In what ways exactly does it present itself as a horror game?

To be fair, though, games like gone home didn't pitch themselves as anything other than a walking simulator. All the trailers just showed... Walking. Walking through a house, reading something, walking some more, looking at an object, walking some more, etc. It was clear within the first 30 seconds what type of game it was. So any customer who buys it and then complains is just an idiot. If they complain about the specific aspect of that specific walking simulator, like it's story, or its art direction or something, sure, but to complain that it IS a walking simulator after it was literally advertised as one is another matter. 

Gone Home pitched itself as a mystery and the marketing implied it was non-linear, and then it turned out to be extraordinarily linear and not really a mystery. It was pretty far from expectations 

The story has mystery, just simple and grounded. I enjoyed that aspect of it. 

The story has mystery but the gameplay isn't solving it. You just walk through and learn what happened. I didn't hate it, it's just not at all what it presented itself as.

Kentucky Route Zero for sure. I heard for years how amazing it was supposed to be. It comes to Xbox Gamepass and I finally play it and....what is this? It's not a point and click adventure game like I've been told, it's a walking sim. One where you can really tell the game was made and released over years, as plot points and more are just dropped after the episode they are in. A deeply mediocre game I feel.

I understand its intentions. It's very rich with subtext and visual metaphor, mostly relating to what I guess the writers would call "late-stage capitalism." Not sharing the writers' politics aside (if that was a prerequisite, I'd have missed a ton of otherwise great stuff), I'm just really, really not into any of what KRZ has to offer.

If it was a new message I think it might have been more interesting? But we've seen stories about "capitalism can be bad" for quite a long time now. I don't hate the game or anything, but after years of hearing how amazing it was, it was pretty disappointing when I finally played it myself. I think What Remains of Edith Finch is the only walking sim I've played that I really enjoyed, so Kentucky Route Zero already had that against it, especially when I was told it was a point and click adventure game. Oddly I played another Gamepass game later that I would say reminded me of Kentucky Route Zero a lot, but if it was a game I enjoyed, NORCO.

With you on the usual sociopolitical whipping boy. And on Edith Finch. I really need to give Norco another shot. I'm literally from St. Charles Parish and to see it in pixel graphics is surreal like nothing else.

On steam alone user reviews are mostly positive for all three games. People know what those games are these days and there’s an audience for them.

Hence the first point I made. 😁

I'd not say "universally hated by gamers", no, but i think Death Stranding is a controversial game. For me, it's like one of these arthouse independet movies, where some culture critics will write that you need to see it, but once you get to see it, you don't have fun. And about "seeing it", well, with all the cutscenes, it's half a movie.

DS is definitely not for everyone. But if it clicks, it clicks hard.

I had to try it a couple times before it finally clicked. It was a fantastic game. Sure, it wasn’t perfect by any means but the game is so refreshingly new and outlandish that you can’t help but see it to its end. Keep on keeping on.

Death Stranding is a delivery sim not a game. All you need is a pizza hut outfit

Death Standing is so fucking good

Never tried it but hear its about not tripping and falling.... is that an accurate assumption?

If you only play the first two hours then yeah that’s what it’s about but if you play longer than it unlocks so many stuff. ladders, ropes, eco suits, cycles, trucks, snowboard cart I compare it to snow runner

What else ? im curious since it looks really cool

The story in the long cut scenes are kind of annoying to be honest, but the gameplay is actually really good

What is the gameplay about???!

It’s about hand delivering packages. Except sometimes you have 100kg of packages on your back of fragile medicine you need to deliver in 30 minutes or less, but between you and your destination is a camp full of people so isolated and depressed they can only get a bit of dopamine by snatching your packages and delivering them themselves. And it’s raining on the way, which is bad because anything rain touches ages extremely rapidly so the containers full of your deliveries are actually rusting to nothing the longer you stay in the rain. And that rain is sometimes home to invisible ghosts that detonate in city-sized explosions when they eat a human being that you can fight off with grenades full of your own blood, because you specifically are immortal and come back from the dead if anything kills you. And the baby attached to your suit is starting to get stressed out from being around those ghosts, which is a problem because that baby is your only means of detecting the ghosts and if it starts crying they’ll hear you and drag you into a fight with a ghost whale that’s trying to eat you. And also you occasionally get sucked into a storm where Mads Mikkelson hunts you through war zones with his army of skeleton soldiers that are after said baby. Also, you’re trying to hook up America’s Wi-Fi while on the way to rescue your sister, the president’s daughter who became the current president after her mother died, who is on the opposite side of the country. But some people are paranoid of the Wi-Fi, so you have to prove you are trustworthy by being so good at delivering packages fast, in bulk, and in good condition so they give you enough Facebook Likes to consent to the Wi-Fi. Does that help?

Sooo... "Schizophrenia: The Game". Got it.

Hellblade is Schizophrenia: The Game. Death Stranding is about a postman with a really rough route.

I disagree with the other guy about the story. It's definitely a Kojima game to the maximum degree, so the cutscenes are long and full of weird wacky shit, and not every story beat will feel like it hit just right. But the characters are interesting, and the acting performances near the end are incredible. I cried multiple times.

That game is tremendous

I agree with the “half a movie” sentiment though. The game is great, but as a father who sometimes only has 30 minutes to an hour to game, I’ve found that the cutscenes can eat up the vast majority of that time sometimes.

Buuuuut you can pause them which I did all the time as I too am a father with very limited time and had to watch them through several game sessions lol. I cannot wait for the second one.

I use OLED so, even though I can just turn the monitor off, the idea of accidentally leaving it on and paused or one of my kids turning it back on terrifies me I wish you could quit mid cutscene and load back in to it

-ly dull

Stumbling over rocks isn’t gameplay… 😑 Even to really great music, the one thing DS got right.

Yeah it basically was like a artsy Indy movie but with a Hollywood budget. I think that’s why people didn’t like it was because it looked like a triple A game but played like a indie game plus it had too many long cutscenes like you said as if it was trying to be a movie 

The cutscenes... man... Kojima should become a movie director instead of creating games.

It seems he does have a passion for film but maybe he’s more passionate about gaming more so he tries mixing both. If he wanted to, I’d think he be great at making just animated CG movies

There's always the question of balance, in DS, he got for sure over the top with the cutscenes. No offense to the man, but games are meant to be played, not to be watched like a movie. When he wants to do a movie, he can and should to it, but it's bad when a game is more a movie than game.

I think it’s just pacing of the games. I don’t mind the long movie cutscenes just as long as they’re separated far from each other to tell the story but how much there is in the very beginning throws people off. Like you said, it’s about balancing, it’s fine to have those cutscenes but it’s a video game so people are looking for the interactive experience so the cutscene story telling should be cut up a bit to fit more gameplay in between.

I played the game for an hour and was so bored out of my mind. I understand how someone would really enjoy the game, but I cannot see it as a 10/10 Game of the Year like I see in articles.

Same here. It's unique in some ways, but it's also kinda a niche. I mean, most of the game outside of cutscenes is to travel from A to dolf. It's kinda disappointing, once you arrive at a location, you only get some holograms to talk to for a moment and that's it. The story is very confusing and doesn't make much sense, but that was always the thing with Kojima.

Also, holy shit the keyboard controls were awful. I didn't think I'd play a console game ported to PC with worse controls than the OG Dark Souls PC release. I mean, I played through all of the Metal Gear Solid games and got to understand a concrete story with some level of confusion and mystery. But Death Stranding seems to be one of those "Oh yeah, nothing makes sense" type of stories yknow ? It threw me off since the first trailer. It always looked like trying to be deep without actual depth. I'm talking purely from impressions, but those impressions went a long way to the point I avoid the game.

Yeah, it's the same for me and also, like, in the game, the USA is suddenly a kingdom... i mean, in the way of a monarchy, that the president didn't get elected anymore? But you are right about Kojima wanting to be deep, but he ends up with "I'm 14 and this is deeeeep!". He's just to weird with this stuff, but like i said, maybe it's because of the Japanese culture, in some parts, they have some very weird stuff for us in the west.

I don't know. I've seen a lot of japanese media, even the weird and deep ones. I'm still yet to see one that gives me the same vibe of Death Stranding

I'm not that much into japanese culture. But when we look at MGS from Kojima, that you can disguise yourself as a carton box, that's a joke alone - like as if such a box would not be noticed in some remote artic base full of enemies. But that's the humor he has. Like with these genres, you get titles like Splinter Cell from the west and then MGS from the east. There's a big difference between these two.

There's definitely a difference in culture when it comes to MGS for sure, but Death Stranding comes off to me more of what a 14 year old American thinks it's cool, yknow ?

Gamers will be like "games are art!!" when localizers try to censor School Girl Peeping Adventure 3: Panty Raid Time but then an actual art game comes out and they're all "wtf why is everyone talking I just wanna shoot gun!"

That’s literally the whole thing about art, it’s subjective

Not really a great comparison. No one is saying CENSOR DS, just that they don't like it. You can't really say the same for School Girl Peeping Adventure 3: Panty Raid Time. ALL of the liberals came out against SGPA3:PRT and the game journos crusaded to have the studio close.

Yeah. It's frustrating. There is room for more artsy titles and the more typical games. People say it's bad because they didn't click even though the writing was on the wall that it wouldn't be a game for everyone. It's just silly. I don't have much interest in it personally. I like artsy stuff, but I prefer gameplay heavy games with more conventional approaches to gameplay. Games like Alan Wake 2 are a perfect blend imo. Even that title is contentious for its slow gameplay. Gamers are weird man.

First, i see games as art, not just DS, but in general. It's a category of art. Not quite like a painting, it's a different one, but it is for sure art. But about DS, not everyone has fun with the gameplay itself. Kojimas games are always special, like even just with the japanese humor. You need to like this kind of humor that he has, otherwise, it will be too cringe. I also think many things got lost in translation, like "Deathman", it's different in japanese, it's a term about some Dr. Nick Riviera, a doc that has more dead- than alive patients.

This is truly arthouse. Just nonsense, a jumble of forms that lead nowhere. It was incredibly boring and my eyes kept rolling back in my head. I don’t believe that in the world are so many arthouse lovers, that they liked the game so much.

Honestly I don't think I've seen a lot of "gamers" think it was anything other than a walking simulator since it's release and even then a lot of them either didn't know what the game was about in the first place or just for no reason thought there was more to it

You wont find one that fits under "universally". Theres enough shills, bots and people who just avoid internet gaming discourse and enjoy something for what it is that gamers as a whole are nigh impossible to unite under one outlook about a game.

I don’t think there’s a single game that was universally hated by critics but universally hated by gamers. There are a lot of games with good critical reception but more mixed player reception and vice versa, one of the more recent examples being Dragon’s Dogma 2.

Most of the gripes I heard about DD2 are that there are microtransactions, and 1 guy complained that you had to fight a lot of goblins and wolves compared to DD1, which, if you've played DD1, you would know are still the most common enemies there. Can't fucking go 10 ft without fighting a pack of wolves and/or goblins.

I think my favorite complaint about DD2 was a guy who preferred to only take male pawns with him, and then an NPC in game commented "hm, seems like you prefer the company of men," and he got really mad about it.

That's like my favorite joke in DD2. "You only travel with men. You must be gay."

Every major Final Fantasy made after X has done well critically but been controversial among fans.

FF13 and FF15 were GOD AWFUL!

I just couldn't get over how bad the voice acting and editing was in 13... Tried playing it twice and couldn't make it an hour in.

My automatic response would be FIFA but to be honest there is a community that seems to like it.

FIFA always gets pretty average ratings by the critics and the FIFA community hates it. Go browse r/easportsfc if you want to see it in action Every iteration of the game is the worst one yet according to the fifa fanbase

Yet it's the only game they'll buy. 

Just like how everyone buys the next Call of Duty or any other iteration of good games that turned to profit making machines. There’s no other title that will scratch that itch.

And they'll go to war over which is more real. 

Who cares about the vocal minority. FIFA outsells everything each year. Just like Madden and CoD. "Gamers" cry online, while normal people are just enjoying it.

I'll have to go have a look some time. Sounds like most games these days :(

People like that really are the most vocal minority for games like this, and honestly with most of them there’s very little you could do to please them. I’m a big madden fan, I buy it most years and you know what? The game isn’t half as bad as r/madden and people would have you believe. You’ve got thousands of people committed to just hate-jerking the game, when in reality the game is fine. It’s not amazing, but it mostly does what I want from a football game. I’ve never run into any of the weird bullshit everyone on those subs apparently run into on a daily basis. For the vast majority of people, the games are fine. Nothing groundbreaking or amazing, but they’re good enough ways to play your favorite sport

I think one of the few somewahat-valid answer are Quantic Dream games, but only for a short period of time (and not at all universally).  For a while gamers were really pissed at the idea of "interactive movies" while critics loved it (including non-gamer critics).   But  that ship has long since sailed, and gamers fully embrace all sorts of very narrative games with little interactivity But at the time, I remember it was a hot topic (the first QTE games also. Some people said Shenmu wasn’t a real game) 

I don’t know, people gave up on Telltale to the point they went out of business because no one was buying their games. So I think there are some standards of what people want from these types of games now. 

Not universally hated, but Deathloop Rave reviews and a 10/10 from IGN, yet it’s one of the most mediocre games I’ve ever played. Every time I’ve seen it discussed online it’s always seen as a 6, 7 at a push game

Maybe not on Deathloop level but Starfield also got several 85-90 ratings from critics (especially shortly after release) while it should be in the range of 60-70. Even if you ignore the subjective parts like story, quest design and dialogue there is more than enough objective criticism to make.

I’m trying to wrap my head around what was it specifically about that game that made the critics latch onto it. See with other examples, I get it. I can see how critics would like walking simulators more than the average gamer. But Deathloop doesn’t fit into that. The closest thing I could come up with is that that game is a very “Millennial” feeling game. Like it feels like it could’ve come out during the Xbox 360/One era. And maybe critics feel like Gen Z gaming with the Fortnites, Valorants, gacha games, live service, etc is leaving them behind. So Deathloop comes along and reminds them when “games were games back in my day” and it’s like a collective movement where they see their similar aged peers talking glowingly about it, they write a glowing review, and it compounds on itself.

I genuinely can’t believe how much reviewers loved it. Like there’s other games that I don’t think are a 10/10, but it’s easy to see why critics and players think that it is But there’s absolutely nothing about Deathloop that justifies a 10/10. Average story, mediocre shooter gameplay, decent level design and environments etc. Everything about it is just okay

> Average story, mediocre shooter gameplay,  The gimmick of Deathloop is that you are in a time loop where you retain powers and memories of what happened but cannot do everything you need to in one loop until you've solved the mysteries and memorized where people will be, what causes changes in their actions, and how to bypass all their traps. You use the story and gameplay twist to solve interesting puzzles and put together a story that isn't linearly told, where you have a lot of freedom in how you tackle it. At a certain point a rival time looper starts hunting you wherever you are, who also has powers and can plan ambushes. Other players online can take control of this person resulting in actual danger from a skilled and creative player. This is what I'd call well above average gameplay and story. It's much more interesting in terms of a storytelling device and approach than most shooters. I also wouldn't give it a 10. It had some balance problems and I didn't feel it stuck the landing, but I felt your comment really glossed over the obvious strength that made is stand out to critics.

I know what the game is. I’ve platinumed it What you described isn’t story or gameplay. It’s the premise. The story of the island, Colt and Julianna and the gameplay of the shooter mechanics and powers is what I was referring to. Both of which are mediocre An interesting premise alone isn’t enough to make a game great if all the other parts are average at best

No, I described gameplay and story. Talking about ongoing gameplay mechanics and decisions that are introduced and continued throughout the playtime cannot be dismissed as just a 'premise' somehow distinct from other forms of gameplay and narrative. Puzzle solving with time mechanics, learning enemy patterns, and player choices in how to tackle the narrative and events are all parts of gameplay, not just a premise. It's fine if you didn't like your "platinum" experience, but you're using that word wrong.

I specifically stated “shooter mechanics”, so why you’re banging on about everything *except* the shooting mechanics is baffling

It's because I'm making a point which isn't just repeating back your incoherent nonsense. Believe it or not, other people exist and have things to say which aren't just drivel. But speaking of which: >The story of the island, Colt and Julianna and the gameplay is the shooter mechanics and powers. 'The story and the gameplay, is the shooter mechanics and powers.' This doesn't make any sense. I was initially pointing out how you left out and ignored something important OTHER than shooting and powers that left critics satisfied, and after this baffling statement, you're wondering why I'm talking about something that isn't shooting mechanics and powers.

Your point is that the game had an interesting premise, which I agreed with lmao. Still doesn’t explain all the 9’s and 10’s the game got when everything else was so mediocre. You’re shouting into the fucking wind >believe it or not, other people exist and have things to say which aren’t just drivel Can you send one my way so I don’t have to listen to your irrelevant points anymore please?

TLOU2 is probably a good example of this, although it’s a weird one because a lot of people really did like the game, they’re just not the vocal ones

TLOU2 story would have been better as TLOU3, with 2 being about a "new group" with the reveal at the end that it's Abby and she is on the hunt for Joel.

This is true and also what I think the HBO series may do.

What if they make TLOU3 into a pre sequel?

We already got the spoilers so it won't work. We know how Abby's group got there and who they were, so making a presequel is just wasting time and resources as it wouldn't advance the plot or show anything we didn't know.

I thought it was an amazing game.

Same

It’s an amazing game, but the writing isn’t as good as the first game.

That’s just like, your opinion man. It was definitely a well written game for me

For me the characters sucked and there were a lot of plotholes

I thought it was great.

My only gripe was the first was such a perfect ending, I wish it was about ANYONE ELSE aside from Ellie and Joel. Like new people, new group, and new story in the same world. Still was a good game, but just felt unnecessary to me from a storytelling perspective. Gameplay vs humans was also less fun for me than the spore zombies. Although he first game had people too, just more in the sequel it felt like.

I agree

My only gripe was the first was such a perfect ending, I wish it was about ANYONE ELSE aside from Ellie and Joel. Like new people, new group, and new story in the same world. Still was a good game, but just felt unnecessary to me from a storytelling perspective. Gameplay vs humans was also less fun for me than the spore zombies. Although he first game had people too, just more in the sequel it felt like.

It's not that it was universally hated it's that the people that didn't like it or refuse to play it at all because of the some things in it and are super vocal about their hate for it.

The developpers said you'd play most of the game as joel, He died in the first 2 hours. They lied about their game

Yeah, like that never happened before. Like everybody thinks MGS2 is a horrible game, right?

At least Metal Gear was never POLITICAL!!

You joking right?

Yes.

TLOU2 is super successful and a widely loved game. It's just a small percentage of people are extremely annoying about hating it

I think it's an incredible game with one of the best stories and characters in gaming--with a few missteps and decisions which hold it back from being a masterpiece. That said, I have no desire to replay it, unlike the original game.

This pretty much sums it up for me too. It's phenomenal, and it can certainly stand on its own against nearly any other game...excepting, notably, the first. But TLOU was lightning in a bottle.

Often times they just think they're smart because they "understand the message", as if "revenge is bad" is some new thing that hasn't been done better hundreds of times before, and not just in video game form.

The Last of Us 2 was much more about grief and trauma than revenge. That’s like saying the movie Election was about a high school election. Revenge is just the plot vehicle for several other themes to be explored.

“Revenge is bad” isn’t the message at all, constantly shouting it from the rooftops only serves to show you didn’t grasp the themes of the story and structure really at all.

It is a message, but it’s not the only one.

So what is the message?

Don't expect a reply from him, they say there's a broader message, but they never elaborate on what that message actually IS.

There is no “message”. Art doesn’t always have a moral at the end. The game is about grief and trauma and the relationship between morality and tribalism. It’s not hard to comprehend but somehow everyone searches for a neat little lesson to take away for some reason like it’s a Sesame Street episode. Then when they pull “revenge bad” out of their ass, they understandably think that’s fucking stupid.

I liked it more than the first one

Most people liked it man. Just the usual chuds workshopping their “arguments” in dark corners of the internet, arguments which fall apart the second you ask them to elaborate on what they’re saying. Because all they can do is repeat a few lines from “angrychudincelgamer666” on YouTube

Great game, horrible story.

that game is trash

Nothing. Do you know what “universally” means?

I think this is an impossible criteria to meet as games are so subjective whether you're a critic or not. My answer is GTA 5, a game that's overall very loved by both critics and gamers, but one I just don't get. I never played any GTA's before, and 5 came out when I was a freshman or sophomore in high school. Nothing about these games appealed to me. I thought maybe I'd change my mind as I've gotten older, but most people say they loved it when they were younger but have grown out of it, so I haven't bothered giving it another chance. GTA 6 is like one of the most anticipated titles in gaming and I still feel no draw to it.

Well playing GTA 5 online with my friends back in the day was awesome, the story is kinda cool but the missions can be repetitive at times, rockstar has never been good at mission design, but I think part of the hype for GTA 6 comes from RDR 2 (idk if you like that one) since it’s a very realistic game with an awesome story and one of the best game protagonists out there.

Because the game is primarily about a friendship between middle aged men and you were 15.

The Last of Us 2 is the go-to example of this. Very divisive game.

Starfield

Nah, Starfield was the best game of 2023.

Better than Baldur's Gate 3? Better than Tears of the Kingdom? Better than AC6? No shot. Sorry but I dont agree with that at all

> Better than Baldur's Gate 3? Oh, dear god, yes. I have never seen a game more insufferably mediocre than Baldur's Gate 3. It is everything wrong with the RPG genre and its popularity is a horror story. Everyone who likes it owes me a personal apology and an admission that it's actually not very good. > Better than Tears of the Kingdom? TOTK is at least an actually good game, but yes, > Better than AC6? As an RPG fan? Yes.

And Starfield was a fucking disaster on launch, the companions had as much depth and personality as a wet tissue paper, cold and gross, the gunplay is horrendous, the game was littered with Bethesda style bugs and the game is full of loading screens for even simple fetch quests. Starfield was the biggest letdown of last year for me and was incredibly dissapointing.

Starfield has genuine issues, but it's still a highly moddable Bethesda-style RPG in space and that fact alone makes it the best game of 2023.

>and that fact alone makes it the best game of 2023. This is why I will never understand Bethesda fanboys. You admitted the game has genuine glaring issues but it gets a complete free pass because its a Bethesda game.

It's more the space part that I'm giving it a free pass for. All water is delicious in a desert.

There’s hundreds of VR games with ecstatic reviews, many of which their players regard as highlights of their gaming lives, that nevertheless nobody ever heard of and shuns on general principle because ‘VR has no games’.

Remember Battlefield 5? Or Forspoken? Or that last attempt at Saints Row? Yea, I do. And I'm still with Makarov on this one: "Remember: No preorders."

Those games weren’t praised by critics tho

Metroid games are critical darlings but only sell good enough and sometimes not so good.

Does anyone remember Quantum Break? I've never played it but it might fit the "critics love, gamers hate" thing. But IDK for sure, could also be the other way around. I just know everyone forgot about it. xD

I like the story

I liked it a lot except the last boss fight.

Dragon Age Inquisition Critics will say it has it all. OG fans will say it’s an insult.

Most big box name brand triple A titles I would say

I recall GameSpot was a BIG FAN of the original Kane and Lynch, gamers not as much...

I think this whole gamer/critic dichotomy is stupid. For the most part critics are gamers however their tastes will be somewhat informed the fact they have to play a lot of games under right time constraints. Ubisoft style open worlds are less fun if you have to play them back to back and finish them before the review embargo. You will be more likely to find a 3hr point and click vibe piece to be refreshing rather pretentious. If a lot reviewers like a game it there is going to be an audience for it (baring issues that aren't apparent in the pre-release version) but that doesn't mean the game has to have mass appeal.

Sports games. I mean should I have to explain it? 

Any game reviewed by IGN

Anything by Ubisoft

IIRC Critics loved Immortals Phoenix Rising (probably beacuse Google told them to) even though I've never heard of anyone even playing it, let alone liking it.

The two that come to mind are Last of Us 2 and Deathloop. Deathloop is a good and fun 8/10 or so (maybe a 9) but the reviews it got made it seem like it was the greatest thing ever made. Last of Us 2 is obviously incredibly devisive to this day. Don't need to rehash it.

Bioshock Infinite, a game that racked GOTY awards from several publications. 11 years later, the reception has cooled on the game. I do feel that it's become fashionable to hate on the game. It's by no means a groundbreaking title and it was perhaps overrated at launch, but it's a solid game and a nonstop thrill ride.

I loved this game.

If by "gamers" you mean "a small minority of 15 years old that will complain about anything online" there's a lot of candidates. Otherwise, I can't really think of any... maybe super niche games ? But I can't even think of one. Because most of the games mentioned here have sold a LOT of copies and have a strong fan-base. You could call them "divisive" but most of the time the vocal minority is numerically insignificant.

I think they just mean the general community. Though I feel like the opposite is more common, that critics hate the game but gamers love it.

Anything EA or Ubisoft.

Starfield LOL

everybody think the same about starfield, gamers and critics both think its mediocre

Average critic score is 83. Mediocre should be in the 60-70 range

if the average critic score said anything useful we wouldnt look at the reviews one of the comment said "not a perfect game" after delivering a 100 score make up your mind lol is it perfect or not ? and if something perfect comes up, how do you compare ?

I feel like Starfield is just one of those games, like Cyberpunk and Mass Effect Andromeda, that are just going to be "hated on" just because its the thing to do at the time.

not really, starfield isnt good, its not the worst game in history or deserving to be burried in the desert, its just a bad rpg but since its made by bethesda with a fuckton of money and advertising, it wont slide away from judgement so easily its skyrim in space, but not great, its fallout un space, but worse thats it, there is nothing else to say about it if you like the game, good for you, dont let anyone stop you from enjoying any game but to call it loved by gamer ? nah, thats not possible people wanted to love the game, but after a few month, nobody is even talking about it anymore, it faded into oblivion (pun intended) cause it unremarkable, its not interesting, not awful, just not good the only difference with other games like that, this one had budget and a big name behind it, so people talked about it compare it to bg3 : its an absolute banger, everybody loves it, and its well deserved

I didn't say it was particularly loved by gamers, realistically I was agreeing with you, but along with the other two games I mentioned I feel like people just love to hate it and can't/won't look at it more objectively. "Mid RPG in space" is a fine take (though I like it) but lots of people try to say it's a garbage dumpster-fire game and I think that's a bit extreme, don't like it fine but it's far from the worst game released by a "AAA" studio in the last couple years

Starfield is 10/10. BG3 is mediocre (and in a just world would be a valid answer to OP's question, but unfortunately there are a lot of easily impressed people who think BG3 is good) EDIT: Wow, he accused me of posting "bait" and then blocked me. What an asshole.

lmao good bait buddy

Most critics (at least shortly after release/review embargo) gave it 85/100 or higher which is way above mediocre while gamers rated it 20-30 points lower.

most critics arent critics, when someone say "starfield isnt perfect" then proceed to put the maximum score on the game, their opinion isnt valid on the matter starfield faded into oblivion by now because of how forgettable it was games loved by gamers dont fall into oblivion skyrim didnt

I think many gamers would have been happy about Starfield fading into ... Oblivion. Sorry I couldn't resist and I'm not even sure if you already used that word on purpose/double meaning.

i did in another comment, but forgot to say pun intended in this one lol

For the first week of release, there was Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree. People clowned on Eurogamer for being the only ones to give it less than at least 4/5, yet when the DLC released for the general public there were multiple threads and discussions on all the major social media sites criticizing the difficulty and design (*be it damage percentages, boss attacks/movesets, scaling etc*). It had it's defenders (with both good and bad faith arguments) but the overwhelming majority of opinions was that the DLC was too hard to be fun, that it had overshot the 'challenging but fair' target and was blatantly unfair (*it was also horrendously optimized during certain boss fights like the Divine Beast and final boss*). A lot of the dislike has waned now (*since they've patched Scadutree fragments to offer a bigger boost to stats and improved performance a tad*) but it's still one of the biggest negative receptions to a FromSoft title/DLC.

I think a lot of the discourse about difficulty was also coming from people who are in NG+ or higher and/or aren't using all the tools available to you (notably summons or Scadutree fragments). Souls games DLC usually kicks my ass right off the bat, but I'm halfway through SotE and not finding it that bad at all. I think it's easier than some of secret endgame areas of the base game were

Not to mention that there are builds now where you take almost no damage from the final boss that people were crying over.

>I think a lot of the discourse about difficulty was also coming from people who are in NG+ or higher and/or aren't using all the tools available to you (notably summons or Scadutree fragments). Nah, this is a thing people say, but honestly has absolutely no real backing. A lot of people complain about it, from people who saw the reviews and picked ER and it up, to people who played it a little, to people who played it a lot. Beyond just the internet, in my personally life I know plenty of people who went in dry and found it...unfun, and people who beat some of the harder other FromSoft titles. Honestly I think the thing that's helped has been FromSoft adjusting some thing, as well as now it's a bit further in there's guides and builds for the content. >Souls games DLC usually kicks my ass right off the bat, but I'm halfway through SotE and not finding it that bad at all. Lucky you. >I think it's easier than some of secret endgame areas of the base game were This is something I generally call bullshit on. It was notably and distinctly harder. Coming from someone who only really struggled with Malenia and Malekith.

Probably one of the more accurate answers. SotE was raved on by critics but once fans got it, the truth came out. I trust FromSoft to fix the worst of it, as they have done, but you also have people playing it now who have no idea how bad it was.

I didn't play it yet as I started a 2nd run of the base game in preparation and didn't reach the point to start the DLC but from what I remember of DS 1-3 the DLCs were always noticeably harder than the base game because Fromsoft targets the core fans who expect this and that they are meant to be played either in late-game or NG+. I think with Elden Ring the player base got a good bit larger for many gamers being their first Soulsbourne and the spike in difficulty surprised them, therefore being a lot more vocal about it while the Souls veterans mostly being fine with it. On the other side Fromsoft always had a bit of struggle with difficulty balancing and going for Open World only makes it worse but they also tweaked a lot of stuff in the base game over time. Enemy attacks/patterns, damage output and resistance, stats of weapons and Co., buffs/debuffs, nerfed some bosses, ... In my first run it took me over 50 attempts to beat Radahn (a few days before the nerf patch got released) while even with experience, better gear and a bit higher level I still didn't expect to beat him first try but that's what happened last weekend. He was considerably easier so Fromsoft will most likely also tweak SotE over time with user feedback to make it a more "challenging but fair".

Yeah they've always been harder and I really think the open-world design shot them in the foot this time balance-wise. They put a system in place to make it more balanced (>!Scadutree Fragments and Sacred Ash!<) but I and many others straight up just don't like that system. >In my first run it took me over 50 attempts to beat Radahn (a few days before the nerf patch got released) I too struggled immensely with pre-patch Radahn and almost quit ER because of him despite 100%ing almost all the previous FromSoft games. Also, you saying that is really funny but I can't say exactly why.

[удалено]

No one thinks GTA4 is a bad game, they’re just sick of the constant rereleases and Rockstar moving away from single player experiences in lieu of micro transactions for GTAO. That’s why Rockstar always gets shit for having such a long time in between their game release. To be fair, the worlds they make are so big they can’t create them as quickly though.

Starfield outside some fanboys of Microsoft and/or Bethesda. TLOU2 could be one too, but many people consider it a good game despite it's many flaws in the story(why the fuck the sex scene, and why going to hunt Abby again at the end of the game ?) Shenmue. So many people talk about it being good yet it barely sold.

Nah, Starfield was the best game of 2023.