Yes. Options are the first thing I go to in every new game I play.
-
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.
IGN posts 3/10 review for Borderlands 2 VR, gets called out for misinformation, review gets pulled.
- Thread starter Kalentan
- Start date
Yes. Options are the first thing I go to in every new game I play.
Some people get sick on rollercoasters or get carsick. Everyone is different.
I go into them because more often than not subtitles are turned "off" and I always need to change it lol.
Same here. I also like to adjust sound levels if they have it, especially in JRPGs where the menu sounds can be a bit obnoxious.
OP
OP
Man couldn't IGN rate it as garbage because it's Single Player Borderlands with none of the DLC for $50 instead of their lack of ability to check safety settings in a VR game?
Well I mean, it isn't so much splitting hairs as much as it is missing options that are right in front of your face and then claiming they don't exist. That's just straight up shit.
Absolutely this. While I believe that this should have been part of parcel of review writing so the mechanics would have been uncovered and some complaints against the game would have been addressed, most gamers who are not enthusiasts are not going to uncheck settings for basic game functionality - they would expect it to be on.
While VR might be mostly enthusiast at the moment, as PSVR grows there will be more "casual" people picking up VR for the first time and what they get when they turn on Borderlands 2 VR will likely be what they play. The review might be ironically a review representative of a non-enthusiasts likely experience with the game.
Not really comparable though. RE7 have comfort options as well. Why didn't it get dinged for having these on?
I don't know if Borderlands 3 tell the users about these options because RE7 did at the start. Every well made VR game have those comfort options because people have different reaction in VR. Could a PC reviewer complains about low FOV in a game when there is an FOV slider? Or someone complains about a game lacking subtitles when there is an option?
I stopped taking IGN reviews seriously during the Wii era when they said shit like "You can't get past the first boss in Punchout with motion controls because they aren't responsive enough" (I beat the entire game easily, controls were perfectly responsive), and "Ubertricks are impossible to pull off in SSX Blur" (they are done by pointer so they are accurate, just draw the shape across your entire screen).
The issue is that it's pretty common sense at this point to check options for motion options and safety features and yet despite reviewing other VR games before they somehow didn't even think to try. It legitimately is not a fair review if you complain about features not being in when they are in because you don't feel like looking in a specialized tab of the settings.
Not everything is a conspiracy, hate mob or movement.
I blame whoever edited the review more than the reviewer himself. This is a silly mistake, and whoever checked the work should have known to ask "are you really super sure there's no ability to run and jump?"
Reviewer should have tried a bit harder, but this review should have never made it out the door. Poor editing. Assuming review editing is still Dan Stapleton's gig, final blame lies with him.
Reviewer should have tried a bit harder, but this review should have never made it out the door. Poor editing. Assuming review editing is still Dan Stapleton's gig, final blame lies with him.
It's a huge game even without the DLC. And it's fun in single player. That's how I mostly play it.
So what you're saying is you condone reviewers posting factually incorrect information because they couldn't be bothered to take a cursory glance at a game's options menu. This is the hill you want to die on.
It's still a tough sell when games like Thumper, Wipeout, and others have VR modes patched in for free. $50 for a version of Borderlands 2 in 2018 that doesn't really add anything new feature-wise (and strips out one of the biggest selling points in multiplayer) is a bit silly. The Handsome Collection exists, this should have just been a free add-on for that.
Lol! So if we're going that direction should they just write multiple reviews? Review for casuals, hardcore, in between, and others? It may be how clueless most of society is but at least if the reviewers give the correct facts about a game more casuals won't fall victim to that cluelessness.
It's also a damm old game at this point being charged $50 for, and Multiplayer whether you subjectively used it or not is a franchise staple and thus the omission is incredibly strange and for most, very disappointing.
It makes this seem like a cash grab.
This the same IGN that nominated Below for two best of the year awards despite admitting no one at the site has played it?
OP
OP
Mind you getting co-op to work in VR is hard. Framerate is very important to VR and if co-op causes massive FPS drops due to the additional player than it can really make it unpleasant experience.
No offense, but that's a terrible post. The information in the review, was literally factually wrong, hence it was pulled.
defaulting to a terrible experience without hinting or giving you an option at the beginning is a strange design choice
Sigh...
It's hard enough to show people the VR light when even industry professionals can't be bothered to get it right.
It's hard enough to show people the VR light when even industry professionals can't be bothered to get it right.
correct me if wrong, but this is not the 1st time IGN makes a review stating wrong facts, right/
It bears shades of their football management sim review, where the reviewer was angry about not being able to play the matches. It was also pulled.
It's not really the customer's job to solve that issue. It's just the customer's job to decide if that's a feature that's worth $50 if lost, haha. imo, taking out one of the two core franchise pillars (the other being the random guns) and still charging close to full price is just shy of insulting. But as I said, people can decide that for themselves.
Yep, this moreso the fault of the editorial process than the reviewer in question. IGN isn't some fan blog or a forum where the staff can just toss out whatever they wish freely. There likely are filters and some level of scrutiny from above when a review is turned in, especially with a score that low to be made public.
The process is in doubt when due diligence fails on multiple counts. Understandable that a critic could miss something, but when a 3.0 is pushed to print, any reputable managing editor would ensure the verdict sound. This failed at both levels.
Regular games on regular displays can make people feel whoozy. Hasn't stopped you finding enjoyable games using regular displays.
It's all relative. There are console only gamers who'd think having to mess with drivers or graphics options is insane. Multiple movement options is pretty standard in VR.
In VR games, you have these thing called comfort options because players have various degree of tolerances with regards to motion sickness. Games usually default to the highest comfort level(most restriction) and players can tone that down or remove it entirely depending on what works for them.
This is standard.
From the same IGN editor who apologized to Microsoft when IGN posted a God of War on Xbox joke...
uh yeah, i'm not arguing that uncomfortable should be the default
It's more important for a VR game. Many games offer different control options and comfort settings.
Its just ign being ign. People will continue to defend their quantity over quality approach to game journalism. Ign will continue to make mistakes and retractions... and the world will keep spinning. This isnt the first, second, third or fourth time something like this has happened and it wont be the last. The argument usually tends to be, "ign publishes so much how can one expect them to perform even the most basic form of review on the content they are putting out?!". If people kept their fingers firmly pointed at ign as the source of the problem these issues would become less common imo.
For example, during the whole phillip mucin debacle, had people taken a break from bashing phillip they would have noticed ign probably shouldnt have hired him to begin with considering his plagarized resume/linked in profile (cant remember if it was one or the other, or both). Im not trying to condone his actions, just suggesting that if ign had any type of quality controll, he wouldnt have been hired to begin with. Similar to how if ign had taken a moment to confirm some of the things claimed in this boarderlands review, prior to publishing it, they likely could have avoided this current debacle.