Quantcast
Death Stranding Review Thread - MC: 83 / OC: 85 / GR: 84.89%

Forums - Sony Discussion - Death Stranding Review Thread - MC: 83 / OC: 85 / GR: 84.89%

Tagged games:

Radek said:

Sorry but I'm pissed off, how are these idiotic "journalists" even allowed to score a game 4/10 if game is playable, not broken, looks good and runs at stable framerate, beautiful soundtrack, story that is at least good for sure, because its Kojima, cutscenes look awesome... sure you might not like the gameplay too much, but 4/10? Scores below 5 should only be used for broken, shitty games like WWE 2K20 wtf... really dissappinted with Giant Bomb and they lowered meta score to below Gears 5...

A game being playable, not broken, and running well (or at least decently) shouldn't be praiseworthy when that's supposed to be what is expected of a game. That's literally what the norm of any game should be, or I supposed sadly used to be now. We've hit a point where some companies have shit things up so badly in recent times that now it's seen as something special to just do the bare minimum and release a competent functional product. I see what your point is, I just wanted to mention that. 

Gameplay is a huge factor, it's 99% of what you'll be doing in any game. If it is apparently so bad that it actively ruined their enjoyment of the game then why can't they review it that? There's also no guarantee that the story is "at least good for sure" just because someone has done good stuff in the past. You can have faith the story will be good but there isn't an actual guarantee.

And if they can't review it that according to you, then what is the lowest they can score it? If they hated it they still have to give it a 6/10 at minimum? 7/10? How much do they have to overlook at that point? Because a lot of reviews already look like they've done that given the amount that mention how the gameplay is tedious, not fun, etc but still gave it an 8/10 or 9/10. 

Last edited by FloatingWaffles - on 07 November 2019

Around the Network
RaptorChrist said:

@Don

Well said; I get where you're coming from. Games do seem to get higher scores than movies. But I think a lot of it has to do with things like RottenTomatoes giving a thumbs up versus thumbs down, rather than a concrete score. But yeah, it's hard to imagine a AAA game getting a 5 or 6.

@john

Six hours? I haven't looked into release times, but is this midnight around your area? Usually games come out at 11:00 p.m where I live; should I expect it sooner?


Edit: I live in CST, which puts me at 1:17 p.m. at the moment.

I do love to see some movies I love and have a very bad imdb score or rotten tomatoes.

FloatingWaffles said:
Radek said:

Sorry but I'm pissed off, how are these idiotic "journalists" even allowed to score a game 4/10 if game is playable, not broken, looks good and runs at stable framerate, beautiful soundtrack, story that is at least good for sure, because its Kojima, cutscenes look awesome... sure you might not like the gameplay too much, but 4/10? Scores below 5 should only be used for broken, shitty games like WWE 2K20 wtf... really dissappinted with Giant Bomb and they lowered meta score to below Gears 5...

A game being playable, not broken, and running well (or at least decently) shouldn't be praiseworthy when that's supposed to be what is expected of a game. That's literally what the norm of any game should be, or I supposed sadly used to be now. We've hit a point where some companies have shit things up so badly in recent times that now it's seen as something special to just do the bare minimum and release a competent functional product. I see what your point is, I just wanted to mention that. 

Gameplay is a huge factor, it's 99% of what you'll be doing in any game. If it is apparently so bad that it actively ruined their enjoyment of the game then why can't they review it that? There's also no guarantee that the story is "at least good for sure" just because someone has done good stuff in the past. You can have faith the story will be good but there isn't an actual guarantee.

And if they can't review it that according to you, then what is the lowest they can score it? If they hated it they still have to give it a 6/10 at minimum? 7/10? How much do they have to overlook at that point? Because a lot of reviews already look like they've done that given the amount that mention how the gameplay is tedious, not fun, etc but still gave it an 8/10 or 9/10. 

You may think it isn't praiseworthy. But on your school having a minimum knowledge of the subject already gave you an average score as well. And your test wasn't 20 questions long with one worth 7 points with the others sum 3.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
RaptorChrist said:

@Don

Well said; I get where you're coming from. Games do seem to get higher scores than movies. But I think a lot of it has to do with things like RottenTomatoes giving a thumbs up versus thumbs down, rather than a concrete score. But yeah, it's hard to imagine a AAA game getting a 5 or 6.

@john

Six hours? I haven't looked into release times, but is this midnight around your area? Usually games come out at 11:00 p.m where I live; should I expect it sooner?


Edit: I live in CST, which puts me at 1:17 p.m. at the moment.

I do love to see some movies I love and have a very bad imdb score or rotten tomatoes.

FloatingWaffles said:

A game being playable, not broken, and running well (or at least decently) shouldn't be praiseworthy when that's supposed to be what is expected of a game. That's literally what the norm of any game should be, or I supposed sadly used to be now. We've hit a point where some companies have shit things up so badly in recent times that now it's seen as something special to just do the bare minimum and release a competent functional product. I see what your point is, I just wanted to mention that. 

Gameplay is a huge factor, it's 99% of what you'll be doing in any game. If it is apparently so bad that it actively ruined their enjoyment of the game then why can't they review it that? There's also no guarantee that the story is "at least good for sure" just because someone has done good stuff in the past. You can have faith the story will be good but there isn't an actual guarantee.

And if they can't review it that according to you, then what is the lowest they can score it? If they hated it they still have to give it a 6/10 at minimum? 7/10? How much do they have to overlook at that point? Because a lot of reviews already look like they've done that given the amount that mention how the gameplay is tedious, not fun, etc but still gave it an 8/10 or 9/10. 

You may think it isn't praiseworthy. But on your school having a minimum knowledge of the subject already gave you an average score as well. And your test wasn't 20 questions long with one worth 7 points with the others sum 3.

Well I should clarify, I don't mean to say that it isn't praiseworthy at all. Obviously a game coming out and running really well and not having any major issues is commendable and should be noted, especially in comparison to some shit other companies pull nowadays. So it can be praised for that.

I just mean in this case using that as a reason as for why it should still be fine if the rest of the game, whether it be gameplay or anything else, is subpar (or at least in some of these reviewers eyes) just seems like a weird thing to try to say imo. There are plenty of other games that come out and are competent in those regards but those games don't get a pass with their other issues as a result, but if we were to base it on "well they were competently made though so it's at least a 7/10" or some logic like that would just seem weird to me, like setting limits on what must be given even if someone has huge issues with the game. 



Just got home from work. Got 7 hours according to PSN. Starting the install now. Got tomorrow off. With how long the game takes to get going I'm curious if I will get to that point this weekend xD



RaptorChrist said:

@Don

Well said; I get where you're coming from. Games do seem to get higher scores than movies. But I think a lot of it has to do with things like RottenTomatoes giving a thumbs up versus thumbs down, rather than a concrete score. But yeah, it's hard to imagine a AAA game getting a 5 or 6.

@john

Six hours? I haven't looked into release times, but is this midnight around your area? Usually games come out at 11:00 p.m where I live; should I expect it sooner?


Edit: I live in CST, which puts me at 1:17 p.m. at the moment.

Not sure how American releases go but I'd assume 12am on your friday as Japanese peopke ans Aussies on my friends list have had it the last few hours.



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

Around the Network

I'm starting to feel the perceived effects of time slowing down as I anxiously wait to play this game. It's annoying because I literally have a ton of other games to play (Outer Worlds, Luigi's Mansion, Disco Elysium) but I can't help it that I'm so impatient and get fixated on new releases.

At least it's playable at 11 p.m. and not midnight. I can expect to play for two to four hours depending on how tired I am at 3 a.m. I probably shouldn't stay up any later than that or I could put myself on a bad schedule.

But despite the short notice (as I just decided that I would be participating in a midnight play session a few hours ago), things have managed to line up perfectly. My wife also has the day off tomorrow, which is great, as I would otherwise have to watch the baby (that would be quite ironic, right?). I've already told her how much I'd like to relax and play my new game tomorrow, so she's willing to handle the baby for the most part.

That means that I have the entire day off tomorrow, even baby duty. The only thing I'll need to do is pick up my daughter from Kindergarten in the late afternoon, and help out here and there to keep up with appearances. ;)

I also just tidied up around the house a bit and cooked dinner for everyone, so I've partly made up for my "me day" already.

And low key: I've even stowed away a little somethin' somethin' for tonight to give me an extra boost and keep me awake and focused, and a little somethin' else in case that somethin' somethin' keeps me from being able to sleep.

It's going to be such a perfect night. I really hope this game turns out to be great. I have a feeling that tonight is going to be one of those nights that I look back on fondly as I reminisce later in life.



Time to blast off, boys.

Wait, is there a discussion thread (rhetoric, will check after posting and make future posts there if that's the case).



LudicrousSpeed said:
twintail said:

If I post a 5/5 review, will you change your mind and go buy the game?

.

Well either way the PC version is months off. Definitely not spending $60 on this 😆

But no, the score is irrelevant. The text is

So if the text in so called 5/5 review is well written with nice phrases like 'delivers on all fronts', 'worthwhile', 'feels good to play', 'genre-pushing', then?

I suppose what I am saying is why do you choose to place so much stock in a single 2/5 review and not on other views too?



konnichiwa said:
Zoombael said:

Maybe they shouldn't play it then?

When i know i will dislike the core gameplay and mechanics i will not procede to play the game, not to mention do a review. If i had to review a sportsgame i'd try to be objective, but in the end i will give it a subjective score, because i don't have the experience with the sort of games, no tengible reference. So what other choice do i have but to give the score i see fitting. A rating way below average, because i dislike sportsgames.

But i must say, i don't mind the controversy. It creates the drama, keeps the buzz up. Console business how it's done. To make the games really matter.

Nobody really knew what the core gameplay would be in the end...

What?! Everybody knew! It was the tenor of the last couple of month leading up to the release. With details about the gameplay and how the world you traverse through is structered. Impossible to miss when you followed the news, watched gameplay videos.

However, im not doubting people were unsure if they would be into this kind of game. There isn't really anything comparable, a "tangible reference". I myself am uncertain if a game with "hiking simulation" at its core is for me. Never became a fan of walking simulators or Shadow otC. I like playing the SotC remake from time to time though. 

Add: An explanation to why the wide range of ratings.

Offtopic: FGS, writing a comment (via phone) on this website is becoming worse and worse. 

Last edited by Zoombael - on 08 November 2019

Hunting Season is done...

FloatingWaffles said:
DonFerrari said:

I do love to see some movies I love and have a very bad imdb score or rotten tomatoes.

You may think it isn't praiseworthy. But on your school having a minimum knowledge of the subject already gave you an average score as well. And your test wasn't 20 questions long with one worth 7 points with the others sum 3.

Well I should clarify, I don't mean to say that it isn't praiseworthy at all. Obviously a game coming out and running really well and not having any major issues is commendable and should be noted, especially in comparison to some shit other companies pull nowadays. So it can be praised for that.

I just mean in this case using that as a reason as for why it should still be fine if the rest of the game, whether it be gameplay or anything else, is subpar (or at least in some of these reviewers eyes) just seems like a weird thing to try to say imo. There are plenty of other games that come out and are competent in those regards but those games don't get a pass with their other issues as a result, but if we were to base it on "well they were competently made though so it's at least a 7/10" or some logic like that would just seem weird to me, like setting limits on what must be given even if someone has huge issues with the game. 

I understand your point. Yes it should be the minimum, but today it isn't that common anymore.

The 7/10 minimum doesn't come from it running fine. But it also have gorgeous set pieces, high IQ, great acting, probably good story, etc. So what we are saying is that if your only point of disagreement is the gameplay you didn't like you really can't go and give a 3,5 while calling yourself a professional reviewer.

twintail said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Well either way the PC version is months off. Definitely not spending $60 on this 😆

But no, the score is irrelevant. The text is

So if the text in so called 5/5 review is well written with nice phrases like 'delivers on all fronts', 'worthwhile', 'feels good to play', 'genre-pushing', then?

I suppose what I am saying is why do you choose to place so much stock in a single 2/5 review and not on other views too?

I can't fanthom why some would focus on the 2/5 while ignoring the many more 5/5 and the high Meta.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994