IGN retracts large portion of RE2 review and updates score after it becomes clear their reviewer missed a large chunk of the game.

[Lothars]

Here you go

That's just by searching "fire" in the thread. I'm sure there are other equivalent posts using different wording, but I'm not about to go through all the work

Click to shrink...

Well anyone saying he should be fired or that are attacking him are wrong but I stand by what I said and that he handled the apology the wrong way.

And remember, the actual mistake, that everyone keeps forgetting, is that he knew the B/second routes existed but thought you only unlocked it for the character you beat the game with. And I can see why.

This would mean he assumed "second run" meant the character's second run, which isn't that weird of an expectation. And how someone could miss that end of the game message makes sense with that in mind- he assumed that the changed ending he was told about was for the same character and in comparison to what he just played, not that he could immediately play the other character and experience different story.

Click to shrink...

So that being the case do you really believe his apology and part of it being that they added on very little because I don't from everything else i've read about it.

 

[beelzebozo]

1. made mistake
2. corrected mistake

seems fine

 

[Randam]

What is the actual timeline here? Because it seems like there was possibly a large (7+ hour?) gap in time between it being announced and the review section crossed out, and the review being corrected. Not just the ~3 hours gap between it going up and it being announced.



There were a lot less games back then. You probably don't really have the time to have multiple people on one game these days. Hell, you may not even be given multiple review codes, which definitely kills the ability to do that sort of discussion even if the other people are just casually playing it in their free time.

Capcom said repeatedly in advance that the A/B setup wasn't a thing. So even a fan going in would possibly be confused about this.

And remember, the actual mistake, that everyone keeps forgetting, is that he seemingly knew the B/second routes existed but thought you only unlocked it for the character you beat the game with. And I can see why.

This would mean he assumed "second run" meant the character's second run, which isn't that weird of an expectation. And how someone could miss that end of the game message makes sense with that in mind- he assumed that the changed ending he was told about was for the same character and in comparison to what he just played, not that he could immediately play the other character and experience different story.

Click to shrink...

That could all be.
But somewhat baffling that such a mistakes slipped through all instances and got published.
But that is maybe just a sign of what is wrong with reviews today.

 

[truncated_pachyderm]

I remember back when this place was just starting up, there were some real soul-searching moments based on the state of things after what went down at NeoGAF. There was a call to really start fresh and really change things for the better.

I'm sad to see that this doesn't appear to be the case. Not just with this thread but in general. The amount of anger and vitriol expressed in just this thread alone is a testament to that, but there has been an excessive amount of negativity throughout the gaming side. I understand that part of that is inherent in an enthusiast gaming site like this, but ERA has an unusually high amount of it.

With regards to this thread, just take a step back for a moment - do you truly believe that this reviewer was intending to either slight the game or that he simply phoned the review in and put in no effort? Or perhaps he did simply make a mistake? Why are we so quick to rake him over the coals for something so benign. Even after he recognized the mistake and amended his review and score some are still calling for his head or his job. Would you seriously be pleased if he were to lose his job over this? That kind of thing has a profound impact on someones life.

Some have pointed out how obvious it is that the 2nd story run is not just a new game plus, but with all the screens posted as some sort of shaming/call out - I can still see how someone might presume that to be a new game plus mode. It was a simple mistake. I understand that this mistake didn't happen to other outlets, but so what? Does this now mean that because e made this mistake and no one else did he must suffer? even though he owned up to it? I've also seen further anger towards his apology for the error because they felt it was a non-apology. I don't know why anyone feels like that isn't an acceptable apology - what does he need to do? Accept a lashing? Do we really need a pound of flesh here? In fact his apology only clarifies the content from the second run in that it is not 50% of the content.

For all the upset caused by him blocking folks on twitter - I don't believe it is difficult to imagine why he may do that if you peruse the replies he got - some very awful things are flung at him, with someone posting one of the screens in an effort to make him look foolish and the follow up reply is "as if I needed more justification to call him an unprofessional asshat." - I don't think anybody needs to put up with this kind of social media nonsense.

The upset over this review is a really sad state of affairs, and a monumental failure on our part as a community. I wish we were better than this.

My take is that he reviewed it and made an honest mistake. The review was then re-visited, and an apology issued. For me personally, I think that strengthens their reputation since they owned up to a mistake and corrected it. They could have just left it as is, or just quietly changed the review text.

Anyhow, apologies for the small rant here. It has just been building up over time for me as we seemingly revel in negativity here and it feels like there is just a real mean spirited streak ERA can go on. I know its not everyone, but it is a lot. I hope this doesn't catch me a ban or anything, I just wanted to finally comment on some of the stuff I am seeing here.

Click to shrink...

Thanks for writing this. The toxicity in a lot of threads here is a real downer. I'm glad someone has the eloquence to make a reasonable plea for it to stop.

Hey man I really agree with you whole hearted. I'm a bit disappointed actually but I don't have any constructive idea's on how to make things better. You can't ban people for having harsh opinion. Personaly I have started to really think about what I'm writing. 99% of the time I agree with the "hive mind" and don't reflect that much but it's when you find yourself disagreeing whith the general opinion that you start to notice how harmful some comments are.

Click to shrink...

My constructive idea would be for mods to think long and hard about the direction they want ResetERA to move in, and make some hard calls.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

This is sounding more and more similar to how it was in the original game.

Click to shrink...

It is pretty much the same really, except for the zapping system / taking or leaving items for the other character, which isn't in the remake.

 

[Stryder]

Man makes mistake, and internet freaks out when he owns up to it and tries to fix it.


HE THINKS HE CAN FOOL US.

KILL HIMMMMMM

He has ruined the algorithm!!! IGN MUST PAY

 

[carlsojo]

Lots of good points about review embargos and time limits but

This is not a long game.

 

[Extra Sauce]

So Daemon Hatfield lied about his Pixel Junk Shooter review when called out by the dev, tried erasing proof from his review and never apologized?

Now he's being called out for his RE2 review and reacts by changing the review and score without actually playing through the scenario he missed first?

Amazing.

 

[SubvertedTrope]

What is the actual timeline here? Because it seems like there was possibly a large (7+ hour?) gap in time between it being announced and the review section crossed out, and the review being corrected. Not just the ~3 hours gap between it going up and it being announced.

Click to shrink...

I just asked someone who finished the game and he said completing "B" unlocks the true ending and the final boss, wouldn't someone who played through that mention it in his review? that doesn't sound like "not much new".

And like I said:

A and B happen concurrently and involve different supporting characters, bosses, weapons, puzzles. It literally can't be "pretty much the same".

Click to shrink...

It sounds like he just pretended he played it after it was brought to his attention...

 

[Lothars]

Man makes mistake, and internet freaks out when he owns up to it and tries to fix it.

Click to shrink...

Man makes mistake, apologizes but doubles down on his mistake in downplaying the content that he missed.

 

[NDWest14]

Such a great group of commenters when the apology isn't good enough.

Honestly when looking around for a place that is active that talks about games I figured how bad could this site be, despite reading countless forums telling me to stay away.

Jesus 31 pages and way too many people calling for his firing. Get over it, he's one of the best personalities at IGN, and for better or worse it is one of, if not the most popular sites that deal with the topics we like so unless anyone wants to start a career building a new website in the volatile market of gaming I'm totally in favor of letting this go.

I used to go to that site when it was IGN64, there'd be weeks where there was no news at all, that's the nature of the industry and they have to have a news cycle or people stop getting paid.

The bigger issue, and the one that's almost starting to get brought up, is that reviewers don't have enough time to do all this. He's writing, recording, editing, formatting, then recording an entire video review, for 1 article....oh and playing on the low end a 16 hour game. Imagine playing something as big as Witcher and needing a review out on time?

Probably the most thankless industry to work in, because the target audience is too entitled.

Review not up in time? People cry
Review score not high enough? People cry
Favorable review of an exclusive? Fanboy War
Favorable review of an EA or Activision game? Someone got paid

 

[Hayvic]

It's about ethics

 

[NoReasonReally]

Man makes mistake, and internet freaks out when he owns up to it and tries to fix it.


HE THINKS HE CAN FOOL US.

KILL HIMMMMMM

He has ruined the algorithm!!! IGN MUST PAY

Click to shrink...

It's not a simple mistake, it's his job. Video game journalism is not a hobby, it's a profession. Publishing it in first time was extremely unprofessional and worth of getting a lot of scrutiny. Video game journalists and platforms should start taking themselves seriously, this shit wouldn't fly in most other businesses, they're professionals, not gamefaqs reviewers.

 

[hydro94530]

Man makes mistake, apologizes but doubles down on his mistake in downplaying the content that he missed.

Click to shrink...

That's the part that got me.

 

[Alastor3]

Okay, so as someone who played RE2 decades ago and loved it dearly, and was laughing about this fuckup, this is what this thread looks like now

-It's obvious what the second run is
-Half the thread can't tell what the second run is, either from the menu descriptions or giving confusing conflicting descriptions
-It's half the game
-It's a much smaller chunk of the game
-It's exactly like old RE2
-Except it isn't exactly but it's close to RE2 and you should expect that
-The producer said it wasn't the same as RE2 so you shouldn't expect that
-IGN's Ace Combat 7 review was a fiasco because the reviewer used "baby mode" which means the controls titled "Normal," even though their actual review states clearly that they used and preferred the advanced controls
-This guy should get fired
-Nobody's saying he should get fired
-Calling someone a white knight is fine
-Saying someone who says "white knight" is being shitty is hostile

Click to shrink...

gaming community at it's finest

 

[Extra Sauce]

Such a great group of commenters when the apology isn't good enough.

Honestly when looking around for a place that is active that talks about games I figured how bad could this site be, despite reading countless forums telling me to stay away.

Jesus 31 pages and way too many people calling for his firing. Get over it, he's one of the best personalities at IGN, and for better or worse it is one of, if not the most popular sites that deal with the topics we like so unless anyone wants to start a career in the volitale market of gaming I'm totally in favor of letting this go.

I used to go to that site when it was IGN64, there'd be weeks where there was no news at all, that's the nature of the industry and they have to have a news cycle or people stop getting paid.

The bigger issue, and the one that's almost starting to get brought up, is that reviewers don't have enough time to do all this. He's writing, recording, editing, formmating, then recording an entire video review, for 1 article....oh and playing on the low end a 16 hour game. Imagine playing something as big as Witcher and needing a review out on time?

Probably the most thankless industry to work in, because the target audience is too entitled.

Review not up in time? People cry
Review score not high enough? People cry
Favorable review of an exclusive? Fanboy War
Favorable review of an EA or Activision game? Someone got paid

Click to shrink...

Please point me to his apology toward the Pixel Junk Shooter dev he fucked over, then proceeded to lie to when called out before erasing the proof from his review?

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Thank god it went from an 8.8 to a 9.0. I can justify buying this now.

 

[AlexFlame116]

See I would think that we are definitely taking this too far and that he made a mistake and we should all move on before we pop a blood vessel.

The only thing that bugs me though, is that this isn't the first time he made such a mistake. And when he was called out by the dev himself, he doubled down on what he thinks happened despite the dev telling him that, yes he did play it a different way and so he didn't get the full content.

If this was a first time thing then sure let's forget about it. It's a 9.0 and I'm fine with that. I'm still gonna play the game cause I've been waiting for it for a long time. But, even though it has been a couple of years now, since this is the second time that this has happened with him, I can't help but raise my eyebrows at this.

 

[deepFlaw]

Please point me to his apology toward the Pixel Junk Shooter dev he fucked over, then proceeded to lie to when called out before erasing the proof from his review?

Click to shrink...

Please point me to a mistake you made 8 years ago so we can fixate on it even though it's barely relevant.

 

[Extra Sauce]

Please point me to a mistake you made 8 years ago so we can fixate on it even though it's barely relevant.

Click to shrink...

If you can't see how it's relevant to this thread, I don't know what to tell you.

For the record, I think the problem is with Daemon's reactions to being called out, not the mistakes themselves.

 

[hiro]

I don't understand why are people tripping over themselves 1) calling for this guy to be fired and 2) defending him for a fucking up a video game book report?

 

[Cripterion]

I remember back when this place was just starting up, there were some real soul-searching moments based on the state of things after what went down at NeoGAF. There was a call to really start fresh and really change things for the better.

I'm sad to see that this doesn't appear to be the case. Not just with this thread but in general. The amount of anger and vitriol expressed in just this thread alone is a testament to that, but there has been an excessive amount of negativity throughout the gaming side. I understand that part of that is inherent in an enthusiast gaming site like this, but ERA has an unusually high amount of it.

With regards to this thread, just take a step back for a moment - do you truly believe that this reviewer was intending to either slight the game or that he simply phoned the review in and put in no effort? Or perhaps he did simply make a mistake? Why are we so quick to rake him over the coals for something so benign. Even after he recognized the mistake and amended his review and score some are still calling for his head or his job. Would you seriously be pleased if he were to lose his job over this? That kind of thing has a profound impact on someones life.

Some have pointed out how obvious it is that the 2nd story run is not just a new game plus, but with all the screens posted as some sort of shaming/call out - I can still see how someone might presume that to be a new game plus mode. It was a simple mistake. I understand that this mistake didn't happen to other outlets, but so what? Does this now mean that because e made this mistake and no one else did he must suffer? even though he owned up to it? I've also seen further anger towards his apology for the error because they felt it was a non-apology. I don't know why anyone feels like that isn't an acceptable apology - what does he need to do? Accept a lashing? Do we really need a pound of flesh here? In fact his apology only clarifies the content from the second run in that it is not 50% of the content.

For all the upset caused by him blocking folks on twitter - I don't believe it is difficult to imagine why he may do that if you peruse the replies he got - some very awful things are flung at him, with someone posting one of the screens in an effort to make him look foolish and the follow up reply is "as if I needed more justification to call him an unprofessional asshat." - I don't think anybody needs to put up with this kind of social media nonsense.

The upset over this review is a really sad state of affairs, and a monumental failure on our part as a community. I wish we were better than this.

My take is that he reviewed it and made an honest mistake. The review was then re-visited, and an apology issued. For me personally, I think that strengthens their reputation since they owned up to a mistake and corrected it. They could have just left it as is, or just quietly changed the review text.

Anyhow, apologies for the small rant here. It has just been building up over time for me as we seemingly revel in negativity here and it feels like there is just a real mean spirited streak ERA can go on. I know its not everyone, but it is a lot. I hope this doesn't catch me a ban or anything, I just wanted to finally comment on some of the stuff I am seeing here.

Click to shrink...

Damn fine post!

Hope the dude can have a beer and relax and not get caught up on what's written of him on the net.

What I'd like to know though, is the second run really that different? Folks are saying it's not?

 

[Stat]

I saw this on twitter but it seems pretty clear

Click to shrink...

I didn't find this clear at all. I would have assumed its NG+?

 

[Deleted member 49783]

Such a great group of commenters when the apology isn't good enough.

Honestly when looking around for a place that is active that talks about games I figured how bad could this site be, despite reading countless forums telling me to stay away.

Jesus 31 pages and way too many people calling for his firing. Get over it, he's one of the best personalities at IGN, and for better or worse it is one of, if not the most popular sites that deal with the topics we like so unless anyone wants to start a career building a new website in the volatile market of gaming I'm totally in favor of letting this go.

I used to go to that site when it was IGN64, there'd be weeks where there was no news at all, that's the nature of the industry and they have to have a news cycle or people stop getting paid.

The bigger issue, and the one that's almost starting to get brought up, is that reviewers don't have enough time to do all this. He's writing, recording, editing, formatting, then recording an entire video review, for 1 article....oh and playing on the low end a 16 hour game. Imagine playing something as big as Witcher and needing a review out on time?

Probably the most thankless industry to work in, because the target audience is too entitled.

Review not up in time? People cry
Review score not high enough? People cry
Favorable review of an exclusive? Fanboy War
Favorable review of an EA or Activision game? Someone got paid

Click to shrink...

Yes some people are overreacting, yes it's hard (even impossible at some points) to give an accurate review of such large games in a good time frame, but those do not justify this reviewer spreading misinformation of a game and potentially ruining sales. Like you said ign is one of the biggest news sites for gaming don't you find it concerning that their biggest personality has lied about a game and attempted to erase the evidence twice? If games are to be treated seriously than those who review and criticize them need to be on a higher standard than th is

 

[PalaceMidas]

Okay, so I read the first few pages and pretty much gave up with all the debating back and forth on what the scenarios entail.

Am I right in saying there are two distinctly different campaigns? A Leon campaign featuring Ada? And a Claire featuring Sherry?

Then what did the reviewer mean when he clarified himself and said that there isn't much difference between the two?

 

[Tfritz]

And still arguing about the Ethics Of Blocking Folks On Twitter?

This reviewer made the same mistake, however, she noticed it before finishing the review and made sure she played through the 2nd run mode: https://twinfinite.net/2019/01/resident-evil-2-remake-review/

The review also claims the 2nd run is less different than what the B scenario was in the original.

Click to shrink...

isn't it weird how the reviewers who have actually played the game, and the posters who have already played the game and commented in this thread and the OT, keep pointing out how the second run isn't really all that different from the first runs, but the people who haven't played the game and are Big Mad at IGN Review Guy keep referring to it as "half the game"?

 

[Gestahl]

So Daemon Hatfield lied about his Pixel Junk Shooter review when called out by the dev, tried erasing proof from his review and never apologized?

Now he's being called out for his RE2 review and reacts by changing the review and score without actually playing through the scenario he missed first?

Amazing.

Click to shrink...

But he's such a great guy though. :(

I mean who doesn't habitually lie in their chosen profession, potentially causing monetary and imaging damage to the entities you're ostensibly supposed to cover

 

[Mivey]

It's good to see some competition among gaming journalists for "dumbest publication". Can't just let Polygon get away with it without any real work.

 

[Tfritz]

Okay, so I read the first few pages and pretty much gave up with all the debating back and forth on what the scenarios entail.

Am I right in saying there are two distinctly different campaigns? A Leon campaign featuring Ada? And a Claire featuring Sherry?

Then what did the reviewer mean when he clarified himself and said that there isn't much difference between the two?

Click to shrink...

Yes. Leon and Ada, Claire and Sherry. Despite having different story beats between Leon/Ada and Claire/Sherry, you still largely cover the same ground withe the same progression, and solve the same puzzles.

There is also a second run you unlock for the other pair once you complete one pair's scenario with reshuffled puzzles and an expanded ending. By all accounts of reviewers and people who have played the game, it's not wildly different from a character's first run, but since you're playing the other character (ie if you played through the game as Leon first, you'll be playing as Claire in the second run), it helps keep things feeling fresher.

 

[SubvertedTrope]

isn't it weird how the reviewers who have actually played the game, and the posters who have already played the game and commented in this thread and the OT, keep pointing out how the second run isn't really all that different from the first runs, but the people who haven't played the game and are Big Mad at IGN Review Guy keep referring to it as "half the game"?

Click to shrink...

I mean it would help if there was some clarity on what he actually played lol. Am I right in saying he originally played 2 As instead of just A then B?

I'm told this time around A and B are both sort of mashups of both As and both Bs from the original, so doing a second playthrough switching characters would in fact not be that different.

But A and B are sort of by definition different, they're happening at the same time, so if he missed B he missed a lot...

There is also a second run you unlock for the other pair once you complete one pair's scenario

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this is wrong. 2nd run is B.

 

[Crayon]

Re: negativity

We didn't leave the old site because we wanted to make some sort of utopia. We burned it down could because we were fed up with the owner. When a leadership formed and pulled this site together, everyone was scared straight for a bit. but this site was ultimately made so we could keep doing what we were doing.

Gaf was always pretty rough. The first page of any successful topic fills up quickly with hot takes. Everyone gets their toes stepped on here and there. And it's hard to speak as part on the part of a minority opinion. Believe it or not, that's all part of what makes this community tick. There's a whole lot of traffic here, and there's going to be a whole lot of dumb posts. And in between all the shitposts and tired jokes you can participate in the best gaming talk on the internet.

If there's some new sort of negativity coming up in the last few years it's people getting to drag the whole community and talk shit about our online home because a discussion isn't going their way. Stop rooting through a 30-page thread for the lowest quality post to hold up as a representation of the whole forum. It's fuckin weak. I wish I could trade a couple of the recent bans handed out for not being nice enough. I'd take those people back with their honest opinions about video games and boot the ones who want to cry about the forum being systematically biased or a general cesspool or whatever.

 

[Ellite25]

I mean it would help if there was some clarity on what he actually played lol. Am I right in saying he originally played 2 As instead of just A then B?

I'm told this time around A and B are both sort of mashups of both As and both Bs from the original, so doing a second playthrough switching characters would in fact not be that different.

But A and B are sort of by definition different, they're happening at the same time, so if he missed B he missed a lot...

Click to shrink...

It honestly sounds like no one I'm this thread really knows. There's so much contradictory information it's hard to figure out what's true about the game and what isn't. People should probably just wait until they play through the game themselves before they continue to bash the reviewer for "lying." I've read like 20 pages of this thread and I'm confused as hell about the actual content of the game.

 

[Tfritz]

I mean it would help if there was some clarity on what he actually played lol. Am I right in saying he originally played 2 As instead of just A then B?

I'm told this time around A and B are both sort of mashups of both As and both Bs from the original, so doing a second playthrough switching characters would in fact not be that different.

Click to shrink...

if you read the review he says he initially played both As, but then played Leon B after his mistake was brought up.

Yeah, this is wrong. 2nd run is B.

Click to shrink...

that's what i said. once you complete leon and ada's campaign, you unlock claire and sherry's second run.

 

[Shark]

Man makes mistake, and internet freaks out when he owns up to it and tries to fix it.


HE THINKS HE CAN FOOL US.

KILL HIMMMMMM

He has ruined the algorithm!!! IGN MUST PAY

Click to shrink...

Yeah, it's funny how this is less about the reviewer getting something wrong and more because it came under scrutiny for having the 'audacity' of giving the game an 8.8.

 

[SubvertedTrope]

if you read the review he says he initially played both As, but then played Leon B after his mistake was brought up.

Click to shrink...

And of all these reviewers and players you polled, did anyone else say Leon B had pretty much noting new as compared to Leon A? Is the whole thing just RPD repeated 4 times?

Because if 2 As led to his intial review, then adding B would have let him see the final boss and true ending so how is that "not much new"?

Could it have been just a handwavy way to dismiss his lil overlooking mishap?

By all accounts of reviewers and people who have played the game, it's not wildly different from a character's first run, but since you're playing the other character (ie if you played through the game as Leon first, you'll be playing as Claire in the second run), it helps keep things feeling fresher.

Click to shrink...

Are you/they talking about gameplay differences? No shit it's not wildly different it's the same game so yes gameplay wise it's probably very similar, but how is Claire getting the vaccine, and Leon/Ada dealing with Annette not wildly different?

 

[AgentStrange]

ayy lmao

 

[replicantUK]

IGN is a complete farce. Awful low tier site. Another example of the editorial team shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[deepFlaw]

And of all these reviewers and players you polled, did anyone else say Leon B had pretty much noting new as compared to Leon A? Is the whole thing just RPD repeated 4 times?

Because if 2 As led to his intial review, then adding B would have let him see the final boss and true ending so how is that "not much new"?

Could it have been just a handwavy way to dismiss his lil overlooking mishap?

Click to shrink...

The most I have been able to gather from this thread is:

1. The first hour or so is decently different.
2. The rest of it kinda isn't.
3. New final boss and ending.

Considering point 2 there could be, like, what, 5+ hours of the same stuff? I would say "new boss and cutscene at the end" after replaying largely the same exact thing is definitely "not much new", yeah. If point 1 is accurate, a bit less so, but that depends on the quality/degree of the new stuff at the start.

 

[badnewsbeers]

The quality of writing on IGN has been deplorable for years, but they're really hitting a new low lately. Utter lack of substance and obviously no oversight.

 

[replicantUK]

Yeah, it's funny how this is less about the reviewer getting something wrong and more because it came under scrutiny for having the 'audacity' of giving the game an 8.8.

Click to shrink...

A review system which instead of using a concise 1-10 system opts for 1-10 to 1 decimal place is complete nonsense.

it is impossible to quantify the difference between an 8.8 and 9.0 score. 8.8 as a score is redundant.

 

[Astral]

Are you/they talking about gameplay differences? No shit it's not wildly different it's the same game so yes gameplay wise it's probably very similar, but how is Claire getting the vaccine, and Leon/Ada dealing with Annette not wildly different?

Click to shrink...

Also the fact that, unless they changed it,

Spoiler

B scenario is the only one where you fight Form 1 Birkin.

There's also Ben's subplot, and Ada's. What I wish they kept is having

Spoiler

Mr. X only appear in scenario B.

That also made a significant difference.

 

[SubvertedTrope]

The most I have been able to gather from this thread is:

1. The first hour or so is decently different.
2. The rest of it kinda isn't.
3. New final boss and ending.

Considering point 2 there could be, like, what, 5+ hours of the same stuff? I would say "new boss and cutscene at the end" after replaying largely the same exact thing is definitely "not much new", yeah. If point 1 is accurate, a bit less so, but that depends on the quality/degree of the new stuff at the start.

Click to shrink...

You have it right, A & B function as a self contained concurrent story. So it doesn't matter in what order you play the characters, they made sure the story beats are there anyway.

So if say you just went through A twice you would be missing quite a bit, it doesn't have to be half the game.

Like you could just play Leon A and never know what Claire and Sherry went through, which sounds pretty bad...

This is as clear as I can put it: A&B are one playthrough, it can be replayed with the characters switching places but it's still technically the same playthrough. A&A is going through the same stuff twice for no reason and not seeing this (short) game to completion.

 

[replicantUK]

The quality of writing on IGN has been deplorable for years, but they're really hitting a new low lately. Utter lack of substance and obviously no oversight.

Click to shrink...

No sense checking of content. The mentality of the site is shotgun coverage with little quality control. Pump out as much out as possible.

 

[Tfritz]

Part of is that Mr X is already in the A routes/First Runs, so it's like the "hey this really awesome thing happens in your second playthrough!!!" thing from the original doesn't apply here. Part of it seems to be that the remake does a much better job at feeling dynamic, so like in the original where we can be all "Oh yeah this room is empty in the A route but there are five enemies in it in the B route" it's not as easy to do that here (although maybe it will be once the general public gets their hands on it and starts documenting it).

 

[deepFlaw]

You have it right, A & B function as a self contained concurrent story. So it doesn't matter in what order you play the characters, they made sure the story beats are there anyway.

So if say you just went through A twice you would be missing quite a bit, it doesn't have to be half the game.

Like you could just play Leon A and never know what Claire and Sherry went through, which sounds pretty bad...

Click to shrink...

But it sounds like he played both Leon A and Claire A. Not just Leon twice or whatever.

So the question is how much differs in what he'd seen from Leon A + Claire A, and what he then saw in Leon A + Claire A + one of them B?

Because based on what's been said so far... it really does not sound like a huge amount in comparison to the amount that doesn't change? But that's just my perception of what's been said about it here. It's felt very back and forth, and I think it would be good if someone who actually knows exactly what's in these scenarios could clarify it with this exact situation (both As vs both As+ a B) in mind.

 

[VashTS]

Well said and a great point about the review time/embargo. Reviewers definitely have to rush through games, which would cause me to enjoy it less and potentially miss things.

Click to shrink...

But to help with the rush of reviewing games on time aren't reviewers often given reviewer/presskits with documentation to help them through the game?

Some publishers even supply a full on walk through and in the least a complete feature guide. Maybe this isn't a common thing anymore these days?

I haven't seen one post by anyone recalling press kits that help with the review process in this thread. Am I too old?

 

[Alucrid]

Games journalist did an oopsie?

Incoming 10:05 video!

Click to shrink...

every time i go to youtube i see these videos and every time i click not interested and they keep appearing. i don't need to watch a 10 minute regurgitation of news i already saw on here

 

[Mona]

0.2 points for double the content

thats how you know reviews are a complete sham

 

[SubvertedTrope]

Because based on what's been said so far... it really does not sound like a huge amount in comparison to the amount that doesn't change? But that's just my perception of what's been said about it here. It's felt very back and forth, and I think it would be good if someone who actually knows exactly what's in these scenarios could clarify it with this exact situation (both As vs both As+ a B) in mind.

Click to shrink...

This is as clear as I can put it: A&B are one playthrough, it can be replayed with the characters switching places but it's still technically the same playthrough. A&A is going through the same stuff twice for no reason and not seeing this (short) game to completion.

Click to shrink...

I guess it couldn't hurt to ask someone who's beat the game or otherwise knows the answer.

Dusk Golem Can you please clarify the difference between playing A&A vs playing A&B?

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

0.2 points for double the content

thats how you know reviews are a complete sham

Click to shrink...

I believe he said he played the second run eventually, he was just disappointed he had to do it as Leon again because he missed the option to do it as his first play through with Claire. He thought path B was locked behind completing path A as that character and criticized that gating, and without it was worth the slight bump. He didn't miss half the game.