That has nothing to do with this review. Stop trying to discredit the reviewer because you didn't agree with his score.
-
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.
NieR: Automata Review Thread
- Thread starter BRSxIgnition
- Start date
That has nothing to do with this review. Stop trying to discredit the reviewer because you didn't agree with his score.
Dreams-Visions
Member
On the contrary, if the reviewer has shown himself or herself to habitually fail to finish games before forming and offering their conclusions, it is entirely relevant to the discussion because that is precisely what has happened here.
While playing a game to conclusion is not always necessary (multiplayer-focused games, for example), that is simply not the case with RPGs or similar.
That has EVERYTHING to do with this "review".
Automata isn't a game where you ng+ to new content.
Its end of arcs. End of acts.
You play through it 1 time to gets "endings" A B C D and E.
If you can't be "bothered", then don't review. Maybe right an article detailing your thoughts, but not a review.
No one in this thread has ever made mention of the score as a means to discredit. Its all about professionalism and what it means to be a reviewer.
As another said in this thread; I would have been fine with a low score if he had actually finished the thing and gave a proper review rather than some half-assed attempt and a youtubing.
If you get fucking PAID to do the review, or consider oneself as living by reviewing something, then at least show minimal level of professinalism and finish the game.
No one reviews a movie after watching 30 min, and if one does, no one takes him/her seriously as a reviewer. same should be applied to the game too.
No one reviews a movie after watching 30 min, and if one does, no one takes him/her seriously as a reviewer. same should be applied to the game too.
Dreams-Visions
Member
It really is that simple.
It's like watching Act 1 of a stage play live, leaving during the intermission, then watching the highlights for the remaining acts at home and tendering a review of the production. Because ain't nobody got time to watch 4 acts!
Who the fuck would do that and expect to retain their credibility as a play critic? Who would defend this critic?
Help me understand.
Via Purifico
Banned
Nier: A is one of the shortest RPGs to come out in awhile especially compared to XV so there's no excuse at all not to mention it's not the same game three times.
100% this dude would've dropped Groundhog Day after 20 minutes and said "it's cool, but I don't have the time to watch the same 10 minutes again and again"
And dummies would've defended it as valid criticism.
FF15 is significantly shorter than Nier Automata...
like, you can complete FF15, do a bunch of sidequests, and even grind a bit in 24 hours.
This should be the standard yes, but I once talked to a film critic and he said he watches in average 5 films per day, most of which are turds and he could cook, sleep or whatever in the middle of some of them.
I don't blame him.
mickagau33
Member
lol this actually sounds like a nightmare !
That describes the job of a critic pretty nicely
kqedequalsvolvo
Member
Playing until the end of Route A and then beginning Route B is not finishing the game and then playing it again - it's completing the first intended part of the story. I get how that can be confusing and/or not be communicated easily, but I guess that's a Yoko Taro thing and he's not about to compromise any time soon haha. There are perception shifts, character changes, totally different insights into the overall narrative and universe - it's not a NG+, it's different routes that form part of a cohesive whole.
Persona 5 reviews seem like a good comparison here - if people can conduct a full review of a 100+ hour game like that, it's a shorter amount of time to take in Nier Automata by mainlining the A-E endings with a few sidequests. I don't expect reviewers to 100% and Platinum all games they review, certainly not, but they should experience at least the core narrative, which in turn is only achieved by playing routes A-E.
If you're a film reviewer and turned off a 2 hour movie with half an hour to go, you'd either need to make a compelling case as to why it's unwatchable (it's so bad I cannot bear to finish it and here's why...), or you struggle through the last half an hour to make an assessment of the full movie.
Persona 5 reviews seem like a good comparison here - if people can conduct a full review of a 100+ hour game like that, it's a shorter amount of time to take in Nier Automata by mainlining the A-E endings with a few sidequests. I don't expect reviewers to 100% and Platinum all games they review, certainly not, but they should experience at least the core narrative, which in turn is only achieved by playing routes A-E.
If you're a film reviewer and turned off a 2 hour movie with half an hour to go, you'd either need to make a compelling case as to why it's unwatchable (it's so bad I cannot bear to finish it and here's why...), or you struggle through the last half an hour to make an assessment of the full movie.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Yeah, they should have sent a memo in the review copy that "Ending A/B" aren't actually endings, they're just the midpoint of the game.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I do.
If a reviewer is churning out on average 5 reviews a day, they're a hack and noone should give a toss what they think.
Talk is cheap. If a pundit can't be bothered to put the legwork-in (such as it is) what use are they?
Sorry but if all that's required is a quick-and-dirty "hot take", then the position of critic is completely redundant and superfluous to requirement due to the existence of sites like this.
There's an inherent irony in that arts criticism -being historically meritocratic- is largely used these days as cheaply produced, but attention grabbing filler, to feed the internet's insatiable appetite for "content".
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Why do people who haven't actually finished or even played the game keep thinking they know better lol
No, you've literally only completed the first arc, act, chapter, call it what you will. The game even has an unmissable message at the end telling you that it's far from over and you haven't seen everything yet.
texhnolyze
Banned
This should've been in the cover.
Shitty attitude there. I will buy it when I am not busy with life.
No need to get personal.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Honestly I don't even have a problem with someone reviewing a game half-assed on its own, but it should be weighted accordingly if included in an aggregate at all.
You 👏 have 👏 not 👏 beaten 👏 the 👏 game 👏 when 👏 the 👏 credits 👏 roll
It is exactly like dropping the game 4 hours in, that is literally what he did.
Pretty much.
I think it's a fundamental issue with how they're known as endings.
In most games an ending is seen at the end of the game. Not at midpoints. So it's no surprise people stop playing half way through.
Especially with how Route B is
playing another character in the same story
I guess he could've been more polite, but like... you came in completely assuming the wrong thing instead of being informed first, so...
I told people at one point to stick to saying "Routes", or saying that A/B is the first half, though sometimes I slip myself.
----
As for everyone saying they should've made it more obvious, I mean, clearly I guess they should have, but damn, it's so straightforward lol
Even Route B starts off differently, so you'd think someone would be enticed to go through it and see what exactly is different...
I will be honest: I hated the demo. Hated the camera and the ikaruga-like sudden shift in fights. Hated the no target lock system.
Felt like I was playing a c-tier PS2 game. On top of that I loathed Drakengard ending system. Absolutely disgusting.
The reviews came afterwards and I was in shock. Was really expecting very low scores. Good thing I was wrong though because honestly I may troll a bit but I don't wish for any game to fail.
I gifted it to a friend and they loved it so I need to some free time to play it myself.
Sorry, but he could give the games I like the best score in the world, I would still raise an eyebrow at his methodology.
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
It's kind of funny how deeply programmed we are that some of us literally cannot process the concept of the game not being finished after the credits roll.
Originally, I thought the 26 different endings was just a self-depricating joke about how his games always have multiple endings, but seeing the response to the game, I wonder if it was meant to be both practical and mocking.
It establishes the concept that the word "ending" and a credit roll does not mean the story is finished, while poking fun at people who stop at the first ending of a game by pointing out how arbitrary that behavior is.
Originally, I thought the 26 different endings was just a self-depricating joke about how his games always have multiple endings, but seeing the response to the game, I wonder if it was meant to be both practical and mocking.
It establishes the concept that the word "ending" and a credit roll does not mean the story is finished, while poking fun at people who stop at the first ending of a game by pointing out how arbitrary that behavior is.
People accepted that schtick from MGSV. It is somewhat ridiculous that they won't accept it here.
I'm not saying it's a good situation at all, but the publications demand way too many reviews from the writers.
Using youtube letsplayers to aid in a review seems really shitty no matter how you slice it. How is seeing all the cutscenes going to give an informed opinion when they didnt play through the game to get those cutscenes?
You're supposed to review the user experience, not cash checks as quickly as possible! Most players that know about the third playthrough wouldn't just quit the game and watch the third playthrough unless they're REALLY lazy.
Reviewers aren't our friends (unless your friend is a reviewer) so I don't see why there'd be people rushing to their defense for anything other than actual shitty things like harassment or personal attacks. Criticizing the work someone did is entirely valid because work speaks for itself and work comes first in the public eye. To me that's like saying you can't criticize a game because people worked really hard on it. (although going by his description this reviewer didn't really work that hard on his review)
Gosh, as an aside...imagine if someone got ending
after
and sold the game back to gamestop thinking they beat it. (That'd be hilarious.)
You're supposed to review the user experience, not cash checks as quickly as possible! Most players that know about the third playthrough wouldn't just quit the game and watch the third playthrough unless they're REALLY lazy.
Reviewers aren't our friends (unless your friend is a reviewer) so I don't see why there'd be people rushing to their defense for anything other than actual shitty things like harassment or personal attacks. Criticizing the work someone did is entirely valid because work speaks for itself and work comes first in the public eye. To me that's like saying you can't criticize a game because people worked really hard on it. (although going by his description this reviewer didn't really work that hard on his review)
Gosh, as an aside...imagine if someone got ending
T
removing the OS chip
I agree with you and you shouldn't give him the time of day....but GAF will give these people the time of day regardless.
But how is that Metacritic's fault? Sites like Metacritic, Opencritic, Rottentomatoes, Gamerankings, etc don't actually ADD any value. They just compile review scores. If they were all incinerated from earth, something else would just rise and takes its place. You should direct your ire to the masses, from consumers to developers who put a shit ton of stock into review aggregates.
http://www.gaming-age.com/2017/04/nier-automata-review-ps4-pc/ - 10/10
Thought reviews were over tbh, although Edge still hasn't been added it seems.
The synergy lives to see another day.
Thought reviews were over tbh, although Edge still hasn't been added it seems.
The synergy lives to see another day.
http://www.gaming-age.com/2017/04/nier-automata-review-ps4-pc/ - 10/10
Thought reviews were over tbh, although Edge still hasn't been added it seems.
The synergy lives to see another day.
Never saw that before, that's amazing.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Games.cz gave it an 8.
With Edge's 8 not factored in yet, might be in for another dip to ruin that perfect synergy.
With Edge's 8 not factored in yet, might be in for another dip to ruin that perfect synergy.
Leona Lewis
Banned
...aaand 88.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
This is actually not true at all. Ebert used to walk out of movies & write reviews all the time.
Man I just wanna say, I just got to ending C, and when people say you can't stop at ending A or B and that they're practically the first half of the game, THEY WERE NOT KIDDING LIKE HOLY CRAP. This is like MGS5 but the second half is actually amazing instead of disappointing.
Yoko Taro games in a nutshell.
He always hides some of the best writing beyond the first two or so playthroughs.
THE MIRROR IS GONE :O
I honestly can't wait to play this game. I'm currently going through the first game, only complaints is the gameplay. All I hear is that people are placing this game in their top 10 and top 5. It's tempting me more!
I do really wish there was a "fast forward" feature in Route B.
I mean, the main quest is great ride, but having to play through it again right after is a bit tiring, especially when, so far, it's been exactly the same, minus a few small cut-scenes.
Maybe the second half will differentiate more from Route A.
Of course, the main issue here is the combat. Ten hours into route A, I've pretty much seen all the combat has to offer. It hasn't changed at all. I hope there are some gameplay differences in Route C.
Edit: Just realized this is the review thread, not the OT, whoops
I mean, the main quest is great ride, but having to play through it again right after is a bit tiring, especially when, so far, it's been exactly the same, minus a few small cut-scenes.
Maybe the second half will differentiate more from Route A.
Of course, the main issue here is the combat. Ten hours into route A, I've pretty much seen all the combat has to offer. It hasn't changed at all. I hope there are some gameplay differences in Route C.
Edit: Just realized this is the review thread, not the OT, whoops
Ironically, you kinda have to get past the credits to say you've actually beaten the game...
which is pretty much the hardest part.
I'm only about 5 hours in but I'd give it a 7 so far. I'm not sure what the hype is about but maybe the story is killer later on. But I can absolutely see why someone would review this poorly. It's kind of janky and if what I've read is accurate becomes repetitive (maybe not so bad, though?).
I dunno, first impressions are very important to some people. Myself included. Working for fun is not some people's definition of fun.
Anyway, a review is a review. I can see why some love this and others hate it, but I'm only so far through and my impressions will change.
I dunno, first impressions are very important to some people. Myself included. Working for fun is not some people's definition of fun.
Anyway, a review is a review. I can see why some love this and others hate it, but I'm only so far through and my impressions will change.
Well... alright then
Rickenslacker
Banned
I don't really care about reviews but I'm fine with a game not being completed before being reviewed. I'm all for citing Wolpaw's Law in that regardless of how good a game may eventually get, if the parts leading up to that aren't good, then the game is still not good.
I don't understand this post. I'm giving you my impressions about what I've played of the game so far. Is that a problem?
When you die on the first mission, you get a credits roll and your save file gets marked with one ending achieved. Is it ok to stop playing at 3 minutes and review the game right there?
You said you didn't see what the hype was about, but you're only 5 hours in. I mean, it kinda goes without saying that said "hype" lies far beyond that considering it's a rather lengthy game.
Your first impressions aren't suddenly invalid or anything, I just found that amusing lol
Radical Edward
Member
C'mon, some of the best games i've played this year start out slowly and make you work for the good stuff. Yakuza, Nier, Nioh, BotW and P5 all do this. Sometimes you need to build up the world and characters.
I don't think it's ever necessary for a review. If the review is "This was so bad / boring I couldn't even bother to finish it" I take that as a perfectly valid opinion.