@cornbredx: I have never actually played a ratchet and clank game...
Merely stipulating her review is not in align with the 40 other reviews on meta-critic making her opinion a minority.
In regards to story. It is probably the only game play element that holds it weight overtime. Whether its 2002 or 2016. The story is the same. Its why movies like the sting are so compelling to watch.
She uses the word basic implying she wanted a more complex story from a 10+ plus age game, which i think is weird.
Lastly, i don't know if people actually read my post but 8 is a great score. I'm happy Cassidee enjoyed the game. As a gaming review it doesn't make much sense to me
I'm sick and tired of these inconsistent game-spot reviews. In 2002, the game was praised for its story line.
Fast forward to 2016, new story elements have been added and other reviews (out of nearly 40) have found the story and its cut scenes enjoyable.
Cassidee, however, enjoyed the characters and writing but found it too basic. What the hell was she expecting from a comedy driven cartoon game. An Oedipus plot? This sites on a Credibility downward spiral and it sad to see.
Congrats on insomniac for its great score and hope the movie does well
I think what people are getting at is the review is somewhat sparse. It may be illogical in some cases like the negative of a specific item. Exact same thing happened in demon souls which i thought was cool where you had to kill a specific monsters or the boss was immortal. However, in most instances it makes sense.
Its the fact most of the review is semantics is what has annoyed people. First 7 paragraphs is semantic. The next 4 paragraphs says nice game-play and level design but camera is capricious (probs the best action rpg camera in its genre but its an opinionative piece so its fine not everyone is the same).
The last 7 paragraphs the reader only finds out incorrect information with the item , nice monster design but not for all bosses and late game is a little stagnant.
As a reader all we find out about dark souls 3 is; its got nice gameplay, levels and monsters ( Like every other souls game), the camera is the same and SOME bosses feel repetitive, which i don't mind because soul boss fights are easily the most entertaining boss' in the rpg genre. He only says this and slaps a score on it.
So really what do we learn about dark souls 3 compared to other soul games. The only thing we learn is some bosses are a little repetitive. This information is really inadequate in helping an individual to know whether the game is worth purchasing or not.
I don't think your comment was to sad robing :( Does this make sense to people? please post if it doesn't.
@666Rich666:Idk rich, i can see how people can give a soul game a 5. A 360noscope cod loving reviewer who hates jrpg's can give the game a 5
Its not really the score that matters its the reasoning. People have called this crap journalism, schoolboy drivel, poor and no justification review just to quote some of the comments. For some who boasted on the lobby of playing every soul game it is lacking some real depth and insight in how d3 discerns itself from the other games.
@666Rich666:Haha well said. The quality of this review is like the ign's too much water. I Don't think people even care about the score. 8 is pretty reasonable. The same score as the last of us. This review as a whole is extremely poor is has upset people.
Never once have i read so many comments slamming the reviewer or the review itself rather the score. Quite interesting to read. Sorry can't directly reply get some stupid error
@donmega1: Comments like yours should be getting more up-votes. Now that you have mentioned it Mike Hardy's review actually has no substance to it.
All he has told me there are 3 out of 30 probably (usual Dark Souls boss number) repetitive boss fights and the camera is an issue.
Massive point about the camera though, at 2:55 in the video where he complains, the camera is perfect isn't? I might be missing something but if that was the worst camera angle he could find he was fishing big time. Can someone explain to me why it was bad please? Iv'e experienced the 360 degree flip around in the other games why didn't he show that?
rightyouare's comments