The "I Got A New Game!" Thread

[coanda]

I typically ignore Metacritic until it dips below 60 points, at which point I have to ask, "Am I going to risk it?" And that was how I managed not to fall for The War Z's name chance to Infestation: Survivor Stories.

Also why I ended up not getting Omerta: City of Gangsters, which is sad because I was considering preordering it because it looked fun.

Metacritic averages are great at indicating things like how buggy a game is, and how memorable it is. So that's how I use them. You don't crack 90 unless you execute really well on all the basics; you don't reach the low 60s unless you have fundamental flaws with your game. The fact that a game has a high or low metacritic doesn't say that much about whether it is in a genre any individual player will be interested in, whether it had interesting ideas, what its particular strengths and weaknesses are... but for that, you can watch a youtube video or two; maybe *gasp* read a review.

For the curious... Metacritic stats!

Metacritic has (currently) 3020 PC games with scores, ranging from 96 (Half-Life, HL2, Bioshock, and... Out of the Park Baseball 2007! ) down to 8 (Big Rigs. Of course.).

A score of 89 or above puts a game solidly in the top 5% (there are actually exactly 100 games with scores of 90 or above right now). A score of 80 or above puts a game in the top 25%. 72+ puts a game in the top 50%. 62+ puts a game in the top 75% (or, not in the bottom quartile). Below 45 is the bottom 5%.

 

[SouthernKing]

Big Rigs is a work of art.

 

[Double A]

Big Rigs is a work of art.

"Big Rigs: Better than literal crap on a canvas!"

 

[civvver]

Metacritic scores aren't that useful by themselves but the reviews and the reasoning behind the scores are a great resource. Like why does diablo 3 have 88 critic score but 3.8 (38%) user score? Well lots of server issues is why. Some games also get patched later and turn into decent games. Other games are fine but ultimately boring (like stardrive). Other games simply don't live up to predecessors but are still good games (like dragon age 2. Nearly every negative review starts by comparing it to the first one).

 

[SouthernKing]

Metacritic scores aren't that useful by themselves but the reviews and the reasoning behind the scores are a great resource. Like why does diablo 3 have 88 critic score but 3.8 (38%) user score? Well lots of server issues is why. Some games also get patched later and turn into decent games. Other games are fine but ultimately boring (like stardrive). Other games simply don't live up to predecessors but are still good games (like dragon age 2. Nearly every negative review starts by comparing it to the first one).

It gets worse; SimCity 2013 at one point had an 80-something metascore and a 1.7 userscore.
If anything Metacritic is a good demonstration of the disconnect between the gaming media/press and the general crowd of gamers.

 

[Thrawn]

It gets worse; SimCity 2013 at one point had an 80-something metascore and a 1.7 userscore.
If anything Metacritic is a good demonstration of the disconnect between the gaming media/press and the general crowd of gamers.

I'd actually trust critic scores more than user scores on some games, because the user scores likely get abused and aren't an accurate reflection of how the gaming community rates the game. eg, the sim city score has probably been tanked by people giving it the lowest possible score because of the server problems, when I generally heard that the game play was pretty ok, so it's probably more around a 4 or 5.

I never really look at metacritic or reviews though. If I'm on the fence about a game I'd usually go check out a lets play or something, at least that way I get to see how the game actually plays.

 

[Sonereal]

It gets worse; SimCity 2013 at one point had an 80-something metascore and a 1.7 userscore.
If anything Metacritic is a good demonstration of the disconnect between the gaming media/press and the general crowd of gamers.

I would argue it is because reviewers and gamers get two different versions of the game. For instance, SimCity 2013 was rated higher by reviewers partially because the servers weren't breaking down on them. So, when users got a hold of the game and the servers started going bust, there's a disconnect. Likewise, you have the same problem with Diablo 3.

Then again, most of the SimCity 2013 user reviews are by people who don't like Origin, EA, or the direction they've taken the game, and not actually people who played the game. As such, remove the top and bottom fifths of the scores to get the real score.

 

[The_J]

I guess I know in the meantime that Maniacal doesn't like Risen ^^.
(and I'm not on his side; no idea about #2 though).

I just bought Expeditions: Conquistador.
I'm finding this a lot of fun. Running around Hispaniola and Mexico trying to ascertain the Spanish crown dominion over the new world isfun.

Oh, that's out now?
Would like to read a good review about it.
Seemed to be very interesting, but not sure if there can be enough diversity in the game.

 

[LDiCesare]

Expeditions: Conquistador is indeed out.
Be careful about reviews. Some were apparently done before they patched the game, and that patch changes a lot of things (namely you have an easy go-to mode on the worldmap, so critiques about trying to find your way through the jungle being hard are moot now).
I love this game.
You choose characters based on class and character traits. Mixing open-minded and racist characters will lead to some having poor morale because you can't have them all be happy with your choices for instance. The 5 classes are all useful in combat, although I personally don't like the scholar very much, but some think his veteran-level special ability is awesome. Combat are quite varied ith open maps, camp attacks, caves, temples, village maps. Combat objectives are also varied: Defeat all, flee, prevent enemies from fleeing, survive X turns. I like the abstraction of equipment too. I've been playing once through Hispaniola + Mexico, then a second time purposefully 'losing' the Hispaniola part just to see how it folded out. I plan to make another run using the native classes (shamans, trappers, champioins, warriors) which you can unlock using certain dialogue choices.
I love how being short on food makes me want to rush to the nearest pig who chances to appear on the map. Or try to reach the seashore for fishing.
One possible weakness of the game is you may tend to use always the same characters in combat and reuse the same tactics. However, maps are varied and some battles will happen afterevents that may force you to adapt. Also, wounds, higher difficulty or a lack of doctors may force you to adapt.
The AI is not perfect either (at normal level it tends to do too many silly moves), but it's definitely fun. Then again, I know it goes for doctors at highest difficulty levels, which is definitely the right thing to do.
Camping when you have wounded people forces you to make some interesting choices too (guard, hunt, let the severely wounded without treatment so you can get this harmlessly injured guy back before?).
Overall, I think I'll be playing through the whole game three times. On the second run, I found some places I had missed on the first, plus each companion has their own backstory with some events you can react to, so choosing different companions also varies the game a little bit.

 

[salty mud]

You mean fake difficult.

I'm guessing you're adventurer number 2. There's nothing fake about it at all. If you play it how it was meant to be played, i.e. not like Cowadootie, it's perfectly manageable.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Purchased myself Ty the Tasmanian Tiger 2013 for Windows 8 yesterday; it was but a mere 5 bucks!

Overall a solid game and worth the money from what I've gotten out of it, though it does carry on the trend of microtransactions - it costs 1.50 to unlock an extra character to play as. Small thing, though, as everything else can be purchased with the in-game currency, Opals.

Sly's looking like a badass as per usual so I'll probably give in and buy him because he's my favorite.

I also spent a good 50 bucks on Origin on the Sims 3 expansion packs... all the anti-Origin jokes aside, they had it cheaper than Steam, so I figured why not?

 

[Double A]

I guess I know in the meantime that Maniacal doesn't like Risen ^^.
(and I'm not on his side; no idea about #2 though).

So far 2 seems to be decent enough fun. I'm finally starting to get used to the combat. Like the first game, it's pretty terrible when you don't know exactly what you're doing. Rolling is a bit shot, though.

I'm guessing you're adventurer number 2. There's nothing fake about it at all. If you play it how it was meant to be played, i.e. not like Cowadootie, it's perfectly manageable.

I would know what you're talking about if the image didn't have size 2 font.

 

[civvver]

I mean it depends on the game, you definitely have to filter the user scores because a lot of them flat out say, "the game is decent but I hate company x so I gave it a 1." Or "game is good but I hate drm, 0." (or worse yet I hate steam lol) But I also don't straight up trust reviewers because they usually overlook technical issues (not always their fault, they might get a different game version) and they often don't play the game long enough or explore it fully enough. User scores are definitely more emotionally biased and it's good to sort through that, but reviewer scores are sometimes too shallow.

 

[Double A]

Just killed an earth titan and that was actually a pretty cool boss fight. The preceding fight was also rather fun and unusual in the fact that I had four blokes with muskets with me and there were like eight other guys. Risen 2 is really picking up.

 

[coanda]

Today I discovered that Dark Souls is a really lazy port to PC. For example... the camera mouse sensitivity is way higher than typical, the hotkeys are idiosyncratic ('end' for open menu?), and the game-starting control tutorial still tells you to use the console controls (e.g., it says 'press A to read' instead of 'press q to read, press A to run to your left and charge into a wall like an idiot'), and the game defaults to windowed mode rather than full screen.

The game itself looks like it may end up being fun; I just wish they'd put a bit more effort into polishing the port.

 

[Maniacal]

Its not a lazy port, its literally the Xbox 360 game but on the PC. Even worse than lazy, and its made all the more sad by how it took modders mere hours (if that) to come out with several fixes for numerous issues.

Despite the modes for graphical improvements the screenshots still look like arse.

 

[salty mud]

Today I discovered that Dark Souls is a really lazy port to PC. For example... the camera mouse sensitivity is way higher than typical, the hotkeys are idiosyncratic ('end' for open menu?), and the game-starting control tutorial still tells you to use the console controls (e.g., it says 'press A to read' instead of 'press q to read, press A to run to your left and charge into a wall like an idiot'), and the game defaults to windowed mode rather than full screen.

The game itself looks like it may end up being fun; I just wish they'd put a bit more effort into polishing the port.

Not to mention the mouse never disappears. It really is poorly done. Though it does warn you that an Xbox 360 controller is nigh essential for the game. Playing it without a controller is probably nothing more than an exercise in frustration.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

I've said it before. It's impossible to play it without the mouse and graphics fixes.
I'm quite sure there were no PCs in the office building where the game was ported and no one actually tried it after they ported it.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I downloaded the graphics mod, and play it with a controller (a logitech dual thingie). I love the game, made it 15 hours in during christmas break and had fun. Still not very far because my progress is slow and I'm risk averse so I explore little by little. Been meaning to get back to it.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I would know what you're talking about if the image didn't have size 2 font.

Essentially it's a comic by veterans of the game who apparently made no mistakes in their first playthrough of the game. Or maybe hindsight is 20/20. One of these is more likely.