General gaming discussion

A lot of the dialogue in the MGS games are definitely over-written and unnecessarily long. Especially MGS2 where half the conversations between characters happen over Codec because they're so long they couldn't animate the entire cutscenes. But at the same time, taking MGS2 as the same example it is insanely prescient of how the digital age has developed, with control of information, and the weaponisation and propagation of misinformation. There are ideas in that 2001 game that, as overly-long and cumbersome as the explanations of them may have been, are incredibly relevant to today.

That said, it's a big part of why MGS3 is my favourite, because the story is probably the least complex of all the MGS games, but it's also a lot more focused in how it's presented.

Oh definitely. 90% of anything involving either Rose or Emma is pretty abysmal.

"Jack, did you remember what day it is?" Rose, I just fought a huge dude on rollerskates drinking wine with a straw while planting bombs all around me. Maybe shut the f*ck up.

I think we coped with them because all control schemes were fairly wonky back then, so you had to learn and then remember all different control schemes. Whereas now a lot of control schemes are fairly uniform.

I've toyed with getting the Master Collection to replay 1-3 again, but I'm definitely trepidacious about having to replay MGS1 with those controls. MGS2 & 3 I think are a lot easy to adapt to.

Just about enough in it that I will try tonight/tomorrow on ubisoft plus on xbox

To be fair, it's getting more positive reviews as well. But it's Ubisoft so will have its price cut quick enough.

Assuming people remember that it released. Like when reading comments about it, I was reminded that that Avatar game came out.

Any word on how performs on console? Only heard Pc talk

Thanks Dave, I'll let you know if I pick it up!

The graphics look horrible it's nearly as if we have gone backwards

Looks like the speeder will be more fun to drive across alien worlds vs the new moon buggy in Starfield at least 🤣

That's just one opinion (and notably the ONLY negative review on Metacritic of 56 on PS5). I can easily pick out one from the dozens of positive reviews.

That reviewer clearly hated it and that's their valid opinion. But they're evidently in the minority so I wouldn't be taking it as gospel.

Oh **** 🤣

"Hive mind"? Give me a break 😂

I actually find it a very normal thing to find publications and reviews whose opinions align with your own to make informed decisions

This I completely agree with and don't doubt that it's what important to a gamer.

But to claim that Eurogamer and Metrogame are the only legitimate sources out there is just silly and a bit crackpot. That's a decision you've made and power to you, but to claim it as fact….? Nah.

Nothing strange at all about looking at Metacritic for a general vibe on a game. I've loved games that have been pilloried by the masses and hated games that have been lauded. Ultimately I don't care too much about average scores but it can be indicative of a general opinion.

The numbers ultimately don't matter. It's about finding the reviewers who you trust to tell you why they've given it whatever score they have. While something like metacritic is okay for highlighting the general consensus, that's a general consensus from a pretty wide pool. As subjective as reviewers try to be (or should try to be), you also cannot discount personal preferences weighting their scores. Similarly, some reviewers (like Eurogamer) will often really try to stress-test the game and will weight some things like performance more highly than others.

I think the more positive reviews also don't negate things like the Speeder issues highlighted by Eurogamer, because it may not have happened as much to those other reviewers, or they weight it as being less of an issue in their overall experience.

So ultimately, yeah, the numbers don't matter. Always delve into why the reviewers you trust have given it that number.

The thing I hate about metacritic(apart from how important people seem to think it is) is that it encourages overly generous reviews.

By default, reviews are sorted by score with the highest at the top, and for smaller review outlets that rely on clickthroughs, they are incentivised to be as close to the top of the list as possible.

You only have to check the 2 top reviewers under outlaws to see that most big releases get great scores from them, which makes them useless as a reviewer, because knowing what they don’t like is as useful as knowing what they do.

The only thing that should really matter about reviews are finding publications that you typically agree with or at least trust to be honest about any flaws. Having dozens of small review sites gushing about every release doesn’t mean there’s a better chance that you’ll actually like the game.