Nathan Schmidt writes...
"Well mainly to avoid a wise-ass like myself taking advantage of the situation and writing an article about it. Yesterday I received a mass-email from HighWater Group PR asking all websites to put a hold on their reviews for City Interactive’s latest stealth based FPS, Sniper: Ghost Warrior."
A look at five games that gamers loved but most critics hated.
Advent Rising is another good example. It got panned by critics but it has a good story and I enjoyed playing it. The graphics are dated, the enemies all look the same, but it was made in 2005 so what do you expect? I wish they made the sequel so I could finish the story but I think the critics killed it off.
Replies(1)
I seldom trust gamers or critics anymore. A lot of times high scores just mean how likely you are to enjoy something from the game, but rarely anything about how much you would enjoy said things, or whether the highly preferred type of qualities in a game you’re looking for are even in it. My initial gut feeling of the premise of a game is usually all I need.
Choose the right weapons for your mission and achieve your targets as the Sniper Ghost Warrior series comes to Android and iOS devices.
Not every "bad game" deserves its reputation, some are just misunderstood because they were too ambitious, over hyped or heavily plagued by a bad development cycle.
Shut your mouth.
No Mans Sky first trailer looked like this epic world of exploration and conflict.
Reality was - barren waste lands with creatures looking straight out of Gary's Mod.
No Mans Sky also promised the ability to play with friends which all was said during talk show interviews.
Reality Was - Absolutely zero multiplayer found inside the game, there were even sketchy moments of discoveries disappearing if you happened to travel far enough into the center of the universe.
The developers also promised a really cool ending to the game once you reached the center of the universe.
Reality Was - ...just YouTube the ending and realize how much of a shit show this game is.
They EVEN came back with some base making update.
Reality Was - They first sold you on a game of massive nearly endless space exploration, though they came back out with an expansion pack based on base-making which promotes squatting on a damn planet and doing very little.
Stahp.
MP as you claim was never, ever promised. In fact, it was explained in 2014, 2015, and 2016 that the game wasn't MP.
Lack of reading comprehension (GI's "Stop Thinking of No Man's Sky as a Multiplayer Game" 2014) isn't the fault of the developer.
Are some promised things missing from the game? Yes. Are some unpromised things in the game. Yes. Were there lies written by hack journalists and repeated in echo chambers touted as truths (no large scale space battles)? Yes
There are two endings to the game, in reality.
Reality is, you haven't played the new update. Your base and every single space station has a teleporter to quickly move between your base and the space station. That means you can move across the galaxy in the blink of an eye.
My take away from this is something I cling to religiously. Price will often time dictate my expectations levels and perhaps rightly so.
Something priced at $15 to $20 bucks will receive a less critical (not a pass) eye as opposed to a $60 dollar one.
When I put down $60 im expecting a life changing experience. When I give you $10 to $15 bucks I understand that this project may be something personal, or very niche or perhaps even vaguely resemble a game as I know it in its traditional sense.
time and price give one the ability to experience a game quietly and without reservations.
This is not great for developers, especially indie ones, but sometimes it's all you can do to truly enjoy something.
Daikatana was crap, though, not even time can help that mess. Everything else on that list I can mostly agree with.
Why is there a picture of No Man's Sky? The piece doesn't even mention that game at all.
Hmm...but what about devs who have no choice but to release a broken game? Devs that are pressured to strict, immovable deadlines, harsh budgets and annoying publisher intervention.
Some people just don't understand the reality how game development works. Unless you have an expendable budget, devs can't take forever making games like Blizzard can.
I look at it like this, I can't go to my job and give the customer a broken product. I would be fired. If a product isn't ready I'm forced to go to my boss and request more time. If that involves staying late, and going the extra mile then so be it. Why should game development be any different? Developers/Publishers are creating products for mass consumption, is it wrong to ask that those products be, at the very least, playable?
I do agree though that the Publisher does bear a large portion of the responsibility.
I picked this up of Steam and man, it is buggy. I can't cross the threshold of the ground and the slight incline of a ramp leading to a hut while in CROUCH mode. Not, prone, but CROUCH! I have to stand, then of course am seen my that enemy 1,287 clicks away. Don't even get me started on being totally prone in MASSIVE shrubbery, in a ghillie suit and being shot at by enemies WAAAAAY off in the distance that had no way of seeing me.
This is why, as much as I hate waiting for GT5, I applaud the dev for keeping it in house so when it is released it is truly a finished product.
Beta in a box, lol, first time I have heard that saying and it's quite accurate.
but they still do lol.notice how pretty much the glitchest games this gen are all from the west and europe lol.
Last gen was glitchier, gen before that - even more so.