Ehm… maybe because the purpose of having harder difficulty levels is to make the game more difficult?"Also, when I was playing it on the harder difficulties, I realized that I wasn’t acquiring XP for my moves any faster than if I played on the easiest difficulty.
What is the point then of having multiple difficulties if playing it on harder difficulties doesn’t reward you any more than playing it on easy?"
The Metacritics joke goes on...
View attachment 7859
The RPG Site review (the one wrote by someone who barely played the game) is still up there...
And now that PSX Extreme review published twice...
Ehm… maybe because the purpose of having harder difficulty levels is to make the game more difficult?
There's nothing bad with that quote though.
There are games indeed who reward you for playing on harder difficulties. It's called risk for reward.
This often translate into more XP, more money or unlockables exclusive to Hard mode.
So comparing the game to Freddie got Fingered is a good quote.There's nothing bad with that quote though.
There are games indeed who reward you for playing on harder difficulties. It's called risk for reward.
This often translate into more XP, more money or unlockables exclusive to Hard mode.
Why? Pretty much every point he makes is valid except the bizarre difficulty complaint.Dude sounds like a big baby. Cant help but laugh at the article. A fully grown man actually wrote that lol. God help us
I wouldn't say he loses all credibility, it's perfectly in line with most negative opinions of the game. Dunkey, Honest Trailers, Yahtzee etc. have all made exactly the same complaints; most are coming from the POV (however misguided) that Yakuza is the better version of Shenmue, so for S3 to not learn anything from the "progress" made by the Yakuza series is seen as a flaw.But to then go on a singular rant for the most part, not even trying to understand what the series is about (cut the fat from Shenmue I and I'm happy quote added in with the lack of understanding the pace of the series. Issues with this discussed elsewhere on here) and all you do is drop any sense of credibility to what's written.
This is dumb if that's what he's doing; S3 came out half a year ago. No one cares anymore and his opinion echoes what several other much higher profile critics have already said.Couple that with the fact he's going around social media begging various youtubers to read his review says it all really. Its attention seeking scoring it 3/10 and any semblance of rationality lost instantly by the rant and subsequent actions of the writer.
It wasn't retracted, they just removed the score because the reviewer didn't finish the game. Honestly, I don't really begrudge reviewers who didn't finish the game as I highly doubt playing past, say, the 10 hour mark would substantially change one's opinion. It's not like S3 shakes things up in its back half; if anything it puts its best foot forward.they haven't taken down the RPG gamer review that was retracted months ago so it just shows how much attention they pay to keeping things up to date.
He didn't say that though. He was complaining that the fight with Lan Di was over too quickly and there wasn't enough substance to justify the cliffhanger which led to the feeling of "after 18 years, that's it?" which is a very common complaint about the game.And if I hear that "Shenmue 3 should have finished the story" BS one more god damn time, I swear
I'm sorry but while the score was retracted the owner of RPG gamer even said he would re-review the game because of the review so that's a retraction, clear as day. How can someone review a game after 2 hours of playing it? At least this guy finished the game.Why? Pretty much every point he makes is valid except the bizarre difficulty complaint.
I wouldn't say he loses all credibility, it's perfectly in line with most negative opinions of the game. Dunkey, Honest Trailers, Yahtzee etc. have all made exactly the same complaints; most are coming from the POV (however misguided) that Yakuza is the better version of Shenmue, so for S3 to not learn anything from the "progress" made by the Yakuza series is seen as a flaw.
Personally, I prefer the overtly negative reviews of S3 to the ones that claim "it's a bad game but it's exactly what series fans wanted" because at least they're honest: they thought the game was bad, so they describe why they thought that--they don't pretend they know what fans wanted.
This is dumb if that's what he's doing; S3 came out half a year ago. No one cares anymore and his opinion echoes what several other much higher profile critics have already said.
It wasn't retracted, they just removed the score because the reviewer didn't finish the game. Honestly, I don't really begrudge reviewers who didn't finish the game as I highly doubt playing past, say, the 10 hour mark would substantially change one's opinion. It's not like S3 shakes things up in its back half; if anything it puts its best foot forward.
He didn't say that though. He was complaining that the fight with Lan Di was over too quickly and there wasn't enough substance to justify the cliffhanger which led to the feeling of "after 18 years, that's it?" which is a very common complaint about the game.
So comparing the game to Freddie got Fingered is a good quote.
Now the review does raise some valid points around the invisible walls, the Lan Di fight (to a point, though if anyone thought we were beating Lan Di now they need their heads checking) to name a few. But to then go on a singular rant for the most part, not even trying to understand what the series is about (cut the fat from Shenmue I and I'm happy quote added in with the lack of understanding the pace of the series. Issues with this discussed elsewhere on here) and all you do is drop any sense of credibility to what's written.
Couple that with the fact he's going around social media begging various youtubers to read his review says it all really. Its attention seeking scoring it 3/10 and any semblance of rationality lost instantly by the rant and subsequent actions of the writer.
Not that Metacritic will do anything about it, they haven't taken down the RPG gamer review that was retracted months ago so it just shows how much attention they pay to keeping things up to date.
Ah ok. Seems I mis-understood. The rest of my post stands but apologies for missing what you were getting at.Nah, the quote Kiske made about the difficulty.
If it was 2 hours then that's different. Yahtzee also admitted he didn't finish the game but he quit after learning the hip check, which is a decent enough amount into the game (even though his reasoning for quitting is dumb). I don't think it's super professional to not at least finish a game when it's your job to review games, but I also acknowledge that if I had stopped playing Kingdom Hearts 3 even 5 hours into it, my opinion of it wouldn't be very different.How can someone review a game after 2 hours of playing it?
I disagree. To me, if the points raised have merit then it doesn't matter what other stupid stuff he says. Doesn't mean his opinion is gospel or anything, just that it's rooted in something that makes sense.going off a Dunkley/Stirling rant to fit in with the YouTube culture shoots down the written article.
I think their analysis is that Shenmue is a relic of the past; even the positive reviews brand it as such. They were more entertained by Yakuza, they find it similar enough to draw parallels, and they view it as a more progressive gaming experience; that's a valid opinion to have. People complained about Skyward Sword being stuck in its formula and a relic of the past (though you wouldn't know it from the glowing reviews at the time) and that led to Breath of the Wild.These people cannot see the wood for the tress in the whole Shenmue v Yakuza thing and it's a blatant cop out from any true analysis of the game in search of hits.
This is true and unfortunately a lot of journalism is overly concerned with eyeballs, but there's just not a ton of value in video game reviews so they have to spice it up. Generally speaking reviews only matter in terms of aggregate sites like Steam, Rottentomatoes or Metacritic; gone are the days where a single negative review has any kind of impact (if it ever existed at all).Its sensationalist, pointless and quite frankly shows some elements of game journalism in a poor light. Its clear he's headline hunting.
He didn't say that though. He was complaining that the fight with Lan Di was over too quickly and there wasn't enough substance to justify the cliffhanger which led to the feeling of "after 18 years, that's it?" which is a very common complaint about the game.
Out of interest after 5 hours what was your opinion and how did it change after? Just curious not trying to trip anyone up here.If it was 2 hours then that's different. Yahtzee also admitted he didn't finish the game but he quit after learning the hip check, which is a decent enough amount into the game (even though his reasoning for quitting is dumb). I don't think it's super professional to not at least finish a game when it's your job to review games, but I also acknowledge that if I had stopped playing Kingdom Hearts 3 even 5 hours into it, my opinion of it wouldn't be very different.
I disagree. To me, if the points raised have merit then it doesn't matter what other stupid stuff he says. Doesn't mean his opinion is gospel or anything, just that it's rooted in something that makes sense.
I think their analysis is that Shenmue is a relic of the past; even the positive reviews brand it as such. They were more entertained by Yakuza, they find it similar enough to draw parallels, and they view it as a more progressive gaming experience; that's a valid opinion to have. People complained about Skyward Sword being stuck in its formula and a relic of the past (though you wouldn't know it from the glowing reviews at the time) and that led to Breath of the Wild.
This is true and unfortunately a lot of journalism is overly concerned with eyeballs, but there's just not a ton of value in video game reviews so they have to spice it up. Generally speaking reviews only matter in terms of aggregate sites like Steam, Rottentomatoes or Metacritic; gone are the days where a single negative review has any kind of impact (if it ever existed at all).
Once I finished Hercules and the shine wore off I was quickly bored by how repetitive it was. The cutscenes were extremely long, almost all the Disney worlds were spoiled in trailers so there were no surprises and most of the Disney worlds were based on very recent 3D movies (which ruins a lot of the charm for me), and there were no Final Fantasy characters. All the environments felt very static and samey which comes down to poor movie choice, and there isn't a decent boss battle till damn near the end of the game. KH is a weird game to judge based on play time because the worlds are often of varying quality but I found KH3 to be uniformly meh.Out of interest after 5 hours what was your opinion and how did it change after?
Yea that came out of nowhere. I don't even know what the comparison is supposed to mean.Going off comparing the game to Freddy Got Fingered loses any respect
It doesn't make it better but, for whatever reason, people commonly view Yakuza as the "good" version of what Shenmue was trying to do--almost all of the critics have played Yakuza 0 and 6 so when they played S3, they compared it to Yakuza, which they liked better. Game critics have been swayed before (I can't stress enough how slow and boring BotW is and everyone loves it) but Shenmue failed to make a case for itself with S3. I don't think it comes down to people not doing their homework since many fans who backed the game share the same complaints. This is actually a pretty fair negative review imo:Yakuza took the formula and used it as inspiration for their games and they're excellent but it doesn't mean one is better than the other.
Me too. Youtube has democratized critical opinion and it has been a double edged sword. I'm still optimistic though because most of the time the cream rises to the top; it's very rare that a majority of reviewers shit on a great game and praise a shit one.I miss the days where gaming media was informative and showed an element of care. Some of course still do but many others don't.
I feel you, man. It’s tough but loving this game was never a guarantee. I’m just happy Yu is in charge of a studio again and remain optimistic they can nail it next time.That video made me sad because... I can't really refute any of it. Pretty on the money. It was hard waiting all this time, and it's kinda unfathomable that after finally playing a Shenmue 3, things are still as hard, but in a different way.
I've lost count of how many video scripts I've written, or topics I've went to create on here but just stopped dead in my tracks because I usually end up backing myself into a corner, with no idea of how to get out. No game will ever confuse me on so many levels, more than Shenmue 3.
There's nothing bad with that quote though.
There are games indeed who reward you for playing on harder difficulties. It's called risk for reward.
This often translate into more XP, more money or unlockables exclusive to Hard mode.