Support NeoGAF

[LukasTaves]

I did watch the whole video. Read the whole post. There are more arguments in my post beyond the first sentence.

Sorry, I posted and was a mobile so I couldn't properly respond.

Did you watch the video? The guy himself complains about the controls being imprecise. And you linked one moment from the game. Bad games can have good segments. That 5 minute section doesn't make up for the rest of the game if people dislike the rest of the game. Most players probably won't even bother with that section. Different people have different opinions and play games differently. I tried the trial and found the game to be unpolished and mindless. When reviews express their different opinion they're not necessarily trolling. They just have different expectations and perspectives.

You make a fair point, if the game was mostly bad. It's not, and that's something that even the absolute lower score reviews from the game agree, here's some snippets from the Destructoid review, the lowest (4) it got:

"Are those cores weighing you down," ReCore's antagonist asks toward the end of the game. Whether or not the developers realize it, it's an apt bit of meta commentary. ReCore is brimming with ideas -- some great and some not -- and their collective heft pulls everything down.
ReCore is a prime example of what happens when a game is built upon a solid foundation but is marred by bad design. For a while, that foundation holds steady. Then, it starts to show some cracks. Eventually, it all crumbles.

All of this collecting is propelled by two main systems: platforming and combat. The platforming is one of ReCore's brightest-shining mechanics. At all times, Joule has a double jump and a forward dash. Despite covering long distances and leaping to moving targets, Joule is always fantastically easy to control. Landing while carrying a lot of momentum surprisingly works more often than not.

The combat is similarly great, but only at first. This is a third-person shooter with a mild puzzle slant. The attacking robots are different colors. With a press of a directional button, Joule's rifle matches that color to deal extra damage. She also has a grappling hook that can rip the cores out of enemies that are low on health via a tug-of-war minigame.

But, the minute-to-minute of ReCore amounts to hardly anything more than fetch quests. Almost all progress is walled off by collecting a few of something to move forward. "Find two cores to open this door." "Collect the four robot parts to learn to fly." ReCore quickly falls into a repetitive gameplay loop that it never really breaks away from. More importantly, that loop never does the narrative justice.

Basically they say is:

The game has great gameplay, everything is really perfect at first (save for you know the bugs and perf issues) but then the games crumbles because it demands you to gather tons of cores.

This is basically where all the reviews sit, and where I strongly disagree.

Many makes the point that until the very end game just doing the main story the game hands you all the cores you need, but on the end the core count increases without (to 45) the game giving you no warning and you are left with a insane grind quest to claim those cores. I believe this is not true at all. The game right away establishes that these cores are important and that you have to collect many of them (they are used as a key, and right on the first area you start you see a door that requires 75, or pretty much all of them), and the game constantly presents where you can find them in the open world. It literally points you to those dungeons, to areas in the overworld that require some great platforming in the veins of Banjo, and other minor activities like the ones that create a arena that you have to kill all enemies to be able to get the core.

That's basically what the gameplay consists, very well super crafted platforming and combat segments which the award for winning them is an extra core.

Just to give an example, on my first play through I was at 20 ish core count before even unlocking the 3rd bot, and that without any back tracking, I was just exploring the world and trying to beat all the dungeons I found as I went my way through the game.

Whilst this video was great to watch, and I'm quite liking Recore from the 5 or so hours I've spent with it... I don't think you can blame reviewers for not seeing the best in a game's mechanics if they may simply lack the skill required to get the most of it. I actually think Recore in many ways is similar to some of the better 3D Sonics, in that when played well on some of the more challenging segments the game can appear to look (and even actually play) better than the majority of games in its category... but that's not going to everyone's experience with it, and a reviewer shouldn't be demanding to "git gud" in order to have their impression considered valid. Especially in most of the audience they're reviewing for also won't "git gud", and as a result more likely share that reviewer's initial opinion.

Also like 3D Sonic, the game's scores and people's general impressions of it are/were harmed by a bunch collision bugs and long loading times, that may have elevated it noticeably had the game received a bit more time to have these ironed out.

Also "it's too punishing... controls like shit" is probably not the sort of commentary you want in a video to make the points you're making.


A lot of us say a lot of shit that we probably wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) say as a brand representative. Even if there's some truth to what you're saying. On GAF I can declare someone a blind fanboy who has nothing but praise for everything regarding one console manufacturer, and nothing but disdain for another... regardless of how similar certain aspects of the two are. Would I tweet that to any of them if my twitter handle was XboxUK? Fuck no... because then it cascades into more petty bullshit with a 20+ page GAF thread, where the general takeaway becomes "Xbox peeps = salty mothafuckas". There's all sorts of shit I can say here that I'd never ever say whilst representing any company/brand/whatever.

The game didn't scores as they would like. That's fine, there are plenty of people that are enjoying it, and not every game has to be for everyone. In fact, in some cases a game excelling in certain aspects, that may require dexterity beyond what many players possess won't resonate with them for that reason. That's neither their fault, nor the developer's fault.

About the first bold, it's a very fair point, but one I don't think it applies to Recore. The sonic 3d games have fundamental flaws on the gameplay (at least the first ones), it's something you can get by if you are really good but it's there.

On Recore, the mechanics are not challenging at all, from shooting, to dashing and the platforming everything just works, and the game is also very fair with the challenges. For instance, each dungeon has 3 primary objectives, complete in a short time, shoot all the interrupters and find and get a hidden key. Just finishing the dungeon without doing any of the optional tasks give you a core. Doing it again gunning for each objective is also a piece of cake (except for the time sometimes) but the game usually (I want to say always, but I'm not sure) always gate the extra cores on those other objectives, so you can take your time and usually leave the dungeon with 2 cores. The great challenge comes for trying to do them all at first try. You have to be almost perfect to get it right, but it's so thrilling that when you do, that's basically the reaction you have: You get screaming out of enthusiasm. And usually doing a perfect run only gives you some high level parts for your bots, and not cores.

The game is also very well balanced combat wise. Your bots level up quickly and even if you don't extract the cores (which can be a layer of extra difficult on some tougher battles) you get core fragments. This means that just going by shooting stuff you gain cores that are used to power up your own bots, which means that even if you aren't that good in the combat you don't face anything unfairly tough.

On the second bold, I agree completely. It's a shame the game came out with those bugs, because it's truly something great that could be a masterpiece with these issues ironed out. And also because it came in a very packed time, Recore, Forza Horizon 3, and Gears 4 all in a few weeks between was definitely an overkill.

On the third bold. It's actually exactly the commentary I wanted. Why? Because the player knows it's your own fault, but you get mad at the game anyway for exposing that at you, but when you finally completely it you start screaming like a little girl. That's one of the reasons for me it's one of the high ups of this generation so far. The game is extremely satisfying. When I unlocked Seth and went to the insanely great platforming moments it unlocks I was griming at the whole time, and Joule in game chatter reflected exactly that thrill.

And finally, on the last bold. Even though it wasn't responding to me. I personally don't care about a game I like getting bad reviews, but imo Quantum Break and now Recore were both completely destroyed by the critics to the point it hurt their sales potential and chances of getting a sequel.

And it's really bad when you see two games that really excel in gameplay getting so low scores like they did.

 

[Hexer06]

I thought he was talking about FH3, correct? Saw the quote was misinterpreted around page 2. How is the narrative about him talking about ReCore still going on 14 pages?

Okay, so maybe I was right then? The interview I saw with Phil, he was talking about fh3 when the "click bait" thing came up. I fully agree that some reviews (like the fh3 one) are clickbait. I couldn't believe ppl defending it in the fh3 Review thread. I understand ppl have different opinions, but when you dock points for it not being dirt rally, trash the developers by saying they're "bored with making car games", and then get annoyed by the game being "too easy" without changing any settings (like DIFFICULTY) the game gives you, it's pretty clear they didn't even wanna like the game from the start.

 

[Sadist]

Phil, please, just don't. You're no messageboard warrior.

 

[etta]

Not every reviewer uses the same scale to mean the same thing. I mean, just me and you would probably disagree on what a 1 out of 5 would mean, and reviewers are the same way.

So why are they on Metacritic if their scale doesn't align with the other reviewers?
I guess more importantly is we shouldn't even bother with the Metacritic average, then, because everyone's scale is unique in the end.

 

[jabberwocker]

I feel this is true for somethings. IGN Rise of Iron is a perfect example. The reviewer plays enough to level up to play the raid yet says it is too grindy. Even though they have a group they play with frequently. Meaning that they play this often. The game is designed to be this way as a mmo light. Take it or leave it it is what this is. Its like marking down WOW because it is too grindy. Are all console games suppose to be for casuals? But pc games get a pass? I think honestly scoring should be a non factor as it is just someone opinion. But I think that pressures outside of just a honest review sometimes get in the way.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

So why are they on Metacritic if their scale doesn't align with the other reviewers?
I guess more importantly is we shouldn't even bother with the Metacritic average, then, because everyone's scale is unique in the end.

No of course we shouldn't bother about the metascore. Metacritic is great as an aggregator. You have all reviews in one place. I like to go there and read the best and the worst scores to get different perspectives on a game. Then, based on the specific praise and complaints a game got, I can figure out whether it would be for me.

The metascore itself, though, is useless outside of fanboy list wars

 

[SilentRob]

You should be looking at the PS4 version of Axiom Verge which is sitting at an 84 on MC. Sorry, felt like pointing that out. I agree with your sentiment, otherwise. Perhaps put Undertale in its place. ;]

Oh yeah, it was a completely arbritrary selection. I could have linked to Ori and the Blind Forest, to Stardew Valley, Steins;Gate, The Witness, Undertale, Hex, Odin Sphere...he honestly couldn't have landed further from the truth even if he actively tried.

 

[Hexer06]

So why are they on Metacritic if their scale doesn't align with the other reviewers?
I guess more importantly is we shouldn't even bother with the Metacritic average, then, because everyone's scale is unique in the end.

Great point. I think Metacritic is pointless personally, but I do know some ppl rely on that to determine whether a game is worth playing or buying. That's why I like Karak's (ACG) reviews. He rates games on a Buy, Wait for sale, rent, or never touch. Better than a number scale in my opinion.

 

[ScientificPizza]

I thought he was talking about FH3, correct? Saw the quote was misinterpreted around page 2. How is the narrative about him talking about ReCore still going on 14 pages?

Yeah, quote in the OP can easily be misunderstood

 

[bitbydeath]

Great point. I think Metacritic is pointless personally, but I do know some ppl rely on that to determine whether a game is worth playing or buying. That's why I like Karak's (ACG) reviews. He rates games on a Buy, Wait for sale, rent, or never touch. Better than a number scale in my opinion.

I'd rather they just list what they see are pros and cons and go into detail as to why on each and that is it. Make it easy to read and not a wall of text, no final score, leave it to the reader.

 

[Alpha Phoenix]

Phil threads truly are among my favorite threads.

 

[Crayon]

Yeah, quote in the OP can easily be misunderstood

Considering that the game he sighted makes zero difference to the sentiment of the statement, I don't get your angle on this.

 

[jayu26]

I thought he was talking about FH3, correct? Saw the quote was misinterpreted around page 2. How is the narrative about him talking about ReCore still going on 14 pages?

Yeah, quote in the OP can easily be misunderstood

We have been over this. The quote doesn't get better even in that context. Forza is not a special snow flak that can't be given 4/10. It's someone's opinion. We can make fun of how misguided that opinion is, but they are still allowed to have them.

 

[enigmatic_alex44]

Excuse me?

One or two troll reviews won't throw off the aggregate score all that much. Metacritic is as useful for games as rottentomatoes is for movies. Generally a really good indicator of quality.

Just look at Paper Mario Color Splash. It's about to hit an 80 on Metacritic, the same as the iconic and beloved Splatoon. That lets me know my impressions on the game were fairly accurate, and people laughed when I said Color Splash would deliver. Joke's on you.

On the other end, Star Fox Zero is a dumpster fire of a game, and it's in the 60s on Metacritic which accurately reflects it's quality.

 

[beef3483]

He's right, but saying it as a defense of his game's low review scores seems self-serving.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

That only works when there's a wide number of highly positive reviews/scores and then a review comes out that's the opposite. When all the scores are low people probably aren't checking all the reviews, it's the one that sticks out that gets the clicks and the reverse could be said when it goes the other way.

 

[SenkiDala]

That only works when there's a wide number of highly positive reviews/scores and then a review comes out that's the opposite. When all the scores are low people probably aren't checking all the reviews, it's the one that sticks out that gets the clicks and the reverse could be said when it goes the other way.

Not necessarily, the bashing around the release of DriveClub was insane, the game had very low scores and reviews (at least here in France) almost all claimed that the game was not impressive at all visually, almost ugly... Which is just insane when you look at the game. But at that time the game had a very bad buzz surrounding it, so it was "cool" to say that DriveClub was shitty. Afterward, everybody said "naaaah, DriveClub was a really cool game".

 

[Primethius]

So why are they on Metacritic if their scale doesn't align with the other reviewers?
I guess more importantly is we shouldn't even bother with the Metacritic average, then, because everyone's scale is unique in the end.

Agreed. But your preaching to the wrong guy . I don't even like reviewers and find them woefully inadequate on several aspects.

 

[Dynasty8]

Phil is now wrong here.

I've seen websites (that are actual MetaCritic credited websites) give games like Halo 4 and MGS4 a 2 out of 10. If that is NOT click bait, then I don't know what is.

 

[Iorv3th]

Phil is now wrong here.

I've seen websites (that are actual MetaCritic credited websites) give games like Halo 4 and MGS4 a 2 out of 10. If that is NOT click bait, then I don't know what is.

Yeah but those sites aren't going to pull down the metacritic score.

 

[Hip Hop]

I mean, it is true. Some sites do give lower scores just for clicks, but when a game is average or below, that isn't part of the conversation anymore. Some games deserve said score.

 

[ResoRai]

We have been over this. The quote doesn't get better even in that context. Forza is not a special snow flak that can't be given 4/10. It's someone's opinion. We can make fun of how misguided that opinion is, but they are still allowed to have them.

It does actually. Its not about the game being a "special snowflake" or "misguided" opinions, it's about a bad opinion giving bad reasons for a score.
People are entitled their opinions, and people are entitled their bad opinions as well. It's all good. People have the right to call them out on their bad opinions too. Many did in the other thread and Phil brought up the review as well.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

It does actually. Its not about the game being a "special snowflake" or "misguided" opinions, it's about a bad opinion giving bad reasons for a score.
People are entitled their opinions, and people are entitled their bad opinions as well. It's all good. People have the right to call them out on their bad opinions too. Many did in the other thread and Phil brought up the review as well.

Unfortunately he's speaking about both fh3 and Recore so it's all moot. Read his entire answer not just the snips.

 

[visiblemode]

Why can't "a 90+ Metacritic game" earn a 2/10 review?

Well it certainly can, given the subjective nature of the whole endeavor. That said, if a game that's beloved is mocked as unplayable trash, by a few outliers, their motivations are naturally scrutinized.

2/10 reviews in particular, are subject to scrutiny because a score that low has traditionally been reserved for games with game breaking bugs, or severe presentation and gameplay issues.

 

[SgtCobra]

Great, but that's not what he's saying in his post. I think the point isn't that Sony never faces any criticism, but that they take less criticism for the same actions relative to if MS had done it.

I don't know if that is necessarily true in general terms, but it's corroborated by the single example that he pointed out.

Ah okay, I misread his second post then but I stand by my point. Going from "it's okay when sony does it" to "they don't get as much criticism" is just moving goalposts though. He also gave a very bad example, or don't you think MS didn't deserve to be ridiculed for wanting to block 2nd hand games?

 

[Novocaine]

Oh Phil.

I like Recore but unfortunately it deserves the score it got.

 

[ResoRai]

Unfortunately he's speaking about both fh3 and Recore so it's all moot. Read his entire answer not just the snips.

Yeah seems so.
"But we're very proud of how the game ended up. And I think seven, eight, nine, like anywhere in there is fine. Three or four… I mean somebody gave Forza Horizon 3 a four. I think there's certain reviews that are written more to get clicked on than they are to actually accurately reflect the quality of the game, and that kind of bums me out."
I don't think he is wrong necessarily tho, because sure those types of reviewers do exist (and Recore seems like an easy target), but I think he held Recore in too high of a regard still.
Agree with him on that one Forza score, but Recore has a lot of problems from what I hear.

 

[Kyuur]

I mean, he's not wrong, but when the average score is low it isn't for that reason. The technique would absolutely be more effective on games that have relatively high average scores.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

Yeah seems so.
"But we're very proud of how the game ended up. And I think seven, eight, nine, like anywhere in there is fine. Three or four… I mean somebody gave Forza Horizon 3 a four. I think there's certain reviews that are written more to get clicked on than they are to actually accurately reflect the quality of the game, and that kind of bums me out."
I don't think he is wrong necessarily tho, because sure those types of reviewers do exist (and Recore seems like an easy target), but I think he held Recore in too high of a regard still.
Agree with him on that one Forza score, but Recore has a lot of problems from what I hear.

Yeah I see where he's coming from on Forza and how he could feel that way. Don't know why he wanted to say that about Recore though. I mean it got some not so glowing reviews but it got a pretty decent score. And he knows Recore is no FH3.

Just all around weird. Gonna just chalk it up to having a bad hair day or something.

 

[Hexer06]

I'd rather they just list what they see are pros and cons and go into detail as to why on each and that is it. Make it easy to read and not a wall of text, no final score, leave it to the reader.

I wouldn't mind that either. I just think way too many games are still based on the 7-10 scale, instead of a 1-10 scale, making review scales even more pointless. As you see when a game gets a 6 or 7, ppl pretty much write it off as garbage or a really bad game, when that's technically still above average. lol

 

[ResoRai]

Yeah I see where he's coming from on Forza and how he could feel that way. Don't know why he wanted to say that about Recore though. I mean it got some not so glowing reviews but it got a pretty decent score. And he knows Recore is no FH3.

Just all around weird. Gonna just chalk it up to having a bad hair day or something.

Yeah it's weird. I think he may have just been trying to be nice to the devs. Hasn't Inafune had a string of kind of "subpar" games lately?

 

[me0wish]

Just played the PC demo, was pretty average even with my very low expectations.

 

[ScientificPizza]

We have been over this. The quote doesn't get better even in that context. Forza is not a special snow flak that can't be given 4/10. It's someone's opinion. We can make fun of how misguided that opinion is, but they are still allowed to have them.

Considering that the game he sighted makes zero difference to the sentiment of the statement, I don't get your angle on this.

I'm not saying that makes what he said okay, I just mean that people are interpreting it as him saying people scored recore low when he was talking about forza

the only angle i had was clarification but thanks for definitely going over the top

 

[Screamapillar]

I know what he's talking about. Every once in a while I'll read a review and I'll think "C'mon...". Like, when you give Uncharted 3 a perfect 10, but you give Mario Kart Double Dash a 7.9? A 7.9? Come on, just think about that for a second. What aspect of Double Dash should have been "negligibley" improved upon in order to earn that extra .1%? Lol. And the GameSpot review of Skyward Sword where the reviewer literally stated in the review that the pointer controls didn't work in the game. Not realizing that Skyward didn't use the IR function in the Wii Remote, it only used the accelerometer and gyroscope. *smacks forehead*

Number scores are just so completely arbitrary. Assigning a round or decimal number to the quality of a game has just become so silly. Especially when the same grading scale that is applied to high-end AAA games is applied to small indie games. At a certain level we just need to face reality: All that matter in reviews are words. Numbers are meaningless. It's a completely antiquated way to score games, based on an old model that no longer makes sense in the modern games industry where there are vastly different types, styles, and platforms for games.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

You'd have to be naive to believe this absolutely never happens though. Of course it does and for varying reasons.

 

[jayu26]

It does actually. Its not about the game being a "special snowflake" or "misguided" opinions, it's about a bad opinion giving bad reasons for a score.
People are entitled their opinions, and people are entitled their bad opinions as well. It's all good. People have the right to call them out on their bad opinions too. Many did in the other thread and Phil brought up the review as well.

Did you read what I wrote?

It's someone's opinion. We can make fun of how misguided that opinion is, but they are still allowed to have them.

I actually agreed with you.

When I said it doesn't matter I was talking about Recore vs Forza issue. It still doesn't matter which game he was talking about.

I'm not saying that makes what he said okay, I just mean that people are interpreting it as him saying people scored recore low when he was talking about forza

the only angle i had was clarification but thanks for definitely going over the top

I didn't try to tell anybody that it was a ten. I think we knew, as with any games, that there are certain things… if we started from the beginning and we knew what we'd get, there's a couple of things we would've done slightly differently. But we're very proud of how the game ended up. And I think seven, eight, nine, like anywhere in there is fine. Three or four… I mean somebody gave Forza Horizon 3 a four. I think there's certain reviews that are written more to get clicked on than they are to actually accurately reflect the quality of the game, and that kind of bums me out.

The man talks about Recore for majority of that quote and uses an extreme example of Froza review to make a point. At best you can make the case that he is talking about his games in general.

You said...

Yeah, quote in the OP can easily be misunderstood

Thread title: Phil Spencer: Some reviewers give games low scores to get more clicks Reply to Thread

There is nothing to be misunderstood.

Again, it doesn't matter which game he was talking about. People are allowed to have different opinion and if they choose to troll and make click bait articles then that is fine too. And we will go on making fun of these "reviewers".

 

[jroc74]

Next he'll be telling us that, sometimes, positive reviews are bought and paid for!

Exactly.

He's answering this question:

How do you feel about the response to ReCore from critics, given it was highlighted as one of the major Xbox One exclusives?

Also I don't think anyone in this thread has "pretended" clickbait doesn't exist. I will admit I am wrong if you can find a single post from someone saying that.

The issue people are having is that a head of a company shouldn't be blaming poor reviews on that.


Putting all that aside, I mean in the end how does it even make it any better if he's talking about Recore or FH3 or both? I don't really get why some people are so insistent on pinning it on FH3 and FH3 only. The thread title already makes it even broader by just saying "Some reviewers give games low scores for clicks"

Exactly.

 

[ScatheZombie]

Well, he's not wrong, but he's in a position where he really shouldn't be saying that.

 

[Head.spawn]

Interesting exchange between Phil and Rami Ismail related to this topic on twitter if anyone wants to take the time and chop it into pics:

https://twitter.com/tha_rami/status/784140556838526976

Rami Ismail ‏@tha_rami
Wow, stay classy, @XboxP3 - because this is not. http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/spencer-believes-some-reviewers-give-low-scores-for-clicks/0173544

Phil Spencer ‏@XboxP3
@tha_rami @clark_jonathane Hey, criticism for me saying this bums me out is totally fine and I understand. I respect the feedback.

Rami Ismail ‏@tha_rami
@XboxP3 @clark_jonathane As always, I respect your work and your attitude towards feedback. <3

Phil Spencer &#8207;@XboxP3
@tha_rami @clark_jonathane I'll strive to do better, moment of weakness. Apologies.

Phil Spencer @XboxP3
@GrimReefz @tha_rami @clark_jonathane A mantra of mine is "Assume good intent", this isn't that.

The person with the Yoshida response is kind of funny as well if you scroll down.

 

[potatohead]

Lame excuse. I expected better from Spencer.

Then the mistake is your own.

These guys are here to advertise their platform, not be your friend.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I'm not gonna lie I use Metacritic to determine whether I will buy a game, but only if it is a game I wasn't completely sold on already. I don't have a connection with any individual critic like some of you do so the aggregate works for me.

Then the mistake is your own.

These guys are here to advertise their platform, not be your friend.

Complaining about reviews is not going to help his platform. Seemed like it was something personal he wanted to vent about along part about the fanboys hoping for games to fail.

 

[ResoRai]

Did you read what I wrote?

I actually agreed with you.

When I said it doesn't matter I was talking about Recore vs Forza issue. It still doesn't matter which game he was talking about.





The man talks about Recore for majority of that quote and uses an extreme example of Froza review to make a point. At best you can make the case that he is talking about his games in general.

You said...


Thread title: Phil Spencer: Some reviewers give games low scores to get more clicks Reply to Thread

There is nothing to be misunderstood.

Again, it doesn't matter which game he was talking about. People are allowed to have different opinion and if they choose to troll and make click bait articles then that is fine too. And we will go on making fun of these "reviewers".

My b on that part, but you didn't say it didn't matter, you said the quote didn't get better in that context.
But if he were solely talking about FH3 I think his point holds weight. You see 9s & 10s and then the odd 4/10 review and be like "huh?", and then see the overall review is poor.
If he were solely talking about Recore his point wouldn't really because he'd seem to be blaming those type of reviewers (though not all of them I guess) even though Recore has a lot of problems. Looks even more like he's blaming them when he said, " And I think seven, eight, nine, like anywhere in there is fine", which obviously isn't ok.
Thought he was talking about FH3. Was actually talking about both tho.

 

[ScientificPizza]

Did you read what I wrote?

I actually agreed with you.

Yeah, I get it. Honestly either way it's pretty dumb and a real bad look for Xbox to have Spencer out there saying that stuff.

 

[gafneo]

Angry Joe in a nutshell.

 

[farisr]

So why are they on Metacritic if their scale doesn't align with the other reviewers?
I guess more importantly is we shouldn't even bother with the Metacritic average, then, because everyone's scale is unique in the end.

I don't bother with metacritic scores to begin with, but if you think about it, even with different review scales of various reviewers, the idea is that it'll average out for most games since that same scale from the same reviewers is being applied to other games as well. Don't know how well that idea holds up, not sure of what kind of review output requirements there are from metacritic to be listed there.

 

[gafneo]

Well it certainly can, given the subjective nature of the whole endeavor. That said, if a game that's beloved is mocked as unplayable trash, by a few outliers, their motivations are naturally scrutinized.

2/10 reviews in particular, are subject to scrutiny because a score that low has traditionally been reserved for games with game breaking bugs, or severe presentation and gameplay issues.

You can tell a troll review when a AAA game gets below 5. 2/10s haven't existed since Big Rigs unless we count mobile and motion control shovelware

 

[Synth]

I was quite struck by this as well, when I saw Brad/Jeff's Quick Look.

This is an interesting discussion to have. I remember Fdkn's post, in the ReCore review thread, succinctly addressed some related issues (my thoughts here). In any case, some folks do still feel that ReCore has been unduly penalized for difficulty, without any kind of accounting for (or acknowledgement of) the niche/subset of gamers for whom that level/kind of challenge is in fact an asset (i.e., something to be appreciated, not worthy of penalty, a net positive). Perhaps it's an indication of the extent to which a certain type of challenge has fallen out of favor, at least with an influential class of folks.

Certainly. Though some feel that ReCore was more harshly penalized for bugs than other recent, relatively higher-budget (and higher-priced) games. BudokaiMR2 highlighted one prominent example, above, with which I'd agree.

He made a mistake in that section, and was venting. As he writes in the comments section of the video: "Just so you know how difficult this is. Have to do this under 3 mins, shoot all 10 switches, and collect the hidden yellow key. All in a single run. Hard. But good hard. I miss quality platforming. -Brad" I had a few other observations on that particular video here, and some related thoughts here.

Yea, I don't disagree that some games (Recore included) may be penalised more harshly than others for similar technical issues. I think despite the lower than expected scores, No Man's Sky got away with murder in this regards lol. Some of it is just luck of the draw though, were had the two games been reviewed by the same set of reviewers the issues would be more evenly highlighted.

I also definitely agree in regards to Metacritic averages. It doesn't really help to have additional weight places on specific publications, when that publication has wholly individual reviewers anyway. So you make IGN's review count more than website X, but the IGN gives the new Virtua Fighter release to a reviewer that only likes Smash.. gg. Whilst we can try and think of ways the system could be improved when presenting an aggregated score.. the better approach would simply for us to stop placing so much importance on the aggregation, as that reviewer's opinion is actually very helpful to many other people that may not tend to enjoy traditional fighters (but love Smash), but a few of those aggregated gives the impression that it's an inferior product overall.

As for the youtube video... yea I'm aware that the mistake was on the player and that he was just venting frustration. But I know that because I've been playing a ton of Recore, and know exactly how the various control mechanics work. I was just saying that it wasn't the greatest comment to have when showing the game to others that believe the game is just bad, because they'll likely just hone in on that comment as though it actually represents to controls (which is exactly what happened in the responses directly after the video was posted).

Exactly. He also complained that the game was too easy. I play on default settings and always come in first, going up one difficulty changes that and would require me to be marginally better. I'm not good at racing games, but enjoy cruising around the FH open worlds and am glad the default is as forgiving as it is. He also mentions being able to rewind as a negative, as if you HAVE to use that optional feature meant for non racing game enthusiasts or gamers that just want to enjoy a game they spent $60 on.

Though I think complaining about inclusion of an optional rewind function in racers is ridiculous in general, and that honestly it should be a standard feature at this point... being able to rewind in the Rivals mode specifically, without it invalidating your lap time is a negative as far as I'm concerned, as it illegitimizes a mode that should be about skill, improvement and competition. This is clearly a deliberate choice though, as it's been like this in every Horizon game, whilst every Motorsport game will place any dirty lap (rewind, crashing, drafting, course cutting) below any lap done cleanly... so whatever I guess.

I definitely don't see where the "it's too easy" impressions come from though... shit is HARD on the higher difficulty levels.

About the first bold, it's a very fair point, but one I don't think it applies to Recore. The sonic 3d games have fundamental flaws on the gameplay (at least the first ones), it's something you can get by if you are really good but it's there.

On Recore, the mechanics are not challenging at all, from shooting, to dashing and the platforming everything just works, and the game is also very fair with the challenges. For instance, each dungeon has 3 primary objectives, complete in a short time, shoot all the interrupters and find and get a hidden key. Just finishing the dungeon without doing any of the optional tasks give you a core. Doing it again gunning for each objective is also a piece of cake (except for the time sometimes) but the game usually (I want to say always, but I'm not sure) always gate the extra cores on those other objectives, so you can take your time and usually leave the dungeon with 2 cores. The great challenge comes for trying to do them all at first try. You have to be almost perfect to get it right, but it's so thrilling that when you do, that's basically the reaction you have: You get screaming out of enthusiasm. And usually doing a perfect run only gives you some high level parts for your bots, and not cores.

Well, this is why I referred to the "better 3D Sonics" (as it's nothing based on the Adventure template). The boost trilogy specifically I would say doesn't have fundamental flaws at the gameplay level, and when played well, are in my opinion, in a league of their own. However, none of them, regardless of how fond many people are of them, have even managed to obtain an 80 on metacritic. In most cases, the average person simply won't cause the game to shine, and so as much as it may suck to see reviews that don't match what you feel describes the product, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to review the games by a standard most will never play them. Something like Mario on the other hand is more likely to be reviewed more consistently, because there's far more consistency in how players of all level are likely to play it. This has even started to apply retroactively, and is responsible for all the "Sonic was never good" talk about the Genesis games, from many people that just happen to be playing it like shit, lol.

Whilst I'd agree that Recore is less challenging in general to play adequately, the point was more that merely playing adequately doesn't represent the game at its best, which is why you select a video demonstrating more complex gameplay, rather than one of a player making an average run through a less platform-heavy dungeon.

On the third bold. It's actually exactly the commentary I wanted. Why? Because the player knows it's your own fault, but you get mad at the game anyway for exposing that at you, but when you finally completely it you start screaming like a little girl. That's one of the reasons for me it's one of the high ups of this generation so far. The game is extremely satisfying. When I unlocked Seth and went to the insanely great platforming moments it unlocks I was griming at the whole time, and Joule in game chatter reflected exactly that thrill.

See my comment above regarding this. I know the game doesn't "control like shit", but do the people you're aiming the video at? (responses would indicate "no"). In terms of controls, I think Recore is excellent.. only rivalled by Sunset Overdrive this gen for core movement.

And finally, on the last bold. Even though it wasn't responding to me. I personally don't care about a game I like getting bad reviews, but imo Quantum Break and now Recore were both completely destroyed by the critics to the point it hurt their sales potential and chances of getting a sequel.

And it's really bad when you see two games that really excel in gameplay getting so low scores like they did.

Yea, it sucks when a game you like looks like its getting its chances at a sequel being killed by reviews. I don't think having games scoring almost universally in the 70+ range, because they'll resonate well with a subset of people would really help much though, as that'd likely just bump the average (like last gen), and then we'd be back to everyone viewing anything under 80 as shit anyway, and you still wouldn't get a sequel.

This is were demos (especially ones that hit before the reviews) can help. Many people have become more interested in Recore since being given the ability to try it out for 30mins.. and honestly that trial period isn't even very ideal. A curated demo that allowed players to experience various combat and platform challenges taken from specific points in the game, rather than just enough time to get through the opening dungeon would have been good. And if this was available before the reviews wiped out a load of people's interest, then more people would have been inclined to try it and make their own decisions.

Of course, you have to have enough faith in your product to believe the demo will do more good than harm though.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Technically speaking, what he said is probably true. It's just human nature.

That said, a bad game is a bad game, and Phil, reviewers will point that out, that's their job.

 

[demigod]

He was definitely talking about ReCore and not FH3 only. Check the review thread, theres a 3 and 4s http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1277316 .

ReCore did so well that its off the charts.

 

[IcyRhythms]

Why would underscoring a new IP people barely know and with no hype behind it get clicks?

If the goal is to get clicks, then underscoring a high profile game like Gears of War is a much better target.

Exclusives in general are all ammo for console slow brain wars. It doesn't matter if they're a big name or a new IP. Critics know exactly what they're doing when it comes to those maniacs.