Put these games and reviews aside for a moment
Why is it supposed to be 90 and why shouldn't less positive reviews be included, regardless of whether they're "minor"?
I feel like, to fully review a game, you have to play it to completion even if you don't necessarily enjoy it. It's part of your job.
The argument is lost by the "supposed to be 90" line.
Like, why they're supposed to be 90? Doesn't change that they're both great games.
It has actual real world meaning for the development studios.
That's the fucked part. I don't think this thread is about that but saying Metascore has no meaning is ignorant.
What the fuck does "supposed to be" 90s mean? According to who? You?
About Nier, if the gameplay didn't click over a full playthrough, the guy should play through if multiple additional times?
Sort of reminds me of Xenoblade X. "No seriously, it REALLY picks up like 45 hours in!!!"
Maybe Nier: Automata is actually the Rashomon of video games, providing new insight and perspective each time you play, resulting in something that transcends each individual play-though.
I'm confused about the first quote. It sounds to me like he finished the game. Wanting him to complete it multiple times for alternate endings would be a waste of time.
The problem here is that it's the reviewer's job to finish the game and write a review about it. Him liking it or not is definitely up to that reviewer.
The major issue here is reviewers not finishing the game and write a weighted review on major outlets. It's basically like watching half of a movie and writing a full review on it.
So? What makes negative reviews where they don't finish the game not valid? It's like they played 5 mins and reviewed it, they literally disliked it enough to not be able to continue.
Secondly, who gives a shit? It's metacritic, I'm not sure what it having a 89.66666666% vs. 90% matters to anyone. I totally understand if this was so rampant that you're having renown games get 30% on the site but you're going to need to flesh out why Nier having an 89 vs. 90 (which isn't even true if you do the math) is so important.
One of the reviewer's complaints is that the 'story feels incomplete.'
Of course it fuckin' feels incomplete, you're not even halfway done yet with story progression!
"There are no multiplayer modes" is a fucking factual statement.
It was known since the game was announced. Why was that thrown in at the end? It made no sense, just sounded like they were trying to add another thing to knock the game on.
It was also known from the beginning that "this game is developed by Guerrilla Games and published by Sony. It is currently available on PS4." Yet neither of you are throwing a fit about those statements...And has 0 relevancy.
"Super Mario game has no guns or swords." Great factual statement.
Pretty sure most non disabled folks can read the back of a box to see "1 player only" or do a google search, or talk to an employee of where they purchase.
I think it depends. 65 hours of Skyrim or Witcher 3, 10 hours of playthroughs of a roguelike without actually reaching the end, etc., I don't think it's necessary to complete games like that. One can form valid impression of gameplay, polish, and so on without finishingI edited the topic since my annoyance go to me regarding the unfinished games review. Apologies.
Regardless, this thread is about questions reviewers writing a review of a game they haven't even completed.
I'm confused about the first quote. It sounds to me like he finished the game. Wanting him to complete it multiple times for alternate endings would be a waste of time.
None of Yoko Taro's games work like this.
They play with 'alternate timelines' and 'different' endings in the sense that certain routes are part of story progression.
For example, Ending A of Drakengard 3 is only the beginning of the actual story.
But if Platinum Games wanted me to do that, it should have made the first time through a lot more charming.
I'm confused about the first quote. It sounds to me like he finished the game. Wanting him to complete it multiple times for alternate endings would be a waste of time.
Yeah the notion that a game is "supposed" to have a certain Metacritic score if it weren't for a bad review is completely absurd. Like, you could use that logic to say that "if it weren't for [any number of bad reviews] then [any game] should have [any score]."
In the abstract, no, I really don't think reviewers are obligated to finish games. I understand that Nier is something of an edge case given that it apparently has multiple endings, all of which are part of the main story, but nevertheless, if a reviewer plays enough of a game to feel that they have seen what it has to offer, than why should they have to grind onwards if they don't like the game?
Obviously, if a particular reviewer has a habit or regularly not finishing games that is something that should be taken up as a separate issue, but I don't really think it's Metacritic's place to filter out one-off bad reviews.
And this is, of course, not even really factoring in that Metacritic represents only the broadest, vaguest, most cursory indication of what a game has to offer. It can have its place when it comes to getting a sketchy idea of if a game is well-executed or not, but fretting over a 1 point loss because one guy didn't enjoy the way the multiple route mechanic panned out feels very silly.
I'm confused about the first quote. It sounds to me like he finished the game. Wanting him to complete it multiple times for alternate endings would be a waste of time.
It has actual real world meaning for the development studios.
That's the fucked part. I don't think this thread is about that but saying Metascore has no meaning is ignorant.
I'm confused about the first quote. It sounds to me like he finished the game. Wanting him to complete it multiple times for alternate endings would be a waste of time.
So completing a 20h game playthrough means "you're not event halfway done yet with story progression"?One of the reviewer's complaints is that the 'story feels incomplete.'
Of course it fuckin' feels incomplete, you're not even halfway done yet with story progression!
Getting an ending after 25 hours of play sounds like finishing a game to me.
Calling them Endings might confuse people who don't know that. Especially when they're leading as A, B, C like they're just differently labeled finalesEndings aren't 'endings' in this game, or any other Yoko Taro game. They are springboards for the rest of the story.
Basically, there is an Ending A, and then an Ending Busing a different character, with new cutscenes and a new perspective, but with similar content. Then, Ending C and the other ones is completely all-new content.
1) 18 hours is a long enough time to decide if you like a game
Apparently, SE sent a message out this time, but I don't know if this outlet would have gotten the message.Calling them Endings might confuse people who don't know that. Especially when they're leading as A, B, C like they're just differently labeled finales
If a book reviewer read half a goddamn book or less and put out a review, I'd never trust said person's reviews from that point onward.
If a movie critic watched half a movie and put out a review, I'd never trust any review from them from that point on.
People do not go to reviews of products/films they're interested in for half-assed impressions. Relying on the reviewer's feeling that they'd seen enough of a product to pass judgment on is incredibly foolish, and a recipe for buyer's remorse from those who do trust said person.
Does the first ending unlock an all new campaign with all new places? No same old content, bosses etc. to play through again just to see different cutscenes etc? Or is it a "Leon B/Claire B" type of thing?
No. That's bullshit. If he played Nier for 20 hours, saw the credits, and overall didn't reply like the game he's justified in giving it the score he sees fit. He's not obligated to play another 40 hours to stave off metacritic nerd rage.He stopped about 1/3 of the way through the game
Thats fine for gameplay, but complaining about the story when you never get the finished story isn't. If it takes 30 hrs to finish the main story and you only play 18, its like watching half of a movie or reading half of a book.1) 18 hours is a long enough time to decide if you like a game
Endings aren't 'endings' in this game, or any other Yoko Taro game. They are springboards for the rest of the story.
Basically, there is an Ending A, and then an Ending Busing a different character, with new cutscenes and a new perspective, but with similar content. Then, Ending C and the other ones is completely all-new content.
If a book reviewer read half a goddamn book or less and put out a review, I'd never trust said person's reviews from that point onward.
If a movie critic watched half a movie and put out a review, I'd never trust any review from them from that point on.
People do not go to reviews of products/films they're interested in for half-assed impressions. Relying on the reviewer's feeling that they'd seen enough of a product to pass judgment on is incredibly foolish, and a recipe for buyer's remorse from those who do trust said person.
"Caligula" is sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash. If it is not the worst film I have ever seen, that makes it all the more shameful: People with talent allowed themselves to participate in this travesty. Disgusted and unspeakably depressed, I walked out of the film after two hours of its 170-minute length.
No. That's bullshit. If he played Nier for 20 hours, saw the credits, and overall didn't reply like the game he's justified in giving it the score he sees fit. He's not obligated to play another 40 hours to stave off metacritic nerd rage.