reviews - its funny | Forums

[SofaJockey]

If the reviewers had praised the game universally, I would have believed them. As such, I can't dismiss them when they universally pan it for predatory micro-transactions (which were only scaled back BECAUSE of their critique) and major structural / gameplay flaws. Just because my own personal biases and preferences mitigate these flaws for me doesn't mean that they aren't there. I respect their opinions and overall stance.

The biggest problem with the microtransaction fake outrage is that if there had been pay2win MTXs included at launch. Yes, they were in the beta, then that would have deserved strong ire.
So given that they have been removed, kicking the game to the same degree anyway teaches game developers that you may as well include a full selection of microtransactions anyway because you'll get lambasted whatever you do.

Most of the reviewers appear to have given up nuance and simply lined up with the mob. They have a readership to cater to and some of their lack of independent thought is disappointing. Nuanced reviews would have credited the game with its many pros as well as given measured critique of its issues. Instead, reviewers appear to be joining in with the review-bomb mentality you see on MetaCritic where if a game isn't your GOTY, it's valid to rate it 0 to 2/10. No that isn't valid if any game ranking system is to have meaning.

[secretzrus]

So, wait...we're pretending that micro-transactions are the only problem reviewers have with this game now? That's what we're doing?

[Newman_Oldman1]

It's funny how that in the time we live in, people let paid reviewers with agendas and haters dictate what we like and don't like.

I'm getting really tired of people dismissing people providing criticisms as "haters". It's just a form of projection. Most criticism of Breakpoint is perfectly valid and articulate; it's the people defending it I've seen who can't provide any sort of proof that the criticisms are baseless, nor do they provide any examples as to how the game is good. Nobody is "letting paid reviewers" dictate what they do and don't like. Reviews exist to act as a source of information that the consumer can use to take into account as to whether or not they will like a product, but it is not necessarily the only factor. Just because you like a game many others hate doesn't mean that it's just a "hate train", there are perfectly valid reasons to dislike this game.

The reviewers on this game, for instance, are so biased due to the micro-transactions that they completely ditch a great game and yet embrace a goofy game like cuphead - a game that reminds me or Bullwinkle form the 80s.

The microtransactions are hardly the only issue with this game, and it's annoying that defenders are acting like that's the only criticism being levied against the game. How about the **** story, **** acting, **** dialogue, numerous bugs and glitches, confused design decisions, the ill-fitting loot mechanics, the half-assed survival mechanics, and the poorly balanced sliding and stamina mechanics? And how are you criticising Cuphead in this discussion? It's a creative and well-designed game that has a clear direction and a great soundtrack. It's goofy because it's emulating 1930s animation style. In contrast, Ghost Recon is supposed to be a grounded tactical shooter, but Breakpoint is set on a fictional island owned by an eccentric tech billionaire with a robot army that is taken over by former Ghosts, complete with a tiered loot system and "raids". What's Breakpoint's excuse for being goofy?

Gamespot gave this game a 4 and Gears 5 a 7 and they both monetize

The difference is that even the single player for Breakpoint is designed to make room for monetization, and Gears is not. Having said that, the monetization itself in Breakpoint doesn't even really bother me, it's the fact that they created a grind with the loot system that was intended to make the game more tedious to encourage purchasing. And once again, you're treating these reviews as if the monetization is the only factor in the review scores and that is not the case. I can't speak for the reviewers, but I'm guessing that the bugs, poor optimization, repetition, and confused design of Breakpoint contributed to its score as well. Gears 5 is also repetitive, but at least its a coherent and focused experience with decent plot and acting and probably has minimal bugs, especially compared to Breakpoint.

This game is several times larger and has much more content.

Bigger isn't always better. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Gears of War series, but Wildlands and Breakpoint (among other Ubi games) are filled with boring, pointless, repetitive busy work to pad out the unnecessarily large maps. There's something to be said for smaller, tighter level design. Dishonored series, Deus Ex series, Hitman, MGS Ground Zeroes are all prime examples of open-ended standalone levels that have multiple approaches and high replayability that don't rely on empty open worlds filled with repetitive busy work. Honestly, I think Ghost Recon would be much better suited to open-ended standalone levels designed around squad tactics than it is as a generic open world game.