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.
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.
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
Now there's a rational, reasonable answer.
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.
rainslacker 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.
@iamalways 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.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
@conanlifts it’s absolutely not a bad thing. The game has a ton of amazing qualities and is A LOT of fun!!!
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.
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.
The game doesn't move open world game forwards agreed, but It's def a 8/10 game.
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.
The game is great, but not every reviews need to share your view of giving the game a 9/10. Different people different opinions.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Don't let it bother you, they have to try.
The site is called goombastomp, maybe that explains it lol.
Everybody's interpretation of ratings and quality is different. :)
Plagued by negarive tropes of the open world genre? That’s a Strech
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. BUT!! 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.
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.
@razzer 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.
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!
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.
lolno The Pigeons aren't even half as bad as the balloons.
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.
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.
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.
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
Time for people to attack this site for a 7.
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."
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. :)
So a 7 is like an invincible score or something? Thou shall not disagree with a 7?
Disagreeing with it is perfectly okay. Tearing a person apart and throwing a fit isn't.
And who is tearing “a person” apart again? Better yet, reply and address that person directly.
@Sgt_Slaughter 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 on....like 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?
I literally was in a group chat and someone said "do the story missions" I said no, I'm spider-man and I protect this city as I dove into a group of random demons for the 8th time in a row
Hmpf! (Arms crossed) No Sony game is below a 10/10! Sony is perfect and all of its games are too! Anything below a 10/10 is stupid and "fake news."
Look mate. I get what you are saying, but this game is brilliant, exciting and highly polished. It isn't anywhere near a 7. It's a fine piece of work!!!
Just poking fun at the N4G community. :)
I’m surprised the reviews site and its reviewer don’t get trashed by some people here. Edit: Look like I speak too soon.
Only Nintendo fangirls make death threats to reviewers over review scores.
Theh iz noh engineering like Gehman engineering!
Hmpf! (Arms crossed) No Nintendo game is below a 10/10! Nintendo is perfect and all of its games are too! Anything below a 10/10 is stupid and "fake news."
The insecurity is strong with this one.
Except the Nintendo community is nowhere near the Sony community on the rabidity scale. Especially on this site. His joke had some truth to it. When you tried to flip it, it lost truth.
@Drumbeat That's a d*** lie. Nintendo fans are some of the most rabid, childish, gamers out of any fanbase out there. I don't know how you can sit there with a straight face and say what you just said. Like this thread for example. People are giving great reasons why they disagree with the score, but instead of debating or giving a mature response, you people are too busy headhunting sony fanboys so you can try your best to ridicule and make fun of them with your holier than thou bs.
People like you are as annoying as the people you're making fun of.
It isn't a lie. Eyes don't lie. I'm a straight, honest, yet still flawed person. What I see, on N4G, on a daily basis, is Microsoft getting absolutely reamed. Anytime there's a victory for Microsoft, whether it's big or small, it gets completely lambasted by disagrees, and unfair and dishonest feedback from the Sony crowd. That's the state of this site, and it's ridiculous. I've said it before and I'll say it again, until it penetrates at least one of you. On this site, N4G, you cannot, in any way, subtly or otherwise, make a comment that can be construed as potentially glorifying another platform. If you're not paying homage to Sony or PlayStation, then your comment is erroneous, inadmissible, and highly disagreeable. If you're a Nintendo guy, it's not as bad, but if you like something that Microsoft does, or you admit to liking an Xbox game, you're almost always immediately inundated with ridicule, phantom disagrees, etc.
@ DrumBeat I love how MS fanboys act like they don't stir crap up and then act like they aren't doing anything, some of the most annoying trolls on here are MS fanboys. Does N4G have more Sony supporters yes does that mean that every one that comments here is anti MS just because they don't agree with MS nope. Stop pretending like PS gamers are the only ones that have fanboys all consoles do and if you don't like that there are more Sony supporters here then why visit the site if it bothers you that much.
Reviewer clearly mowed through the story, and considered nothing more than how the game's side-content pacing didn't cater to how he plays.
To those upset, I think you just have to accept that there are people who genuinely have different guiding principles for what makes a good game. It in NO way devalues it. It's like, I know people who don't like Goodfellas or Pulp Fiction - it blows my mind, but I guess their evaluation criteria is a world away from mine. I guarantee we'll see the same thing with RDR 2 next month (wow that feels weird to say!).
I know what you mean,I'm no way hyped for RDR2 the games never really interest me,though when the game is cheap I may buy to see what all the hoopla is all about.
As I have said before, as an open world game it is a 7/10. Basically liking Spiderman and the mechanics is what is going to make or break the game for anyone. I love the game hence a 8.5 or 9/10 from me. Love the combat and web slinging and character, for which I can forget the bad mission structure and open world design for all the side thingies.
Stupid review. The quality of this game is supreme. No way any less than a 9. Idiots!!
All I can say is this: I hate open world games with all the ridiculous amount of busy work to do and I usually just run out of motivation to finish them. That being said, I have damn near 100% this game, never once have I gotten bored, really got invested in the story to the point that this beats any Spider-Man movie I’ve ever seen, and I literally spent the whole weekend playing this. So, for someone to say it gets bogged down by open world tropes, take it from someone who hates open world games, this game is absolutely phenomenal!
Not even bothering to read... Goombastomp?. Lmao
Suddenly some common mechanics we have seen in many open world games are a plague. But then.... "Furthermore, said side activities are tediously trickled onto the world map, dictated by players’ place in the main story (an approach at odds with modern open world design)." So the game is too much like open world games except when its not like other open world games???? What?
They're not "suddenly" a plague. They've been a boring, tedious way to pad games for quite awhile now, and Spider-Man is no different just because swinging or combat is 'so well done.' Your argument is that since the essential Spider-Man'ness of the game (swinging and combat) is executed so well, and is so well polished, we should overlook the not-so-hot aspects and act like they don't exist. I'm sorry but that just completely flies in the face of intellectual honesty, and is a terrible way to review something. Judge the whole game. Don't look the other way on something negative just because there's also something positive. That's stupid. That doesn't serve anyone. If that means games never get 9s or 10s, so be it.
" Your argument is that since the essential Spider-Man'ness of the game (swinging and combat) is executed so well, and is so well polished, we should overlook the not-so-hot aspects and act like they don't exist." Bullshit. I never said any such thing. Of course the game should be looked at as a whole. I did not say otherwise. Insomniac didn't set out to create the most innovative, fresh, new open world game ever made. They set out to make a great Spider-man game. They did that. That the open world mechanics they are employ are boring is your opinion and I disagree. They are not ground-breaking, but they do no take away from the game. And I said nothing about the score. I'm wondering if you replied to the correct post.
Regardless what they say Insomniac is well paid for Spectacular game.
You are right, no matter what score they give to this game, it still is a great game and is another hit for Sony.
No matter what the game is fabulous fun & another hit for Sony & Insomniac!!