Poll of the Day > That Guardians of the Galaxy game is reviewing well I guess

Topic List	Page List: 1
Far-Queue 10/25/21 10:11:31 AM #1:	Wasn't impressed with the trailers. Going to wait on reviews from people whose opinions I generally trust, but I wasn't even thinking of buying this game and now I might lol --- https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2 "My last bike gave me severe taint pain." - Dikitain <cite>Far-Queue posted [p:959368892] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Wasn't impressed with the trailers. Going to wait on reviews from people whose opinions I generally trust, but I wasn't even thinking of buying this game and now I might lol </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 10/25/21 12:55:31 PM #2:	How many reviewers were paid off by Disney or are sucking up because they're afraid to be blacklisted for future review copies/codes? I'm at the point where I don't trust reviews at all until actual release, when real people with real opinions are allowed to play a game and give honest opinions. Everything before that is just part of the advertising machine. It's probably worst for longer games (mainly RPGs) where the reviewer will play the first 5 hours or so and base their entire review on that, and thus miss any/every problem that only becomes obvious in later parts of the game (like the narrative ending being terrible coughMass Effect 3cough). But even for shorter games bias has become so endemic that review scores are almost meaningless, and even in-depth reviews are suspicious. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:959373125] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>How many reviewers were paid off by Disney or are sucking up because they're afraid to be blacklisted for future review copies/codes? I'm at the point where I don't trust reviews at all until actual release, when real people with real opinions are allowed to play a game and give honest opinions. Everything before that is just part of the advertising machine. It's probably worst for longer games (mainly RPGs) where the reviewer will play the first 5 hours or so and base their entire review on that, and thus miss any/every problem that only becomes obvious in later parts of the game (like the narrative ending being terrible coughMass Effect 3cough). But even for shorter games bias has become so endemic that review scores are almost meaningless, and even in-depth reviews are suspicious.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 10/25/21 1:03:21 PM #3:	ParanoidObsessive posted... How many reviewers were paid off by Disney or are sucking up because they're afraid to be blacklisted for future review copies/codes? probably none considering it would be a huge scandal that would likely backfire and tarnish the image of both the outlet and the publisher and having a negative review for a popular game would actually be a good way to draw attention to your site the much more feasible scenario is that the people that have played the game so far kinda liked it --- my resting temp can easily be in the 90's -Krazy_Kirby <cite>Mead posted [p:959373316] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite> <quote>How many reviewers were paid off by Disney or are sucking up because they're afraid to be blacklisted for future review copies/codes?</quote> probably none considering it would be a huge scandal that would likely backfire and tarnish the image of both the outlet and the publisher and having a negative review for a popular game would actually be a good way to draw attention to your site the much more feasible scenario is that the people that have played the game so far kinda liked it </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DirtBasedSoap 10/25/21 1:10:02 PM #4:	everything is a conspiracy now --- wieners and farts??? idk lol <cite>DirtBasedSoap posted [p:959373499] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>everything is a conspiracy now </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Far-Queue 10/25/21 1:21:29 PM #5:	ParanoidObsessive posted... I'm at the point where I don't trust reviews at all until actual release, when real people with real opinions are allowed to play a game and give honest opinions. Same. That's why I'm waiting on a handful of reviewers I trust to cut through the BS. I watched Adam Sessler review Metroid Dread, and he was complaining about having to shoot walls to find secret paths lmao like dude have you not played a Metroid game before? He also admitted to not finishing the game... a game that can be finished in like 10 or 12 hours at a leisurely pace. I think speed runners have it under 3 hours already. So the dude is giving a negative review to a game based on an incomplete playthrough and his dislike for a core part of the level design. I guess it's fair to criticize the wall shooting - I mean if you don't like it, you don't like it. I'm of the mindset that I enjoy games with a sense of mystery that reward exploration, as opposed to the glut of games we have that literally point you in the direction they want you to go to complete your next objective via compass markers, map markers etc etc But anyone reviewing a game - particularly one as short as Dread - should make every effort to finish it before finalizing any thoughts on the game --- https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2 "My last bike gave me severe taint pain." - Dikitain <cite>Far-Queue posted [p:959373811] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite> <quote>I'm at the point where I don't trust reviews at all until actual release, when real people with real opinions are allowed to play a game and give honest opinions.</quote> Same. That's why I'm waiting on a handful of reviewers I trust to cut through the BS. I watched Adam Sessler review Metroid Dread, and he was complaining about having to shoot walls to find secret paths lmao like dude have you not played a Metroid game before? He also admitted to not finishing the game... a game that can be finished in like 10 or 12 hours at a leisurely pace. I think speed runners have it under 3 hours already. So the dude is giving a negative review to a game based on an incomplete playthrough and his dislike for a core part of the level design. I guess it's fair to criticize the wall shooting - I mean if you don't like it, you don't like it. I'm of the mindset that I enjoy games with a sense of mystery that reward exploration, as opposed to the glut of games we have that literally point you in the direction they want you to go to complete your next objective via compass markers, map markers etc etc But anyone reviewing a game - particularly one as short as Dread - should make every effort to finish it before finalizing any thoughts on the game </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive 10/25/21 1:32:26 PM #6:	Mead posted... probably none considering it would be a huge scandal that would likely backfire and tarnish the image of both the outlet and the publisher So you've pretty much ignored the last 15 years of game review scandals then? Cool, cool. Plenty of reviewers have outright admitted how mercenary the business can be. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:959374159] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>probably none considering it would be a huge scandal that would likely backfire and tarnish the image of both the outlet and the publisher</quote> So you've pretty much ignored the last 15 years of game review scandals then? Cool, cool. Plenty of reviewers have outright admitted how mercenary the business can be.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cruddy_horse 10/25/21 1:33:56 PM #7:	Far-Queue posted... Same. That's why I'm waiting on a handful of reviewers I trust to cut through the BS. I watched Adam Sessler review Metroid Dread, and he was complaining about having to shoot walls to find secret paths lmao like dude have you not played a Metroid game before? He also admitted to not finishing the game... a game that can be finished in like 10 or 12 hours at a leisurely pace. I think speed runners have it under 3 hours already. So the dude is giving a negative review to a game based on an incomplete playthrough and his dislike for a core part of the level design. I guess it's fair to criticize the wall shooting - I mean if you don't like it, you don't like it. I'm of the mindset that I enjoy games with a sense of mystery that reward exploration, as opposed to the glut of games we have that literally point you in the direction they want you to go to complete your next objective via compass markers, map markers etc etc But anyone reviewing a game - particularly one as short as Dread - should make every effort to finish it before finalizing any thoughts on the game It does bother me that I can finish most games before so-called Game Journalists who's job it is to play these games do, along with the fact most Journalists seem incredibly awful and sometimes completely unable to play some of the games they are covering. i really don't get it, it's like these Journalists don't actually like games and are doing it for the paycheck alone. <cite>Cruddy_horse posted [p:959374208] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Far-Queue posted... </cite> <quote>Same. That's why I'm waiting on a handful of reviewers I trust to cut through the BS. I watched Adam Sessler review Metroid Dread, and he was complaining about having to shoot walls to find secret paths lmao like dude have you not played a Metroid game before? He also admitted to not finishing the game... a game that can be finished in like 10 or 12 hours at a leisurely pace. I think speed runners have it under 3 hours already. So the dude is giving a negative review to a game based on an incomplete playthrough and his dislike for a core part of the level design. I guess it's fair to criticize the wall shooting - I mean if you don't like it, you don't like it. I'm of the mindset that I enjoy games with a sense of mystery that reward exploration, as opposed to the glut of games we have that literally point you in the direction they want you to go to complete your next objective via compass markers, map markers etc etc But anyone reviewing a game - particularly one as short as Dread - should make every effort to finish it before finalizing any thoughts on the game</quote> It does bother me that I can finish most games before so-called Game Journalists who's job it is to play these games do, along with the fact most Journalists seem incredibly awful and sometimes completely unable to play some of the games they are covering. i really don't get it, it's like these Journalists don't actually like games and are doing it for the paycheck alone. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 10/25/21 2:27:47 PM #8:	ParanoidObsessive posted... So you've pretty much ignored the last 15 years of game review scandals then? Cool, cool. Plenty of reviewers have outright admitted how mercenary the business can be. Ive seen plenty of folks flipping out acting like all reviews are bought and paid for, and a couple of anonymous forum posts cited as evidence --- my resting temp can easily be in the 90's -Krazy_Kirby <cite>Mead posted [p:959375821] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite> <quote>So you've pretty much ignored the last 15 years of game review scandals then? Cool, cool. Plenty of reviewers have outright admitted how mercenary the business can be.</quote> Ive seen plenty of folks flipping out acting like all reviews are bought and paid for, and a couple of anonymous forum posts cited as evidence </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 10/26/21 12:06:59 PM #9:	Far-Queue posted... Same. That's why I'm waiting on a handful of reviewers I trust to cut through the BS. I watched Adam Sessler review Metroid Dread, and he was complaining about having to shoot walls to find secret paths lmao like dude have you not played a Metroid game before? He also admitted to not finishing the game... a game that can be finished in like 10 or 12 hours at a leisurely pace. I think speed runners have it under 3 hours already. So the dude is giving a negative review to a game based on an incomplete playthrough and his dislike for a core part of the level design. I guess it's fair to criticize the wall shooting - I mean if you don't like it, you don't like it. I'm of the mindset that I enjoy games with a sense of mystery that reward exploration, as opposed to the glut of games we have that literally point you in the direction they want you to go to complete your next objective via compass markers, map markers etc etc But anyone reviewing a game - particularly one as short as Dread - should make every effort to finish it before finalizing any thoughts on the game I have no plans on buying Dread but I read one review. I don't like the idea of an unkillable creature chasing you while the game wants you to explore. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:959404436] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Far-Queue posted...</cite> <quote> Same. That's why I'm waiting on a handful of reviewers I trust to cut through the BS. I watched Adam Sessler review Metroid Dread, and he was complaining about having to shoot walls to find secret paths lmao like dude have you not played a Metroid game before? He also admitted to not finishing the game... a game that can be finished in like 10 or 12 hours at a leisurely pace. I think speed runners have it under 3 hours already. So the dude is giving a negative review to a game based on an incomplete playthrough and his dislike for a core part of the level design. I guess it's fair to criticize the wall shooting - I mean if you don't like it, you don't like it. I'm of the mindset that I enjoy games with a sense of mystery that reward exploration, as opposed to the glut of games we have that literally point you in the direction they want you to go to complete your next objective via compass markers, map markers etc etc But anyone reviewing a game - particularly one as short as Dread - should make every effort to finish it before finalizing any thoughts on the game </quote> I have no plans on buying Dread but I read one review. I don't like the idea of an unkillable creature chasing you while the game wants you to explore.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/26/21 12:59:53 PM #10:	Mead posted... Ive seen plenty of folks flipping out acting like all reviews are bought and paid for, and a couple of anonymous forum posts cited as evidence It's pretty common knowledge that making a habit of calling high-profile games out when they aren't very good is an excellent way to not get review copies from that company, which is a pretty big deal for any smaller reviewer because they rely on those high-profile games for a large percentage of their traffic. Get into larger reviewers, and you've got advertisers to keep happy, lest they lose their entire source of income. It's not usually as blatant as "developers are bribing reviewers," but the whole pre-release review system is definitely rigged to provide advertising for the games and not to actually help consumers make informed choices. That's why it's generally a lot better to wait for the game to release so reviewers that haven't sucked up enough to get pre-release copies can give their opinions. Mead posted... having a negative review for a popular game would actually be a good way to draw attention to your site Generally, you see major diminishing returns on that once you get below 8/10, or 7/10 at the lowest, while dramatically increasing the likelihood of being blacklisted by the publisher. In the context of rabid pre-release hype, people will have intense arguments over anything remotely negative that is said about their perfect video game darling that they haven't played yet (even if it later turns out to be true). There was one reviewer that generally liked Cyberpunk and praised the game overall, but made the comment that it had some very high-risk seizure triggers in it (including suffering a grand mal seizure herself during the review process), and many people were so profoundly offended that she would dare criticize the game they loved so much that they sent her seizure trigger videos disguised as other videos (which constitutes physical assault, I might add). If all you're looking to do is generate extra traffic, you really don't have to give a significantly critical review. People will make any criticism controversial if they've already decided they like the game. Beyond that, however, if your review is actually critical enough to amount to "you probably shouldn't buy the game" and ultimately hurt sales, publishers don't like that, while you don't increase traffic any more than a mildly critical review would. Generally speaking, you want to avoid getting on publishers' bad side as a reviewer unless you're prepared to limit yourself to post-release reviews on your own dime. Even then, if a Youtube-based reviewer pisses publishers (usually smaller ones) off enough, they may end up facing DMCA takedown attempts that can cost them their entire channel if they lack the resources to dispute it (generally speaking, Google won't actually listen to complaints about fraudulent takedowns unless you actually say "my lawyer and I are prepared to fight this if needed," so anyone without a lawyer is kind of boned). Games journalism as a whole is pretty broken. As an industry, you cannot trust it to give you honest purchasing advice. You're far better off waiting for independent and user reviews post-release and buying games later than you will be if you let pre-release reviews guide launch day purchases. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:959405951] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>Ive seen plenty of folks flipping out acting like all reviews are bought and paid for, and a couple of anonymous forum posts cited as evidence</quote> It's pretty common knowledge that making a habit of calling high-profile games out when they aren't very good is an excellent way to not get review copies from that company, which is a pretty big deal for any smaller reviewer because they rely on those high-profile games for a large percentage of their traffic. Get into larger reviewers, and you've got advertisers to keep happy, lest they lose their entire source of income. It's not usually as blatant as "developers are bribing reviewers," but the whole pre-release review system is definitely rigged to provide advertising for the games and not to actually help consumers make informed choices. That's why it's generally a lot better to wait for the game to release so reviewers that haven't sucked up enough to get pre-release copies can give their opinions. Mead posted... </cite> <quote>having a negative review for a popular game would actually be a good way to draw attention to your site</quote> Generally, you see major diminishing returns on that once you get below 8/10, or 7/10 at the lowest, while dramatically increasing the likelihood of being blacklisted by the publisher. In the context of rabid pre-release hype, people will have intense arguments over anything remotely negative that is said about their perfect video game darling that they haven't played yet (even if it later turns out to be true). There was one reviewer that generally liked Cyberpunk and praised the game overall, but made the comment that it had some very high-risk seizure triggers in it (including suffering a grand mal seizure herself during the review process), and many people were so profoundly offended that she would dare criticize the game they loved so much that they sent her seizure trigger videos disguised as other videos (which constitutes physical assault, I might add). If all you're looking to do is generate extra traffic, you really don't have to give a significantly critical review. People will make any criticism controversial if they've already decided they like the game. Beyond that, however, if your review is actually critical enough to amount to "you probably shouldn't buy the game" and ultimately hurt sales, publishers don't like that, while you don't increase traffic any more than a mildly critical review would. Generally speaking, you want to avoid getting on publishers' bad side as a reviewer unless you're prepared to limit yourself to post-release reviews on your own dime. Even then, if a Youtube-based reviewer pisses publishers (usually smaller ones) off enough, they may end up facing DMCA takedown attempts that can cost them their entire channel if they lack the resources to dispute it (generally speaking, Google won't actually listen to complaints about fraudulent takedowns unless you actually say "my lawyer and I are prepared to fight this if needed," so anyone without a lawyer is kind of boned). Games journalism as a whole is pretty broken. As an industry, you cannot trust it to give you honest purchasing advice. You're far better off waiting for independent and user reviews post-release and buying games later than you will be if you let pre-release reviews guide launch day purchases. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Adam_Savage 10/26/21 1:02:52 PM #11:	adjl posted... Generally, you see major diminishing returns on that once you get below 8/10, or 7/10 at the lowest, while dramatically increasing the likelihood of being blacklisted by the publisher. In the context of rabid pre-release hype, people will have intense arguments over anything remotely negative that is said about their perfect video game darling that they haven't played yet (even if it later turns out to be true). There was one reviewer that generally liked Cyberpunk and praised the game overall, but made the comment that it had some very high-risk seizure triggers in it (including suffering a grand mal seizure herself during the review process), and many people were so profoundly offended that she would dare criticize the game they loved so much that they sent her seizure trigger videos disguised as other videos (which constitutes physical assault, I might add). If all you're looking to do is generate extra traffic, you really don't have to give a significantly critical review. People will make any criticism controversial if they've already decided they like the game. cyberpunk had just the weirdest bubble of protection all up until it's release when the issues couldn't be ignored anymore --- WE SUFFER DO YOU WEEP FOR US <cite>Adam_Savage posted [p:959406038] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Generally, you see major diminishing returns on that once you get below 8/10, or 7/10 at the lowest, while dramatically increasing the likelihood of being blacklisted by the publisher. In the context of rabid pre-release hype, people will have intense arguments over anything remotely negative that is said about their perfect video game darling that they haven't played yet (even if it later turns out to be true). There was one reviewer that generally liked Cyberpunk and praised the game overall, but made the comment that it had some very high-risk seizure triggers in it (including suffering a grand mal seizure herself during the review process), and many people were so profoundly offended that she would dare criticize the game they loved so much that they sent her seizure trigger videos disguised as other videos (which constitutes physical assault, I might add). If all you're looking to do is generate extra traffic, you really don't have to give a significantly critical review. People will make any criticism controversial if they've already decided they like the game.</quote> cyberpunk had just the weirdest bubble of protection all up until it's release when the issues couldn't be ignored anymore</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/26/21 1:07:10 PM #12:	Adam_Savage posted... cyberpunk had just the weirdest bubble of protection all up until it's release when the issues couldn't be ignored anymore Yep. A great many people were outright appalled that anyone would dare say anything negative about the game, right up until they actually played it and found it to be a buggy mess, at which point they turned their ire on the developers without a hint of awareness that they were now saying exactly the same things that they attacked reviewers for saying. It happens fairly often with really highly anticipated releases, though Cyberpunk was particularly egregious. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:959406178] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Adam_Savage posted... </cite> <quote>cyberpunk had just the weirdest bubble of protection all up until it's release when the issues couldn't be ignored anymore</quote> Yep. A great many people were outright appalled that anyone would dare say anything negative about the game, right up until they actually played it and found it to be a buggy mess, at which point they turned their ire on the developers without a hint of awareness that they were now saying exactly the same things that they attacked reviewers for saying. It happens fairly often with really highly anticipated releases, though Cyberpunk was particularly egregious. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Far-Queue 10/26/21 1:16:00 PM #13:	Revelation34 posted... I have no plans on buying Dread but I read one review. I don't like the idea of an unkillable creature chasing you while the game wants you to explore. A. They're not entirely unkillable and 2: they're confined to small zones (small zones relative to the overall map) --- https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2 "My last bike gave me severe taint pain." - Dikitain <cite>Far-Queue posted [p:959406426] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>I have no plans on buying Dread but I read one review. I don't like the idea of an unkillable creature chasing you while the game wants you to explore.</quote>A. They're not entirely unkillable and 2: they're confined to small zones (small zones relative to the overall map) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 10/27/21 2:40:24 AM #14:	Far-Queue posted... A. They're not entirely unkillable and 2: they're confined to small zones (small zones relative to the overall map) I assume you can only kill them after getting all the upgrades. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:959428460] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Far-Queue posted...</cite> <quote> A. They're not entirely unkillable and 2: they're confined to small zones (small zones relative to the overall map) </quote> I assume you can only kill them after getting all the upgrades.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 10/27/21 2:41:29 AM #15:	I think it's funny that for the Steam banner for the game the highlight is Starlords crotch --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:959428476] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>I think it's funny that for the Steam banner for the game the highlight is Starlords crotch </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Far-Queue 10/27/21 5:38:41 AM #16:	Revelation34 posted... I assume you can only kill them after getting all the upgrades. You assume wrong. Trying not to spoil it more than I already have but it's not as severe and punishing as you think. Lokarin posted... I think it's funny that for the Steam banner for the game the highlight is Starlords crotch Prob the highlight of the game itself --- https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2 "My last bike gave me severe taint pain." - Dikitain <cite>Far-Queue posted [p:959430245] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>I assume you can only kill them after getting all the upgrades.</quote>You assume wrong. Trying not to spoil it more than I already have but it's not as severe and punishing as you think. Lokarin posted... </cite> <quote>I think it's funny that for the Steam banner for the game the highlight is Starlords crotch</quote>Prob the highlight of the game itself </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 10/27/21 7:31:35 AM #17:	Far-Queue posted... You assume wrong. Trying not to spoil it more than I already have but it's not as severe and punishing as you think. Prob the highlight of the game itself Well it's a moot point for me anyway. I don't have a Switch and since the games are fairly expensive I would just limit myself to a few. Any indie games I could get on Steam for far cheaper. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:959431413] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Far-Queue posted...</cite> <quote> You assume wrong. Trying not to spoil it more than I already have but it's not as severe and punishing as you think. Prob the highlight of the game itself </quote> Well it's a moot point for me anyway. I don't have a Switch and since the games are fairly expensive I would just limit myself to a few. Any indie games I could get on Steam for far cheaper.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
chandlermbing 10/27/21 8:10:40 AM #18:	What was the reviews like for the Avengers game at first? Seem to recall reviewers were pretty negative. That would be a good yard stick to compare Guardians --- "Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge" <cite>chandlermbing posted [p:959432004] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>What was the reviews like for the Avengers game at first? Seem to recall reviewers were pretty negative. That would be a good yard stick to compare Guardians </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Far-Queue 10/27/21 8:26:58 AM #19:	Revelation34 posted... I don't have a Switch and since the games are fairly expensive Dude for real and they never go on sale. My son wants Captain Toad Treasure Tracker for his birthday and it's still $40 new in a lot of places. Game came out on Switch like 3+ years ago and it's a fucking Wii U port on top of that I don't care though I'll pay whatever because I'm fucking baller son --- https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2 "My last bike gave me severe taint pain." - Dikitain <cite>Far-Queue posted [p:959432240] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>I don't have a Switch and since the games are fairly expensive</quote>Dude for real and they never go on sale. My son wants Captain Toad Treasure Tracker for his birthday and it's still $40 new in a lot of places. Game came out on Switch like 3+ years ago and it's a fucking Wii U port on top of that I don't care though I'll pay whatever because I'm fucking baller son </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Adam_Savage 10/27/21 10:59:33 AM #20:	chandlermbing posted... What was the reviews like for the Avengers game at first? Seem to recall reviewers were pretty negative. That would be a good yard stick to compare Guardians avengers and gotg are made by two entirely different companies avengers was crystal dynamics/square enix gotg is Ubisoft not saying it's better, because it's Ubisoft, but it's an important distinction to make also, avengers is decently fun to play, just uh, don't buy anything --- WE SUFFER DO YOU WEEP FOR US <cite>Adam_Savage posted [p:959435396] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>chandlermbing posted...</cite> <quote>What was the reviews like for the Avengers game at first? Seem to recall reviewers were pretty negative. That would be a good yard stick to compare Guardians </quote> avengers and gotg are made by two entirely different companies avengers was crystal dynamics/square enix gotg is Ubisoft not saying it's better, because it's Ubisoft, but it's an important distinction to make also, avengers is decently fun to play, just uh, don't buy anything</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wwinterj25 10/27/21 11:28:01 AM #21:	Adam_Savage posted... gotg is Ubisoft It's actually Eidos-Montral. Square Enix is the the publisher for both. This game however looks a lot better than Avengers so I'll pick it up when cheaper. --- One who knows nothing can understand nothing. http://psnprofiles.com/wwinterj - https://imgur.com/guXxsmA <cite>wwinterj25 posted [p:959436054] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Adam_Savage posted... </cite> <quote>gotg is Ubisoft</quote> It's actually Eidos-Montral. Square Enix is the the publisher for both. This game however looks a lot better than Avengers so I'll pick it up when cheaper. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Adam_Savage 10/27/21 12:06:44 PM #22:	fuck do you mean it's eidos it was like ubisofts entire e3 --- WE SUFFER DO YOU WEEP FOR US <cite>Adam_Savage posted [p:959437139] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>fuck do you mean it's eidos it was like ubisofts entire e3</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Adam_Savage 10/27/21 12:07:08 PM #23:	oh no, ubisofts was all rainbow six crap --- WE SUFFER DO YOU WEEP FOR US <cite>Adam_Savage posted [p:959437150] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>oh no, ubisofts was all rainbow six crap</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/27/21 1:51:02 PM #24:	Adam_Savage posted... fuck do you mean it's eidos it was like ubisofts entire e3 https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/xbox-series-x/323455-marvels-guardians-of-the-galaxy Platform: Xbox Series X Genre: Action Adventure Linear Developer: Eidos Montreal Publisher: Square Enix --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:959440324] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Adam_Savage posted... </cite> <quote>fuck do you mean it's eidos it was like ubisofts entire e3</quote> https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/xbox-series-x/323455-marvels-guardians-of-the-galaxy <quote> Platform: Xbox Series X Genre: Action Adventure Linear Developer: Eidos Montreal Publisher: Square Enix</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 10/27/21 1:59:06 PM #25:	Adam_Savage posted... cyberpunk had just the weirdest bubble of protection all up until it's release when the issues couldn't be ignored anymore because none of the reviewers had the PS4/XB1 versions which had the most glaring issues --- my resting temp can easily be in the 90's -Krazy_Kirby <cite>Mead posted [p:959440576] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Adam_Savage posted... </cite> <quote>cyberpunk had just the weirdest bubble of protection all up until it's release when the issues couldn't be ignored anymore</quote> because none of the reviewers had the PS4/XB1 versions which had the most glaring issues </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/27/21 2:21:03 PM #26:	Mead posted... because none of the reviewers had the PS4/XB1 versions which had the most glaring issues Even if they had, the fanbase would have torn them to shreds for reporting that they were barely playable. Cyberpunk was ridiculously overhyped and nobody wanted to hear anything remotely bad said about it before it came out and they started saying bad things about it themselves. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:959441215] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>because none of the reviewers had the PS4/XB1 versions which had the most glaring issues</quote> Even if they had, the fanbase would have torn them to shreds for reporting that they were barely playable. Cyberpunk was ridiculously overhyped and nobody wanted to hear anything remotely bad said about it before it came out and they started saying bad things about it themselves. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Adam_Savage 10/27/21 2:21:50 PM #27:	what? yeah they did, there was console reviews and pc version reviews out at the same time it's just that everyone called them "liars" trying "to deface the company" for "clout" or that "they just don't have the patch and are playing a build from months and months ago" --- WE SUFFER DO YOU WEEP FOR US <cite>Adam_Savage posted [p:959441243] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>what? yeah they did, there was console reviews and pc version reviews out at the same time it's just that everyone called them "liars" trying "to deface the company" for "clout" or that "they just don't have the patch and are playing a build from months and months ago"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 10/27/21 3:40:33 PM #28:	Adam_Savage posted... what? yeah they did, there was console reviews and pc version reviews out at the same time it's just that everyone called them "liars" trying "to deface the company" for "clout" or that "they just don't have the patch and are playing a build from months and months ago" no content was seen pre-release on ps4/XB1 if reviewers had access to that content then it was strictly embargoed --- my resting temp can easily be in the 90's -Krazy_Kirby <cite>Mead posted [p:959443635] in That Guard... [t:79727492]...</cite> <quote>Adam_Savage posted... </cite> <quote>what? yeah they did, there was console reviews and pc version reviews out at the same time it's just that everyone called them "liars" trying "to deface the company" for "clout" or that "they just don't have the patch and are playing a build from months and months ago"</quote> no content was seen pre-release on ps4/XB1 if reviewers had access to that content then it was strictly embargoed </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Poll of the Day > That Guardians of the Galaxy game is reviewing well I guess (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > That Guardians of the Galaxy game is reviewing well I guess