Imagine book reviewers who are illiterate
Posted by Meteorstar101@reddit | greentext | View on Reddit | 205 comments

Posted by Meteorstar101@reddit | greentext | View on Reddit | 205 comments
LemonFlavoredMelon@reddit
Book Review
Journalist: 10/100: too many words, not enough emojis.
GoodlifeFOB@reddit
So basically:
"This game has too much game in it"
7/10
Leadfarmerbeast@reddit
My gamer opinion is that multiplayer games should be balanced around casuals without a mic who are moderately stoned or inebriated. A lot of games are kind of designed and balanced around high level Esports play now, which sort of has a knock on effect of attracting hardcore players and meta-analyzing YouTubers. This leads to an arms race of metagaming and people complaining about games being too sweaty. I think more multiplayer games should be like Titanfall 2, where you have fodder enemies a middle aged dad can beat and a guaranteed giant cool robot periodically. Then they can throw in some super high-skill ceiling shit that a good player can break the game with and it will still be fun for shitty players because they get their easy kills before getting trickshotted by some no-lifer.
ICantRemember33@reddit
bro can'
zkinny@reddit
It's such a risk tho...
Regret1836@reddit
the reward is worth the risk
A_Stoned_Smurf@reddit
For real, my parries do so much more damage than my skills. Unless I use a 9 cost my counterattacks do roughly 3x a normal skill if not more.
liluzibrap@reddit
If you parry, you get 1 AP back per parry.
If you perfect dodge, you only get 1 AP back per perfect dodge per turn, only if you equip Dodger.
However, there's also a picto that you can find that gives you 1 AP per hit taken, which can also be paired with Confident (no healing, but take half damage) or Auto Shell, if not both.
CertifiedSheep@reddit
He's still trying to figure out how to beat the mime in Lumiere
twofacetoo@reddit
'Too much gameplay in my video-game, why doesn't it just play itself? I'm here to watch cutscenes and pre-order DLCs'
Ensvey@reddit
The quote in the OP sounds idiotic out of context, but I know where the reviewer is coming from, because the game isn't clicking for me either. I like turn-based, I like soulslikes, but it turns out I don't like them combined. I find the combat really tedious.
If I'm memorizing enemy movesets for perfect parries, I'd rather be playing an action game. If I need to be thinking about convoluted flowcharts for each character's abilities, I just don't want to be dealing with glorified QTEs on top of that.
HansChrst1@reddit
I'm right there with you. I love turn-based games, but not this kind. I want to move around on a map. The combat in E33 was very rinse and repeat. Some fights were fun, but a lot were so called "trash fights". Just time wasters. I have finished the game, but I very early on put the game on story mode.
Ensvey@reddit
I think I'm going to have to do that too, because I do love the art and world and story and want to see what happens, but I don't want to have to deal with these combat mechanics for tens of hours.
HansChrst1@reddit
Search for some powerfull builds as well that lets you one shot enemies. I didn't, but I did find my own. Found a picto that makes any character move first and put that on Maelle. She also has a sword that makes her start in virtuoso stance which gives her 200% more damage. Then I used a skill that hit every enemy. She one shot a lot of them and if she didn't the rest would.
I also stopped doing side stuff since it didn't seem worth it. You got some lore on one of the expeditions in almost every area which was cool, but I was rarely worth the time. If you want more insights into the world it is well worth it though.
Ensvey@reddit
I only just got Maelle and I can already see she has potential for being OP with some of the 200%+ damage moves. I also read that she just got nerfed a couple days ago, because we can't have nice things, but I'm sure she's still pretty good.
HansChrst1@reddit
The game is a bit balanced around the fact that you can't do more than 9,999 damage. There are also some pictos that give you a 25% damage boost when you parry.
A_Stoned_Smurf@reddit
Until you get to act 3 you're capped yeah. After uncapping, it's kinda nutty to see how much damage I've actually been doing this whole time.
SaveFileCorrupt@reddit
She only had a single, very late game skill nerfed, and it wasn't by much considering how much that one skill still trivializes combat.
noah9942@reddit
Oh god the combat is tedious. It feels very "do it this specific way" with how heavily doding/parrying is rewarded, and punished for failing.
Especially when the dodge animation is much larger than the actual dodge window. When you dash back too early, you still get hit even though your character hasn't moved back up at all yet.
And yeah, in general I'm not a fan of QTE, unless it's only for specific moves/encounters, not literally every attack.
ShinyGrezz@reddit
It felt very “illusion of choice” based. Like there’s a billion and one ways to build damage but it’s literally 100% irrelevant if you can’t dodge or parry. If you’re smart you might have to dodge a couple fewer times? But that’s it. And the QTE on skills was basically just “are you looking at the screen”.
plokijuh1229@reddit
I don't have any issues with the dodging but the skill move quick time button presses are borderline random making them very hard to memorize.
noah9942@reddit
Honestly I just turned the offensive QTE off.
TopShelfIdiocy@reddit
The Final Fantasy XIII experience
MetalUpstairs@reddit
I'm still wondering how they managed to go from a linear but also open interesting world in FF12 to a hallway running simulator with flashy lights on FF13. It's like Squeenix predicted mobile autobattlers before they were a thing.
Sleazy_T@reddit
One major difference that made FFXII not feel linear was how much there is to do. Like I can progress in the story OR I can, with only Vaan, hunt rare game and do hunts and get a burning bow and kill the T Rex before I even get another party member. I can steal from Salamand Entities the moment I get to the Sandseas to try and get a Salamand Halcyon for the second best gun super early. There is so much content gated by the linearity but so much there in the zones you already have unlocked…in FFXIII it’s literally only story until pulse.
cayouche79@reddit
FFXIITZA is one of my favourite games, exactly for the reasons you describe.
GoldenGecko100@reddit
The Kojima experience
cantaloupelion@reddit
"what the fuck is a zero-player game?? Those guys probs idk
Thatsaclevername@reddit
Video game journalists have some of the lowest professional standards and ethics it's fucking obscene anyone is paying them money anymore.
LesserValkyrie@reddit
Video game journalists are mostly grading based on the baksheesh the deves gave them
Jet90@reddit
Proof of corruption?
Fyrefanboy@reddit
concord wasn't a bad game and most of people who played it said it was decent, it just didn't interested anyone.
Petertitan99999@reddit
if a game can't interest anyone it's a bad game.
It's the ole "being boring is worse than being bad"
Fyrefanboy@reddit
Some shitty game have success, some good one don't.
Adventurous_Dress832@reddit
Yes, people are way to hard on it imao. It wasn't bad, it just didn't bring anything new to a table and lacked contened when compared to its main competitors who where already out for years at this point.
There was just no reason to play it.
2KWT@reddit
I think the reason people give it such a hard time it's because until a few years ago nobody was used to hearing about an online game shutting down after just TWO weeks lmao
Fyrefanboy@reddit
99% of the time someone bring up concord it's just a raging antiwoke. No one give a fuck about this game except them lol
P41N90D@reddit
Decade late and 320 million dollars short. Even Battleborn character designs were more creative and memorable.
Equivalent_Ear1824@reddit
What was the gameplay in Concord actually like? Was it actually bad? I’ve only seen people talk about the character design
Jozef_Baca@reddit
It wasnt bad per say.
I'd even argue that the graphics were kinda nice, even though a lot of people disagree.
Problem was that it just wasnt in any was different from the other hero shooters out there. No special mechanics or anything that would differentiate it. The only difference from other hero shooters it had was that instead of being free it had a 40$ price tag slapped onto it.
So its biggest downfall was essentially why would you pay 40$ for a game if an essentially the same game could be gotten for free.
lowlymarine@reddit
I actually really enjoyed it. Shooting wasn't the most impactful (kind of like Rivals or Paladins in that respect, it doesn't have the same punch Overwatch manages to give it) but there were some unique abilities and the mixture of hero shooter mechanics and longer TTKs with the 4v4 COD-style game modes was fun and different enough to stand out. They also had some interesting meta things where heroes had different passives you could pick between before the match, and you could only bring so many possible hero "cards" into a match that you could switch between (which could include multiple variants of one hero). I don't know how it would have worked out balance-wise in the long run but at least they were trying something different. Hell, even from a technical perspective the graphics were fine - it ran perfectly smoothly on my 3080 despite using all the high-end UE5 features like Lumen and Nanite.
If they had gone with any aesthetic but "we have Guardians of the Galaxy at home" or made any attempt whatsoever to design likeable, visually interesting characters it might have had a chance to at least survive until Rivals. Oh, and it should have been free to play, obviously.
HansChrst1@reddit
I think that and the fact that it was a new IP with kinda poor marketing is the reason the game failed. The character designs are fine, but not something truly unique. Which is true for Rivals as well, but that game has marvel characters and rule 34 women. Which is going to buy a couple million players, but I think it would have been successful even with less thicc women. Just the Marvel name alone is a good sell. The game actually being good aswell helps retain players and spread awareness of the game. Concord would have failed even with interesting characters and pretty women.
airfryerfuntime@reddit
It wasn't bad, it was basically just copy and pasted battle royale mechanics. The rest of the game, however, was just straight awful.
Endulos@reddit
I've heard it wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. Just very very mid.
Marik-X-Bakura@reddit
No one here has played Concord so no one knows if it’s bad or nor
WeekendBard@reddit
remember when that dude couldn't clear the Cuphead tutorial that didn't even have combat
isimsizbiri123@reddit
And his excuse was "I don't play 2d games" like what a fucking joke of a person it is, LITERALLY, pressing two buttons in quick succession
throwawayforlikeaday@reddit
then they tried defending him with some Doom (I think it was) gameplay that was just as bad XD
isimsizbiri123@reddit
Bro doom isn't even hard 💀 you just press a button and it does something cool how does that prove anything
ColdCruise@reddit
To be fair, it is a tricky jump, and they only tell you how to do it for a second, and then you are unable to see the tutorial note once you try it once.
isimsizbiri123@reddit
THE TUTORIAL NOTE IS CONSTANTLY ON THE SCREEN. IT IS BUILT IN TO THE LEVEL HE'S PLAYING.
WHAT ARE YOU YAPPING ABOUT.
Neomataza@reddit
It was painted on the background with arrow diagrams. It's devoid of problem solving, like he was trying to hold a conversation at the same time, or was drunk.
MeriKurkku@reddit
It's literally just a 2 button sequence, jump and dash. One of the most basic things to do in a platformer. His job is to play video games there's no excuse
zxcasd17@reddit
I hear you about Concord, but the thing is that Concord wasn’t necessarily bad. There were a bunch of things that made the game fail like it did. From all the reviews I’ve watched nobody really disliked it. It was mostly the stuff around it that made it fail.
gereffi@reddit
So you're saying that the COE33 devs paid off reviewers? It's literally the highest rated game released this year.
Maybe instead of getting your knowledge from 4chan memes trying to push a culture war you could just look things up yourself.
AntDracula@reddit
Imagine coming on a 4chan sub and getting mad about 4chan. And then defending game journalism.
Go back.
gereffi@reddit
I’m not mad, I’m just pointing out that the general logic of people in this thread is moronic. You can enjoy memes and also not be a fucking idiot.
Virtually everyone here is saying that an entire industry of critics is wrong because one person in that industry thinks that a game is solid rather than excellent. You’ve got to be out your fucking mind to think this is a reasonable take.
RealityMalady@reddit
Did anyone actually review Concord favourably? All the reviewers I saw rated it as shit to mediocre at best
TheSkrillanator@reddit
I dunno I might get some flak for playing devil's advocate, but when you have a scale thats all encompassing and literal masterpiece works of art are included on it - like RDR2, Elden Ring, Breath of the Wild, The Last Of Us, Uncharted 4, Celeste, Disco Elysium, Persona 5, etc. etc. - some very good games are not gonna score perfect.
That doesnt mean theyre bad, or the reviewer hates them. Its so silly to me that people jump to that conclusion so quickly when something they like doesnt hit 10/10.
I don't think it's fair to always shit on critics whose whole job is to fundamentally have an extremely high bar of quality.
And whats more, this r/videogames sub itself literally asks the question weekly of "what game does everyone love that you hate," so its not like a critic giving a fun game a lower score is exactly contrarian uninformed drivel. Our whole community actively engages with the idea that not every game is for everyone, even if really good.
ZiFF-@reddit
Journalist view is not even on list of things I look at when Im deciding whether I will buy/play certain game
FalseTautology@reddit
Not for at least a decade. I forgot these things even still exist
Jay_T_Demi@reddit
I'm surprised game "journalists" still have jobs. For real- I've never met a single person in my entire life that plays video games and actually takes their opinions into consideration. They've only ever been the butt of a horrifically unfunny joke.
I also don't know anyone that reads their reviews unless an especially bad take hits the mainstream. That begs the question though, who is reading in the first place in order for that to happen?
FalseTautology@reddit
There was a period in the late nineties that there were trusted d names in game journalism. Those days are long behind us but us long beards still remember.
Stumpedforausername1@reddit
I mean it depends on what you define as game journalism. There's tons of great youtubers who do game reviews who I would consider games journalists. If we're talking about purely articles then yeah I agree it's pretty shit
Soulless35@reddit
The people reading the takes are the same people who hate on them. They need validation on their opinion to like a certain game.
HG2321@reddit
Many of them don't anymore. Hopefully that trend continues.
TheCreepWhoCrept@reddit
The problem is that lots of people do care, and that affects the sales. Journos being public morons actively hurts the existence of good games and encourages the existence of bad ones.
Discarded1066@reddit
No, they love ideological agenda pushing though. Screaming for more trans, games and minority rep yet never actually play the game.
No-Play2726@reddit
Urinalists.
Severe-Rope-3026@reddit
the only gamer opinion i have is that when civilization went 1 unit per tile they were trying to destroy the concept of war within the game by making it so logistically annoying to wage war that nobody would bother doing it
civ IV for the rest of my life you dickless pussies
Ssyynnxx@reddit
extremely based
kid_pilgrim_89@reddit
Only played civ 5... The only impetus to war was literally if anyone attacked you. The cost was too high and rewards were mid
You basically only declared war and attacked anyone if you had obscene amounts of resources and were trying for a military win. There was no reason and the tech/culture victories were handed out
Snoo_72851@reddit
Genuinely a city built on hilly terrain next to one or two mountains was basically impossible to take without late game tech
8123619744@reddit
I wonder if there’s anything in real life that’s like that
Tiruin@reddit
Switzerland
bhbhbhhh@reddit
Switzerland was decidedly conquered by the French Republic.
Samthevidg@reddit
It was also the only time it was conquered for hundreds of years
JuanHernandes89@reddit
Also by me
fisa90@reddit
America sorta, part of why United States has been able to launch asymmetrical warfare without worry of retaliation. Any army has to cross a vast ocean and as tech advanced would be detected and destroyed before they reach anywhere near USA. Have all the time to react to any projectile type attack. Pretty much left alone to gain a true tech advantage
Altruistic-Local-541@reddit
wouldnt the same be true when America is attacking someone?
AvengerDr@reddit
Indeed, the D-Day is proof that you can cross an ocean and invade if everyone is allied against you. They used the UK as staging ground, ao maybe that's why they want to annex Greenland and Canada, Trump fears being invaded? /s
lefier_moustachu@reddit
Not tech-related, but I would also add that the invader would have to invade a population that have access to weapons and Guns in a large quantity. So it makes that even more difficult.
xTraxis@reddit
Yep. As long as they say "Mexico and Canada, we will also make sure you're safe" and "all of our citizens can have guns", it's pretty much impossible to attack the United States with any advantage. You are always fight an uphill battle unless you come out swinging with nukes that they can't deal with.
LodestarForever@reddit
Ethiopea
FreeCapone@reddit
Afghanistan
Snoo_72851@reddit
seems unlikely
ToumaKazusa1@reddit
Only if you consider artillery late game instead of mid game.
Haatsku@reddit
Why bother with combat when you can just amass stupid amounts of gold and can just pay mofo to go to war with another while you just pump out units without any production cost and trading shit with everyone.
kid_pilgrim_89@reddit
That's my point lol... The guy I responded to said war or conflict was better (mechanically) in earlier versions of the game.
Most times I only developed military to deal with barbarians.
The thing is by the time enemy armies are strong enough to cause serious damage to your city defenses, you should have enough gold to upgrade your fortified units and mount a good defense.
War/conflict should be an investment, a huge risk with a huge payoff. But in civ 5 at least it's just underwhelming because you can ignore mil the whole game and then just pay to play when you need
Routine-Professor586@reddit
Not really if you are playing early game cheese civs like Assyria. If you don't conquer enough cities early game, you can't keep up with other civs.
kiakosan@reddit
Seems to be accurate to the lore, no? Wars are and always have been very expensive
kid_pilgrim_89@reddit
Meh it just seemed like a buggy mechanic. Would like to see how it works in 7 tho
GregerMoek@reddit
Idk it was one of the best strats for me to kill the first neighbor that I knew would be annoying later. War worked fine for me. Just had to happen early to snowball.
FalseTautology@reddit
And this is why I didnt play five or six.
Endulos@reddit
Civ5 in a nutshell
>enemy declares war on you
>defend yourself
>they refuse to make peace
>war goes on
>they ~~decide to ask~~ beg for peace
>peace is made
>everyone now calls you a warmonger because you defended yourself and hates you for the war you didn't even start
ToumaKazusa1@reddit
The trick is you never agree to peace and just farm their units for XP. XP is incredibly overpowered, so if you can fight a low intensity war during the early game you'll be much better off later on
Although late game is generally impossible to lose anyway
kid_pilgrim_89@reddit
Literally. Nebekednezzer will declare war cus you don't trade cotton or some shit send troops to the border and make peace 3 turns later after doing like 10 damage to your walls
rooftrooper@reddit
Don't know about you, I was declaring war on anyone who was slightly annoying. Mocked me in UN? Mock these nukes. Don't want to trade spices? Trade blows with my siege machines.
kid_pilgrim_89@reddit
Lol I did that a few times I just most play casual and passively
I lost most of those campaigns tho
Sir_Daxus@reddit
It's almost as if war is inherently destructive and brings little profit to humanity in general.
StandardN02b@reddit
In civ 6 you have to have an overwhelming military advantage to even begin thinking about conquering a neighbour thanks to how loyalty works. You have to conquer their cities super fast and basicaly reform your entire goverment to generate enough loyalty to keep those cities.
And on the other hand any decent army will generate enough CO2 to melt the globe, even while doing nothing.
Gackey@reddit
Sounds pretty realistic tbh.
StandardN02b@reddit
Sounds realistic that my ironclad is a threat to humanity just for existing and that any city can spawn an army greater than small countries out of nowhere perpetually?
Legal_Sugar@reddit
Let me introduce you to poles
SufficientCalories@reddit
Civ 6 singleplayer, the AI is idiotic and continuous war is optimal because they simply don't understand how to effectively defend.
In MP, war is suboptimal early unless you are playing into specific strategies. Generally weaker players who fucked up or got bad starts get picked off in the mid game, and the late game ends being continuous war because you are trying to prevent your opponent from getting a culture/science victory before you can. The big issue is that the cost of killing off your opponent early is never recouped from the spoils, someone who stays mostly peaceful, maybe conquers a city state or two, will kill you on econ.
GregerMoek@reddit
And the best strat was still usually to murder the first neighbor civ you encountered. Early game war was fine imo. But I also never played anything before civ 4.
BreathingHydra@reddit
Honestly I never found loyalty to be that big of a deal when it comes to conquest. Just garrisoning a unit in the city, building a monument, and maybe spreading your religion to it is usually enough to never have to think about it. The only time it's issue for me if I'm in a dark age but I think that's fair.
It at least stops the AI from settling a random city in the middle of your empire for no reason too.
a_chatbot@reddit
Wow, you do not remember Civ I? I agree Civ IV is the best though, there was some advanced AI mod from the Apolyton Civ I'd use, lots of fun, especially on Marathon time. Looked at Civ V, said 'naw'. Now, all these DLC's needed apparently to make the games playable. I like Crusader Kings II, that's the best Civilization sequel in my opinion.
FreeCapone@reddit
Did you just complain about Civ 5 needing a ton of DLCs to be playable and praised CK2 the very next sentence?
a_chatbot@reddit
Are you saying I should look into Civ 5? Maybe I should check for Steam specials.
FreeCapone@reddit
I got it for like 5 dollars a few years ago with all DLCs
Delliott90@reddit
I know this is unpopular, but the modern combat in civ7 is amazing.
inspectoroverthemine@reddit
Unplayable until they release a strategic view.
Marci_1992@reddit
Nah Civ 7 has a lot of problems but combat isn't one of them. It's a big improvement over 5 and 6, especially late game.
Zorkonio@reddit
I was so hyped for civ 5 and so disappointed. I usually feel like Im in the minority for loving civ 4 stack mechanics. Making multiple well thought out stacks and plowing them into enemy territory was glorious.
Now it's "durr my 3 swordsman just demolished an entire civilization"
Agerones@reddit
I've never thought of it as annoying but I hardly ever see a good reason to go on the offensive in Civ V, unless the placement of your cities puts you behind it's almost always better to bunker down and focus on growth and science
Ronkas@reddit
in single player that holds true, versus humans not so much
Agerones@reddit
Yeah I haven't played multiplayer but I think I've watched some guy talk about multiplayer in some way years ago and I remember him saying that the best strategy for mid game is to hold on to 3 or 4 cities and abstain from conquering until late game when ideologies start, if that's the case then it's not too different and one should only attack when they have their backs against the wall as well
Ronkas@reddit
Not really true unless you played base game (something most people do for maybe a week before realising NoQuitters exists)
It's a full rebalance including buffs to earlygame war/liberty, but even premod liberty and rushing someone with early hammer advantage if they were overinvested in wonders was a viable strategy.
Munnin41@reddit
Eh that was fine. You also needed fewer units to take cities. The most annoying thing happened in VI. In V the units could adjust their pathfinding if someone was in a space they were heading for in a few turns. In VI they removed that for some reason
Rydagod1@reddit
I’ve only played 5 and beyond but that just seems boring. With 1 per tile you actually have to plan troop movement instead stacking 1000 units on top of eachother and bashing it against the enemies 1 stack of units.
Delliott90@reddit
Crusader kings has entered the chat
FreeCapone@reddit
To be fair, that's mostly how medieval warfare worked. You either have sieges or decisive battles where 2 whole armies smash into each other
meechmeechmeecho@reddit
Crusader Kings is an incestuous eugenics simulator with war mechanics thrown in
Vallvaka@reddit
Civ IV had a more rock-paper-scissors type approach to different units, with many different niches for more unit types. I always liked it better because it felt more like deck building. The AI could also play competently. Stacks of doom are real, but I find the alternative so much more tedious. Civ IV gang
jishieus@reddit
Baba yetu
meechmeechmeecho@reddit
Civ 5 was ruined by punishing you for settling/taking more than 4-5 cities.
HansChrst1@reddit
Someone isn't wrong just because they disagree. I agree with the journalist. Thought the combat got tedious very fast. Only finished the game because the story was so interesting.
Journalist gets shit on for giving high scores for every game and they get shit on when they don't like every game you like. Journalists are just people and in an ideal world some games get reviews like this aswell as high praises and criticism.
Some games are just walking simulators and there are people that enjoy that.
DiscountParmesan@reddit
reviews are never helpful in my opinion, just watch a gameplay video, fast forward a couple hours and see if you like what the gameplay looks like
goldninjaI@reddit
fr i can tell if i’ll like a game after watching only a few minutes of gameplay
Bluten11@reddit
I thought that too. I thought I wouldn't like deckbuilder roguelikes cos of this. But I decided to try starvaders and now im considering buying slay the spire.
ryryangel@reddit
Play Balatro
Bluten11@reddit
Way ahead of you, gold staked about half the decks
ArkLumia@reddit
Inscryption maybe?
pjute@reddit
Slay the spire slaps. Only game i play on phone nowadays. Laptop also slay the spire.
PC a bunch other things.
okseniboksen@reddit
I can wholeheartedly recomend sts. That shit is crack cocaine.
qwertyalguien@reddit
Reviewerd by faceless corpos are useless. But known named reviewers are great. If you are familiar with their tastes and biases you can triangulate an aprozimation on how much you'd like something based on their reviews.
SantaArriata@reddit
Reviews are only helpful if you’re already familiar with the reviewer.
whyUdoAnythingAtAll@reddit
I can imagine this kind of review for something like death stranding 2 but not this game
Bloodytrucky@reddit
i hate turn based combat
Hyperversum@reddit
Ok, then don't play turn based games lmao
Bloodytrucky@reddit
ok
muha4004@reddit
I hate games based on learning timings of enemies. These delays before attacks are ridiculous.
Natural_Ad1530@reddit
Bro was mad because he was too slow to dodge/parry/jump.
Wantitneeditgetit@reddit
JFC that's this year. I was gonna come in and talk shit about 2010 journalism but turns out it's still dogshit.
gereffi@reddit
Or maybe one of the 75 critics that reviewed this game has a different opinion than you and this is cherry-picked for OP to make a point that isn't really true overall?
Wantitneeditgetit@reddit
Probably but that's no fun. Let's dohpile on this one critic for having a dogshit opinion.
gereffi@reddit
Or just like, move on because one person doesn’t enjoy the same thing you enjoy.
Wantitneeditgetit@reddit
Man why are you even in this thread lol?
teemoismyson@reddit
im not playing clair obscure, i REFUSE to have anyone french in my video games
ZarephHD@reddit
C'est compréhensible, passez une bonne journée.
qtquazar@reddit
Moi, je m'en fiche des jeux si y'ont pas assez d'poutine la dedans.
harveyshinanigan@reddit
oh dieu
un Québecois
AstroZombie29@reddit
Sea of Stars a literallement un item de healing qui s'apelle Poutine
a-walking-bowl@reddit
what the fuck there’s little French people in my phone
go away now shoo we don’t need your kind
izza123@reddit
Perfectly good movie ruined by interactive elements
dagon_xdd@reddit
i don't always read journalist reviews but when i do, i read to make fun of them.
just watch youtubers if you so crave videogame reviews. Sseth, Civvie, Mandalore etc. follow people who you trust in their opinions, not these fucking pussies
Jeffbobcatjeff@reddit
I wait to have a prophetic dream telling me if a game is good or not for my reviews
mrpeshoga@reddit
They were simply not paid off by the devs and they don't give good reviews for free. Plus the game's by ex-ubisoft devs and ubisoft are regularly buying good reviews for their dogshit games.
Thecdog1@reddit
PC gamer intentionally give every well received game a max of 80 then gives some piece of shit side scrolling pixel art game a 95 like its a revelation.
YorkPorkWasTaken@reddit
The virgin FTL simp versus the chad Starfield enjoyer
Berkuts_Lance_Plus@reddit
If you were literate, you would realize that this subreddit is for greentext.
TaneVII@reddit
They are only there to promote political propaganda while getting paid to talk lies from the big companies. There is not a single truth in their words.
DiscoShaman@reddit
When a dev doesn’t give $$$/equal benefits to a reviewer in 2025.
HyperionPhalanx@reddit
I never consider the opinions of a game reviewer unless i can see their gameplay
Their writing means nothing
DedOriginalCancer@reddit
let's just ignore all the others that gave it 10/10s
Radiant_Priority1995@reddit
Video game journalism sounds like the most useless job in existence
Notbbupdate@reddit
There are 2 types of video game journalists. The first is the guy that staryed a youtube channel as a hobby until it grew big enough for him to quit his shitty day job. The second is the failed journalist who went into gaming because it was easier than real journalism, but somehow gaming is still too hard for them
Neither one wanted to be a professional game reviewer when they started, and neither one is actually qualified. At best, they're the equivalent of your friend on discord telling you this new game they're playing is really cool, and even that's hard for game journalists to achieve
mischievous_shota@reddit
The first type might not necessarily be great at objectively categorising and rating different aspects of the game but is still valuable. They have an actual passion for gaming and their views can still be useful. Once you get to know these people, you understand what they like and what they respond to. If you know that, you can understand how to translate their opinions into something a bit more objective.
noah9942@reddit
While they might not be great at actual journalism, if you tend to agree with their takes, chances are you'll enjoy a game they enjoyed and you were on the fence about, or vice versa.
Or if they liked a game that's in a genre that they'd normally didn't, that could be a sign that said is really good.
Neomataza@reddit
It sounds like Yahtzee Croshaw would be the first guy, but he is primarily a writer and a youtuber not even second(nor third maybe not even on the list).
ExtremeCreamTeam@reddit
Then there's the third kind.
The Jason Schreiers of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Schreier
til1and1are1@reddit
Most of them dont want to write about games; they want to write about politics and social issues. So they write about politics and social issues veiled as writing about games.
PepeBarrankas@reddit
Veiled? You haven't read any recent videogame press, have you? That shit isn't even pretending to be about games anymore.
Fyrefanboy@reddit
as someone who know videogames well and is an actual journalist, the insane amateurish level of videogame jounralists fucking pain me. From the shitty clickbait title to the useless chatgpt generated content, 95% has absolutely zero value.
talktailshep@reddit
is it some sort of like telltale game? do they just not want combat?
aIhamdullilah@reddit
Until proven otherwise, every gaming company executive, journalist and spokeperson hate videogames.
these reviewers get into the industry not because they love games, they write about games because they know how to write. That's the disconnect between a gaming Ytber and a gaming journalist.
hanafudaman@reddit
How dare this game have game play!
Walink92@reddit
People have opinions 😲😲😲
SaeedDitman@reddit
They didn't pay PC gamer simple as that
BWMaster@reddit
Is there... like... a game, where you don't have to master combat and the graphics are a simple so as not to distract from the characters and plot.... I don't know... like words on a written page? Maybe where my brain can use context clues to form its own version of the world the game producers are presenting?
Completely linear so the open world doesn't feel bogged down with decisions that could effect the ending I get in some wa....
Oh
I'm thinking of a book.
Game journalists want to read a book.
thesilentwizard@reddit
The shilling campaign for this game on social media, even 4chan, is really remarkable.
stop_talking_you@reddit
game is bad because ue5
Motor-Notice702@reddit
What if the game is just overrated?
totalwarwiser@reddit
Pcgamer is an american review platform which works based on marketing big games.
This game is a French indie game which offers direct competition to their clients
Budget_Celebration89@reddit
Don’t forget that it’s not just about marketing but pushing the agenda.
TheJeeeBo@reddit
That game us honestly one of the best games I've played in the last 10 years, it's been a long time since I've been as engrossed in the story and combat as I have with this game.
BrianEK1@reddit
I never wanted the nuclear holocaust to come as much as I did when a games journalist gave Death Stranding a 3/10 score.
Proud-Bluebird@reddit
I don't need to imagine. r/books is already filled with illiterate who hate reading
DoubleSpook@reddit
I mean. It’s not a good game.
PepeBarrankas@reddit
L take
Roi_Loutre@reddit
You're clearly nor ready for the GOTY
Illumintardy@reddit
Apple1Day0Meds@reddit
70 isnt even a bad score
PepeBarrankas@reddit
In modern journalese, a 70 is basically a 5/10. Even the worst asset flips don't go below a 3, and 1s are reserved for journos who find out the dev said "Maybe Trump isn't that bad of a choice" in 2016
Sohcahtoa82@reddit
Gaming journalists aren't gamers and barely even qualify as journalists.
m0rtm0rt@reddit
Remember how they recently changed the academy awards rules so that the people voting actually have to watch the movies?
Explains a lot about how Bohemian Rhapsody won for Best Editing.
FaultinReddit@reddit
The only journalists I know that do like games turned into game developers cause they ended up not liking journalism
Seffuski@reddit
Meanwhile he's posting that on /v/
Icy_Magician_9372@reddit
Expedition is the best final fantasy I've played in a really long time.
Pervasivepeach@reddit
I mean the games fine. It really isn’t the 10/10 people are making it out to be , it’s basically as good as any other Kroger out there
Hisgenart@reddit
So they just want a walking simulator and cutscenes through HD unreal assets or something?
Foxintoxx@reddit
Nobody hates playing video games more than video games journalists .
K1LLERK1D01@reddit
Who knows what they do, but it sure isn't playing the game.
SigmaBattalion@reddit
Nope.