1. The EX format continues to be the most manicured, and thus least trustworthy way to look at unfinished games. If unfinished games are going to continue to be covered (which given the way games come out in stages these days seems likely) then I understand that the EX format is likely the best way to do it... but I am significantly more critical while watching them. When I watch a quick look, I know that there's a possibility that the people playing it are potentially wrong or have missed something in their coverage but it is still a more natural interaction with a product. The EX format is a guided tour... which means that I'd really have to be wowed in order for my interest to increase.
2. I wasn't wowed by this game... It looked interesting... but not finished... and almost certainly aimed at someone other than me.
3. It felt like a bit like a pitch to investors... pre-prepared in places... with certain phrases shoehorned in. I really did like the guy who was presenting it though... He was seemingly a little nervous and correspondingly overly talkative but I came out of it believing that he was behind their product.
I'm running an i5, GTX 970, RAM 16 GB, on Windows 10 and I haven't had a single crash or bug after six hours of PC play. Fingers crossed that it stays that way and that everything is patched for those that continue to have problems.
Thanks Austin for another excellent and well written piece. I had a couple of thoughts about your point on Dark Souls becoming potentially too big for its own good.
I'd say that although it is a 'scene' phenomenon, I don't think that the 'dark souls of x' linguistic inflection really exists more broadly. Similarly, I don't think brand saturation of Dark Souls really is as pervasive as you are maybe suggesting. It certainly doesn't have the reach of of a Halo or a Mario branded product for instance. That said, I take the broader point that I assume you are making about the risk of pandering to a broader audience, and how that might influence game play and lore-obscurity in a way that would make the product less desirable to existing fans. From Software don't seem to have done anything like that (as far as I can tell so far) which is a very good thing!
Just finished the game tonight, and thought I'd chime in with a few hot takes to maybe help people out:
I finished in around 10 hours and collected around 85-90% of the stuff. I have no problem with the length, as I'd rather a short, compelling experience over padded out games.
This game looks amazing. The set pieces are incredible, and honestly, make the game worth playing. The faces and animation are also very well done, there's a pretty good uncanny valley action happening with most of the cast. (Brief early game spoilers: The sequence that plays out the first time you walk into Ground Zero is fucking amazing.)
The game mechanics itself are clumsy. The shooting was mushy, the guns all kind of suck to varying degrees, the platforming is sub-par at best, and the enemies are recycled way too much. Upgraded abilities can be pretty useful, but even after trying to play the game not as a 3rd person shooter but rather as a more actiony game, it just didn't really click with me. That's probably personal preference, though.
You only spend about 20% of the game in combat, the rest of the time you're basically hitting Y every 20 feet looking for collectibles or sources of energy to power up your abilities.
Holy fucking shit, there's an ORGY of stuff to collect in this game. And you'll need to collect most if not all of them to not have glaring holes in the story. One main character's whole explanation is basically contained in 2 or 3 emails you find throughout the game, and a pretty major plot point has maybe 3 words of dialogue and is only explained in any kind of detail through collectibles. Also, if you plan on reading everything, you'll be there a while. I stopped reading most stuff halfway through, it was just too much.
Technically, it has some minor issues (everyone looks fuzzy and swimmy for some reason, and there's some tearing once in a while) and it crashed a couple times on me. It also did a weird thing in the last 3 chapters where the first few minutes of the chapter would load and start, then it would go back to a loading screen after 3 minutes or so while the audio continued. Super weird.
The show is just sort of bad. It doesn't really give you anything you couldn't achieve through in-game cutscenes and focuses on kind of shitty side characters that don't end up meaning much in the end. Also, the streaming quality is just straight up bad, I had a ton of buffering and artifacts throughout. (PRO TIP: If you end up downloading the 72 gig movie pack, PUT IT ON THE SAME STORAGE AS THE GAME OR IT WON'T USE THE LOCAL COPIES. I found that unfortunate piece of information out after I finished.)
LANCE REDDICK IS PRETTY DOPE
The final boss fight is super irritating due to some horseshit insta-kill crap and cluttered environment nonesense. And every time you die, you have to start over with a minute-plus-long load, then skip the cutscene for another 30 second load. It's dumb.
The ending is great if you got/read most of the collectibles, but if you didn't you're probably going to have a lot of questions.
I don't think there's really any replayability, as what I've read the differences in the choice consequences are pretty minor.
All in all, I'd probably say to rent it or buy it cheap ($40?), but it's probably worth a play. Just keep your expectations low and you should be fine.
I also just finished the game and I'd say this summary is spot-on. This game is below average. That's the bottom line. 3/5 if you end up having fun with it, 2/5 if you don't. I couldn't unequivocally recommend it to anyone but I also wouldn't trash it as terrible.
I haven't watch the QL yet but I'm playing the game and have made it as far as Act 4. The game isn't bad. There's occasional graphical jank, but it also excels sometimes. The story is hokey and the gameplay is inconsistent in quality (but again, it can be great at times). The movie parts are serviceable. Nothing's been great about them so far. This game is no disaster but it's nothing overwhelming either.
Man, Gerstmann's thinly disguised bias against MSFT this gen is really coming into play in this review. Two stars represents a game that has major flaws making it almost unplayable and/or terrible production values - this game has neither. Maybe Gerstmann should have someone else review MSFT exclusives in the future since he no longer is able to separate his personal animosity against MSFT from an objective review. Anyone who has listened to the Bombcast over the years can hear how strongly Gerstmann has turned against MSFT this gen. Of course, that's fine but he should refrain from reviewing their exclusives if he continues to factor that into his reviews.
No.
I don't own a PS4, and although I was once thinking about buying one, I don't plan on owning a PS4 anymore. With that said, I am not an Xbox apologist and I don't see any bias against Microsoft from Jeff or any of the rest of the crew. They are human and have biases like everyone else, but I don't think they have hardware bias. Consider your own bias perhaps?
I played the first act on XONE last night and had an intriguing but ultimately mediocre experience with it. I can see how the ideas of the game could come together to make something spectacular and I'd be hopeful of this at this stage in the game had I not read the above review. I do still want to see where it goes though so I'll keep pushing on.
Has there been any word on when/how to expect the free Windows code to be provided? The PC version ought to at least look and play better (the film grain and frame rate drops are a bit of an annoyance on the XONE).
EDIT: I just saw elsewhere that it'll take them 7-10 days to send the codes to XONE owners. That's a bit crap.
Then you realise in Destiny you're a reanimated zombie creature that cannot be killed no matter how many times you die, you will re-spawn and you just kill all other sentient life in the universe without trying to communicate with them at all, all at the behest of adherence to a religion that reveres a dead god whose benevolence or motives are never questioned. See it's easy to ruin any game if you want to lol.
Ha! That is true :)
But in Destiny, there are many more degrees of separation between what stands as true in the game world vs our world compared to the real(ish) world of the Division... so they aren't exactly an apples to apples comparison.
I did say that I wasn't challenging the veracity of any part of the review but your point is taken. There is no objective 'truth' when it comes to opinion... and of course there's integrity in terms of resisting influence when stating opinion. Jeff is unimpeachable on this front and has my complete respect and trust.
I'm intrigued to see the game and to see if I will match up my experience with Jeff's outlier criticisms of it... and of course, to ultimately form my own opinion, of which Jeff's criticisms (along with all the other reviews I've read ahead of playing) will naturally now have influenced in terms of setting my expectations.
@extintor: I've not got much to say about the game itself but I'd question the use of "Veracity" when discussing critical perceptions. Unless Jeff is mis-reporting something mechanically or narratively inaccurate then the review is entirely accurate to his own stance.
extintor's comments