Yeah, was probably the wrong synonym. He's a dishonest reviewer. He's heralded on here as some kind of reliable and trustworthy reviewer but he clearly speaks from both sides of the mouth. He's been caught out on this a number of times, offering contradictory points a matter of weeks apart. He knows his audience and is quite willing to bend his own opinion to the consensus for more clicks.
Nah, I watch his content regularly and none of what you're saying is true at all. He's had a few games where he came away from a hands on preview session with optimism, but was disappointed in the final product. That's not being dishonest. In any case, he usually provides more than enough context to explain why he changed his opinion on something.
It's getting great reviews from pretty much every site.
Nothing wrong with updating your view based on fresh information or new experiences. Specific examples? I like both of them (and a few others).
It doesn’t seem to be meh. It’s basically got the same meta critic rating as of now as FF16 which was supposed to be a very good game albeit with only 51 reviews counter, so that’s subject to change. It doesn’t seem to be an absolute must play / one of the greats or anything but a strong game nonetheless based on most reviews. If you’re looking for a Bethesda experience it’s one you’ll definitely have a lot of fun with, if you’re not to keen on that, there’s nothing to be missed here.
Considering how inflated reviews scores are and AAA games tend to get extra love from the reviewers 87 isnt very high. Diablo IV got 91 on Xbox one and that a incredibly mediore game.
I massively disagree. I'm happy to see reviewers switch stances if a game isn't representative of what they played in a curated session with the devs. I'd say the fact that he occasionally changes his mind on a product shows that he's a reliable reviewer who isn't scared to say a game is bad regardless of what he may have previously said.
Unfortunately, the moment publishers started specifically targeting metacritic scores, they made them completely useless as a tool for consumers.
Aggregate scores are fine to vaguely gauge where a game sits, but comparing the exact scores is pointless. Starfield currently sits on 88 on Opencritic, which is similar to other AAA titles like FF XVI, FF VII Remake, Spider-Man, Nier Automata, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, etc. All good to great games depending on who you ask.
Managed to drag your old arse out of bed after your Horlicks session eh?
Always been the same thing to me. Not worth relying on bar a quick glimpse as to the general mood, it's better to read the actual reviews themselves.
Happy days! Congrats.Managed to drag your old arse out of bed after your Horlicks session eh?
I've had a right touch. Made it all the way into that shithole London, right in the center (driving btw, pain!) only to pull up and have the client cancel. So now although I have to make it home in the miserable rain with the twunts on the road, I can charge a fat fee which more than pays for Starfield and the next few days off and I get to sit on my arse playing this all weekend.
It doesn't happen often, but when it does:
10 is a great review.
Nah i always found them somewhat reliable untill triple A games got inflated scores for production values. And the reviewers probably got paid off. But we are all different. Some thing Horizen zero dawn is incredible and has a brilliant story. I thought it was god awful robot dinosaur hunting with a terrible story.
Im 10 minutes in and I find it incredibly buggy. Playing on PC.
I ain’t had none of that dude. Barely a dropped frame so far.
Playing on your own hardware or a streaming service?
Xbox X innit
I don't think that for gamers it needs to be a GOTY contender, if you have an XBox then its just another fun game you can play this year.
I’m surprised by this as even some of the review scores on the lower end have generally praised how few bugs there are, I think ACG mentioned he had a few companions who glitched and that was about it. Is there anything in particular that triggers it or is it just random constant bugs you’re experiencing?
Constant lag within every encounter, missing audio lypsync and audio. Just bugs and bugs. Recommend graphic settings low despite having a good rig i got last autumn. Having everything on low didnt help. Tried installing a nvidia drls mod that didnt help and maybe made things worse. So redownloading and reinstalling the game on steam on the other harddrive to see if it somehow works.
That’s so shit, especially when you’ve paid for early access
Hopefully that works for you dude.
I cant see why it would work though. Im reading tons of people having the same issues on the steam forums with even higher end computers. Waiting months for a patch that hopefully might work really sucks ass.
Yes dude.
Well thats the beauty of consoles. No troubleshooting because everyone is playing on the same.
I'm sure on their podcast he said he didn't even experience Factions til 75 hours in with his review tied up already. Theres obviously some fair frustrations with the game, but he was always going to score it lower after all the shit he got for giving Fallout 4 a 10. And we know IGNs traffic is mostly PS focussed
