That is my main problem with the reviewers, not the score( because the game does indeed as a lot of problems ) but how they try to pass like walking was frustating and the game extreming long.
-
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.
Death Stranding - Review Thread (see staff post for discussion guidelines)
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
That is my main problem with the reviewers, not the score( because the game does indeed as a lot of problems ) but how they try to pass like walking was frustating and the game extreming long.
One thing that can't be stated enough is just how polished the game is. I mean seriously the game from a technical point of view is fantastic can't remember the last tine a day one experience has been this smooth considering all the issues we've had with a ton of other games.
The game has deep mechanics and a lot of overlapping parts, and for the most part it is incredibly polished. It's very impressive for a game of this type. Perfomance on base consoles, too.
And it was made in like 3 years? That certanly reduced the budget for this game. New IP, new studio, new mechanics, polished. Its pretty amazing.
And tonnes of unlocks, gear, cosmetics... and not one microtransacrion.
It's truly going to break my heart when a remake gets GOTY over something that *finally* pushes AAA gaming forward in such a bold, polished and well designed package.
it'll be such an in-your-face symbol for the industry when that happens that it'll be painful.
I really really hope Death Stranding pulls through. Not only for how fucking great and well designed it is, but what it stands for as a testament to risk taking and innovation in the AAA gaming sphere.
But I guess that's just a side effect of being so bold if it doesn't, it'll be divisive and take a while to get appreciated.
This fame has a shot at GOTY here at least, it will be in the top 5 maybe even the top spot.
It deserves better though, it's a remarkable game. Some of the reviews... I just cannot understand.
Yeah. The microtransaction part is also baffling. Everyone hates it, but here whe have a game with 0 microtransaction and almost no one cares. I guess people are enjoying paying for their new shinny armor. Kojima like actual whales, other developers prefer the more figurative whales. Such pretentiousness.
Last edited:
Well, I have played until Ch9 and I think I can give now a better opinion and how I feel about the reviews.
Summarizing: A 83 MC is far too high for a game with little depth, a padded main campaign and a system that makes most decisions feel inconsequential.
I won't talk about the stealth, the combat, the bosses... as all these elements have not been developed at all and feel like an afterthought. The main mechanic of this game (traversal) is not even great. During your first hours vehicles seem the best thing, so building bridges, power stations and highways is the best option. It's a time-consuming thing as you need to move materials, so at the end it's not even that optimat considering how easily you can traverse even rocky or mountain terrain with a car. Then the game moves to the mountains, and bridges become obsolete as the zip-lines are far more good (the steep terrain in the mountain zone makes vehicles worse, so there's no real purpose to make a bridge as a new obstacle will appear soon) and don't need materials to be build. I didn't find any reason not to use leg skeleton either, as creating power stations is really easy there's nothing impeding you to be with the skeleton active most of the time. And planning routes so far seems meaningless, you can always bring 2 ladders and 2 ropes and bruteforce any terrain even for the hardest path possible.
And I don't understand how they didn't integrated most the information you can read in Interviews into the main missions, most of times you'll deliver something to an hologram that will waste your time with "I see the cargo is in good conditions" and some side stories with no depth. It feels like a wasted opportunity to pace the game better.
BTs are a really half-assed mechanic, only thing you must do to avoid them is wait until the indicator goes orange and then keep you breath. When you get the improved shackles is even less interesting. And the mandatory shooting sections show how poor is the shooting in the game, and show how bad the IA is.
I think that the game looks nice, there's a certain beauty in player cooperation and the core concepts of the world are great. Cutscenes are also really good. But the gameplay lacks more central elements, and never forced me so far to make smart decision making, ia have been doing all deliveries first try even when taking the most dangerous routes. I appreciate original ideas, but DS as original as it is has the main problems of AAA open world games: padding, repetitive quests and lack of real decision-making.
Summarizing: A 83 MC is far too high for a game with little depth, a padded main campaign and a system that makes most decisions feel inconsequential.
I won't talk about the stealth, the combat, the bosses... as all these elements have not been developed at all and feel like an afterthought. The main mechanic of this game (traversal) is not even great. During your first hours vehicles seem the best thing, so building bridges, power stations and highways is the best option. It's a time-consuming thing as you need to move materials, so at the end it's not even that optimat considering how easily you can traverse even rocky or mountain terrain with a car. Then the game moves to the mountains, and bridges become obsolete as the zip-lines are far more good (the steep terrain in the mountain zone makes vehicles worse, so there's no real purpose to make a bridge as a new obstacle will appear soon) and don't need materials to be build. I didn't find any reason not to use leg skeleton either, as creating power stations is really easy there's nothing impeding you to be with the skeleton active most of the time. And planning routes so far seems meaningless, you can always bring 2 ladders and 2 ropes and bruteforce any terrain even for the hardest path possible.
And I don't understand how they didn't integrated most the information you can read in Interviews into the main missions, most of times you'll deliver something to an hologram that will waste your time with "I see the cargo is in good conditions" and some side stories with no depth. It feels like a wasted opportunity to pace the game better.
BTs are a really half-assed mechanic, only thing you must do to avoid them is wait until the indicator goes orange and then keep you breath. When you get the improved shackles is even less interesting. And the mandatory shooting sections show how poor is the shooting in the game, and show how bad the IA is.
I think that the game looks nice, there's a certain beauty in player cooperation and the core concepts of the world are great. Cutscenes are also really good. But the gameplay lacks more central elements, and never forced me so far to make smart decision making, ia have been doing all deliveries first try even when taking the most dangerous routes. I appreciate original ideas, but DS as original as it is has the main problems of AAA open world games: padding, repetitive quests and lack of real decision-making.
Last edited:
100% agree. So refreshing to have triple A gameplay not revolve around killing and have ludonarrative consistency. This is sort of gaming's Bladerunner moment. That film got mixed reviews on it's release and if memory serves didn't do too well at the box office. Though I hope DS does well sales wise, as it might spure other big publishers to take a chance on some original ideas again.
You didnt like the gameplay before playing it, and you didnt like it after playing it. If you go into the game wanting to dislike it, you probably will.
I didnt watch almost any gameplay footage before playing the game, and after playing it i think the transversal mechanic is one the best i have ever seen.
This makes little sense, I'm sorry. It's not that I played the game wanting to dislike it (who does spend time in things she/he would not enjoy?) it's more like I was skeptical after watching the little footage we had and listening to how the reviews described the gameplay, and after playing almost 30h of the game I'm disappointed that the game is as I feared. If you look more into my comments (what you seem to like to do) you will see that I've expressed too that I had hopes that this game will be enjoyable to me as I love BotW, another game that has traversal as a big part of the experience.
I don't see the problem at having a pre-disposition towards a thing, in fact every one of us feel some way before experiencing something, if I had a negative predisposition, I decided to give the game a chance as I mostly like MGS, but the game failed to surpass my expectactions, it's that the game is not good enough to change my mind. No more no less.
If you have something to say about my lenghty explanation about which things I dislike about the game, please do it, but your comment looks like an attempt to defend the game at all costs without tackling any of my criticisms tbh.
Last edited:
The game is getting swamped with crazy positive reviews. it seems like your definitely in line with the majority of reviewers on this one. :)
Yeah, it's getting lots of positive reviews.
It's just some wanted a higher score, and some just are amplifying the negative reviews.
After a few days of playing it, I'm liking it alot. The first chapter is basically a tutorial, like most games these days.
By the middle of chapter 2, one thing I can't see is it being boring, lol. After some upgrades and story progression it opens up.
I finished the main story and I decided to re-read some reviews and I'm kind of baffled at some of the more negative reviews. I predicted an aggregate of 90-94 and, if anything, the game I just played seems comfortably in that range.
I know the majority of reviews are positive--it still has the most 10s of any title this year--so that's not necessarily a radical (or minority) opinion by any stretch, I just didn't see a lot in my 50+ hours supporting the more negative opinions beyond (i) the pacing of the first 8-10 hours, and (ii) whether you love delivering. I certainly think focusing a game around something that's not combat is divisive, I just struggle with how the implementation of it here could be so off putting that some would call it "bad."
I know the majority of reviews are positive--it still has the most 10s of any title this year--so that's not necessarily a radical (or minority) opinion by any stretch, I just didn't see a lot in my 50+ hours supporting the more negative opinions beyond (i) the pacing of the first 8-10 hours, and (ii) whether you love delivering. I certainly think focusing a game around something that's not combat is divisive, I just struggle with how the implementation of it here could be so off putting that some would call it "bad."
You walk to one location to make a delivery quest, maybe you'll place a rope or bridge. Later in chapter two you do the exact same thing in a vehicle largely making the ropes and ladders inconsequential. I have a much harder time believing people saying it isn't boring. It's essentially the most basic quest design possible with few meaningful mechanics beyond walking/driving.
I'm baffled it's getting the scores that it's getting for the mechanics, then the other elements like story would knock it much further down that that for me.
Last edited:
Agreed. But to each their own. I think the distribution of scores is probably going to match player experiences.
I suspect that most who give the game a chance (rent it if you aren't sure, guys) will end up placing it on the 8.5 range. And those who really enjoy it will go higher. A clear minority will rate it lower than 8. Which is what we see in the score distribution. Game didn't strike me as divisive; it struck me as really fucking good and I was def ready for it to suck. rented it from Redbox, and only because someone in this thread last week reminded me that Redbox exists and I'm very glad I did. I will be buying it on Steam and playing it all over again.
This was the main problem for me and why I gave it a "low" score. You can give me 50-70 repetitive missions with the same structure (visit A, take X, deliver to B) but at least make the journey different. But no, you literally open your map, drag the cursor from A to B and run or drive. I didn't even feel the need to use ladders later in the game because every rock is climbable if you want to. The game becomes easier and easier with every new unlock (especially skeletons) and with a repetitive mission design (if you can even call it a design) DS sooner or later becomes a chore.
I thought about it...this may have been mentioned before:
Ppl complain about fetch quests. Death Stranding premise as a game is exactly that. It's like some weird meta about some games today.
But if the delivery system was side quests, and the main thing was rebuilding America by clearing factions with another enemy presence that's the enemy to everything, it might have been received better. Some games heavy on combat have side quests about..clearing out enemies...and delivering something from A to B...and that's fine n dandy..lol.
It's just IMO a lil flip on what I posted. Not getting too much into the game to avoid saying spoilers, but you start the game with most places off line and your job is to get everything, ppl back online, reconnected.
Think about what life was like before when the internet was brand new vs. now.
Think about the game in that way. Can't we do alot more now vs. back then?
It's a game with progression, like damn near every other game out..progress far enough and you might just wind up liking the game, despite the handful of negative reviews or the points bought up you think you might hate. And IMO you don't have to progresses that far to get what I'm saying.
Did you end up keeping the Pro pre-order?
I did and didn't regret it one bit.
Oh yeah, Kojima absolutely inverted how we've been playing these games. I don't think fetch quests are bad, if the fetching is engaging. I find the fetching here to be wildly engaging, whereas I found the combat much less so (without getting into more/spoilers). So I'm happy the ratios are what the ratios are in that regard.
I canceled it but there's one at my local and I am likely going to grab it before it gets scooped up. I should have kept it, but alas, had to play it safe.
In hindsight, I'm kind of disappointed in myself because I had an inkling that the lower scores were the outlier, despite how they read, and that's exactly how it played out for me.
Yeah, I have loved every game he's made and I shouldn't have been questioning myself either.
I'm super early in the game though, only 6 hours, but it's just a sheer joy to play.
Since Sony didn't provide us with a review copy, we had to buy the game ourselves and review it.
Our review is submitted on Opencritic.
Our review is submitted on Opencritic.
Damn it really is in Persian. I'll have to get to a real computer where I can translate it.
Wrong thread.
This is kinda review
I wasn't following reviews very much at launch, since the gameplay of the game put me off.
But he talks about some topics that I don't know if they have been discussed by other reviewers.
For me it was an interesting watch and now I'm a bit more interested in trying the game out sometime in the future.
I wasn't following reviews very much at launch, since the gameplay of the game put me off.
But he talks about some topics that I don't know if they have been discussed by other reviewers.
For me it was an interesting watch and now I'm a bit more interested in trying the game out sometime in the future.
Last edited:
I think he hated the line at Chapter 9?
So I'm Mario and you're Princess Peach?
The feedback from people who have played the game seems to echo this. There are definitely players who didn't like it, but I'd say the majority of impressions have been very positive. Naturally with Kojima being a controversial figure on Era I expect there will still be a lot of people who pretend it was a failure.
I am not devaluing the opinions of reviewers or saying they are wrong/dishonest. But with them you are getting a small sample size of individuals who are often trying to predict what the public will think of the game and writing to reflect that.
Exactly. The first missions are the most intense, but the game never introduces new environmental hazards that provide interesting decisions. MULEs are a joke, BTs are a bad minigame and the mountain areas are the same as the others if you use the skeleton. Most new additions make the travels less boring but not more interesting. There's some good things here and there like planning your zip lines or travelling with car to realize that some player has created the bridge you needed, but most of the game is having your finger in the stick and fix balance from time to time.
The overall design is lacking, there's no reason to avoid MULEs or BTs, there's no mission with a really interesting twist, and the "battlefield" missions are bad shooting sections. Even the bosses, as good as they look, are really bad. And the best "twist" in a bossfight so far is basically a copy of the same situation in MGS IV.
IMO 20+ hours in I'm at a loss to find what was so bad, so boring about the gameplay. The core loop is satisfying so much and I really enjoy the planning of deliveries.
any walking simulator claims seems silly, as there's much more to the traversal than simply walking. Is BotW a walking simulator then?
sure DS has less action than some other open world action games but it's 99% removed from a walking simulator imo. Most walking sim type games have you explore an area on fairly controlled pathes where you just interact with a few items to learn more.
imo this is my favorite game so far this year and this year has been great with fire emblem, days gone, judgment. Maybe FE higher but not by too much.
This game does not lend itself to reviewing on a deadline. On the Stevior guide for example they berate you for playing the game but still have a guide, and say they beat the story in 45 hours and didn't do many side missions. I feel like speeding thru the game and not taking time with everhthing is the worst way to play this
any walking simulator claims seems silly, as there's much more to the traversal than simply walking. Is BotW a walking simulator then?
sure DS has less action than some other open world action games but it's 99% removed from a walking simulator imo. Most walking sim type games have you explore an area on fairly controlled pathes where you just interact with a few items to learn more.
imo this is my favorite game so far this year and this year has been great with fire emblem, days gone, judgment. Maybe FE higher but not by too much.
This game does not lend itself to reviewing on a deadline. On the Stevior guide for example they berate you for playing the game but still have a guide, and say they beat the story in 45 hours and didn't do many side missions. I feel like speeding thru the game and not taking time with everhthing is the worst way to play this
Thats how strongly they felt about it and thats fine.
Um except that analogy makes no sense in regards to their review. Which not only dida good job of extrapolating why they hated it but then also was further clarified when they did all their podcasts on it. Further, for them, the stuff you just listed that would make it at least a 6 or 7 was not good enough to make it a 6 or 7. And thats entirely ok.
Both of these things can be true and I have no idea why you think they can't.
Because they cant? It is one think to say that the game can last to 100 hours and another to say that takes you 40 to 60 hours.
And the walking has extremely overreacted with peopel saying you fall all the time and need to press the r2 or l2 which is also false. I didnt coment when the review deops but after played the game and finish i can tell you that much.
Honestly, what I'm struggling to find plausible is how anyone can view this as having good writing. It simply violates too many ENGS-100 lessons for me to consider it have value to its text. Now, I'm not saying that breaking common writing standards is bad, but so much of what I see here is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I ended up becoming too frustrated with the elements present and quit playing. When I watched the remainder of the story online I became even more aggravated. If this is what the community continues to hold up as decent, if not good, writing, then no wonder the medium isn't taken seriously.
I am loving the game and can still see why it won't be for everyone. The Last Guardian was another game that was hugely divisive and the people who enjoyed it, really loved it and those that didn't really did not.
I do have to say the constant ,"I don't think you actually liked it and are just making excuses" and vice versa is so fucking arrogant and dismissive. I can't understand the love of the Farm Simulator series but I'm not gonna tell people they're full of shit when they say they enjoy those games a lot.
I do have to say the constant ,"I don't think you actually liked it and are just making excuses" and vice versa is so fucking arrogant and dismissive. I can't understand the love of the Farm Simulator series but I'm not gonna tell people they're full of shit when they say they enjoy those games a lot.
What are you talking about? If thats how long its taking them to beat the game thats how long its taking them to beat the game. There is no objective falsehood with that claim and I have no idea why you think otherwise.
Once again, if they are falling all the time and feel you need to press the trigger buttons to stay up, how is that experience for them not true? I think you need to look up what the word false means before liberally throwing it around to discredit an outlet's experience with the game.
I didnt say false, i said misleading and IGN is the perfect example of that.
Their is 2 sections in the ign review that shows the player falling on porpuse where the review try to pass that has the thing that happens to you all the time. Any person who hasnt play the game will think that is the case which is false.
And i have no problem with the score or MC, i think must of the crits are right one way or the other.
....you do fall if youre not properly using the trigger buttons. That is an intended mechanic. Thats not a false statement.
No, that has not what the reviewer did, but there is no point in discussing this. It is opinion and i respect it.
Technically, you stumble which could lead to falling. It's not typically (if ever, really) a straight fall, and you get plenty of opportunity to correct it.
Yes. By pressing the shoulder buttons. Which is what the ign review stated. It was in no way distorting anything about the game.
Video games as a medium aren't taken seriously? What are you talking about?
I can regonize that the tech in the game is great, some ideas and world elements are amazing (sadly after completing it the story felt short for me) but I disagree that the mechanics are complex at all. There's lots of clearly unfinished elements (combat, bosses, BTs, environmental hazards) and the main structure of the missions makes them feel repetitive, as the game is far longer than it needs and repeats all situations several times.
The saving grace of the product is the huge budget: everything looks nice, the actors and motion capture are great, there's lots of music and the game feels polished, but the main gameplay elements feel half-assed to me, and for a game about traversal, it rarely required me to take route decisions. In fact, I never placed the cargo manually, or thought about if I want to use a leg skeleton or not. I have spend some hours zigzagging mountains with a bike a la Skyrim horse though.
I'm sure the game has lots of optional side quests that need more involvement, but after 5X mandatory samey quests I don't want to be playing more of them tbh.
45 hours is 13 more than it took me, believe me, they were not in a hurry. In fact I wasn't either, I even completed some optional quests during the first 15-20 hours, but after 35 quests that felt samey I decided to speed up to see the ending and play anything else.
What? How can you say that second paragraph after your first paragraph about how it's a matter of your personal perception of what scores mean.
You say the issue rests with your preconceived notion on what scores should mean" and then go "look, an example of reviews not using the full scale", aka judging a score by your own preconceived notion of what a score should mean