By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - First MGSV: GZ Review!

outlawauron on 17 March 2014
Kresnik said:
naruball said:

And that's how it should be. Because someone buying the game a week, a month, a year later will definitely not pay full price, but the score won't change. Some will even get it for free (rental services, borrow it from a friend) so value shoudln't affect the score like that. Hell, some are filthy rich and wouldn't care if it cost $100 as long as it was a good game. But not everyone reads reviews. They look at metactitic and assume that it's a bad game. 


I find this a bit ridiculous.  You can't base a review on the assumption that "someone somewhere down the line might be playing this for 'free'" or "0.1% of our viewers don't mind paying £100 for a game so we'll review it not based on price".

The content of the review should explain what the game is like.  Honestly, in an objective way with subjective comparisons to other games that do things similarly.  In that way you can judge what the game itself is like.  Then the score should reflect the the actual outcome of the whole package, including whether or not the value is reflected in the content you're getting.

Otherwise, indies would never be games which scored anything past a 5/10, because they're often good games subject to the fact that you're not paying $60 for them (and some would be good games even for $60, but that's besides the point).  If you placed all games on an equal footing then they'd hardly ever be able to match up.

In my opinion, of course :P

Why does that matter? The cost of the game never inlfuences the content of the game. I think you should review it for what it is rather than putting each in their own box.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
Kresnik on 17 March 2014

outlawauron said:

Why does that matter? The cost of the game never inlfuences the content of the game. I think you should review it for what it is rather than putting each in their own box.


Because if a game is something that would be a "good purchase as a £15 title but a complete ripoff for £40" (see, for example, something like Dungeon Hunter: Alliance or Ridge Racer Vita) then I would want to know that in the review.  I wouldn't want to be told that they're both perfectly serviceable games with good dungeon crawling/racing mechanics respectively (which they both are) and then have nothing else said about them.



Find my website here

naruball on 17 March 2014
Kresnik said:
naruball said:

And that's how it should be. Because someone buying the game a week, a month, a year later will definitely not pay full price, but the score won't change. Some will even get it for free (rental services, borrow it from a friend) so value shoudln't affect the score like that. Hell, some are filthy rich and wouldn't care if it cost $100 as long as it was a good game. But not everyone reads reviews. They look at metactitic and assume that it's a bad game. 


I find this a bit ridiculous.  You can't base a review on the assumption that "someone somewhere down the line might be playing this for 'free'" or "0.1% of our viewers don't mind paying £100 for a game so we'll review it not based on price".

The content of the review should explain what the game is like.  Honestly, in an objective way with subjective comparisons to other games that do things similarly.  In that way you can judge what the game itself is like.  Then the score should reflect the the actual outcome of the whole package, including whether or not the value is reflected in the content you're getting.

Otherwise, indies would never be games which scored anything past a 5/10, because they're often good games subject to the fact that you're not paying $60 for them (and some would be good games even for $60, but that's besides the point).  If you placed all games on an equal footing then they'd hardly ever be able to match up.

In my opinion, of course :P

It's always nice to disagree with people like you, since you always have argument and elaborate on your views. But here's what I've experienced. Games like the Witcher 2 for £2 on steam (Or Skyrim for less than a 10er). Whether this game launches for £2 or £40, it does not affect my purchase at all.

When I was about to by the game I looked at it's meta and it was X. Then I looked at an indie game which looked mediocre at best and had a slighter lower meta. In my opinion, there should have been a huge difference between the two. Because at the end of the day, I'm not paying £40, but £2, yet the indie game gets praised and a higher score than it deserves for its low price, but its price ends up being higher than the witcher's (at that moment or even forever). If I'm about to choose between the witcher and the indie at that moment, the fact that the witcher costs £2 is not reflected in any reviews. How is that fair for the game? And despite being a gamer, I won't go through all the reviews to see if they mention something about the price, which they won't since it had the standard price. Thus the score becomes misleading.

It's similar to games which have online moes that work fine for reviewers and terrible for the average gamer. A game starts with awful online and gets a bad score and when the problems are fixed, it still has the stigma of a bad game. Or a game is great at first and terrible later on and someone about to buy GT5 for example would get the wrong impression by reviews. That's why the review should focus more on things that don't change, such as gameplay, storyline, campaign etc. Price always changes, so how come indie games get inflated scores, when a few months down the line AAA (or close to that) games cost the same, a bit more or even less?



naruball on 17 March 2014

Also, remember that a lot of games sell the most during (steam) sales. I remember a game selling like 300k in a day or two, which was more than it sold in like 3 months being available. Of course, that's not always the case, but review scores shouldn't be that much about the price. That's why there is a pros and cons section. Someone who's willing to read the review instead of the score can look at that if money matters that much to him.



deskpro2k3 on 17 March 2014

what are the chances this game will end up on PS+ free download?



Around the Network
outlawauron on 17 March 2014
Kresnik said:

outlawauron said:

Why does that matter? The cost of the game never inlfuences the content of the game. I think you should review it for what it is rather than putting each in their own box.


Because if a game is something that would be a "good purchase as a £15 title but a complete ripoff for £40" (see, for example, something like Dungeon Hunter: Alliance or Ridge Racer Vita) then I would want to know that in the review.  I wouldn't want to be told that they're both perfectly serviceable games with good dungeon crawling/racing mechanics respectively (which they both are) and then have nothing else said about them.

That goes without saying. Games that you're interested in, but don't seem to be very good (scored 4-6 range) are understood to not be worth their full value. You wait until they're cheaper before purchasing. It doesn't need to reach a magic pricepoint to become worth playing, it just wasn't very good and wouldn't be economically sound.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Nem on 17 March 2014
brendude13 said:
Nem said:

I agree with you Wright. The cammo index gameplay was a chore, and the bandaging mini game even worse. The game bored me so much at the start that i never went further and sold my ps2 version. 

It wasnt until recently that i forced myself to play the HD version on my vita and discovered an enjoyable game. Very MGS and with a dramatic unravel, but it never quite gripped me like MGS2, even despite the trolling with main character.

They are both good in their own way, but MGS2 was released at the beggining of a gen and MGS3 at the end. Meta scores tend to drop at the end of gens cause gfx arent impressive anymore.

I can understand that. MGS2's graphics were unbelievable for their time.


I think you read it wrong. Thats exactly what i was saying. Its MGS3 graphics that werent that impressive anymore by the time it released.

MGS2 has a higher meta score than MGS3. This wasnt in direct reply to Wright but its a theme going on in the thread that spurted the argument.



Nem on 17 March 2014
deskpro2k3 said:
what are the chances this game will end up on PS+ free download?


I'm sure it will eventually get there, but not for another year. Before then they will probably cut the price on a special sale. Something like 15 euros most probably. Thats the only time i will consider getting it.



Kresnik on 17 March 2014
outlawauron said:

That goes without saying. Games that you're interested in, but don't seem to be very good (scored 4-6 range) are understood to not be worth their full value. You wait until they're cheaper before purchasing. It doesn't need to reach a magic pricepoint to become worth playing, it just wasn't very good and wouldn't be economically sound.


I disagree.  I've been saying for absolutely ages that games need tiered pricing systems.

Like the example I raised, Ridge Racer is not a £40 game.  Not even close to it.  If I'd paid that amount of money at launch, I'd feel royally pissed off.

When I picked it up for £10 with a gold pass + paid £3 to download the silver pass, I felt like I was getting a good deal.  There was a decent amount of content; a decent amount of cars & some good music.  That was a price point I was happy picking up the game for.  Reviews reflected this.  They slated the game for being a full price release with 3 tracks but noted that a cheaper price point + the promised DLC tracks would make it a better game.

Had Namco released it as a £10 title with 2 DLC tracks to come then I'd imagine it would've reviewed a whole lot better.



Find my website here

Kresnik on 17 March 2014
naruball said:

It's always nice to disagree with people like you, since you always have argument and elaborate on your views. But here's what I've experienced. Games like the Witcher 2 for £2 on steam (Or Skyrim for less than a 10er). Whether this game launches for £2 or £40, it does not affect my purchase at all.

When I was about to by the game I looked at it's meta and it was X. Then I looked at an indie game which looked mediocre at best and had a slighter lower meta. In my opinion, there should have been a huge difference between the two. Because at the end of the day, I'm not paying £40, but £2, yet the indie game gets praised and a higher score than it deserves for its low price, but its price ends up being higher than the witcher's (at that moment or even forever). If I'm about to choose between the witcher and the indie at that moment, the fact that the witcher costs £2 is not reflected in any reviews. How is that fair for the game? And despite being a gamer, I won't go through all the reviews to see if they mention something about the price, which they won't since it had the standard price. Thus the score becomes misleading.

It's similar to games which have online moes that work fine for reviewers and terrible for the average gamer. A game starts with awful online and gets a bad score and when the problems are fixed, it still has the stigma of a bad game. Or a game is great at first and terrible later on and someone about to buy GT5 for example would get the wrong impression by reviews. That's why the review should focus more on things that don't change, such as gameplay, storyline, campaign etc. Price always changes, so how come indie games get inflated scores, when a few months down the line AAA (or close to that) games cost the same, a bit more or even less?

I kinda get where you're coming from with this (and I agree that the review system is broken in terms of games that start out horribly but get patched to improve - they're never re-reviewed so their score will always stay the same); but equally not taking it into account at all because there might be a Steam sale down the line is giving the people who are intending to buy it day 1 nothing to go on in regards to the value they're getting.

By the way, if we're talking about prices, then I'm not sure why you're suggesting that indie games don't get discounted.  They get price slashed all the time on Steam/PSN/XBL, just like retail games do.  The difference is the used game market where you can pick up last year's AAA exclusive for pennies.  And I don't really know how to factor that into this argument, to be honest :P



Find my website here