Bevendre

fleurmod:

After a decent drought the PS4 has a new exclusive, and it’s not been met particularly well.  With ratings averaging around 6.5 throughout the web, how bad could it be?  Is it a waste of an exclusive, or are reviewers being too rough on the game with complaints about its length and its gameplay?  

---

Read More

After a decent drought the PS4 has a new exclusive, and it’s not been met particularly well.  With ratings averaging around 6.5 throughout the web, how bad could it be?  Is it a waste of an exclusive, or are reviewers being too rough on the game with complaints about its length and its gameplay?  

Keep reading

fleurmod:

Crap crap crap crap, I’m blanking on how to set the Papi update or even what to include in it!

I keep trying to figure out the framing for this update and nothing’s sounding or feeling right.  Just a warning that the Papi update may not be up this weekend unless I get ideas running soon.

Crap crap crap crap, I’m blanking on how to set the Papi update or even what to include in it!

Alright, gonna try and get the Papi update done today (might post tomorrow morning).  The Raricow post should come up around Tuesday, and a new Fleur update should also go up within the week.

Thanks for 100 followers on askfleurdelait!

“That’s a made up word, you can’t use it!”
“True, it is made up.  Like every word ever used ever in all of recorded history.  Language is a fluid social construct not a naturally regulated entity, you douchenugget.”

rules-broken-fate-rewritten replied to your post: The Order 1886 reviews are beginning to roll out…

the devs are going into damage control mode as well, lying about what the reviews said.

I have not heard of the devs going into damage control in regards to the reviews, especially since they can’t really change the reviews without doing some shady things to smaller reviewers like some smaller indie devs did last year.  I do know that they reacted last week to the let’s play of the review copy that came up on youtube and finished the game in 5 hours, saying that that was on the low end of the spectrum and that the player was rushing through the game.  That claim has been supported by most reviews that have come out, as every review I’ve seen placed the game around 8-10 hours for a typical playthrough.

When reviewing a created work, I think something that’s often forgotten across mediums is that pieces from different genres can’t really be held as comparable to one another at raw base value.  The point of a review is to judge how successfully a piece accomplishes what it set out to do, not necessarily how revolutionary or unheard of its advances are, or how present aspects are that it made no claim of having.

One cannot judge a movie marketed as a budget romantic comedy for its use of visual aesthetic or cinematic setpieces because Avatar came out.  One cannot judge a movie marketed as a popcorn fluff explosion fest for the way that it demonstrates the human condition and the faults of modern capitalism because Oscar-bait movies have come out doing just that.  If a movie markets itself as one thing, especially if it does so heavily, then it should be held up to its marketing and the expectations therein, and compared with other films that have proved successful in that genre.

The same is true for books, and in today’s world, video games.  One cannot judge a linear platformer or shooter that takes 5-6 hours to finish for a new player along the same grounds as they would judge an epic 80 hour RPG.  The genres are so staunchly opposed in intent, motive and marketing that they are virtually incomparable.  That, I feel, is where a lot of corporate/professional reviewers, and a large mount of upset gamers fall into a pitfall.  Because the video game market has become so saturated with new releases people neglect to look at a game for what it is and what it directly portrays itself as.  Many people hold everything in the medium on a flat scale with little to no variation for presentation type or genre, and personally I find that approach fundamentally flawed.  

People are more than welcome to have their opinions and preferences on what they enjoy in a game, or any medium, but if a game, movie, what have you does not fall into those parameters, that does not mean that that piece is inherently bad.  Just because a piece does fall within the realm of one’s preferences does not make it inherently good, especially if nostalgia is involved.  A review, and criticism in general is meant to highlight the aspects of the piece that are generally well done, and the aspects that need polish, whether they are the aspects that one looks for in particular or not.  How heavily the various aspects of creation should also not be held at a concrete flat line, but left adaptable based on how well the medium accomplishes its intent and fulfills its marketed promises. 

The Order 1886 reviews are beginning to roll out with middling scores, with pros being absolutely stunning presentation, strong narrative and good characters, and cons being relatively average third person shooting mechanics and a heavy reliance upon QTEs and cutscenes.  This isn’t surprising given the game’s marketing as a cinematic experience, and with an average run time of 9-11 hours, (there was a playthrough of 5, but all other sources and reviews are putting it around 10) it seems proper for a cinematic narrative heavy game.

It comes out tomorrow, and I still plan on getting it because not only is the subject matter something that I love, but the reviews and expectations are lining up with what I expected, unlike certain other games of late.  Once I finish playing through the game I’ll write up a full review.