Red Dead Online continues to be my biggest gaming disappointment in…probably ever. When you look at the potential it had/has, especially based on what Rockstar already created for the single player game, it’s sort of confusing. It’s not like they don’t know what their audience wants, it’s not like they need to do all…

I also have to wonder if there’s some internal reasons why Sony was lukewarm on it. I recall the devs saying Sony all but gave them a blank check and freedom to “just go for it.” But then the devs returned a generic zombie open world game that was largely a chore to play and buggy af on release.

Man, people will use anything to kick up some drama, get their internet attention, and try to score some points from…whoever is keeping their score. 

Here’s the thing about Biomutant. A 6/10 is a perfectly reasonable score for someone to give it. It just so happens to be a 6/10 game that I sunk 80 hours into. It’s weird and flawed, but the exploration and looting/crafting is on point, and combat can be fun if you’re looking for something simple. 

I can see that being great for interiors - casinos in particular - as well as the boardwalk, but I’m not sure about the general exterior. Then again, the last time I was in AC I got so blasted I haven’t drank since so my memory is spotty.

I dream of a Division 3 that rips off Biomutant’s loot and crafting loop. (We know Ubi isn’t above snatching what works from other games.)

I would absolutely love to see this type of thing become as prominent as the “souls” genre, specifically with more games focusing on gamifying traversal and carving out the world (I would add that “logistics” be a part of the strand genre). Like the souls genre, I’m not into the 2D iterations of them, but whatever -…

I’m disappointed by the number of conceptually cool games that end up being battle royales. Like Hunter Arena Legends has such fun gameplay, but like any other BR I just feel empty after a run. I mean, it’s great if you love BR, but it combines my two least favorite things in games: a lack of meaningful permanent…

Perhaps this is jaded of me (no, no, it’s absolutely jaded of me), but I’ve come to assume that people who have jobs as personalities in front of a camera are playing a role (even if they don’t start off that way, that’s where it goes). They’re there to make money, and if that means saying fuck capitalism in a…

Kotaku has long maintained that staying consistent in this area is NOT a responsibility of theirs, and that individual writers will bring their individual view for that specific post. Which is why I mention the importance of context, which can come in the form of either the general reception of the main game or with…

I’d say fine and average are equal descriptors. Like, if I played a game of average quality and someone asked me how it was, I’d probably say “it was fine.” Because it’s not being used like “fine wine.” Fine is like a shrug. It’s average. It’d be more like 7 is decent/fine/average, 8 is good and for some reason the…

I noticed that about SkillUp’s review too and agree. I think a lot of people will look at my post as just fussing that she didn’t like the game, but I really don’t care whether or not she did. It was just a weird way to communicate their position, as if its mediocrity could be left unsaid. (She replied to me directly…

It came across that way to me because (and I’m stealing the words from a commenter above, who put it more succinctly than I could): this feels like this was written without the awareness that the base game was very well received.

It’s more of a weird tonal and contextual thing. When someone writes a post about the expansion for a mostly-lauded game and they’re like “well, like the base game, it’s just fine” (paraphrasing), it’s a bit jarring. Since now we’re referring to the quality of the base game in absolute terms, it takes a moment to…

I agree with you, as I said:

I referred to this in my reply to someone else, but it’s weird to read a post casually talking about a game’s mediocrity as though that was the known and accepted consensus, when said game has an 83 critic score and a 91 user score on metacritic and was nominated for Game of the Year.

Right? When I saw the headline, I thought “oh man, not as good as the main game then, damn,” but then I read the article and was like “wait what??”

That’s one of the things I love about the Bloodborne community. Even if someone does throw out a git gud, it’s the most polite git gud you’ll ever see. They’ll be like “it seems like you’re doing everything right, I feel you, most players struggled on this boss. Unfortunately this is just one of those ‘git gud’…

It’s incredible how already spoiled I am with loading times. I played Ghost for a little bit the other day, but even those fast load times after playing Miles Morales felt like an eternity.

I wouldn’t say DS3 is Bloodborne gameplay in the Dark Souls universe, though. DS3 sort of split the difference between the two, or at least that’s what it seemed like they were trying to do, but whatever the case, it mostly equated to just faster Dark Souls.