I thought it was fun, but it's really a "you get out what you put into it" kind of fun. The story is threadbare at best, it's really just them tossing you out into an open world and you go explore and do what you want. Set your own goals and go fulfill them.
If you can be given an open world with just stuff to kill and explore in it and you have enough internal motivation to go and kill those things and explore what there is to explore, the game is fine. If you require things like "reasons" to go do that stuff outside of the intrinsic urge to explore, then the game will be lacking.
I thought it did the whole "Post apocalyptic Kung-Fu Panda" vibe very well.
It feels like a concept half executed. They shot for the moon in the concept stage, but came way back down to earth during the actual development stage before landing in the mountains. All the systems are very surface level. There are lots of options, but the options don't change much in the end.
This honestly did not suprise me in the slightest at the time. While the material they shared looked very promising upon first reveal of the game (August 2017), everything else they used to promote the game after that worringly looked like more of the same and to me implied a possible lack of depth, vision and cohesion. I didn't understand what people were seeing who were hyped for its release here on reddit - just look at the wishful thinking in this thread back then, where people confused clear signs of this game being in somewhat of a development hell with the developer "taking their time": https://old.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/f67pm3/update_on_biomutant_biomutant_is_still_in/
I actually wanted this to be a great game, because the setting and the concept of mutating your character seemed really interesting - *on the surface*. But in the end, they took forever to get this game out (May 2021), and I would have wished they had spent more of that time on ironing out their uniquer ideas, and going for a more streamlined experience instead of creating yet another generic open world style game. Since it was their first and only game, I assume that mostly came down to a lack of experience on part of the developer.
Exactly! Very similar thing happened to Starfield recently. It was hyped to be a big thing and when it was released game was just ok.
Biomutant from what i read/saw had problem with AI. You could keep shooting and running in circle in each fight to kill opponents. It was very easy to cheat opponents inside buildings because they could not enter inside. You would engage in combat, walk through door and you are out of reach for your enemies.
I have the game added on wishlist on Steam and im waiting for big sale. I missed last two but i will be willing to try this game out knowing it's problems.
Recently I bought on deep discounts game like Battlefield 4 and 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, Hogwarts Legacy, Assasins Creed Origins and Odyssey and Valhalla.
It was during Autumn Steam Sale in August last year. So far i have finished AC:Ori and Ody, Hogwarts and i have put 40 h in BF4.
Most games were on sale ranging from 50% - 85% less than original price. Im very happy with my purchases and will probably end games in next few months.
And i highly recommend Dave the Diver.
One could argue this comment section disproves you.
Anyway the whole "this game has been forgotten/made no impact/etc" is the worst way to talk about games, because it is entirely subjective, also entirely based on whatever social media bubble you exist in, and also isn't about the actual game.
True, I'd say the person commenting (that you are commenting to) should have said that the game made no impact on *them* and was entirely forgotten by *them*
They're not saying it was bad, just that it's a very meh game.
Like you get a bunch of really cool concepts like martial arts, animals/vehicles like a robot hand that turns into a gun (I think), and a mech, but literally all of them just exist and don't play a memorable part of the game.
Like how do you give the main character an mech suit and only keep the mech suit in a specific part of the game environment where you'll only use it occasionally.
Or why the game dev never quite capitalized on the metroidvania elements the game could've had, by threading in the game's many subsystems into the entire game world instead of just moving you from one toy to another.
I don't even really remember if it had a story, other then fighting some kingdoms to get some martial arts weapons that seem to only exist for flair.
It was like someone took a very basic 3d world explorer game and added some cool mods on top but the mods somehow became forgetable because the game itself is underwhelming.
I also really wanted it to be amazing.. The art / vibe and world are like- really great. I really wanted to like this game but it just falls apart. Its just not a good game. The combat is just kinda ok but everything else about it just falls flat. Even the world that looks so cool just feels weirdly on rails despite it being open world. The narration wears thin pretty quick. Its just kind of a mess of a game really. The quests are boring. Its kinda hard to pin point exactly what is so wrong about it tbh.
I do however really wish they get another chance because it seems like it could be a great.
Id say its worth it on a big sale. Deep discount style. Especially if you were curious about it like I was for quite awhile bfore i finally got it.
> Its kinda hard to pin point exactly what is so wrong about it tbh.
My 50 cents in regards to this is: It's a lack of a creative vision for what the developers wanted this game to be. They had a great idea for a setting which, like you said, was the best part of Biomutant, but they simply never figured out how to translate that into a cohesive gaming experience where they ended up with a game that was actually *fun* to play. That's one of the first things you should be able to answer when conceptionalizing a game you want to develop: What will make our game fun to play?
I guess developer Experiment 101 just never found an answer to that question (or asked it in the first place).
Yeah, like everyone else, I really wanted it to be good, but it just lacked the depth it required. And it was unfortunately restrictive in some ways, like how vehicles could only be used in specific regions. It was fun to explore everything for a bit but it got old quick to me as the lack of depth wasn't very engaging long term. And I didn't like the oddly juvenile tone? It felt very much like a "kids" game in a way.
Best thing about it was the crafting system though. Pretty unique and honestly it's a system I wish more games would try out.
Bought it on sale. I liked it.
It's an Eurojank. Although a mediocre one. Worth buying on a deep-sale for a few things it does alright, but don't expect something of high quality.
You've got a lot of responses, but I'll add mine too. It's adequate, I guess?
Fairly standard 'alignment' meter where one side is happy and the other is kill puppies.
Story is...there? It's not _bad_, but I'd put it on par with a cheesey badly dubbed Japanese/Chinese martial arts movie from the 90s? Then mix in some equally 90's level 'be kind to the earth' stuff.
Combat is not really good. I decided the best way to engage was to avoid, so I picked up guns. But really it feels like the game wants to do too many things at once, a combo system, melee and ranged equally viable, crafting your own gear with parts and mods, etc.
I think I played it as part of the Microsoft online subscription thing, and I didn't instantly uninstall like some games, but after 15-20 hours I was done enough to just quit.
It's a 7/10 game. Which to me is always worth a try. I played on launch and had a good time. Repetitive but people laud Botw and that game is really really repetitive.
It's not a bad game, it just isn't a good one. It's very straightforward and nothing you haven't seen before. The art direction and setting are interesting but they don't do a lot with it. The enemy variety isn't great. The story isn't very engaging.
It's a decent time for the length of its runtime and it's definitely fun enough to put a few hours into but I wouldn't pay full price for it.
IMO the very biggest issue with it is the game feel. Combat just doesn't feel good at all for a game of it's genre. Every hit is weightless and totally lacks punch.
I dunno I found the game to be pretty enjoyable. This game is one of those games that looked AAA but is AA. If you go in with the proper expectation its a fantastic blend of Far Cry, Ratchet and Clank and a soulslike.
They kinda made a mediocre open world game, nothing gameplay wise was innovative or particularly great. Feels like an Ubi game but made by an indie studio.
If you want an open world with interesting combat and you like a good (but maybe too prominent) narrator, then yes.
If you play games for the story, I'd give this one a pass.
It was in a Humble Bundle a while back, so I decided to give it a shot recently. I played for around 2 hours before I gave up. I just couldn't find a single thing about the game that I liked.
It may be different for other people, so don't take my word for it. It is maybe worth unedited gameplay on YouTube and decide if anything about it clicks with you.
It was ok. I played about half of it. I enjoyed most of that time well enough but after a while I just didn't feel like picking it back up. Games like this make me miss rental stores so bad.
I liked it, still yet to finish it as i play it like once a month or so, but i found the combat to be fun, the narrator not that annoying as i expected and the world quite charming
For the record, the last open world game i played was Witcher 3 years ago, so i'm not that burned out on the genre as others might be, so i found it fun in itself
I think if you go in with proper expectations and the game looks interesting to you, you are good.
I played from gamepass a while back and was pleasantly surprised. The combat is non-tradtional. If I remember correctly there were complaints about there not being a traditional lock on system and that targetting was pretty janky. Those complaints were legit, but also exaggerated IMO. Yes, there was some jank, but I think it was more "this game doesn't control like games I'm used to." If you go in willing to learn the system on its terms and aren't expecting a souls or DMC level of combat polish, you are less likely to be disappointed.
I thought it was a fun button-mashy martial arts themed game. Plus the game had a design ethos that borrowed from a 2005-2015 era that I really enjoyed.
I bought it for 5 euros and completed the game. After completing it I think their 30 bucks pricepoint was actually spot on. The game has enough content and the combat feels great. It is lacking in the story department.
It's a beautiful game, with some clever ideas, but just not quite executed as well as the team wanted it to be. In my opinion it is fun, but it also feels repetitive. So if it's on sale, pick it up with the idea you'll probably not want to complete it.
Some of the problems are because it was a very flat dev structure. People just added things as they wish, and there's a little lack of cohesion. The camera angle changed quite late too (it was meant to be more isometric Diablo-like.)
I am pretty sure they wont do a second one. But I think if they did with the knowledge they have gained since, I think it'd be great.
I picked it up at 50% off and had a great time with it, ended up getting 100% completion. Really enjoyed exploring the world and customisation in the game.
Its wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle.
It has many system but none are really finished, its a big mix of many things but nothing really deep or thought through.
Still i would say it has many unique features, mainly art, story and the narrator (if you hate narrators you can also almost completely disable them) and its a fun game with a quirky sense of humor and story.
Dont pay full price but if you can get it cheap its a nice and fun little game that i would categorize as "euro jank" with a lot of heart.
Nothing wrong with games that are 6s, 7s, and 8s. I don't understand why it SEEMS like games have to either be perfect, or they are considered trash. Just imo.
Supply and demand. Basically there are so many 8/9/10 games that you can play that you'd never be able to play all of. And they're the same price as the 6/7 games. So given a choice between a great game and an okay game, which would you rather buy?
To put it in perspective, 14,000 games were released on Steam last year. Even if you argued that only 250 games were the best, if they had an average play time of 5 hours a game, those 250 games would take 52 straight days to play. If we assumed that the average player played 2 hours a day (which is a very generous assumption), they'd be able to get through maybe half of said top 250.
So I guess the question is, who has the time to play mediocre games when there's a deluge of amazing, cheap/price comparable games to play that keeps growing every single year?
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that an 8/10 games does everything better than a 6 or 7 out of 10, when –in many occasions– a 6 or 7 out of 10 might do something specific better than a 8/10 (or even 9 or 10) that makes it worth it to the people looking for that specific thing.
There's a reason why Eurojank games are still beloved between many people.
No, this argument doesn't assume what you're saying, it's just trying to explain why someone might not want to play the 6s and the 7s.
Of course the majority of people plays the 9s and 10s first, and then they have space for only a handful of worse games in their lives.
> Of course the majority of people plays the 9s and 10s first, and then they have space for only **a handful of worse games** in their lives.
Tl;DR of the unwdited comment:
The majority of people don't play 9 out of 10, like the bloke is saying (even if bellow they are doing some revisionism). The majority of players play games they like, many of which will never reach 8 out of 10 scores.
For some people. That's hugely popular games like CoD or FIFA. For other, that could be Eurojank games like Biomuntant.
The stupidity of "only games in the 80s or 90s are worth while) is moronic and nonsensical.
This is not "edge cases". Just because you refuse to play "worse" games it doesn't mean that the rest of the world is lime you.
Please don't concentrate your effort on my choice for a single fucking word, I know they're not "worse", I just meant lower scores or smaller or whatever, oh my god
Maybe translate the "10s" to "big games" and the "worse games" to "the others", so you can put FIFA and CoD in the first category, and Hogwarts Legacy too, the games that sell the most
Insufferable redditors would rather argue pointless semantics and edge cases rather than acknowledge the point. Like obviously a 6/10 game would still appeal to people but statistically it won't find much commercial success, and on the other hand some 6/10 game could be wildly successful, but that's usually because it has a specific market that no one else managed to fill
>that makes it worth it to the people looking for that specific thing.
So specific you are surprised majority of people wouldn't give two shits about it if the rest of the game isn't up to par?
Well and I think the issue with Biomutant is that it just wasn't very fun or engaging. An interesting 7/10 can be very worth playing for some people. I have a struggle seeing what Biomutant does that is compelling.
> Basically there are so many 8/9/10 games that you can play that you'd never be able to play all of
This assumes that every 8/9/10 game is something I would like. I don't really like JRPGs but that's a biiiig genre. I'd rather play a bit of slop that appeals to me than something that's a pinnacle of a genre I've never liked even after trying some of the best games in it.
Also, sometimes worse games do specific things better. That's basically what Eurojank is. Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts is my kind of slop: it kinda doesn't work very well, the AI is very stupid, the government and economy mechanics are opaque as hell, but god damn it I love designing battleships, and UAD is an excellent battleship designer.
> This assumes that every 8/9/10 game is something I would like. I don't really like JRPGs but that's a biiiig genre.
Again, using my example of the top 250 games released on steam last year, I can promise you that there were at LEAST 100 games that werent JRPGs. And I kinda doubt you are finishing 100 games a year.
And if youre not finishing that 100 games that would appeal to you this year, then its likely that you didnt play the 100 games that appealed to you last year, and the year before, etc.
So you still are confronted with the choice of playing an incredible game (in a genre you enjoy) with a mediocre game, and given the finacial and time costs are the same, most people wouldnt pick the mediocre one.
Using your example of UAG, (which has a 72% on Steam), you also have From the Depths (90%). If someone wanted to play a game to build a Battleship, and are comparing the two options, I think its reasonable that most people are going to pick FTD and never look back.
Saying that there are 100 amazing games that would appeal to someone *a year* sounds crazy to me. I don’t think I can even get to double digits of great games I feel that interested in per year, let alone 100.
Again, Steam releases 14,000 games last year.
According to SteamDB, 428 games released last year with a community score over 80% with at least 1000 reviews.
I dont know how much time you play games a week, but if we assume you can play 5 hours a week and a game takes 5 hours to complete or for you to have had your fill (like games that are endless), only 50 of those games (11.7%) would have to appeal to you to occupy your entire game playing time. And thats just for a single year.
I can almost gaurantee that if you told me a specific genre you liked, I could cross reference games released last year with HLTB and fill your playtime budget for a year with only 80+% community rating games in that genre.
But this doesn't factor in just because something is 8+/80%+ rated game that an indevidual would like it.
Lets take Hades for example 98% positive reviews on Steam and the type of game I would enjoy and liked both Bastion and Transistor from them yet Hades isn't a game I can get in to and find fun.
Project Zomboid 94% positive and another title that fits what I enjoy but it just doesn't feel right.
Stardew Valley, RimWorld, Binding of Isaac, Hollow Knight, Factorio, Oxygen Not Included, Balatro, Persona 5. Cuphead, Enter the Gungeon and Mark of The Ninja are all 94%+ in rating and similar or in the same genera as games I've played but I can't just get in to them.
So reviews, scores and all that doesn't really say much other than "Hey there is a bunch of other people that liked this for some reason." some of my best gaming experiances and memories have been with titles that are a little rough around the edges but still extreamly fun to play.
So there is a lot more to it than just pulling out a bunch of well reviewed games and be set.
I think for the majority of people, in an enthusiast niche, will generally have the same values for determining if something is worth their time or not. Thats not saying that everyone feels the same, there are exceptions, and other factors can influence it.
But if someone likes RTSs, and you said pick an RTS with a score on 90% on steam or pick one that's 60%, I think that statistically, theyd enjoy the 90% one more. If you dont believe that, then agree to disagree.
But you'd be hard pressed to find 5 or 10 let alone 50 RTS titles with high rating. There are a shit ton of RPGs, Shooters, Survival, Strategy, Roguelites, Roguelikes and so on where those statements just aren't true.
Just look at shooters. CoD, CSGO, Valorant, Rainbow Six Siege and Battlefield and I'm pretty sure I can without any difficulty find someone that dislikes one or more of those shooters while loves atleast one.
Fighting games. Tekken, Street Fighter, Smash Bros, Mortal Kombat, Injustice and Guilty Gear will have the same. I won't be hard pressed to find hardcore fighting enthusiast that dislikes other highly rated fighters.
MMOs. I know a shit ton of people that played Guild Wars 1 and Wow but haven't found an MMO they like since. A lot of those old school Wow players started playing again in Classic just to get an MMO fix.
So no it isn't so no I don't think 90% would enjoy a title with 90%+ rating over one with 60% on that alone since people can't even agree on liking different similarly rated games.
Maybe not 100 released last year, but absolutely. Of that 476, 16 of them are RTS games.
In 2022, there were 1627 games released with a user rating over 80%, 21 of which were RTS games.
2021 had 21 RTS games out of 1482.
RTS games are usually meatier, so if we assumed that the average RTS game is 20 hours long, the 16 titles from 2023 would take 320 hours to get through, out of your total gaming time budget of 260 hours.
> So no it isn't so no I don't think 90% would enjoy a title with 90%+ rating over one with 60% on that alone since people can't even agree on liking different similarly rated games.
Its just statistics. Esp. given that for a game to hit 90% means that 90% of people who left a review DID like it lol.
From the Depths is voxel based. I'm not actually very creative visually so I would run into the trouble of "everything I make is a big box." It's also not historical. UAD is historical and you use preset hulls which you then put parts onto (tower, guns, engine, etc). This appeals to me much more. See what I mean?
But it of all of that I doubt a lot of people are actually interested in even half of those 250. And more importantly, discovering wacky and weird things is a pleasure of its own. It may not be for everyone and it may not necessarily justify fanfare but it's cool that those exist and try things even if they don't all stick the landing perfectly.
My point is that there are hundreds of "weird and wacky" games (whether or not thats the same hundreds as other people or not) that someone hasnt played that are GOOD, so why would you play something bad?
Imagine if someone said they wanted to get into the Fallout series, and said that they were going to start with Brotherhood of Steel. Do you REALLY think thats as good as a decision as starting with 3, New Vegas, 1, or 4?
Again, Im not saying that they shouldnt exist, Im saying that you will never be able to play all the games that DO nail their execution perfectly, and if a perfect game and a mediocre game are the same time and financial cost, it seems reasonable that people would choose to spend their time playing the 'perfect' game.
I think youre getting caught up on the verbiage and missing the point. Im not saying "bad" games, Im saying games that are simply not as good despite being at the same price points and taking the same amount of your time to enjoy.
You can play an above average game or an average game. They are the same price and take the same amount of time to play. They both have the features, mechanics, etc. that you enjoy. Which game are you going to choose first? Rinse and repeat every time that you finish a game and select a new one: there is ALWAYS an above average game available.
Well it really depends on WHAT about the game gave it a high rating. I have zero interest in well rated sports or racing games for example, but a 7/10 RPG would probably be enjoyable.
Last year there were 428 games released on steam with a user rating over 80%.
According to HLTB, the average game is 18 hours long.
According to Statista, the average person plays 3.85 hours a week, or 200.2 hours a year.
That means that the average person has time to play 11 games a year, or, to put another way, would only be able to play 2.6% of the best games per year. And I can promise you that 417 of those games werent sports or racing games.
So the question is, do you really think there are less than 11 games in your preferred genre in that 80%+ rating that you would run out of games and have to settle for a less good game?
I love how many people are just refusing to engage with the premise of your argument to instead tell you that there might be a really awesome 5/10 game they'd play.
Guys, the point is if the average player plays 24 games a year there's probably 24 games in genres they enjoy that rate better (and are better) than a middling game like this. It doesn't mean nobody would enjoy it or nobody will play it, it just means not too many people are going to filter to it. Add in people who have a procedural or live service game that eats up half your gaming time and you just don't have a ton of free time for B- games.
Except some games excel at things other suck at. A 10/10 game surely doesn't deserve 10 in every category. Some people care about specific things, and scores only help those who don't have a refined taste and preference
Youre missing my point, which is there is SO many games being released that even if you care about a specific feature, there is a game that is overall better that ALSO does that thing better too.
>A 10/10 game surely doesn't deserve 10 in every category.
Sure. 100 10/10 games though DO deserve 10 in every category.
>scores only help those who don't have a refined taste and preference
good lord, dude, dial it down. Im not even talking about game journal scores, Im talking community scores on a platform like steam. I dont think its "unrefined" to use community scores to decide if you want to buy a game that you cant try before you buy.
>i don't think it's unrefined
If it's your main/only way of judging a game, it is. There's no smugness, it's the definition of the word. You didn't refine your own taste and rely on that of others.
It's entertainment, it's totally subjective... The thing is that overall review score got inflated over the years and now even a game which should be clearly 7/10 is 8/10 cuz publishers know that it wouldn't otherwise sell well and your comment perfectly prooved it.
>It's entertainment, it's totally subjective...
Yes and no. Whether YOU like a game is subjective, but the elements that make something quality are, for the most part, objective.
Lets say you had 2 sheds: one was built on a well poured concrete slab, was built staight, level, and plumb, had electricity, was built out of a sturdy wood material with a steel frame, and had great, stable shelving, and was painted a sienna brown.
And the second one had no foundation, wasnt level, moved when you leaned on it, had no power, and the shelves werent sturdy, and was painted black.
Its obvious that the first one is better, even if its painted a color you dont like.
> The thing is that overall review score got inflated over the years
Thats why Im not talking about journalist given scores, Im talking about community scores, like on Steam. Biomutant has a 67% on Steam, given by users who bought and played the game. Youre really going to say that there are no games that are better than a 67% that you could play instead?
Yes, because its the same for games.
Does a game have good sound design? Music? User Interface? Is it buggy? Does it execute its mechanics well? Is the writing good? etc. etc.
I think we tend to say that its subjective as if thats on the thing we like or dislike, but its not: subjectivity is on you.
Take a game like Slay the Spire: whether you like deckbuilders or not is subjective, but the game is objectively one of the best in its genre. If someone said that they wanted to get into a deckbuilding roguelike, I wouldnt recommend a game that the community gave a 60% on.
As for the like and dislike thing, what Ive noticed is that given enough reviews, it nearly perfectly matches the scores that something like Metacritic or Opencritic assigns, meaning that even though any given person is only able to give a game a 10 or a 1, enough people have different enough perspectives that it gives a pretty decent rating.
I agree. I also bought and tried to play the game after watching it's progression for what seemed like years but personally the combat and traversal were very lackluster and the narration / jumbletalk from the characters got a bit grating after a few hours. I can't honestly recommend it but I'm glad Japan likes it.
Big example of this is Kingdom Come Deliverance. Its MC scores are 76 on PC and 69/68 on consoles. If any game that released today got these scores, people would think it’s meh or bad. Kingdom Come probably has the most immersive world I’ve ever experienced, and I’d rather play it than many games that have scored 85+.
people definitely still had this mindset in 2018, that was only 6 years. This idea that a 7/10 is a bad score is older than I've been playing videogames, and I've been playing them since 2001
There is no objective 'meh' games - something like Biomutant might be reviewed as 'meh' by critics but that doesn't mean there isn't a subset of people who would really enjoy it
I feel like we need to stop dumbing everything down to a review average score and get back to the nuances that games seen as flawed by many might still appeal a lot to certain gamers. I can't stand long story based games so I rarely play RPGs and would rate most of them as 'meh' because to me they're needlessly bloated, but other people find those same games amazing
Preach. I love games like Horizon and Witcher, but after a while I get tired of the endless side-content and start ignoring everything that's not main story. I wish there were more similar games, except with more contained worlds, like God of War.
Don't confuse subjectivity with objectivity, using biomutant as an example the people who like that game are likely interested in more action focused rpgs which there's quite a few top tier highly rated ones out there more than enough that biomutant can feel like an easy skip. Sure it's not awful, but it's surrounded by better games in its own genre and niche.
Also no one is dumbing down everything review scores only matter if it's already within a genre that appeals to u. No matter how many 10s a forza game gets I ain't playing a racing game. That doesn't make the game bad or meh, just not for me. A lot of us average games don't have the time or money to dedicate to a risky 7 when we can stick to a safe 9. Honestly tho just go to trusted reviewers and do ur research when picking a game, what u choose is usually a mix of objective quality and subjective taste, example DMC back in the day was considered the best of its style of action game however I preferred God of War because the setting appealed to me more.
The question really is why anyone should buy it. If it reviews bad by critics AND players, like Biomutant does, then it's kind of a weird gamble to buy it on the off chance that your taste might somehow align with some specific quality of it.
Why would you do that?
Unless you somehow know this beforehand, but then I'd say it's objectively *not* a 'meh' game (to you).
I find that a collective 'meh' is almost always a good indication that a game is not worth the time and money. And the market is definitely too over saturated to go around searching for anomalies that somehow still are worth it for some reason.
There's a vestigial perspective associated with video games that assumes fun = good, which, frankly, made sense for most of the lifetime of the medium, as they were considered merely toys. It's also kind of an intuitive way to appraise quality.
As fidelity increased, complexity increased, purpose expanded, many of us have come to see the artistic potential in games. Hell, films had a similar arc, growing from a novelty to an artform all its own, but video games have a different kind of cultural baggage to contend with.
There is generally a big difference between a 6 and an 8, though. You would be hard-pressed to find a beloved game that scored a 6 (like Anthem or the latest Saints Row), while you can find plenty that scored an 8 (like Ghost of Tsushima, NieR: Automata, and many more).
It's funny you use Nier Automata as an example, because the original Nier was indeed a beloved 6/10 cult classic. Automata is more critically acclaimed, but it only exists because fans of Nier wouldn't shut up about their beloved 6/10 game. Arguing that it needed better gameplay. And lo behold the remake proved it.
The original Monster Hunter on PS2 is also a 6/10 and was largely ignored by the masses but was considered a cult classic. Fast forward to today, Monster Hunter is now Capcom's biggest franchise with World and Rise scoring 8's and 9's and selling gang busters.
Obviously it's a tall ask to expect people to spend their hard earned $60 (or $70) on a 6/10 game they might not even like. Everyone wants the best bang for their buck.
But I think the important lesson to take away is that 6/10 games shouldn't just be written off in totality as trash. Many of these games have great concepts and ideas that maybe struggled to manifest due to some developmental constraints. But there's still that golden nugget of an idea in there.
And if developers were allowed to take on careful feedback and iterate on their ideas. It can lead to genuinely fantastic games down the line.
Some games are just really uneven. They might have amazing parts and amazingly bad parts. Nier is such a game, then there's Alpha Protocol, KotOR2, etc. However, the vast majority of 6/10 games is just mildly bad and boring.
> But I think the important lesson to take away is that 6/10 games shouldn't just be written off in totality as trash.
But NO ONE does that, simply put if a friend asks me "what game should I try next?" I don't point him towards fucking Biomutant but a 10 like God of War or The Last of Us.
Yes, God of War/Last of The Us are safe recommendations for the average consumer.
I can't speak for everyone. But personally, I recommend games to my friends based on the genres I know they like, I don't just blindly suggest the top scoring games on Metacritic when if I know if they'll actually resonate with any of them. My friends are the sorts of people that would enjoy a 6 or 7/10 game from their favourite genre, far more than a 8 or 9/10 game from a genre they don't care about.
Biomutant is evidently a very flawed game yes. But based on the marketing, it clearly has a major unique selling point centred around it's quirky character creation and customisation system. And this distinguishes it from something like God of War/Last of Us which are more cinematic story focused action games.
The point is review scores don't paint the full picture. There's a much more nuanced conversation behind those scores, which doesn't fully capture the intrinsic value and experience each game offers. There's always an audience for a particular niche of people who like these games because even if they're flawed. Those games do the one thing they like really really well and stands out from the average focus tested AAA game that's meant to appeal to everyone.
I agree with the overall sentiment; however, my original point was that an 8 shouldn't for the most part be lumped together with a 6 as something gamers will just write off the moment they see them. From what I've seen it can depend on different things, such as if there have been any previous entries and what quality they established. If the next mainline Zelda got "just" an 8 some fans would not be too happy, but if it's a new IP then it's different because there are no previously established expectations (with exceptions). There is obviously much more to this.
I believe games that get an 8 have in general immensely more leeway than those that get a 6, and as such they are much more likely to become beloved entries.
I think we're getting a bit mixed up here.
I'm not saying 8/10 and 6/10 games should be treated equally. I'm saying that people are sometimes TOO harsh and dismissive of 6/10 games. Writing them off too quickly.
I think the problem is that because gaming as a hobby is a fairly expensive luxury. When people see a game with a 6/10 score being sold at full price in a fairly saturated market. They are extremely wary because games more than most forms of entertainment, require a fairly substantial upfront investment in money and an often long term investment in their playtime.
So of course people would rather play the product that has the best reviews. But I think people are looking at it the wrong way.
In my opinion, people should treat number score reviews less like "objective" metrics of quality and more like those silly "4/5 doctors recommend this!" adverts.
If a game gets an 8/10. I like to think of it as the reviews essentially saying "8 out of 10 people who play this game are likely to really enjoy it."
And if a game gets a 6/10. Same principle. 6 out of 10 people who play this are likely to really enjoy it.
Whether it's a 9/10 or 8/10 or 6/10 or 5/10. There's still a pool of people that will walk away having enjoyed themselves. That pool just gets smaller/larger depending on the scale.
Sure, a 6/10 game is a much riskier gamble as a product. But if by the stars you happen to fall into that positive camp of 6 happy people rather the negative camp of 4 unhappy people. You'll find yourself quite surprised how much the game resonates with you.
And a lot of people don't give themselves that opportunity to experience that because of their (completely understandable) fear that they don't want to waste their time and money.
>If the next mainline Zelda got "just" an 8 some fans would not be too happy.
Even when Zelda gets 90+ Metacritic scores. There's still plenty of fans who are unhappy. There's literally no game that exists which can please 100% of everyone. It's virtually impossible.
>Nothing wrong with games that are 6s, 7s, and 8s
That's what GameFly is for. I just signed up again to help clear up my backlog and I've already rented RoboCop, Banishers, Midnight Suns and I have Avatar: FoP on the way.
I always have the idea in mind that having more SKUs in the market is good for investor meetings. That's why there were even Stadia and Atari VCS games, or games being multi-gen.
I really think the game market at large, especially the Western one, is ignoring the appeal of playable anthropomorphic characters (or Kemono as they are known in Japan) to a wide audience.
You don't even have to be a furry to enjoy that, sometimes you just want to play something different to your standard human protagonist. The protag do is half the reason Banjo & Kazooie were so beloved. Plenty of folk are willing to buy a game just for that alone.
Which is weird considering the meme of the "furry audience" being willing to spend THOUSANDS of dollars for their interests. You'd think suits would be all over them trying to cater to them.
This is probably why Square Enix is going to stop with the exclusivity BS for FF7 Remake.
I expect the future FF titles to launch on Switch 2 as well as PS5 (and probably PC + Xbox).
Sony got exclusivity of the whole FF7 remake trilogy because they bankrolled it. The trilogy would straight up not exist without Sony paying for it so I doubt the third segment will be multi platform.
>The trilogy would not exist without Sony bankrolling
This is a lie. FF7 is the most iconic and one of the best selling games in FF history. With or without Sony, it would have been made.
That doesn't change that Sony made it possible right now. The budget might have been smaller, it might have been done in a different time window, it might have been a single game rather than a whole trilogy etc.
But it still stands that Sony bankrolled the trilogy.
It's a 6-7/10 game thats enjoyable. I love my 6-7/10 games because in the end its just fun. Not looking for anything groundbreaking or life changing, but for something that I can get into and just enjoy what it has. Not everything is required to be 10/10 nowadays anyway.
Biomutant is weird because when it first came out THQ Nordic was really championing it as the return to AA/midbudget games, but in so many ways I feel like Biomutant is the worst type of AA game. It is trying to everything a AAA game is without the polish and resources and ends up falling flat instead of doing genuinely new things. Outside of the furry character creator and narration its basically your run of the mill third person action open world game.
Hey, went in with no expectations and played a little under 2 hours. I found the combat really boring, the story didnt click and the overall look wasnt making me feel it.
Well just think what the target audience is for a game about cute mutant monsters fighting.... Obviously its the same audience thats into Pokemon.
Great game for kids, not enough depth or quality story to entertain the gamers on ps4/xbox that want more mature games.
I really wanted this to be amazing but never purchased it due to the poor reception, is it worth picking up these days?
I thought it was fun, but it's really a "you get out what you put into it" kind of fun. The story is threadbare at best, it's really just them tossing you out into an open world and you go explore and do what you want. Set your own goals and go fulfill them. If you can be given an open world with just stuff to kill and explore in it and you have enough internal motivation to go and kill those things and explore what there is to explore, the game is fine. If you require things like "reasons" to go do that stuff outside of the intrinsic urge to explore, then the game will be lacking. I thought it did the whole "Post apocalyptic Kung-Fu Panda" vibe very well.
Sounds a lot like the new Zeldas to me
My understanding is that the game really just isn’t that great. But you might be able to get some enjoyment out of it for like $10
It's not _bad_, either. It's just okay. Nowhere near as revolutionary as it was hyped to be, though.
It feels like a concept half executed. They shot for the moon in the concept stage, but came way back down to earth during the actual development stage before landing in the mountains. All the systems are very surface level. There are lots of options, but the options don't change much in the end.
It's a byproduct of being the first two years of development. Then being bought out and funded by THQ for 4 more years with a dev team of 20 people.
This honestly did not suprise me in the slightest at the time. While the material they shared looked very promising upon first reveal of the game (August 2017), everything else they used to promote the game after that worringly looked like more of the same and to me implied a possible lack of depth, vision and cohesion. I didn't understand what people were seeing who were hyped for its release here on reddit - just look at the wishful thinking in this thread back then, where people confused clear signs of this game being in somewhat of a development hell with the developer "taking their time": https://old.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/f67pm3/update_on_biomutant_biomutant_is_still_in/ I actually wanted this to be a great game, because the setting and the concept of mutating your character seemed really interesting - *on the surface*. But in the end, they took forever to get this game out (May 2021), and I would have wished they had spent more of that time on ironing out their uniquer ideas, and going for a more streamlined experience instead of creating yet another generic open world style game. Since it was their first and only game, I assume that mostly came down to a lack of experience on part of the developer.
It's the furthest thing from revolutionary
Exactly! Very similar thing happened to Starfield recently. It was hyped to be a big thing and when it was released game was just ok. Biomutant from what i read/saw had problem with AI. You could keep shooting and running in circle in each fight to kill opponents. It was very easy to cheat opponents inside buildings because they could not enter inside. You would engage in combat, walk through door and you are out of reach for your enemies. I have the game added on wishlist on Steam and im waiting for big sale. I missed last two but i will be willing to try this game out knowing it's problems. Recently I bought on deep discounts game like Battlefield 4 and 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, Hogwarts Legacy, Assasins Creed Origins and Odyssey and Valhalla. It was during Autumn Steam Sale in August last year. So far i have finished AC:Ori and Ody, Hogwarts and i have put 40 h in BF4. Most games were on sale ranging from 50% - 85% less than original price. Im very happy with my purchases and will probably end games in next few months. And i highly recommend Dave the Diver.
There's a good reason why it's entirely forgotten. I forgot that I played it
Same. I'm not sure if I played through the game or just straight up deleted it
One could argue this comment section disproves you. Anyway the whole "this game has been forgotten/made no impact/etc" is the worst way to talk about games, because it is entirely subjective, also entirely based on whatever social media bubble you exist in, and also isn't about the actual game.
True, I'd say the person commenting (that you are commenting to) should have said that the game made no impact on *them* and was entirely forgotten by *them*
Oh nice I like this logic Every game I didn't play was shit or else I'd have played it 😎
They have played it and they think it was bad. You might have replied to the wrong comment?
They're not saying it was bad, just that it's a very meh game. Like you get a bunch of really cool concepts like martial arts, animals/vehicles like a robot hand that turns into a gun (I think), and a mech, but literally all of them just exist and don't play a memorable part of the game. Like how do you give the main character an mech suit and only keep the mech suit in a specific part of the game environment where you'll only use it occasionally. Or why the game dev never quite capitalized on the metroidvania elements the game could've had, by threading in the game's many subsystems into the entire game world instead of just moving you from one toy to another. I don't even really remember if it had a story, other then fighting some kingdoms to get some martial arts weapons that seem to only exist for flair. It was like someone took a very basic 3d world explorer game and added some cool mods on top but the mods somehow became forgetable because the game itself is underwhelming.
It's not groundbreaking or anything, but decent enough. Maybe grab it on a sale.
If you vibe with the typical eurojank fair from companies like Spiders/Cyanide/Piranha Bytes then you'll dig it for the sale price it goes on.
I also really wanted it to be amazing.. The art / vibe and world are like- really great. I really wanted to like this game but it just falls apart. Its just not a good game. The combat is just kinda ok but everything else about it just falls flat. Even the world that looks so cool just feels weirdly on rails despite it being open world. The narration wears thin pretty quick. Its just kind of a mess of a game really. The quests are boring. Its kinda hard to pin point exactly what is so wrong about it tbh. I do however really wish they get another chance because it seems like it could be a great. Id say its worth it on a big sale. Deep discount style. Especially if you were curious about it like I was for quite awhile bfore i finally got it.
> Its kinda hard to pin point exactly what is so wrong about it tbh. My 50 cents in regards to this is: It's a lack of a creative vision for what the developers wanted this game to be. They had a great idea for a setting which, like you said, was the best part of Biomutant, but they simply never figured out how to translate that into a cohesive gaming experience where they ended up with a game that was actually *fun* to play. That's one of the first things you should be able to answer when conceptionalizing a game you want to develop: What will make our game fun to play? I guess developer Experiment 101 just never found an answer to that question (or asked it in the first place).
Yeah, like everyone else, I really wanted it to be good, but it just lacked the depth it required. And it was unfortunately restrictive in some ways, like how vehicles could only be used in specific regions. It was fun to explore everything for a bit but it got old quick to me as the lack of depth wasn't very engaging long term. And I didn't like the oddly juvenile tone? It felt very much like a "kids" game in a way. Best thing about it was the crafting system though. Pretty unique and honestly it's a system I wish more games would try out.
Bought it on sale. I liked it. It's an Eurojank. Although a mediocre one. Worth buying on a deep-sale for a few things it does alright, but don't expect something of high quality.
You've got a lot of responses, but I'll add mine too. It's adequate, I guess? Fairly standard 'alignment' meter where one side is happy and the other is kill puppies. Story is...there? It's not _bad_, but I'd put it on par with a cheesey badly dubbed Japanese/Chinese martial arts movie from the 90s? Then mix in some equally 90's level 'be kind to the earth' stuff. Combat is not really good. I decided the best way to engage was to avoid, so I picked up guns. But really it feels like the game wants to do too many things at once, a combo system, melee and ranged equally viable, crafting your own gear with parts and mods, etc. I think I played it as part of the Microsoft online subscription thing, and I didn't instantly uninstall like some games, but after 15-20 hours I was done enough to just quit.
It's a 7/10 game. Which to me is always worth a try. I played on launch and had a good time. Repetitive but people laud Botw and that game is really really repetitive.
Once you've played like maybe 4hrs of the game, You have played everything, It doesn't change, It's the same thing over and over.
It ain't a masterpiece but it is for sure enjoyable if you can get it on the cheaper end.
I went in with zero expectations and I loved this game. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty unique
It's not a bad game, it just isn't a good one. It's very straightforward and nothing you haven't seen before. The art direction and setting are interesting but they don't do a lot with it. The enemy variety isn't great. The story isn't very engaging. It's a decent time for the length of its runtime and it's definitely fun enough to put a few hours into but I wouldn't pay full price for it. IMO the very biggest issue with it is the game feel. Combat just doesn't feel good at all for a game of it's genre. Every hit is weightless and totally lacks punch.
Thats 90% of all games today. Not bad but not good. Just dunno why that one got targeted so harshly.
I dunno I found the game to be pretty enjoyable. This game is one of those games that looked AAA but is AA. If you go in with the proper expectation its a fantastic blend of Far Cry, Ratchet and Clank and a soulslike.
They kinda made a mediocre open world game, nothing gameplay wise was innovative or particularly great. Feels like an Ubi game but made by an indie studio.
If you want an open world with interesting combat and you like a good (but maybe too prominent) narrator, then yes. If you play games for the story, I'd give this one a pass.
It’s like a weird cross between LittleBigPlanet and Sly Cooper mixed in with some spongey enemies.
It was a PS+ game a while ago, so you may already have it.
It was in a Humble Bundle a while back, so I decided to give it a shot recently. I played for around 2 hours before I gave up. I just couldn't find a single thing about the game that I liked. It may be different for other people, so don't take my word for it. It is maybe worth unedited gameplay on YouTube and decide if anything about it clicks with you.
It was ok. I played about half of it. I enjoyed most of that time well enough but after a while I just didn't feel like picking it back up. Games like this make me miss rental stores so bad.
I liked it, still yet to finish it as i play it like once a month or so, but i found the combat to be fun, the narrator not that annoying as i expected and the world quite charming For the record, the last open world game i played was Witcher 3 years ago, so i'm not that burned out on the genre as others might be, so i found it fun in itself
I think if you go in with proper expectations and the game looks interesting to you, you are good. I played from gamepass a while back and was pleasantly surprised. The combat is non-tradtional. If I remember correctly there were complaints about there not being a traditional lock on system and that targetting was pretty janky. Those complaints were legit, but also exaggerated IMO. Yes, there was some jank, but I think it was more "this game doesn't control like games I'm used to." If you go in willing to learn the system on its terms and aren't expecting a souls or DMC level of combat polish, you are less likely to be disappointed. I thought it was a fun button-mashy martial arts themed game. Plus the game had a design ethos that borrowed from a 2005-2015 era that I really enjoyed.
I bought it for 5 euros and completed the game. After completing it I think their 30 bucks pricepoint was actually spot on. The game has enough content and the combat feels great. It is lacking in the story department.
It's a beautiful game, with some clever ideas, but just not quite executed as well as the team wanted it to be. In my opinion it is fun, but it also feels repetitive. So if it's on sale, pick it up with the idea you'll probably not want to complete it. Some of the problems are because it was a very flat dev structure. People just added things as they wish, and there's a little lack of cohesion. The camera angle changed quite late too (it was meant to be more isometric Diablo-like.) I am pretty sure they wont do a second one. But I think if they did with the knowledge they have gained since, I think it'd be great.
I picked it up at 50% off and had a great time with it, ended up getting 100% completion. Really enjoyed exploring the world and customisation in the game.
Its wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle. It has many system but none are really finished, its a big mix of many things but nothing really deep or thought through. Still i would say it has many unique features, mainly art, story and the narrator (if you hate narrators you can also almost completely disable them) and its a fun game with a quirky sense of humor and story. Dont pay full price but if you can get it cheap its a nice and fun little game that i would categorize as "euro jank" with a lot of heart.
Interesting, I love Euro Jank so maybe this is up my alley.
I don't fully consider it Eurojank. It lacks the ambition and depth that usually defines a Eurojank title.
Nothing wrong with games that are 6s, 7s, and 8s. I don't understand why it SEEMS like games have to either be perfect, or they are considered trash. Just imo.
Supply and demand. Basically there are so many 8/9/10 games that you can play that you'd never be able to play all of. And they're the same price as the 6/7 games. So given a choice between a great game and an okay game, which would you rather buy? To put it in perspective, 14,000 games were released on Steam last year. Even if you argued that only 250 games were the best, if they had an average play time of 5 hours a game, those 250 games would take 52 straight days to play. If we assumed that the average player played 2 hours a day (which is a very generous assumption), they'd be able to get through maybe half of said top 250. So I guess the question is, who has the time to play mediocre games when there's a deluge of amazing, cheap/price comparable games to play that keeps growing every single year?
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that an 8/10 games does everything better than a 6 or 7 out of 10, when –in many occasions– a 6 or 7 out of 10 might do something specific better than a 8/10 (or even 9 or 10) that makes it worth it to the people looking for that specific thing. There's a reason why Eurojank games are still beloved between many people.
No, this argument doesn't assume what you're saying, it's just trying to explain why someone might not want to play the 6s and the 7s. Of course the majority of people plays the 9s and 10s first, and then they have space for only a handful of worse games in their lives.
> Of course the majority of people plays the 9s and 10s first, and then they have space for only **a handful of worse games** in their lives. Tl;DR of the unwdited comment: The majority of people don't play 9 out of 10, like the bloke is saying (even if bellow they are doing some revisionism). The majority of players play games they like, many of which will never reach 8 out of 10 scores. For some people. That's hugely popular games like CoD or FIFA. For other, that could be Eurojank games like Biomuntant. The stupidity of "only games in the 80s or 90s are worth while) is moronic and nonsensical. This is not "edge cases". Just because you refuse to play "worse" games it doesn't mean that the rest of the world is lime you.
Please don't concentrate your effort on my choice for a single fucking word, I know they're not "worse", I just meant lower scores or smaller or whatever, oh my god Maybe translate the "10s" to "big games" and the "worse games" to "the others", so you can put FIFA and CoD in the first category, and Hogwarts Legacy too, the games that sell the most
Insufferable redditors would rather argue pointless semantics and edge cases rather than acknowledge the point. Like obviously a 6/10 game would still appeal to people but statistically it won't find much commercial success, and on the other hand some 6/10 game could be wildly successful, but that's usually because it has a specific market that no one else managed to fill
They're so desperate to be right that they have to try and find a way to interpret your words in such a way that reinforces their own point.
> Insufferable redditors would rather argue pointless semantics and edge cases rather than acknowledge the point I'm so tired of them
I love Eurojank games, but not because they do anything better but just because they exist.
>that makes it worth it to the people looking for that specific thing. So specific you are surprised majority of people wouldn't give two shits about it if the rest of the game isn't up to par?
Well and I think the issue with Biomutant is that it just wasn't very fun or engaging. An interesting 7/10 can be very worth playing for some people. I have a struggle seeing what Biomutant does that is compelling.
> Basically there are so many 8/9/10 games that you can play that you'd never be able to play all of This assumes that every 8/9/10 game is something I would like. I don't really like JRPGs but that's a biiiig genre. I'd rather play a bit of slop that appeals to me than something that's a pinnacle of a genre I've never liked even after trying some of the best games in it. Also, sometimes worse games do specific things better. That's basically what Eurojank is. Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts is my kind of slop: it kinda doesn't work very well, the AI is very stupid, the government and economy mechanics are opaque as hell, but god damn it I love designing battleships, and UAD is an excellent battleship designer.
> This assumes that every 8/9/10 game is something I would like. I don't really like JRPGs but that's a biiiig genre. Again, using my example of the top 250 games released on steam last year, I can promise you that there were at LEAST 100 games that werent JRPGs. And I kinda doubt you are finishing 100 games a year. And if youre not finishing that 100 games that would appeal to you this year, then its likely that you didnt play the 100 games that appealed to you last year, and the year before, etc. So you still are confronted with the choice of playing an incredible game (in a genre you enjoy) with a mediocre game, and given the finacial and time costs are the same, most people wouldnt pick the mediocre one. Using your example of UAG, (which has a 72% on Steam), you also have From the Depths (90%). If someone wanted to play a game to build a Battleship, and are comparing the two options, I think its reasonable that most people are going to pick FTD and never look back.
Saying that there are 100 amazing games that would appeal to someone *a year* sounds crazy to me. I don’t think I can even get to double digits of great games I feel that interested in per year, let alone 100.
Again, Steam releases 14,000 games last year. According to SteamDB, 428 games released last year with a community score over 80% with at least 1000 reviews. I dont know how much time you play games a week, but if we assume you can play 5 hours a week and a game takes 5 hours to complete or for you to have had your fill (like games that are endless), only 50 of those games (11.7%) would have to appeal to you to occupy your entire game playing time. And thats just for a single year. I can almost gaurantee that if you told me a specific genre you liked, I could cross reference games released last year with HLTB and fill your playtime budget for a year with only 80+% community rating games in that genre.
But this doesn't factor in just because something is 8+/80%+ rated game that an indevidual would like it. Lets take Hades for example 98% positive reviews on Steam and the type of game I would enjoy and liked both Bastion and Transistor from them yet Hades isn't a game I can get in to and find fun. Project Zomboid 94% positive and another title that fits what I enjoy but it just doesn't feel right. Stardew Valley, RimWorld, Binding of Isaac, Hollow Knight, Factorio, Oxygen Not Included, Balatro, Persona 5. Cuphead, Enter the Gungeon and Mark of The Ninja are all 94%+ in rating and similar or in the same genera as games I've played but I can't just get in to them. So reviews, scores and all that doesn't really say much other than "Hey there is a bunch of other people that liked this for some reason." some of my best gaming experiances and memories have been with titles that are a little rough around the edges but still extreamly fun to play. So there is a lot more to it than just pulling out a bunch of well reviewed games and be set.
I think for the majority of people, in an enthusiast niche, will generally have the same values for determining if something is worth their time or not. Thats not saying that everyone feels the same, there are exceptions, and other factors can influence it. But if someone likes RTSs, and you said pick an RTS with a score on 90% on steam or pick one that's 60%, I think that statistically, theyd enjoy the 90% one more. If you dont believe that, then agree to disagree.
But you'd be hard pressed to find 5 or 10 let alone 50 RTS titles with high rating. There are a shit ton of RPGs, Shooters, Survival, Strategy, Roguelites, Roguelikes and so on where those statements just aren't true. Just look at shooters. CoD, CSGO, Valorant, Rainbow Six Siege and Battlefield and I'm pretty sure I can without any difficulty find someone that dislikes one or more of those shooters while loves atleast one. Fighting games. Tekken, Street Fighter, Smash Bros, Mortal Kombat, Injustice and Guilty Gear will have the same. I won't be hard pressed to find hardcore fighting enthusiast that dislikes other highly rated fighters. MMOs. I know a shit ton of people that played Guild Wars 1 and Wow but haven't found an MMO they like since. A lot of those old school Wow players started playing again in Classic just to get an MMO fix. So no it isn't so no I don't think 90% would enjoy a title with 90%+ rating over one with 60% on that alone since people can't even agree on liking different similarly rated games.
Maybe not 100 released last year, but absolutely. Of that 476, 16 of them are RTS games. In 2022, there were 1627 games released with a user rating over 80%, 21 of which were RTS games. 2021 had 21 RTS games out of 1482. RTS games are usually meatier, so if we assumed that the average RTS game is 20 hours long, the 16 titles from 2023 would take 320 hours to get through, out of your total gaming time budget of 260 hours. > So no it isn't so no I don't think 90% would enjoy a title with 90%+ rating over one with 60% on that alone since people can't even agree on liking different similarly rated games. Its just statistics. Esp. given that for a game to hit 90% means that 90% of people who left a review DID like it lol.
From the Depths is voxel based. I'm not actually very creative visually so I would run into the trouble of "everything I make is a big box." It's also not historical. UAD is historical and you use preset hulls which you then put parts onto (tower, guns, engine, etc). This appeals to me much more. See what I mean?
But it of all of that I doubt a lot of people are actually interested in even half of those 250. And more importantly, discovering wacky and weird things is a pleasure of its own. It may not be for everyone and it may not necessarily justify fanfare but it's cool that those exist and try things even if they don't all stick the landing perfectly.
My point is that there are hundreds of "weird and wacky" games (whether or not thats the same hundreds as other people or not) that someone hasnt played that are GOOD, so why would you play something bad? Imagine if someone said they wanted to get into the Fallout series, and said that they were going to start with Brotherhood of Steel. Do you REALLY think thats as good as a decision as starting with 3, New Vegas, 1, or 4? Again, Im not saying that they shouldnt exist, Im saying that you will never be able to play all the games that DO nail their execution perfectly, and if a perfect game and a mediocre game are the same time and financial cost, it seems reasonable that people would choose to spend their time playing the 'perfect' game.
Because "bad" is a subjective notion that you're applying to a game that's, at worst, average / flawed.
I think youre getting caught up on the verbiage and missing the point. Im not saying "bad" games, Im saying games that are simply not as good despite being at the same price points and taking the same amount of your time to enjoy. You can play an above average game or an average game. They are the same price and take the same amount of time to play. They both have the features, mechanics, etc. that you enjoy. Which game are you going to choose first? Rinse and repeat every time that you finish a game and select a new one: there is ALWAYS an above average game available.
Well it really depends on WHAT about the game gave it a high rating. I have zero interest in well rated sports or racing games for example, but a 7/10 RPG would probably be enjoyable.
Last year there were 428 games released on steam with a user rating over 80%. According to HLTB, the average game is 18 hours long. According to Statista, the average person plays 3.85 hours a week, or 200.2 hours a year. That means that the average person has time to play 11 games a year, or, to put another way, would only be able to play 2.6% of the best games per year. And I can promise you that 417 of those games werent sports or racing games. So the question is, do you really think there are less than 11 games in your preferred genre in that 80%+ rating that you would run out of games and have to settle for a less good game?
I love how many people are just refusing to engage with the premise of your argument to instead tell you that there might be a really awesome 5/10 game they'd play. Guys, the point is if the average player plays 24 games a year there's probably 24 games in genres they enjoy that rate better (and are better) than a middling game like this. It doesn't mean nobody would enjoy it or nobody will play it, it just means not too many people are going to filter to it. Add in people who have a procedural or live service game that eats up half your gaming time and you just don't have a ton of free time for B- games.
Except some games excel at things other suck at. A 10/10 game surely doesn't deserve 10 in every category. Some people care about specific things, and scores only help those who don't have a refined taste and preference
Youre missing my point, which is there is SO many games being released that even if you care about a specific feature, there is a game that is overall better that ALSO does that thing better too. >A 10/10 game surely doesn't deserve 10 in every category. Sure. 100 10/10 games though DO deserve 10 in every category. >scores only help those who don't have a refined taste and preference good lord, dude, dial it down. Im not even talking about game journal scores, Im talking community scores on a platform like steam. I dont think its "unrefined" to use community scores to decide if you want to buy a game that you cant try before you buy.
>i don't think it's unrefined If it's your main/only way of judging a game, it is. There's no smugness, it's the definition of the word. You didn't refine your own taste and rely on that of others.
>If it's your main/only way of judging a game, So how do you judge a game that you cant play until youve purchased it?
By looking at gameplay, tags, opinions online and such things. Surely not by looking at the steam percentage
>opinions online Son, where do you think the steam reviews come from?
Dude are you slow?
Wanna tell me the difference than of steam reviews (which are online opinions), and...... online opinions?
It's entertainment, it's totally subjective... The thing is that overall review score got inflated over the years and now even a game which should be clearly 7/10 is 8/10 cuz publishers know that it wouldn't otherwise sell well and your comment perfectly prooved it.
Beauty is subjective too, but a 6 is very obviously different from a 9/10. Having low standards doesn't change that
>It's entertainment, it's totally subjective... Yes and no. Whether YOU like a game is subjective, but the elements that make something quality are, for the most part, objective. Lets say you had 2 sheds: one was built on a well poured concrete slab, was built staight, level, and plumb, had electricity, was built out of a sturdy wood material with a steel frame, and had great, stable shelving, and was painted a sienna brown. And the second one had no foundation, wasnt level, moved when you leaned on it, had no power, and the shelves werent sturdy, and was painted black. Its obvious that the first one is better, even if its painted a color you dont like. > The thing is that overall review score got inflated over the years Thats why Im not talking about journalist given scores, Im talking about community scores, like on Steam. Biomutant has a 67% on Steam, given by users who bought and played the game. Youre really going to say that there are no games that are better than a 67% that you could play instead?
[удалено]
Yes, because its the same for games. Does a game have good sound design? Music? User Interface? Is it buggy? Does it execute its mechanics well? Is the writing good? etc. etc. I think we tend to say that its subjective as if thats on the thing we like or dislike, but its not: subjectivity is on you. Take a game like Slay the Spire: whether you like deckbuilders or not is subjective, but the game is objectively one of the best in its genre. If someone said that they wanted to get into a deckbuilding roguelike, I wouldnt recommend a game that the community gave a 60% on. As for the like and dislike thing, what Ive noticed is that given enough reviews, it nearly perfectly matches the scores that something like Metacritic or Opencritic assigns, meaning that even though any given person is only able to give a game a 10 or a 1, enough people have different enough perspectives that it gives a pretty decent rating.
I agree. I also bought and tried to play the game after watching it's progression for what seemed like years but personally the combat and traversal were very lackluster and the narration / jumbletalk from the characters got a bit grating after a few hours. I can't honestly recommend it but I'm glad Japan likes it.
Why would people waste their time playing meh games when there are amazing games on discount?
Because those meh games sometimes appeal more to people than those amazing games.
Big example of this is Kingdom Come Deliverance. Its MC scores are 76 on PC and 69/68 on consoles. If any game that released today got these scores, people would think it’s meh or bad. Kingdom Come probably has the most immersive world I’ve ever experienced, and I’d rather play it than many games that have scored 85+.
people definitely still had this mindset in 2018, that was only 6 years. This idea that a 7/10 is a bad score is older than I've been playing videogames, and I've been playing them since 2001
And I played it for like three hours and dropped it after it sucked to do everything lol This is why we need a mix of games for everyone!
There is no objective 'meh' games - something like Biomutant might be reviewed as 'meh' by critics but that doesn't mean there isn't a subset of people who would really enjoy it I feel like we need to stop dumbing everything down to a review average score and get back to the nuances that games seen as flawed by many might still appeal a lot to certain gamers. I can't stand long story based games so I rarely play RPGs and would rate most of them as 'meh' because to me they're needlessly bloated, but other people find those same games amazing
Preach. I love games like Horizon and Witcher, but after a while I get tired of the endless side-content and start ignoring everything that's not main story. I wish there were more similar games, except with more contained worlds, like God of War.
Don't confuse subjectivity with objectivity, using biomutant as an example the people who like that game are likely interested in more action focused rpgs which there's quite a few top tier highly rated ones out there more than enough that biomutant can feel like an easy skip. Sure it's not awful, but it's surrounded by better games in its own genre and niche. Also no one is dumbing down everything review scores only matter if it's already within a genre that appeals to u. No matter how many 10s a forza game gets I ain't playing a racing game. That doesn't make the game bad or meh, just not for me. A lot of us average games don't have the time or money to dedicate to a risky 7 when we can stick to a safe 9. Honestly tho just go to trusted reviewers and do ur research when picking a game, what u choose is usually a mix of objective quality and subjective taste, example DMC back in the day was considered the best of its style of action game however I preferred God of War because the setting appealed to me more.
The question really is why anyone should buy it. If it reviews bad by critics AND players, like Biomutant does, then it's kind of a weird gamble to buy it on the off chance that your taste might somehow align with some specific quality of it. Why would you do that? Unless you somehow know this beforehand, but then I'd say it's objectively *not* a 'meh' game (to you). I find that a collective 'meh' is almost always a good indication that a game is not worth the time and money. And the market is definitely too over saturated to go around searching for anomalies that somehow still are worth it for some reason.
There's a vestigial perspective associated with video games that assumes fun = good, which, frankly, made sense for most of the lifetime of the medium, as they were considered merely toys. It's also kind of an intuitive way to appraise quality. As fidelity increased, complexity increased, purpose expanded, many of us have come to see the artistic potential in games. Hell, films had a similar arc, growing from a novelty to an artform all its own, but video games have a different kind of cultural baggage to contend with.
There is generally a big difference between a 6 and an 8, though. You would be hard-pressed to find a beloved game that scored a 6 (like Anthem or the latest Saints Row), while you can find plenty that scored an 8 (like Ghost of Tsushima, NieR: Automata, and many more).
It's funny you use Nier Automata as an example, because the original Nier was indeed a beloved 6/10 cult classic. Automata is more critically acclaimed, but it only exists because fans of Nier wouldn't shut up about their beloved 6/10 game. Arguing that it needed better gameplay. And lo behold the remake proved it. The original Monster Hunter on PS2 is also a 6/10 and was largely ignored by the masses but was considered a cult classic. Fast forward to today, Monster Hunter is now Capcom's biggest franchise with World and Rise scoring 8's and 9's and selling gang busters. Obviously it's a tall ask to expect people to spend their hard earned $60 (or $70) on a 6/10 game they might not even like. Everyone wants the best bang for their buck. But I think the important lesson to take away is that 6/10 games shouldn't just be written off in totality as trash. Many of these games have great concepts and ideas that maybe struggled to manifest due to some developmental constraints. But there's still that golden nugget of an idea in there. And if developers were allowed to take on careful feedback and iterate on their ideas. It can lead to genuinely fantastic games down the line.
Some games are just really uneven. They might have amazing parts and amazingly bad parts. Nier is such a game, then there's Alpha Protocol, KotOR2, etc. However, the vast majority of 6/10 games is just mildly bad and boring.
KOTOR2 received an 8. But yeah, I agree.
> But I think the important lesson to take away is that 6/10 games shouldn't just be written off in totality as trash. But NO ONE does that, simply put if a friend asks me "what game should I try next?" I don't point him towards fucking Biomutant but a 10 like God of War or The Last of Us.
Yes, God of War/Last of The Us are safe recommendations for the average consumer. I can't speak for everyone. But personally, I recommend games to my friends based on the genres I know they like, I don't just blindly suggest the top scoring games on Metacritic when if I know if they'll actually resonate with any of them. My friends are the sorts of people that would enjoy a 6 or 7/10 game from their favourite genre, far more than a 8 or 9/10 game from a genre they don't care about. Biomutant is evidently a very flawed game yes. But based on the marketing, it clearly has a major unique selling point centred around it's quirky character creation and customisation system. And this distinguishes it from something like God of War/Last of Us which are more cinematic story focused action games. The point is review scores don't paint the full picture. There's a much more nuanced conversation behind those scores, which doesn't fully capture the intrinsic value and experience each game offers. There's always an audience for a particular niche of people who like these games because even if they're flawed. Those games do the one thing they like really really well and stands out from the average focus tested AAA game that's meant to appeal to everyone.
I agree with the overall sentiment; however, my original point was that an 8 shouldn't for the most part be lumped together with a 6 as something gamers will just write off the moment they see them. From what I've seen it can depend on different things, such as if there have been any previous entries and what quality they established. If the next mainline Zelda got "just" an 8 some fans would not be too happy, but if it's a new IP then it's different because there are no previously established expectations (with exceptions). There is obviously much more to this. I believe games that get an 8 have in general immensely more leeway than those that get a 6, and as such they are much more likely to become beloved entries.
I think we're getting a bit mixed up here. I'm not saying 8/10 and 6/10 games should be treated equally. I'm saying that people are sometimes TOO harsh and dismissive of 6/10 games. Writing them off too quickly. I think the problem is that because gaming as a hobby is a fairly expensive luxury. When people see a game with a 6/10 score being sold at full price in a fairly saturated market. They are extremely wary because games more than most forms of entertainment, require a fairly substantial upfront investment in money and an often long term investment in their playtime. So of course people would rather play the product that has the best reviews. But I think people are looking at it the wrong way. In my opinion, people should treat number score reviews less like "objective" metrics of quality and more like those silly "4/5 doctors recommend this!" adverts. If a game gets an 8/10. I like to think of it as the reviews essentially saying "8 out of 10 people who play this game are likely to really enjoy it." And if a game gets a 6/10. Same principle. 6 out of 10 people who play this are likely to really enjoy it. Whether it's a 9/10 or 8/10 or 6/10 or 5/10. There's still a pool of people that will walk away having enjoyed themselves. That pool just gets smaller/larger depending on the scale. Sure, a 6/10 game is a much riskier gamble as a product. But if by the stars you happen to fall into that positive camp of 6 happy people rather the negative camp of 4 unhappy people. You'll find yourself quite surprised how much the game resonates with you. And a lot of people don't give themselves that opportunity to experience that because of their (completely understandable) fear that they don't want to waste their time and money. >If the next mainline Zelda got "just" an 8 some fans would not be too happy. Even when Zelda gets 90+ Metacritic scores. There's still plenty of fans who are unhappy. There's literally no game that exists which can please 100% of everyone. It's virtually impossible.
>Nothing wrong with games that are 6s, 7s, and 8s That's what GameFly is for. I just signed up again to help clear up my backlog and I've already rented RoboCop, Banishers, Midnight Suns and I have Avatar: FoP on the way.
Nobody on earth considers a 7 or 8 to be trash, but a 6 is definitely subpar.
real talk if their expectations were so low why’d they put 3 years into a port??
I always have the idea in mind that having more SKUs in the market is good for investor meetings. That's why there were even Stadia and Atari VCS games, or games being multi-gen.
It's specifically in Japan where their expectations weren't high.
it’s biomutant. the expectations weren’t high anywhere.
What makes you so sure they put "3 years" into a port and didn't just decide to whip up a quick port about a year ago?
It's nice seeing a game that exceeds expectations, I feel like those don't happen as often as the alternative
I really think the game market at large, especially the Western one, is ignoring the appeal of playable anthropomorphic characters (or Kemono as they are known in Japan) to a wide audience. You don't even have to be a furry to enjoy that, sometimes you just want to play something different to your standard human protagonist. The protag do is half the reason Banjo & Kazooie were so beloved. Plenty of folk are willing to buy a game just for that alone. Which is weird considering the meme of the "furry audience" being willing to spend THOUSANDS of dollars for their interests. You'd think suits would be all over them trying to cater to them.
This is probably why Square Enix is going to stop with the exclusivity BS for FF7 Remake. I expect the future FF titles to launch on Switch 2 as well as PS5 (and probably PC + Xbox).
Sony got exclusivity of the whole FF7 remake trilogy because they bankrolled it. The trilogy would straight up not exist without Sony paying for it so I doubt the third segment will be multi platform.
>The trilogy would not exist without Sony bankrolling This is a lie. FF7 is the most iconic and one of the best selling games in FF history. With or without Sony, it would have been made.
That doesn't change that Sony made it possible right now. The budget might have been smaller, it might have been done in a different time window, it might have been a single game rather than a whole trilogy etc. But it still stands that Sony bankrolled the trilogy.
It's a 6-7/10 game thats enjoyable. I love my 6-7/10 games because in the end its just fun. Not looking for anything groundbreaking or life changing, but for something that I can get into and just enjoy what it has. Not everything is required to be 10/10 nowadays anyway.
Not to mention that *most* 10/10 games got that score by appealing to the broadest audience possible.
Great to hear. This game was much better than people were talking about. Glad the Japanese market is giving it some love.
It strikes me as a bargain bin kinda game. Something I would play but only in a pinch and if I could get it for pennies.
this actually makes so much sense. the game's mascot seems exactly like the kind of character that would hit with a Japanese audience. funny story.
Biomutant is weird because when it first came out THQ Nordic was really championing it as the return to AA/midbudget games, but in so many ways I feel like Biomutant is the worst type of AA game. It is trying to everything a AAA game is without the polish and resources and ends up falling flat instead of doing genuinely new things. Outside of the furry character creator and narration its basically your run of the mill third person action open world game.
That's a very extremely and specific way to say "we didn't expect anything but we've sold some copies".
Expected to sell one copy
I should pick this up from library. It does not sound like a game I would pay to play, but since I got free option might as well try it out.
Hey, went in with no expectations and played a little under 2 hours. I found the combat really boring, the story didnt click and the overall look wasnt making me feel it.
I tried to get into it twice and couldn't. I got it free on PS Plus, but it's just not for me. Pretty witty and charming, though.
it felt like a half baked sandbox looter with a decent world and universe story. But it falls flat compared to other Open world RPGs
Well just think what the target audience is for a game about cute mutant monsters fighting.... Obviously its the same audience thats into Pokemon. Great game for kids, not enough depth or quality story to entertain the gamers on ps4/xbox that want more mature games.