IF this was a multiplat or xbox exclusive the media would be calling it a mediocre earth defence force rip off. not saying it is and the game looks good but I know how the narrative works. These sony games get more overhyped.
Especially from European journalists. Those are the worst out there
I think it’ll be a divisive game critically. I’d honestly give the game a shot, but when it’s closer to $20-$30. If you’re a big fan of TPS and rogue games, it seems like you won’t be disappointed.
I think the big narrative heavy AAA games seem to garner higher scores, I dont think journalists would last long if they consistly gave Xbox exclusive lower scores they would get a bad reputation.
I can see returnal getting high 70s to low 80s, unless the story and activity variety is a lot better then what we have seen in the previews.
Returnal really is a 3d continuation of there previous games.
I think its unfair to expect a company to be on the same league as other full priced games when all they have done is smaller top down shooters.
My current view is that the game obviously looks great for a person who loves “dodge stuff, shoot stuff” classic video gamey-ass video games. Anyone denying that needs to try to shed their console biases.
That said, I’m worried it’ll be too short for hardcore players and too hard for casuals. Learning about things like the adrenaline system makes me think there will be some good endgame system, but Outriders had a good endgame and I still played through it all in a week so the jury’s still out.
Just a friendly reminder that the cost factor doesn’t usually come up in reviews since they tend to get copies for free. I don’t have a horse in this race outside of wanting cool games to come out, but I think that’s something people invested in the metacritic score should keep in mind.
Value has always been a factor in reviews. No one should accept a game that is smaller in scope + quality in multiple areas to cost the same reguardless if the reviewer is getting it free, afterall most of there readers wont be getting it free.
I don’t have any specific links or studies to back up this assertion but I believe that that’s an ideal that many reviewers fall short of, unfortunately. I agree that that’s how it should be but it’s very difficult to stay objective when the buy-in cost is 0. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t trust any review ever, but that that’s something I keep in mind when I read them.
My financial situation more than anything else dictates which games I buy and when, and that’s going to massively color how I feel about a game. I need a game to be engaging and have replay value to justify a large expenditure. I love novel experiences and when developers take risks but that has to be a lower priority for me by necessity. I just can’t trust that someone who gets paid to receive multiple free games a month can take that into account effectively outside of a basic acknowledgement. Again, this isn’t meant as an indictment or slight against reviewers, just a sort of PSA. Caveat lector and all.
Its not necessarily about money, but just how games compare to other games. Its why sea of thieves reviewed poorly because of its basic story and tedious activities, or why the order reviewed poorly. When you position yourself as 3rd person AAA Shooter you are going to be compared to other AAA tps’s. Where if your your positioning yourself as a great AA $30 game you are not going yo be compared to gears 5 or TLOU2.
I’ve personally always felt like reviews weighing in too heavily on “value” is a weird thing. Every single person has their own perspective on value. Everyone has a different level of wealth, and $70 to one person might mean a lot more than it does to another.
I’ve personally always valued quality over the price I pay for something. I’d rather pay $70 for an amazing 8 hour experience, than $40 for a mediocre 40 hour experience. Frankly, it’s unlikely I would ever finish a mediocre 40 hour game. It’s much more likely I will finish the 8 hour game and come away with a highly positive experience as a result. Also, if a game is amazing and not that long, I’m much more likely to want to replay it again down the road.
But You understand quality. I dont know what type of games you like so this example may not work with you, but is “inside” as good as TLOU2 or RDR2? would people be happy spending the same on inside as TLOU2?
I enjoy watching tv shows on my smartphone, but its not the same as watching the latest marvel blockbuster at a decent cinema. Im willing to spend more for the cinema experience then the phone tv show experience.
I guess its the problem with reviewing in general how can format and budgets so different have the same review format.
You could propose this question to other asoects of life, I may rate a ferry trip with a little cabin and standard food 9/10, i also may rate the queen mary 2 executive suite 9/10, does that mean they are as good as each other?
I bought Inside and finished it. Never even bought TLOU2 and RDR2.
I probably lean heavily in the direction of enjoying “shorter” games. TLOU2 being 10 hours longer than the first game was a turn off to me. I generally avoid super long games all together. I don’t have the kind of attention span needed to finish a long drawn out open world game.
Do you like any AAA games?
Did you play limbo? Would you be happy paying $60 for limbo and paying $60 for TLOU1?
I will definitely be buying Ratchet & Clank. I love “fun” focused games, that are colorful and not overly serious. Bought Miles Morales and Sackboy’s Adventure at PS5 launch. I also like quick action games like Dead Cells and Hades, thus I do have some interest in Returnal, although the darker tone does turn me off slightly. I’m looking forward to Halo later this year.
I think I prefer when reviewers don’t base their reviews around the concept of value. Because cost doesn’t stay static; you’re building a time limit into the relevance of your review. Maybe I’m coming to your Returnal review 5 years from now when Returnal is $19.99 on PSN. I don’t care what someone felt about the game costing $70 in 2021, I just want to know whether it’s a fun game or not.
So its cool if high quality indie games are $70? And if not for price how do we differate between indie, AA and AAA?
In theory, sure.
I think the best way for reviewers to approach value is to mention it in the review, which most reviews will do, but ultimately not base the score on that at all.
I have no doubt Returnal reviews will make a point of saying this is a roguelike, and thus you will be replaying the biomes over and over again. You give the reader the information and allow them to judge whether they think that sounds like an experience that is worth the current asking price.
If you’re expecting the reviews to hammer this game for it’s price tomorrow I think you’re going to come away very disappointed.
Maybe for you thats ok, but if sony/ms were to have a budget cap of $50million for all there games, a lot of gamers would not be happy. Games like TLOU2,RDR2, COD, FALLOUT etc can not be made without very high budgets.
God this sentiment reminds me when some gamers said indies were as good as AAAs when sony did there indie inititive and push early in the PS4s life.
And going by that logic that a reviewer should not have value influence on its score, well if thats the case why not make TLOU3 3hrs long and still charge $70!, If those 3hrs are excellent you are saying a high score is still justified?
A game is as only as good as how it compares to the competition and weather a game is AAA or indie absolutely influences reviewers decisions.
I’d imagine a 3 hour TLOU experience would feel rather unsatisfying, and that would be mentioned by reviews. The first game told a great story and was a great experience over the course of about 12 hours. It felt right.
I have personally always despised the idea of judging games based on length. The reason for this is it encourages developers to pad their games out to make them longer, and it’s very clear that this is a problem in this industry right now.
I mentioned earlier that I didn’t buy TLOU2 mainly because of it’s bloated length. I’m of the opinion that most single player games do not justify a length beyond 12-20 hours. Sure enough, I heard many a podcaster complain about parts of TLOU2 feeling bloated and longer than necessary. The same goes for Final Fantasy 7 least year. So many people complained about that game feeling padded, and I think a lot of developer/publishers are sadly influenced by this idea that their game needs to feel long, regardless of whether the game is worse for it, to justify the day one price tag.
Maybe I’m just weird, but yeah, the moment I hear “this game is our longest game ever” my interest level drops significantly.
IF TLOU3 was $70 and 3hrs long it would be slated even if those 3hrs were excellent however if it was a DLC like TLOU Left behind for $30 it would be reviewed better because its framing itself realistic.
The same way Returnal is being framed as a AAA blockbuster, its going to be compared to the visuals, environment complexity, gameplay variety, activity variety, story depth, chracter depth to level of quality to other AAA 3rd person action games.
Bottom line these are the reason why there multiple price points and ways games are maketed, be it AAA, AA, free to play, DLC and indie.