Redfall is underrated

Avatar image for topcyclist
Topcyclist

1318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Poll Redfall is underrated (77 votes)

Yes 4%
No 68%
Maybe 16%
None of the above 13%

You see it all the time, a popular game releases, 10/10 or 9/10 all over the place…from Elden Ring to god of war to last of us to zelda/mario. Then the outliers come in, and scream I don't get the hype, overrated, am I the only one who thinks this game is flawed, look at all these issues. Etc.

So why not the other way around, where I think it's even more merited. Those games that come out and are underrated...you hear that so much for super old games that are out of the spotlight and were technically reviewed decently and had a cool premise.

So here is a poll for those who think red fall is underrated. Who out there doesn't think it's the end of gamepass and the worst game ever. Who thinks it's fine and just needs polish and a good podcast to zone out to. Who thinks its a 3/5.

(people somehow have short memory as Hifi rush was a smash hit critic wise and is on gamepass along with other great games that are exclusive but this one game ruins all their hopes, and they should pack up ??? As people say, starfield better be the greatest thing in existence, or it's a failure and MS is a failure???)

 • 
Avatar image for cikame
cikame

4442

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I don't know if Redfall deserves a strong reaction either way, the content besides the technical issues is "fine", and if they spend a few months fixing everything it'll still just be "fine".

Critics have reviewed it as such sitting at 59 on metacritic for consoles, naturally user reviews are a hell of a lot lower but that's to be expected, so maybe somehow it's overrated :P.

Avatar image for av_gamer
AV_Gamer

2852

Forum Posts

17819

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 13

#2  Edited By AV_Gamer

I'm playing it right now and the criticisms are well founded. It's bland, boring, and drags in a lot of places. The overall presentation is not what you'd expect in a AAA game, but a low budget 20 dollar indie game. It's not a terrible game, but its far from a solid game that is being unfairly bashed. One thing is for sure, unless they spend 6 months making a huge patch that completely changes the game like Destiny did with The Taken King, I don't see this game being played by many people for long. I don't see this game being a cult hit, and I don't see Akrane trying to fix it in the long run. I do think after some bug fixes, they will abandon it, likely around the time Starfield comes out.

Avatar image for bladeofcreation
BladeOfCreation

2491

Forum Posts

27

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

I don't know about underrated, but it definitely is getting bashed to a ridiculous degree. The two most ridiculous criticisms I've heard were the GameSpot reviewer that seemed bothered that you got access to cool, powerful weapons too early in the game, and the PC Gamer preview that said you're looking at modern, realistic buildings, which is literally the setting.

Avatar image for justin258
Justin258

16682

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 8

#4  Edited By Justin258

I played a little bit of it with some friends Tuesday.

Did I think highly of it? No. It's as "mid" as you can possibly get, from what all I've played of it. It does most things merely adequately and a few things, primarily enemy AI and technical performance, abysmally. Could I see myself having some fun with it? I mean, sure, in the sense that the guns go boom well enough and frantically stabbing vampires with your shotgun bayonet is entertaining even if it's far too easy.

Do I think the backlash against it is unwarranted? Absolutely. It is as much "the straw that broke the camel's back" as it is "mid". It seems like virtually every AAA release over the past few years has been a disaster in some way and it's only getting worse. Jedi Survivor came out at the same time and it seems like a garbage fire in terms of performance on every platform. Hitchiness, stuttering, crashing, bugging out, etc. For my part, I have a 5800X and a 3080ti and Redfall's framerate was mostly was over 60, but frequently stuttered and sometimes dipped below 30FPS. It did this while costing $70 (note: I played on Game Pass) and looking like a $40 game from five years ago. For comparison, Grounded was $40, came out last year, and both looked and performed better than Redfall when it launched. It's also a more original game and it can also be played 4 player co-op. (Grounded also had the benefit of spending a long time in Early Access).

I also think this backlash was kind of already loaded and ready to fire. Reception to every demo of Redfall over the past few years has been weak. Fans of Arkane Studios were unimpressed because it was a "quirky" (in the irritating snarky sense) co op thing that seemed to dispense of all of Arkane's strengths in favor of being another Left 4 Dead like, a genre that has been saturated with a handful of stand-out hits and a lot of forgotten games. Fans of L4D-likes are either still playing L4D2 or have moved on to Deep Rock Galactic or Vermintide 2 (and maybe Darktide, if they're OK with the early access nature of that troubled release). So Redfall needed to overcome the bias that was already coming with its launch from anyone who might have been remotely interested, something it was probably never going to do even if it had launched with perfect performance.

In some twist of irony, this has made me more interested in playing more Redfall just to see it through and see if it actually does have anything interesting in it, after a few patches of course. It isn't, for the most part, egregiously bad in its design, just decidedly mediocre. And again, this thing's on Game Pass. If you've got a machine that can do the job, it's worth checking out for yourself, if only to see what you personally think, and if you hate it then you've got a month of Game Pass to check out some other stuff you might not have otherwise played.

EDIT: I want to mention, I don't think Redfall is necessarily another Left 4 Dead like, despite how it appears and despite how easy that comparison is to make. It uses several small open worlds instead of linear levels with a sort of "mission" structure, its combat relies on a handful of very powerful enemies instead of hordes of very weak ones, and it has a bunch of treasure chests that drop loot. It's better to compare it to Borderlands than to Left 4 Dead.

Avatar image for topcyclist
Topcyclist

1318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@justin258: I feel like the Mid-label is a bit off. People still call Elden Ring and god of war and so on, big expansive games Mid, as in kinda average on paper...or ok...But these days Mid-means trash for people and overrated. It's a word that honestly i think lost it's meaning in the well of internet push to call all media not as good as someone thinks cause it doesn't exactly appeal to me.

Which is funny cause there is a push to use AI to get a rundown of individual taste and only market material that you will love, and on the fly make games and stories that will appeal exactly to an individual's taste since so many come off shocked when say a movie like Everywhere everything all at once wins an Oscar and not the recent Adam Sandler movie they watched that made them laugh. It's surprising that as a whole companies can even make games for a mass market that get audiences and reviewers to say they're good aka 9/10. Happen in the past it seems with games like Tony Hawk, but I'm guessing the demo to pick up that game will enjoy it, and it's the best controls you'd get back then. Today even Elden Ring with its attention to just be a very well done game, has a drastic difference in audience perception and critics. Zelda i imagine will get tons who don't click with the new stuff and call it DLC and MID.

But now that i think about it more, you're right, it's just that. The game is MID or around that, with the definition being just harboring no reaction good or bad, it's just so average in a landscape of great games that you feel like your wasting your time. Even a 7/10 game feels time-wasting these days with a catalog of great games on gamepass or older ones you get free on epic or neat indies and so on. I think even more than movies, games demand alot of time, and they have reached a baseline we will accept that's higher than 5/10. Movies that are 5/10 can still be enjoyable in the its 1 hour 20 minutes and predictable...i like it kinda way.

Avatar image for mobiusfun
MobiusFun

440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It did this while costing $70 (note: I played on Game Pass) and looking like a $40 game from five years ago. For comparison, Grounded was $40, came out last year, and both looked and performed better than Redfall when it launched.


This. It's been funny to see what games think they're worth $70 and which big releases could probably be $70 but still come out at $60. We had two big remakes with successful launches (Dead Space and Resident Evil 4) that were $60, FROMSOFT still launches their games at $60 (including Armored Core 6) even though they recently had their most successful game ever. Many of the $70 games coming out are launching broken AF.

Makes me think the choice to make your game $70 is more a reflection of the studios' culture rather than one based on production costs.

Avatar image for justin258
Justin258

16682

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 8

#7  Edited By Justin258

@topcyclist: So... where are you finding people that are calling Elden Ring or God of War "mid"? You can certainly find some people that dislike those games, you can certainly find lots of criticism about certain aspects of those games, but I don't think I've seen anyone describe either game as "average" or "mediocre" or "run-of-the-mill".

@mobiusfun said:
@justin258 said:
It did this while costing $70 (note: I played on Game Pass) and looking like a $40 game from five years ago. For comparison, Grounded was $40, came out last year, and both looked and performed better than Redfall when it launched.

This. It's been funny to see what games think they're worth $70 and which big releases could probably be $70 but still come out at $60. We had two big remakes with successful launches (Dead Space and Resident Evil 4) that were $60, FROMSOFT still launches their games at $60 (including Armored Core 6) even though they recently had their most successful game ever. Many of the $70 games coming out are launching broken AF.

Makes me think the choice to make your game $70 is more a reflection of the studios' culture rather than one based on production costs.

Tears of the Kingdom will be $70, that might justify its price tag. That's a lot of cash to spend on a game where my weapons break at about the same time I start having fun with them so it might not justify it for me, regardless of how cool the rest of its systems look, but it will likely be a functional game at launch.

I don't, in theory, have a problem with spending $70 on a brand-new game that both works out of the box and isn't essentially a digital money printer for the publisher (I will not pay for the opportunity to be nickel'd and dime'd, thank you very much, leave your microtransactions in the free to play realm), but it seems abundantly clear that a higher price tag isn't going to resolve the problems with new releases.

Avatar image for av_gamer
AV_Gamer

2852

Forum Posts

17819

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 13

#8  Edited By AV_Gamer

@bladeofcreation: I will concede that "The guns don't have enough recoil, and I can easily land head shots" complaint that critics, including Jeff Gertsmann have made seems like a bit of a reach. But it could be because I'm not a fan of a lot of recoil in guns. I know its done to make the guns more realistic, but some games go too far with it, while others get it to acceptable levels. Not having a lot of recoil in the guns in Redfall is one of the game's few positives to me. It's still an overall bland fest of a game.

Avatar image for japanesebuffalo
JapaneseBuffalo

85

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The game is boring. If it was working technically well it would still be bland. Being boring should be considered the greatest sin for these skinner-box games.

Avatar image for tartyron
tartyron

779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By tartyron

I tried all this week. I gave it some hours, I played the side missions, but it just sucks. The one good thing I can say about it is that it’s New England aesthetic is cool. But that’s it.

I just beat the hollow man and I could not be bothered anymore. God I hope this doesn’t turn Arkane into a support studio. I’m so sad.

Avatar image for infantpipoc
infantpipoc

696

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 24

#11  Edited By infantpipoc

For seventy us dollars? Nah, it can be overrated.

Avatar image for jstaunton
jstaunton

737

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

You really threw away the chance for a Malcolm in the middle reference, huh?