Game Informer's Harsh yet Honest Review

They probably could tone down the visuals, if anything to squeeze a few more fps in for consoles. Melee characters do take getting used to, but pretty much rule the field.

As for the “banal” dialog… Well, I like it and I’m glad the game wasn’t anything like the intro animation which was a bit too srsbzns for my taste.

Reviewer probably likes his porn all tears and shame.

4 Likes

Absolutely, everyone has a opinion and not everyone will share the same perspective. Unfortunately, even if you choose to ignore those that hold similar views, it won’t change the hard truth. That truth is people are leaving in droves. While we can’t directly predict the future, it is safe to say that the longer this trend continues, the harder it becomes to bounce back. When fewer people play the game, the longer people have to wait to find full groups and quality matches. Which leads to more people quitting, which leads to longer times and so on.

Contrary to how it may seem, I am a fan & I do enjoy the game. But I’m not oblivious to the concerns that have been raised, about fundamental systems, by a significant portion of the community. Unfortunately, what they’ve done up till now, doesn’t appear to have improved the situation. How do you convince someone that believes they’re doing everything right, that they may be making things worse, and perhaps they should think about adjusting their approach?

2 Likes

Hmm, peculiar. I must say I’ve always liked Game Informer’s measured response to their game reviews. Even in this one they’re not villainizing those they disagree with, in essence complimenting GBX.

I agreed with them more than they would know when they heavily lauded Radiata Stories, despite everyone’s indifference towards the game.

I often do disagree with them on their decisions to gave some pretty safe reviews to games which are so wildly popular that you cannot speak ill of (like some certain Multiplayer Shooters that come to mind), to each their own I suppose.

But while I do see what their concerns are, they do not accurately reflect the 4 whole points of rating.

I’m not much on trash-talking games, so I won’t name the one, but I recently played the third installment of one of my favorite games in my teen years.

Wow-oh-wow, it got a 6 by Game Informer and I genuinely don’t know how that game can be compared in quality to BB. The margin is a chasm.

I think the disconnect in this review is that whether or not you agree with the concerns of the reviewer, the score doesn’t reflect the review experience.

3 Likes

I don’t know, I can see that score. I find it far worse to work through something that has promise and that you want to like, than something that is just flat out bad. Even if the first is technically higher quality, at least I don’t have to deal with disappointment repeatedly with the latter, just once.

Battleborn, to me, is a game I really wanted to like for what it could have been, but where it is and where it is going makes it hard to argue with the score.

2 Likes

Interesting view, but I’d have to disagree on the basis of parity of rating.

I’ve never liked numerical ratings to begin with, especially those which express it as an average of several different functions (i.e. graphics and sound), since those hold different value to the consumer. But the average is shown.

I’d rather do away with numeric ratings all together, but so long as they exist, it puts an obligation of objectivity to the journalist, which we almost cannot expect them to have (especially as illustrated in your case).

1 Like

I can’t agree with you anymore. Yes there are a few flaws that are still being worked on and balances being made but the game itself is still amazing and fun. It just takes the time to learn the modes and learn how the characters all work. Once you know how characters play and a mode works your experience in the game because a lot more enjoyable. Playing with a group of friends or one you make in queing always enhances the fun!

1 Like

I agree. He spent a lot of words to say “Not my cup of tea”.

3 Likes

I agree on the count of numerical ratings being a poor way to do things to begin with.

But really, you can’t expect objective ratings on anything, since the very act of stating if something is good or bad is completely subjective. Reviews aren’t objective by their very nature.

I only had a legit failed group mission once. That was when I got a group of noobs that respawned instead of waiting for a revive. Even other games played with other noobs were better since most know to wait by reading the on screen indicators, and by listening to those of us who actually have mics…

These are like raids. I am guessing this guy has never played an MMO before where some raids take several hours to complete. These take me no more than 30 minutes to play after just a couple runs, with randoms… 30 MINUTES IS NOT A LONG TIME.

Ah, this explains it. Console player.

======================================================================

Here is what I have a few more posts down to 'splain…

Well, maybe I should have put a few more paragraphs in there about why his review from a console version of the game is largely at fault then.

He has issues with mission length and character control and readability of the UI in and outside of screen sharing. These are all issues unique to consoles and explains much about why the review was negative.

He takes issue with other forms of gameplay which are from games he has no access to on console. (MOBAs)
He takes issue with ranged characters, “shooting feels stiff and unsatisfying”. It’s hard to shoot stuff when you usually have an aimbot aiming for you.
On melee characters. “Run up to foes and wildly swing in their general direction”. It’s hard to accurately point at a player and hit them without an aimbot assist and hard to move around when relying on a slow moving analog stick.

GI’s Overwatch review was given a 10, and has objectively less content with less skill required to play it and a far more generic art style (as well as literally copying the entire gameplay model from TF2). It is tagged with “PC” which, presumably, means that is what the review experience is from. (EDIT: BB review is tagged PS4)

So, when I bring up that it is console player review and dismiss him, it is because his review means nothing to me as a PC user. The review might still be useful to other console players, but should be taken with a grain of salt by other PC users.

2 Likes

:joy::joy::joy::joy:

Agreed wholly, nor do I expect them to be, but there is an added burden when they put it on there. It is presented as formulaic, where it isn’t. That is really my gripe. That is why I’d rather just read the the review itself. Just give me the content, and let me decide. I prefer it that way.

Remember gentlemen and ladies.

No platform wars.

They’re against forum policy.

This might be a flaw in my character, but when presented with reviews that have numerical ratings I always read the best and worst first. I decide whether or not the author’s view is even worth considering based on my personal critique of their worst and best.

If the best and worst reviews aren’t even written by the same person, I skip the whole review section.

Well, I think that is reasonable.

You’re more so seeing which games they preferred and for what reason (or to what enthusiasm) than your giving weight to their actual rating.

If anything, it is a good shortcut.

1 Like

Well, maybe I should have put a few more paragraphs in there about why his review from a console version of the game is largely at fault then.

He has issues with mission length and character control and readability of the UI in and outside of screen sharing. These are all issues unique to consoles and explains much about why the review was negative.

He takes issue with other forms of gameplay which are from games he has no access to on console. (MOBAs)
He takes issue with ranged characters, “shooting feels stiff and unsatisfying”. It’s hard to shoot stuff when you usually have an aimbot aiming for you.
On melee characters. “Run up to foes and wildly swing in their general direction”. It’s hard to accurately point at a player and hit them without an aimbot assist and hard to move around when relying on a slow moving analog stick.

GI’s Overwatch review was given a 10, and has objectively less content with less skill required to play it and a far more generic art style (as well as literally copying the entire gameplay model from TF2). It is tagged with “PC” which, presumably, means that is what the review experience is from. (EDIT: BB review is tagged PS4)

So, when I bring up that it is console player review and dismiss him, it is because his review means nothing to me as a PC user. The review might still be useful to other console players, but should be taken with a grain of salt by other PC users.

2 Likes

Ah, I see what you mean @lazlolonghair.

Genuinely, my apologies, as your avatar and final sentence made me assume that it was a matter of comparison as opposed to applicability.

(Changing the last bit in that flagged post should remove the flag though, automatically if I’m not mistaken).

Thanks for the clear up.

That’s ok, it was a bit dickish looking and should have been expanded on before shooting it out.

1 Like

Even as a predominantly console player, the entire undertone of the article was “I like playing CoD style games, and not much else”. That writer shouldn’t have been picked to do the review on the basis of clear bias and not exactly review smart.

1 Like

I didn’t get the slightest hint of him implying he “only likes CoD style games.” Perhaps that’s your bias snaking into it. The ol’ “If somebody doesn’t agree with me they must be stupid.”

2 Likes

possibly, but if you take it as ‘i dont like this, i like to opposite’ its not hard to see it. Plus i never said the writer was stupid, dont throw insults. Merely that maybe the reviewer wasn’t the best choice to do that particular review. Read all of what is written before knee jerking.

1 Like