'Spider-Man' Review | Goomba Stomp

Despite its core strengths, Spider-Man flaunts much to criticize. It may be one of the titular hero’s best outings, but it’s plagued by negative tropes of the open world genre.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
DarkVoyager132d ago

I’m sorry but this score is ridiculous. I’ve been playing the crap out of this game and it’s easily a 9/10.

lptmg132d ago

I don't agree with his score but it's one 7 out of god knows how many much higher scores. Not much of an issue

DrumBeat132d ago

Now there's a rational, reasonable answer.

rainslacker132d ago

Well....he didn't criticize BOTW or Xenoblade Chronicles 2 for not avoiding the typical tropes of their genre....which they're both guilty of. Guy seems very inconsistent in his reviews if you look through them.

But yeah, a 7 isn't a bad score regradless, and won't mean much in the sea of positive reviews that already exist.

Imalwaysright132d ago (Edited 132d ago )


How many open world games aren't filled with icons and let you explore the world on your own like Zelda does? How many open world games give you freedom like Zelda does and encourage exploration instead of giving an illusion of freedom like most open world games do? How many open world games have its world as the focus? How many open world games allow you to experiment like Zelda does? How many open world games actually try to simulate the world in a way that reacts to the player in a somewhat realistic way. Yes, Zelda might have some open world tropes but unlike Spider man, it also shunned many of the open world tropes.

rainslacker131d ago (Edited 131d ago )


I feel the zelda discussion is off topic, however, since it shows a consistency problem with the author's review, and the author actually decided to say that more games should be like zelda, I'll address your comment.

I don't consider the lack of waymarkers or tracking as innovative. I consider it not putting in a feature which is pretty standard to the genre. Those things have never once kept me from exploring an open world in other games. Those things actually encourage me to venture off the beaten track in fact. Personally, there are times where I'd prefer to be able to track stuff, or sometimes I just turn it off like almost every open world game allows.

"How many open world games give you freedom like Zelda does and encourage exploration instead of giving an illusion of freedom like most open world games do"

Not many. At least none that I can name off the top of my head. But that's because most open world games are based on an actual meaningful progression system...not just a system of play until you get the best weapon then basically breaking the entire core mechanics that you've spent a good part of the game being frustrated about up to that point. Games do this in different ways. Some do it through physical restrictions that prevent you from entering an area, or requiring something to enter those areas. Others do it by making the levels of the enemies you fight well beyond what you could handle otherwise.

But to give you an example, Nier did this, although on a much smaller scale, even though its not really an open world game in the same sense. Just because you can skip right to the end in Zelda, or explore the entire world doesn't mean that it's highly innovative to the point some people make it out to be. I could probably think of a better example, but I don't play every open world game.

"How many open world games have its world as the focus?"

Dunno. Nintendo could have made a more interesting story to go along with that world, instead of just having a guy going around exploring stuff. I like exploring, but not without a purpose, and one thing that BOTW did not provide was actual purpose, or at least meaningful purpose.

One thing I've always found to be problematic with open world games is that the side stuff is distracting to the overall story, and making the world the focus just heightens that to a new level which is not innovative, but taking the thing that I find most problematic with open world games. If Nintendo wanted to make a game where the world was the focus, then something more akin to No Mans Sky would be more prudent, and just forgoing the story, or leaving it as cursory as it was I suppose. But they attached the Zelda name to it, so I wanted an actual Zelda story, which they barely included.

rainslacker131d ago

"How many open world games actually try to simulate the world in a way that reacts to the player in a somewhat realistic way"

Give me examples of what you mean by this. Any number of games have things that change based on the players actions or completed quests or whatnot. It's hardly innovative, and I could name thousands of games which react to varying degrees based on a set of pre-determined guidelines of progression or interaction. But, to name an example off the top of my head....Mass Effect and the Infamous series both have a world that changes based on one's actions. This isn't an open world concept, and just trying to say it's innovative because its in an open world game doesn't really sit well with me.

"Yes, Zelda might have some open world tropes but unlike Spider man, it also shunned many of the open world tropes."

By shun you mean just didn't bother to implement them? Funny how so many other devs get called lazy for not implementing pretty much standard expected features. None of the tropes they left out improved the game IMO, and it still had the fetch quests, the kill quests, towers, and dungeons(optional side areas) that are the biggest tropes of them all. The biggest trope it lacked was meaningful side stuff to do which actually enhanced and expanded the story beyond the core narrative. Is that really innovation?

Imalwaysright130d ago

I didn't say it was innovative. I said that most open world games today don't encourage exploration and discovery. All you need to to do is go to where mission A starts, finish mission A then go to where mission B starts finish mission and so on. This is how pretty much every open world is structured today. These games do not encourage exploration. These games are constantly handholding the player. These games offer an illusion of freedom. These games don't have their world as focus and them having an open world is a waste of time and resources. Might as well make them linear because their worlds are pretty much irrelevant. Nothing to do, nothing to discover, no sense of adventure. Just climb a tower, unlock a bunch of icons and go where the devs tell you to go. BoTW is the exact opposite of these games and there aren't many like it.

"How many open world games actually try to simulate the world in a way that reacts to the player in a somewhat realistic way" How objects in the world interact with elements and even elements interacting with each other. An example? Fire and air creating updrafts. Another example? Wood floating in the game while rocks go to the bottom of a lake. Wood getting set on fire. Food freezing if you throw it to the snow. The objects in the world actually have realistic physical properties and interact with elements in a somewhat realistic way. Zelda's world might not be perfect in simulating how the real world reacts but it tries to do it and I ask how many games can you say that do the same? How many open world games are nothing but graphical showcases with minimal care put into the world's physics? How many open world games are filled with objects that don't have any interactivity whatsoever?

Zelda might not be innovative but you can't say that is structured like most open world games. You can't say that it has the same priorities as pretty much every other open world game. Can you say the same about Spider man?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 130d ago
joab777132d ago

I can agree that this game hasn’t moved the open world bar. It hasn’t evolved dynamic gameplay, like TW3, and CP2077 and RDR2 most likely will.

But even if you have issues with this, it is insane to think this game isn’t an 8.5 at its worst. I’d give it a 9 personally.

conanlifts132d ago

I hate reviews that say things like this. Just like I hate the tomb raider reviews where they claim it is more if the same as though that is a bad thing. Games don't always need to break new ground or reinvent the wheel, they just need to be fun.

SuperSonic91132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

Niether did inferior games like Super Mario Odyssey nor Zelda BOTW in any manner yet they were given perfect scores.
See corporate reviews are unreliable and does not do games justice.

joab777132d ago

@conanlifts it’s absolutely not a bad thing. The game has a ton of amazing qualities and is A LOT of fun!!!

rainslacker132d ago

For the most part, I look for a game that is solid in execution, and fun to play. I want it to be competent in what it provides, and deliver on what the developer wanted, as well as what they promoted for us to expect for it to deliver.

A review to me should point out the good and the bad, but never once have I ever thought a review should grade based on if it moves the genre forward. That's a slippery slope for reviewers to take, because if you do that for one game, but don't do it for the many other games that they probably score better that also don't move things forward in any way, they endanger themselves to criticism of them being bias.

Like this reviewer didn't mention the common tropes that also exist in BOTW or XenoBlade Chronicles 2, and said how great they were. Yet, Spider-Man is worth knocking off 3 points for.

TheKingKratos131d ago (Edited 131d ago )

Dynamic gameplay ? Witcher 3 ?
And two un-released games ?

Sorry, i strongly disagree
Witcher 3 gameplay flat out sucks and RDR part 2 is pretty much the same as before but with new graphics engine
And Cyberpunk gameplay is pretty much Deus-ex.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 131d ago
lxeasy132d ago

The game doesn't move open world game forwards agreed, but It's def a 8/10 game.

Obelisk92132d ago

After playing the game, I can finally say 7 is fine.
Of course to someone it would be an 8, even a 9 maybe, but a 7 is fair too.

King_Noctis132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

The game is great, but not every reviews need to share your view of giving the game a 9/10.

Different people different opinions.

SegaGamer132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

To you it's a 9/10, but not to this person. What is with people refusing to accept other people's opinion's on things these days?

So you like this game more than the reviewer, it doesn't mean your opinion is more important than his.

rainslacker132d ago

I think they're more criticizing the reviewers reason for downrating the game, and saying that not moving a genre forward or being innovative isn't something that is worth downrating for.

nowitzki2004132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

7 is far from ridiculous lol. 7 imo is a good game. Most of our GFs are like 5s so 7 is really high lol

TheSaint132d ago

People keep trying to call this game repetitive, the side missions are actually pretty varied once you get the majority unlocked.

People watch a Youtube vid and think they are qualified to say it's repetitive.

DrumBeat132d ago

This is one of the best and most honest reviews I've ever read. I could sense that the author was being honest, and not trying to slam something for the sake of it. He likes what he likes and doesn't like what he doesn't like, and he conveys that intelligently. Good review.

SolidGamerX131d ago

Don't let it bother you, they have to try.

Dragonscale131d ago

The site is called goombastomp, maybe that explains it lol.

harry_morris_129d ago (Edited 129d ago )

Everybody's interpretation of ratings and quality is different. :)

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 129d ago
AspiringProGenji132d ago

Plagued by negarive tropes of the open world genre? That’s a Strech

Jinger132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

First off I'm loving the game. I have been praising it since it launched and I'll so getting the platinum for this title. That being said... it's not outrageous to talk about its open world flaws. I mean trying to catch the pigeons are as bad as the balloons in Spider-Man 2. The Osborn research centers are often pretty boring. A lot of the side missions are fetch quests and "go here and beat some guys up". I mean the open world isn't AMAZING or anything.


The general gameplay makes these events much more bearable than your standard game because it's fun to swing around and move about the city with your webs and wall running and flipping etc. But you can't tell me that if these open world activities were in a normal open game when you just drive around in a car like the rest of the games... you can't tell me you wouldn't be bored doing these missions.

Razzer132d ago

Yes, it isn't the perfect open world game by any stretch. It isn't trying to be. The game is about being Spider-man. And it gets so much more right than it gets wrong.

Jinger132d ago


Absolutely agree. It definitely is the best Spider-Man I have played and definitely in my top 3 ps4 games. Just saying it's okay to talk about the issues of its open world because that's the only way the sequel will improve. Not saying I agree with a 7 either, I'd rate it a 9, but if the open world was better it would be an easy 10 from me.

Hardiman132d ago

What also made the backpacks, photos, Black Cat sections etc fun for me was hearing Peter give reflections on the items in the packs and some Easter eggs as well and the same with lots of the locales. The main thing is they all help go towards unlocking suits which combined with the swinging made it much more enjoyable!

Dark_Knightmare2132d ago

The open world is amazing to me because it’s one of if not the most alive and fully realized city I’ve ever seen in a game. I was walking the streets and found people congregating around a car that jumped a curb and hit a trash can and having a conversation about how the driver managed that with the driver trying to justify it and another time I was by a landmark and I saw a group of people taking pictures of it so I walked over and there’s a tour guide explaining the history of the landmark and I stayed and listened to the whole conversation. Those are just two examples out of tons that most people won’t even see but helps make the game more immersive and the city feel like a living,breathing place.

ShadowWolf712131d ago


The Pigeons aren't even half as bad as the balloons.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 131d ago
ZeekQuattro132d ago

I rate the game higher but I can see where he is coming from. I never imagined playing an eco friendly Spider-Man game. It certainly adds variety to the missions.The game is basically a 10 for me. The DLC will only add to it. I just up they are decent length. In the end a 7 isn't a bad score. The mentality that anything less than a 9 or 10 is bad needs to stop. I can see this article getting hate for not giving the game a 10 like most other places. It didn't come off as a doing for clicks piece either. There is a lot of praise for the game peppered in there.

Count_Bakula132d ago

Not only are the research stations coming from his best friend, but Spider-Man would do ANYTHING to help his city. That's why the fetching, the cleaning, every side thing in this game makes sense. It wouldn't work for like Moon Knight, or Iron Man, or something like that, but Spidey is perfect for environment stuff. That's why he's the Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, willing to do anything and everything even at the citizen level. Really dumb criticism if people have problems with eco-friendly stuff.

Abnor_Mal132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

I don't know if this is still the case, but back in the 70s and 80s when I read comics, Spider-Mans webs were eco friendly. They would desolve on their own after an hour or two. If not then there would be hundreds of thousands if not millions of strands of webbing all over the city attached to buildings and lamp posts.

crazyCoconuts132d ago

You gotta admit, though, that ratings for big games are not REALLY on a 10 point scale. A 7 is like getting a C in school, and for a good game, a 7 is a slap in the face

132d ago Replies(1)
Sgt_Slaughter132d ago

Time for people to attack this site for a 7.

ReVibe132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

He had nothing to say other than how the pacing of side content didn't mesh with him clearly mowing through the game and not stopping to smell the roses. Sorry, It's a Spider-Man game. It's not meant to be scarfed down because someone has other games to play for a living. Not worth "attacking" the site, but reviewers that ignorant provide me a simple "steer clear."

harry_morris_129d ago (Edited 129d ago )

Hi, it's me, the evil reviewer in question. ;)

I understand your frustration, but I poured lots of time into Spider-Man, completed its story and side-quests, and I didn't earn a penny from reviewing it (in fact, the pre-order cost me £55). My review is unbiased, and I stand by my score.

Spider-Man's a good game, but even without the faults I highlighted, I don't believe its fundamental experience is stronger than an 8/10. Of course, that's my personal opinion, so you can disagree. :)

CarlDechance132d ago

So a 7 is like an invincible score or something? Thou shall not disagree with a 7?

Sgt_Slaughter132d ago

Disagreeing with it is perfectly okay. Tearing a person apart and throwing a fit isn't.

CarlDechance132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

And who is tearing “a person” apart again? Better yet, reply and address that person directly.

badz149132d ago


talking trash about Sony as usual.

it's 1 thing to have a different opinion but another thing for being biased! why should Spider-man be rated while shouldering the whole genre with it? it's now Spider-man or Insomniac's fault for the open world genre to be mostly indifferent?

the review is missing the point big time! is the game fun? is the game technically polished? is the game looking great? Is the narrative, animation, voice acting and story telling of the game great? Is the game doing Spider-man justice? does the game have lots and hours of contents? does the game try hard to be the very best of Spider-man game yet? and so how EVERY GAME SHOULD BE REVIEWED! based on the review, the answer for all those questions are big fat YES! so, there is really nothing from the review that worth rating the game 7! that's a B- and I personally think it's insulting for a game with so much dedication and love put in it. if you've played it, you would know! and the reason is because "it doesn't push the genre forward"?? like...WTF? did Zelda or Mario got reviewed with the same standards? I don't think so. they were reviewed for being what they are - great games! so why shouldn't Spider-man?