Yet completely accurate in this case.
No. It's janky at times and there's certainly nothing "definitive" about it but it's not unplayable. Oddly enough it's just as I remember experiencing it all those years ago. I'm still in Los Santos though so perhaps things take a turn for the worse.Is it that bad? I was planning on checking out San Andreas on my Series X.
I think the issue is people paid full price, which it's certainly not worth.No. It's janky at times and there's certainly nothing "definitive" about it but it's not unplayable. Oddly enough it's just as I remember experiencing it all those years ago. I'm still in Los Santos though so perhaps things take a turn for the worse.
IIRC they delisted the original versions of the trilogy, on top of removing this one from every player's list so that they could scrub music and other data.Yup. That was an unmitigated disaster. The fact that I had no intention buying Reforged in the first place, but then was forced to replace the old Warcraft 3 client with the reforged one takes the cake.
Nothing was wrong with the old client, but they insisted on destroying the campaign, battlenet, clans, custom game bots from loyal community members. And then add the insane amount of bugs/glitches.
It literally made me retire from Warcraft 3 after 15+ years of playing
The games have more than their fair share of issues but they're not fundamentally unplayable, which is what a 5% score would suggest.
The games have more than their fair share of issues but they're not fundamentally unplayable, which is what a 5% score would suggest.
The games have more than their fair share of issues but they're not fundamentally unplayable, which is what a 5% score would suggest.
But if you don't spend any, you get to keep most!
The games have more than their fair share of issues but they're not fundamentally unplayable, which is what a 5% score would suggest.
LOL you're probably right. That, I certainly did not do!I think the issue is people paid full price, which it's certainly not worth.
...cus the studio is named after something inside the game??That is one of the worst studio names I have ever heard. That is an automatic flag of quality lmao.
Devolver hasn't let us down... yet.Seriously question to all of you. After Cyperbunk, Battlefield, GTA and the Blizzard disaster, which publisher you could still trust?
Nintendo makes some dumb moves, but they haven't released anything on the level of any of these fuck ups. Even N64 online doesn't compare to theseSeriously question to all of you. After Cyperbunk, Battlefield, GTA and the Blizzard disaster, which publisher you could still trust?
why trust any publisher?Seriously question to all of you. After Cyperbunk, Battlefield, GTA and the Blizzard disaster, which publisher you could still trust?
Seriously question to all of you. After Cyperbunk, Battlefield, GTA and the Blizzard disaster, which publisher you could still trust?
The games have more than their fair share of issues but they're not fundamentally unplayable, which is what a 5% score would suggest.
I'll bet good money that shit is turbo-cancelled.Can't wait to see what these guys do with the Read Dead remaster
San Andreas has the most glaring visual issues of the three. Vice City has at least one mission that can be unbeatable without a specific workaround. III has been quite fun to revisit and generally looks good (outside of the rain...) as the one I have spent the most time with.
For San Andreas, if you do not have Game Pass, it is probably best to wait and see what they do in terms of updates.
I'm getting it on Gamepass but I guess it won't hurt to wait a couple of weeks until a couple of patches have been applied.No. It's janky at times and there's certainly nothing "definitive" about it but it's not unplayable. Oddly enough it's just as I remember experiencing it all those years ago. I'm still in Los Santos though so perhaps things take a turn for the worse.
IIRC they delisted the original versions of the trilogy, on top of removing this one from every player's list so that they could scrub music and other data.
don't trust any? no company is my friend and I only buy games if it looks coolSeriously question to all of you. After Cyperbunk, Battlefield, GTA and the Blizzard disaster, which publisher you could still trust?
I think Ruffian is working on that, not this studio.
Or maybe there was no meeting at all.I would love to be a fly on the wall in the meeting where they decided to still release the game. Whether the developer they picked was up to the task or nor seem irrelevant because someone higher up should have decided that releasing the games in this state, in the flagship series no less, was a terrible idea.
On a side note, guess I might have to start giving Paradox some credit. It seems they went way against the industry grain when they looked at Bloodlines 2 and decided "Yeah, we aren't releasing that."
Making threads over user scores makes little sense when we live in a world where actual good pieces of entertainment are frequently review bombed. Also many people will give user scores without playing the game.
Quite possibly the worst metric we could use.
Haven't played, but I'm not doubting it in the least bit. I've read in the OT and I'm fully aware of the general mood of most people playing it being upset. I'm by no means saying it's good or anything like that. More just a general why are we talking about it having the lowest score ever with a measuring tool that has zero value? The same one which gave Last of Us 2 thousands of 0 scores mere moments after it was able to be reviewed and long before almost anyone could have possibly even turned it on.
Or just go take a look at the Peppa Pig user reviews that are filled with 10's and people calling it the greatest game ever because they think it's a funny take. Like I said zero defending the game and haven't played merely questioning the discussion point of using something ridiculous like a user score.
Found it silly is all so I am messing around about the name meaning low quality. But my point stands that if you name your studio after the games you are working on it is terrible name. I will point out 343 for this too with terrible studio names lol.
343 is an awesome studio name.Found it silly is all so I am messing around about the name meaning low quality. But my point stands that if you name your studio after the games you are working on it is terrible name. I will point out 343 for this too with terrible studio names lol.
Personally for me it isn't. Never liked studios doing that but tbh I am just a stubborn old clown with this take
No one is claiming Metacritic user scores as some pillar of unconditional truth, it's just noteworthy when it's out of the ordinary and pretty much one-sided.why are we talking about it having the lowest score ever with a measuring tool that has zero value? The same one which gave Last of Us 2 thousands of 0 scores mere moments after it was able to be reviewed and long before almost anyone could have possibly even turned it on.
Or just go take a look at the Peppa Pig user reviews that are filled with 10's and people calling it the greatest game ever because they think it's a funny take. Like I said zero defending the game and haven't played merely questioning the discussion point of using something ridiculous like a user score.
He's the CEO of the company that made it.Is this... Legitimately someone involved in the creation of this disaster? What. Lmfao.
That this even has to be explained is beyond wild, especially when trying to use TLoU 2 and Peppa Pig as examples.No one is claiming Metacritic user scores as some pillar of unconditional truth, it's just noteworthy when it's out of the ordinary and pretty much one-sided.
TLOU2 and Peppa Pig are quite different contexts with other factors that may not have an impact here. Not that GTA isn't political but I don't see many people, if any, talking about politics in their reviews here; it's almost exclusively regarding the quality of the remaster.