@amdreallyfast @dok_dx If review scores are tide to the studio getting money, then yes it does matter. However, to individuals they shouldn't matter. People should make up their own minds about a game.
I agree that the studio should have given Gamespot and other review websites the game in advance, but at the end of the day people should make up their own minds. For instance, I like playing Dynasty Warriors games (a guilty pleasure) because I love the time period and remember reading stories about the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" , but they get bad review scores most of the time. (It's really a bad game if I'm being honest.) But, I like it for the reason I have. I'm sure you have games you like that didn't get good or great scores. This is why people shouldn't pay attention to the review score.
A review (not the score) should give a player an idea of what to expect, but it's up to the player if the game is right for them.
As for "innovation" yes it's a loaded word and it depends on the individuals experience but there are innovative games out there. They are usually hard to fine.
Good point Danny. But the opposite is also true. As an older gamer, I've notice that younger gamers expectations are are far higher in some cases. They seem to expect (or believe) the hype surrounding a new games and it's the expectations that usually lets them down.
They also seem to think review scores actually mean something. Or that the industry has to give them what they want. The fact is the industry need to do whatever is going to sell to make the numbers needed to please the share holders.
I usually look for games that does something different, something new. But I also have to admit that I also like games that reminds me of the past. And lets face it, a lot of the game in the past really were bad by today standards. But like all old people, we always forget about bad things and only remember the "good old days".
Destiny is not a bad game. It's not a great game. It's an O.K. game, just like COD. And lets face it, how many gamers hate on COD and call it the worst of the gaming industry but never admit it's and O.K. game.
We are still at the very beginning of this generation of consoles and it's going to be at least 2 or 3 more years before we see something innovating. We just have to wait or just buy a gaming PC.
$459.00 for an 4GB Xbox with the useless Kinect w/ 2 years of live whereas you can get a 4GB Xbox with 1 game and a year of live at walmat for $199.00. Yeah that makes sense. :P
I think you guys need to re-visit Deus Ex (the first one and I'm not even going to get into SMT Nocturne). They got the "moral" system right and that was in 2000. No one really thinks of themselves as the "bad guy" in real life. Everyone has a "justification" for why they do what they do. The problem with most games like Bioshock, Fable, and Fallout 3, is that they hit you over the head with it and for the most part it's usually a good, neutral (sometimes), or evil decision. A moral system done right makes the player actually think about the decision and not about what kind of perk you'll get by making x decision or y choice. It's about immersive story telling with real consequences when you choose W,X,Y, or Z in the story. It's nice if the choices affect gameplay as long as it isn't so "you can be super powerful now with this choice or you can be super powerful later with that choice." I remember playing Deus Ex just killing the bad guys and got an assassination mission (there were no prompts saying, "do you really want to do this?") while my friend just knocked them out and got a different mission. When I asked him why he just didn't kill them he says, "I only kill if I have to, even in video games." The only way of knowing if this would have happened was if you found a walk-through telling you; basically cheating your way through. This is what game designers should be thinking about when making games with "moral" choices.
I just love how gamespot like to spark flamewars. It's obvious that the 360 versions looks better than the PS3 version on Multi-plat Titles. But, that's because the 360 is the leading plat. What Gamespot won't compare are the exclusives, e.g., MGS4 v. Gears 2. Both great looking games. But MGS4 looks better (Not an opinion, it is a fact. But Gamespot won't say it). I'm not a fan boy of either systems but I have to say the people at Gamespot tend to like the 360 more than the PS3 (bias anyone?) . As for those PS3 flamers, the 360 is not as powerful and yet it out performs on almost all multi-plat titles. You PS3 fanboys might want to write Sony to tell them support the 3rd party Delv. more.
dok_dx's comments