Arkane PREY - Arkane's immersive coffee cup transformation sim - now with Mooncrash roguelike mode DLC

[Siel]

drama

 

[rusty_shackleford]

drama

what a fucking retard
he's reviewing the game as is, not how the game will be eventually. Might as well give every game a 10/10 because any issue might get fixed in the future.
Here's a better idea:
STOP RELEASING BROKEN GAMES.

compare and contrast with Avellone on the same topic

 

[Burning Bridges]

That's a lot of drama about a coffee cup simulator

Also what's this recent craze of putting blame on reviews? Everyone thinks their product deserves a better review. Except sometimes if they dont but then no one complains that a review it is too good either. Wether other people like your shit always involves a lot of luck. And that bad reviews do not help success is the essence of reviews. But I would not change 1 character from a review if a developer is moaning that it destroy his livelihood. They are merely applying for market success not entitled to it.

The question is why the reviews were bad and why does he think he deserved better. Because tbh I tried Prey and it was shit. And yes I played both SS1 and SS2 (*before they became cool*) and only a complete moron would compare them to a popamole game in which creative control was with some suits at Bethesda.

 

[Ash]

Look I shit on Arkane and their decline all the time, but if you think Prey deserved a 4/10 in any way, even if encountering a major bug, you have no place critiquing games.

 

[A horse of course]

Look I shit on Arkane and their decline all the time, but if you think Prey deserved a 4/10 in any way, even if encountering a major bug, you have no place critiquing games.

If your game has bug that is not only game-breaking but also reproducable the very next day, all after the reviewer was given VIP treatment by tech support, then this is entirely your own fault. Devs/publishers always make claims like "it'll be fixed by launch", and this wasn't even a pre-release copy of the game - it was the same copy of the game people who pre-ordered or bought the game on release were playing. Based on this reviewer's account, which hasn't been contested at all by Arkane or Bethesda AFAIK, he also spent several days trying to work it out with them.

My personal belief is that the reviewer should've said "this game has a significant, game-breaking bug and I cannot say with full confidance that it'll be fixed upon release. Therefore I have chosen not to review the game in its current state". That'll never happen, of course, but even if it had Arkultists would still be vomiting unfiltered cope about how the game failed because IGN said it was broken on release or something.

 

[kangaxx]

Agreed, and I said the same thing many pages back. Just delay the review. No other reviewer (or player AFAIK) was able to replicate this bug.

 

[Ash]

My personal belief is that the reviewer should've said "this game has a significant, game-breaking bug and I cannot say with full confidance that it'll be fixed upon release. Therefore I have chosen not to review the game in its current state"

That would be ideal.

It was an IGN review? That makes it even worse.

 

[A horse of course]

Agreed, and I said the same thing many pages back. Just delay the review. No other reviewer (or player AFAIK) was able to replicate this bug.

He specifically says Arkane confirmed it was a known, reproducible bug, and that it probably would've been fixed before release had Bethesda provided pre-release copies. Obviously the latter point has an ulterior motive, but it's a reasonable observation to make. Publishers regularly try to conceal the state of a game by not providing pre-review copies before launch, and it bit them in the ass this time.

 

[gurugeorge]

4/10 was absurd. If there's a bad bug situation and it looks like there's shenanigans, then the reviewer should give two scores, "In every other respect this is a 8/10 game but in all conscience I can't give it that score until the developers come clean and fix this gamestopping bug - until then I can only give it 4/10" type of thing.

 

[kangaxx]

OK, so the devs knew how to reproduce this bug but nobody stumbled upon it in the wild other than this one guy at IGN. That's exactly my point.

 

[Zarniwoop]

I remember the good old days when game demos had that retarded THIS IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FINAL PRODUCT disclaimer.

Hell, I miss the good old days when games had demos.

 

[Ash]

4/10 was absurd. If there's a bad bug situation and it looks like there's shenanigans, then the reviewer should give two scores, "In every other respect this is a 8/10 game but in all conscience I can't give it that score until the developers come clean and fix this gamestopping bug - until then I can only give it 4/10" type of thing

^so therefore averaging at 6/10. Would have been a lot more sensible. But sensible is not what game journalists do.

Edit: while 8/10 also feels accurate to me (I think I rated it 7.5), this is IGN whom rate Gears of War and other assorted trash 10/10, so it is even worse. Maybe a competitor paid off the IGN twat to review it poorly.

 

[Belegarsson]

I think the problem isn't that IGN gave it a 4, but Metacritic refused to update the score, thus giving it a stain forever. Technical issues would be irrelevant long when people get their hands on the game half a decade later, which proves Metacritic's policy is downright retarded and review scores need to die a horribly death.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

4/10 on release is one thing, but these lazy reviewers then should also re-review the patched product and update the final score accordingly.

 

[Ash]

I think the problem isn't that IGN gave it a 4, but Metacritic refused to update the score, thus giving it a stain forever. Technical issues would be irrelevant long when people get their hands on the game half a decade later, which proves Metacritic's policy is downright retarded and review scores need to die a horribly death.

Game journalists need to die a horrible death. Only I should be the absolute authority on INCLINE

 

[A horse of course]

4/10 on release is one thing, but these lazy reviewers then should also re-review the patched product and update the final score accordingly.

They did, metacritic has a policy of not updating scores except in cases of fraud or whatever.

OK, so the devs knew how to reproduce this bug but nobody stumbled upon it in the wild other than this one guy at IGN. That's exactly my point.

I don't know the details, but what's your source for saying "nobody stumbled upon it other than this one guy"?

 

[V_K]

the game failed because IGN said it was broken on release

I haven't watched the doc so maybe he is complaining about that. But it seems a lot more likely to me that there was some sort of deal involved similar to FNV, with Bethesda tying some financial incentives/penalties to the game's Metacritic performance.

 

[kangaxx]

I don't know the details, but what's your source for saying "nobody stumbled upon it other than this one guy"?

Well just look at metacritic. The IGN score sticks out like a sore thumb. Either way it makes my point for me.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/prey/critic-reviews

 

[A horse of course]

I don't know the details, but what's your source for saying "nobody stumbled upon it other than this one guy"?

Well just look at metacritic. The IGN score sticks out like a sore thumb. Either way it makes my point for me.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/prey/critic-reviews

"Only one of the professional critics listed on metacritic encountered this bug" is not a very strong argument for how obscure this bug supposedly was. The bug happened even after he was sent a completely new savegame from Arkane.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Look I shit on Arkane and their decline all the time, but if you think Prey deserved a 4/10 in any way, even if encountering a major bug, you have no place critiquing games.

The game wasn't able to be completed, and it was already released. What did you want them to do?
Even with direct help from Arkane, he could not complete the game.

reminder: this was not a pre-release review copy, this was after release.
How about instead of expecting reviewers to suck off developers who release broken games(goodjob, simp) we have game developers release FINISHED games.

Just delay the review.

They did, for a week. It was still not fixed. How long did you want them to delay it?

4/10 on release is one thing, but these lazy reviewers then should also re-review the patched product and update the final score accordingly.

They did, how about reading before posting?


The amount of simping for a game that was released broken is fucking disgusting. For once, a reviewer actually did something right and you're sucking off the devs who released a broken game.

 

[kangaxx]

rusty_shackleford 41 other critic reviews made no reference to this and scored the game accordingly. You come across as a retard trying to be edgy.

 

[kangaxx]

I don't know the details, but what's your source for saying "nobody stumbled upon it other than this one guy"?

Well just look at metacritic. The IGN score sticks out like a sore thumb. Either way it makes my point for me.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/prey/critic-reviews

"Only one of the professional critics listed on metacritic encountered this bug" is not a very strong argument for how obscure this bug supposedly was. The bug happened even after he was sent a completely new savegame from Arkane.

I think it's a pretty good measure... 41 other critics didn't mention it. Yes - devs should make sure their game works, but I had severe bugs the first time I played OG Deus Ex (back then there was no day one patch - I had to wait until PC Zone stuck a patch on a coverdisc).

Should we say that was a bad game because of those bugs? Did it deserve worse scores?

Dumb arguments.

 

[A horse of course]

rusty_shackleford 41 other critic reviews made no reference to this and scored the game accordingly. You come across as a retard trying to be edgy.

Yes, professional game critics are famous for accurately reporting on the technical stability of titles published by Bethesda Softworks.

I don't know the details, but what's your source for saying "nobody stumbled upon it other than this one guy"?

Well just look at metacritic. The IGN score sticks out like a sore thumb. Either way it makes my point for me.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/prey/critic-reviews

"Only one of the professional critics listed on metacritic encountered this bug" is not a very strong argument for how obscure this bug supposedly was. The bug happened even after he was sent a completely new savegame from Arkane.

I think it's a pretty good measure... 41 other critics didn't mention it. Yes - devs should make sure their game works, but I had severe bugs the first time I played OG Deus Ex (back then there was no day one patch - I had to wait until PC Zone stuck a patch on a coverdisc).

Should we say that was a bad game because of those bugs? Did it deserve worse scores?

Dumb arguments.

And as a professional reviewer, you would've been in the right for taking those serious bugs into account in a review of Deus Ex, just as some reviewers took into account the fact that release copies of Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines were literally impossible to complete due to a bug in the vampire hunters HQ.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

rusty_shackleford 41 other critic reviews made no reference to this and scored the game accordingly. You come across as a retard trying to be edgy.

Yet Arkane acknowledged the bug exists and was entirely reproducible.

Have you considered that -- because no pre-release review copies were provided -- many of the other reviewers simply rushed out a review ASAP for clicks without actually finishing the game, and because the bug happens near the end, many of them simply never got a chance to encounter it?

 

[Ash]

1. released broken and yet tons of us played it at release and had no such problem? The game felt incomplete in that the latter third was fucking boring and balance was fucked, yet very few had a buggy time.
2. There are always bugs. In any software more complex than pong. A game "journalist" should understand this.
3. 4 out of 10 for one bug, even if a show stopper, is completely unfair. There is a whole game behind that one bug. If the bug was present for everyone such a low score would make sense, but he was well aware this bug was not widespread. Furthermore it is also the age of the digital patch, so once again it doesn't make sense to condemn it for eternity. 4/10 essentially means the game is irredeemable.

I'm all for holding devs accountable, but IGN are not the ones to ever do that usually, and 4/10 is simply not fair.