A Lot of Biomutant Reviewers Had an Experience That’s Completely Different from Mine

Half-Glass Gaming writes: "I'm reading a lot of Biomutant reviews that make it feel like people are playing a completely different game than the one I sank 100 hours into.Kotaku’s review, for example, makes me think the reviewer didn’t actually play the game."

Read Full Story >>
luckytrouble1101d ago

Here's my overall impression from higher quality reviews:

- It's a pretty game, and if you're a more relaxed gamer that prefers taking in the scenery, there's a lot to get out of the game.

- It's a pretty dead world though with very sparsely populated enemy groups, which makes it difficult to take advantage of the various systems that overlap to make the combat.

- The combat is interesting, but it by and large doesn't flow super well with the combo attacks and abilities, while actual weapon balancing is pretty horribly done.

- The story is just kind of clunky and hard to get invested in.

As a whole, it's an open world game that didn't need to be open world, and would have benefitted greatly from reigning it in quite a bit to make a more targeted experience. It's a game trying to fit larger shoes than it could actually fill, and the beautiful but empty world highlights that well.

And with that understanding, this is a game that's likely on my life long pass list unless it gets patched with significant improvements. There's too much to play to settle on a pretty game that misses the mark in basically every other way.

outsider16241101d ago

"It's a pretty dead world"

This here is tbe kicker...the world looks good..but if its lifeless with nothing to do..then it'll get boring real quick.

patriz4201100d ago

Breath of the wild had the deardest world I've ever seen in a game.

Levii_921100d ago

@patriz And what ? That makes BOTW a bad open world game ? Is your attention span that low ? I cant believe how many people still say this and don’t get what made BOTW such a great game and a unique exeperiance.

enkiduxiv1100d ago

@Levii_92 Insulting his attention span is an overreaction. He is just expressing an opinion which is unfortunately controversial due to the universal praise this game always receives.

I also felt like BOTW was a bit overrated. I played the whole thing and didn't hate it, but it just felt like an Ubisoft sandbox with a pretty Zelda skin on top. Obviously a lot of people really liked it so I wouldn't call it a bad game, but the way reviewers gushed over it as being revolutionary was honestly quite sickening.

What did BOTW do that was new exactly? It took some fantastic inspiration from Skyrim and and the Souls series and found a way to deliver a unique interpretation of those ideas, but I really don't think it brought anything new to the table in terms of game design.

-Foxtrot1100d ago


Yeah that's the only thing bugging me about reviews for games like this

Everyone can gladly say "yeah this open world is dead, pretty lifeless, not much to do" etc but Breath of the Wild is suddenly one of the greatest games in existence

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1097d ago
KyRo1101d ago

"Its an open world game without needing to be open world". So many developers need to be told this. Way to many games force a open world setting in today market.

VenomUK1100d ago

I'm sure I heard something from a preview that the devs were making their own Zelda BOTW type game which means the game world is specifically designed to be open for the player to explore. But I haven't played it so if it's empty then yes that undermines it all.

Likewise, I believe there is a problem with reviewers who rush through games they don't want to play so don't have the same response to it as the average gamer but can't say if that's the case here until I play it and make my own judgement!

I saw the trailer and it looked beautiful to me and the background music is beautiful. But what with too many games I might just wait for the next-gen version and maybe a patch. I really do want to play.

Father__Merrin1100d ago

Reminds me of sniper ghost wariior 3 good game spoilt by being open world's

Rude-ro1100d ago

That and the worst latency in the controls. Reported to be up to a full second delay on a button/key prompt.

Aussiesummer1100d ago

It’s a pretty game?! The thing looks shithouse!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1097d ago
Lore1101d ago

Still an amazing feat for 20 devs. Congratulations regardless

MadLad1101d ago (Edited 1101d ago )

The size of the devs team should never dismiss the quality of the end product.
I've seen 1 man projects come out and deliver quality products, just on a smaller scale.

I'm just someone who buys games. I'm not buying it based on how much effort you put in. I'm buying based on how good the game is.

When you, knowing you're a small team, bite off more than you can chew, and the end result is multiple elements of your games coming off lackluster, I'll congratulate you on your efforts but point out all the flaws in your work.

They could have scaled things back; made a more cohesive experience, and the game would have been all the better for it.

garos821100d ago

i kinda disagree with that statement. you cant compare between gigntic ubisoft style 400+ staff making a game and a small team of less than 40staff. No if the game is broken as hell , then yes, have a go at the developers no matter the size but you simply cant compare the quality

MadLad1100d ago


I'm the consumer that is paying $60 (sometimes 70) for the content you are producing.
If you're a smaller studio that can't live up to AAA quality, then you should probably not be pricing yourself along with them.

-Foxtrot1100d ago

Pretty much

If you have 20 people then make a game you know will be great using 20 people, don't become over ambitious because if you half arse it I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt because you did SUCH a good job with the team you had.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1100d ago
porkChop1101d ago

That was a good read. And it illustrates the biggest issue with reviews. Most reviewers don't spend enough time playing most games to give them a fair and accurate review. It's impossible to do that when you're trying to review every single game. I get it. But that's why I think trying to review every single game is a bad idea. There has to be another way.

RPGer1101d ago

Good game is a good game from first the second till the credit. Like Final Fantasy VII Remake, It's takes two, GOT, GOW, Forza Horizon 4, Super Smash Ultimate etc. You don't need any second thoughts or explorations. Games like Assasin, Watch Dogs, Need For Speed, Battlefield etc... will always be bad and feels clunky, underdeveloped and boring.

1100d ago Replies(1)
Graey1100d ago

I would ask, what is considered a substantial amount of time. Like the person who wrote this article, what does he consider enough time for the review to be considered credible? We as gamers tend to want to know about a review before the game comes out. That leads to crunch-time reviews. Also if you don't post good things about games it seems like you won't get review copies in time to give that review so people are not buying a crap game. I don't know the method to be honest. Personally, I would say there needs to be a credible review site, that takes longer to review or gets a copy ahead of time as this person got. Build up credibility through just word of mouth and being honest with the reviews. If we as gamers were to wait a bit I think we would have better-written reviews as well.

CorndogBurglar1100d ago

This article wasn't talking about how long you play a game. He was talking about HOW you choose to play the game. Now granted, the amount of time played is telling of what all the player was able to accomish. In this case, 18 hours, which is only enough time to do the main story missions.

There's nothing wrong with only doing that much. But that person is going to have a different experience than someone that played through all the side quests and explored the game to its fullest.

If you're someone that just doesn't like the controls, combat, the world, or gameplay then it won't matter what all you do. You won't like it. But I haven't seen those things as a universal argument.

So I don't know. I'll give it a shot after I finish ME trilogy. This is a weird one. I'm having a hard time guaging whether I'll enjoy it or not. Generally I can read through several reviews and decide if I want to buy now or wait, but with so many reviews being all over the place I just can't figure it out.

Nitrowolf21100d ago

if you need to spend more than 18 hours with the main campaign beaten (which can be less than 10 tbf) to actually start seeing what the game has to offer, then you have done something wrong with ur game.

Why does it take beating it and then spending 100 hours to realize it's better than it actually was? That's just poor pacing. No additional time would have saved this game, because there's really nothing to motivate them to even keep playing

CorndogBurglar1100d ago

Wow, you're misunderstanding that to a large degree. He isn't saying you have to beat the main quest then play for 100 hours. He isn't saying you have to do anything in particular during your run. Just that someone who plays only the main story is going to miss out on a lot, and won't experience everything.

And thats true. Think about games like Skyrim or Witcher 3. If you don't bother with side quests or exploring the world then you're missing out on a LOT. Same here. And I'm not saying this games' side quests are as good as Witcher's. But what he's sayingnis a fact. Your 18 hour story run through is 100% not going to be the same as someone's 100 hour run. That other person is going to experience a lot more.

1100d ago Replies(1)
+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1100d ago
LucasRuinedChildhood1101d ago (Edited 1101d ago )

"makes me think the reviewer didn’t actually play the game." This seems to be the default argument whenever people disagree over a video-game right now. Same with Days Gone. At least he's not being literal in this case but I hope people move on from this line of argument.

"Biomutant is a pretty good time if all you want is something strange and nice to look at." "I think I would probably agree to this. Only, in the aforementioned review, this is stated like it’s a bad thing. Is it, though? I personally like looking at weird things."

The reviewer he's responding to is not insulting the aesthetic of the game, he's criticizing the other aspects of the game and saying "At least it looks cool". C'mon, man. That's just basic English comprehension.

waverider1101d ago

it seem an average game. The combat seems boring, but just watch videos. maybe its better...