Some places are harsher than others though. Edge is notorious for giving out more low scores.
Official Thread Quantum Break
- Thread starter starlight777
- Start date
Some places are harsher than others though. Edge is notorious for giving out more low scores.
I don't need any s*** about you personally and I don't want to know you either. However I know plenty about your attitude on this forum. And that's all I need to know in this case. Anyway, I'll leave it there.
I have a few thoughts:
1. The people that you are railing at (me and Yankee in particular) are not saying we didn't enjoy the game. At least, I'm not saying that, and I haven't noticed Yankee say that. As far as I can tell, we are just questioning the belief that there is a widespread bias among reviewers against Xbox games. I'm not sure why that is so upsetting.
2. We aren't in the business of policing people's opinions. People are free to say what they think or feel.
3. You said you wanted a "rational and positive discussion." That's fine. But I'd ask you to take a look at some of your contributions to this thread:
Now, I ask you, does that sound like "rational and positive discussion"? To me, it sounds like an angry, emotional tirade. You're lashing out and blaming other people; you're using lots of demeaning, insulting language; it's full of negativity and accusations. It's not rational or positive; it's just an angry, belittling, accusatory rant.
So, if you want "rational and positive" discussions, maybe take a look at what you're bringing to the table? You can't call for "rational and positive discussions," and then repeatedly go on angry, emotional, blaming tirades.
Now, I can predict your response: "I can't help it. It's the insecure Sony fanboys' fault." (Please surprise me.)
Why so serious?
Do you wanna know how I got these scars?
One random person on a forum questions the credibility of reviews and everyone goes crazy.
Do you wanna know how I got these scars?
One random person on a forum questions the credibility of reviews and everyone goes crazy.
I don't think anyone thinks the negative reviews are widespread or a conspiracy. Just certain sites seem to be not in love with Microsoft's efforts. Except for the Forzas and Ori. As pointed out over and over.
I don't think Microsoft games have been reviewed as harshly as Sony's games have been put on a pedestal.
I remember reading the Abzu review (PS exclusive at the time) from some site and actually laughing out loud. The wording was so over the top flowery that it sounded like he was describing Heaven, not a game.
I don't think Microsoft games have been reviewed as harshly as Sony's games have been put on a pedestal.
I remember reading the Abzu review (PS exclusive at the time) from some site and actually laughing out loud. The wording was so over the top flowery that it sounded like he was describing Heaven, not a game.
You don't think some people believe there is a widespread bias among game reviewers against MS?
Abzu PS4 metacritic = 78 (hardly a pedestal, in fact almost identical to the QB score)
Abzu Xbox metacritic = 83 (significantly higher than the PS4 score)
Selective attention and memory. Not blaming you, just pointing out an instance of confirmatory bias. We all tend to focus on and remember instances of things that support our pre-conceived beliefs, and don't pay attention to, and forget, stuff that runs counter. Myself included.
p.s. My apologies for mention of PS4 and one of its (former) games. Just responding to Dno.
Yup. It was my first gamertag ever. Went back full circle from 15 years ago.
Well, that fits.
Although, it'll take me a while to adjust to not thinking of you as "Kvally" anymore.
Well that was just one example. A poor one I guess.
Some believe that Conspiracy. I just don't think anyone on here thinks that it's widespread. I may be wrong.
Last edited:
I've gotten the impression that at least a handful of people believe there is a widespread bias against the Xbox in gaming journalism, and that includes game reviewers.
I don't think it's worth debating, though. People believe what they believe. I was just expressing my skepticism about it.
No surprise for me. Remedy make solid games but this is their weakest in terms of replay value due to all the forced walking sections.
Still solid and I hope MS give the IP another shot.
Still solid and I hope MS give the IP another shot.
The action and gunplay i found really enjoyable, and the production was stellar, but the marriage between the gameplay and story telling felt disjointed.
It was like, here's the gun bit, here's the bit where you can find some emails, and here's the tv bit.
Choosing to have full episodes acted out forced it to extent, but the actionless parts made it more pronounced.
I don't think it's widespread but there is bias and it's amongst some key people at some of the biggest places. Maybe it's putting cart before the horse. Maybe they get big because they are more PlayStation centric and that leads to bigger audiences since PlayStation is the bigger and more passionate consumer base. Regardless of why, it's there. It's not subtle either and I don't think it's meant to be subtle. If you've listened to any podcast or commentary from Gamespot, Game Informer or most people from IGN...they are pretty transparent and honest about their feeling. Can't remember which one...but one commentated that they believed what Xbox brought to the gaming industry was bad for it and that it would be better for gaming if they exited. One of the IGN guys stated that Xbox is basically dead to him and was his worst console purchase ever. It's not like they are being dishonest about it.
I honestly don't think these biases high level are a problem if they're honest and transparent. They are paid to give honest opinions and they shouldn't say they like a brand in the effort to be balanced if it's dishonest. I think the problem comes in when they grade developers and games on a curve based on which platform they're supporting. QB seems to be a good example of this because I believe a game like that would've scored very high on a platform not known for shooters and instead would've been graded as a story driven game that happened to have shooting elements. Some of the biggest reviewers focused on what a disjointed shooter it was instead of looking at it as it's own thing.
Ori actually got points in the other direction because it resembles something Xbox doesn't focus on. I like Ori and will be buying the sequel Day 1 but it was scored too highly based on being an artsy game in a genre that Xbox doesn't normally support.
It's just people don't like single player story driven experiences by Finnish developers. If they'd just move to Japan, this would have been the Next To Last of Us, except instead of needing to do a remaster each new console generation, they'd just fire up the time knife to upgrade the game automagically like it's the goddamn future, because it is, except when it's the past, and those rare occasions where it's now and even now it's not now anymore so... yeah, appreciate a game that looks at the challenge of standing up to the test of time and says, f*** that, see if time can hold up to the test of this game! (Which, of course, is why Chrono Trigger is one of the greatest games of all time, because it did this and with a Japanese developer!)
You make some good points, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
I think a good argument can be made for game reviewers being biased, just on the basis of sales rates. I'll put it in the form of a syllogism:
1. People prefer PS4 to Xbox 2 to 1.
2. Reviewers are people.
3. Therefore, reviewers prefer PS4 to Xbox 2 to 1.
That greater preference for PS4 means that more reviewers would give favorable reviews to PS4 titles -- simply because those are the types of games they enjoy (which is why they prefer the console). And they'd disfavor Xbox games, for the opposite reason. You'd have plenty of reviewers going the other way, too -- favoring Xbox titles, because those are the types of experiences they enjoy -- but only half as many. So overall, there would be a bias (or preference) for PS4 games.
I think that's a fair assessment. Again I don't think it's an evil grand conspiracy. Reviewers are people and all people have biases and preferences. Gamers who prefer the Xbox ecosystem and their games don't have their tastes reflected by the majority of the media who's opinions probably mesh better with those that prefer PlayStation.
So in conclusion, Xbox gamers more than PlayStation gamers need to find other avenues to determine if they may like a game. Giant Bomb spent more time talking about Walking Simulators than Gears of War. That's not part of a grand conspiracy...but that means Xbox gamers who prefer shooters may need to seek opinions elsewhere.
A good game is a good game no matter which platform its available for. I get what some of you guys are saying about platform preference but I still think a game speaks for itself.
I was a 360 fanboy and have since converted to PS4 because of its advantages. But I was having a joygasm every few minutes while I played Horizon 3 or Rise of the Tomb Raider. My preference for Playstation in no way stopped me from being impressed with any X1 game. I get it everyone is different and all that.
I need to revisit Quantum Break at some point. I didn't get past the first couple of hours. I was put off by the controls which didn't feel as tight as I would have liked. There was something off about the gunplay. The game sure was beautiful though and as a graphics whore it shows how I still need compelling gameplay to keep me interested. But like I said didn't play enough to get access to more of what was offered.
I was a 360 fanboy and have since converted to PS4 because of its advantages. But I was having a joygasm every few minutes while I played Horizon 3 or Rise of the Tomb Raider. My preference for Playstation in no way stopped me from being impressed with any X1 game. I get it everyone is different and all that.
I need to revisit Quantum Break at some point. I didn't get past the first couple of hours. I was put off by the controls which didn't feel as tight as I would have liked. There was something off about the gunplay. The game sure was beautiful though and as a graphics whore it shows how I still need compelling gameplay to keep me interested. But like I said didn't play enough to get access to more of what was offered.
And that is why I always bring up Forza and Ori because when a game is great people seem to figure it out and when games are bad elsewhere people seem to figure it out. Its hard to feel Quantum Break is some outrageously underrated game when you read forums like this one and see plenty of people with issues with it. Its a game that some were a bit mixed on.
I think its fair to say "I don't care about reviews" or "I think a lot reviewers tastes don't match mine" or even to say "some are biased" but its different to try and dismiss opinions just because you don't agree with it. I think that is what some want to do with any opinion that is negative towards Xbox or an Xbox game. To throw it out and declare it to have an agenda or to be too biased.
It is disappointing that it appears Remedy and Microsoft aren't working together anytime soon. I thought Alan Wake was excellent. It's incredible that Remedy, after either good or great games, is relegated to a small time publisher for their next game. Hopefully their next game is successful.
I have found that with this generation I don't agree with many reviews from critics. I tend to go more on my gut feelings on games and ignore them. If they don't like the same games as me then there is honestly no reason to read the reviews. I absolutely loved Quantum Break but a recent one, Horizon zero dawn, I despised, with everybody else loving it. I then played the newest Zelda game and fell in love with gaming all over again, easily being one of my top ten games of all time. Different people like different games, I've given up on metacritic and anything related to such.
Remedys weakest game IMO (havent played that IOS rally game)
Conceptually its pretty good with lore and rules of time travel but:
I preferred the stand in model and voice over shawn ashmore who had weak delivery. Sore throat day?
Internal monologuing lacks the poetry of Max Payne and Alan Wake
Resolution artifacting
Combat is too easy. Time dash. Freeze. Shoot. Timedash. Heal/shield
Too few stutter platforming /escape sections
No multiplayer/ little replay value
Paul Serene sections are pretty pointless
The 20 minute TV show segments dont add too much
Protracted dev time for seemingly no gain
77 pretty close to what it deserves if you're paying $60...for $10 it will feel like an 85
Conceptually its pretty good with lore and rules of time travel but:
I preferred the stand in model and voice over shawn ashmore who had weak delivery. Sore throat day?
Internal monologuing lacks the poetry of Max Payne and Alan Wake
Resolution artifacting
Combat is too easy. Time dash. Freeze. Shoot. Timedash. Heal/shield
Too few stutter platforming /escape sections
No multiplayer/ little replay value
Paul Serene sections are pretty pointless
The 20 minute TV show segments dont add too much
Protracted dev time for seemingly no gain
77 pretty close to what it deserves if you're paying $60...for $10 it will feel like an 85
Last edited:
Paul serene scenes pointless? The decisions made there change the story!
I agree about the stand in actor. I couldn't care less about Ashmore. The stand in does play the cab driver, though.
If the game was too easy you should probably up the dificulty? It seemed to have a decent challenge level to me...
Yeah, the Paul scenes were very important to the story for sure. Like, literally gave you the choice between one path in the future or another. I especially liked how my choice stacked up against friends.
One thing I would've like to see more, were more melee options using time powers. A good balance between using weapons and beating the s*** out of some fools like Flash would've been a welcomed headache.
One thing I would've like to see more, were more melee options using time powers. A good balance between using weapons and beating the s*** out of some fools like Flash would've been a welcomed headache.
Yeah, I did the Evil Paul run-through on my second play. Definitely changed the story significantly. Only downer is that
it doesn't really change any game-play scenarios. I did feel bad on the evil ones because I like the idea of the Tortured Villain. One way he does what he does because he believes it's the only way- Omelette and Eggs. The other, he just kinda gives up and says "f*** em".
That's kinda what I would have liked. Serenes decisions result in a different NPC who doesn't really add much. One decision it's a girl another it's the cabbie and a few cutscenes change. If it had changed the finale and last 2 levels were completely different to the other decision, that would have been way better and demanded 2 seperate playthroughs.
One "issue" though is I had no motivation to play through the game entirely again, while i like games that allow me to select each act to replay...so I just chose Serenes scenes and did the opposite decision for the cheevos.
If I had to replay the whole game to see the different outcomes i would have.
I think i will give it another go on hard soon, but my general thoughts on the combat is the dash and the shield/heal artificially make it too easy to just run away and heal and pop out again. Im not really sure how to solve it, but that's remedys responsibility.
I will give the game it's props though, time travel was quite original. I really liked the idea of it just being a corridor you travelled counter clockwise to go back in time and the chicken/egg scenarios.
Agreed, yup. I think they perhaps should've tried to use Telltale games formula when it came to making decisions in the game - maybe allow even Paul's scenes to be actually played out. I think then, it would give the gamer the opportunity to feel the weight of the decisions. I dunno...
This is why they need to make a sequel. Get-r-done, Phil!