binary solo said:
I know you were trying to be balanced and name exclusive franchises across all platforms, but you can't really list TLOU among those other franchises in the OP and equate it to them as a brand name game when Mario has been around for 25 years and Forza and Halo span 2 console generations and several games including spin offs. I think you should have listed Uncharted at least that's a 3 (4 if you count Golden Abyss) game series. Though there's no way you can say UC2 got a free ride when UC:DF got very good but not stellar reviews and wasn't a GOTY darling. You're probably right that being a Naughty Dog game kind of gives a game an automatic 0.2-0.5 (out of ten) boost before many reviewers even take the disc out of the case. Honestly though I think a lot of people would say that at least in the case of GTA IV, and also GTA V according to Yahtzee at least http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8193-Grand-Theft-Auto-5 would be good examples of games that get reviewers drooling before they receive it in the mail. |
Well obviously nothing is as big of a brand as Mario, but The Last of Us is looking to outsell Skyward Sword. The Age of the IP in this case has nothing to do with the brand image, a lot of people bought this game because it was Naughty Dog, and Naughy Dog is an infamous developer, which in itself is a brand. It's not a big as Nintendo, but Naughty Dog is as big as Bethesda/Bioware/Epic Games, etc.
I like Uncharted, I think it deserves high scores, but TLoU not so much. I feel that game got inflated scores because people looked at who developed it. It's still good, just not amazing.
Mythmaker1 said: In my view, the ability to respawn is no excuse for arbitrary deaths. It's simply bad design; it's effective, but it's also cheap and lazy. And there were indeed arbitrary deaths that the player could not reasonably expect to avoid. The same is true with quick-time events. There is a reason why people disparage "Press-X-to-not-die" quick-time events. They are a fundamentally lazy design element. There's no denying the game is good, but it's also riddled with bad design choices. Back in the early 2000's, many of these elements were relatively new, and the "science" of game reviewing was still being developed. Today, while I think the game would definitely score highly, I think much of that design would be more easily recognized for what it is. |
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion I disagree with you, I loved the design of RE4, but to each their own.
I think in the mid 2000's quick time events were welcome, but now.... it depends on the game. I loved them in Vanquish for example, but they weren't sudden, you experienced one every time you had a near miss with a boss or are finishing him off.
P.S. Don't play Too Human. You die frequently (there is actually an achievement for dying 100 times), and the game forces you to watch a 15 second clip before respawning.
What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results