Golmore Jul 11 @ 6:06pm
Ignore the Metascore.
If you are considering purchasing this game and are put off by the low score, ignore it. The game just came out of Early Access and was in my opinion unfairly judged by people expecting too much from an indie game. Just look at player reviews and ask around.
Last edited by Golmore; Jul 11 @ 10:45pm
Showing 1-15 of 39 comments
< >
tonythetiger122 Jul 11 @ 8:34pm 
It looks pretty good.
Deathfromace Jul 11 @ 8:38pm 
I alwys ignore the Metascore because Metacritic is horrible
Talby Jul 11 @ 9:31pm 
No, the metascore is accurate. The game is mediocre. Being soon out of early access is no excuse. Super Bunnyhop did a good review; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_CYuVekb7E
ChunkyMonkey Jul 11 @ 9:33pm 
Metascores at metacritic are innacurate not only about this game but about many good games. This game is a unique thriller experience. Has good atmosphere and gameplay.
Golmore Jul 11 @ 9:56pm 
Originally posted by Talby:
No, the metascore is accurate. The game is mediocre. Being soon out of early access is no excuse. Super Bunnyhop did a good review; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_CYuVekb7E

No one said it's a masterpiece. My point is that it is an indie game barely out of Early Access with features still being developed. The Metascore is inaccurate because the game honestly shouldn't have a Metascore in the first place.
Talby Jul 11 @ 10:09pm 
Originally posted by Golmore:
No one said it's a masterpiece. My point is that it is an indie game barely out of Early Access with features still being developed. The Metascore is inaccurate because the game honestly shouldn't have a Metascore in the first place.

Lol. The excuse before it was officially released was that it's still in early access, now that it's out the goalposts have shifted to "but it's -barely- out of early access!" When will the game be GOOD? 6 months from now? A year?

Early access is a complete joke, just a way for ♥♥♥♥ty indie developers to put their unfinished garbage up for sale without having to do the hard work of developing a finished product.
Latch Jul 11 @ 10:27pm 
Originally posted by Talby:
Originally posted by Golmore:
No one said it's a masterpiece. My point is that it is an indie game barely out of Early Access with features still being developed. The Metascore is inaccurate because the game honestly shouldn't have a Metascore in the first place.

Lol. The excuse before it was officially released was that it's still in early access, now that it's out the goalposts have shifted to "but it's -barely- out of early access!" When will the game be GOOD? 6 months from now? A year?

Early access is a complete joke, just a way for ♥♥♥♥ty indie developers to put their unfinished garbage up for sale without having to do the hard work of developing a finished product.


That's harsh, the game is hardly broken or ♥♥♥♥ty, the review you linked was also along the same unfair lines.

I've played for an hour or 2, just completed the main island and as I am packed with more food than I will need and more ammo than I can count. The game has definitely lost its purpose but I honestly feel this was intentional (Note: I have yet to meet newer enemies).

In most games we level up our character, here we level up ourselves, we get smarter, learn the mechanics and eventually win. Do I think the game is great? Not really, but it isn't as bad as everyone seems to be making out.

A final note, whilst I agree that the levels are quite dull, isn't that the style the game went for? So how can that be a negative, it's not like they pulled a bait and switch with screenshots of rainbows and colour.
Golmore Jul 11 @ 10:45pm 
Originally posted by Talby:
Originally posted by Golmore:
No one said it's a masterpiece. My point is that it is an indie game barely out of Early Access with features still being developed. The Metascore is inaccurate because the game honestly shouldn't have a Metascore in the first place.

Lol. The excuse before it was officially released was that it's still in early access, now that it's out the goalposts have shifted to "but it's -barely- out of early access!" When will the game be GOOD? 6 months from now? A year?

Early access is a complete joke, just a way for ♥♥♥♥ty indie developers to put their unfinished garbage up for sale without having to do the hard work of developing a finished product.

I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ what you think of the game. I don't claim that it is either a good or bad game. As I said before, it is an indie game barely out of Early Access that got a harsh Metascore. Should it have come out of Early Access so soon? Maybe not. Does indie status excuse a bad game? Of course not. Luckily I am not reviewing the game. Whether or not the game is bad is up to the individual to decide. I would just prefer that they read more into it than a number.
RiptoR Jul 12 @ 12:13am 
Originally posted by Golmore:
As I said before, it is an indie game barely out of Early Access that got a harsh Metascore.

No matter how you try to spin it, by definition as soon as it leaves Early Access, the game is "done" and properly released. Having been in Early Access makes it no different than any other game that is released.

If a freshly released normal game gets day 1 reviews that say it's not a fun game, no one will go around saying that "yeah, but it was just released so reviews are way too harsh, give it time to properly develop". Those games have had alpha/beta stages too in which they were primed for release.

Early Access is basically an alpha/beta stage for games. So if the devs think it's good enough to be released as a "finished" game by calling it 1.0 and removing the Early Access tag, then it's perfectly normal that people will review it as a finished product. If they didn't want honest reviews (or "harsh" as you call them), then they should've kept the Early Access tag a bit longer until every aspect of the game was as polished as possible.

I'm not saying one should use Metacritic scores as a guide to buy games, I'm just saying it's normal that people review the game as finished, indie or not.

*edit* fixed a typo
Last edited by RiptoR; Jul 12 @ 12:15am
Redscyte Jul 12 @ 12:29am 
I dont see why i should purchase a game thats Dayz with a new twist but without the multiplayer. Im sorry but its 2014 if you cant produce games with at least a coop feature then im not wasting money on it.
Latch Jul 12 @ 1:14am 
Originally posted by Redscyte:
I dont see why i should purchase a game thats Dayz with a new twist but without the multiplayer. Im sorry but its 2014 if you cant produce games with at least a coop feature then im not wasting money on it.

Are you serious? For a start Day Z is utter turd, its just a deathmatch with a twist if you are to go that route (and the twist isn't the zombies its that you have to eat, have blood bags etc) and for you to say that because it is 2014 all games now require multiplayer, how do you manage to waste 104 hours on Skyrim if that is your 'requirement'? Or 32 hours on FTL? You can't pick and choose which games which games can be SP only or that makes your “It's 2014” point invalid (as silly as it is)

Also, sorry for getting personal but you have the most boring games list I have ever seen, try playing something different once in a while.

P.S This game actually has a point to it unlike Day Z, i.e, you actually have a goal.
Last edited by Phunk; Jul 30 @ 2:25pm
Rose Jul 12 @ 1:35am 
Originally posted by Deathfromace:
I alwys ignore the Metascore because Metacritic is horrible
This. Same. I've played several games with low metascore ratings that I enjoyed a lot.
Rhymenoceros Jul 12 @ 1:51am 
concept is intriguing and i like games where you are chased and the odds are against you (at least in theory). for $5 i'll go ahead and make up my own mind.
Trauma Disaster Jul 12 @ 2:05am 
Originally posted by Latch:
Originally posted by Redscyte:
I dont see why i should purchase a game thats Dayz with a new twist but without the multiplayer. Im sorry but its 2014 if you cant produce games with at least a coop feature then im not wasting money on it.

Are you serious? For a start Day Z is utter turd, its just a deathmatch with a twist if you are to go that route (and the twist isn't the zombies its that you have to eat, have blood bags etc) and for you to say that because it is 2014 all games now require multiplayer, how do you manage to waste 104 hours on Skyrim if that is your 'requirement'? Or 32 hours on FTL? You can't pick and choose which games which games can be SP only or that makes your “It's 2014” point invalid (as silly as it is)

Also, sorry for getting personal but you have the most boring games list I have ever seen, try playing something different once in a while.

P.S This game actually has a point to it unlike Day Z, i.e, you actually have a goal.

Please review you comment about "the most boring games list I have ever seen." cmon man whatever our discussion with fellow gamers let people enjoy whatever they are doing.
Last edited by Phunk; Jul 30 @ 2:25pm
Talby Jul 12 @ 3:11am 
Originally posted by RiptoR:
Originally posted by Golmore:
As I said before, it is an indie game barely out of Early Access that got a harsh Metascore.

No matter how you try to spin it, by definition as soon as it leaves Early Access, the game is "done" and properly released. Having been in Early Access makes it no different than any other game that is released.

If a freshly released normal game gets day 1 reviews that say it's not a fun game, no one will go around saying that "yeah, but it was just released so reviews are way too harsh, give it time to properly develop". Those games have had alpha/beta stages too in which they were primed for release.

Early Access is basically an alpha/beta stage for games. So if the devs think it's good enough to be released as a "finished" game by calling it 1.0 and removing the Early Access tag, then it's perfectly normal that people will review it as a finished product. If they didn't want honest reviews (or "harsh" as you call them), then they should've kept the Early Access tag a bit longer until every aspect of the game was as polished as possible.

I'm not saying one should use Metacritic scores as a guide to buy games, I'm just saying it's normal that people review the game as finished, indie or not.

*edit* fixed a typo

I'd go further and say that early access titles are fair game to critcize as well. If they're charging money for it, then judging it like any other commercial product is fair game. After all, there is no guarantee that the game will get better once it leaves early access - plenty of early access titles have been pushed out before being finished or just been more or less abandoned by their delelopers. Too often early access is being used as an excuse for poor design.
Last edited by Talby; Jul 12 @ 3:46am
Showing 1-15 of 39 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50