Rust gets a 3

Survival game by Garrys Mod people gets pooped on. Early Access for years. Technical issues. Dull. Toxic community. Shallow. Player content destroyed when offline. Oh wells.

https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/rust-review-life-is-fleeting/1900-6416858/

Not surprised. These survivalist games are getting stale anyway

Yep. Aside from perhaps Subnautica all pish.

I’m all for games getting “pooped on” but the impact of the “poop” is lost when the review is written by a no name new hire. I might as well ask my 3 year old what he thinks about games.

I know we recently got a Tom McShea review. Maybe Gamespot needs to pick the phone back up and call some more of the old gang. It’s not like most of them are busy...

No single player option against A.I and such. Gonna pass on this one. Sorry but don’t have the time to maintain a fort with raiders everywhere.

Wonder what the devs did to piss him off.

What a clown. Every negative point is basically describing a component of this type of survival crafting game. They aren't great, but that's what they are. These guys review every game like it's intended to appeal to a mainstream audience. That's why I expect KCD to get a 5 or less, especially since GS hasn't been paid in full for the review yet.

Why are people shocked by this?

RUST was pure garbage...

Dynasty Warriors 9 got a 7. To be fair Rust is garbage, but GS reviews are a joke.

Oh look, another game I'd never heard of until now that I'd of guess looked like an indie piece of shit gets the kind of score I would have expected at first glance.

Maybe we've reached a point where indie games are more profitable being intentionally bad, after all, everybody from bigger YouTube gaming channels to more amateur YouTube reviewers are going to buy it just to rip it apart, then they can make a lot of drama in gaming news by fighting with YouTube reviewers and their games get more attention, more sales from wannabe reviewers... yeah, maybe we just shouldn't bother buying these games in the first place, and maybe we shouldn't bother reviewing them and talking about reviews for them or else more of this same bullshit.

It's like, I had no idea who Justin Bieber was until the Justin Bieber haters out there couldn't stop talking about him, now I can't not know who he is, and he's more popular than ever, it's like fighting Godzilla with nuclear weapons, if this game is truly a 3/10 then the socially responsible thing to do is not bother talking about it in the first place, otherwise you are just undermining the standards you pretend to hold so high about integrity in gaming.

I'd much rather the Jim Sterlings and Angry Joes of YouTube make prejudicial videos where they look at the Steam store, and instead of buying and reviewing, they say "hey, look at this piece of shit, I bet it's going to suck so I'm not going to bother to review it, and this, and this, and this too, and I'm not going to bother to review them because that wouldn't be productive, and if you see anybody do a review on any game you'd know was bad at first glance, comment on it by telling the reviewer how much of an idiot they are for buying it and then complaining about it after because what would you expect, you're like one of those kids at school who'd eat a handful of worms in front of everyone on the playground just for the attention you got for doing so, and everything you needed to formulate a prejudicial refusal to review could be acquired in less than a minute's time from just taking a peak a few screenshots or a trailer video or two".

Seriously though, would never happen. Reviews of shit games has become pornography for the gaming community and they can't get enough of it. Lots of gamers like to tout themselves as free thinkers with higher standards blah-blah-blah but seriously they are so predictable these days, they like to act so offended that big companies try to play pander to their predictable nature that threatens the integrity of their individuality, well, if they're going to put their money where their mouths are, games like this should never be talked about, ever.

Rust isn't good, but it's not bad like the types of games you're describing. Jim Sterling is nothing but an SJW that tries to be edgy by being anti-corporate, but in reality he hates most gamers so his point is moot.

I don't know about the reviewer but the Garry Newman did piss gamers off by being behind Valve and Bethseda with the paid mods thing

Didn't think it was gonna be that low.. But I haven't really checked it out, I just know what it is.

A 3 are way too much for that piece of .....

Gamespot must have been in their generous mood.

Never heard of it, but it looks and sounds like trash.

the game was and is pure trash

Yeah subnautica is the only one that ever stood out.

Made by the brilliant team that did Natural Selection.

Still, I have no interest in playing Survival games.

Survival games can be good, this one is trash though, picked it up years ago, it has never been fun. Super toxic time waster.

I love when these Early Access games that languish in broken dev hell for half a decade finally get a "full" release and are still buggy garbage.

It'd be cool if gamers went back to paying for finished products, RUST mighta been a great game if the devs had any incentive to actually finish it...

Yeah... I played it. That doesn't sound entirely wrong.

I guess you could say it was a little... rusty!

@jumpaction said:

I guess you could say it was a little... rusty!

Oh you ^-^

Unless you already have 1000s of hours in or are a masochist, how can anyone recommend this game? For the AVERAGE gamer, which is who reviews here are written for, is this game even a 3?

Is a new player’s first 50-100 hours of Rust going to be fun, boring, or a horrible experience filled with rage and frustration?

I think we all know it’s the third, so a 3 is more than fair.

To be fair, most gamers deserve to be hated.