Terminator: Resistance - actually good?

Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
(1 vote)
Results 26 to 50 of 51

  1. Post
    #26
    ChrisB wrote:
    Stop quoting Eva! Brainless prattle is not something I want to see. Especially bullshit like claims of bribery in "mainstream" gaming press. It is bullshit. It literally does not exist. If it is anywhere, and I am not claiming it is, it is more likely in the YouTube and small creator space where single party reviews and gaming commentary come from where they may be wanting to build their brand or build relationships with publishers/developers. It's common sense really.
    I bet you don't think the police are corrupt either and the world runs on goodwill and sunshine

  2. Post
    #27
    Whenever I see new complaints about the idea of bribes in the industry, I always remember this quote from Jeff Gerstmann made in 2012 in the wake of Dorito-gate. I hated Gerstmann before the whole Kane and Lynch thing, because several times he adjusted review comments and scores post release in the late 90s GameSpot period, but losing your job because you were honest enough to lose the company you work for ad revenue because a company didn't like your "bad" review of their game... I respected him more and actually started to realize his changes to reviews reflected more about re-evaluation of the game after the deadline of getting the review up had been met.

    Some people have thought that this line of work is inherently corrupt for years and whenever they see anything that even smells like impropriety, they pounce and won't let go. Those people's minds are already made up. We spent a lot of years at GameSpot trying to lay out policies and make sure we were on the up and up, totally buttoned up across the board. But that didn't change anything. Those people were still there, lashing out every single day with cries of bias and how everyone was on the take. Of course, that chapter ended with the world's greatest ironic twist, didn't it? The sad thing is that with a snap of their fingers those guys at the top [at GameSpot] blew up a level of credibility that took us over a decade to build and GameSpot's staff, whether they were there in 2007 or not, still suffers as a result. I've never been directly offered money or anything else by a publisher under the guise of ensuring a proper score. Considering how long I've been doing this, if that was a common practice, don't you think someone would have at least asked me by now?
    When gaming journo's hit a bad patch in 2002/2003 I remember chewing out Tal Blevins directly on IGN for money gouging the consumers of their sites for content (IGN launched Insider, GameSpot started gating content behind paywalls) when the belts got tightened on website revenue, but I'd still prefer that over knowing companies are paying things off.

    But there is clearly lots of dodgy practice going on out there, it might not be directly $ in hand or bank accounts, but clearly favouring and pressure is put on to companies by others. It happens across the board, so why wouldn't you think its not possible elsewhere?

  3. Post
    #28
    ChrisB wrote:
    Stop quoting Eva! Brainless prattle is not something I want to see. Especially bullshit like claims of bribery in "mainstream" gaming press. It is bullshit. It literally does not exist. If it is anywhere, and I am not claiming it is, it is more likely in the YouTube and small creator space where single party reviews and gaming commentary come from where they may be wanting to build their brand or build relationships with publishers/developers. It's common sense really.
    It doesn't exist? Really? Come on, you know it does. Some of these gaming companies are massive these days, multi billion dollar conglomerates. It will have corrupt elements like any other industry. Where money is involved there's always corruption or kickbacks.

  4. Post
    #29
    Bobs wrote:
    It doesn't exist? Really? Come on, you know it does. Some of these gaming companies are massive these days, multi billion dollar conglomerates. It will have corrupt elements like any other industry. Where money is involved there's always corruption or kickbacks.
    Yeah, it's at best naiive to think it doesn't exist, at worst driven by a totally biased outlook.

    Anyway, i wonder how much the dev's bribed Mack to get this review!?;

  5. Post
    #30
    Can't wait to see the three page reply gaslighting everyone.

  6. Post
    #31
    Frederick James wrote:
    Yeah, it's at best naiive to think it doesn't exist, at worst driven by a totally biased outlook.

    Anyway, i wonder how much the dev's bribed Mack to get this review!?;
    The aussie reviewer Gggman or whatever his name is had a pretty good review on this. Says it's just a average shooter but one of the better licensed Terminator games so far.

  7. Post
    #32
    TemptedNZ wrote:
    Can't wait to see the three page reply gaslighting everyone.

  8. Post
    #33
    Bobs wrote:
    It doesn't exist? Really? Come on, you know it does. Some of these gaming companies are massive these days, multi billion dollar conglomerates. It will have corrupt elements like any other industry. Where money is involved there's always corruption or kickbacks.
    It does not exist as something so prevalent as to have ANY describable impact on aggregated review scores. Nor does it occur in any volume to have a significant or even noticeable impact of the "general consensus" for any game. The idea is so profoundly preposterous as to be laughable. Especially in the internet era where the chances of being caught are even higher.
    I've met Eva and I know he doesn't understand how people work, but anyone with any reasonable amount of sense should realize that when it comes to reviews you have ZERO value without credibility. Sure, marketing companies, developers, and publishers will do all they can to get critics to see them in a more positive light. But anyone with half a brain cell, a modicum of professional integrity, or just wanting to continue being a game critic won't fall for that bullshit.

    RDR2 was broken as **** for me. Rockstar offered to fly me over to their offices to play the game on their Uber Rig so I could review it. Literally offered to pay for flights and all the rest. Did I do it? **** no. And I doubt many critics would. Even if you were sure it would not affect your judgement, it sure as hell would taint other people's opinion of anything I had to say about the game, and tank the only thing I really care about, my professional integrity.

    Corruption takes complicity from both parties, and self-preservation alone is more than enough for any intelligent person to know to stay they **** away from the shade. People can spot shady shit from a mile away.

    When you put your name in front of something it becomes part of who you are. You don't shit on that. And those few that do will no doubt have to eat that shit in the future.

  9. Post
    #34
    [QUOTE=ChrisB;11349535
    I've met Eva and I know he doesn't understand how people work

    RDR2 was broken as **** for me. Rockstar offered to fly me over to their offices to play the game on their Uber Rig so I could review it. Literally offered to pay for flights and all the rest. Did I do it? **** no. And I doubt many critics would. [/QUOTE]

    incredible

  10. Post
    #35
    With all due respect Chris, i think you can only speak for yourself. I'd posit that there would be a shit-load of "critics" and "reviewers" who would take Rockstar up on that kind of offer, and it would totally influence their review of the game (at best subconsciously, at worst overtly).

    I think that there's some rose-coloured glasses component to your opinion from being in the industry that makes you not want to face reality. That makes you want to believe that your whole industry is as pure as the driven snow. Anecdotally, from memory, there's been a ton of situations where reviewers have been caught out in the past, either with review-score-influencing junkets, outright threats to withdraw advertising revenue, or similar. How many of these don't make it into the news?

  11. Post
    #36
    I would suggest it would more like to be YouTubers, and smaller/newer content creators than professional or long-time critics associated with major publications (the ones with the most to lose).

    There seems to be some silly notion that these types of things are special in some way, and maybe to regular gamers they are as you don't get these opportunities, but I can assure you they are not special at all. I have given away Press Kits that are cool and all, but my gamer friends lose their shit when I pass them on. Once again, I expect this is because they do not get the opportunity to access these normally. There are exceptions for sure, and some stuff is just cool. Alanah Pearce was part of a paid promotion for Death Stranding, and as a result has said she will not review the game (promo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE6mU6D4yc0 and statement - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrLh8khsMCg).

    The notion that Eva posits was that Terminator has a low score, not because it deserves it, but because critics are so regularly "bought", "bribed", or "paid" to give good scores to AAA titles by the big publishers that score for those games are artificially inflated and this game did not benefit from this industry wide practice so it has a lower than normal score. If you think that you should take off the tin foil hat and get some sun. A huge percentage of the top rated games of the past 5 years have been indie games. And if Eva was even remotely correct these could never have attained such critical praise, let alone GOTY status some have achieved. Eva seems to blame everything that disagrees with him as shilling, a conspiracy, or some agenda being pushed by "the powers that be". At some point you just have to step back, and go - yeah, nah.

    A review is literally just one persons opinion. It really is that simple.

    There is one major difference between a critic and a regular gamer... we don't have to buy the games we play. So we have no financial investment in the game, and that I expect can lead to a difference in the feeling towards a game. I know for a fact that if I buy a game for ~$100 I want it to be awesome. And if its good I feel my purchase was validated, and if not I feel ripped off. Neither of these things are true to game critics. I expect that could affect opinions at the far ends of the scale. We also have to play a game whether we like it or not and I think anyone obligated to continue to interact with something they don't enjoy is potentially more likely to be even less enthused than someone who could just give up on it (and maybe get a refund).

  12. Post
    #37
    The fact that he has to spend several paragraphs character assassinating rather than actually addressing points raised spells out a lot.

    The notion that Eva posits was that Terminator has a low score, not because it deserves it, but because critics are so regularly "bought", "bribed", or "paid" to give good scores to AAA titles by the big publishers that score for those games are artificially inflated and this game did not benefit from this industry wide practice so it has a lower than normal score. If you think that you should take off the tin foil hat and get some sun. A huge percentage of the top rated games of the past 5 years have been indie games. And if Eva was even remotely correct these could never have attained such critical praise, let alone GOTY status some have achieved. Eva seems to blame everything that disagrees with him as shilling, a conspiracy, or some agenda being pushed by "the powers that be". At some point you just have to step back, and go - yeah, nah.
    Good Lord, you don't have to dig very far to discover the amount of cronyism between the mainstream propped up indie space and gaming journalists. Eg the San Francisco indie dev scene.
    http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=unfair
    Last edited by EvaUnit02; 29th November 2019 at 6:25 am.

  13. Post
    #38
    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    The fact that he has to spend several paragraphs character assassinating rather than actually addressing points raised spells out a lot.


    God Lord, you don't have to dig very far to discover the amount of cronyism between the mainstream propped up indie space and gaming journalists. Eg the San Francisco indie dev scene.
    http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=unfair
    nah mate, absolutely none exists you are wrong, checkmate etc.

  14. Post
    #39
    Yeah, I think there is enough historic evidence to show it has happened and likely still does. I remember the infamous PS Mag/XBox mag review of Driver 3, which then came out it was done to gain exclusive access. And then Dan Hsu in his later 1up days made a statement about how he was directly aware of other magazines while he was at EGM were paying for access, or accepting exclusives and bribes for content. Given the drive for more direct campaigning through social media and "influencers" I'd expect this sort of thing is only gotten more common where it's no longer company ethics but personal ones only being considered (or specifically rather, not considered at all).

  15. Post
    #40
    It obviously exists, but not to the degree that Eva always posits. Basically, they're both wrong.

  16. Post
    #41
    Valeo wrote:
    Basically, they're both wrong.
    Sums them both up quite nicely

  17. Post
    #42
    I'm playing Terminator: Resistance now. The atmosphere is thick and feels tense, they've absolutely nailed the future scenes from T1/2. The soundtrack is marvellous, Brad Fiedel would be proud. About 30 minutes in and it's already much better than Unsharted 4, IMO.

    Some dodgy voice acting, character animation looking like it's from 2008 and needing INI tweaks to change FOV + disable mouse acceleration are the worst aspects of it so far.
    Last edited by EvaUnit02; 10th December 2019 at 12:06 am.

  18. Post
    #43
    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    I'm playing Terminator: Resistance now. The atmosphere is thick and feels tense, they've absolutely nailed the future scenes from T1/2. The soundtrack is marvellous, Brad Fiedel would be proud. About 30 minutes in and it's already much better than Unsharted 4, IMO.
    This has to be a troll, surely.

  19. Post
    #44
    Black Plague*** wrote:
    This has to be a troll, surely.
    Absolutely not, the first 1/3rd of Unsharted 4 is utter f*cking shit. The Lost Legacy is what Unsharted 4 should've been!

  20. Post
    #45
    The general consensus seems to be that the audio - the music, the sound of the guns etc - and the general atmosphere of the game, really elevate it. If it didn't have this "Terminator" veneer, it'd be just another mediocre shooter. I haven't played "Unsharted 4", or this, so can't comment, but they sound like quite different games. Apples and oranges perhaps? Sorry, i'm a little confused by the comparison.

  21. Post
    #46
    Killzone 2 was the tits! Eva you're crazy

    Sure GG would have taken what COD had done in the past, but KZ2 was so much better than any COD. The weight of the weapons, the maps, the modes blending into one another in epic online matches, the clan support, it was crazy good.

    KZ3 dropped the ball, but I still enjoyed it, shadowfall was pretty to look at but pants in terms of story and most gameplay. Also the MP of shadowfall went away from the weighty feeling of KZ2 and 3 and really was more like COD.

  22. Post
    #47
    siamese wrote:
    Sure GG would have taken what COD had done in the past, but KZ2 was so much better than any COD.
    World at War and the first Black Ops trilogy have much better campaigns than any Borezone game.
    The weight of the weapons
    The movement lag from the weightiness was so "great" that they patched in the option to disable after it was criticised to oblivion. I'm pretty sure it was on by default in KZ3.
    the maps, the modes blending into one another in epic online matches, the clan support, it was crazy good.
    I didn't play the MP so I can't comment there.

  23. Post
    #48
    Finished it. The story was good IMO, it acts as a nice prequel to the first two films. Characters are fleshed out, even the largely stoic MC.

    Easily better than all of the sequel films made after T2, recommended game.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20191211002039_1.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	305.4 KB 
ID:	227857
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20191211005737_1.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	315.2 KB 
ID:	227858
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Desktop Screenshot 2019.12.10 - 02.02.56.50.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	169.7 KB 
ID:	227859
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Desktop Screenshot 2019.12.10 - 02.20.22.53.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	131.7 KB 
ID:	227860
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Annotation 2019-12-11 051937.JPG 
Views:	19 
Size:	98.9 KB 
ID:	227861

  24. Post
    #49
    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    World at War and the first Black Ops trilogy have much better campaigns than any Borezone game. The movement lag from the weightiness was so "great" that they patched in the option to disable after it was criticised to oblivion. I'm pretty sure it was on by default in KZ3. I didn't play the MP so I can't comment there.
    I was mainly talking about the MP, I can't really remember the campaign but I remember enjoying it. It was a higher skilled game compared to the laser like - no recoil shooting of COD imo.

    World at War I played, was good, cant really remember much about it though. MW2 was my last COD until Advanced Warfare and I played the campaign of that (pretty average), played most of BLOPS3 (which was so bad I never finished it) and then the new Modern Warfare released in October which to be fair was a pretty decent campaign.

    I dont get the KZ2 hate though - it was an amazing game that the COD fanboys didnt like cos it wasn't COD. Then GG bowed to pressure and made the sequels more like COD and it sucked in comparison.

    KZ2 multiplayer would top my most played and enjoyed experience to date I reckon.

  25. Post
    #50
    Might get it when the price is worth it, ie sub $10