Ghost of Tsushima - Review Thread (MC: 83 / OC: 85)

[DonFerrari]

0D0 said:

TallSilhouette said:
A couple hours in now. Loved the title sequence and appreciate how meaty the side quests seem. Nice UI, too.

Does feel like Sucker Punch still isn't a top tier developer yet, especially coming right after the incredible production of TLOU2. The graphics are fine (love that grass), but the animation is definitely lagging outside of combat. Hopefully Sony starts spreading their motion matching tech around like they do their graphics tech. More importantly the game would benefit from a few QOL tweaks; it's annoying how opening the map always breaks my stride and there's no medium between your horse's slow walk and full gallop, for instance.

Still really enjoying the game, though. Looking forward to hopping back in tonight.

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
Só far i think the review metacritic is fair, this game is far from a masterpiece .

Visuals of the world are some of the best, but sometimes the effects are too Much , There are places where they shove everything in there , butterflies, shit ton of petals , birds , fireflies , wind... Sometimes is too Much, Animations in this after playing the last of US lol, underwhelming, characters talk with zero expression on their faces...

People Said combat is easy só i started on hard, i just die and die lol, might Change to normal maibe i enjoy it a bit more

Agree with both of you. Although the game is truly fun and I find the world fun to explore, the game is not technically perfect and that is a little bit disappointing. Judging by the first trailers, it looked like a true masterpiece in the making.

About the combat. For me it's not easy. I'm not a Souls player. On medium difficulty I died 30 times or more. 10 bears have killed me so far I think.

DonFerrari said:

Precisely, and have no problem on accepting a game is a 7/10 while loving and accepting a game is 10/10 while hating it.

Most of times I can even recognize why it got that score even if it completly detached from my enjoyment.

I disagree with the technical vs fun. A very enjoyable game with minor flaws (like for example Witcher 3) can get a 5/5 stars for me. If I were a reviewer I could give this game 5/5 stars with those minor flaws. (I wouldn't right now because I haven't completed it).

On the other hand, technical perfect games in terms of gameplay/graphics/animation/sound can also be boring, repetitive, have writing flaws, convoluted story, not very original systems and mechanics, terrible menus, bad written characters, bad photography, poor directed cut scenes and other things that aren't exactly  linked to software quality.

Quality of the story (writing, coherence, etc) are relevant technical points, gameplay and mechanics are relevant technical options, menu and chars evolution (storywise or gameplay elements) are relevant technical points. You finding it boring or fun are only dependent on yourself. Direction and quality of cutscenes are also technical elements.

On the original or not, I don't remember a single original element brought by witcher 3, story on the game was completely convoluted due to the open world setting and plenty of multi-tiered sidequests, many glitches as well. So you using your own metric shouldn't be giving it a 5/5.