I feel bad for Sony (The Order: 1886)

[Jtbrig7390]

The ratio of gameplay to cutscenes in any Metal Gear Solid can't be much better.

The difference is you get 14hrs of gameplay and cutscenes in a MGS game for $60. This is $60 for 3hrs of cutscenes and 3hrs of gameplay. Its the amount that matters.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

*sauce required

Seriously, every time this bullshit comes up the only thing people can point to are the Jeff Gerstman GameSpot debacle (which, mind you, they weren't paid for a good review, Kain and Lynch got a bad review) and some random person alleging that sites were bribed for good reviews in Europe with no evidence to support it.

How do you suppose then that IGN got "early access" to Bloodborne when nobody else did? They got to play for a whole half hour and show it, they got exclusive interviews and the such. In a single week, they had 4 different "exclusive" articles on it. Jeez, I wonder if IGN would say anything bad about the game. NOPE! Jeez, I wonder if Bloodborne adverts would appears on IGN. YEP! Same thing with their earlier IGN Firsts.

[Jtbrig7390]

How do you suppose then that IGN got "early access" to Bloodborne when nobody else did? They got to play for a whole half hour and show it, they got exclusive interviews and the such. In a single week, they had 4 different "exclusive" articles on it. Jeez, I wonder if IGN would say anything bad about the game. NOPE! Jeez, I wonder if Bloodborne adverts would appears on IGN. YEP! Same thing with their earlier IGN Firsts.

So once again ur using Opinion has fact. Who knows how they got it that still dosen't mean it will get a 9 or they got paided off.

Also you do know IGN is one of the most viewed game review websites/youtube channels right? All I read is Opinion and no proof.

[Chelly]

How do you suppose then that IGN got "early access" to Bloodborne when nobody else did? They got to play for a whole half hour and show it, they got exclusive interviews and the such. In a single week, they had 4 different "exclusive" articles on it. Jeez, I wonder if IGN would say anything bad about the game. NOPE! Jeez, I wonder if Bloodborne adverts would appears on IGN. YEP! Same thing with their earlier IGN Firsts.

Speculation .

[Kryos]

Most reviews are overhyped anyway. A 8/10 game usually is more a 6/10 game in my opinion. So a 6/10 game like this is a sub par 4/10 in my books.

[Mahourai]

The difference is you get 14hrs of gameplay and cutscenes in a MGS game for $60

EDIT: I misread this post.

[Jtbrig7390]

EDIT: I misread this post.

Ya I should have worded that better. What I ment was you get 14hrs of Gameplay and 14hrs of cutscenes in a MGS game for $60.

[Vogyn]

I watched about an hour of the game over a few streams. I'm really intrigued by the story and I'm not too bothered by how tedious the gameplay is. For $60, heck no.

[Tech614]

How do you suppose then that IGN got "early access" to Bloodborne when nobody else did? They got to play for a whole half hour and show it, they got exclusive interviews and the such. In a single week, they had 4 different "exclusive" articles on it. Jeez, I wonder if IGN would say anything bad about the game. NOPE! Jeez, I wonder if Bloodborne adverts would appears on IGN. YEP! Same thing with their earlier IGN Firsts.

Gee I wonder how certain news station gets exclusive interview with the President, CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bloodborne is being advertised on EVERY gaming site, Sony is pushing it harder then Namco ever pushed Dark Souls putting a full marketing budget behind it.

But you know, it's only being advertised on IGN cause they're paid off lulz.

Hell if IGN is in Sony's pocket as you are trying to speculate then why did The Order not get an 8+ from them?

[SinR]

if only developers would get away from the "OMG ITS PRETTY GRAPHICS" mentality and move towards "ITS FUN AS HELL TO PLAY" mindset, we'd actually have decent games coming out.

lol who am I kidding? Its always going to be about PRETTY GRAPHICS over replayability and fun

[kail]

Holy shit this post.

Open world games and cinematic games getting annoying!

It sounds like you want linear games with little cutscenes? So basically only platformers? Not that I have a problem with platformers, but jesus christ if this was 1985 again and they where the only real genre that actually would be annoying.

They are getting annoying in the sense that the terms are being abused. I hear soo many times of some game X advertised with an "open-world" feature when its really an empty one sprinkled with pointless side objectives. Playing AC Black Flag, what was the point of making the world so damn huge with little side stories and mostly bottles and chests to collect? What happened when I unlocked all of the of the shining runes in Shadows of Mordor and expected some epic story behind it? I simply unlocked an achievement and got some useless attributes.

Open world feature isn't bad in itself (Bethesda does it right), but devs seem to be abusing the idea of it and thinking that the bigger their world is, the better; disregarding the actual substance involved.

Cinematic scenes can start to become overdone instead of simply letting our character play out the scene itself. A cut scene where some important plot twist is happening is fine, having it every 10-20 min for some simple action is rather pointless.

[Edge-]

How do you suppose then that IGN got "early access" to Bloodborne when nobody else did?

Erm...dude, that's called an exclusive. Devs/publishers will use exclusives as a way to leverage strong placement on major sites. For Bloodborne, that was a top slot on the IGN front page and PS4 page for multiple days, guaranteeing them high visibility.

That's what exclusives are for. Outlets want them because they drive traffic to their site rather than their competitors, devs/publishers want them because they help them secure strong placement, or even just coverage, on a website that gets a lot of views.

That's not purchasing anything at all. I've negotiated tons of these, there is no payment in any of them.

They got to play for a whole half hour and show it, they got exclusive interviews and the such. In a single week, they had 4 different "exclusive" articles on it. Jeez, I wonder if IGN would say anything bad about the game. NOPE! Jeez, I wonder if Bloodborne adverts would appears on IGN. YEP! Same thing with their earlier IGN Firsts.

It's almost like IGN is a massive website with nearly 10 million unique monthly visitors (in the US alone, not including for their sites in other regions or non-US traffic that hits their US site) and that getting top placement on their carousal for an exclusive is guaranteed to get them a metric fuckton of eyeballs, especially with sharing through social media.

Seriously, that's not being paid. You would need to show evidence of money changing hands.

[Mahourai]

if only developers would get away from the "OMG ITS PRETTY GRAPHICS" mentality and move towards "ITS FUN AS HELL TO PLAY" mindset, we'd actually have decent games coming out.

lol who am I kidding? Its always going to be about PRETTY GRAPHICS over replayability and fun

Videogames are a visual medium. The look of a game is insanely important.

[zealo]

Videogames are a visual medium. The look of a game is insanely important.

When your game does not have much more to it than shiny graphics, yes. Art direction is much more important than graphical fidelity in most cases.

[Edge-]

Videogames are a visual medium. The look of a game is insanely important.

No, first and foremost gameplay is king. Gameplay is literally what defines video games as compared to film. Without it, there is no video game, just a video.

[Kryos]

Videogames are a visual medium. The look of a game is insanely important.

Not really. Visuals complement it. Videogames are all about interaction. Lack of interaction (also called gameplay) is a lack of fun.
If you want to see a movie, watch a movie.

This has zero "graphics" and was fun:

Same to this:


Videogames really don't need much graphics. Nice graphics are eye candy. They can support the gameplay, polish it. Like a car. If the engine sucks, you can make the hood very shiny, it's still a shitty car.

But if the car itself is great, it can even have rusted for years and is still a gem.

and if you have both, it's perfect:

[Mahourai]

No, first and foremost gameplay is king. Gameplay is literally what defines video games as compared to film. Without it, there is no video game, just a video.

Despite the fact that your description of gameplay is technically accurate, I feel that it doesn't necessarily lead to "gameplay is king", nor does that really dispute what I was getting at in the first place.

EDIT:

Not really. Visuals complement it. Videogames are all about interaction. Lack of interaction (also called gameplay) is a lack of fun.
If you want to see a movie, watch a movie.

This has zero "graphics" and was fun:

Same to this:

The text game example is salient, in that it has no literal visuals and is technically all gameplay, but for practical purposes works entirely the other way around - the experience of playing a text adventure is largely about the "art direction", that is to say the prose, and not about the almost perfunctory gameplay. Nobody praised the genre for obtuse inventory sorting and puzzles where you randomly combined shit. This is why people use the same burn about "If you want a movie, watch a movie" regarding text adventures - "If you want a book, read a book".

Videogames aren't necessarily about gameplay, as ridiculous as that sounds. Some of the greatest games I've ever played have shitty mechanics. Silent Hill 2 objectively has bad combat and poorly designed signposting in the environment hampering your progression, but I'd not only defend the game as a whole but both "problems".