Quantcast
Death Stranding Review Thread - MC: 82 / OC: 83 / GR: 83.17%

Forums - Sony Discussion - Death Stranding Review Thread - MC: 82 / OC: 83 / GR: 83.17%

Tagged games:

if you blacked out the scores and just read peoples comments on forums you would think this was reviewing in the low 70s, not the mid 80s. it's always funny in these threads to see the people who shit on what is a very good score, and then when an exclusive on their system of choice receives the same score they speak of like it's a masterpiece.



Around the Network

This game does not seem like my cup of tea



DonFerrari said:
Chrkeller said:

Not really though, which is the point.  I thought Sekiro was completely unbalanced and was **** as a result.  I thought overall design was awful as well.  Enemy placement was an issue for me.  Others thought it was perfection.  Which is exactly why some people love Death and others hate it.  There shouldn't be a shock when people rate games different.

Games are art, it can't be reviewed by a technical assessment.  Personal feelings drive how people think about art.  

Ultimately I don't see the point in the argument "only people who love the game should review it."  That makes no sense, other than inflating scores.  

Nope never said you need to love the game to review it. But you shouldn't review a game on a genre you hate it.

And yes if you want to give Sekiro, DS, or other games mentioned a under 6 you are just objectively wrong. And also the points you are picking are your personal enjoyment not really technical feats.

Personal enjoyment is the only way I rate games. If playing it is not enjoyable, no amount of technical feats is going to redeem it in my eyes. 

Your argument is comparable to saying critics who gave The Lion King (2019) a score lower than 6 were objectively wrong because the movie is visually stunning and top notch on a technical level.



Signature goes here!

Jpcc86 said:
Runa216 said:
I'm reading these reviews and it sounds to me like Death Stranding isn't for me. It sounds like it's an outstandingly well-written and well-made game with a tonne of value...but like FNAF or even The Last of Us/Uncharted, it sounds more like a STORY than a GAME. So even though some people are praising the game, that means little to me because the thing I like most in games appears to suffer. Doesn't make it a bad game, but does mean it doesn't sound like it's for me. No idea why this seems so hard to understand for so many people.

Im sorry, but have you played any of those games?
It just boggles the mind a bit, when people say "story/cinematic driven game" I think something more in the lines of Heavy Rain, Detroit or Until Dawn - Which are precisely that. TLOU or Uncharted are nothing of the sort, they are 97% gameplay, 3% story. They are as focused on their story as Final Fantasy, Mass Effect or any Rockstar game. Its just a plot device to kick things off or give them direction. 
Obviously I havent played Death Stranding (duh) but from the looks of it, its the same. It has a story -used as a simple device for the concept of the game (which is as ambiguos as they come) - that drives the gameplay - which seems to be the focus. 

Yes, and I didn't love any of them. I absolutely hated playing The Last of Us and Uncharted because the gameplay was boring and simplistic and unoriginal. It felt to me, with Naughty Dog's recent output, that they had this outstanding story idea with great character and plot and action set pieces but the gameplay was a last-minute 'oh right, we have to make this a game, don't we?' addition, while only giving the player minimal input during the setpieces and bland, generic, boring shooting/stealth the rest of the time. 

FNAF hardly qualifies as a game. The actual gameplay is just not fun, and while it's unique it's not interesting. the LORE, on the other hand, is some of the best I've ever seen in gaming alongside stuff like Dark Souls/Bloodborne. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III

Runa216 said:
Jpcc86 said:

Im sorry, but have you played any of those games?
It just boggles the mind a bit, when people say "story/cinematic driven game" I think something more in the lines of Heavy Rain, Detroit or Until Dawn - Which are precisely that. TLOU or Uncharted are nothing of the sort, they are 97% gameplay, 3% story. They are as focused on their story as Final Fantasy, Mass Effect or any Rockstar game. Its just a plot device to kick things off or give them direction. 
Obviously I havent played Death Stranding (duh) but from the looks of it, its the same. It has a story -used as a simple device for the concept of the game (which is as ambiguos as they come) - that drives the gameplay - which seems to be the focus. 

Yes, and I didn't love any of them. I absolutely hated playing The Last of Us and Uncharted because the gameplay was boring and simplistic and unoriginal. It felt to me, with Naughty Dog's recent output, that they had this outstanding story idea with great character and plot and action set pieces but the gameplay was a last-minute 'oh right, we have to make this a game, don't we?' addition, while only giving the player minimal input during the setpieces and bland, generic, boring shooting/stealth the rest of the time. 

FNAF hardly qualifies as a game. The actual gameplay is just not fun, and while it's unique it's not interesting. the LORE, on the other hand, is some of the best I've ever seen in gaming alongside stuff like Dark Souls/Bloodborne. 

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I had a blast with ND's gameplay choices and the story elements only elevate the experience for me. But story is important for me in any game, since it always elevates said the game, I assume its not the same experience for you. 
FNAF is an entirely different thing, which is why I didnt even bring to discussion. I dont personally like it. 



Around the Network
TruckOSaurus said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope never said you need to love the game to review it. But you shouldn't review a game on a genre you hate it.

And yes if you want to give Sekiro, DS, or other games mentioned a under 6 you are just objectively wrong. And also the points you are picking are your personal enjoyment not really technical feats.

Personal enjoyment is the only way I rate games. If playing it is not enjoyable, no amount of technical feats is going to redeem it in my eyes. 

Your argument is comparable to saying critics who gave The Lion King (2019) a score lower than 6 were objectively wrong because the movie is visually stunning and top notch on a technical level.

Thats a fine and well position for someone who is just gonna take a game as a player/customer and wont have any sort of deep analysis of it other than his own personal experience/enjoyment with it, but someone who reviews games/movies/music/anyartform professionally - and its basically their job and get paid to do it -  cant have such a limited criteria. When it comes to film for example you take screenplay, visuals, editing, music, acting, directing and find the value (or lack thereof) in each individual part. 



Jpcc86 said:
TruckOSaurus said:

Personal enjoyment is the only way I rate games. If playing it is not enjoyable, no amount of technical feats is going to redeem it in my eyes. 

Your argument is comparable to saying critics who gave The Lion King (2019) a score lower than 6 were objectively wrong because the movie is visually stunning and top notch on a technical level.

Thats a fine and well position for someone who is just gonna take a game as a player/customer and wont have any sort of deep analysis of it other than his own personal experience/enjoyment with it, but someone who reviews games/movies/music/anyartform professionally - and its basically their job and get paid to do it -  cant have such a limited criteria. When it comes to film for example you take screenplay, visuals, editing, music, acting, directing and find the value (or lack thereof) in each individual part. 

And yet, a product (be it a movie, game, or whatever else) can be either lesser, or greater than the sum of it's parts. So simply assigning a number score based on how many individual parts are of a high production value, doesn't necessarily equate to the overall quality of the product.



Hiku said:

"Never heard of Stevivor? You have now."

Just checked out this guy's twitter and being stunned why reviewers unprofessional like this ever existed and really get the chance to review games, all he's done is complaining and giving a ridiculously low score for whatever I may not understand.



Just gonna copy/paste the to comment from the Destructoid Review...

"Reviews are strong it seems, i can still see the playerbase split in those what think its the best thing ever and those what think its the worst game ever. This is sure going to be a diverse game.

You know what though in these days of "AAA" "products" and "live services" its just nice to see a big budget game made by someone and his team with real passion who wants to share that with everyone else, this game has a voice and vision and is return to when gaming was more then just "live service" and endless DLC. Say what you will about Sony but i'm happy they are allowing and supporting games like this still. Kojima isn't for everyone i agree but gaming would be lesser without him."



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Jpcc86 said:
TruckOSaurus said:

Personal enjoyment is the only way I rate games. If playing it is not enjoyable, no amount of technical feats is going to redeem it in my eyes. 

Your argument is comparable to saying critics who gave The Lion King (2019) a score lower than 6 were objectively wrong because the movie is visually stunning and top notch on a technical level.

Thats a fine and well position for someone who is just gonna take a game as a player/customer and wont have any sort of deep analysis of it other than his own personal experience/enjoyment with it, but someone who reviews games/movies/music/anyartform professionally - and its basically their job and get paid to do it -  cant have such a limited criteria. When it comes to film for example you take screenplay, visuals, editing, music, acting, directing and find the value (or lack thereof) in each individual part. 

I wasn't aware Chrkeller was I professional reviewer! DonFerrari told him he would be wrong to rate certain games under 6 and that's what I was reacting too. That aside, I do agree that if you work for an organisation you have to get in line with a certain way of reviewing games because the publication has to have some common ground between all its reviews no matter who does it.

About the film reviews, yes every individual parts are taken into account but it doesn't mean a score of 25 is "wrong" for a movie like The Lion King even though it excels in some categories.



Signature goes here!