.

@MikeGosot said:

@Cloudenvy said:

@TheVideoHustler said:

@Klei said:

@President_Barackbar said:
@Klei: This is the kind of attitude I don't like. Being an indie dev doesn't suddenly give you a pass on quality. If the game sucks, indie or not, it deserves to be called out for it. I had the same feeling about that Garshasp game after the Quick Look when people started defending it due to the production circumstances.
We all have opinions, and it's super fine. What I brought up was how disrespectful some so-called critics can be towards a project, disregarding entirely the team who poured their hearts and mind into it. As for my standards, they are considerably lower for indie games. Take Super Meat Boy or The Binding of Isaac. Are they excellent compared to Batman AC, Skyrim and Uncharted? No, they are bad, if leveled to them. However, on an indie standpoint, they are completely outstanding. It wouldn't be faire to compare multi-million projects to some that costs only a couple of months of living.

I do not agree with this

Neither do I, especially not on the last part.

I would rather play The Binding Of Isaac than Uncharted or Skyrim.

Yeah, I think one could easily argue the Binding of Isaac is a deeper game than at least uncharted. (Maybe not Skyrim.) It's certainly more interesting gameplay wise.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.