I don't know. I haven't played it yet. I'll let you know when my time machine is fixed- it's currently in the shop.

@Toms115: Indeed, renting it at that point is very stupid.

 That's totally understandable--Deus Ex 3 needs time, a quiet environment, and a deliberate pace to really shine--but are reviewers going to appreciate that? Or are they going to slam the game for not delivering CoD-style instant gratification, and then ignore the game's many, many merits? I hope Giantbomb gives this game a fair shot, at least."

@02sfraser said:

@KillyDarko said:

As with any other game, I couldn't care less about reviews-- I've played a lot of games that I thoroughly enjoyed and that were bashed in reviews, while also very much disliking quite a few praised games out there. A review is just a personal opinion. And my personal opinion on DE:HR is that I'm very much looking forward to it :)

I agree with this. Reviewers tend to pick out faults in games and I think they can give you a good overview of how it will be, but will never reflect everyones opinion.

This isn't the first time I've seen sentiments like this, and it seems like a lot of people don't understand the point of a review. Reviews don't exist to dictate what your opinion should be, but rather what another person's opinion is, so it baffles me when people run down a review as a "personal opinion" as if that were a fault. I absolutely care about reviews, because I use them to help decide what to spend my money on. Even if I could afford to buy absolutely every game I see, I still have limited time to play them in, and rather than using that time to form an opinion about every game, I'd prefer to only play the games that I'm pretty sure I'm going to like.

Hypothetically, let's say that Jeff (or whoever) plays DE:HR, hates it, and gives it a 2-star review. Regardless of how he feels about the game, I expect the review to explain that opinion so that I can make an educated guess about whether or not I'll enjoy it, and whether I should invest my money in it. I should be able to read that 2-star review and say to myself, "okay, those don't seem like big issues to me, and the things he hated are actually things that I enjoy. I'll try it." Or, "yep, that sounds awful. I don't want to play that." Jeff has said over and over that Giant Bomb is trying to make bylines matter and to value the text of a review over a score - newspapers tend to have only one or two film critics for the same reason, so that you can get a feel for how they react and how their opinions differ from your own.

The game feels like the kind of game that would get super fluffy and tedious in the 3rd act so its "long enough". But I bet it makes a decent first impression.

@OldThrashbarg said:

 That's totally understandable--Deus Ex 3 needs time, a quiet environment, and a deliberate pace to really shine--but are reviewers going to appreciate that? Or are they going to slam the game for not delivering CoD-style instant gratification, and then ignore the game's many, many merits? I hope Giantbomb gives this game a fair shot, at least."

Yeah, it not like any game that requires "time, a quiet environment, and a deliberate pace to really shine" gets well received. The press just loves to bag on Bethesda.

The game feels like the kind of game that would get super fluffy and tedious in the 3rd act so its "long enough". But I bet it makes a decent first impression.

Probably not..

@DonutFever said:

@OldThrashbarg said:

 That's totally understandable--Deus Ex 3 needs time, a quiet environment, and a deliberate pace to really shine--but are reviewers going to appreciate that? Or are they going to slam the game for not delivering CoD-style instant gratification, and then ignore the game's many, many merits? I hope Giantbomb gives this game a fair shot, at least."

Yeah, it not like any game that requires "time, a quiet environment, and a deliberate pace to really shine" gets well received. The press just loves to bag on Bethesda.

Bethesda games get good scores because they have great graphics (on release) and impress at first with their huge open worlds and focus on exploration. They don't take time to shine...in fact, they get worse the more they're played, because the horrible imbalances and flaws in their gameplay mechanics become more apparent. Oblivion in particular was incredibly broken.  Not to say I don't like them--Bethesda is great at crafting worlds--but the games are absolutely review-friendly."

I don't know where you're getting the awful graphics thing from. Check Metacritic--reviewers frequently praised the graphics and the atmosphere they fostered, if not from a technical perspective, from an artistic one.
 
And yes, exploration is a type of quick gratification. You don't need to wade through complex gameplay systems or spend time strategizing--you get the appeal instantly. It's quickly fun and cool to explore.

I'm still wait and see on it, but it feels like everyone is way too defensive against any criticism right now.
 
This seems like it happens about a month before any game comes out.  Pre-orders get put in and people take things personally or something.

This game will lose at least one star for having too much brown and gold.

This game will lose at least one star for having too much brown and gold.

After Alpha Protocol, I'll be buying this regardless of the reviews. Alpha Protocol was an amazing game.. let down by it's story, but had great gameplay and a lot of depth to the customisation and choices. It's exactly the type of game Bioware should be making, instead of catering to the casual crowd. I can see certain people being put off by the fact it's more RPG and less shooter.. but I really don't care what those people think.

@akiz_jack said:

I'm waiting for reviews before deciding whether I should buy this.

wouldn't you rather try the game for yourself? lol

I'm sure if it's a good game it will be reviewer-friendly...

@DonutFever said:

@OldThrashbarg said:

 That's totally understandable--Deus Ex 3 needs time, a quiet environment, and a deliberate pace to really shine--but are reviewers going to appreciate that? Or are they going to slam the game for not delivering CoD-style instant gratification, and then ignore the game's many, many merits? I hope Giantbomb gives this game a fair shot, at least."

Yeah, it not like any game that requires "time, a quiet environment, and a deliberate pace to really shine" gets well received. The press just loves to bag on Bethesda.

Bethesda games get good scores because they have great graphics (on release) and impress at first with their huge open worlds and focus on exploration. They don't take time to shine...in fact, they get worse the more they're played, because the horrible imbalances and flaws in their gameplay mechanics become more apparent. Oblivion in particular was incredibly broken.  Not to say I don't like them--Bethesda is great at crafting worlds--but the games are absolutely review-friendly.

OPMUK liked it but not to the point that they would herald it game of the year. I think it will be good but I think some people have succumbed to hype.
Hope my Skyrim hype isn't misplaced =(

@Veektarius said:

This game will lose at least one star for having too much brown and gold.

It's seriously distracting. 

I became really to like it nowadays since I have been prefer to single play mode mostly. this game has no MP which is better to me. I wish that DLC will give it something like co-op mode or few maps like Splinter Cell Conviction with three different modes you can trigger. I believe that they will release it someday.  
 
if you like this kind of game, you would like 'splinter cell conviction', 'mass effect 2', 'assassin's creed series'. they are all great for single play. one of my favorites in denial ops (Splinter cell conviction) is San Francisco harbor area. there are lots of enemies you should kill. especially, hard difficulty with infiltrate mode is not easy. 

10/10 from Edge, apparently, the first review from a somewhat credible source. I'm happy with the critical response so far.

Some reviews have simply treated it as a shooter, but still given it top ratings.

Those reviewers need to be taken out and reprogrammed.

Why is it that everyone assumes that because someone doesn't like a game that it's because it doesn't offer instant gratification and satisfaction like "Call of Duty?" There are plenty of reviewers and players out there that have the patient to enjoy a good game and realize one that is just slow because it is poorly made. We may see that Deus Ex HR is just a bad game or we may see it's a great game and that is that.

Reviews thus far:

Edge 10/10

Playstation Official Magazine UK 80/100

PC Gamer 94/100

Official Xbox Mag UK 10/10

I think that's a decent enough early consensus that the game should be at least pretty okay.

I feel like you dont have enough trust in our reviewers.  And I think you ARE a little overconfident about this game lol

Well it has been hyped a bit and there are good production values in the art of the character and the music. 
I haven't actually played the game. 
Early prediction is the game gets 4 stars from Giant Bomb. 
 
If it sells for $50, it gets 5 stars. 
If it sells for $60, it gets 4 stars.