Yes. It's a good review score. Especially for a game with a decidedly average competitive multiplayer component.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DOOM Review Thread - The Fury Road of Shooters
- Thread starter The Flash
- Start date
Yes. It's a good review score. Especially for a game with a decidedly average competitive multiplayer component.
Fachasaurus
Member
The thread title alone just made me purchase this game. Now we wait for it to arrive..
Deja vu.
A 5 from IGN is not average.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
I don't get it. I guess I was right about appeal to authority. Who cares about the number? I agree that the IGN reviewer is entitled to his opinion about Doom. I don't disagree with how he personally felt about the game as a whole. I think the multiplayer part is horseshit terrible myself.
What I don't get is why some of you are ok, with someone telling others on GAF that they are factually wrong on their opinions. Do you tolerate it, because he's an official critic? Why diminish that to mere complaints about scoring?
What I don't get is why some of you are ok, with someone telling others on GAF that they are factually wrong on their opinions. Do you tolerate it, because he's an official critic? Why diminish that to mere complaints about scoring?
Tye The Czar
Member
I seriously want more game to launch without day 1 reviews because of it. So many OTs aren't fun because everyone feels the need to respond directly to reviews.
You're right, just checked their review section and it seems that 6 is what they consider average (they mark it as "Okay").
So still above average...and still a headscratcher for why it bugs people so much that a single person disagrees with them.
I'll never understand the furor over reviews. I never understood the upsets over 8.1, 8.8, 9.2, 6.3, 6.5, C+, or whatever else people seem to be up in arms about this particular month.
Im all for it. But i would still like to know if a game is a scam or broken before i buy it....its a tough balancing act. But yeah, seems an odd thing to want but really numbered reviews have just turned the gaming scene into a cynical clusterfuck at launch. When i was a young lad, gaming was so much more fun cause i gave no fucks about reviews. I looked at the box art and decided to buy it at KB toys.
Sword Of Doom
Member
My constant raving about the game convinced my coworker to buy the game today so yes, word of mouth is great and is helping sell the game
VanCityGamer
Member
I swear some people don't understand what average means. Average does NOT mean "okay". If you call a 5 average, do you really think that's the average of all their scores? That's asinine. The average is probably like 7.5. Their system (like most) is akin to school. A 5/10 is failing. A 70-75 is decent and pretty average.
The lack of reviews and how Doom released feels like accidental brilliance. It was a shooter that many people had low expectations with for various reasons, and up until release it was looking like, if you were optimistic, that id was making a bad game but had noble intentions. After all, they did make Rage...
Like, here I was, coming into Doom with low expectations. "This looks like it'll be a mediocre experience but hey I am a sucker for Doom maybe there'll be some good ideas buried in it."
Then the intro comes on and tells me to rip and tear. "Oh shit, that's pretty cool." Then when I start playing I'm slowly realizing, with every new gun or enemy or mod, that it's brilliant. Like everything was actually well thought out and it comes together in this really awesome and rather fresh* way.
Then I see that the people designing the levels knew what made old Doom maps great. Then there's all the hidden loot and upgrades (that should feel like it's over complicating things but doesn't really because all it means is "keep an eye out for secrets.)
And then it occurs to me, several hours in as I found a Doom Guy toy and see the fistbump animation, that I'm playing the best shooter in years.
* It might be referencing old Doom, but I disagree with notion it's simply it's plagiarizing it. They shifted from the old idea of resource management and made it so that enemies are a reliable source of health and ammo, and the amount of those items drop will increase or decrease depending on the amount you have. And if you need more health and ammo then you either try to stagger an enemy for a glory kill or you chainsaw someone. Along with a greater emphasize on enemy projectile damage rather than hitscan it creates the battle dynamic of going completely ballistic in an arena and turning into a whirlwind of blood and death.
Bloodporne
Member
What I think of the game aside, the absurdly nerd-ragey reactions to a 7.1 review score are unreal. They didn't give the game a fucking 3.1 and wrote "Shit sandwich" guys. The reviewer explained himself eloquently enough whether you agree or don't. I don't personally like IGN either or put stock into their reviews but lord. Every time a game gets a disagreeable score everyone needs to viciously attack it and then muse philosophically on what review MEANS to explain why it's justified? How pleasant do you think it makes reviewers' jobs since everyone tends to be worried about others' feelings whenever it suits their views?
It's collectively a tad embarrassing, no?
It's collectively a tad embarrassing, no?
Or it could mean that they self select to primarily review games that are above average. They'll toss a few clunkers every now and then to one of their freelance writers but for the most part will gravitate toward games that don't outright suck.
You know, like what every review shop out there does because literally no one outlet reviews 100% of all the games that release.
MiguelItUp
Member
No kidding. An opinion is an opinion, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Personally I enjoyed the MP alpha and betas, it was different enough to keep me playing. I'm excited about experiencing the final product as a whole. More so SP and SnapMap since I haven't messed with them. But I'm still excited about the MP, though I don't think it's a game changer. Just some good, simple fun that is the icing on the cake for me. I can actually play it and enjoy it unlike D3's, so that says a lot. Honestly in the end it's by far not the worst MP I've ever played, and I feel like it's worth putting time into.
So I just read that IGN reviewers post. I can't believe he just told everyone who thinks the multiplayer is good and they're having a blast with it that they are wrong and it's terrible and to stop pushing it as being good. Fuck me now they're trying to dictate what we like and don't like. I'm finished with reviewers. The best critics are us, the gamers.
Poimandres
Member
It seems like a pretty recent development for several sites/outlets to start utilising the full review scale. Sure, many of them would have a scale breakdown where 6 is "slightly above average" but in practice average was closer to 7, and 6 and below was reserved for games they didn't like.
It has changed quite a bit over the past few years, or at least it seems this way. You see fewer games breaking 90+ averages.
I think this is for the best, but obviously it takes people a bit of time to adjust their expecations and reactions to what is/isn't a "good" score.
VanCityGamer
Member
That wouldn't change the fact that 5/10 is not an average score at IGN. It's a score they give to a bad game. Which is exactly my point. 5/10 is not average. It's failing. And "okay" is not the same thing as average.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
For some reason, a lot of the Gaffers in here, are choosing to ignore that.
You can't think anything cause you admit you haven't played it in your other posts. "A friend told me..." Weren't you saying that Dark Souls III sounded bad because of people's opinions until you played it? Come on dude.
This is me last year at E3. See the difference between actually playing the game and not?
stufte
Member
7.1 isn't bad, but that bolded part is entirely hyperbolic. It's not "specifically and measurably bad" as you say, but there are many other multiplayer games out there that blow it out of the water currently.
You're right. 6 is what they consider average and 7.1 is above that mark.
It's also not worth getting worked up over. If you find that you disagree with IGN reviews often, just stop reading them. Find reviewers or opinions that you can predict your enjoyment off of (even if they disagree with you, as long as they are consistent) and follow those specific people.
nextgeneration
Member
Why bother reading the reviews? Just look at the total number of user reviews on Steam and look at the percentage of those who gave it a thumbs up. Total number of user reviews are approaching 9000 (!) already and 92% of them gave it a positive rating.
It's pretty obvious this game is selling very well and a very high number of these people are enjoying the game. I think that paints a very good picture overall of where people stand with the game.
It's pretty obvious this game is selling very well and a very high number of these people are enjoying the game. I think that paints a very good picture overall of where people stand with the game.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Woof
Gamers sure are lame.
stufte
Member
He's not wrong.
Mister Negative
Member
Man, I really like the multiplayer. It's scratching an itch i've had since Halo 3. I've only played about 30 minutes of it, and I'd like to see if I keep having these feelings about it, but I can see myself playing it for a while.
One thing I could do without is the demon transformations for sure, but I love everything else about it. I hope it has legs.
One thing I could do without is the demon transformations for sure, but I love everything else about it. I hope it has legs.
I still blame gamers for convincing me that GunValkyrie was anything other than hot trash with a worst-in-class control scheme that was physically painful to execute.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
You quoted me. I replied. You keep ignoring my posts. Justify how an IGN reviewer coming to GAF to tell that people are factually wrong about liking a game is OK.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
Agree to disagree.
Was absolutely not planning on buying this game due to my time shortage with work + Uncharted and a looming No Man's Sky. Heard so many people gushing about it that I made the impulse buy last night even though I can't play it for a week. I fully support great single-player campaigns this day in age, especially if they stay true to their roots.
The misunderstanding is thinking that an opinion is a fact because it is strongly worded. I've went over this before and it seemed like I would be retreading old ground and didn't really decide to engage.
Your first paragraph is an indictment on the game that seems entirely at odds with your second. You're bolded comments are explicitly specific and measurable reasons for why you feel that the multiplayer is, in your words, "fucking shitty". Your opinion, from an outside glance, seems harder on the game's multiplayer than the critic's.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
My opinion is that the multiplayer is horrible. I have a friend who loves it. This his first Doom. He loves basically everything that's new. I asked here if Doom had bots. I was told yes by a Gaffer. I love bots in multiplayers shooters. Well...there are none. An even bigger slight IMO. In any case....the load system and the maps are terrible. To me. If someone likes that, they aren't factually wrong.
That's my opinion. I didn't come here to tell people that they were wrong about liking something. What I think is what I think. It's not measurable. It's a fucking videogame. I don't go around telling people they are factually wrong if they like it. No gaffers do that.
Why is it ok for an IGN representative to do that? Because he works for the press? Strongly worded?! Read his post again.
Try posting about a game in absolute terms on GAF. Tell people the game they enjoy is specifically and measurably bad, without being a member of the press. See what happens.
Being OK with him being here? Tolerate him? Jesus. He's a member here just like any other and his posts are far more reasonable than the worst of the crap in this thread. Way more so than yours (and mine) as far as I'm concerned.
Calling something measurably bad was a blunder, but he backed his statement up with arguments, so you know where he's coming from if you'd like to discuss the subject. Although it seems like you're in agreement and are only arguing semantics.
It's hyperbole and I've found that getting worked up over hyperbole on the internet is a quick way to an ulcer. I hear someone say that it's factually incorrect to like something and I implicitly know that their tongue is firmly placed in their cheek. I don't know what more to say other than that.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Regarding the representative bit, people are still people, even if they have weird sounding job titles. People post on forums. Cool, move along.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
Fair enough. Let's leave that there.
VanCityGamer
Member
What? How can they consider 6 average? An average is an objective thing. I'm willing to bet 6 is not their average review score. I guess what you meant is that 6 is "okay". Which is not the same as average.
You're definitely taking the worst possible reading of what I wrote and trying to hang me from it, but I can see how it reads poorly, that's on me. I wasn't taking shots at anyone really. I wasn't snidely commenting on people's opinions. I was responding to some criticism and I wasn't as eloquent as I could have been. You're deliberately ignoring a post later on where I tried to clarify my accidental snideness, but whatever.
I don't know why you think people can't like things that are bad. Saying that something is bad isn't the same as saying someone is wrong for liking it. Those aren't the same thing.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
Yes you are being very level headed about this review. It's why you renamed your twitter with a Doom username, and posted a tweet about how people who disagree with you are comparing you to Hitler.
I don't know what it is with you and this game, but you are being awfully childish about it, and aren't coming off as a professional.
This generation I would have to say that I've been pretty much multiplayer exclusive. Wolfenstein surprised me and sucked me into its single player, and until I pick up a PS4K I can't get my Uncharted fix. So Doom was an impulse purchase for sure.
This thread title is spot on. I never see a movie more than once in theaters, but Fury Road was good enough to bring me back the the theater. Doom's single player is absolutely amazing. There isn't much like it out there and it's such a new refreshing experience. I mean yeah, it's familiar with the very old school feel, but it has been brought into the generation in the best way possible. I couldn't see a new Doom made any better.
10/10
FPS campaign of this generation.
Fury Road of shooters.
This thread title is spot on. I never see a movie more than once in theaters, but Fury Road was good enough to bring me back the the theater. Doom's single player is absolutely amazing. There isn't much like it out there and it's such a new refreshing experience. I mean yeah, it's familiar with the very old school feel, but it has been brought into the generation in the best way possible. I couldn't see a new Doom made any better.
10/10
FPS campaign of this generation.
Fury Road of shooters.
Why can't I change my name to something Doom related when it's all I did all weekend? And I wasn't referring to the people who disagreed with me in that tweet. I was referring to the much, much nastier comments. A 7.1 is a good score. I enjoyed my time with Doom. That's why I think I don't see the negativity in my comments that you keep seeing.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
Sorry if you got hate for that review. No one should get GG-like bullshit over a videogame review. One thing we can agree on? The multiplayer IS terrible. Well IMO it is. I was trying to come out with a "cute" reply. A funny one see? But it was coming off very poorly. Still can't agree with your review. I really don't agree with it. But hey. Whatever, right?
I haven't seen Razorback. But Road Games is a classic. A lot more suspenseful than I initially expected, because I thought I'd be watching a Duel ripoff.
Except Wolfenstein was mercifully spared the shit about its multiplayer.
People do get way too bent out of shape over this stuff, but it's not THAT much of a head scratcher.
In this case, most people here absolutely love Doom. I think it's one of the best shooters of the last decade. Why should it matter what a reviewer thinks? Well, publishers DO pay attention to that stuff and many buyers DO read sites like IGN. A score like that can absolutely have an impact (how much, one cannot say) on sales of a game like this.
Basically, when a big site slags on a game it can influence whether or not the studio is able to continue in this direction or not. I think most of us want to see more games from id in this mold but if it flops and the critical reception is poor, it may impact the future of games from the studio. When id was independent, it was different, but now they answer to Bethesda who could determine the direction for the studio.
Now, who's to say how much power IGN really has here, but if that review score has ANY negative impact on the future of id then I'd say that people have a right to be upset when that reviewer is so clearly out of alignment with many of us.
It's an issue because games like Doom are a rare breed. Very few developers are making games like this and, in the AAA space, Doom is just about the only one out there. It needs to succeed.
Really fair point, but I'd counter that -- in this particular case -- this is one of the reasons Bethesda didn't send out review copies of this game. You know, in advance, that critics -- the upper crust of 'games as art' folks -- aren't going to react to this game in the same way core gamers who've wanted a *good* Doom game for many many years will. The steam reviews prove it by themselves, but the talking heads and personalities of the lesser known are also throwing their support behind the game in a huge way. Videos, editorials, podcasts; having the audience this game was meant for respond to this game well before the reviewers were able to was an integral part of the 'doom craze' that's going on right now.
I mean, it's great that some reviewers are enjoying the game, but I seem to recall critical reception to Doom 3 being actually quite good, and the players hating it. I'd rather the reverse, so I'm not really caught up in IGN's take this go around.
In short, I think Beth knows what they made, and the success they're looking for is in the sales #s on this one, and player response, and not the 10/10 bs from critics.
If all the the reviews was published at once will we still be talking about it 4 days after release? (Uncharted 4's HUGE review thread didn't last this long for comparison)
Beth made a clever move (intended or not) to give the gamers the upper hand before reviewers and keep the hype alive.
Beth made a clever move (intended or not) to give the gamers the upper hand before reviewers and keep the hype alive.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
I'm a reviewer and I'll be giving the highest marks to Doom available. I haven't liked shooters for many years. This is like flexing an old muscle, one that you hadn't worked out in a long time. I'm still reflexively tapping the non-existent reload button, but I'm bunny hopping again like it's 1999.
Pestilence11
Member
Just out of curiosity what do you think you would've given if it had no multiplayer and just the campaign?
Would it have scored higher because the multiplayer didn't drag it down or would have it scored lower because of the complete lack of multiplayer?
Edit: Also, the .1 is hilarious to me.
sorry