they really need to fix the NPCs necks, being able to make a web bridge literally a few feet above enemies and them not seeing you cause their eyesight is horizontal cone only is pretty game breaking, gaf wouldnt let a MS or Nintendo game get away with that
IGN mentions is but does not characterize it as an "issue".
"Overall, there’s slightly less emphasis on stealth encounters this time than in either Spider-Man or Miles Morales. As someone who found the stealth action of the previous games a little simplistic and routine, this new, louder approach is welcome. Naturally, there are story missions where Miles or Peter have to slink across ceilings and take out thugs who never look up, but Spider-Man 2 is much more eager for you to get into the action, with many abilities designed to let you group up enemies and then deal big damage to all of them at once, rather than spreading them out to pick them off one by one."
And IGN speaks favorably of the web line.
"There are many perch takedown possibilities offered and new toys to play with too, such as the Web Line, which allows you to create your own highwires over your enemies to prey on them from above. It’s a fun tool that allows you to reshape the tightly designed arenas into a battlefield more in your favour, and in doing so, redecorate the room with web-wrapped people piñatas. On the other hand, much like combat, stealth isn’t a far cry from the many warehouse encounters you’ll have played in the previous games, as you clear out enemies using largely the same techniques."
"There are many perch takedown possibilities offered and new toys to play with too, such as the Web Line, which allows you to create your own highwires over your enemies to prey on them from above. It’s a fun tool that allows you to reshape the tightly designed arenas into a battlefield more in your favour, and in doing so, redecorate the room with web-wrapped people piñatas. On the other hand, much like combat, stealth isn’t a far cry from the many warehouse encounters you’ll have played in the previous games, as you clear out enemies using largely the same techniques."
I'm a fan of Starfield as well, but this is clearly petty warrior nonsense. I mean.....the guy announced his intention here to highlight "issues" that Microsoft/Nintendo wouldn't "get away with". This is simply the best he could come up with. lol
Edit: Kind of hilarious that he has become in this thread exactly what he complained about in the Starfield review thread.....
10 hours in and it's a Bethesda RPG in space, Star Effect, exactly what I was expecting.
It's so easy to tell the people on here who are just shit posting about the game from just having watched it on twitch rather than playing it, it's embarrassing
Don't understand people saying it feels laggy etc too, the controls are very responsive and tight for a 30fps title, once again they seem to be just shit posting from what they've read elsewhere, either that or they have some poor man's Chinese knock off TV with 200ms screen lag.
Solid 8/10 from me so far, could move to a 9/10 once I play the main quests more, could drop to a 7/10 if my adoring fan* doesn't stfu before I put a bullet in his skull.
(Yes my choice, I low key like the punishment of his whiney little voice)
I have ... but no point in playing right now ... the time for day 1 games for me has ended .... and since Im already going to wait better wait to play on the PRO with more/better perfomance
While it's great to see game getting high metascore, I am still unable to see how it justifies it.
Hopefully GAF will be able to point out after playing it what's so special about it. I mean, 91 is like.... holy shit, GOTG contender type of score. From what I have seen of the game it looks like a good 8/10 type of game.
Not saying it doesn't deserve it. Haven't played it. Just curious what sets it apart from predecessor apart from minor improvements.
I have ... but no point in playing right now ... the time for day 1 games for me has ended .... and since Im already going to wait better wait to play on the PRO with more/better perfomance
You sound like that guy that didn’t buy the iPhone 7 because he might as well wait for the iPhone 8… he still doesn’t have an iPhone, might as well hold on for the iPhone 16
While it's great to see game getting high metascore, I am still unable to see how it justifies it.
Hopefully GAF will be able to point out after playing it what's so special about it. I mean, 91 is like.... holy shit, GOTG contender type of score. From what I have seen of the game it looks like a good 8/10 type of game.
Not saying it doesn't deserve it. Haven't played it. Just curious what sets it apart from predecessor apart from minor improvements.
Why over-think these things? Maybe it’s just a fun as fuck video game, made with passion and care? That’s the impression I get prior to playing it for myself.
I have ... but no point in playing right now ... the time for day 1 games for me has ended .... and since Im already going to wait better wait to play on the PRO with more/better perfomance
Spiderman2 already looks and performs great on a base PS5, but sure, patched for a PRO Model is gonna be even better.
I generally don't play Day One when it comes to huge games, which will need patches to fix bugs, improve performance, etc, like Fallout Games, Elden Ring or even GTA. I prefer to wait at least 6 months. Talking about a game like Spiderman2, the wait is basicly for the ones who don't have a PS5 yet, or the ones, like you, who want even better visual and performance on a PRO.
I can't wait
You sound like that guy that didn’t buy the iPhone 7 because he might as well wait for the iPhone 8… he still doesn’t have an iPhone, might as well hold on for the iPhone 16
No is a simples choice.. I dont play games day 01 anymore.. they are (for the most part) more expensive, have more bugs, are incomplete and with worst perfomance ... early adopters are the new beta testers ... I know that insomniac games are quite complete at launch but since I have my 1 year-later back log to go through I can wait. And knowing that the ps5 pro will be out next year at this time (probably) well even better. And maybe this game will already be on ps+ 1 year from now.. who knows, if not, well its my first buy for my ps5pro.
And, as I said it, I have my PS5 since launch, so your comparison is kinda off my friend.
Is this game gonna hurt the day-one sales of ALAN WAKE 2 on 10/27/23?
Last time I checked, "halloween" themed movies and decorations take place throughout ALL OF OCTOBER. Why'd Remedy wait until almost after Halloween to release a horror game? Should have released Alan Wake 2 in early October. Might as well wait until mid-November now.
Why over-think these things? Maybe it’s just a fun as fuck video game, made with passion and care? That’s the impression I get prior to playing it for myself.
I know right. There are certain other games that should have metascores in the 50's and 60's judging by how they've been recieved by the general public on Steam.
While it's great to see game getting high metascore, I am still unable to see how it justifies it.
Hopefully GAF will be able to point out after playing it what's so special about it. I mean, 91 is like.... holy shit, GOTG contender type of score. From what I have seen of the game it looks like a good 8/10 type of game.
Not saying it doesn't deserve it. Haven't played it. Just curious what sets it apart from predecessor apart from minor improvements.
So upon actually reading and watching reviews (part of the odious Kinda Funny's included, against my better judgment), I have to give legitimacy to vaibhavpisal
's angle. Go ahead and look at my post history, I'm pro-PlayStation - though I have expressed some disappointment in the direction of this game, and stand by those statements.
Score inflation is definitely a thing, and I was hoping it's effects would diminish the closer the score got to that 90s boundary. That said, there's something to note about a game that is literally universally seen to be great or well above average. That's partially why it's hit the 90+ range - not one negative or mixed review.
It just means that you'll now how to differentiate what different 90+ scores mean with more than just the weighted average... which I guess we should've been doing anyway.
It indicates a pretty measured approach to reviewing the game, agreed. No questioning about whether or not there's a specific meta (politics or industry related) informing the scores.
I know right. There are certain other games that should have metascores in the 50's and 60's judging by how they've been recieved by the general public on Steam.
It really is unfortunate that the games media can't keep things simple. You can smell the hesitation to give lower scores to games that deserve it simply because it's a major release with "a lot riding on it".
While it's great to see game getting high metascore, I am still unable to see how it justifies it.
Hopefully GAF will be able to point out after playing it what's so special about it. I mean, 91 is like.... holy shit, GOTG contender type of score. From what I have seen of the game it looks like a good 8/10 type of game.
Not saying it doesn't deserve it. Haven't played it. Just curious what sets it apart from predecessor apart from minor improvements.
So upon actually reading and watching reviews (part of the odious Kinda Funny's included, against my better judgment), I have to give legitimacy to vaibhavpisal
's angle. Go ahead and look at my post history, I'm pro-PlayStation - though I have expressed some disappointment in the direction of this game, and stand by those statements.
Score inflation is definitely a thing, and I was hoping it's effects would diminish the closer the score got to that 90s boundary. That said, there's something to note about a game that is literally universally seen to be great or well above average. That's partially why it's hit the 90+ range - not one negative or mixed review.
It just means that you'll now how to differentiate what different 90+ scores mean with more than just the weighted average... which I guess we should've been doing anyway.
I am willing to keep an open mind here. At some point I will get to these games, I want critic scores to be somewhat accurate.
A lot of money I spend based on YouTube videos and critic reviews. (That's all I have to base my judgement on without actually playing it).
With that said, I feel 91 is ... like... really high score. Games like Doom Eternal or Returnal (widely considered best in their genres) don't have it.
So I would be keeping eye on it if it really is that special.
So upon actually reading and watching reviews (part of the odious Kinda Funny's included, against my better judgment), I have to give legitimacy to vaibhavpisal
's angle. Go ahead and look at my post history, I'm pro-PlayStation - though I have expressed some disappointment in the direction of this game, and stand by those statements.
Score inflation is definitely a thing, and I was hoping it's effects would diminish the closer the score got to that 90s boundary. That said, there's something to note about a game that is literally universally seen to be great or well above average. That's partially why it's hit the 90+ range - not one negative or mixed review.
It just means that you'll now how to differentiate what different 90+ scores mean with more than just the weighted average... which I guess we should've been doing anyway.
As I've been saying on here for a while, we have to learn to not read too much into numbered scores. They mean nothing. Especially once you have the game in your hands and start playing. I don't think I could imagine anyone thinking about what xyz reviewer said in their review and the score they gave this game while they're in the midst of fighting enemies and swinging around.
I hope the number nonsense stuff comes to an end one day. People rely way too heavy on them. Pros and Cons are the way to go. I mean think about it. Someone will go apeshit because the game is an 89 versus a 90. Like wtf is that kind of mentality to have?
Listen to those from the reviewer and then make your own interpretation whether or not to buy the game, wait for a sale, or never touch it.
While it's great to see game getting high metascore, I am still unable to see how it justifies it.
Hopefully GAF will be able to point out after playing it what's so special about it. I mean, 91 is like.... holy shit, GOTG contender type of score. From what I have seen of the game it looks like a good 8/10 type of game.
Not saying it doesn't deserve it. Haven't played it. Just curious what sets it apart from predecessor apart from minor improvements.
Remastered is an 87 on meta and I'd give it a 70-75 at best. I still haven't even finished it because after the joys of traversal pass, it's really just not that enjoyable. Overall gameplay is pretty generic/boring, but that's how I've felt about pretty much every super hero style game.
So upon actually reading and watching reviews (part of the odious Kinda Funny's included, against my better judgment), I have to give legitimacy to vaibhavpisal
's angle. Go ahead and look at my post history, I'm pro-PlayStation - though I have expressed some disappointment in the direction of this game, and stand by those statements.
Score inflation is definitely a thing, and I was hoping it's effects would diminish the closer the score got to that 90s boundary. That said, there's something to note about a game that is literally universally seen to be great or well above average. That's partially why it's hit the 90+ range - not one negative or mixed review.
It just means that you'll now how to differentiate what different 90+ scores mean with more than just the weighted average... which I guess we should've been doing anyway.
Remastered is an 87 on meta and I'd give it a 70-75 at best. I still haven't even finished it because after the joys of traversal pass, it's really just not that enjoyable. Overall gameplay is pretty generic/boring, but that's how I've felt about pretty much every super hero style game.