Not bad. Most reliable critics point out it’s solid, with some flaws in dialogue and drag in the combat system. Inter-person relationship building in the expanded cast seems to be a strong part. My personal category of the game is “it has a punk soul”, which I tend to value higher than any flaws a thing may have.
It is also very much a deliberate “Fuck you! Fight me!” entry in the culture war, so the reactionary responses are correspondingly strong and angry.
In spite of everything I’ve heard I kinda wanna try it. The graphics look good, the story sounds neat. I’m sure I’d have some fun with it. I like the “Fuck you Fight me” aspect too lol. I vibe with punk soul very much, part of the reason I love Cyberpunk 2077.
It’s a lot more nuanced than ever presented in the hate videos or reviews. Like the protagonists being deliberately flawed, the villains (or the people presented in those reviews as villains) are also portrayed as human: misinformed but not inherently evil; capable of empathy and questioning their beliefs; seemingly caricature at first, but then showing a different side.
Yeah, it’s clear some of the angriest critics completely missed that. :D
According to the reviews I just read, a general consensus is that the main characters are a bunch of assholes making their way through a shitty world. So the game isn’t likely to be a pleasant ride if you go in expecting something else.
Whatever message there is, it’s slightly open to interpretation, so if you do go in, try to keep an open mind and experience it objectively.
I wouldn’t agree with the assessment of the main characters being a-holes. Maybe in the carefully cut clips devoid of the full context.
In the first scenes, the protagonist is indeed somewhat mean to her crew, but the game immediately tells you as much, to show you that abusing the special abilities, Vox, is not a good idea. From there, it’s up to the player whether to listen to every dialogue to the end or to interrupt, whether to avoid using the charged Vocals or to use them frequently. Going by the post-chapter stats at the end of one particular chapter, most players choose to avoid them at least in that instance.
Lol, this is my first time hearing about this game. On gog.com it has 1.8/5 score, or 4.8 from verified owners.
That would suggest that most people who’ve played it liked it well enough.
Same. Steam user reviews seems fairly positive though, which is surprising with how much games get trashed there by the wokeism babies.
Personally I think the trailers look horrid though and I was fed up with those cartoon graphic styles when they came out a couple decades ago already.
If you’re looking for a story about friendship & adventure, then I’d rather suggest CrossCode, which is highly “underrated” (not so much by ratings but its lack of exposure).
This is a demonstration of selection bias, if the game is your cup of tea, you’re probably going to like it. The game is really well put together for what it is, the promotional material tells you exactly what the game’s going to be. And if that’s what you like, you’re going to like it.
For the people who aren’t going to like the game, they’re not going to buy it. So no surprises
So gog reviews are from people who didn’t buy it?
gog allows people that don’t own the game to review it, I think it makes sense for some of the older titles, where people who had the game decades ago can chime in, and others where people might have the game on steam but not gog.
It’s good that it keeps separate ratings, but would be nicer if verified owners had more emphasis, instead of simply listing the most recent review at the top.
Yeah, that just seems like an invitation for review bombing (the undeserved kind). I’d probably just disable unowned reviews for titles released past a certain date, assuming your hypothesis is indeed the original intend behind it.
Unknown, I have no idea how gog works
Don’t know about “good”. But I started watching a playthrough the other day and had to stop because the “cool” dialogue was very obnoxious and overwhelming. I physically couldn’t keep watching. Sure, that’s also due to my disability but I very rarely have that just with voiced dialogue.
Same. I tried watching a playthrough of it, but man was the writing obnoxious. The gameplay didn’t seem all that interesting either.
Even the positive reviews of the games have criticism of how the story is implemented and that the gameplay drags. But on steam it is overall positive and it looks like honest reviews far outnumber the culture war bullshit.
Some of the positive reviews have some good criticism of the main character being manipulative and the game not showing authority being evil, just telling you they are. Kinda reads like a good game and story idea with mediocre implementation.
Short of the introductory scenes that teach you to avoid using the special abilities, I can’t think of a case of the protagonist being manipulative in a negative way. It’s worth noting that she can be as bad as the player though, if they decide to interrupt people and use her powers to the same end.
To your second point, there are enough examples of Justice being bad, like their officers talking about arresting people purely out of being annoyed, being kinda racist (e.g. saying that two Black individuals must be siblings, then to themselves wondering if that’s racist), going after a little girl for having special powers, experimenting on people, persecuting all people with special powers and regularly calling them deviants (all while claiming to promote diversity), trying to arrest peaceful protesters, and so on.
Why not both?
My review from awhile ago:
https://hackertalks.com/post/4156518
If your into the messaging it’s well put together with care, so it’s good and also culture war.
If your not into the messaging, then it’s bad and also culture war
if your just curious how people are thinking and looking at the irony of the philosophy of methods, then it’s fascinating
I read the question as. “Is this game bad for reason #1 or for reason #2?” It assumes the game is bad.
deleted by creator
Video game arguments
If only the community name was descriptive so people could know what it was about… It would make the link relevant
