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

[rusty_shackleford]

He's right. You do argue like a woman. Why would you jump to those mad conclusions? WHY? This can only mean...Guys we found a chick on the 'dex.

How is it a mad conclusion to expect a developer owned by a multi-billion dollar media corporation to put out a game without a bug that corrupts your savefile?
You guys are insane for treating Arkane like they're Styg or ITS.

 

[Ash]

I really do respect that that is the crux of your argument, I do. But at the same time Prey was held to some harsh standard that no other AAA has ever been. I wish there could have been some other, lesser game that was the martyr here...like AC Valhalla for instance.

 

[kangaxx]

So you'd be happier right now if a reviewer did not in fact report the save game corruption bug and score their review accordingly for a game that released with bugs that would erase dozens of hours of progress?
You're happy with the reviews AC: Valhalla got, that still has gamebreaking bugs to this day?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I really do respect that that is the crux of your argument, I do. But at the same time Prey was held to some harsh standard that no other AAA has ever been. I wish there could have been some other, lesser game that was the martyr here...like AC Valhalla for instance.

How is temporarily giving it a poor score some unheard of standard? There are tons of games that have gotten far worse than that for far less than gamebreaking, save-corrupting bugs.

You act like Prey got the same treatment as Left Alive or something.

 

[Ash]

Huh? The Left Alive reviews are saying that the entire game is half baked and shit banal boring at its core? To me that is a far worse offense than a acceptable game with a not all too common game-breaking bug expected to be patched out ASAP.

You could be right anyhow, I don't observe journos that intently, but when I do browse I notice a trend: AAA games don't get shat on by game journos unless they're REALLY bad, and it often seems the shittier they are the higher score they get, until it reaches a threshold where the game is so bad that only then it gets dumped on.

 

[Belegarsson]

So you'd be happier right now if a reviewer did not in fact report the save game corruption bug and score their review accordingly for a game that released with bugs that would erase dozens of hours of progress?
You're happy with the reviews AC: Valhalla got, that still has gamebreaking bugs to this day?


I'm sorry the multi-billion dollar company couldn't afford to hire QA, but it's not the reviewer's fault.

The problem here is not about the nature of the score. Thing is, while text describes everything clearly and is hard to be misinterpreted, numbers don't. A review score doesn't discriminate and doesn't exactly tell what is wrong with the game not until you finished the text. A lone 4/10 can mean the game itself is horrendous, janky, clunky, and it still might be technically competent.

I personally think it's very unfair to give it a score that makes the product easy to be looked down based on a lone issue that 0.1% of the playerbase might experience. It sucks that it exists, and it sucks that you can belong to that 0.1% yes, but the score itself doesn't warrant an issue with such low probability. Peanut butter isn't prohibited because it can cause allergy after all. It's not a bug ridden piece of shit that doesn't function properly, or doesn't load texture half the time, or keep exposing your character's penis. While it's a gamebreaking issue, it would have been more appropriate as a PSA rather than affected the rating that's supposed to reflect the overall game's quality.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So you'd be happier right now if a reviewer did not in fact report the save game corruption bug and score their review accordingly for a game that released with bugs that would erase dozens of hours of progress?
You're happy with the reviews AC: Valhalla got, that still has gamebreaking bugs to this day?


I'm sorry the multi-billion dollar company couldn't afford to hire QA, but it's not the reviewer's fault.

The problem here is not about the nature of the score. Thing is, while text describes everything clearly and is hard to be misinterpreted, numbers don't. A review score doesn't discriminate and doesn't exactly tell what is wrong with the game not until you finished the text. A lone 4/10 can mean the game itself is horrendous, janky, clunky, and it still might be technically competent.

I personally think it's very unfair to give it a score that makes the product easy to be looked down based on a lone issue that 0.1% of the playerbase might experience. It sucks that it exists, and it sucks that you can belong to that 0.1% yes, but the score itself doesn't warrant an issue with such low probability. Peanut butter isn't prohibited because it can cause allergy after all. It's not a bug ridden piece of shit that doesn't function properly, or doesn't load texture half the time, or keep exposing your character's penis. While it's a gamebreaking issue, it would have been more appropriate as a PSA rather than affected the rating that's supposed to reflect the overall game's quality.

If someone served you with a peanutbutter sandwich that had roaches in it, I'm sure you'd give a glowing review because most people wouldn't get such a sandwich... right?

 

[markec]

So you'd be happier right now if a reviewer did not in fact report the save game corruption bug and score their review accordingly for a game that released with bugs that would erase dozens of hours of progress?
You're happy with the reviews AC: Valhalla got, that still has gamebreaking bugs to this day?


I'm sorry the multi-billion dollar company couldn't afford to hire QA, but it's not the reviewer's fault.

IGN game Bloodlines score of 8 while the game had a game breaking bug that prevented players from progressing.

What you can do is put a review or release a preview until the game is fixed and then grade the game based on its gameplay and not just a gamebreaking bug.

To me the score is not much an issue if they held every game by the same standards, which we all know its not true.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So you'd be happier right now if a reviewer did not in fact report the save game corruption bug and score their review accordingly for a game that released with bugs that would erase dozens of hours of progress?
You're happy with the reviews AC: Valhalla got, that still has gamebreaking bugs to this day?


I'm sorry the multi-billion dollar company couldn't afford to hire QA, but it's not the reviewer's fault.

IGN game Bloodlines score of 8 while the game had a game breaking bug that prevented players from progressing.

What you can do is put a review or release a preview until the game is fixed and then grade the game based on its gameplay and not just a gamebreaking bug.

To me the score is not much an issue if they held every game by the same standards, which we all know its not true.

VTMB released when magazine scores were still common and couldn't be updated as easy.
Again, IGN is not responsible for Metacritic.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Hold on guys, I have this really weird idea:
maybe a multi-billion dollar company could just not release games with bugs that corrupt your saves. Then they wouldn't get negative reviews for it.

...
Or they could keep doing it and SIMPS will keep defending them.

 

[gurugeorge]

So you'd be happier right now if a reviewer did not in fact report the save game corruption bug and score their review accordingly for a game that released with bugs that would erase dozens of hours of progress?
You're happy with the reviews AC: Valhalla got, that still has gamebreaking bugs to this day?


I'm sorry the multi-billion dollar company couldn't afford to hire QA, but it's not the reviewer's fault.

The problem here is not about the nature of the score. Thing is, while text describes everything clearly and is hard to be misinterpreted, numbers don't. A review score doesn't discriminate and doesn't exactly tell what is wrong with the game not until you finished the text. A lone 4/10 can mean the game itself is horrendous, janky, clunky, and it still might be technically competent.

I personally think it's very unfair to give it a score that makes the product easy to be looked down based on a lone issue that 0.1% of the playerbase might experience. It sucks that it exists, and it sucks that you can belong to that 0.1% yes, but the score itself doesn't warrant an issue with such low probability. Peanut butter isn't prohibited because it can cause allergy after all. It's not a bug ridden piece of shit that doesn't function properly, or doesn't load texture half the time, or keep exposing your character's penis. While it's a gamebreaking issue, it would have been more appropriate as a PSA rather than affected the rating that's supposed to reflect the overall game's quality.

If someone served you with a peanutbutter sandwich that had roaches in it, I'm sure you'd give a glowing review because most people wouldn't get such a sandwich... right?

Hyperbole is absolutely the worst thing in the world.

I get your point but I'm just not sure that habitually giving ridiculously disproportionate scores that are unreflective of the quality of the bulk of the product is the way to advance the cause of encouraging bug-free games.

The comparison between games and everyday items like cars and meals is often used in these types of game-quality-related discussions, but I've never thought it was really appropriate. On the one hand you're talking about potentially life-threatening issues (obviously the roach in and of itself isn't so much the problem, rather it's the fact that its presence is likely to be reflective of a dirty kitchen, which is dangerous to public health; likewise problems with cars can be life-threatening); on the other hand you're talking about a hobby context with minor problems that usually affect only a small percentage of consumers, that aren't life-threatening and that are likely to be eventually fixed (provided the devs aren't utterly incompetent and the game isn't a complete mess - not the case here). On the other hand a bad score can "kill" a game quite easily, and in this case it probably did, and in this case it was grossly unfair.

 

[markec]

Hold on guys, I have this really weird idea:
maybe a multi-billion dollar company could just not release games with bugs that corrupt your saves. Then they wouldn't get negative reviews for it.

...
Or they could keep doing it and SIMPS will keep defending them.

I completely I agree, if Prey was broken on release it should have got a poor score I won't deny it.

My issue is with "journalists" having double standards.

For example IGN gave Fallout 4 9.5 same with Mass Effect 3, I would rate higher buggy Prey then perfectly polished either of those games.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So you'd be happier right now if a reviewer did not in fact report the save game corruption bug and score their review accordingly for a game that released with bugs that would erase dozens of hours of progress?
You're happy with the reviews AC: Valhalla got, that still has gamebreaking bugs to this day?


I'm sorry the multi-billion dollar company couldn't afford to hire QA, but it's not the reviewer's fault.

The problem here is not about the nature of the score. Thing is, while text describes everything clearly and is hard to be misinterpreted, numbers don't. A review score doesn't discriminate and doesn't exactly tell what is wrong with the game not until you finished the text. A lone 4/10 can mean the game itself is horrendous, janky, clunky, and it still might be technically competent.

I personally think it's very unfair to give it a score that makes the product easy to be looked down based on a lone issue that 0.1% of the playerbase might experience. It sucks that it exists, and it sucks that you can belong to that 0.1% yes, but the score itself doesn't warrant an issue with such low probability. Peanut butter isn't prohibited because it can cause allergy after all. It's not a bug ridden piece of shit that doesn't function properly, or doesn't load texture half the time, or keep exposing your character's penis. While it's a gamebreaking issue, it would have been more appropriate as a PSA rather than affected the rating that's supposed to reflect the overall game's quality.

If someone served you with a peanutbutter sandwich that had roaches in it, I'm sure you'd give a glowing review because most people wouldn't get such a sandwich... right?

Hyperbole is absolutely the worst thing in the world.

I get your point but I'm just not sure that habitually giving ridiculously disproportionate scores that are unreflective of the quality of the bulk of the product is the way to advance the cause of encouraging bug-free games.

The comparison between games and everyday items like cars and meals is often used in these types of game-quality-related discussions, but I've never thought it was really appropriate. On the one hand you're talking about potentially life-threatening issues (obviously the roach in and of itself isn't so much the problem, rather it's the fact that its presence is likely to be reflective of a dirty kitchen, which is dangerous to public health; likewise problems with cars can be life-threatening); on the other hand you're talking about a hobby context with minor problems that usually affect only a small percentage of consumers, that aren't life-threatening and that are likely to be eventually fixed (provided the devs aren't utterly incompetent and the game isn't a complete mess - not the case here). On the other hand a bad score can "kill" a game quite easily, and in this case it probably did, and in this case it was grossly unfair.

He used a food analogy, so I'm in the wrong for doing the same exact thing right back at him?


OK Codex, I sincerely apologize for wanting AAA games to not have save-corrupting bugs. I have clearly upset the Arkane fanboys who think it's acceptable to release games with bugs that corrupt your save and cause you to lose dozens of hours. I Apologize, seriously! I'm sorry I defended a video game journalist who for once actually did his job and warned potential customers about a serious issue with the game that was not fixed in the released build. I'm sorry!

Spoiler

Just fucking admit you're all a bunch of hypocrites and upset that the game you fanboy got a bad review. You'd be in my position if this was Skyrim.

 

[Ash]

Hold on guys, I have this really weird idea:
maybe a multi-billion dollar company could just not release games with bugs that corrupt your saves. Then they wouldn't get negative reviews for it.

...
Or they could keep doing it and SIMPS will keep defending them.

The guy (or girl) does have a very good point


But Arkane and the game they have produced are also the middlemen that suffer to make this statement via harsh review score, it's not just the consumer that suffers. The devs don't get to decide when release is. Notice how Raf is clearly upset about the situation. I would be too. Publisher is at fault, but everyone under them suffers.

For example IGN gave Fallout 4 9.5 same with Mass Effect 3, I would rate higher buggy Prey then perfectly polished either of those games.

I actually enjoyed F4 more than Prey
They're both ultimately decline, but hardcore mode actually caters to my demands better than Prey did, there is minimal SJW writing by comparison (it may be boring stuff in F4 but in Prey it's sometimes grating), 100s of weapons vs Prey's pathetic four or five, way more diverse AI and enemy types...and they're both junk recyclers yet F4 does even that better with 100s of crafting options to hone to your playstyle and semi-elaborate weapon customisation as the reward.
It's not fallout but Prey is no SS2 either.

 

[gurugeorge]

Just fucking admit you're all a bunch of hypocrites and upset that the game you fanboy got a bad review. You'd be in my position if this was Skyrim.

It's not that it was a bad review, it's that it was a game-killing score.

If we're going to go with real-world comparisons, it would be like reviewing a good car as 4/10 because the glove compartment never shuts properly and it really pissed the reviewer off.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

If we're going to go with real-world comparisons, it would be like reviewing a good car as 4/10 because

The brakes stop working on the highway.
Yeah, how unfair of them.


Losing your save dozens of hours in is not some small annoyance, lol.

 

[kangaxx]

If someone served you with a peanutbutter sandwich that had roaches in it, I'm sure you'd give a glowing review because most people wouldn't get such a sandwich... right?

This comparison doesn't work at all because, as you know, the end user's hardware setup or in-game actions are very often contributory factors in whether a piece of software plays up. That isn't true with a cockroach sandwich.

Ideally they test every possible combination but often they don't or can't, especially in games like this.

TO REPEAT, so you don't type another Cathy Newman response: I do agree that the devs should test thoroughly and fix as many things as possible before release.

 

[FreshCorpse]

All this debate but Prey even now is a solid 6/10 game. They should either have added more combat mechanics or cut the number of mobs. It was just repetitive blasting of black shapes in the last half of the game. If the reviewer was forced to stop at some point 3/4 of the way through that may well have artificially improved his opinion. It certainly would have improved mine.

 

[MajorMace]

True that review scores have too much impact for how the industry works today. The other way around works as well, some paradox interactive games deserved good grades at release, but are now broken and inconsistent messes.
The steam very simple system of "recent reviews" is miles better already.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

How dare any of you attack this brave journalist going against the grain and taking a stunning stand for ethics in journalism?

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Hold on guys, I have this really weird idea:
maybe a multi-billion dollar company could just not release games with bugs that corrupt your saves. Then they wouldn't get negative reviews for it.

...
Or they could keep doing it and SIMPS will keep defending them.

The guy (or girl) does have a very good point


But Arkane and the game they have produced are also the middlemen that suffer to make this statement via harsh review score, it's not just the consumer that suffers. The devs don't get to decide when release is. Notice how Raf is clearly upset about the situation. I would be too. Publisher is at fault, but everyone under them suffers.

For example IGN gave Fallout 4 9.5 same with Mass Effect 3, I would rate higher buggy Prey then perfectly polished either of those games.

I actually enjoyed F4 more than Prey
They're both ultimately decline, but hardcore mode actually caters to my demands better than Prey did, there is minimal SJW writing by comparison (it may be boring stuff in F4 but in Prey it's sometimes grating), 100s of weapons vs Prey's pathetic four or five, way more diverse AI and enemy types...and they're both junk recyclers yet F4 does even that better with 100s of crafting options to hone to your playstyle and semi-elaborate weapon customisation as the reward.
It's not fallout but Prey is no SS2 either.

I found the crafting options to be a bit of trap, tbh. It may seem like a lot of permutations, until you realize that they are the same mods across different weapons and many mods are just better versions of other mods.
There's only a few weapons that have their unique set of mods, and you don't get many options with those and they follow a linear path like the other ones.
Fallout 4's customization system is a lie.

Fallout 4 is bigger, but bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. They are both boring on subsequent play throughs though.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

I remember the good old days when game demos

were demos. DEMO-nstration, they were not trying to sell anything other than the development of the game.
but this is way before "your" good old days.

 

[agentorange]

I actually enjoyed F4 more than Prey
They're both ultimately decline, but hardcore mode actually caters to my demands better than Prey did, there is minimal SJW writing by comparison (it may be boring stuff in F4 but in Prey it's sometimes grating), 100s of weapons vs Prey's pathetic four or five, way more diverse AI and enemy types...and they're both junk recyclers yet F4 does even that better with 100s of crafting options to hone to your playstyle and semi-elaborate weapon customisation as the reward.
It's not fallout but Prey is no SS2 either.

you're a fucking moron lol
go make some more shitty mods

 

[anvi]

Devs release broken shit because people buy it.

 

[Ismaul]

Prey is awesome shut up guys.

Great games always had great bugs. As a dev, you either are small enough to have the ambition and flexibility to try to do something inventive and great but buggy because of that, or you're big enough to do something polished like a bowling ball but so bland you want to gouge your eyes out. I'd take greatness with an extra serving of bugs any day.

Bugs can be fixed, greatness can't be patched in.