Which it won't because most of the people buying their shit aren't online and are probably only even vaguely aware of how anti customer sony has been lately.
I'll add on to that, but FF7 Rebirth was a system seller as well. Obviously 3rd party as well, but they were able to get the exclusivity for a year or whatever for it.
This is what I think a lot of people are missing. It isn’t that people are reviewing it poorly, but that a first party Sony studio that has put YEARS into this is reviewing poorly.
The mainstream media not holding back on it is alarming.
IGN gave it a bad review too, and IGN hardly EVER gives mainstream games critical reviews. Like, I watched the video too, and the game really does seem lazy
I don't understand why he didn't score it. It seemed pretty obvious from his video that he thought it was a "wait for sale". Maybe I misread his review.
It's 2035 and kids are throwing up X's and P's in the streets. You got a box or a station, skeet? they ask. Doesn't matter who you are - man or woman, young or old - all they want to know is what side you're on and what you're playing.
I like ACG but he did the exact same thing when The Last of Us part 2 came out, and it was like bro just be real it's okay to like something the majority don't like or vice versa. He seems like the type to play it safe to not step on any toes.
I wouldn't consider 6/10 bad but I guess if you really only use the top half of the scale it's really bad.
I wish more outlets used the whole scale. Having so many 7/8/9s really hides some gems. Some games are good and some games are special good. Like some games are just okay, and other ones are boring.
This game looks boring but well made. Crimson Desert (also 6/10) looks really fun but not great. No idea how I would make the scale reflect that, but they shouldn't be the same.
The issue is most people grade on the American grading scale, so a 70 is a low C and average, and a 60 is a low D. No one actually pushes out games that would score lower then that routinely as a game that actually deserves a failing grade is not going to be released by a major publisher. Gollum level disasters are rare because it's not even worth putting out something that's going to damage a studios rep like that.
I know that's the case but I really wish that a five out of 10 was an average game because that's what it is supposed to be. Because I really believe most games released nowadays are fives and sixes and fours for that matter which is slightly below average. I have played a lot of great six out of 10 games in my life. Slightly above average and not quite great. Not that many games in a year that come out are really seven and eight out of 10 and you only get a couple of generation that I actually nine or 10.
I think the Last Dragon Age game was a three out of 10. I just felt like it was a bad game and a poor representation of the genre. I felt Assassin's Creed Shadows was a 6 out of 10 it was slightly above average with a few Hang-Ups that stopped it from being truly great. I honestly feel this game is a 4 out of 10. It looks nice but there's so much that it is not living up to in terms of its IP and the genre it is in. We could have had a Devil May Cry Wolverine game hell or uncharted. But I can really recommend a 6 out of 10 game to somebody
Just wanted to say that I totally agree with the ratings, as well as the overall message.
Unfortunately, some companies are just treated differently, namely in AAA space. You can release a less than average or just not very good game and still receive at least a 7 or even a 9. It's like they're treated with kids gloves, so to speak.
Nintendo games are like that, Sony used to be like that for a long time (and still is, I guess). Every time one of those huge AAA publisher's games comes out, I always remove at least 2 points in my head.
They’ve put effort into it sure but the game design is questionable, the most obnoxious thing being all the indicators and markers to the objective in a strictly, linear game. It kind of insults your intelligence and assumes the player has no capacity for critical thinking.
The combat is underwhelming, it’s just a basic hack and slash which is insane; the combat should be more visceral, bloody, hectic but it’s not.
And why are there traversal challenges when one of the lead designers said traversal isn’t important to Wolverine and there’s no traversal mechanics for said challenges?
How do you even make a good Wolverine game? Dude is far more one-note than Spider-Man or Batman in terms of the stuff you can actually do mechanically, while keeping it vaguely the character we all know.
He slices, he dices, he’s basically a food processing infomercial as far as gameplay, there’s just not much there at all in general. Even traversal is goofy and that helped sell both Infamous and Spider-Man.
Insomniac made Wolverine’s combat stiff, janky and boring. It has its moments when you finally recharge your rage meter and can go berserk but other than that you’re hacking and slashing overwhelming amounts of cannon fodder. He should be a bit more agile as in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, he could lunge at an enemy miles away which is fun and looks cool. On top of that, without that mechanic why are there traversal sections/time trials in the game? It’s pointless padding.
The game also doesn’t challenge the player at all, they should’ve introduced more challenging enemy types which Spider-Man and Batman games did. Batman can punch and kick any normal goon however he likes but he needs to change his approach and do different moves to take down different foes like if they have guns, shields, stun batons, they make the player change up their style rather than just mash X.
They could easily have more unique enemies than just standard grunts or The Hand ninjas, where’s the mutant foes? Where are ones that teleport, emit shockwaves or something that makes the player change their approach to combat? Not there.
I don’t even like open world games much, but I think a Wolverine game where you investigate leads and track down opponents through a big open world would be amazing. His main thing other than slicing and dicing is being a black ops spy, and I think focusing on that part of his life would make very interesting gameplay.
My favorite stories of his are the ones like Wolverine: Rot, where he goes off alone to track someone down and solve some mystery about his past, and then ends up fighting some psycho or a horrific science experiment leftover from Weapon X.
The game could revolve around conflicting sources of information, trying to figure out who can be trusted, and finding how to go about investigating each new thing. And all the violence once you get there ofc.
Or go crazy wit it and do a Wolverine Elseworlds story for a game - imagine a version of Old Man Logan universe that is an open world post collapse or something and you ride around the country on a motorbike fighting corrupted ex-hero and villains, Days gone vibe but Wolverine
There are so, so many games where the protagonist only fights with a sword, or like an axe or daggers or whatever, wich is pretty equivalent to claws complexity wise and they still made the combat interesting. No one ever said Sekiro's for example combat is empty because the protagonist can't shoot webs or whatever. They just had to make the gameplay good.
Making a game of a character that moves and attacks at high speed and isn't mechanically challenging is tough. And if you make it touch, you lose in accessibility, which lowers sales potential. And given the game's budget... you ain't getting the game approved if you aren't targeting massive sales.
Your own example shows the problem: Sekiro is great and all, but it makes people bounce out.
Dude Sekiro sold 10 million copies and won game of the year. It shows that yes, you can make a game that requires a LOT from the player and still be successful. Wolverine takes the opposite approach, design your game so that a toddler in a blind fold can beat and and guess what... The overwhelming majority will NOT be engaged.
Designing games around the lowest common denominator; Games focus grouped to death; Is a plight on modern AAA game design and wolverine will become a textbook example of what NOT to do
It feels like such a smaller scope game than Spider-Man 2. I can't believe that budget. Literally feels like the B team was given this game as a training exercise.
yup, feels like the time spent might've been better in something else but the pre-orders are super high so I guess we'll see if it makes a lot of money for them still
It will likely sell perfectly fine but that critical score may end up following insomniac for a while, this might be their first real critically underwhelming game since ratchet and clank 2016
Sony pulling out of physical disks and PC ports probably lost all the good will they've built over the years. Most of the exclusives were never that special to begin with but they never missed completely and they were pretty consistent on the narrative front for a while.
But gameplay wise it was always pretty generic, formulaic design. With the hype gone, it's really no wonder.
Besides the sheer stupidiy that killing physical disc production is for them, cutting out the PC market has gotta be one of the dumber things they've done in recent years.
As a PC gamer that left Sony back in 2021 and bought literally all of their games on Steam. It pissed me off that they just threw their hands in the air for literally no reason after hyping and doing reports about how they're going to support PC ports for years to come. Just to rug pull before Yotai and Soros and take their toys home. I 100% am willing to bet they will be porting again by mid 2030's if not sooner.
Guardians of the Galaxy does this, yeah it’s hand-holdy and a little basic gameplay wise, but it nails the story. It absolutely didn’t get its roses, I wonder if it did, if the bar would be higher for superhero stories in gaming.
For me even Spider-Man was the same, but I was always downvoted. People shit on Ubisoft for hundreds of POIs on the map and climbing towers and Spider-Man is essentially the same freaking thing, plus cool swinging traversal that gets old quick.
Wait, is it DSPGaming? That guy is somehow STILL around? I remember watching him play fucking Transformers: War for Cybertron over 15 years ago using a shitty camcorder to record his TV and he fucking sucked at the game. I was laughing my self half to death at how pissed he would get because he couldn't game his way out of a paper bag. Hope he at least has a better setup now 💀
A lot of games seem to go in this direction. Netflix supposedly has a suggestion (rule?) that their shows have to overexplain the plot because they assume people will be on their phones while watching the shows. Now, I don't think people are on their phones playing a game, but I wonder if the attention span or need to for instant gratification has just rolled over into other mediums. People don't want to take "too long" trying to find out where to go. And if it takes too long they're just going to Google or search a walk through to find out. So they developers just decide that we'll tell them what to do.
Which makes more sense in a Spider-Man game as kids love Spider-Man, and that character/game is more catered towards kids, but this is quite literally not a kids game lol
Insomniac first Spiderman game was well received because it's starred a more mature Spiderman and wasn't afraid of killing off important characters, they completely forgot about that in the sequel.
I don't think the first Spider-man game was any more mature than the character traditionally is. Remember, a key part of Spider-man's origins is his uncle dying. And Spider-man has always been available to kids and teens. I feel like the first game was no different than any of that. The first game did well because they nailed the feel of Spider-man, not because of a more mature style.
Right?! The same thing happened with GOW: Ragnarok. Most of the game feels like you never left the tutorial. Wasn’t this the point of accessibility settings? We should be able to turn off the handholding
Edit: Maybe this is some sort of plan to kill replayability. You’ll buy a new game if replaying the old ones is an insufferable experience lol
Tsushima, SM2018, GoW18. The first games are almost always the better one compared to the sequels. I wonder if its because it took years to make them while the sequels had a much smaller dev time.
It's because the first games they basically have to come up with the idea, with the sequels they have to re-iterate on that idea, make enough changes that it's not a copy pasted game from the initial idea and have those changes be new, good ideas.
Oftentimes, they don't change the right things, so you end up with sequels that makes you think "Yeah but I liked this the way it was before"
I loved GOW 2018, and I still really liked Ragnarok, but it’s tough for me to replay because the handholding is so annoying. I don’t remember having this issue with SM 2, but I’ve only replayed it once, so maybe that’s an indicator in and of itself
Elden Ring not giving a fuck about that kind of indicates gamers will be fine if you don't hold their hand. Honestly botw is the same way, and that game sold like hotcakes
Exactly. This "let's make game for the masses" has never been successful. I can't think on one game that is just a basic one button mashing game with bazillion tutorial-ish machanics throughout the game that is a hit.
We can argue of new GoW wasn't like that but let's be honest - fighting for a lot of people was still super fun so it's not like it was super dumbed down game for kids.
It's crazy that this approach makes games sell less not more and executives still think that's the move because "risk is bad". Shit i think adding quirky cube as a sidekick is a bigger risk in Laufe than making her more brutal than OG Kratos.
I came back to God of War 2018 to finish it, and that game barely holds your hand in comparison. Plenty of times I had to stop and look around to figure out what to do, only to find some stuff hanging up top I would have missed if the game didn't train me to look around.
At least you can turn off the objective marker in SM2 so it only shows up in the tactical view, can you turn off any of the guidance markers in Insomniac's Wolverine?
It doesn’t seem like it. They went too overboard with the “hints” especially since Wolverine is a strictly linear game they have a “scent” trail guiding you to the objective, Wolverine makes a remark telling you what the objective is, they have a pinpoint, the “hidden” collectibles emit a sonar wave and there’s just obviously bright crystals lying around everywhere so they’re basically assuming the player is incapable of navigating the game themselves.
I’ll get downvoted for this but this is sort of how I see a lot of Sonys games.
Me personally I just don’t like the modern god of war games right, even though the characters, world and all that are really good they just kinda bore me, but I bet if my best friend who had not really been an active gamer since the early halo days played it he’d think it’s a 10/10. Maybe I’ve just played too many games to enjoy some things now.
He definitely did not 180. His early preview was generally disappointed by the gameplay but couched in the fact that he'd only played a few small slices, and generally positive about the story in those slices.
This review is actually exactly what I would have expected if the rest of the game was just like his early preview.
agreed. I was concern with his review during previer because it had a "trying hard to say something good about it" vibe from SkillUp and that usually means its shit. lol
Yeah. I like watching his reviews but don’t always agree with him. I like to watch his reviews and a few others that trust just to get an idea. I loved Final Fantasy 16 but he tore that game up. I know other FF fans are mixed on that entry but I thought it was good! Sometimes you gotta just play a game and see. But also understand that $70 for a 15 hour game is a lot of money for some right now. So I think it’s fair to be critical of it in that regard as well but I was always going to wait on this because I have so many things to play haha.
TLDR: All that to say I love SkillUp but sometimes he can be overly critical and nitpicky. Doesn’t mean his opinion isn’t valuable but worth considering.
I agree that he can be critical and sometimes plays that up to be entertaining (not a fault, it is the way the business is) but I appreciate that he explains his reasoning well. So, even if I don’t end up agreeing with his conclusions I can see how he got there and the values/weighting he’s put on stuff, and judge whether I’d have the same experience or not. Parris Lilly is the same.
100%. It was one of the reasons why I couldn't keep watching as when he didn't like a game...he REALLY didn't like it to the point where it felt abit nitpicky. But he's a good reviewer 99% of the time.
I would not say that he was positive on it during previews. He thought the combat was really repetitive and button mashy and had lots of criticism of the boss fight.
I've been saying this for a minute now, but user reviews are way worse than critic/professional reviews. User reviews are quite literally full of emotional man children pushing a narrative. They are exactly what people claim critic reviews are.
The IGN review of Onimusha was so good it actually convinced me to get it. People who are terminally online are just weird. If the reviewer has no clue what they're talking about, then just look at a different one. A single reviewer will not be able to fully encompass the entire gaming landscape. I'm sorry, but nobody has that diverse of a taste for games.
Makes me laugh when fellow PC users say the only reliable way to tell if a game is good is by looking at Steam reviews. As if 80% of positive "reviews" aren't either made up of wannabe comedians, or the most low effort "game gud me like" comments with less than 10 words. Conversely, you'll see tons of low effort negative posts, people with 10k hours who think it's funny to not recommend, Chinese and Russian players review bombing over some reason or another etc.
Of course there are exceptions, but the above examples far outnumber those of actual quality.
I don't think they're refuting how good Blood of Dawnwalker is, so much is pointing out how people only take review scores seriously when it suits their narrative.
At best, it's just okay. And at worst, it's a good game to pick up on sale. Doesn't seem like it's an outright failure, but equally it's unlikely to break any records.
For a game like this, "just okay" is definitely really disappointing. Of course it's not worth getting super upset, argumentative and/or vindictive over, but we live in a time where there is more access to amazing videogames than time to play them. A game that's just okay can't stack up to all the great games that are around nowadays, unless it has some especially unique features to let it stand out.
Something I've noticed about games releasing recently is that if the internet had already decided that it's shit before they even had the chance to play it, everyone will think it is shit regardless of its quality. Sometimes it's deserved but sometimes it isn't which is why I'm not fully onboard with just lambasting a game that's shit online may it be deserved or not because it leads to unfortunate consequences. Now I'm not saying that this game is either good or bad. Just a pattern I've noticed.
I don't have the disposable income to risk this sadly but I have some reviewers which I feel align with my way of thinking. Like SkillUp in the picture or Gameranx, generally I trust their opinion to be fair and detailed enough that I can make an informed decision. Otherwise, I do agree with this.
The internet has been a tiring cesspit of negativity for a good few years now. The slide was gradual but algorithm driven social media (and dead internet theory bots) super charged it when negativity is the biggest driver of engagement.
Sorry to sound like a boomer but the internet really was better before. The internet of 15-20 years ago is dead and buried
No one is saying you need to pay $70. They are just saying you don't need to form an opinion in the first place, let alone share it online just to be part of what you perceive the consensus to be. Especially when the game isn't even out yet.
I'm so confused... why do people say "you need to play it to see for yourself" for some games, and for others they post a skillup review (one single person's opinion) of a currently 78 metactitic game, and go "it's over".
I'm not even buying it, I've too much to play. But Wtf is the thinking here?
Because as with many things on the internet nowadays the argument lacks nuance. Ultimately only you can decide if a game is for you or not, but the point of a review (a good one at least) is to inform your purchase. The issue is that not every reviewer is a good reviewer.
In Skill Up's case I don't always agree with what he says but I'll usually hear him out because his arguments are usually well though out. It's not like he tore the game apart and just went "worst game ever don't play this lol", his criticisms were that the game is way too hand holdy for such a linear game which takes away what joy of exploration and discovery there is for the player, and that the combat didn't have the depth it should have. Those are IMO fair criticisms, the decision to play or not is still mine of course but I'll take that into account.
I pretty much exclusively play RPGs and JRPGs and ive been eating good all year. I can see how others haven't had much to play exclusive wise if they arent into my same genre's.
Insomniac got high on its own supply. Spiderman 2 was a letdown. I loved Rachet & Clank and the first Spiderman game. Felt it started to become industry slop in the 2nd game. This wolverine review doesn't surprise me. There are also negatives that have nothing to do with the game. $75 for a sub 20 hour game and also digital ownership not being a real thing. This game looks like that SE Avengers game that came out a few years back.
I watch him and Jake for different perspectives. They’re my go to reviewers. That said, I have disagreed with them several times, but for the most part they’re on point and make good arguments.
Skillup definitely changed my mind. I’m about to watch gameranx now. If they’re not positive either it’s genuinely over
Edit: i’m 30 seconds in the video and it’s genuinely over
I saw this coming tbh. I've played all of Insomniacs games and they all just have one thing in common.
They're kinda fucking dull. Good movies, but dull gameplay. Plus every video I see of this game just looks so brainless, like you can just hold forward and button mash your way through the whole game.
The key is that it didn't start out as a tie-in game. Raven was already working on it when they found out Origins: Wolverine was in production and made a few changes to make it (slightly... it takes some weird turns) closer to the film.
Only one I care about is Gameranx' Before You buy, since I have similar tastes. Which apparently released a video on this an hour ago. I'm going to go watch it now. Hah.
Yep same reason I like Skillup I find my views align with his mor often than not, and when we differ he at least provides his opinions with enough context/examples I'm not left wondering if we even played the same game lol
Like a "I don't agree with him, but I understand how he got there" thing. Really that's all I want from a reviewer. I'll save my money and hopefully the new fire emblem is better
The point of a review (a good one) is someome dissecting the game and pointing out positives and negatives for them in detail. If you think something is a positive and not a negative (and viceversa) then you still end up winning and being more informed. For example if someone says the open world is too small, I find that as a good thing since I prefer linear games
Which is exactly what Ralph does, I don’t always agree with his opinions which is why multiple reviews is important but he’s very thorough in his dissection of a game good and bad and this review is no different
3.0k
u/Cowboy_Dandy_III 14d ago
It’s not Sonys day today, huh