安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
We played this game and 62 percent of us enjoyed it like a 75/100 game in contrast to it's MC score. So we consider it underrated.
It was clearly a trick. This one was handled much differently than the other titles and never was going to be received well and they knew it by reducing the price among other things. It's painfully obvious they wanted to do a fast asset flip and make quick cash. Welcome to Konami of today.
This one in particular needed more time in development and give more reasons for people to play it because there really is no reason to other than the fact that Metal Gear is in the title. Survival/Horde-based games were already beaten to death a couple years prior to this ones release. That's literally all it had going for it was the title alone.
But it WAS trying to be something it wasn't. That's one of the reasons it failed horribly. So many thought it was going to be at the same level as the other games but it fell so short it only became clear why they stuck Metal Gear in the title because it wouldn't sell at all otherwise. You can say TPP took steps back (and they did) from the other titles people came to love but they still had the essence and feel while Survive was just a mess of an idea, executed badly in all stages of development and made Konami look like a bunch of lazy amateur asset-flipping developers.
At the end of the day all we have left is a game that just failed. The days of old Konami are pretty much gone. It was a downhill drive for quite a while but then Survive immediately turned it off a cliff. Now the only way for them to help the situation is the obvious and that's remastering the older games fans of Metal Gear Solid came to enjoy and love still 'til this day.
Don't trust any review stats. Your guys bombarded multiple sites as well as here with false positive reviews to try and counter what you thought were negative ones. This game is more closer to a 30-40 for ALL who bought it and closer to 20-30 in general.
nice one! guess I better respond..uh..
okay, woo, streetfighter. yay tekken. they're kind of niche, man. that's the reality of fighting games. it may not seem like it, but they're hard to play. people like smash because it's accessible. it's normally the only truly compelling reason to stay updated with nintendo consoles, which is basically why I don't play it. it's not a $400 game to me. maybe it is to you. maybe it is your own personal AAA fighting game.
still a niche genre.
atlas' catalog is predominately shovel-driven grindware, and I honestly had enough of the new persona finishing 3. which they have remade with a totally new set of characters. twice. no, I guess that is AAA isn't it? my bad.
Survive did something different, regardless of the image associated with it. It's a AAA game that genuinely tried to do something new, even if it used a lot of old parts. Like the Fox Engine. You refuse to take it seriously though, so please don't spam my thread with flamebait like usual or I will be forced to take drastic measures.
also it's a single compound sentence, thank you very much. looking back on it, I should probably have used semicolons instead of parenthesis; it's important to show some class when you're doing a dumb thing. also you should have said "these are your first words," as this would have subtly implied I was infantile in nature, have been factually accurate and grammatically correct, and also a few syllables shorter. Very poor form to end an insult with a long word.
The difference between those reviews and the ones you guys did is those were legit whereas your reviews tried to put the game in different light it didn't deserve, basically to give the appearance it wasn't as bad as people were saying but that clearly didn't work.
Survive didn't do anything new, that's one of the main problems here. All those mechanics were already present in games years prior to it and the genre itself had already died out substantially. Couple that with horrible decisions (lowering the price because they knew it didn't contain enough content, including online-only when the game features an offline mode etc..) and you got yourselves a failed game that guarantees you won't see a sequel and for good reason. No one asked for a zombie/horde-survival based game that had the Metal Gear title but has nothing to do with them.
If they did proper research they would of pulled the game long ago. You can't enter a genre that's pretty much dead with a game that people expected to be up to par with the others that carry Metal Gear in the title and think nothing bad will happen.
So you think that people who bought the game and reviewed it positively were the ones lying, but those reviewers who did not buy the game were not? A self-serving and disingenuous argument to say the least.
You claim that Konami's Survive was a trick because, according to you, Konami claimed the game was something that it was not. I showed you 3 examples of what Konami provided as advertisement for the game:
1. the trailer
2. the coop demo
3. The Beta
When the game was finally released it was not anything but more of what those examples showed. Yet, you still claim that Konami tricked Survive's potential buyers based on this assessment:
Rman - "So many thought it was going to be at the same level as the other games but it fell so short it only became clear why they stuck Metal Gear in the title because it wouldn't sell at all otherwise. You can say TPP took steps back (and they did) from the other titles people came to love but they still had the essence and feel while Survive was just a mess of an idea, executed badly in all stages of development and made Konami look like a bunch of lazy amateur asset-flipping developers."
- The same level as the other games
What is that level? This is a highly subjective claim and doesn't carry weight except to offer you entrance into the Metal Gear Survive troll club.
- Metal Gear title for no reason other than to sell copies?
The actual director of the game went on youtube to declare that it was a MGSV spin-off.
- Survive was a mess of an idea, executed badly, made Konami seem lazy?
This seems the strongest part of your claim but sadly it falls short because you do not own the game and therefore this claim is based on what you read and saw on the internet instead of actual experience. A secondary source assessment at best and not worthy of any critical analysis.
It seems as though you are part of the many disappointed gamers who are disappointed by Survive not because they bought the game and disliked it, but because they were disappointed that Survive did not match the potential of the game they created in their minds. This highly idealistic and ultimately disingenuous view is often going to bring disappointment instead of satisfaction because you are creating perfection in your mind and trying match real world stuff with it. The real world isn't perfect and neither is Metal Gear.
Rman - "The difference between those reviews and the ones you guys did is those were legit whereas your reviews tried to put the game in different light it didn't deserve, basically to give the appearance it wasn't as bad as people were saying but that clearly didn't work."
This quote is an example of your disingenuous idealism at work. You write that Survive did not deserve certain positive reviews even though the people that reviewed it had actually played it and enjoyed it. Seems as though you are trying to rig and game the Steam reviews to reflect a pre-judgmental bias and self-serving perspective instead of recognizing that people who bought Survive, enjoyed it and posted a positive review are in fact among the truest kind of opinion there is on Steam.
What offline mode? You mean singleplayer? That's online, too. If you get a weird gameplay glitch they can even contact support to roll you back to where you were; that's how online it is.
Steam charges for marketing concepts like pre-orders. The only way to charge $10 more for pre-orders is to drop the price $10 once your pre-order window closes. Considering the huge public backlash against Konami over Kojima and TPP, any serious marketing would have been wasted money.
https://youtu.be/CXpuRIZzJog
Nobody asked for Metal Gear either.
I think they did their research very properly. I just think you don't understand the economics of running a studio, let alone one of the world's largest publishers, and are viewing a game you haven't played in a fundamentally unrealistic way. Because you feel they are 'bad people,' or something, and cannot yet attempt to compensate for your own confirmation bias, let alone those of everyone else.
Emphasis added.
And I don't want to waste my time with someone who lacks basic critical reasoning and argumentation skills. You aren't even polite enough to agree to disagree, or to accept that my view may be valid even if you disagree. It's a zero-sum game to you; if you aren't winning you're losing.
So, again: I'd rather not play with you.
Very underrated.
People will fanboy for ANYTHING these days.
Sound like some hypersensitive millenial : "If YoU dOnT agRe wItH m3 U R reTardeT!!!! i DoNt LiK3 It, tHeReFoRe ItS bAd AnD NO1 sHoUlD lIkE it!!! REEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!"