Support NeoGAF

[TheAmazingSpiderMan]

It could have perfect score by the ‘gaming journalists’ of today but it if it doesn’t sit well with actual fans then it won’t sell well.

 

[icecold1983]

Low 90s lol. Maybe from IGN.

 

[yamaci17]

Same. Love AC. Mirage just wasn't good though.

it's like they didn't even try, it's such a hollow game, it's incredible actually
no actual attempt to tell any story in the current timeline
waste loki in the worst way possible
it's like the whole game itself is just a chapter 1 of a 3 chapter game. it just abruptly ends

it is why AC Shadows is in a tough spot. it has nothing to build up upon. i hope they can deliver something unique this time...

 

[SJRB]

it's like they didn't even try, it's such a hollow game, it's incredible actually
no actual attempt to tell any story in the current timeline
waste loki in the worst way possible
it's like the whole game itself is just a chapter 1 of a 3 chapter game. it just abruptly ends

it is why AC Shadows is in a tough spot. it has nothing to build up upon. i hope they can deliver something unique this time...

In fairness Mirage was a lower budget game originally started as DLC for Valhalla.

It has its shortcomings, yes. The story is bad, the voice acting super bad and most missions not very interesting. But as a smaller-scale spinoff going back to the roots of the franchise they did a good job. Looks quite spectacular too, maxed out on pc.

I had fun traversing a massive city again, first time since Unity.

 

[MMaRsu]

It looks fantastic

No it doesnt?

 

[Topher]

No it doesnt?

Opinions. Looks pretty dang good to me.

 

[Saber]

Valhalla got a steady 80 and is a bloaty taxing game, that sucks the life of the player with its repeatness, dumb button mashing and loot system.
Shadows will probably win points for its inclusivity, something Wukong didn't have (shame on you). Afterall we all remember the masterpiece Deadloop was.

 

[Kacho]

I hope it gets a 92 just for the LOLs

 

[anyasok]

DEI slop

 

[kikkis]

I hope it's good. Times have changed but when i played odyssey in 2018 it was pretty incredible gaming experience for me. I can't articulate quite why and if I played it today I might get bored pretty quickly

 

[HRK69]

No it doesnt?

You really dislike this game eh?

 

[MMaRsu]

You really dislike this game eh?

No? Have you seen the latest videos?







Combat made 10 years ago. Npc's just standing around pretending to have conversations. But noone is actually conversing with eachother

0 interaction with npc's at all

Red dead 2 came out what five years ago?

Horse animations and sounds exactly like Valhalla (so bad)

The ai seems retarded

Combat looks boring and spongy

Why would people be hyped for a game that looks this mediocre

 

[StereoVsn]

I am sure it’s going to be “Return to Form” and “Mass Effect 2 Moment” for Ubisoft with some glowing reviews.

But Yosuke aside, combat looked mediocre, especially Samurai side, and so did animations. Overall feeling from preview videos seems to be of a game designed 10 years back.

I see no improvement from say Odyssey and if anything a bit of degradation, but of course that’s just judging by gameplay videos.

So any reviews that are going to be glowing in high 80s and into 90s I am going to side eye.

 

[EN250]

Reviewers giving high scores to some big ass game made by big ass publisher in order to get their free shit and claim to "own teh ChUdS"?

What a novel concept right there...

 

[Complistic]

Doubt.

 

[SJRB]

No? Have you seen the latest videos?







Combat made 10 years ago. Npc's just standing around pretending to have conversations. But noone is actually conversing with eachother

0 interaction with npc's at all

Red dead 2 came out what five years ago?

Horse animations and sounds exactly like Valhalla (so bad)

The ai seems retarded

Combat looks boring and spongy

Why would people be hyped for a game that looks this mediocre

What if I told you RDR2 came out not five but 6.5 years ago?

6.5 years since the evolution of dynamic NPC behavior and nobody has even come close to adapting it. Not even Ubi, the megacorp with ten thousands of developers has even bothered to try and incorporate something akin to RDR2's NPC system.

And the result is a game that comes out a whole console generation later but feels like a remaster of something that came out two generations ago.

 

[Gamerfan81]

A game reviewed to be in the 90s means it's in the Witcher 3, Breath of the Wild, Mario Galaxy, Red Dead Redemption 2, Elden Ring, Resident Evil 2 and 4 Remake territory.

Only the greatest and most classic games are in that category.

From what I've seen from the previews and game play, this game isn't even in that tier.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

lol yes because we all use reviews to gauge quality these days.

Considering the hype for meta scores and review threads for most huge AAA titles nowadays...yeah...people still care about those.

 

[anyasok]

No? Have you seen the latest videos?







Combat made 10 years ago. Npc's just standing around pretending to have conversations. But noone is actually conversing with eachother

0 interaction with npc's at all

Red dead 2 came out what five years ago?

Horse animations and sounds exactly like Valhalla (so bad)

The ai seems retarded

Combat looks boring and spongy

Why would people be hyped for a game that looks this mediocre

Still better than Avowed lol
On a serious note though, not one company would spend as much money on an actual game as Rockstar spends on theirs. Its just not happening.
Best we can expect is something like Horizon Forbidden West maybe

 

[pudel]

90+ would be a joke....unless "gaming journalists" clearly can work out what makes this game so much better than Valhalla/Odyssey. Its the same game just in a different setting. Story looks stupidly lame and boring as usual.

 

[anyasok]

Guys, calm down, its not getting 90+ lol
I still predict it would score higher than Valhalla and Mirage though. 85+ would be a win for Ubi. Whether it will save them or not is another question

 

[Punished Miku]

I hope its good. I get all these eventually after a few years when they're $15.

 

[Pedro Motta]

I think it looks pretty cool, will buy it day one.

 

[HRK69]

Combat made 10 years ago. Npc's just standing around pretending to have conversations. But noone is actually conversing with eachother

AC games always have a balance between predictable AI and dynamic responses

Not every NPC will have a conversation with you. You might want to wait another 5 years or so before AI advances enough to give each group of NPCs unique dialogue every time you walk by

- You can clearly hear murmuring when walking past certain groups of NPCs
- You can hear guards having conversations

0 interaction with npc's at all

I know you're exaggerating. That said, there are reports of a reputation system that influences NPC behavior

Red dead 2 came out what five years ago?

And? Different goals, different design philosophy. RDR2 prioritized extreme realism, while Shadows is focuses action and stealth

Even if we scrutinized every third person game, none would match the level of detail in Red Dead Redemption 2. So, it's hardly a valid argument

Not every game needs to be RDR2 to be great

Combat looks boring and spongy

I think it looks bad ass

Why would people be hyped for a game that looks this mediocre

Because it’s finally an AC game set in feudal Japan, something fans have wanted for over a decade

The new mechanics and dual protagonist system bring fresh elements to the series

It might not have the graphical leap most expected (or wanted), but the graphics still look solid enough

 

[RoboFu]

Don't care.. all I wanted was a Japanese ninja dude. Not a samurai foreigner. Not a split between two characters to level. Easily skippable for me. Even more so since the Viking game wasn't that great.

 

[Peroroncino]

If this janky ass looking game gets 90+ I'm gonna call it a conspiracy and nobody's gonna convince me otherwise

 

[Generic]

So why is this game bad again? It looks like Ghost of Tsushima but with much more verticality.

 

[GymWolf]

What if I told you RDR2 came out not five but 6.5 years ago?

6.5 years since the evolution of dynamic NPC behavior and nobody has even come close to adapting it. Not even Ubi, the megacorp with ten thousands of developers has even bothered to try and incorporate something akin to RDR2's NPC system.

And the result is a game that comes out a whole console generation later but feels like a remaster of something that came out two generations ago.

Particularly funny when you think that wd2 has some of the best npcs simulatioms so ubisoft regressed in some aspects even compared to their past games.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

All of these reviews are paid for. Of course they're gonna be great. Will be interesting to see what actual customers say about the game after launch.

 

[Kacho]

So why is this game bad again? It looks like Ghost of Tsushima but with much more verticality.

The better question is why would we believe this game will review in the high 80s/low 90s when everything we've seen looks completely mediocre?

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Origins = 81
Odyssey = 83
Valhalla = 80

From everything I've seen, no shot it's 10 points higher than those games. Frankly, I'm expecting the usual suspects to use the Yasuke political shit to prop this game up like they did with Veilguard, but even then I'd be shocked if it hit 90.

You could argue the same the other way too. There'll be people using his inclusion as a reason to knock it down.

You literally couldn't argue that because there aren't any games journalists like that. There is no such thing as a right wing mainstream media game journalist, it doesn't exist.

So based on the context of this conversation, if the game gets a good score, it's fake and a enforcing a political agenda because of a black character. Then it's argued that it could also be the other way around if the score is low......but that won't happen because there aren't any right wing journalists to knock it down due to the inclusion of a black protagonist....

A legit good score is just out of the realm of possibility....

 

[MMaRsu]

Even if we scrutinized every third person game, none would match the level of detail in Red Dead Redemption 2. So, it's hardly a valid argument

Why ? Why are games from 6 years ago not something that other devs can do?

Especially one as big as Ubisoft.

You gotta stop capping for this shit ass company

 

[Topher]

So based on the context of this conversation, if the game gets a good score, it's fake and a enforcing a political agenda because of a black character. Then it's argued that it could also be the other way around if the score is low......but that won't happen because there aren't any right wing journalists to knock it down due to the inclusion of a black protagonist....

A legit good score is just out of the realm of possibility....

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell.

 

[hemo memo]

I'd be really surprised if it hit 90 or higher.

 

[Fake]

Just like Deathloop.

 

[RafterXL]

So based on the context of this conversation, if the game gets a good score, it's fake and a enforcing a political agenda because of a black character. Then it's argued that it could also be the other way around if the score is low......but that won't happen because there aren't any right wing journalists to knock it down due to the inclusion of a black protagonist....

A legit good score is just out of the realm of possibility....

It's not out of the realm of possibility, but when we've had a decade of game journalists using their platform to push liberal political ideology in games, it's certainly less possible.

Better yet, show me a single mainstream game journalist that has ever pushed a right wing position in a video game preview, review or even a tweet. Like one. On the opposite side of the spectrum this shit happens daily. So you claiming it could go either way it a laughable fallacy, because it literally doesn't exist the other way. You can't "both sides" this. There are no two sides in mainstream video game journalism, there is only one, and that's why they are dying out and no one trusts them.

 

[hemo memo]

I hope its good. I get all these eventually after a few years when they're $15.

Few years? You mean few months.

 

[PatientGamer]

All the racists will review bomb the game to filth.

 

[Bartski]

 

[hemo memo]

Just like Deathloop.

Even a time loop couldn't fix that turd.

 

[Breakfast_At_Noon]

They saying that like we trust those people reviewing them.
Majority of us don't.

 

[Kacho]

It's not out of the realm of possibility, but when we've had a decade of game journalists using their platform to push liberal political ideology in games, it's certainly less possible.

Better yet, show me a single mainstream game journalist that has ever pushed a right wing position in a video game preview, review or even a tweet. Like one. On the opposite side of the spectrum this shit happens daily. So you claiming it could go either way it a laughable fallacy, because it literally doesn't exist the other way. You can't "both sides" this. There are no two sides in mainstream video game journalism, there is only one, and that's why they are dying out and no one trusts them.

Nailed it

 

[Peroroncino]

So based on the context of this conversation, if the game gets a good score, it's fake and a enforcing a political agenda because of a black character. Then it's argued that it could also be the other way around if the score is low......but that won't happen because there aren't any right wing journalists to knock it down due to the inclusion of a black protagonist....

A legit good score is just out of the realm of possibility....

<looks at veilguard scores>

Yes.

 

[saintjules]

Say it with me!

Scores. Do. Not. Matter. Your. Thoughts. Do.

 

[GudOlRub]

Henderson has been sucking AC Shadow's cock for a long time for some reason, despite Ubisoft's own actions and marketing telling us otherwise.
Curious to see how well or terribly the game does.

 

[Gonzito]

This is a much better showcase of the game, this guy knows how to play

 

[HRK69]

Why ? Why are games from 6 years ago not something that other devs can do?

Especially one as big as Ubisoft.

You gotta stop capping for this shit ass company

Look, I get it. But just because it's 6 years old doesn’t mean it’s the standard for everyone

I've always been critical of Ubisoft. To me, they're like the King (the company behind Candy Crush) of modern gaming, always churning out the same games with slight variations, much like how King keeps making similar mobile games

 

[dgrdsv]

It will have to be actually incredible to score low 90s and I'm just not seeing an AC game being that.

 

[RCX]

Get ready for legacy games media to throw themselves on another hand grenade.

 

[Exede]

I'm waiting for the usual discount with all the DLC available.
This is not day1 game for me.