How in the FUCK does the faggot who made this review still have a job?

because he is the founder and owner of IGN

File: ign.jpg (190KB, 1007x891px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1007x891px

>IGN

>game breaking bugs that completely corrupt your saves occurring regularly to the point that even the replacement save file the devs send you gets rekt aren't cause to absolutely fucking trash a game in a review

it was completely justified, even though Prey is an 8/10 excluding the bug

Game is garbage. Get fucked bethesda shills.

>>376752227
>no the game isn't bad just because a game-breaking bug ruins the game entirely

>>376753087
Listen here you little shit, back in my day we didn't get bugfixes in three fucking days. If your save file got corrupted you were on your own. We didn't have a team of Bethesda Wage Slaves to unfuck our saves with a patch my boy, oh no. We just restarted the game like a big boy or, better yet, kept a whole goddamn folder full manual saves.

>>376753520
thanks for agreeing with me that the game is garbage

>>376753646
I think you may want to reconsider your reading comprehension abilities Anon.

>>376753520
True, back in the day if a game was released buggy, it was trashed and you went out of business.

>>376753520
Exactly. If this game had been released back then, it would be universally panned. There's no reason why we should judge a modern game by a lower standard.

The game was released in an incredibly buggy and broken state across all consoles, the gameplay is mediocre, the gunplay is mediocre, and the ending is fucking awful. 4/10 is being too lax.

>wahh, I lost like 5 hours of work because of a bug
>meanwhile, faggots on Ark were toiling away, raising baby rexes, and then having them just up and disappear. Fucking shit worth $20 each, just evaporating into the the aether. So he can go and fuck himself.

>>376753520
It's okay anon I still agree with you

>>376753520
not an argument

File: vampmasq.jpg (192KB, 1600x740px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1600x740px

>>376753771
That didn't make the game shit.

>>376754628
>some perma-beta open-world survival scam is buggy
>therefore every game can get away with being buggy
Why are Bethesda drones acting like this got 4/100? 4/10 is slightly below mediocre, which is very lenient for a game which is literally unplayable for many paying customers.

>>376753771
SO MUCH THIS.
If you released the game on a few hundred thousand discs and half your playerbase didn't have access to download a few hundred megabytes worth of patches you game would be forever broken for them. Which is why people fucking tested their shit proper before releasing it.
Now dev's and publishers rely on day1 patches, or wait a few days/weeks/month to fix the shit they already sold.
I have just stopped buying games early, rather get them after a few months where bugs, patches, drivers and in some cases mods can make the game a better experience.

It's simply not a valid criticism to say that something unintentional by the developers means the score is half what it should be.

>>376752995

Very few people had this bug and it had been patched out by the time he made the review. So nah, he was just being a salty cunt about it.

>>376752972
He's not wrong. God hand is overrated garbage.

>>376754889
I've never even played this fucking game, shitcunt. I'm just saying his little temper tantrum is a bit of an overreaction.

>>376753080

You don't even own it, so why do you care?

>>376754898
This. I'm glad that reviewers are starting to punish publishers for this sort of behaviour and I'm pleasantly surprised to see such consumer-friendly action from IGN of all people.

>1. You can backup your saves manually
>2. Other games have had gamebreaking bugs. You can still rate it based on what you got to play, then deduct a 1-2 points for the bug
>3. It's fixed already

Dan Stapleton realizes media sites like IGN are dying. He want's the clicks.

>>376752972
I doubt the person who made this image played Imagine Party Babyz

>Prey is revealed
>"God, Prey looks like such a shit game. Who the hell wants this shit?"
>IGN gives it a 4
>"What the fuck, IGN doesn't know a good game when they see it. Fire this faggot!"

Never change, /v/

Bethesda screwed the pooch on this one.

They made a forgettable shit FPS and scrapped what would have been a memorable cyberpunk experience.

There's only 1 Prey and it came out a long ass time ago.

>>376754914
>As the developers say they intended to make a good game, it doesn't matter if their game is terrible.
Fortunately we don't live in your world, where reviews are given out for effort rather than quality.

And "journalists" wonder why Bethesda doesn't send them review copies anymore.

>>376754785
at its reception, yes

https://twitter.com/DanStapleton/status/863107753597743105

He's just upset he didn't get to play the game a couple of weeks before everybody else did.

>>376755364
because they don't work until the day 1 or 2 patch?

>>376755259

You're a fucking idiot. A bug that a small percentage of people are experiencing which more importantly had already been fixed, does not make the game bad.

File: 1493045943018.jpg (232KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1000x1000px

True. He really should've given this 0/10 for it being unplayable. Where did he even get the 4/10 for? The first area he played?

File: 1492420643052.gif (377KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 300x169px

I guess the dev forgot to purchase the 7.5+ Review Package

>>376752972
>3.0
What? 5+6+7+2.5+5 = 25.5/5 = 5
Is it shopped or is ign just that stupid?

File: yDaw5iKD.jpg (55KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 512x512px

>>376752227

So this...is the power...of numales...

>>376755503
No need to be mad. You'll get to play it one day when its cracked.

>>376755676
NOT AN AVERAGE

>>376755034
>I've never even played this fucking game, shitcunt. I'm just saying his little temper tantrum is a bit of an overreaction.
Self-awareness level zero.

Bottom line: Bethesda released a game which randomly erases all of your save data. They did this because they are incompetent, greedy publishers who thought they could get away with it. One reviewer gave them a sub-par score, which might lead to publishers being more careful to release functional products in future. You're upset by this, and you think your favourite AAA publisher should be allowed to release critically broken products without this anti-consumer decision affecting the review score. You are what is known as a corporate shill; a bootlicker; a fanboy. Head back to Neogaf, or wherever you spineless cock-suckers spawn from.

>>376755503
He played it for 40 hours before the save corrupted.

Didn't pay the jouranlism fee. It should be like a 7/10 really

>>376753771
Back in the day if a (console) game was released buggy, it could never be patched.

>>376755475
>S-stop bullying Bethesda-senpai!!
If it was so quick and easy to fix the bug, why was the game released broken?

File: 1469600827742.jpg (46KB, 536x536px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 536x536px

>>376755654

>being this salty that you had to buy your own game and not get a free copy 5 days before release like PewDiePie did

Have some integrity, IGN. This is pathetic.

File: 1373226183203.jpg (869KB, 5000x3712px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 5000x3712px

>>376755475
>waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh stop having different opinions to meeeeeeeee justify my wasted moneyyyyyyyyy
>metacritic scores are all that matter waaahhhhh

File: 1482987631426.jpg (59KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x360px

>GIVE THIS GAME AN OBJECTIVE 9/10 OR I'LL BOYCOT YOUR WEBSITE I NEVER BROWSE ANYWAY

>>376755952
What exactly is broken? The game runs perfectly fine for me

>>376756180
>works on my machine so change your subjective review of your experience or I'll report you to gamergate

>>376755759
So you are still sticking to the 'bethesda-shill' bullshit? Fine, I wouldn't want you to become too upset. If your entire justification for shitting on a game is something that can be patched out later, maybe it is time to find a new career.

>tells someone they have no self-awareness
>tells them they are corporate shills
>shills for a fucking game journalism site
>its a corporation

kek.

>>376753520
>Back in my day the thing that was supposed to work didn't work

What's your point?

>>376756178
Come on dude dial in the greentext hyperbole. Getting stonewalled by a bug is NOT an excuse to publish a review about the game and if you think that it is then you obviously started playing videogames after they started coddling everyone with checkpoints and autosaves. It's not fucking hard to go back to an old save. This is NOT professional behavior.

File: 1494253527507.jpg (58KB, 540x655px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 540x655px

>Whining about bugs that were fixed by the time the review came out
>Whining about lost saves that were already restored by the time the review came out
>Instead of going back and re-writing your review to accurately reflect the game, you just submit the one you already have because you are just that fucking lazy

File: 235647890487.jpg (25KB, 250x201px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 250x201px

>>376756276

File: 1468668293171.png (29KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 900x900px

>>376756073

Amazing retort. Also who mentioned Metacritic? Are you just upset the game hasn't been cracked yet?

>>376756276
>This game is shit because it has bugs.
>But it doesn't have bugs.
>Well that's just my opinion.

And your opinion is wrong.

>>376756421
>This is NOT professional behavior.
[citation needed]

You got a source on the professional standards of critical journalism you're referencing there?

>>376756073
This post is embarrassing

>>376752227
Sooo, how do you guys think he decided on the score? Did he say something like "So, I was gonna give it a 9, but my save got corrupted, so I will half it, then cut another 0,5 because why not"?

>>376756567
>there needs to be set of professional standards cited in order to assert that publishing a review of a game you have not completed is unprofessional

Okay you're retarded, I get it.

>>376752995
1 bug and it was rare. It also was fixed immediately in a patch.

File: oh no.jpg (9KB, 368x158px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 368x158px

>>376756421
>It's not fucking hard to go back to an old save.
It is if ALL of your save data is corrupted, shill.

>>376756567
I got my citation right here
*unzips pants*
*garbs you by the throat*
BACK THE FUCK OFF

>>376754965
I sincerely believe you do not like video games.

File: may 11.jpg (105KB, 697x373px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 697x373px

>>376756690
>all of my saves are corrupted!

>>376756421
>Reviewing my favourite publisher poorly is NOT professional behavior.
Neither is releasing a broken game you cum-slurping corporate fanboy.

>>376753771
Obsidian still exists

Imagine being so butthurt someone else didn't like a game you do like that you spend every day complaining about the guy and his opinions. Imagine being so mad you demand he lose his job and cry about muh journalistic integrity because you literally cannot live in a world where someone has a different opinion. It's hilarious!!!!!!

>>376756674
>someone is asking me to explain my defensive retard logic
>*moves goalposts*

>>376753080
bethesda didn't make the game you stupid fuck.

>pulling made up facts out of your ass just to find a reason to stir up shit
Sad!

>>376754898
This. It seems like every popular release these days is plagued with bugs and glitches at best, unplayable crashes at worst. Some of them even rely on fucking fan support to fix simple issues like Automata or DSFix. It's simply unacceptable to release a BROKEN product and expect your consumers to eat it up.

I hate IGN, but they were right (for once) in calling Bethesda out on their bullshit.

>>376756812
Too bad that's not the version which was reviewed. The reviewer's version of the game was not patched. Many paying customers also received the bugged version.

>>376756815
>a major corporation published it so everyone who thinks IGN is fucking stupid for publishing a review of a game they haven't completed must be a corporate shill!

You are either retarded or insane. Either way, good work that's some quality shitposting.

>>376756848
Imagine being such a crossposting hipster that you append a post with no fewer than six exclamation points.

>crying this hard over a number in a review

You people are all morons

>>376756848
>*action*
not even that other anon but come on now

>>376755676
Not an average
>>376755751
He's still right tho. If the presentation, graphical quality, and sound design manage to make the experience enjoyable, even "bad" gameplay would not balance out to an overall 3/10, averaged together or weighted.

>>376756981
If you honestly think publishing a review of a game you did not complete is acceptable in any way then I'm sure I can't convince you otherwise because you are the special kind of wrong that ignores all forms of logical discourse.

>>376757038
>crossposting
yikes! this teenbro is so flustered he's even rolling out the big words he doesn't really understand the meaning of. stick to reddit kid, your corporate shill mentality will be at home back there

>>376752995
>it was completely justified,
No, it was not. You judge a game, not a singular isolated experience.

Here is what would be right to do:
Upon discovering the bug, IMMEDIATELY release a PA informing people that the game has a major gamebreaking bug and advising people to hold off the buy until it's resolved, then contacting Arkane and urging them to fix their shit.

Then, when it's released, finish the review, perhaps mention this issue in the review as well, maybe even take off a point for overall problems with bugs (the game has quite a few other issues in the technical department).

Not STAY SILENT ABOUT THE GAME BREAKING BUG FOR THREE DAYS, THEN ONCE IT IS FUCKING SOLVED, SLASH THE REVIEW IN HALF BECAUSE YOU ARE ANGRY.

Game-breaking bugs on release are a serious issue. Something that should make you immediately warn people not to buy it until it's fixed.

But they are also something that is fixable, and once its fixed, it stops being an issue. And you can't go and say "well I actually really enjoyed the game, but then I ran into a bug. The bug does not exist anymore, but fuck it: SHIT GAME, REMEMBER THAT FUTURE GENERATIONS!"

This is a simple disservice to the audience. You fucks are defending reviews that are a disservice to you. That judge games on criteria that are no longer relevant, and which provide a dishonest fucking image of the game.

YOU ARE FUCKING DEFENDING PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING POOR JOB OF INFORMING YOU.
God dammit this site is full of fucking insanely stupid people. That is beyond any belief.

>>376756895
Bethesda did, in fact, publish the game (Google, retard). Thus, they are responsible for releasing a game which had not been tested. The devs at Arkane could have easily fixed the bug, but presumably Bethesda's time constraints were too strict to deliver a quality product to their customers. Note that regulating a game's quality, ensuring customer satisfaction, and overseeing the distribution of a video game to retailers are the primary purposes of a video game publisher. If they can't do that, then they're a bad publisher, which Bethesda clearly are.

File: tips.jpg (99KB, 854x634px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 854x634px

>>376757314
>the special kind of wrong that ignores all forms of logical discourse
>maybe if I try to sound more intelligent nobody will notice that I don't understand critical theory and ask difficult questions
underage teenbro detected

>>376757325
>>376757417
I wonder how you're not embarrassed about your own posts, but there's some things I'd probably rather not know about.

>>376757063
People are pissed about major and extremely influential media giant doing a terrible job at what is their fucking job you retard. It may surprise you, but this is not about this particular number, but about fucking standards of the fucking site, not to mention long-term impact on the game, which will in return determine how good games will we get in the future.

>>376757314
>did not complete
*could not complete
The game was launched with a critical bug which completely corrupted save files, making it impossible to complete. Keep up.

File: 1482795518121.png (2MB, 991x1426px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 991x1426px

>>376757368
>reddit spacing
>reddit cap lock
>angry at a review
>this site
>you fucks

>>376757501
>People are pissed about major and extremely influential media giant doing a terrible job at what is their fucking job you retard.
Are you talking about Bethesda? Because you're right.

>>376757474
>APOLOGISE TO PREY AND ARKANE AND BETHESDA RIGHT NOW!!!!!
>IMPROVE THE METACRITIC SCORE SO EVERYONE INVOLVED GETS THEIR BONUS!!!!

>>376756949
Except they did not call Bethesda on their bullshit. They called Prey a bad game. That is a pretty fucking different thing.
They did not even inform people about the bug when they encountered it. That is the worst fucking part. They let people buy the game for two or three days KNOWING that the bug is there and not telling anyone, then only released a review of the game which is not actually represeting the game, just the bug, ON THE DAY THE SHIT WAS FIXED.
So how the fuck is this right?

>>376757325
I imagine this is how people "argue" on facebook. You are fucking stupid, my man. Try to compose your posts so they don't look like they were written by some bum flustered teen. And don't reply. You are far too annoying to talk with

>>376752227
Because his boss tells him "people are still mad about your article and giving us clicks every day, good job!"

>>376757598
What are you even doing, man

>>376757757
He is the boss

>>376757515
I'm quite aware of the bug you little shit, but reviewing a game that you have not completed is both disingenuous and unprofessional. You did not complete the game, end of story. I don't care if you have to start the game again. I stream games for friends so I do it all the time. I keep at least two or three concurrent backups of saves and guess what? I never even got this bug.

It's these fucktards that come into this thread and start screeching about corporate shills that are funny. We're incapable of discussing games among ourselves without throwing tantrums about imaginary shills. Mind boggling.

File: 1484154761543.jpg (79KB, 328x281px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 328x281px

>>376757705
>t-t-t-take it back!!!! prey is a good game and deserves an honest s-s-s-score!!!! c-c-c-crossie!!!!

>>376757519
>>reddit spacing
>>reddit cap lock
So, when were you flushed down the toilet?
Did you pop up here last summer?

>>376752227

Did you want him to say

>"So guys, I wasn't able to finish the game because of a literal game-breaking bug, but I think it's pretty good, 8.5/10!"

instead?

File: 1472202513757.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>376757853
>I stream games for friends
we got a professional games reviewer here boys. graduated from NEET U with a masters in Gaming

File: bugs.png (532KB, 925x515px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 925x515px

>>376752227

>>376757953
What the fuck are you even on about? Are you mentally ill? Are you arguing with imaginary people?

>>376757645
I don't know how many more times I can explain this, but Bethesda released a shitty product. Bethesda, whose job is quality control, released a game with zero quality control. The game was not fixed before it was reviewed, so it was reviewed with a low score because it was a broken game. Bethesda will now think "gee, we'd better let Arkane finish bug testing their next game before we publish it" and consumers everywhere will receive better-quality products in future. But for some reason, you, the consumer, are complaining. So either you're paid by Bethesda or you're defending a corporation's gross incompetence for free.

>>376757957
Ironically for me, that game did corrupt my saves and I haven't touched it since.

>>376755247

The only thing memorable about Prey 1 was a few set pieces, all quickly dashed by boring and forgettable gameplay.

>ctrl+f (You)
>1 of 25 matches
Regardless of whatever IGN-sama thought of the game, he knows his audience well enough to understand that giving this game a low score will lead to way more clicks and ad revenue than a high score. These kids literally cannot control themselves desu lol

>>376756949
But why this game? I know the answer is "review copies", but still.

That's what people are upset about, at least I am. Prey is legitimately leagues better than Fallout 4, Mass Effect Andromeda, and many other AAA games that have been plagued with bugs. Hell, Prey might even have less, considering this is the only real bad issue I've read about. There are some AAA games out there that IGN gave a high score that are STILL broken, whereas this was fixed.

I would have written this off as Dan Stapleton being a shit again, but I think it's actually swaying some people who might have otherwise enjoyed Prey. I've been dying for a game like this, considering System Shock II is one of my all time favorites. It's nowhere near as good, I think, but it scratches the itch and is a great example of the direction I want games to go in. This dude almost singlehandedly fucked up discourse in one of the bigger video games discussion areas online.

>>376758169
Game reviews is the highest form of (you) baiting. Additionally, they get paid for it too.

>>376758169

when I do that I get 2 matches

so you are a huge samefaggot, newfaggot and shill

>>376758060
I don't know how many more times I can explain this: Reviewing a game you did not complete is not acceptable journalism practice in any way. Imagine a movie critic walking into a theater, watching half the movie, the power goes out halfway through, and he publishes a review that says the game was below average because he didn't watch the rest of it.

I'm not saying you can't blame Arkane for shipping a buggy product. Go for it. Vote with your wallet, don't buy the game. But dropping a "4.0 Did Not Finish" is a million times shittier than releasing a game that bugs out and shits up your saves (which they fixed in a week).

>>376758261
>But why this game?
Who knows? Regardless it's a step in the right direction since it means IGN has at least some integrity unless Bethesda simply didn't pay them enough this time around.

>>376756843
If the game is really great otherwise then most will overlook the bugs.

>>376758060

good post
/thread

>>376758060
Bethesda has released several of their own fucking games with worse issues over the years. And they're some of the most critically acclaimed games of all time for some goddamn reason. Many of these bugs go unpatched until mod magic makes it playable.

Prey has this one bug, now fixed

>>376753520
Your a fucking faggot, you judge a product pre patch release or nothing. Fuck their reliance on that after release shit, do your fucking job.

>>376757853
Hi, Anon. I will talk in short words so you know what I am saying. The man who played the game to see if it was good or bad tried to finish the game. He could not finish the game because the game broke his save file. He did not choose to stop playing the game. The game made him not able to finish the game. Lots of people paid money for the game. The people who paid money for the game wanted to finish the game. Many of those people could not finish the game because of the bug. The bug made the game bad. The man who reviews games said the game was bad because a bug made it bad. The company that checks if games have bugs in them sold a game to lots of people, that had a bug in it. You are upset because people are saying the company did a bad job. You love the company but the company does not care about you. It sells you games with bugs that delete your save file. Think very carefully about why you defend this company.

>>376758372
>Reviewing a game you did not complete is not acceptable journalism practice in any way.
It is when the game is bugged and literally broken so as to prevent progress/destroy your saves. There's nothing wrong with calling it like it is.

Now what IGN should do is release another review, or update this one, with the fixed version.

>>376758475

>@376758363

this is too much newfaggotry for me

go back to >>>/r/eddit you underage cunt

>>376758434
Don't think this will change anything. This reviewer is a known idiot with some hilariously stupid comments to his name. I think it's an isolated case, not IGN suddenly gaining standards

>>376758514
I have been judging a product prepatch release up until the patch actually came out. I think it's decent, but my opinion about the quality of the game is irrelevant. I'm saying that IGN's fucking retarded for publishing this when the guy did not finish the game.

>>376758550
You keep saying this over and over again as if it happens to everyone who plays without exception and it's not just a bug that happens to some people. You're being ridiculous.

File: 1468279891863.png (410KB, 500x740px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 500x740px

>>376758475

>@376758363

File: This.png (40KB, 392x200px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 392x200px

>>376757368

>>376755475
>fixed

ALWAYS review based on the vanilla unpatched release. Its what the devs felt confident was ok. Fuck them if thry had shit standards and fuck your apologist way of thinking.

Deserved.

>>376758550
This is the most concise and reasonable post in this thread

>>376758508
You're right. Maybe Bethesda will finally learn their fucking lesson now that people are criticising their terrible QA work.

File: 1296770452388.jpg (7KB, 197x163px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 197x163px

>>376758475

>@376758363

oh no you didn't

>>376758550
They won't and we all know it

It also doesn't address how the actual fuck he played 40 hours without finishing the game, but he also took 12 to beat the very first area of Bloodborne

File: CQHvW32WsAAisUL.jpg (60KB, 525x809px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 525x809px

>Y-Y-YOU SHOULD CHANGE THE REVIEW SCORE BECAUSE THEY FIXED IT
They reviewed it at launch and it deserves it's launch score
Maybe Bethesda shouldn't have stopped reviewer copies if they care about their precious metacritic score so much

Reminder the majority of /v/ is too young to have played system shock

Its ign, what do you expect?

>>376752972
God Hand may not be a 3.0 but it's not good.

>>376756421
>This is NOT professional behavior

Neither is releasing a game with a save killing bug.

>>376758806
No they won't, it's not their dime and it's not their name. This is on Arkane's head.

File: 1476037288267.jpg (141KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 717x880px

>>376758475

you have to go back

>>376758261

Its quite weird since every other IGN from other countries gave Prey a rating between 8-10 and a full review.

>>376758060
Except they didn't. They released a disfunctional product. Or more precisely product that has a flaw that makes it unreliable.

That is a different issue all together. And the issue was fixed already.
The review is supposed to inform players of all the aspects of the product, and should not be outdated within HOURS of it's release. The complaint, the sole reason why the game got so bad score, is no longer valid. Yet the review will be up for years, misleading people about the qualities of the product, not informing them properly about its quality.
This on top of IGN's failure to warn people at time is just insanely bad journalism.

>Bethesda, whose job is quality control, released a game with zero quality control.
ONE RARE BUG, even if serious, does not zero quality control make. Sometimes something falls through the cracks, this is PC we are talking about. And yeah, the bug is bad. And people sure as fuck should have been warned about it.

But that does not change anything about the fact that as review, it MISINFORMS ABSOLUTE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE READING IT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME.

And if your review misinforms the audience, then it is a FUCKING AWFUL REVIEW. End of any discussion. Review that gives you false image of the product is a disservice to the customer. Fuck you for denying that because you have a hate boner for Bethesda.

THERE ARE BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT AND FAIR WAYS TO FUCKING INFORM THE CUSTOMER.
And all of that is ignoring the fact that it's absolutely inconsistent with what the site has been doing before, letting much more flawed games getting off scott free, not giving fuck about bugs that occur for other players etc...

>>376754785
actually it did. Trojka had a lonnggg history of releasing broken games, and they went bankrupt probably because of their equally bad name to deliver broken games taht needed a gabillion patches.

>>376758475
LMAOO ROLFCOPTOR!!!!11!

>>376757515
>*could not complete

**Could not complete in a manner close enough to the release date of the game so as to ensure adequate level of clicks.

This was about them shoving this review out and moving on, because they didn't get a review copy. If there was a save corrupt bug that happened and a week left until release, they'd sit on it and wait for the devs to patch it before they published the review.

It's not about review integrity here, it's that they wanted clicks and this was spicy enough to justify publishing a week after the release already without waiting any longer for a milquetoast 8/10 review no one would read.

>>376756424
Incorrect. ALWAYS review a vanilla released unpatched game. Its what the devs deemed acceptable to release. Stop being apologist.

>>376758550

>It is when the game is bugged and literally broken so as to prevent progress/destroy your saves.

The bug was fixed and affected save files were also fixed before the review was published. How would you justify this?

>>376758687
>happens to everyone who plays without exception
It happened to the reviewer and that's enough. Why would he give a theoretical 9.5 or whatever if he can't play that far?

Tbqh he's being generous: I'd give the game 0/10 for shipping a broken product.

Like that Anon said it's a fine review: IGN just needs to follow it up with a re-review or whatever.

File: 1281915046607.png (74KB, 180x187px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 180x187px

@376758717
@376758809
@376758578
@376758887
@376758912

gottem

A review by DAN "I FUCKING LOVE 30FPS ON PC" STAPLETON.

haHAA games journalism

>>376758926
>It's not about review integrity here, it's that they wanted clicks and this was spicy enough to justify publishing a week after the release already without waiting any longer for a milquetoast 8/10 review no one would read.

This. It's about the money people. They don't give any fucks about anything else.

>>376759014

hahahah- i was just p-pretendending to be RETARDED XD lmao

IGN is actually pretty good.

You can tell they actually like video games unlike a lot of other websites.

>>376758991
>Why would he give a theoretical 9.5 or whatever if he can't play that far?
I never said that he should. In fact, I think they should have just pressed out an article with a delay of the final score and title it first impressions or some bullshit.

I don't know why you guys think I care so much what he scored it as rather than what he scored it for.

>>376757314
>didn't

COULD NOT. Fixed that for you pleb. Do you think "shit doesn't actually work" gets a free fucking pass when you need to review a product for sale??

>>376756073
>>376756178
>>376757854
>>376758475
Video games truly are for weeaboo manchildren. You should hopscotch into the void, Timmy

>>376758926
>Give a game a good score
Fucking paid reviews!

>Give it a bad score
They just did it for the clicks!

>>376759079
>first impressions
It's not first impressions though. He made it quite far in the game and was unceremoniously stopped by a bug.

At the end of the day IGN is a business and they need to make money: they do that through giving review scores. If the dev fucked up it's on them.

Not sure why you're trying so hard to defend Bethesda, but I don't care enough to go in circles with you on this conversation. You just sound mad that your favourite game got a low score - perhaps you may get lucky and IGN will rate your game again or this might just be a lesson to release your game in a functional state instead of relying on day 1 patches and fucking over unlucky people.

>>376757368
>Here is what would be right to do:
Upon discovering the bug, IMMEDIATELY release a PA informing people that the game has a major gamebreaking bug and advising people to hold off the buy until it's resolved, then contacting Arkane and urging them to fix their shit

No. No. No. Fuck off. A reviewr is NOT obliged to do any of that shit. A reviewer is not obliged to tell you, that you didn't spend enough time QC your own product. Fuck off kid. Its amazing you write that a reviewer didnt do their job, but you think the devs not doing theirs is ok.

>>376759172
It has for pretty much every game up until now, so precedent would say "yes". This fucking guy gave higher scores to Andromeda and No Man's Sky. If you've played those three games, that's insultingly stupid

>>376759348
NMS and Andromeda didn't have bugs that prevented you from completing the game.

>>376758991
Dude, do you even know what a review is? I don't think you even begin to comprehend what a review is and what it is done for?

Review is not one random guys honest recount of an experience. Review is a professional account of the game in order to inform people correctly and as objectively as any normative venture allows about the qualities of the product, in order to make it easier for them to make well informed purchase decision.

This review fails to do it. You can't make an informed purchase because the review gives you outdated and unreliable informations. END. OF THE FUCKING LINE.

If this wasn't Bethesda's game, and if the whole insane edgy moral outlash against them wasn't fabricated around it, people would be absolutely furious about it.
The ONLY reason why you are defending this is because you fucks need to be edgy, mainly because an unpopular publisher is involved. That is it. The review does not matter, the game does not matter, the standards don't matter. It's about something entirely else: about people who - like the fucking SJW's, need to have a big moral higher ground based on what they hate.

That is the reality of this thing. And that is absolutely the worst thing that has ever happened to this industry. And I just dread when shitstains like you begin affecting things outside of gaming industry.

>>376759293
Nobody is defending Bethesda. They're defending a game they enjoyed and maybe Arkane. Nobody gives a shit about Bethesda except those idiots who still think Fallout and Elder Scrolls are good

>>376757501
>which will in return determine how good games will we get in the future.

So maybe games that don't require a day one patch? Where is the problem here? Good. Stop giving these fucks a free pass and maybe others will do better QC

>>376759418
You're retarded. There's no objective definition of a review.

Point being that IGN's opinion is totally valid just because you disagree.

>>376759418
>Review is a professional account of the game in order to inform people correctly and as objectively as any normative venture allows about the qualities of the product,
And he informed them:

The game is broken - don't buy it. You're rolling the dice if you think your copy won't be broken.

He should've given it a 0/10 to get the point across though.

>>376752972
>Party babyz
Wat

>>376753080
>Buzzword

>>376757853
HE COULD NOT. FINISH. THE. GAME. AND IT WAS NOT HIS PROBLEM/FAULT. IT WAS THE DEVS FAULT. AND NOW ITS THEIR PROBLEM.

>>376758060
This. Thread. OP is a fucking retard.

>>376759326
>No. No. No. Fuck off. A reviewr is NOT obliged to do any of that shit.
And now we are reaching to a point where you literally argue that a fucking reviewers job is not to inform potential customers.
In fact, you are saying "Fuck off" to the notion that a reviewer should actually be beneficial to anyone. I mean: it's not like it's the sole purpose of his profession.

Yeah, I think this sums up just how insane this whole thing has gotten.
Reviwers are not obliged to warn developers of issues like this, but they are obliged to warn customers.
They do warn the developers, not because that is part of being a reviewer: it's because it's part of being a CUSTOMER. They are compelled to warn Arkane of a bug just like everyone who played the game and discovered an issue: it's in the interest of any player to demand improvements on his product if it's flawed. It just comes as twice as important from a person whose job is not only to look out for himself, but for the entirety of his audience. Which is also why review site magazines do get a priority attention usually.

But you don't understand any of this, because frankly, you don't want or need to. Again, this is about something completely unrelated to the game, to the studio, to the journalism.

>>376759386
Andromeda has several story breaking quests, such as the drive core bug on Eladaan. This is one of the few full planets in the game and a huge chunk of the content. This bug was not fixed in the first patch. This was just the bug I had, other people reported disappearing NPCs, save corruption, being locked in the nexus, missions not triggering at all, and that's just off the top of my head. A quick google search corroborates this.

Saying NMS has no game breaking bugs is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There was a number of reports of the game becoming unplayable, as well as frequent crashes even on consoles. If a console is shitting out every ten minutes because of your game, that's insanely screwed up.

Prey had this one bug. It is fixed. This isn't IGN suddenly deciding to do their job, this is either the reviewer once again going full retard or a directed slight at the publisher for their review copy policy. Either way, it does a disservice to a great game and the people that may have enjoyed it

File: 1377123190166.jpg (75KB, 656x425px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 656x425px

>>376759014

>>376758894
Easy on the caps lock there, sport. The review talks a lot about the game from a variety of angles. Even the summary next to the score notes that the bug ruined an otherwise enjoyable game. IGN don't have a time machine, and even if they did know that the bug would be patched quickly, they weren't reviewing the patched version. IGN is also not Wikipedia. Their reviewers don't have a responsibility to provide regularly updated factual articles about every game they play; they're supposed to provide honest, personal opinions about their experiences playing a game. Compare and contrast: "reviewer" and "encyclopaedia".

Your favourite publisher may have learned a valuable lesson that will improve their future products. This is good for you. You should be happy.

>>376759805
Well clearly none of the Andromeda or NMS bugs were anywhere near widespread as the Prey bug.

>>376759778
Speaking of not reading. Did you read his review? Because he informed his consumers not to buy the game because of they bug. Anything beyond that, is not his job.

>>376758748
This is just in, Dark Souls confirmed to be a 3/10 game

>>376759029
>This. It's about the money people. They don't give any fucks about anything else.
Are you shills aware of how hypocritical you are? If Bethesda cared about integrity instead of money, they would have waited a bit and released a functional goddamn game. IGN may be doing it for attention, but regardless of the motivation, the effect is pro-consumer.

>>376758372
Thats retarded anon. Its not the same thing, thats the theaters fault, not the movies.

In the case of this game its the devs fault, not the platforms fault.

>>376759487
>So maybe games that don't require a day one patch?
That would be nice. But it's pretty much entirely unrealistic. And given how incredibly easy it is to patch things these days, it's not really a very important thing. Good game with a bug can be fixed in a matter of day or two. Bad game can't be fixed with any number of patches.

This is about people pretending like there is nothing worse than bug on release. Even though it's completely impossible to achieve that reliably, even though it's not really a major concern, even though there are thousands of more important things in the industry: this is what you chose, right now, arbitrarily, as the only thing that matters.
And it's purely because, again, purely because there is a semi-moral crusade of people who care about moral high ground against someone they arbitrarily chose as a target.

>>376759172
>COULD NOT
So you're telling me he could not have pressed "New Game" on the title screen?

>>376757368
Oh look it's the only intelligent post in this whole fucking thread.

>>376759881
Are you trolling? This Prey bug was actually extremely uncommon. I spent a great deal of time reading user reviews for Prey before purchasing it, like I do for any game, and I had never heard of it until this. A bug, as I've pointed out multiple times, that is now gone.

The games I listed still have gamebreaking and experience ruining bugs to this day. Older games that IGN was content to give high scores to see still buggy messes to this day. You can easily google lists of known bugs or just read the angry user reviews to quickly see how much of a mess they remain.

I hate the "works on my machine :^)" shit, but I've played all three of the games we're discussing. Prey is by far the best and is I've stressed, I think it's a huge disservice to the people who might have enjoyed it

>>376759527
No, it's not. This isn't about agreement or disagreement, this is about service the company provides. And about their failure to provide it. On multiple levels.

I don't disagree with the opinion. I disagree with the validity of the review. Those two are not the same. Something you seem to be unable to even BEGIN to comprehend.

>>376759572
>The game is broken - don't buy it.
Except when the game was no longer buggy. And through a review, and not a PA. He decided that the bug is very much the only feature on which he will judge the game. Even though the bug was uncommon and was getting fixed, and the game has thousands other criteria that should be also taken into account: he decided this is the sole thing on which he will base his review which will be read by people years into future.

Yeah. And you defend that.

>>376760150
He'd have no guarantee that the same thing wouldn't happen again.

>>376759848
Rome 2 Total War was an unfinished, broken mess that was unplayable at release. It took an entire year of patching before it was fully playable.

Yet IGN gave it an 8.8/10 review.

IGN is only giving Prey a low score becasue they are punishing Bethesda for not releasing review copies of the game.

Look at all the other review sites. They hover around 8/10 for Prey. IGN is the odd one out.

File: 83246349285787497.png (70KB, 974x462px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 974x462px

What did Arkane do that busted Dan's ego?

>>376760340
That is not a condition that prevents him from doing so.

File: 1485982383156.jpg (30KB, 370x370px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 370x370px

>>376752972
this is a proof that reviewers are paid by nintedo, zelda is shit

>>376760389
Dan has consistently been pulling stupid shit for a long time. His thoughts on Bloodborne remain some of the most mind numbing things I've ever read from a "journalist"

>>376759946
I see no problem here.

>>376759904
>Anything beyond that, is not his job.
Actually, everything else is his job. THIS ISN'T. As a reviewer, his job is not to inform the customers not to buy the game because of a bug. As a JOURNALIST, it's his job to inform the readers of an existence of a bug and warn against buying the game.
As a reviewer, his job is to provide honest and useful assessment of the title on every regard. Which he failed to do. His review did not provide readers with useful information on the very day it was released. And it does not provide readers who will read it now with honest or useful information. It's worthless. As an assesment of the game, it became WORTHLESS THE MOMENT IT CAME OUT.

You defend a review which does not inform you of the qualities and problems of the product.

>>376752995
The bug was fixed before he even his review.went up. The fix also restored all corrupted saves to a playable state.

>>376752227
you seem to be under the impression that journalism has actual standards

>>376759848
>The review talks a lot about the game from a variety of angles.
Except for the score and the actual verdict, which don't. And which are the things that most people view, and the things that get forwarded to services like Metacritic.

>/v/: "IGN is a fucking joke"
>They give Prey a bad rating
>/v/: "Holy shit, yeah, IGN have writers with fucking PhDs in gameology. They know what they're talking about."

I use the term /v/ loosely here, pretty sure it's just one butthurt faggot who either got fired from Arkane Studios for being a retard or is still pining for his Prey 2 shit.

>>376759778
FUCK OFF YOU MORON. You were suggesting he inform the publisher and devs. He is under NO obligation to do so. His job is to help consumers make an informed purchase. Telling them it is buggy shit and broken is valid.

HE IS NOT OBLIGED TO PROTECT THE PUBLISHERS. HOLY SHIT ANON.

>>376759667
>he could not press new game
>he could not load an old save
>he could not have checked the Prey news page for the patch that game out YESTERDAY that fixes the problem he bitches about

>a fucking JOURNALIST didn't keep track of Prey's bugfixes

>>376760050
>That would be nice. But it's pretty much entirely unrealistic

Not if we keep giving them bad reviews for it. Fuck them, it used to be possible. You are making excuses for the publisher.

>>376760847
No one is making excuses for Bethesda. They're defending the game Prey.

And fuck off with the "if we give them a bad review" shit, this is a one time only thing because Stapleton had one of his moments

>>376760150
Your a retard if you don't think its a valid complaint anon.

>just try again in a minute holy shit. Give it a 9/10 as product already.

>>376760425
But it is a factor in talking about a product asking for full retail price.

File: 1481657103145.png (85KB, 492x280px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 492x280px

>>376760746
>help consumers make an informed purchase
>game journalists
>ign

>>376760847
It used to be possible because publishers weren't breathing down their software developers' necks like they do now. If Arkane went to Bethesda and told them they needed another week to sort out a game breaking bug do you really think Bethesda would let them delay the game?

>>376760746
>You were suggesting he inform the publisher and devs.
Actually, only the devs, and the post also explains why. Can you not read? Is that another thing you just sacrificed in your insane crusade?

>>376760847
>Not if we keep giving them bad reviews for it.
Are you like, 12? I'm dead serious: how old are you?

>Fuck them, it used to be possible.
Oh dear god, are you serious?
WHEN?! WHEN THE FUCK was this possible? In console cartrige games? Because on PC, this was never the case. EVER. And you are flat out lying if you are going to claim that it was. No. Games were buggy. More buggy than they are today on PC. Ever played Deus Ex, System Shock, Fallout 1,2, Morrowind, Arcanum, Thief, anything on release?

Dear god you are delusional.

File: Pathetic.jpg (101KB, 500x307px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x307px

>>376757957
>Bugs
IGN was a mistake.

>>376761094
No, it was never possible. Not on PC.

>>376760774
Im sorry anon, i thought the disc in the box on the shelf asking for £40 was ready to go?? Why should i not judge it based on what it does EXACTLY vanilla out of that box? The devs and publisher seemed satisfied.

>>376761115
Don't forget KotOR 1 and 2.

I still remember having two KotOR 1 games completely shit out as soon as I hit the last planet.

>>376761094
Why do you think a third party reviewer is obliged to tell a dev team to go bacl and sort their shit out??? Holy fuck.

File: TODDWASHERE.jpg (218KB, 1906x683px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1906x683px

>>376752227

My biggest gripe about game reviwers is that they clearly got their own preferances like a game studio, genre etc. How are they supposed to give a good objective review?

You also have factors like: paid reviews, reviwer is sjw etc.

>>376761115
>only the devs

Still literally not his job

>>376761205
>Why should i not judge it based on what it does EXACTLY vanilla out of that box?

1) Because you're not a game journalist who is expected to complete a product before penning a piece of journalism intended to inform consumers of that products merits as a whole.

2) Because your fucktarded hypothetical situation automatically assumes everyone who picks the disc off the shelf will get corrupted saves, which they don't.

3) I wouldn't trust you to judge a hotdog eating contest since you seem to think that a developer has any say over the time table they're allotted and that they can just delay a game a whole week over a bug some people get.

>>376761353
Did you reply to the wrong comment? Arkane is the developer. Bethesda is the publisher. That comment says nothing about the reviewer

I'm starting to think people are under the impression Prey is a Bethesda game like Skyrim or Fallout 4. Not a published game like Doom

>>376761397
>Though the up-close weapon combat is still awkward
>Still gives gameplay a 9.5
IGN need to fuck off already. How people can look at their reviews and take them seriously is beyond me.

>>376761410
wow, it's almost like a review is a subjective opinion and "objective reviewing" is fucking impossible without just mindlessly bullet pointing the features.

This game has combat. Is it good? Not my place to say as an objective reviewer, sorry.

>>376761442
Again, can you not read? I've explained how informing the developer is not part of his job, but his own interest as a customer. This is explained very carefully in the post. How everloving FUCK can you not read that?

>>376761115
>>376761263
Thing is those games were still really great games even if they were bugged. So what we need to ask is Prey a great game even that it got game breaking bug(s)?

>>376761453
>1) Because you're not a game journalist who is expected to complete a product before penning a piece of journalism intended to inform consumers of that products merits as a whole.

If a game prevents you from finishing then that is a serious matter and must reflect the product as a whole. I dont care if the game is Resident evil fucking 4, if you get 2/3 in and the game breaks, the good gameplay is null and void.


>2) Because your fucktarded hypothetical situation automatically assumes everyone who picks the disc off the shelf will get corrupted saves, which they don't.

But it is possible they could. Take a gamble?

>3) I wouldn't trust you to judge a hotdog eating contest since you seem to think that a developer has any say over the time table they're allotted and that they can just delay a game a whole week over a bug some people get

Irrelevent. If you release a "thing" and it has an issue, it needs to be pointed out. Sorry your team ran out of time, do abetter job next time in the time alloted.

>>376761410
This might surprise you, but offering evaluations is always a bit iffy, but a good reviewer can both account and compensate for his biases, and inform and communicate them properly to his audience, so that they will know what to expect, and still find the information they need.
It's not hard science, it's not empiric, but my god it should be something that should not fucking scare or confuse you or pose any fucking problem unless you are literally autistic.

What fucking sheltered fucking world are you people growing up in if this actually seems like a problem to you people.

>>376760975
Whether it's a valid complaint or not isn't the issue. Publishing a fucking article about a game you have not completed is the issue. Bitch about it in the actual review, dock points off the actual review, but don't publish a bullshit "I didn't want to start the game over again so it gets a 4.0" review.

>>376761730
>game breaking bug
Very rare likely the result of a of a single piece of hardware in their machine or a driver.

>>376761583
But isnt that what review IS tho? You point out the strong/weak points, weigh them, and score the game accordingly. Often ending with a summary of what made the game work/fail with a touch of subjective experience.

The RPG Game 2: Magic is Back
>Short summary
>Main points about central whatever (mechanics, story w/e)
>This they this right/improve upon from "The RPG Game 1", or they did worse
>Final comment, score

>>376761653
>be electronics reviewr
>review oh i dunno... Microwaves
>comapny send you one
>its shit and the food is a bit cold even on full settigs
>"shit didn't work yo"
>YO WHAT THE HELL MAN INFORM THE COMPANY FIRST. ARE YOU A PRICK??

Rating a game that lowly because it hadn't bothered to fix major game breaking bugs is totally acceptable. Even if it only happens to 1/10 people that shit's not acceptable, and the score should reflect that if the reviewer encountered the problem. They paid for a broken product that you cannot complete.

Putting up the review after the problem had already been patched out, without at least noting that the review was based on an unpatched copy, is dishonest and unprofessional though. That's where IGN is at fault.

>>376761730
I think that is exactly the question that should be asked. And it's a question the review didn't answer for whatever reason. Maybe it was for an agenda or maybe the reviewer was just being obtuse.

My opinion is that Prey is a great, but not excellent, game that feels like a modern take on System Shock. It might not belong in the pantheon of those other games, but it's closer than most shit we get these days and is a step in the right direction

>>376752227
How the fuck does a game breaking bug not make the game worth fuck all if he can't even finish it?
Do you know anything about Software Engineering and Quality Control for software and how embarassingly shit it is compared to every other industry - Bethesda should be fucking shat on for this shit - don't get me wrong Prey LOOKS amazing to me and I will buy it at a cheap price, but the reviewer is fucking right to do that.

Can I get some help?

I played through Prey with no issues, twice. Loved it.

My wife is currently playing and when she got to the locker rooms where one has a hole that you go into to get the psychoscope there was nothing down there, at all. Even stranger, the door that doesn't let you pass without the psychoscope? Also not there past the locker rooms. I thought maybe it had a different spawn point in the lab now, but that makes little sense since you're supposed to get directions from Alex once you get in there about scanning, and he has not called, and she's explored quite a bit and it still hasn't turned up. Further in there is a door that won't let her pass because her psychoscoppe needs to be "recalibrated" but she's checked around (with me watching to see she's not missing anything) and we're honestly at a loss.

>>376761730
>So what we need to ask is Prey a great game even that it got game breaking bug(s)?
As far as I can judge, yes.
But my personal opinion does not matter that much. The real issue here is that the review fails to even attempt to ask this question. It actually even openly admits that any impressions beyond the fucking bug are not really reflected in the score.

And THAT is my issue with the review here. If the review gave the game a bad score because the author did not like it for any possible mechanical or design issue, I'd say "shit review" and move on.
But the fact that he simply refuses to actually even ask if the game is good outside of the bug (at least as far as the verdict and final score goes) is what pisses me off.

>>376761803
>If a game prevents you from finishing then that is a serious matter and must reflect the product as a whole. I dont care if the game is Resident evil fucking 4, if you get 2/3 in and the game breaks, the good gameplay is null and void.
Again, you fucking idiots continue to speak as if this bug occurs in every single case and that it constantly repeats itself without end. It does not. In fact, it was fixed and all the saves it fucked up were fixed as of yesterday. Fuck off with this line of reasoning already, it's based on a completely imaginary condition.

>But it is possible they could. Take a gamble?

As of -yesterday-, it won't and never will again. Wow what a fucking gamble.

>Irrelevent. If you release a "thing" and it has an issue, it needs to be pointed out.
Okay now I know you're just a fucking retard that's not listening to anything I'm saying.

watching dsp play the game it seems really boring like a walking simulator with very basic gun animations.

>>376761994
Did you actually think that analogy was a good one, or are we just entering a pure shitposting zone here?

>>376759326
Then explain this.
SimCity
BY DAN STAPLETON
The botched launch of SimCity will go down in PC gaming history as one of the worst ever. But the terrible server problems that justifiably enraged fans are already fading into just that: history.
7/10
Dan waited 9-10 days before giving it a score.

Watch_Dogs 2
BY DAN STAPLETON
Why is this a review in progress? Right now all of Watch Dogs 2’s “seamless multiplayer” modes, in which players can dynamically appear in each other’s games, are disabled because of major performance problems. Ubisoft is actively working to resolve them, but no firm date has been given for a fix. Until I’ve had a chance to play those modes and test them (or until two days after launch, whichever comes first) this review will remain in progress with a temporary score.
Temp score 6.5
Final score 8.5
Dan waited 10 days before final score.
And yet not try to wait few hours for Prey before giving the score, or just give it a temp score first like Watch Dogs 2.

>>376761908
Sorry anon, but when exactly did "does the final product work for the full duration" not count just as much as gameplay mechanics, story, atmosphere, sound e.t.c??

Your argument seems to be that the product failing alltogether is insignificant next to the potential gameplay beneath these real tech issues. Is that vanilla release state not as improtant as the content of said product in review??

>>376754785
are you joking this game IS shit and at release it was shat on for being shit
it only became playable after months of patches and community work and it's still only just a good game

>>376752972
There is literally nothing wrong with these scores.

>>376752227
the next elder scrolls game will get a 10.0 even though it has the same amount of bugs

>>376762117
>Again, you fucking idiots continue to speak as if this bug occurs in every single case and that it constantly repeats itself without end. It does not

BUT IT COULD. ITS NOT IMAGINARY. IT COULD BE MY MONEY.

>>376761803
>I don't care if the game is Resident evil fucking 4, if you get 2/3 in and the game breaks, the good gameplay is null and void

I agree with this completely. If I reviewed games, this would also be my criteria. However, the reality is that a huge portion of games would fall prey to this. Many of the classic PC games had game breaking shit and all the AAA games released today do too. If you're consistent across all of reviews that is GOOD. But ign has never demonstrated that belief until now and it's highly doubtful that it will become a standard.

>>376762179
For the fourth fucking time: You retards automatically assume that saves get corrupted in every instance for every person in every save file.

They do not.

They never have.

You have some kind of mental disability that makes you incapable of communicating in anything other than hyperbole. Seek help.

>>376761730

>Thing is those games were still really great games even if they were bugged. So what we need to ask is Prey a great game even that it got game breaking bug(s)?

Yes.

>>376762014
They're also at fault for literally never holding another game to that standard. Unless they magically played Assassin's Creed 3 or Master Chief Collection without ever seeing a bug

>>376762331
You must have severe anxiety attacks every time you leave your room with this logic. And it has nothing to do with the actual original subject matter, now you are literally rambling about the fact that things can break in the world, and demanding that someone is punished about it.

>>376762331
>oh no i might have to wait a week for my save file to get uncorrupted
>oh no i might have to start the game again
>oh no i might have to wait a couple days to get a refund

You know AMD users still can't play Nier:Automata on the latest drivers or else the game crashes outright in the opening sequence. I didn't see anybody shitting their pants over that.

File: 1468885928209.jpg (22KB, 246x304px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 246x304px

>>376758372

> Imagine a movie critic walking into a theater, watching half the movie,

Let me ask you anon, would you sit through *another* Adam Sandler movie all the way no matter how cringey it is despite the movie is just like the last with dick punching and product placement galore?

>>376762367
Sorry anon, but now that i know i COULD have gotten that bug it makes me more wary. It should be 100% no chance but its not.

>>376762243
I mean if you are coming from a nihilist perspective I guess any opinion is pointless

so I see what you're saying, liking the taste of feces isn't necessarily wrong

>>376762136
>watching DSP

Come on, now. The dude is a mongloid

>>376762501
Its the reviewers fucking job. You cant review a product without consuming it.

>>376762492
>oh no i might have to wait a week for my save file to get uncorrupted
>oh no i might have to start the game again
>oh no i might have to wait a couple days to get a refund

>all of this unironically ok

MODERN GAMERS EVERYONE. GEN 7 WAS A FUCKING MISTAKE. HERE COMES THE "JUST" BRIGADE.

>>376761914
Proof that it is rare?
>>376762039
>>376762092
Link to the review please. He does sound shitty at his job as I would at least try few time to get to the end if the game was not really painful to play and talk about other stuff than the bug in the review.

>>376762501
Would you read a review of an Adam Sandler movie?

File: 1260831547656.png (99KB, 247x248px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 247x248px

Game gets a 7/10 for being shit
>/v/ is enraged

Game gets a 4/10 for being shit
>/v/ is enraged

Never change

File: MyQki.jpg (152KB, 960x714px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 960x714px

>>376752972
When God Hand came out, it was a meme here to talk about how good it was just to trick people on wasting their money buying or renting it. Piracy wasn't what it is today so several times a week you'd see a thread pop up with a guy pissed off because /v/ said it was awesome.

This was a long time ago and people come and go. /v/ is pic related.

It's a shitty game.

>>376762250
Prey barely has any bugs compared to the usual Bethesda game. There is no enemies flying backwards at light speed across the sky into a game crash

File: 1465071931911.jpg (50KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x480px

>>376762613

>Its the reviewers fucking job.

No it isn't. If the movie is really fucking bad to the point where it's impossible to watch, in a rare moment the person might leave the theater. Roger Ebert's done that before.

You're also acting as if these people are actual journalists. How many have degrees in Journalism and didn't get these writing jobs when they dropped out of High School in the late 90's?

>You cant review a product without consuming it.

I can review a burger I ate 3/4ths of. I don't need the last piece to get a full detail of a fucking burger.

lmao @ at this shill

prey (2017) sucks, its so mediocre and generic i find it hard to even care enough to dislike it.

File: SL731366.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>376762650
Dude I've been posting here since 2006 and I've still got my SNES that I've had for as long as I can remember. Here's all my fucking shitty games to prove it. If you're going to rant about nu-gamers do it to somebody else.

>>376762650
>modern

You must have never played any of the classic pc games, because they are a fucking mess. There are entire guides out there to make it through without accidentally fucking everything up before mods were so accessible

>>376762451
If they want me to buy it full price?? Fuvk yeah they should be called out on it.

>oh the car was when you bought it despite ho good it looks and well it handles? That can be repaired, why are you judging it based on something fixable after you paid just wait a week holy shit.

>>376762501
How does "a movie being so bad that you decide out of your own will to leave the cinema" relate to "game is great, but it broke for me."

This is more of the equivalent of going to cinema, watching two thirds of a movie at which point the reel gets torn and you can't watch the rest.
I mean yeah, it's annoying as hell. But saying "well I could not watch it to the end, so the MOVIE IS BAD" makes zero sense.
>>376762651
>I would at least try few time to get to the end
He actually enjoyed the game a lot. The bug break the game and corrupted his safe files. He got a new safe-file from the devs so he could pick up from where things went wrong while the devs try to find out what is causing it, but it turned out the bug corrupted even the second set of savefiles, meaning that he could not continue until the bug is officially resolved, forcing him to wait couple of days to finish the review.
At which point he said: "Fuck this, 4/10. It may be a good game, but since I can't complete it without waiting for the fix, then it's a bad game."

You can read it all at IGN, just type in "Prey Review". I don't feel like linking an IGN page, if you don't mind.

Rest of the review actually talks about how he enjoyed what he could play, but the score does not reflect it.

>>376762906
You must have never played any of the classic pc games

Basically yeah.

>>376752972
Compare the baby game to other baby games then compare godhand to Devil may cry.

>>376756843
And they're in crowdfunding

File: 206dc3a8e6af25a92a98d114769096cf.jpg (344KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 600x800px

>>376762874
Wow your post is so full useful info, telling us why you feel this way about the game.

>>376762651
I had a crashing issue related to the driver I currently was running at the time and while i was looking up to see if anyone else was having any trouble with the game i only ever saw one person talking about corrupt saves.
Everything is anecdotal obviously. The only reason you even know the corrupt save thing happens is because the ign review though.

>>376762447
First of all, different reviewers. IGN as a publication should do more to try and make sure all their reviewers are working off the same scoring system but that's not the fault of the individual review.

Second of all, saying they shouldn't fairly rate shit because they gave out bullshit scores in the past is ridiculous. Doing something wrong does not mean they should always do something wrong. Bethesda as a whole has massive problems with this and they shouldn't be allowed to get away scot-free with them forever because nobody is willing to fire shots at a new The Elder Scrolls or Fallout.

Lastly, game breaking bugs are way bigger problems than the occasional horse clipping through the ground. They should be noted separately, and if they're an unavoidable occurrence rather than something out of the way like the save glitch in Twilight Princess the review should absolutely note it.

Again, IGNs problem here was not updating the written review to reflect the current state of the game. Especially when the patch predates the reviews upload. But this bullshit about how games shouldn't be rated based on technical problems or how IGN is a bunch of hacks for treating save corruption as a big deal reeks of fanboys mad at how it affects the metacritic score.

>>376762936
>Fuvk yeah they should be called out on it.
Again: what reality do you live in?

>That can be repaired, why are you judging it based on something fixable after you paid just wait a week holy shit.
That is precisely what happens if a car critic gets a faulty car with an issue that is not common, and definitely when the issue can be solved in a matter of minutes, for free, and from your own home, without having to haul the thing back to the shop and wait for months for it to be fixed. But we have been over this already.

This is some insane rambling of a psychopath who literally screams in hatered because the world is full of things that can potentially break, demanding someone to be punished for it, combined with a bizarre moral righteousness goal.

>>376763137

i did tell you why, its generic aaa trash, i've played this game a dozen times before with a different skin

>>376762952
>his is more of the equivalent of going to cinema, watching two thirds of a movie at which point the reel gets torn and you can't watch the rest.

No it fucking isint. Because thats the theaters fault, not the movie makers. In fact, you are trying to make a comparison where it can NEVER be the movie makers fault as if thats the same thing as vidya.

Now if ALL or SOME copies of the finished movie were broken/the wrong final edits of the movie sent to ALL or SOME of the theaters then yeah, i reviewer is justified in pointing this fact out to would be movie goers.

>>376763246
You are posting the same shit in just about every thread about the game. You might have a serious, serious mental issue.

>>376752227
>game become literally unplayable
>gets anything higher than a 0/10

I'm surprised the score isn't even lower.

>>376763217
>Again: what reality do you live in?

The one where i get to make a choice. Plenty of games do release with no issues. Fuck this one in particular.

>>376763207
>different reviewers

See this >>376762178
I didn't post that, but it's pretty indicative, don't you think?

>>376763246
If by dozens you mean the Shock games and Deus Ex?

>giving a damn about video games journalists
you have to be at least 18 to post here

>>376762952
So if he enjoyed the game and the bug was the only thing giving him trouble then why the fuck did he give it such a low score? He still sound shitty at his job.
>>376763246
That still does not tell us anything.

>>376762090
>>376762090
>>376762090
Help? Please?

She actually got further in, and Ingram isn't in the cage, he's out on his own, and talks to her like she let him out. What the fuck?

>>376763379

I guess you'd be okay with it if my opinion was the opposite? sorry that I have an opinion that hasn't changed you smelly shill.

>>376763593

Define "us", is it morons, it must be morons.

>>376763508

It doesn't have to be sci fi to be generic trash.

>>376763369
>Because thats the theaters fault, not the movie makers.
Actually, if there was a mechanical fault in the reel and not the projection machine, it's the movie producers fault, because they produce the reels, which are only temporarily provided to the theatres.

>In fact, you are trying to make a comparison where it can NEVER be the movie makers fault
First of all, wrong. Second of all, it's still more accurate than your comparison in which the problem is with the movie being so bad the audience does not want to watch it.

Because as the review makes it absolutely clear, the reviewer WANTED to play more, he just could not (without having to wait, at least).

>reviewer is justified in pointing this fact out to would be movie goers.
A movie reviewer is justified in conddeming a movie based on rare mechanical fault of the reel on which it was distributed? Yeah.
Because that is what matters to his readers. Not the plot, the characters, the cinematography. No, fuck it. IF you go into the cinema and you are unlucky enough to get one of the flawed reels, you might not watch the movie to the end, so it's a shit movie.

I think there is something profoundly wrong with you kid.

>>376763593
>So if he enjoyed the game and the bug was the only thing giving him trouble then why the fuck did he give it such a low score?
Welcome to why the fuck this whole thread and controversy exists.


>>376763693
>I guess you'd be okay with it if my opinion was the opposite?
Well, I'd be OK with any opinion that was not a blatant lie. You however, are blatantly lying.

>>376762952
This right here. This is my biggest problem. At one point he even says it's a good, maybe even great, game. But lol 4/10 hope it gets fixed here's this review for thousands upon thousands of people to come to and not read except for seeing the 4/10.

>>376763693
So you never played the game and you are a stupid faggot that smells?

>>376763824
this ontop of the bug already being fixed before he put the review up is just disgusting.

>>376763817
It's not a controversy. Game doesn't work = low review. It's really simple to understand.

>>376763718
>No, fuck it. IF you go into the cinema and you are unlucky enough to get one of the flawed reels, you might not watch the movie to the end, so it's a shit movie

WRONG. Its a shit EXPERINCE. YES, i WILL be mad anon. My spent cash WILL bother me.

If i DO happen to be the one who makes it hours into a game in my first play through and i am sent back to the fucking start with no guarentee it wont happen again, you could have the most objectivly sound gameplay ever im going TO BE MAD ANYWAY.

And i will tell people your "product" is shit. Not just gameplay but in my experince your WHOLE PRODUCT.

>>376763982
Look, you have been told and explained in riddiculous detail just how fucking wrong you are. At this point you are just like a broken record. You do have serious mental health issues, and you should perhaps focus on solving those.

What irony that a person pathologically afraid of something around him breaking is an utterly broken person himself.

>>376763817
>>376763854

hahaha holy fuck you guys are pathetic

>HE DOESNT AGREE WITH ME BAWWWW HE MUST BE LYING

>>376764106
What the hell are you even going on about? If you buy a product and it doesn't work, then it's a failure. If the replacement that's sent to you also fails, there's really no good reason to give it a good review.

>>376764067
>YES, i WILL be mad anon. My spent cash WILL bother me.
Yes, we heard. You are mentally ill, we already established that shit. You also do not know what review is or what is it good for. We are actually done here. You are repeating points that were already disproven, or screaming about how you can't live in a world that has imperfections and risks. I feel sorry for you, you need professional help, no fuck off.

>>376764106

>buy car
>it doesnt start at all
>9/10 it would be nice if it went

>>376764229
>then it's a failure.
Or bad luck.

>>376764326
Literally repeating a point that was already made, was disproven for it's stupidity, WE HAVE BEEN OVER ALL OF THIS YOU PILE OF SHIT. Why are you wasting our time?

>>376764264
Your a fucking moron and on your own here anon. You are defending a rela issue way to hard with offhand remarks about how it is not a factor in deciding wether a purchase is valid. You can make non-arguments all day, but you are still being apologist.

>>376764435

>buy phone
>it wont turn on
>9/10 it would be nice if it worked

>>376764435
>we
>our

What the fuck? Only you are making these defences for it anon, you are on your own. Not him, but his comparison is valid.

>>376764353
Bad luck is not an excuse.

>>376764517
It was already patched before the review was published though, did you miss the 50 times it was mentioned.

Literally Bioshock 2.0.

Who cares about this game?

>>376764631
Also repeated 50 times:

>judge the vanila product without patch always.

>buy video card
>doesn't work
>get a replacement video card
>doesn't work

9/10 I wish it worked.

>>376764631

>buy house
>its too haunted to live in
>9/10 it would be nice if i could live in it

>>376764353
not worth the gamble. There should be no risk in the portfolio or if there is it should be brought to light to potential consumers

File: 1493297617624.jpg (93KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 620x670px

>This thread

>>376757957
>good story, characters
>huge variety

false; 4 was the most stale and shitty fallout yet.

>>376764848
Yeah, good luck with that, you insane, insane person.

>>376764631
>Get a prostitute to have sex with
>She only gave me a hug
>9/10 it would be nice if she let me have sex

>>376765018
You can ad hominem all you like but you are not making a case for product failure, even if sparodic, not being a sum of its parts

>>376757957
Someone didn't received his check

>>376764848
>cars have a 0.000000001% chance to break down
>holy shit I should go everywhere on foot from now on

>>376762728
wow this image really fired up my neurons

>>376765221
Or a good, functional game for that matter.

>>376765225
>source for figures right out my ass

>>376765279
Then why did he give it a 9.5?

>>376765327
>cars are perfect machine gifted from god who cant do no wrong
holy kek. are you fag this delusional?
just google car failure rate, car breakdown, car reliability on google like holy shit.
http://www.octagoninsurance.com/guide/car/car-reliability-survey/

>>376762728
I'm not sure if that image is a good example of how traditions can become harmful and pointless with the onslaught of time.

Like, if any monkey tried climbing the ladder they would have been sprayed with water.

>>376765595
Whats going on in this thread now? Are we even talking about the broken game anymore?

>>376764172
If you were not so stupid you would see that we think you are lying not because you disagree but because you can't tell us why you disagree. You have failed to say why you don't like the game.

>>376764435
Because you keep responding to them. They don't have an argument, their only reason for still going is because their brain is giving them enough dopamine reading your responses.

>>376754742
No arguments, only solutions, stay salty.

>>376765676
the game has less failure rate than cars
guess by ign logic, we should all walk to work from now on
oh wait, bones can break, hearts can fail and you can get cancer too.
4/10 human is a shit species, recommend immediate kys.

>>376765676
Well, considering that the thread has been pretty much succesfully and consistently completely trolled by a single mentally deranged man who is essentially saying that anything that can potentially break down is absolute shit and it's authors punished, no. We are not. We are talking about very, very broken person.

I always thought the whole shill thing was overblown on /v/ but there are people literally defending a broken game. I hope Bethesda is paying you decently at least.

File: 1416693352792.gif (39KB, 180x180px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 180x180px

>>376766059

Gotta respect a guy willing to call out overrated fedoracore garbage, especially when Bethesda is the publisher.

>please don't bully my multi-million dollar corporation
You're fucking pathetic.

>>376752227
prey is shit and just because some ign fag gave it a 4 that doesn't change the fact that it's still shit.

>>376765986
>oh wait, bones can break, hearts can fail and you can get cancer too

All things i am informed about, and there are ways based on this info to minimize the risk. I don't understand, are you saying we should disregard their asociated risk and not talk about them ever?

>>376765992
Not him anon, but you are taking arguments here very personally. Maybe you should read how your posts read before crying the mental health card. You seem a bit too rustled.

File: RightRadiantCornsnake.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>376766586
It is literally the most fun Singleplayer Shooter released this decade, kill yourself

>>376766185
>>376766241
>I did not read the thread and I am a smelly faggot

File: 1494497051504.jpg (9KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x300px

>>376757957
Anyone who considers fallout above an 8 exposes himself as the hack of a journalist he is.

Hype culture needs to die.

>>376765992
>one person

But a lot of people here are calling you a chump anon. Sorry this thread did not go the way you hoped.

If a game has a game breaking bug, it doesnt deserve anything more than a 4. The reviewer is 100% in the right.

>>376752227
What ? retard ? reviews ? a ? game ? based ? on ? a ? bug ?

>>376767330
Go be underage somewhere else

>>376767089
its boring as fuck

>>376767440
Well i mean he couldn't use the product to its full potential because of said bug so its probably worth pointing out.

>>376767498
Go shill your multimillion dollar corporation somewhere else

>unironically defending horrible bus8ness practises
Hows your rectum feel?

>>376767596
If Prey is boring you gotta have ADHD or something

File: nice misato.jpg (29KB, 335x430px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 335x430px

>>376767679
>unironically calling out other people on defending a horrible business practice while you are, in fact, defending horrible business practice on the part of IGN

>>376767679
Great job proving me right about you being underage and stupid.

>>376752227
i looked it up to see if your image is a fake. they actually gave the game a 4/10 what the fuck? it's probably the best game i've played this year. it's system shock except with better graphics, audio and more interesting gameplay elements.

>>376767813
The reviewer had every right to give the game a low score when it doesnt work.

Would you write a positive review for a car if it broke down right after you drove it off the lot?

>>376767814
Not an argument.

>>376762728
people aren't monkeys. A few of us actually have and use something called 'logic' You won't find those people here, or in religion.

why is /v/ so bad at analogies?

>>376768223
>Would you write a positive review for a car if it broke down right after you drove it off the lot?
Meanwhile, people still buy cars despite the possibility of them breaking down. Shocking right?