An exclusive PlayStation demo confuses me. I'd reckon the main audience is on PC and Switch. Unless the recent demo those platforms had weren't on PS5...?
Feeling like the only person appreciating them trying new things with the Horizon IP. After Forbidden West, I'm kinda good with the main series; Horizon 3 proper could release in 2035 for all I care. But I still like the IP, and its world, and think this, Call of the Mountain, and LEGO Horizon are at least somewhat more interesting than getting a main entry every 4-6 years.
Now, does this actual game legitimately interest me? Eh...more so than Marathon has. I can actually see myself getting some buds together and playing this one, at least. Will I? All signs point to no — but, to be fair, I'm definitely not the main demo for online multiplayer games. Will this capture that audience? Yeah, probably not. I know the Horizon franchise is pretty popular...or was, like, 10 years ago. But I don't see a Helldivers 2/Arc Raiders meme-parade for this one. Expect the 2XKO effect, I suppose: near-immediate downsizing followed by a small fanbase barely keeping the lights.
The culture of re-release discourse is always immensely interesting to me. And not in a dismissive way; I think every iteration of all content should be readily available on modern hardware. Seeing fans argue these nitty-gritty differences that most people probably wouldn't notice or care about is one of the most fascinating discussions I think a fanbase can have.
What's the real version of Blade Runner? It's really easy to just say the one that most fully realizes the director's vision, but that's still not the original version. It's not the version that a small movie-going audience was first enchanted by. And, by that aforementioned logic, the Special Editions of the Original Star Wars trilogy are the real versions. It may seem simple, but it's a very deep — practically philosophical — question.
Even over something more pedantic: How green is The Matrix supposed to be? YouTube doodle-man noodle had a fantastic video about how the color grading for The Matrix changes with each physical release. And that, while none of them look like the original theatrical version, the original colorist (if that's the right title) has worked on some re-colored remasters and said that they were made to better capture the original visual concept that wasn't exactly reflected in the theatrical release. So how green IS The Matrix supposed to be, then? Theatrical release green? Reloaded/Revelations consistent green? Or remastered green meant to evoke the original plans? Who f***in' knows!
And this same stuff is ALL over game remake/remaster discourse. What's the value in the Resi4 Remake if it guts a lot of the campy dialogue that made the original so iconic? Is it a replacement of the original? Is it better than the original? Did it need to be made? Is it enough that it can stand by itself as a phenomenal game? The recent Dragon Quest 7 remake — does it lose the original game's identity by cutting out a lot of its filler? Does Wind Waker HD's graphical style compromise the original's charm? Does The Last of Us Part 1 ruin the visual direction of scenes? For Yakuza 3, was the removal of old content an explicit decision to trim its fat, and does the game actually benefit from it? Can removing content ever be a good decision?
@ShadowRJ This is how I feel about literally every major presentation these days. For Xbox's, I was just happy to see Fable and Double Fine's next game. For Nintendo's, I was happy getting a better look at Orbitals and was waiting for an Oblivion Remaster port.
For PlayStation, literally give me 1 or 2 game unveilings that I'm into, and I'll be happy.
Yet I know the discourse will be predominantly negative, as though these companies need to put out an A+ e3 presentation 4 times a year.
@PuppetMaster I believe Flower and Bound were both published by Sony. As with many alike games of the time, I'm pretty sure Santa Monica helped with Bound. Not too sure about Flower, but I think they helped on Journey, too.
And you can say this is pedantic — after all, is there really much difference between being a publisher and assisting with funding. But still, Flower and Journey feel like PlayStation games to me (we were robbed of that Journey/Shadow of the Colossus level in All-Stars Battle Royale, I tellz ya). Sword of the Sea and Baby Steps emphatically do not.
@PuppetMaster "They just don't do it in-house anymore."
I reckon that's what he's talking about, right. He misses when Sony was internally developing/producing a variety of quality, interesting games. That's really what his whole comment was about; he wasn't saying there aren't games like that on the PS5, rather that Sony's own games have been lacking this generation.
It's like, Hades II and Orbitals are Switch exclusives. They've received a lot of promotion from Nintendo (honestly, like 25% of all console indie games are receiving pretty notable promotion from Nintendo). Yet, I don't think that means fans can't bemoan the lack of classic series like F-Zero or Wario Land. Or wistfully reminisce about the Pushmo/Dillion era of Nintendo where they were putting out experimental, relatively small new IP.
Or, to put it bluntly, Hades II and Orbitals are NOT Nintendo games. Likewise, Sword of the Sea, The Midnight Walk, Baby Steps, and Lumines Arise are NOT PlayStation games.
@LtSarge I'd say there's a lot of assumption in this comment.
1. AI doesn't guarantee 'high quality.' 2. The problems with AI go well beyond moral outrage. 3. There are other solutions to ballooning dev-times. 4. Plenty want more frequent game releases while accepting such games would not match the scope of 5-8 year dev cycles.
Hell, I've seen little evidence that AI would even significantly increase game output. Really just execs and tech bros hyping it up by saying it will. Conveniently, that's all it really takes to woo investors...
I mean, I think of it this way: What games are delayed because of slow asset development? Maybe it can slow down other teams, sure. I remember reading about how difficult The Witcher 3's quest writers had refining scripts and line delivery before they had character models, animations, and...a functional game that didn't crash every 5 minutes. But they still pulled it off just fine; they just had to wait until every other team was almost done before deep diving into it. Maybe with AI they could've had more elaborate placeholders to make the process smoother. But the game didn't spend a year sitting on narrative designers; maybe the game could've saved 3-6 months...I dunno if that's really going to translate to insanely more efficient game development with ongoing implementation. Unless the game is just straight up 50% AI, between art assets, animation, code, etc. At which point, we have to start having conversations about whether AI art actually has any real value.
As much as I dislike Sony's — hopefully mostly dead — live-service push and as tired as Forbidden West made me of the good-first-impression Horizon franchise, I've been cautiously optimistic about a co-op Horizon game since we started hearing about one. And this looks fine — at worst.
Yes, the multiplayer push is cynical. But it could still be quite fun, regardless. Yes, its art style is Fortnite-sterile, but I honestly prefer that to more generic-realism. If this is any good, I might give it a whirl. If not...eh. I've better things to worry about than the quality and success of a Horizon multiplayer spinoff.
@Mr_Singh So we define 'good' differently. You could've said that when I asked "what's 'good' to you?" So this is all just a pointless debate over semantics, then. Cool. I don't think my definition of 'good' devalues the term. I'm saying a competently designed game with a fun-factor that swaths of people seem to enjoy is 'good.' Like I said before, there are better words to describe higher qualitative value. You can disagree with that on a definitional basis, but — again — that's just pointless semantics. I have previously said, "You can say I took "good games" too literally, and you were really just saying they've fallen. Which is fair, and I agree." Would've been a fantastic time to clarify your intent.
I'd still disagree that older Ubi games were substantially better than their current output. With few exceptions, most of their games have only ever been good (my definition therein). Again, you can disagree, but...eh. It's just that simple: you can disagree.
My Superman analogy doesn't fail because it effectively defined what I consider 'not good.' Your explanation, on the other hand, does. 'It's a bad analogy because Ubisoft games have redeeming qualities.' Okay. The point is that a game with no redeeming qualities is certifiably bad, while one with redeeming qualities can be thought of as good to some extent.
Again, your ad hominem is very charming. I'm sure the guys and gals at Ubisoft are absolutely reading this random thread and laughing at the guy defending them by saying they've been on the decline for almost 20 years... Hey Ubisoft people! STOP READING PUSHSQUARE AND MAKE A NEW RAYMAN ALREADY!!!
I'm also...not twitchtvpat, if that's what your little ponderous yellow guy was implying. Also doesn't sound like he was disagreeing with you about the current state of Ubisoft. Rather saying that the PoP and AC4 remakes wouldn't have necessarily redeemed Ubisoft had they released, and their cancellation/delay might be indication of course correction behind the scenes. So, ya know, maybe don't need to come at them with the fervor being directed at me.
@Mr_Singh Also, seriously, what awards did Dark Ages sweep? Yes, they won 'Innovation in Accessibility" at TGA. An award that had more to do with accessibility than quality.
Not exactly what I'd call a "sweep." Was there more?
@Mr_Singh Bro, I never accused you of subjective f***ery. I said you were accusing me of it, and explained why you were wrong to do so.
I haven't pivoted. First comment on the matter: "I mean, they do make 'good games.' They're just tired games that don't inspire much excitement." Don't see how that's at odds with saying they're "generally considered good." Second comment: "fairly universally known as 'good games." I.e. 'generally' good games.
I didn't dismiss the whole of negative user sentiment. I do think a lot of contemporary negativity concerning literally everything is more negative than it otherwise would've been years ago. But, more importantly, I don't see how there being that negativity disproves they are generally considered good. A mixed reception can coexist with a positive consensus.
Gaslighting is just a stupid accusation to have during an online argument. I've shared my interpretation of events. If you disagree, whatever — that's how disagreements work. I'm not trying to trick you.
'Outrage culture' isn't a deflection. I'm just noting an observation from years on the Internet. If you really think every single take online is sincere, I've got bad news for you.
What awards did Dark Ages sweep...?
Financials don't reflect quality. Dunno how many times I have to say that.
I didn't call you "passionate" as an insult. You just seem passionate about this and I thought it would add some levity to point that out. Me saying I could write a long essay wasn't a brag. I'm just saying, anyone can post anything superficially authoritative online.
I'm not lying to myself, you're imposing your views on the holistic discourse. You haven't even played any of their recent games besides Shadows, from the sounds of it. The most you can do to prove your point is talk financials and give the negative discourse weight; not very different from what I'm doing.
You're literally saying the game has good qualities. I'm not grasping at straws for a 'gotcha,' I'm pointing out that if even you can find good qualities in the game, it's pretty fair to assume it's a good game. I can't find good qualities in Superman 64, because it's a legitimate s*** game. You even said, "it's not a bad game." What's 'good' to you? Because, to me, 'good' is simply 'not bad.' There are more accurate words for things of higher quality.
@Mr_Singh Gee, you're very passionate about this. How is me saying Ubi's been on the decline for longer than you're saying a cope?
"Shadows isn’t a ‘bad’ game when considered standalone, as there were lots of things I liked about it."
So...Shadows still has good qualities. If those good qualities matter to people, you can even assume they might consider it good. Almost like it's a good game...
@Mr_Singh I dunno why you're accusing me of subjective f***ery. I never even said you're wrong not liking these games, just that they're not bad. I don't need to disprove that people don't like the game, because I'm just saying they're GENERALLY considered good. A decent pool of reviews and positive user sentiment is enough proof of that. You're asserting they are UNDENIABLY bad. Which is easily disproven by looking at positive reception. Hence, that subjective burden is on you; you're saying the positivity is wrong, I'm saying there's enough positivity to say they're generally considered good games. You posting decent aggregate scores just helps my case.
Modern gamers are more fervently negative than they were 15 years ago due to the 'outrage culture' that many influencers profit off of. People can not like games, but I find it disingenuous to assume the backlash only has to do with quality and not said outrage culture and mob mentality. And still, I don't need to prove everyone likes the game to say it's generally considered good.
Literally don't give a s*** about Ubi's financials. Has next to nothing to do with the quality of their games.
@Mr_Singh Their success as a company is barely correlated to the quality of their output. See Tango Gameworks. Or EA. Or Activision. This is a nothing point.
81 is good. 72 is good. User reviews have no inherent value above critic reviews, and are often needlessly inflammatory. Sales barely correlate to quality. Most good games aren't nominated for GOTY.
I'm not saying Ubi is the best developer ever. Just that they make good games. If you've been a gamer for so long, I'm sure you've played WAY worse games than Shadows.
@Mr_Singh Everything's subjective, yes, but I'm asserting that public consensus generally considers their modern games 'good, not great.' You're saying they're bad because you think they're bad. The burden of subjectivity is not on me.
Games like Far Cry 4, Watch Dogs, and half of all Assassin's Creeds got about the same reception as Shadows has, and — my subjective take — anyone who thinks any Assassin's Creed game is its respective year's best game is dead wrong. I wouldn't say the quality has changed that much, rather their design has stagnated compared to contemporaries. Which is a problem in and of itself, but doesn't mean their new games are bad. If you don't like them, more power to you. Like CoD or Monster Hunter, I consider them franchises that have always been flawed and remained pretty consistent throughout their history — for better or worse.
EDIT: Also, on your "I can watch countless satisfying documentaries on Ubi's downfall" note, I just wanted to point out the incessant 'engagement bait' epidemic of the online gaming community. That you can find videos of people agreeing with you kinda means nothing if you can't prove their authority and ethos on the matter. I can also write a long essay about why I think their downfall started with Assassin's Creed (and, actually, pretty consistently trended downward since — it wasn't a pocket of negative momentum). And, as far as I know, my essay would be just as valuable as any video you might cite.
A lot of people would say Ubi's decline started mid-360 era. Hence, Far Cry 6 would be incredibly relevant to their contemporary output. You can argue Assassin's Creed itself was the beginning of the end; I would argue the first was s*** and Shadows is undoubtedly better.
I would say you should've specified what timeframe you were referring to, but it really doesn't matter. You not likng Shadows doesn't mean it's not generally considered a good game. You didn't say anything about Outlaws or Whatever of Whoever. The recent PoP games remain good. They still make good games. They've always made good games. Their best era was probably between 2002 (whenever PoP launched), and Assassin's Creed II (after their top notch early 7th gen Tom Clancy titles). But that doesn't mean everything since is bad.
@Mr_Singh You said they don't make good games anymore, I cited the most recent games in several of their franchises — most of which are just their most recent games, holistically speaking — and said they are actually good. I don't see the misunderstanding.
I knew you weren't talking about Rayman 2 being a bad game. I assumed you were mostly referring to Assassin's Creed Shadows, Star Wars Outlaws, and Avatar: Whatever of Whoever. Those are fairly universally known as 'good games,' just with a big stink surrounding their discourse. You can say I took "good games" too literally, and you were really just saying they've fallen. Which is fair, and I agree. But games are still good, and the PoP remake doesn't make the two recent PoP games any worse.
@Mr_Singh I mean, they do make 'good games.' They're just tired games that don't inspire much excitement. Their last bad game was probably Skull and Bones (though I think you can argue it wasn't bad, just a big disappointment that got old fast — I dunno, I never played it). Assassin's Creed has been pretty consistently good, Far Cry too, the latest Prince of Persia games have been quite good, Rayman hasn't really missed (just been missed), Rabbids varies from decent to quite good, and their Disney games were well received.
@Toot1st At launch, there really wasn't an issue. As the game went on, constant rebalancing, trying to make a game for eSports above normal players, lack of new content, stagnating player base, just...mostly all of the OW2 changes, and barely doing anything for seasonal events down the line. In fact, I might argue adding new characters was actually a problem in itself; it made the game too much effort to keep up with.
It never became a bad game. But their answer to all its challenges always seems to be adding new characters instead of addressing those problems.
I wish they would understand that the issue was never a lack of heroes. Still, funny to see a reboot of a reboot; hopefully they don't muck it up and I can get back into the game.
I think people are missing just how poorly legacy Japanese IP seem to be doing in Japan if they aren't on the Switch.
There's a reason Squeenix and Capcom are pushing so much onto the Switch 2, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the likes of FF and Pragmata selling better in Japan on the Switch rather than PlayStation (not so much Resi).
As for the rest of the world, PlayStation will be king for 3rd-parties. But Japan wants Switch, and so any company that wants to capture a decent chunk of all markets will probably go PS5/Switch 2 when the technology and budget allows. Xbox just seems like a 'whatever' platform; might as well put in on there, maybe there'll be an eventual GamePass push. And PC will likely become the best place to publish any game in the near future, if it isn't already.
People care WAY too much about seeing this mostly unremarkable new IP from a fresh team that'll likely go bankrupt if this isn't sustainable fail miserably.
I love how Dunky pointed out how gamers are on this game for being generic, but lapped up for Battlefield 6 and Arc Raiders.
@Serialsid If we have a new subgroup of people looking to be offended, then public sentiments have changed. I don't think this is a new thing at all, but I feel like you're just contradicting yourself here.
Reminiscing about public outrage from the 2000s, things are definitely different. R*'s Bully caused outrage because people wrongly assumed it was literally GTA in a school. No one seemed to care about the same-sex romance options, which would likely be a boon today. Plus, the remnants of the Satanic Panic were still ongoing. I mean, just watch old South Park; they skewered plenty of ridiculous panics of the time.
@Serialsid Do you honestly think they saw record quarterly revenue because people were so impressed by Sweeney's assets and their wordplay?
They weren't the first clothing company to think of putting a sexy actor in their clothing and accompanying them with a cute pun or slogan. And they certainly wouldn't have seen that bump if there wasn't a social media publicity-storm about it.
I'm saying it's a s*** ad because I'm not assuming any of the aftermath that they owe that success to was on purpose. And, without that, it's just a basic ass commercial with no real intended audience — besides people that feel inadequate compared to Sweeney, I guess. I.e., the audience of all fashion/beauty advertisements...urm, sans the Sweeney.
Sidenote: I hate the whole, 'it wouldn't have been offensive 20 years ago' mentality. There have always been offensive things. Maybe this specific commercial wouldn't have sparked controversy (probably not, since there wasn't as significant of a white nationalist movement in the USA specifically 20 years ago). But something else seemingly as harmless could've. It's like, what are you even saying by saying that? That public sentiment has changed in 20 years? No s***. Whether contemporary sentiment is better or worse is a much deeper conversation, and just saying 'back in my day' is superficial nothingness.
@Serialsid So they saw a flash of success because their ad struck a cord with white nationalists?
I guess good for them and their s*** ad.
EDIT: To clarify, I would only call it a good ad if the intention was to evoke eugenics for the explicit purpose of stirring up social media drama and make their jeans partisan in an attempt to appeal to the 'dunk on the liberals' crowd. Because if that wasn't the intention, it was literally a s*** ad that got lucky and caught on due to being so poorly worded that it was interpreted as racist. And if that was the intention, the ad's not s***, but they are.
@Krlozgod Why wouldn't it be if people are misconstruing their production? If it wasn't their intent, they should clarify (and they both actually have. Whether or not it was good enough is a different discussion I don't really care enough about to have).
Good PR isn't just saying, 'f*** what the public thinks.'
@Krlozgod It probably was. I dunno. Hence my use of "maybe-ethnocentrism" and "ostensible metaphor."
Regardless of it being a likely overreaction, it still would've been very easy to sharply denounce the ideology in a timely manner. She did not, and that didn't do her any favors.
And, you know, regardless of the eugenics accusations, it really was not a good concept for an ad in the first place. Even assuming the innocent intent of: 'we got a hot lady and made a pun,' there's still a lot of negative ways people could've interpreted the ad. Which, in my eyes, just makes it a bad ad. This is really removed from any controversies, or anything like that. Just saying, looking at it as an ad that's supposed to sell people something, kinda a s*** ad.
I think there was a solid concept for a story here, even if the game didn't quite put it all together.
Hopefully this adaptation — uh...happens. Assuming it does happen, hopefully it really irons out the narrative and makes something less cartoonish and more nuanced.
While I think, yes, she is just an actress and shouldn't be held accountable for the inscrutable maybe-ethnocentrism of that ad. It's also worth noting that she lacked the foresight OR hindsight to properly dispel any personal association with eugenics. Which wouldn't have been that hard.
Personally, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she really didn't see the ostensible metaphor during shooting, and figured it was better not to engage with the social media spat after the fact. But she certainly didn't do herself any favors at any point.
Honestly, I haven't paid much attention to this game beyond the confused hype b**** gamers seem to have for it.
The thing I never really seem to see brought up in the discourse, though, is its design. Everyone's always doubting it's existence (for some reason...I dunno why gamers jump to 'game doesn't exist' so often these days...), or saying it's the second coming of gaming Jesus because you can swing around and fly. But, like, what's even the gameplay loop? To me, it's liable to be one of those classic cases where 'game look cool, so get hype,' only for the game to release and gamers realize there's nothing worthwhile to do with all the cool action design. It feels like a game about adding, not refining; one about the aesthetic of marketability, not finely crafted design.
And I continue to find it frustrating that the general gaming populous tends to miss that when looking at upcoming games. Any game can have cool s***. But a good game actually does interesting things with that cool s***. DOOM's shooting wouldn't be as iconic if it weren't within labyrinthian levels with strong enemy variety. The Witcher 3's world is memorable not because of its size, but rather the meticulous narrative detail contained within it. Breath of the Wild isn't a masterpiece because Link can go anywhere, it's a masterpiece because the world is synergistically open-ended to build a functional game wherein Link COULD go anywhere. Good games aren't good games because they have neat things in them. Good games are good games because they are well designed.
Crimson Dessert looks neat. But its visuals, ostensibly vast action expression, and sheer size do not make a worthwhile game. It makes a big game — which is often to a game's detriment, honestly. I don't know why people are convincing themselves it'll be one of the best games of the year when how it really plays remains fairly nebulous.
@DreadfulDragon Video game analysis is not at the same level of importance and urgency as medical care or home repair. So, in my opinion at least, there's no good reason to hold the former to the same standards of the latter two. This is more akin to demanding someone working at a museum know the exact history and discourse surrounding every painting they host. Ain't that deep.
"Amateurish and uninformed opinions" also isn't what you were concerned with before. You were concerned with deceit and corruption within the games journalism space. These are different things. You can say corruption is 'amateurish,' I guess. But, also...I wouldn't. And amateur, in this context, would more refer to a games journalist's direct connections within the games industry as well as their ability to write (an amateur review would simply be a poorly written one, to me). And, indeed, hypothetical corruption wouldn't be mutually exclusive (a review can be amateur and corrupt...'cause those are different things).
And besides all that, I didn't say simply wanting professional, ethical reviews is weirdo s***. That's fine, even if I don't agree with the necessity therein. That's why I said that if you really don't trust reviewers, then don't trust them and find different avenues to understand a game's quality. I am not asserting that you MUST trust all reviews. It's the demanding of professionalism — and especially indulging in a narrative of corrupt games journalists being paid off to positively score things — within a medium that's mostly trivial that's weirdo s***. Because it AIN'T. THAT. DEEP.
You should be demanding actual journalism that sways public opinion on real matters and political movements be moral and honest. No one should care nearly as much if some reviewer gives their 10th CoD game a 10/10.
There is no singular 'professional opinion' or 'player experience' to be at odds with one another. There is no notable, consistent disparity.
If you don't trust games journalists, then don't take their word for anything and just inform your opinions with gameplay analysis and personal preference — or just actually playing games. But trying to demand journalistic integrity from reviews of casual entertainment and discredit what are effectively opinion pieces on a conspiratorial basis is just...sorry — it's weirdo s***.
@Ultrasmiles Consider this: Maybe those non-fan reviews are useful for non-fans curious if something is worthwhile for a newcomer. There's a specific audience that finds no use in someone deeply entrenched in something impenetrable writing a review only people with expert vocabulary can understand. Certainly, there's a place for both newcomers and intermediates in the discourse.
Also consider: Maybe it doesn't actually matter if a reviewer likes/dislikes something in the first place.
@somnambulance "Learning to respectfully disagree and learn from opinions that may differ from your own IS the way."
Unfortunately, that simple virtue is too utopic for the toxic reality we live in. I dunno how the Information Age has destroyed peoples' ability to actually listen, but here we are.
@ZeroSum I'd argue the problem is that anyone's assuming reviewers should always be right or specifically matched with games they would be more inclined to like.
When you understand reviews are just the opinions of people paid to write opinions, and their intrinsic beliefs, as well as what they value in art/entertainment, doesn't discredit that opinion, then you can actually have interesting conversations about games and their perceived qualities. The whole 'good game/bad game' discourse is painfully myopic, limiting, and artistically illiterate.
Comments 1,630
Re: MGS Master Collection Volume 2 PS5 Announced, Metal Gear Solid 4 Is Free of PS3 Jail
Just missing Rising...
Maybe we'll set a side-ops collection with Rising and Acid, yet.
Re: New Dead or Alive Game Announced as Dead or Alive 6: Last Round Comes to PS5
That's the thumbnail they're going with, huh?
Re: As Mina the Hollower Squeaks Closer to a Release Date, PS5 Gets an Exclusive Demo
An exclusive PlayStation demo confuses me. I'd reckon the main audience is on PC and Switch. Unless the recent demo those platforms had weren't on PS5...?
I dunno.
Re: Poll: How Would You Rate State of Play for February 2026?
Hardly s*** from Sony, but everything else was great.
2D God of War looks kinda lame, unfortunately...
Re: 10 PS Plus Extra, Premium Games for February 2026 Announced
Would've been a perfect time to add God of War 1 and 2 to Premium, No?
Or the PS2 Ratchets, because any time is a perfect time to add them.
Re: The Internet Has Not Been Kind to Horizon Hunters Gathering
Feeling like the only person appreciating them trying new things with the Horizon IP. After Forbidden West, I'm kinda good with the main series; Horizon 3 proper could release in 2035 for all I care. But I still like the IP, and its world, and think this, Call of the Mountain, and LEGO Horizon are at least somewhat more interesting than getting a main entry every 4-6 years.
Now, does this actual game legitimately interest me? Eh...more so than Marathon has. I can actually see myself getting some buds together and playing this one, at least. Will I? All signs point to no — but, to be fair, I'm definitely not the main demo for online multiplayer games. Will this capture that audience? Yeah, probably not. I know the Horizon franchise is pretty popular...or was, like, 10 years ago. But I don't see a Helldivers 2/Arc Raiders meme-parade for this one. Expect the 2XKO effect, I suppose: near-immediate downsizing followed by a small fanbase barely keeping the lights.
Re: PSA: This Is Your Last Chance to Grab Yakuza 3 Remastered Before Its Ridiculous Removal
The culture of re-release discourse is always immensely interesting to me. And not in a dismissive way; I think every iteration of all content should be readily available on modern hardware. Seeing fans argue these nitty-gritty differences that most people probably wouldn't notice or care about is one of the most fascinating discussions I think a fanbase can have.
What's the real version of Blade Runner? It's really easy to just say the one that most fully realizes the director's vision, but that's still not the original version. It's not the version that a small movie-going audience was first enchanted by. And, by that aforementioned logic, the Special Editions of the Original Star Wars trilogy are the real versions. It may seem simple, but it's a very deep — practically philosophical — question.
Even over something more pedantic: How green is The Matrix supposed to be? YouTube doodle-man noodle had a fantastic video about how the color grading for The Matrix changes with each physical release. And that, while none of them look like the original theatrical version, the original colorist (if that's the right title) has worked on some re-colored remasters and said that they were made to better capture the original visual concept that wasn't exactly reflected in the theatrical release. So how green IS The Matrix supposed to be, then? Theatrical release green? Reloaded/Revelations consistent green? Or remastered green meant to evoke the original plans? Who f***in' knows!
And this same stuff is ALL over game remake/remaster discourse. What's the value in the Resi4 Remake if it guts a lot of the campy dialogue that made the original so iconic? Is it a replacement of the original? Is it better than the original? Did it need to be made? Is it enough that it can stand by itself as a phenomenal game? The recent Dragon Quest 7 remake — does it lose the original game's identity by cutting out a lot of its filler? Does Wind Waker HD's graphical style compromise the original's charm? Does The Last of Us Part 1 ruin the visual direction of scenes? For Yakuza 3, was the removal of old content an explicit decision to trim its fat, and does the game actually benefit from it? Can removing content ever be a good decision?
Re: 20 PS5 Predictions for State of Play February 2026
@ShadowRJ This is how I feel about literally every major presentation these days. For Xbox's, I was just happy to see Fable and Double Fine's next game. For Nintendo's, I was happy getting a better look at Orbitals and was waiting for an Oblivion Remaster port.
For PlayStation, literally give me 1 or 2 game unveilings that I'm into, and I'll be happy.
Yet I know the discourse will be predominantly negative, as though these companies need to put out an A+ e3 presentation 4 times a year.
Re: Horizon Hunters Gathering Is Guerrilla's Next Big PS5 Game, Horizon 3 Still Years Away
@PuppetMaster I believe Flower and Bound were both published by Sony. As with many alike games of the time, I'm pretty sure Santa Monica helped with Bound. Not too sure about Flower, but I think they helped on Journey, too.
And you can say this is pedantic — after all, is there really much difference between being a publisher and assisting with funding. But still, Flower and Journey feel like PlayStation games to me (we were robbed of that Journey/Shadow of the Colossus level in All-Stars Battle Royale, I tellz ya). Sword of the Sea and Baby Steps emphatically do not.
Re: Horizon Hunters Gathering Is Guerrilla's Next Big PS5 Game, Horizon 3 Still Years Away
@PuppetMaster "They just don't do it in-house anymore."
I reckon that's what he's talking about, right. He misses when Sony was internally developing/producing a variety of quality, interesting games. That's really what his whole comment was about; he wasn't saying there aren't games like that on the PS5, rather that Sony's own games have been lacking this generation.
It's like, Hades II and Orbitals are Switch exclusives. They've received a lot of promotion from Nintendo (honestly, like 25% of all console indie games are receiving pretty notable promotion from Nintendo). Yet, I don't think that means fans can't bemoan the lack of classic series like F-Zero or Wario Land. Or wistfully reminisce about the Pushmo/Dillion era of Nintendo where they were putting out experimental, relatively small new IP.
Or, to put it bluntly, Hades II and Orbitals are NOT Nintendo games. Likewise, Sword of the Sea, The Midnight Walk, Baby Steps, and Lumines Arise are NOT PlayStation games.
Re: Horizon Hunters Gathering Is Guerrilla's Next Big PS5 Game, Horizon 3 Still Years Away
@LtSarge I'd say there's a lot of assumption in this comment.
1. AI doesn't guarantee 'high quality.'
2. The problems with AI go well beyond moral outrage.
3. There are other solutions to ballooning dev-times.
4. Plenty want more frequent game releases while accepting such games would not match the scope of 5-8 year dev cycles.
Hell, I've seen little evidence that AI would even significantly increase game output. Really just execs and tech bros hyping it up by saying it will. Conveniently, that's all it really takes to woo investors...
I mean, I think of it this way: What games are delayed because of slow asset development? Maybe it can slow down other teams, sure. I remember reading about how difficult The Witcher 3's quest writers had refining scripts and line delivery before they had character models, animations, and...a functional game that didn't crash every 5 minutes. But they still pulled it off just fine; they just had to wait until every other team was almost done before deep diving into it. Maybe with AI they could've had more elaborate placeholders to make the process smoother. But the game didn't spend a year sitting on narrative designers; maybe the game could've saved 3-6 months...I dunno if that's really going to translate to insanely more efficient game development with ongoing implementation. Unless the game is just straight up 50% AI, between art assets, animation, code, etc. At which point, we have to start having conversations about whether AI art actually has any real value.
Re: Horizon Hunters Gathering Is Guerrilla's Next Big PS5 Game, Horizon 3 Still Years Away
As much as I dislike Sony's — hopefully mostly dead — live-service push and as tired as Forbidden West made me of the good-first-impression Horizon franchise, I've been cautiously optimistic about a co-op Horizon game since we started hearing about one. And this looks fine — at worst.
Yes, the multiplayer push is cynical. But it could still be quite fun, regardless. Yes, its art style is Fortnite-sterile, but I honestly prefer that to more generic-realism. If this is any good, I might give it a whirl. If not...eh. I've better things to worry about than the quality and success of a Horizon multiplayer spinoff.
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh So we define 'good' differently. You could've said that when I asked "what's 'good' to you?" So this is all just a pointless debate over semantics, then. Cool. I don't think my definition of 'good' devalues the term. I'm saying a competently designed game with a fun-factor that swaths of people seem to enjoy is 'good.' Like I said before, there are better words to describe higher qualitative value. You can disagree with that on a definitional basis, but — again — that's just pointless semantics. I have previously said, "You can say I took "good games" too literally, and you were really just saying they've fallen. Which is fair, and I agree." Would've been a fantastic time to clarify your intent.
I'd still disagree that older Ubi games were substantially better than their current output. With few exceptions, most of their games have only ever been good (my definition therein). Again, you can disagree, but...eh. It's just that simple: you can disagree.
My Superman analogy doesn't fail because it effectively defined what I consider 'not good.' Your explanation, on the other hand, does. 'It's a bad analogy because Ubisoft games have redeeming qualities.' Okay. The point is that a game with no redeeming qualities is certifiably bad, while one with redeeming qualities can be thought of as good to some extent.
Again, your ad hominem is very charming. I'm sure the guys and gals at Ubisoft are absolutely reading this random thread and laughing at the guy defending them by saying they've been on the decline for almost 20 years... Hey Ubisoft people! STOP READING PUSHSQUARE AND MAKE A NEW RAYMAN ALREADY!!!
I'm also...not twitchtvpat, if that's what your little ponderous yellow guy was implying. Also doesn't sound like he was disagreeing with you about the current state of Ubisoft. Rather saying that the PoP and AC4 remakes wouldn't have necessarily redeemed Ubisoft had they released, and their cancellation/delay might be indication of course correction behind the scenes. So, ya know, maybe don't need to come at them with the fervor being directed at me.
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh Also, seriously, what awards did Dark Ages sweep? Yes, they won 'Innovation in Accessibility" at TGA. An award that had more to do with accessibility than quality.
Not exactly what I'd call a "sweep." Was there more?
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
Removed
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh Bro, I never accused you of subjective f***ery. I said you were accusing me of it, and explained why you were wrong to do so.
I haven't pivoted. First comment on the matter: "I mean, they do make 'good games.' They're just tired games that don't inspire much excitement." Don't see how that's at odds with saying they're "generally considered good." Second comment: "fairly universally known as 'good games." I.e. 'generally' good games.
I didn't dismiss the whole of negative user sentiment. I do think a lot of contemporary negativity concerning literally everything is more negative than it otherwise would've been years ago. But, more importantly, I don't see how there being that negativity disproves they are generally considered good. A mixed reception can coexist with a positive consensus.
Gaslighting is just a stupid accusation to have during an online argument. I've shared my interpretation of events. If you disagree, whatever — that's how disagreements work. I'm not trying to trick you.
'Outrage culture' isn't a deflection. I'm just noting an observation from years on the Internet. If you really think every single take online is sincere, I've got bad news for you.
What awards did Dark Ages sweep...?
Financials don't reflect quality. Dunno how many times I have to say that.
I didn't call you "passionate" as an insult. You just seem passionate about this and I thought it would add some levity to point that out. Me saying I could write a long essay wasn't a brag. I'm just saying, anyone can post anything superficially authoritative online.
I'm not lying to myself, you're imposing your views on the holistic discourse. You haven't even played any of their recent games besides Shadows, from the sounds of it. The most you can do to prove your point is talk financials and give the negative discourse weight; not very different from what I'm doing.
You're literally saying the game has good qualities. I'm not grasping at straws for a 'gotcha,' I'm pointing out that if even you can find good qualities in the game, it's pretty fair to assume it's a good game. I can't find good qualities in Superman 64, because it's a legitimate s*** game. You even said, "it's not a bad game." What's 'good' to you? Because, to me, 'good' is simply 'not bad.' There are more accurate words for things of higher quality.
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh Gee, you're very passionate about this. How is me saying Ubi's been on the decline for longer than you're saying a cope?
"Shadows isn’t a ‘bad’ game when considered standalone, as there were lots of things I liked about it."
So...Shadows still has good qualities. If those good qualities matter to people, you can even assume they might consider it good. Almost like it's a good game...
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh I dunno why you're accusing me of subjective f***ery. I never even said you're wrong not liking these games, just that they're not bad. I don't need to disprove that people don't like the game, because I'm just saying they're GENERALLY considered good. A decent pool of reviews and positive user sentiment is enough proof of that. You're asserting they are UNDENIABLY bad. Which is easily disproven by looking at positive reception. Hence, that subjective burden is on you; you're saying the positivity is wrong, I'm saying there's enough positivity to say they're generally considered good games. You posting decent aggregate scores just helps my case.
Modern gamers are more fervently negative than they were 15 years ago due to the 'outrage culture' that many influencers profit off of. People can not like games, but I find it disingenuous to assume the backlash only has to do with quality and not said outrage culture and mob mentality. And still, I don't need to prove everyone likes the game to say it's generally considered good.
Literally don't give a s*** about Ubi's financials. Has next to nothing to do with the quality of their games.
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh Their success as a company is barely correlated to the quality of their output. See Tango Gameworks. Or EA. Or Activision. This is a nothing point.
81 is good. 72 is good. User reviews have no inherent value above critic reviews, and are often needlessly inflammatory. Sales barely correlate to quality. Most good games aren't nominated for GOTY.
I'm not saying Ubi is the best developer ever. Just that they make good games. If you've been a gamer for so long, I'm sure you've played WAY worse games than Shadows.
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh Everything's subjective, yes, but I'm asserting that public consensus generally considers their modern games 'good, not great.' You're saying they're bad because you think they're bad. The burden of subjectivity is not on me.
Games like Far Cry 4, Watch Dogs, and half of all Assassin's Creeds got about the same reception as Shadows has, and — my subjective take — anyone who thinks any Assassin's Creed game is its respective year's best game is dead wrong. I wouldn't say the quality has changed that much, rather their design has stagnated compared to contemporaries. Which is a problem in and of itself, but doesn't mean their new games are bad. If you don't like them, more power to you. Like CoD or Monster Hunter, I consider them franchises that have always been flawed and remained pretty consistent throughout their history — for better or worse.
EDIT: Also, on your "I can watch countless satisfying documentaries on Ubi's downfall" note, I just wanted to point out the incessant 'engagement bait' epidemic of the online gaming community. That you can find videos of people agreeing with you kinda means nothing if you can't prove their authority and ethos on the matter. I can also write a long essay about why I think their downfall started with Assassin's Creed (and, actually, pretty consistently trended downward since — it wasn't a pocket of negative momentum). And, as far as I know, my essay would be just as valuable as any video you might cite.
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh That's just, like, your opinion, man.
A lot of people would say Ubi's decline started mid-360 era. Hence, Far Cry 6 would be incredibly relevant to their contemporary output. You can argue Assassin's Creed itself was the beginning of the end; I would argue the first was s*** and Shadows is undoubtedly better.
I would say you should've specified what timeframe you were referring to, but it really doesn't matter. You not likng Shadows doesn't mean it's not generally considered a good game. You didn't say anything about Outlaws or Whatever of Whoever. The recent PoP games remain good. They still make good games. They've always made good games. Their best era was probably between 2002 (whenever PoP launched), and Assassin's Creed II (after their top notch early 7th gen Tom Clancy titles). But that doesn't mean everything since is bad.
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh You said they don't make good games anymore, I cited the most recent games in several of their franchises — most of which are just their most recent games, holistically speaking — and said they are actually good. I don't see the misunderstanding.
I knew you weren't talking about Rayman 2 being a bad game. I assumed you were mostly referring to Assassin's Creed Shadows, Star Wars Outlaws, and Avatar: Whatever of Whoever. Those are fairly universally known as 'good games,' just with a big stink surrounding their discourse. You can say I took "good games" too literally, and you were really just saying they've fallen. Which is fair, and I agree. But games are still good, and the PoP remake doesn't make the two recent PoP games any worse.
Re: Another Key Assassin's Creed Dev Leaves Ubisoft
@Mr_Singh I mean, they do make 'good games.' They're just tired games that don't inspire much excitement. Their last bad game was probably Skull and Bones (though I think you can argue it wasn't bad, just a big disappointment that got old fast — I dunno, I never played it). Assassin's Creed has been pretty consistently good, Far Cry too, the latest Prince of Persia games have been quite good, Rayman hasn't really missed (just been missed), Rabbids varies from decent to quite good, and their Disney games were well received.
Just nothing jumps out as 'spectacular.'
Re: Overwatch Ditches the 2, Launches 5 New Heroes in Blizzard's Bid to Revive the Shooter
@Toot1st At launch, there really wasn't an issue. As the game went on, constant rebalancing, trying to make a game for eSports above normal players, lack of new content, stagnating player base, just...mostly all of the OW2 changes, and barely doing anything for seasonal events down the line. In fact, I might argue adding new characters was actually a problem in itself; it made the game too much effort to keep up with.
It never became a bad game. But their answer to all its challenges always seems to be adding new characters instead of addressing those problems.
Re: Overwatch Ditches the 2, Launches 5 New Heroes in Blizzard's Bid to Revive the Shooter
I wish they would understand that the issue was never a lack of heroes. Still, funny to see a reboot of a reboot; hopefully they don't muck it up and I can get back into the game.
Re: Rumour: Final Fantasy 7 Remake Part 3 Skips PS5 Exclusivity, Will Be Multi-Platform Straight Away
@Stragen8 @JoeNobody I like the weird spitefulness.
Re: Rumour: Final Fantasy 7 Remake Part 3 Skips PS5 Exclusivity, Will Be Multi-Platform Straight Away
I think people are missing just how poorly legacy Japanese IP seem to be doing in Japan if they aren't on the Switch.
There's a reason Squeenix and Capcom are pushing so much onto the Switch 2, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the likes of FF and Pragmata selling better in Japan on the Switch rather than PlayStation (not so much Resi).
As for the rest of the world, PlayStation will be king for 3rd-parties. But Japan wants Switch, and so any company that wants to capture a decent chunk of all markets will probably go PS5/Switch 2 when the technology and budget allows. Xbox just seems like a 'whatever' platform; might as well put in on there, maybe there'll be an eventual GamePass push. And PC will likely become the best place to publish any game in the near future, if it isn't already.
Re: Highguard Player Count Is Actually Hanging in There as It Makes 5v5 Mode Permanent
@Boxmonkey A high-fidelity, 3rd-person, multiplayer extraction shooter? Yeah, I reckon it's generic.
Keep in mind, "generic" doesn't mean "bad."
Re: Highguard Player Count Is Actually Hanging in There as It Makes 5v5 Mode Permanent
People care WAY too much about seeing this mostly unremarkable new IP from a fresh team that'll likely go bankrupt if this isn't sustainable fail miserably.
I love how Dunky pointed out how gamers are on this game for being generic, but lapped up for Battlefield 6 and Arc Raiders.
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
@Serialsid If we have a new subgroup of people looking to be offended, then public sentiments have changed. I don't think this is a new thing at all, but I feel like you're just contradicting yourself here.
Reminiscing about public outrage from the 2000s, things are definitely different. R*'s Bully caused outrage because people wrongly assumed it was literally GTA in a school. No one seemed to care about the same-sex romance options, which would likely be a boon today. Plus, the remnants of the Satanic Panic were still ongoing. I mean, just watch old South Park; they skewered plenty of ridiculous panics of the time.
Re: Promising Chinese God of War Game Will Be 'Optimised for PS5 in Collaboration with Sony'
@get2sammyb @Mac_steel Eh, we'll see. It looks way more like DMC to me. With a Souls-like camera and boss. And Black Myth-esque setting.
Re: Promising Chinese God of War Game Will Be 'Optimised for PS5 in Collaboration with Sony'
This doesn't look anything like God of War 3...
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
Removed
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
@Krlozgod Again, good PR isn't ignoring public relations.
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
@PuppetMaster Legitimate question: What kind of controversies do you have in your country?
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
@Serialsid Do you honestly think they saw record quarterly revenue because people were so impressed by Sweeney's assets and their wordplay?
They weren't the first clothing company to think of putting a sexy actor in their clothing and accompanying them with a cute pun or slogan. And they certainly wouldn't have seen that bump if there wasn't a social media publicity-storm about it.
I'm saying it's a s*** ad because I'm not assuming any of the aftermath that they owe that success to was on purpose. And, without that, it's just a basic ass commercial with no real intended audience — besides people that feel inadequate compared to Sweeney, I guess. I.e., the audience of all fashion/beauty advertisements...urm, sans the Sweeney.
Sidenote: I hate the whole, 'it wouldn't have been offensive 20 years ago' mentality. There have always been offensive things. Maybe this specific commercial wouldn't have sparked controversy (probably not, since there wasn't as significant of a white nationalist movement in the USA specifically 20 years ago). But something else seemingly as harmless could've. It's like, what are you even saying by saying that? That public sentiment has changed in 20 years? No s***. Whether contemporary sentiment is better or worse is a much deeper conversation, and just saying 'back in my day' is superficial nothingness.
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
@Serialsid So they saw a flash of success because their ad struck a cord with white nationalists?
I guess good for them and their s*** ad.
EDIT: To clarify, I would only call it a good ad if the intention was to evoke eugenics for the explicit purpose of stirring up social media drama and make their jeans partisan in an attempt to appeal to the 'dunk on the liberals' crowd. Because if that wasn't the intention, it was literally a s*** ad that got lucky and caught on due to being so poorly worded that it was interpreted as racist. And if that was the intention, the ad's not s***, but they are.
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
@Krlozgod Why wouldn't it be if people are misconstruing their production? If it wasn't their intent, they should clarify (and they both actually have. Whether or not it was good enough is a different discussion I don't really care enough about to have).
Good PR isn't just saying, 'f*** what the public thinks.'
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
@Krlozgod It probably was. I dunno. Hence my use of "maybe-ethnocentrism" and "ostensible metaphor."
Regardless of it being a likely overreaction, it still would've been very easy to sharply denounce the ideology in a timely manner. She did not, and that didn't do her any favors.
And, you know, regardless of the eugenics accusations, it really was not a good concept for an ad in the first place. Even assuming the innocent intent of: 'we got a hot lady and made a pun,' there's still a lot of negative ways people could've interpreted the ad. Which, in my eyes, just makes it a bad ad. This is really removed from any controversies, or anything like that. Just saying, looking at it as an ad that's supposed to sell people something, kinda a s*** ad.
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
I think there was a solid concept for a story here, even if the game didn't quite put it all together.
Hopefully this adaptation — uh...happens. Assuming it does happen, hopefully it really irons out the narrative and makes something less cartoonish and more nuanced.
Re: Sydney Sweeney's Split Fiction Movie Has Its First Script, and Josef Fares Has Seen It
@Jackthelad93 I mean...kinda.
While I think, yes, she is just an actress and shouldn't be held accountable for the inscrutable maybe-ethnocentrism of that ad. It's also worth noting that she lacked the foresight OR hindsight to properly dispel any personal association with eugenics. Which wouldn't have been that hard.
Personally, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she really didn't see the ostensible metaphor during shooting, and figured it was better not to engage with the social media spat after the fact. But she certainly didn't do herself any favors at any point.
Re: Crimson Desert Deep Dive Tries to Prove Its Crazy Potential Is Reality
Honestly, I haven't paid much attention to this game beyond the confused hype b**** gamers seem to have for it.
The thing I never really seem to see brought up in the discourse, though, is its design. Everyone's always doubting it's existence (for some reason...I dunno why gamers jump to 'game doesn't exist' so often these days...), or saying it's the second coming of gaming Jesus because you can swing around and fly. But, like, what's even the gameplay loop? To me, it's liable to be one of those classic cases where 'game look cool, so get hype,' only for the game to release and gamers realize there's nothing worthwhile to do with all the cool action design. It feels like a game about adding, not refining; one about the aesthetic of marketability, not finely crafted design.
And I continue to find it frustrating that the general gaming populous tends to miss that when looking at upcoming games. Any game can have cool s***. But a good game actually does interesting things with that cool s***. DOOM's shooting wouldn't be as iconic if it weren't within labyrinthian levels with strong enemy variety. The Witcher 3's world is memorable not because of its size, but rather the meticulous narrative detail contained within it. Breath of the Wild isn't a masterpiece because Link can go anywhere, it's a masterpiece because the world is synergistically open-ended to build a functional game wherein Link COULD go anywhere. Good games aren't good games because they have neat things in them. Good games are good games because they are well designed.
Crimson Dessert looks neat. But its visuals, ostensibly vast action expression, and sheer size do not make a worthwhile game. It makes a big game — which is often to a game's detriment, honestly. I don't know why people are convincing themselves it'll be one of the best games of the year when how it really plays remains fairly nebulous.
Re: Larian CEO Swen Vincke Sticks His Foot in It Again, Thinks Game Reviewers Should Also Be Reviewed
@somnambulance I really hope it's not too late for the Information Age to become one of compassion, conversation, and camaraderie.
But, for the most part, it feels like we're already in an Orwellian nightmare.
Re: Larian CEO Swen Vincke Sticks His Foot in It Again, Thinks Game Reviewers Should Also Be Reviewed
@DreadfulDragon Video game analysis is not at the same level of importance and urgency as medical care or home repair. So, in my opinion at least, there's no good reason to hold the former to the same standards of the latter two. This is more akin to demanding someone working at a museum know the exact history and discourse surrounding every painting they host. Ain't that deep.
"Amateurish and uninformed opinions" also isn't what you were concerned with before. You were concerned with deceit and corruption within the games journalism space. These are different things. You can say corruption is 'amateurish,' I guess. But, also...I wouldn't. And amateur, in this context, would more refer to a games journalist's direct connections within the games industry as well as their ability to write (an amateur review would simply be a poorly written one, to me). And, indeed, hypothetical corruption wouldn't be mutually exclusive (a review can be amateur and corrupt...'cause those are different things).
And besides all that, I didn't say simply wanting professional, ethical reviews is weirdo s***. That's fine, even if I don't agree with the necessity therein. That's why I said that if you really don't trust reviewers, then don't trust them and find different avenues to understand a game's quality. I am not asserting that you MUST trust all reviews. It's the demanding of professionalism — and especially indulging in a narrative of corrupt games journalists being paid off to positively score things — within a medium that's mostly trivial that's weirdo s***. Because it AIN'T. THAT. DEEP.
You should be demanding actual journalism that sways public opinion on real matters and political movements be moral and honest. No one should care nearly as much if some reviewer gives their 10th CoD game a 10/10.
Re: Larian CEO Swen Vincke Sticks His Foot in It Again, Thinks Game Reviewers Should Also Be Reviewed
@DreadfulDragon My guy, it ain't that serious.
There is no singular 'professional opinion' or 'player experience' to be at odds with one another. There is no notable, consistent disparity.
If you don't trust games journalists, then don't take their word for anything and just inform your opinions with gameplay analysis and personal preference — or just actually playing games. But trying to demand journalistic integrity from reviews of casual entertainment and discredit what are effectively opinion pieces on a conspiratorial basis is just...sorry — it's weirdo s***.
Re: Larian CEO Swen Vincke Sticks His Foot in It Again, Thinks Game Reviewers Should Also Be Reviewed
@Ultrasmiles Consider this: Maybe those non-fan reviews are useful for non-fans curious if something is worthwhile for a newcomer. There's a specific audience that finds no use in someone deeply entrenched in something impenetrable writing a review only people with expert vocabulary can understand. Certainly, there's a place for both newcomers and intermediates in the discourse.
Also consider: Maybe it doesn't actually matter if a reviewer likes/dislikes something in the first place.
Re: Larian CEO Swen Vincke Sticks His Foot in It Again, Thinks Game Reviewers Should Also Be Reviewed
@somnambulance "Learning to respectfully disagree and learn from opinions that may differ from your own IS the way."
Unfortunately, that simple virtue is too utopic for the toxic reality we live in. I dunno how the Information Age has destroyed peoples' ability to actually listen, but here we are.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for February 2026 Announced
@Cry_Zero You and me both, brother.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for February 2026 Announced
@TheFakulty On the upside, you directly supported a developer whose game you evidently thought was worth buying.
Re: Larian CEO Swen Vincke Sticks His Foot in It Again, Thinks Game Reviewers Should Also Be Reviewed
@ZeroSum I'd argue the problem is that anyone's assuming reviewers should always be right or specifically matched with games they would be more inclined to like.
When you understand reviews are just the opinions of people paid to write opinions, and their intrinsic beliefs, as well as what they value in art/entertainment, doesn't discredit that opinion, then you can actually have interesting conversations about games and their perceived qualities. The whole 'good game/bad game' discourse is painfully myopic, limiting, and artistically illiterate.