The Hot Topic Returns

[OCH]

9 minutes ago, Nag said:

In terms of reviews how do people feel about games getting re-reviewed (for want of a better term)... what with more and more GaaS and Mmo's getting released, I'd bet something like Sea Of Thieves would get a very different score now than it did at release. Should things like that be looked at again at a later date or the original score stand?

 

I think Maf said it best:

 

50 minutes ago, Maf said:

Games age so rapidly and context changes so fast I wouldn’t rely on someone’s opinion today about a 10 year old game they’ve only just played for the first time, where as MC/OC can stand as, generally, what did people think about it at the time when it was judged in a more fair and balanced environment.

 

It is like one of the reviews for Alex Kidd in Miracle World DX decried that it's level design was "dated". Of course it is, you moron! It is a remaster of an 8 Bit game. FFS

[one-armed dwarf]

He's talking about games receiving so many updates they are basically a different game, it's an interesting question. I don't know whether to trust the people saying No Man's Sky is amazing now, maybe it is but are they long time fans who are really happy with the changes and overhyping a bit or is the game actually what people expected day 1 (and is that even still interesting)

[Nag]

4 minutes ago, one-armed dwarf said:

He's talking about games receiving so many updates they are basically a different game,

 

Yep, this.

[OCH]

Oh I see. Like the bare bones releases of Fighting Games, that get padded out with DLC. Would it better in those instances for an initial impression overview with an actual review in the following 6 months to a year?

[Maf]

Yeah I’ve not got a good answer for live games. I think the original score can still stand for something. Like this is where it was at the beginning. After that I think you need to investigate the game’s community to find out. You can’t snapshot something that is constantly evolving maybe?

[HandsomeDead]

Live service games tend to build their own communities and dedication YouTube channels that follows the game as it evolves.  I don't think mainstream game sites are ever really involved if a live game gets a big update except maybe a quick news post.  They predominantly work by word of mouth 

[Sly Reflex]

2 hours ago, Nag said:

In terms of reviews how do people feel about games getting re-reviewed (for want of a better term)... what with more and more GaaS and Mmo's getting released, I'd bet something like Sea Of Thieves would get a very different score now than it did at release. Should things like that be looked at again at a later date or the original score stand?

 

I sort of agree with this in a way, but not for the reason you might think.

 

Back in the day before the internet was widespread we had teletext, and one teletext we had Planetsound run by a guy called Earls. Earls insisted that albums couldn't get 10/10 on release, anything that was a potential 10/10 got a 9/10 and then got looked at 6 months down the line, sometimes it was awarded a 10/10, other times it got downgraded after the hype was over. I feel this is the best way to deal with high scoring games as well.

 

Updates can makes games great, but they can also fuck games too. A static score is no longer viable.

[radiofloyd]

I don’t pay much attention to Metacritic itself, except when I want to see a list of games that came out on a console and then metacritic is pretty useful. But I don’t have any problem with a website like’ Metacritic that summarises the critical consensus, especially since I think my own tastes align with the critical consensus more often than not, at least compared to other people on here. I pay attention to Steam user reviews too. Steam doesn’t ask how much you like a game, it just asks whether you like it or not. If a game has an overwhelmingly positive rating it’s usually a reliable indicator that the game is very, very good.

 

As for specific reviews, I can’t think right now. But over-rated or under-rated games:

 

Over-rated - SMO, Fire Emblem TH (although I enjoyed it as comfort food gaming), Dragon Quest XI, Owlboy, Oxenfree

 

Under-rated - Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Infinite Space

[shinymcshine]

Edge magazine were pretty savage to both Dead Island and DI Riptide, giving them 3/10.

 

Not quite sure how they came to that overall conclusion, I really quite enjoyed them both, but it felt that the reviewer just had bit of zombie game fatigue and dismissed both titles without really assessing their merits. 

 

I think Gamecentral summised DI / Riptide pretty well:

[Maryokutai]

10 hours ago, OCH said:

Oh I see. Like the bare bones releases of Fighting Games, that get padded out with DLC. Would it better in those instances for an initial impression overview with an actual review in the following 6 months to a year?

 

It's probably true for lots of competitive genres and live service games, but as I don't play those I can only speak for fighting games and I'd argue there's no point in reviewing a fighting game pre-release in a bubble. What are reviewers looking at? How many modes does it have, how many characters does it have? How fun (very subjective) is it? SFV got washed because it didn't have a story mode at launch and basically promised to add little stuff here and there over time. What reviewers didn't mention was that the first version had horrible input lag and that Crush Counters and V-Trigger cancels were horribly overpowered, but that's not their fault, that's stuff the community finds out over the span of weeks or months. You're not going to notice that by playing ten matches with Ryu against your coworker, jumping around and hitting buttons. Which leads to the next point, as thos games also have vastly different audience groups. There are people who only play through the story mode and then consider it finished, never touching it again. You have people who don't even touch story mode and go into training mode the first time they boot it up. And a bit in between.

 

IMO it's an un-reviewable genre. Even if you let a pro review it six months down the line he speaks from a completely different perspective than the story mode fan, for example.

[OCH]

It was the stripped down initial releases of SFV and Fighting Ex Layer that gave me the example. 

 

I suppose a possible solution is, a bit old school. Maybe release finished games? No Day 1 patches or missing modes. That suggests it wasn't ready for purchase. If a dev is happy a game won't need to be tweaked or have bug fixes for at least 6 months IE through the due diligence of competent QA, then it should be released.

 

But for whatever excuse, that quality of care, was abandoned a few years ago and here we are.

[Maryokutai]

You can't test every interaction in a multiplayer game in QA, it's not humanly possible. You can let people run around the borders of every area in your game or shoot every object and see if the game doesn't crash when doing these things, but nothing compares to thousands if not millions of players jumping in and just doing stuff and stumbling across something odd/glitchy. It's just a numbers game. If ten people look at a "Where's Wally" picture they find the guy quicker than if you're looking at it alone. Your game can be finished but still have a game breaking bug, sometimes it's just unavoidable. In these situations patches etc. are a good thing.

 

As for content, that ship has sailed, for better or worse. People expect regular drops of new things for multiplayer/live service games and are basically asking for DLC in some cases. We're at the upside-down of the horse armour situation now. If your game doesn't have DLC it's considered a "dead" game.

[OCH]

10 minutes ago, Maryokutai said:

If your game doesn't have DLC it's considered a "dead" game.

That is depressing. That people are more than happy to pay more, for less.

[Maryokutai]

I mean it's not bad per se. If you have a good roadmap for your multiplayer game and your DLC is designed to not fracture the playerbase (think Overwatch, characters and maps are free updates, cosmetic lootboxes cost money) then I think there's nothing wrong with it. In that case it doesn't really matter that the game on disc isn't "finished", so to speak, because as a pure online game the disc is more or less worthless in itself anyway. 

 

But it depends form game to game and generally speaking I think DLC-content that is gameplay related in a full priced multiplayer game should always be free. There's more than enough money to be made with cosmetics.

[OCH]

That said, a Fighter or Kart Racer, for example, having 8 initial characters. With a further 16 - finished - behind a pay wall. That's the DLC practice I take issue with. That, should never have been allowed to become viable. Much like the 'pay to win' upgrades in other games.

 

23 minutes ago, Maryokutai said:

a pure online game the disc is more or less worthless in itself anyway

I suppose beyond the nebulous ability to give an accurate review. The pure online game has another issue, without the servers, it doesn't exist as a game. If turned off, what happens to the MMO or GaaS?

[Nag]

27 minutes ago, OCH said:

If turned off, what happens to the MMO or GaaS?

 

A GaaS could be patched to still be playable in single player purely from the disc I'd guess (something like The Division) in terms of an mmo there'd be no point.

[one-armed dwarf]

If a MMO is old enough and there's enough interest there are open source projects to put up private servers.

 

I messed around with one before and ran a private server just for myself for FFXI and gave myself max stats. Still couldn't figure out that fucking game, it was more cryptic to me than all the linux packages and shit I installed on my web server

[Nag]

 

Quote

Readers discuss how many hours a week they get to play video games, as they try to fit in a family and social life around them.

 

The subject for this week’s Hot Topic was suggested by reader Ishi, who asked how much time do you spend playing games yourself, on the average week? Do you have a set routine or period of the day you set aside for games or does it depend on whether something new has come out?

 

Predictably, everyone said they didn’t have as much time as they used to but few felt that this was necessarily a problem, and just a reality of modern life.

 

Answer truthfully...😉

[bellow]

I reckon I do 8 hours a week on average, usually 8-10pm during weekdays. Sometimes I can't make this time, which is why it's not 10 hours. I generally don't game much at the weekend, although I have during the various lockdowns, and currently because I'm recovering from covid so not working.

[Maryokutai]

I'd say around three on weekdays (one after work, one to two after dinner depending on whether I play a game or watch a movie) and on weekends it can vary quite a bit depending on what game I'm currently one, but I'd say on average maybe ten over the weekend? So 25 in total.

 

Thinking about it, it's actually not that big of a drop compared to my school days, but the fact that I'm coming home from a 8+ hours job and not from a 6 hour school means I'm usually too tired to play something "serious" during the week and move those types of game over to the weekend, which means it takes me a lot longer to get through, say, RPGs and such.