A likeable lead character and some beautiful visuals do their best to make up for an empty and frustrating world
@Neonridr If you enjoy the game, what does it matter that someone else didn't? The person who wrote this review has an opinion just like everyone else under the sun.
Because reviews usually have a huge impact upon a game's success these days. If you're going to discredit a high-end game, at least have the decency to give it an average score (after you just stated that it has "likeable" and "beautiful" traits). A 6/10 is below average and near a complete flop (5/10 and under get this title I feel). None of the infamous games have been below average. Yes, there are opinions, but when you use yours to damage the rep of a perfectly good product, that's not cool. It's like the 6/10's only exist to aggressively counter the reviewers who went overboard and gave 10/10's. Anyway, I've always despised The Guardian's game and music reviews. They've always struck me as hipsters. And I don't say this as a sony fanboy. I say this as someone who is unimpressed with their biased/hypocritical treatment of electronic music that comes from outside of Europe. Edit: It really doesn't help that they are dealing with, what I consider, a gimped rating system. Out of 5 systems aren't specific enough while IGN's system is too specific to be notable. I think an out of 10 system with half points is the best route.
6/10 is above average, a 5/10 is average.
Well this same site gave MGS:GZ 5/5 and ppl hated onit so why is it only a PS fan thing to disagree on a review that seems questionable? were all the hate from PS fans too when they gave MGS perfect score??? thing is ppl act like only certain group of fanboys does things like hating on review for giving low score on a game they hail so much just watch angry joe review of titan fall 7/10 you'll see just as bad xb fanboys are when it comes to "hating on reviews". Ohh and whats another 3/5 when there are far more sites that rated this game 8-9/10 even 10s.
To say its empty, is saying you didn't play it. I can't seem to go anywhere without getting shot at or landing in a drug deal. I think most people hate this review because it is bs to say the world is empty, does mean Skyrim is to?
Havent played it, but i guess he means one part of the city isn't much diffrent from another. It's a problem with most sandbox games. I had the same problem with GTA5, couldn't bring myself to play more than 3 hours of the single player game.
the single player is the only thing good about gta5
The voice acting is kinda bad and generic but a damn good game. My progress is only 23% complete but so far I would rate Infamous 2nd Son a 8.5 out of 10.
Really? I thought most of the voice actors did a really good job.
It's corny, not up The Last of Us or Metal Gear standard. I know its meant to be corny with the typical late teens early twenties attitude, it just annoys me every time Delsin open his mouth. Infamous voice acting delivery is similar to the last Devil May Cry game, damn good action game and decent story after I got over how cheesy the main characters are. But like I said good game, I would rate Infamous at least 85 percent so far. It's funny I got 7 disagrees for defending this game saying its damn good scoring Infamous in the mid 80s percent or a 4.25 out of 5. Oh well, 7 N4idiots and counting.
Totally disagree. Fetch isn't great, but Troy Baker's intonation and affect for Delsin is bloody brilliant, as good as his work as Booker De Witt (though obviously not The Last Of Us, greatest performance in gaming history.) I hate stereotypical teenage characters and whiny valley-girl accents; but Delsin actually has personality and wit, thanks only to Troy's performance. Delsin speaks just like a real person. It's great work. Augustine and Betty are also great. The only weak links are Reggie and Fetch, imho.
"I hate stereotypical teenage characters and whiny valley-girl accents" Right on point, maybe because I'm now in my 30's I don't care to hear people talk and act like Delsin and Fetch. I know its entertainment and Troy Baker has obviously turned out some epic performances, but after the firs hour I was done with Delsin. To me Delsin voice is no different then someone scratches on a chalk board. Minus the voice acting this game would probably be a 9 out of 10. Like the user Si-Fly below I feel exactly the same way. "Si-Fly + 4h ago I bought it at the weekend but have to say that the main character is possibly the most annoying I've seen in years! Who's he meant to appeal to?? Not all PS4 owners are 13yr olds Sucker Punch!!"
I bought it at the weekend but have to say that the main character is possibly the most annoying I've seen in years! Who's he meant to appeal to?? Not all PS4 owners are 13yr olds Sucker Punch!! It'll stay on my shelf until there's something decent to trade it in for.
I can't say I particularly like the main character, or his brother - but he is in no way annoying enough to stop me playing the game.
I didn't particularly emphasise with Cole in the first two games, he was pretty bland, but that was infinitely preferable to this petulant emo dude .... My wife actually asked me 'what the f*** are you playing?' ... Good question.
What's wrong with Delsin other than being a bit of a rebellious youth? I mean, what's with people hating on Native American characters? First it was Connor from AC3 and now Delsin. lol jk Seriously, though, I don't have any problem with him. He had some great lines in the game as well.
Who do you think Dante appeals to in the DMC games?
You clearly did not play the game or own a PS4, to blatantly lie about the character like that shows you did not know his history or how he is as a character
"All flash, no substance" . . . Damn.
i playing this game from morning but is boooring.... sorry this game is very nice but boring... :(
That is funny, a couple days ago, theGauardian had another review of Second Son and it gave it a 4/5 from another reviewer. I guess that review didn't make the headline or approval with the masses because it is not as sexy as 3/5 to attract viewers. :/ http://www.theguardian.com/... This shows that different people have different opinion and it is best to judge for ourselves. I love the game after spent more than 5 hours with it in since yesterday. Edit @ DanMan below: Dude, the reviewer work and writes for the Observer which along with the Guardian is owned Guardian Media Group. If it is published on the http://www.theguardian.com/... there are two reviews of inFamous listed there.
That's not from theGuardian. That's a freelancer who writes for the Observer's television guide and Digital Culture
WTF? 2 review from same site?
Which begs the question, why would the same outlet review the game a second time...
The Observer is a Sunday paper, The Guardian is a daily paper.
It's just an opinion dude, it bugs me how The Fountain only has a IMBD rating of 7.4, it's a beautiful film, easily a 10/10 in "my opinion" 7.4 is a good score, equates to about 3/5
Seriously. The Fountain... 10/10? To each his own, but I believe I still have a headache from watching that :)
^^^^ I'm serious man, I didn't really like it the first time I watched it "wtf is going on" gave me a headache aswel, after watching it afew more times I appreciated it alot more, kinda understood it Maaaaaaybe not 10/10, but higher than 7.4
I may check out the graphic novel some time, not sure I could sit through the film again. Pretty much all of Aronofsky's earlier work is impenetrable on first viewing. Requiem for a Dream is still a film I want to watch again, but probably never will!
Edge gave it a mediocre score also. IMO the majority of reviewers are biased or have something to gain from reviews - either they're gamers who want a title to be good, or they don't want to p**s off a dev so they can get exclusive access in the future. I do think that ps4 owners want a system seller out badly and they are wrongly hailing this as it (same with Titanfall for xbox owners). I don't own this or Titanfall, but it seems like both are failing to meet the high standards expected of them
Well said, Graphics wise it's a knockout, gameplay wise I wish I could knock out Delsin.
Since when has 7/10 been mediocre!!?? Did I miss the memo. 5/10 and below for me is the where mediocrity begins! I think, in general, we've moved to some ridiculous scoring system where anything less than 8 is now somehow a bad or mediocre title, and a game has to score between 9.0 and 9.9 to be seen as merely 'good'. It's crazy. I'm not a huge fan of inFamous SS, but it is in no way a mediocre game. It's good, just not mind blowing.
i agree with you there, I mean when a game like gta IV and then V all get tens, but they are almost the same, plus there isn't crap to do in GTA in 90% of the map either, it's not a bad game, in fact it's damn good... but 10/10 is seen way too often now.. and meanwhile every average crap game gets a 6 or a 7.... I mean this review makes infamous seem about as good as knack... no consistency... twitch and youtube are where to get your info from, not biased "journalists" who get free gifts and copies of games... and I'm not just talking about this article, I don't care about this one specifically
@Jdoki The problem with 7/10 is its a very common score now and is hence mediocre. I would agree that a mediocre game should be 5/10 but that means its average. 7 might actually be lower than average.... (3 of the last 4 ign reviews were 7.8 or higher). When 7/10 is the most common score for a game then that becomes where the bar is set. Its a stupid system to me, but I think reviewers are far too happy to give out points.
a god damn bastarded review
Giving a rating 'out of 5' is not much of a guide. It's pretty useless actually. I really like the game myself, so...
It's as good as any other score rating, it's just a number.
Lol the Guardian gave Ground Zeroes 5/5 and Infamous 3/5 GG sir. Btw not saying I think inFamous deserves higher, just don't trust the Guardian on games reviews.
Infamous does deserve better. I am halfway through my second play through and it is the best Infamous yet and the best Ps4 game so far.
I'm just over 50% of the way through, and I must admit I kinda agree with the review so far. The game is solid, good looking, and fun - but it's not blown me away. The missions to clear out the the districts get pretty repetitive. The powers are OK, but there's little point than to use the one or two most effective attacks for each type of power and then spam them. Overall I would say this is on par with inFamous 1 and 2, but other than awesome graphics it's more of the same. I guess I was just hoping that I'd see a bit more the PS4's power put to use in game play features rather than graphics.
From everything I've seen of titanfall, this game as far as story and richness surpasses it. seriously a story during map loading? Dialogue in the background counts as story?
I would certainly hope the story of a single player action game is of higher quality then a multiplayer only shooter.
There is no doubt the story in Infamous surpasses Titanfalls story. At the same time though, Infamous multiplayer doesn't hold a candle to Titanfalls multiplayer. Weird how that works, huh?
What has TitanFall has to do with this article? What a stupid comment. And I just wasted 30 seconds of my time replying to this stupid comment.
If I hear the defense that "reviews are opinions" one more time... Look, a review is supposed to be as objective as possible. I know a lot of you don't want to hear that, because you can then validate really bad reviews, but that's the truth. Ten, fifteen years ago, you wouldn't be able to find a review this low for a game as solid as inFamous. But then, ten or fifteen years ago, reviewers actually had some standards to go by. There'd be a technical critique of the game, as well as subjective impressions, but it wouldn't be all opinion. And whatever standards were in place were used for EVERY game, not adjusted depending on the reviewer's tastes. Because reviews aren't supposed to be about what the REVIEWER likes. They're supposed to let prospective buyers know the content of the game, and how well put together that content is, along with a little personal input for flavor. You write the review for ALL gamers, fans and newcomers alike. Somebody new to the series may or may not like something in the game, but if you write about a franchise staple as a negative because it's something YOU don't like, then the newcomer doesn't get a fair look at what the game has to offer. To the best of my knowledge, gaming is the only medium in which reviewers who don't specialize in a given genre show so much bias in their reviews. A very good book or movie gets the scores it deserves, with a handful of outliers that people probably don't pay attention to anyway. But here in gaming, bias and laziness are evident and rampant; and to make matters worse, these people can influence the industry, something neither Siskel nor Ebert could ever do. They couldn't contribute to the closing of studios or determine whether or not people made a bonus. So to the people saying "why care about someone else's opinion?" there's your answer. This crap has got to stop.
I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but you make a well constructed post, and I do agree that video games is a unique field of journalism for it's bias and BS. For me, the biggest thing is that reviews come out pretty much the day before, or even AFTER the game releases, due to NDA rubbish. I remember back when all reviews were found in magazines, and so were published anything up to a month before the game launched. Whilst I realise that these days games have a lot more money riding on them - it feels like a bit of a shady practice to stop bad news leaking out until people have already pre-ordered or purchased a hyped game. I'm not sure what sort of journalistic training / qualifications were the norm back 10 - 15 years ago, but these days it does feel like the main driver to being a journalist is to create content fast and generate page clicks - so any sort of journalistic integrity goes out the window (for example actually getting news confirmed form independent sources. Not passing off rumour as fact. Not accepting incentives, or being held to marketing money ransom if they publish bad reviews for a game and so on.
reviewers aren't trying to be objective today thats a old fashioned way of doing it , they want to have a relationship with the reader , so you know who they are and what they like , then you can decide if you agree with their opinion or not . i happen to agree that SS is a gorgeous yet not technically perfect game (some framefrate issues) , but isn't doing anything that is close to innovative , its side mission are vanilla as hell , its characters are fine but i don't ever care about them , and with all that said the game is still fun
Reviews are opinions.
I agree that it would make more sense to have an RPG fan review RPG's. FPS fans review FPS, etc. It makes sense. The problem with that approach is you are letting biased reviewers review them. If I love RPG's, that will show in my review score. What if you are new to RPG's or don't like them as much as me? My 10 might be a 5 to you if you are less an RPG fan as me. Not to mention subcatagories like JRPG's which are not the same as a traditional RPG. To be unbiased you would have to like every genre the same. I haven't met that person yet.
10-15 years ago we had less reviews and they were in printed publications with sponsors and paid advertisements. If Metal Gear was paid to be on the cover, it was in the mags best interests to be nice if they wanted to see another check from Konami. I am by no means saying the review was bought, but there were real world implications for being a complete ass hat unlike littlejoeyblogger.com who's main sponsor is his mom. Looking at Metacritics legacy reviews, we had the same diversity in reviews as we do today. Some of my favorite games ranged between 100 and 55 in the scores.
If you want to hold the 67 critics responsible for Infamous's current 80 on metacritic, stop giving their site traffic if they are being unreasonable with their reviews. As an educated consumer, it is always in your best interests to take reviews with a grain of salt. In the end it's just the opinion of the reviewer.
@Hicken Your post makes no sense at all. It IS suppose to be about what the reviewer liked and didn't like. How else will you tell anyone what you personally think of the game. The game may be solid but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its flaws. Again, it's your own personal bias getting in the way of accepting criticism for a your brand choice. If a reviewer writes only positives about the game then how is that fair to the public and a gamer who is new to the series? And how is that even fair journalism? To only report how solid a game is, if a game is repetitive, boring and un-interesting that should be ignored in favor of being solid? (And I'm not saying SS is, just making an point). To only report what's great in a game and not give any personal opinions on it and not give any criticisms especially if that reviewer sees them, that makes zero to absolute NO sense at all. I find it funny that everyone hoots and hollers and makes a big deal of the one or two bad scores for a popular game and calls it bad journalism but any 5/5, 9's or 10's are met with applause and "great review". "A very good book or movie gets the scores it deserves," That's because it's a very good book or movie and even then, you can find some reviewers who would score it low. Your movie analogy is wrong, Twelve Years a Slave one best picture and on Rotten Tomatoes you can still find some critics with negative reviews. You also give me evidence of reviews actually influencing the industry, that is an absurd statement. Why care about someone else's opinion, because it is just that, THEIR opinion. Not everyone has the same taste, not everyone is going to like what you personally think is great. Time to let that hate go and get over it.
Hicken talking about objectivity...oh the irony!
@ hicken Reviews are opinions!!!!!!
I honestly wish I'd have rented the game instead although I'm about to sell it for £10 less than what I paid for it so it's not too bad! I expected a bit more polish in the game ie reflections, puddles etc
All depends which tv you play it on. My sony bravia kdl couldn't do the game as much justice as the pana plasma downstairs.
How so? The programming has nothing to do with how good a picture your tv has, There's no real shadows, reflections and puddles don't ripple when you walk through them. I bet with a bit longer dev time those things could've been added. The game's audio seems to be very low too
I know what you mean about puddles -- Delsin runs right through them without so much as a splash. But hey, it's a launch-window title. If Sucker Punch can make this pretty of a game under a tight deadline, I'm giddy to see what Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, and Polyphony can do with the same hardware and more time.
Absolutely, Infamous games have never had the wow factor graphically anyway
The details like these are nice and add more immersion to a game. They also cost money to include since devs have to take the time to add them. At the end of the day it comes down to economics. Would realistic puddles sell more games? I'm leaning towards a no on that. I'd like to see it, but I'm afraid things like this won't happen unless middleware or the game engine provides it. If you want to lease out your game engine, this would be a nice added feature to have.
I thought wjen you walk through the puddles it would show, alot of preset textures in there. I dont like thrend being started with this new gen.