So was I, but if your burn here was supposed to be "only Americans care about it" you uh... very clearly picked the wrong game?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds PC 1.0 Reviews
- Thread starter Twin Tails
- Start date
Buy etherium so hot rn
PC games like this tend to be evergreen, they don't sputter out and get thrown into the dumpster after six months like console focused titles.
Not trying to incite anything, I'm back almost purely on console gaming that's just a benefit of the platform is good, well supported games maintain communities.
Last edited:
this game definitely doesn't deserve a ten, as much as I enjoy it. If someone is being completely honest with themselves, they'd give it a 6.5 - very flawed, but you can get enjoyment out of it
anything above a 7 is giving it a good score solely on the fact that it's popular
anything above a 7 is giving it a good score solely on the fact that it's popular
Have you even played with the 1.0 patch? It's actually not bad anymore. And I think the fact that people love this game so much despite some of its issues explains exactly how on earth someone could give it a 10/10. Especially pre 1.0 when it was actually a mess and still selling boat loads of copies.
Either you can't give anything a 10/10 or you can give things with even significant issues 10/10 if their holistic level of quality is such that it overcomes them. PUBG is such an immense phenomenon, the stories it generates so entertaining, and the play loop so compelling that the tech issues just don't really matter.
You could apply this post to literally any popular game and it would still be wrong.
Unfortunately games aren't directly comparable to arts and have more criteria to be judged upon, the biggest of which being how much fun they are to play. The actual act of watching a movie, or looking at a picture, isn't exactly as exhilarating as the potential excitement and joy from playing a video game. Which is fine because you aren't typically judging them based on the enjoyment of watching or looking, but rather the merits of the content you are experiencing. Doesn't mean games shouldn't be considered art, but they should be distinct in how they are judged, as they are still a totally different form of art.
But yes it's always going to come down to how you manage your scale of ratings, and these are never going to be agreed upon across the board. However there's something about PUBG and its performance that pushes the buttons of gamers who don't like it when the game is praised. I still, however, think you should be able to accept it as a difference in taste rather than some kind of objective flaw in its worth. I'm not really into classical music but if I think something sounds like shit that 99% of classical music critics say is downright genius, I'm just going to accept that it's a difference in taste and not argue that something isn't as good as it is in the eyes of (most) others. Just isn't my thing. The sales performance and concurrent players of PUBG should help prove that it is indeed incredible to most others, and that there is definitely something unquestionably wonderful about it--something that many of those 20 million+ players think is worthy of a 10/10.
Fair enough, makes it even better as an example, mine still had "holes" in it. Other examples might not serve as well but still have a core of aspects you need to get right to reach the perfect score.
Didn't pick multiple choice exams as I am not that familiar with them.
Maybe. But even if we're talking American football, it's clearly not some flash-in-the-pan fad that's on its way out. And I say this as someone that you couldn't pay to give a shit about the NFL.
I've been playing the test servers the past couple of days, is the network lag and rubberbanding less frequent in the release version?
I believe he was going with the "only Americans care about that trash sport and the rest of the world are into better things that matter" angle with his mention of football..
Because historically (this is less true nowadays as internet discussion and fandom-outrage culture have spread) film circles were composed of people who had training in critical theory or the subjective analysis of art, and game circles historically (this is less true now as more people take them seriously as a medium) aren't.
A score for a review is not a test score, it's not a science or [If game has X flaws, then subtract Y points]. Review scores are reflections of how an individual feels about a game, and a person feels that a game's strengths are so strong and accomplished that they transcend the flaws and weakness, then their impressions will reflect that
10/10 doesn't equal perfect and flawless, it merely represents the highest honor a site can give and that the individual felt the game's strengths were that exceptional and special
American football is a pretty cool game, americans love it for sure. But many don't enjoy it too. Even soccer is not interesting to all people - not even in Italy - outside of world cups. They're both evolutions of how to play with a ball. There are less popular variations of them that some might prefer (see Rugby). Cricket is super loved in some commonwealth countries too, while tennis is more of a western thing.
None of them deserve 10/10. Most fans always point out issues in them. Soccer for example has some shit rules and problems when applicating some others.
(Wasn't PUBG even compared to baseball because of many moments of calm between climaxes?)
The thing is that this is one of those games that click with a huge amount of people, but it doesn't mean it's automatically a 10/10, because to me a 10/10 requires a certain degree of universality to it. I for example would rate it 7/10 right now, with Fortnite grabbing 7.5/10 and my favorite multiplayer experiences going just shy of 9/10 - if I'm basing it entirely on my experience with those games.
A game like Super Mario Bros 3, though, I might have zero issues in giving it 10/10 because even if I wasn't a huge fan of platformers, the level design, the execution on those hardware limits, the learning curve, the variety of ideas, it goes beyond the pure jumping around. It's like Mozart made videogames instead of music.
There are plenty of cool concerts of jazz that are not perfect but amazing, that people who love the genre would be crazy about. People not interested in jazz might find them pretty cool. Some might get asleep. That's PUBG. I recognize it's good, but it's flawed, reaaally flawed, and no, it doesn't add to the charm to me.
I have some admiration for rugby (cool values) but other than that, most professional sports are bullshit.
The same way you give it to Switch games that can't maintain 30 FPS or even 720p: you like the content and stop giving a shit about secondary aspects.
That said, I hate this game and I still want my 30 dollars back but I never felt it ran poorly at all. Never had any issue getting 60 out of it at all times on an older rig, and this was closer to the original launch.
Also, I agree with the people saying this thread is reaching peak stupidity. Even the old board rarely got THIS bad.
I would argue though that most people should play it before criticising the game.
In PUBG threads you always have a lot of people who dont even have a capable PC saying "I dont get why its so popular. I saw it on Twitch! It looks soooo boring!"
Then just understand that a lot of us feel the same way about the special kind of intensity that PUBG's gameplay loop breeds, as you feel about Mario 3's meticulously designed gameplay loops and its flawless execution. That experience might not have been explicitly designed like Mario's, but is valid nonetheless - and, for many of is, is one of, if not the, most fun, engaging, and evolving experiences we've had with a game all year.
when you get down to it pubguh is the literally any food, movie, tv show, sport, game, hobby, job, sex position, or clothing brand of games: some people like it and some others do not
More people are interested in PUBG than your favourite games.
Again: far more people are interested in PUBG than your favourite games.
I mean, I'm also personally not personally interested in the game, but you are being silly. Games are not necessarily about telling stories, or about challenging us. The are just another medium of entertainment, and by any objective metric PUBG has succeeded in dominating this medium over all other new releases in 2017.
PlayerUnknown's Battle Royale was first introduced in ArmA 2 in the year 2012.
I guess the "PUBG franchise" already made the first half of the decade? So it's just another half decade to go until you will recognise it as a game?
Funny that you mention Counterstrike. Do you know how long it existed before it turned into a "game" by your definition?
On topic: there are valid reasons to give it a 10/10 but personally I would have went with a 9
So are we basing this 10/10 on the amount of people find it so fun?
Because reviews never were a popularity contest until this one... The same things you see in PUBG I see in other games. But those were criticized and scores reflected the issues, this one gets 10 out purely on good will and fun factor according to what reviews wrote in their explanation for the score.
In 2027 we might be playing PlayerWellknown's Overgrounds of Legends.
I know Counterstrike (and Starcraft) were a thing before we had shaders in our PCs. I was reading about esports back in 2003-2004, and they were the esports back then together with Quake, Unreal, FIFA.
So write reviews how you want to or something then? Then other people can complain that you're doing it wrong. Because people have a hard time figuring out that not everyone else shares their opinion on how something should be done.
Not on "the amount of people". On the one person who wrote the review. They're the only person that matters when we're talking about an individual review score.
What? There were BR games before, but not like that with a huge Open Island/Desert with looting as the main gameplay mechanic, hiding, ambushing with 100 people.
You could say "Oh. Looting is also in Survival Game 12123".
"You have a huge island in Arma"
"You can ambush in Counter Strike."
The mix wasnt really done before like that.
Zelda got a lot of 10/10, even though it has technical issues...
No, we've definitely gotten this exact same kind of melodramatic outrage every time people gave good reviews to a multiplayer game at pretty much every point in the last decade.
No. The person who wrote this review is basing their 10/10 on the excellent experience they've had with the game. It's all there at the link; you can read it if you'd like.
Why is it that, no matter the context under which PUBG's commercial success is brought up, someone takes it to mean "well you think PUBG deserves high scores/goty because it's popular!?!"? It's silly.
Again, this review score was based on the reviewer's positive experience with the game. That's why they lauded it, and that's why PUBG's many players often laud it. It's not hard to understand. The game isn't being lauded out of goodwill, it's being lauded because it's very fun and uniquely tense. So much so that those facts outweigh the obvious flaws to them.
Yep. Same shit went down with Overwatch last year.
Counterstrike, Quake and Unreal existed way longer than 2003-2004. Also PUBG is already huge in the eSport Scene (even tho it's more on the Show / Entertainment side and less on the professional competitive side). But I don't see what any of this has to do with the fact that the game is huge, that the "franchise" exists already since 5 years and that it is simply a fun (and valid) game.
an "objective" review doesn't exist and never will, stop with this shit pls
lol sure buddy
lol sure buddy
Different sites rate things differently. Some try to write objective reviews that try to normalize the reviewers experience into something applicable to everyone. Others, it's purely the reviewers two cents. Some sites will start at 10/10 and subtract for every objective flaw. Others will allow a game with huge flaws to get a 10 if its incredibly fun.
We may prefer a specific type of review, but I think there's value to have a broad spectrum of opinions and indeed ways of distilling the text down into a number. That some third party sites like metacritic and RT want to average them all out, doesn't for me justify losing different types of scoring systems or reviews.
If polygon want to rate a game out of 10 purely based on the subjective experience the reviewer had, whether that's praising a game, or criticizing one (like say, in that infamous Bayonetta review) I'd say there's no problem with that. If you don't like that style of review, hit up a different site.
We may prefer a specific type of review, but I think there's value to have a broad spectrum of opinions and indeed ways of distilling the text down into a number. That some third party sites like metacritic and RT want to average them all out, doesn't for me justify losing different types of scoring systems or reviews.
If polygon want to rate a game out of 10 purely based on the subjective experience the reviewer had, whether that's praising a game, or criticizing one (like say, in that infamous Bayonetta review) I'd say there's no problem with that. If you don't like that style of review, hit up a different site.
I've seen many compare PUBG to horror games, pointing out the suspence and gunplay, going round the corner and facing the enemy. That's what I love about mine.
I didn't have internet back then. I was reading it on magazine called Giochi per il mio Computer in Italy once it introduced the editorials and news about multiplayer games.
Starcraft, Unreal, Quake aren't "the thing" now. And the same can happen to PUBG any time. Even Overwatch, which I played a lot and now I'm bored about.
I mean, you based 10/10s around "universality" yet there are exactly zero games regarded as 10/10s in the existence of videogames.
This game got 10/10 because it's that good. It's that simple. And no, lack of story or single player or the fact it wasn't Nintendo making it doesn't change it.
Its still not a horror game. Its a game that mixes a lot of different elements together to create a certain experience that didnt really exist before.
The BR mods in Garry's Mod were far too small.
The BR mods in Minecraft still focused on Minecrafts building mechanics.
The Culling focused on a small area and crafting.
The closest would be H1Z1 KotH.
For me, it's a hunting simulator. The feeling I get when someone dings my car with a stray bullet, and I spend the next 10 minutes hunting them down before I finally take them out... it's damn great!
PUBG supports a lot of different playstyles. It'll have the game feeling totally different depending on the way you approach it. To an extent that no shooters besides ArmA match it in that regard. The next guy over might compare PUBG to a horror game, and then the next, to Sniper Elite. That's PUBG's mechanical framework at work, allowing drastically different experiences for different players, on a match to match basis. Part of why I like it so much.
The test server client that's been out the past couple weeks performs much better than the current live client. My 1060 gets a lot of dips below 60 fps on the old client, but stays above 80 nearly all the time on the new client.
Said it a few months ago, but I'd sum up PUBG as the accessible middleground between ARMA's intense tactical combat and Battlefield's hectic causal fun
I agree, was never my intention to discredit or devalue the experience people have.
But is there a site for what I want out of a review? Personally I don't find a lot of the popular ones not that fitting so far. Honest question by the way as I currently have nobody on my mind that fits this.
It just comes off as being annoyed that Polygon's opinion of how to turn their thoughts and feelings into a score on a ridiculous 10 point scale isn't the same as your own. There isn't a standardized procedure for writing reviews. Writing a review isn't surgery. Let Polygon do Polygon and you do you. If you don't like the way a site does reviews then stop reading their reviews?
If a 10/10 is unattainable, then you are scoring on a 9-point scale. On any scoring system, there has to be a highest score you are willing to give out. It could be 9, it could be 10, it could be 73. For you, it's 9. For Polygon, it's 10. The number itself doesn't really matter.
Once you move past "it's janky!" or "there's cheating!" or whatever it's actually very difficult to mount a strong case against PUBG because it actually meets most of the criteria people tend to describe for the best games: it's got a very unique structure, it's skill-intensive and strongly encourages players to learn from their mistakes to get better, it favors the experience of long-time players, it isn't simplified or streamlined to increase "accessibility" or to court the general audience, its appeal is heavily rooted in the gameplay rather than presentation, it's got enough complexity that it plays differently from match to match, and it has the right mix of different factors to make for great stories about what happens in the game. You're stuck having to hit weird tacks like making vague insinuations about its popularity.
Pretty much.
Breath of the Wild has hefty technical issues. Glitches left and right, especially with physics. Almost no plot and it still manages to be bad plot. Terrible music for it's genre. Starts to suffer from nearly every issue that the average open world game does in the back 50% of the game, and yet it got GOTY in tons of places.
I mean hell it's in my top 5 of the year, despite all that shit I loved that damn game. I soured a little bit towards the end but the majority experience still has me singing its praises.
GOTY is what you want to be GOTY. There is no metric that a crying internet poster cannot corrupt. I really can't stand playing PUBG but I absolutely understand why so many of my friends love it and none of the reasons are shallow at all. It's a damn good game, I just wish I liked it like they do.
I do find it fascinating that the people and websites that assholes like to shit on for being too focused on politics, social justice, narratives in games etc (Waypoint, Polygon etc). Basically the stereotype is that these people think games "can't just be fun" are also incredibly into this game. Almost as if things are pretty complex.