Anthem reviews are trickling in and they're not good

  • Thread starter KnightBrolaire
  • Start date
  • This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.

Xaios

Foolish Mortal
Contributor
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
11,485
Reaction score
5,822
Location
Nimbus III
It's a very different story with movies since all critics can see everything screened for the public no matter what their personal reputation is.
True, but with the caveat that actual "film critics" are an entirely different animal than "movie reviewers," who are generally held to a much lower standard, if at all. Granted, it's not like film critics don't sometimes cater to an audience either. Just look at Armond White, who manages to somehow interpret every movie that he doesn't like as being a secret exaltation of what he perceives as the moral degeneracy in Hollywood in the age of millennials, liberals and Obama (and often also manages to branch off into similar blathering about politics when discussing movies he does speak well of). The irony is that, when he doesn't go full hateboner for all things left, he's actually quite a skilled critic, but in order for a movie to have a shot at getting legitimate criticism from him instead of a vomited knee-jerk diatribe, a whole bunch of other factors have to align to his own views first, such as the politics of both the movie itself and everyone involved in making it, and his (seemingly completely random) list of film directors that he seems to actively either love or hate on a level that goes far beyond professionalism.

Most legitimate film critics though are members of critic societies, and that affords them some protection from the being blackballed by studios. Given how much sway review scores can have on the box office, that's a fair consideration. The real thing though is that film critics aren't as reliant on an income generated by ad revenue originating from film studios in order pay the bills (ad revenue yes, but not from the studio or distributor). Gave reviewers on the other hand generally must rely on the ad revenue they receive from the very entities whose games that they review, so objectivity is always going to be an open question. This is because the places online where gamers tend to congregate, and where studios ultimately focus their advertising efforts, are also the places where game reviews tend to originate, whereas marketing for movies tends to be far more generalized in where and how it appears.
 

TedEH

Cromulent
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
12,656
Reaction score
12,507
Location
Gatineau, Quebec
On some level, when you're talking about something like a game, there's not really any number scale that can be settled on to just rank every game. It's not the number that matters, it's the question of why that number was awarded. On some level, I think it falls on the reader to dig into what the awarded number really means, given that opinions are going to vary, priorities or tastes could be different, etc. I don't want to know that a game is "good", I want to know what someone might or might not like about it.
 

wankerness

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
8,512
Reaction score
2,563
Location
WI
I think a large part of reviews being broken is that we've broken our own 0-10 rating metric. If every game is a 9/10, then 9/10 really means nothing and they're all average; realistically, every game review should max out around a 7 or 8 as a "really good" or "great," and then have 9's and 10's drop when something monumental comes out as a franchise entry or is so original it's like "why don't we have more of this?!" I try to avoid .5 ratings just because usually can hard-call whether or not something is +/-1 point, but there's an exception to be made for some things that need it.

A 5/10 isn't a bad game, it's literally an average one, so anything above that quantifies as "above average."

I see a lot of morons rigidly apply the US grade scale to the number scale, which insists that thus 6/10 is a D- and anything below is an F. An 8/10 is not even good with that mindset (C+/B-). It makes no sense to me AT ALL - I always equivocated the 5 star system to the numbers, and stars tended towards 3/5 being average/decent and below being meh->bad. I engaged in arguments the first few times I saw that, but it was futile, it's not an uncommon thought process. I guess school broke their brains.
 

This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
16,771
Reaction score
6,915
Location
Boston, MA
I see a lot of morons rigidly apply the US grade scale to the number scale, which insists that thus 6/10 is a D- and anything below is an F. An 8/10 is not even good with that mindset (C+/B-). It makes no sense to me AT ALL - I always equivocated the 5 star system to the numbers, and stars tended towards 3/5 being average/decent and below being meh->bad. I engaged in arguments the first few times I saw that, but it was futile, it's not an uncommon thought process. I guess school broke their brains.

I've given up entirely on people who don't realize you can't correlate a 0-10 scale the same way you use A-F grading. If you try to do that, you're already lost to us.
 

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
16,771
Reaction score
6,915
Location
Boston, MA
Read that during my lunch break, it was so god damn depressing to read, and realize it wasn't going to better no matter how much I read; but I like to think that with the failures of Andromeda followed up immediately by this, it sends a big signal to EA and the shareholders that you can't just burn-and-churn and hope it continues to work. At some point the system falls apart, and Anthem is the result of that - too many important people hit their limit of bullshit, and walked away leaving them picking up the pieces, and we now see what that looks like (not good.)
 

KnightBrolaire

SSO's unofficial pickup tester
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
21,328
Reaction score
28,758
Location
Minnesota
I'm not really surprised that there was a lot of pivoting and general lack of direction with anthem's development. It really showed in the final product. The kind of work schedules some of these developers have to work are beyond grueling, that kind of crap is why studios like team bondi and some of the ubisoft teams died off.
 

BlackMastodon

\m/ (゚Д゚) \m/
Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
8,372
Reaction score
4,957
Location
Windsor, ON
Holy shit. Explains a lot about what's been happening at Bioware for the last several years. Cuts down a lot of hope for another good Mass Effect game. :(
 

wankerness

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
8,512
Reaction score
2,563
Location
WI

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
16,771
Reaction score
6,915
Location
Boston, MA
I wouldn't even say it's idiotic, it's just a total LACK OF leadership, as they said a lot - no one was there to make a hard decision on anything to get everyone on the same page. If there was one person making a bad decision for everyone to get behind, that'd be one thing, but this is just that they were trying to avoid that person by having it be decision by council, but nothing got done that way either, and then we ended up with Anthem in it's current state :lol:
 

wankerness

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
8,512
Reaction score
2,563
Location
WI
I wouldn't even say it's idiotic, it's just a total LACK OF leadership, as they said a lot - no one was there to make a hard decision on anything to get everyone on the same page. If there was one person making a bad decision for everyone to get behind, that'd be one thing, but this is just that they were trying to avoid that person by having it be decision by council, but nothing got done that way either, and then we ended up with Anthem in it's current state :lol:

Some of it's blatantly idiotic, like them refusing to look at Destiny and instead saying look at Diablo 3. If you don't look at your closest competition, that's just irresponsible. Then the YEARS of hemming and hawing and doing nothing, which is most vividly described by that section about the meetings where people would disagree over something and no one would take leadership and say what they should do and thus nothing happened at them. The infighting between Bioware studios. Etc. There were leaders involved in all of that! They just didn't lead, except with that moronic decree about refusal to take tips or improve upon the game they were most closely competing with. I guess we're basically saying the same thing.

EA's refusal to pay licensing fees for Unreal Engine is their one huge crime in this story that I saw. Some of the commentariat on that article discuss other studios and experiences where leadership tried to do that but were persuaded to pony up since the amount they'd end up paying in man-hours and human misery for forcing them to use a new/inferior engine would end up outweighing the license fees :p
 

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
16,771
Reaction score
6,915
Location
Boston, MA
Ah right, I forgot about the "game that shall not be compared to" aspect, but in the Top 3 errors, I'd say it's the least egregious of the bunch. The other two being lack of leadership and game engine switching lead to FAR bigger problems with the framework and identity of the game before you even get a chance to do something like compare your product to someone else's game.
 

Konfyouzd

Return of the Dread-I
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
23,597
Reaction score
2,303
Location
Seattle, WA
But kinda not surprised on the luke warm meh feeling, for awhile now the whole formula of "multiplayer-shootemup-resurrect-rinse&repeat" is getting old in the eyes of a growing number of gamers, despite big sales. The genre is starting to show its lack of substance IMO.

I am glad that I'm not alone in this feeling. It seemed--since people keep making similar games--that I was in the minority. I may still be, but this comment is refreshing nonetheless :lol:
 

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
16,771
Reaction score
6,915
Location
Boston, MA
Shooters to me are definitely more of the "is the gameplay fun enough to keep me coming back" vs the experience of say, an RPG where I'm supposed to invest in the story/world. A shooter can have those extra features to make the game that much better, but at the end of the day, I need engaging gameplay for them most of all; and I'm sure it'd come as no surprise to anyone to say that Titanfall 2 and DOOM are in my top 5 FPS franchises.

Whereas every EA shooter has the same exact feel, and on top of that, every loot shooter feels the same - so why wouldn't a loot shooter feel the same as every other when a company who's games all feel the same decides to make one?
 

wankerness

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
8,512
Reaction score
2,563
Location
WI
You think Borderlands feels the same as anthem/destiny? I’ve never played the latter two but I sure liked borderlands. Only played solo. If destiny feels the same maybe I should check it out.
 

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
16,771
Reaction score
6,915
Location
Boston, MA
Borderlands enemies I dont recall being as spongy as the ones I faced in the Anthem demo, but it definitely reached a point of "how many of these quests are fulfilling something vs just doing them for completion percentage?" where even the loot you got made you go "...Eh, I can just sell this at least." It's saving grace was the sheer level of absurdity it goes to with things like decapitated enemies mutating, over the top characters, playing with friends, and all the ways to make shit blow up :lol:
 

wankerness

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
8,512
Reaction score
2,563
Location
WI
Borderlands enemies I dont recall being as spongy as the ones I faced in the Anthem demo, but it definitely reached a point of "how many of these quests are fulfilling something vs just doing them for completion percentage?" where even the loot you got made you go "...Eh, I can just sell this at least." It's saving grace was the sheer level of absurdity it goes to with things like decapitated enemies mutating, over the top characters, playing with friends, and all the ways to make shit blow up :lol:

Borderlands avoided feeling like a loot treadmill to me as I played it mainly to experience the different playstyles of the different characters/builds. Once you're max level the characters' abilities become something you use constantly, while at low levels everyone plays the same. The quests having a lot of character helped. But yeah, I sure didn't start playing on the hard difficulties, it was a waste of time and needlessly frustrating to me solo as all you were doing was getting incremental upgrades to stats/weapons; there were no more ability upgrades or anything. After the first completist playthrough I also knew which quests to skip!
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
3,169
Reaction score
656
Location
Butt salsa lane, oswego, illinois
Titanfall 2.
Man talk about the most slept on and underrated shooter ever, I grabbed it when it was like $5 on Playstation and had an absolute blast while playing it. Never touched the campaign, I almost never play a shooters campaign, but I've only ever heard good things about it. I'm glad Apex Legends has brought some much needed attention to the game because people were missing out on a seriously great game.
 

wankerness

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
8,512
Reaction score
2,563
Location
WI
I read the ps4 deals subreddit and that is seriously top 5 most recommended in those threads. People LOVE that game, always rave about the campaign and point it out as one of the best deals whenever it’s on sale. It’s too bad all this popularity seems to have happened long after it “flopped.”

I still haven’t played it, but I have it!
 
Top