Be Excellent To Each Other

or 15:00 GMT

Clearly one line is me trying to keep your hype train from crashing through the buffers. (I think it was something about how people were going to be wide eyed in surprise or something)

I've said it once and I'll say it again, let's not forget that this year had INSIDE and Owlboy both release after years in LIMBO (ho-ho) and release to critical acclaim. 2016 has been great for games (shit for everything else).

*Filthy gaijin.

Reviews are in.

It's crap.

Embargo breaking !

Reviewers be on summertime, yo.

Looks like some mixed scores

Eurogamer 'essential' - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016- ... ian-review

IGN 7/10 - http://uk.ign.com/articles/2016/12/05/t ... ian-review

Videogamer 9/10 https://www.videogamer.com/reviews/the- ... review-ps4

Gameinformer 8/10 http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_l ... ormer.aspx

US Gamer 4/5 http://www.usgamer.net/articles/the-las ... ail-vessel

Polygon 7.5/10 http://www.polygon.com/2016/12/5/137674 ... -gendesign

Gamespot 9/10 http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-las ... 0-6416583/

TheJimquisition 6.5/10 http://www.thejimquisition.com/the-last ... an-review/

Slant 3 / 5 http://www.slantmagazine.com/games/revi ... t-guardian

Those aren't mixed, unless you think 7/10 is average for some reason.

Exactly my thoughts. They're mixed in the way that they're not all the same, but they're very good scores. Not that it matters, I reckon Sat will like it either way.

I'm in the process of pulling them from various places , it seems to vary from a 6 to a 9 which i would say is mixed , however yes , mixed on the positive side :-)

Thank Christ - I couldn't cope with Sat this Saturday if he'd had a breakdown over this. He'd be rocking back and forth sobbing into his pint of John Smiths.

You don't get this entire Ian baiting thing, do you? You're meant to drop in at least 2 fake review giving it 2/10

7/10 is average by game review scores though for most mainstream publications . You can argue about whether it should be,by あllめあんs

Have you just gone through a tunnel?

I think it's average in terms of games that would actually be on most people's radar but there's enough abject shite nobody knows or cares about that gets released to make it also technically correct.

Not a fake one but the lowest real one I've seen

4/10 - http://www.digitaltrends.com/game-revie ... an-review/

Are there any spoilers in any of these reviews so I can critically assess them?

どういたしまして

maybe.

TheJimquisition seems to be DDoSed again.

Oh wait, now it opened after all.

'Technical Disaster' -Jim Sterling.

Jim Sterling is a good reviewer and often entertaining, but I find I rarely agree with his taste, so I'm actually sort of relieved.

I'm sure there will be , I have seen one (the lowest one) who describes a specific puzzle and solution to show how the game is 'bad' and i bet others have minor spoilers in there.

However I think I can summarize all the bad stuff into :

It plays a lot like a PS2 or early PS3 game
The AI is not great
The puzzles can be a little obtuse and badly explained
The camera is a bit crappy

From looking at quite a few of these that seems to be the main problems so if you can overlook those then you should love it.

The Guardian gave it 5/5 and said it was yer man's best game yet.

I'm glad there's a big game that isn't worth trying. I mean,even Watch_Dogs 2 is supposed to be great.

Nah, sliding the space key converts input to japanese. あ = a, め = me and ん = n.

Amen to you too

Reading not your strong point then?

Not sure what ll is

The letter L, twice.

Cheers

So apparently you need the Pro to play this properly. For fucking fuck's sake.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... n-face-off

Wow, forget that then.

Calm down, AE.

Game performance is historically meant to get better over the course of a console's life until we reach the very end of the cycle, not worse. Are we now saying that the PS4 is finished three years in?

Well, I was never too bothered by the frame rate in Shadow of the Colossus (in fact, I am doing playthrough right now, and doing fine), so I guess I won't have too much of a problem with this, either.

But my PS4 is only a year old, and I would have never bought it if I'd known what Sony was planning. Makes my blood boil, it really does.

I don't think it's anything to do with the PS4 Pro. This is a game that has clearly had a very troubled development so it's doesn't seem too surprising that it's not as well optimised as most others. They say it runs better than SoTC anyway.

This is what I am hoping for - that it's not a general trend. I bought a PS4 thinking I'd be set for 5-7 years, not two.

On the other hand, the financial outlay of upgrading is about three weeks of your spend on iRacing. Is that really such a hurdle?

I can't see that developers are all suddenly going to start targeting a machine that has some tiny fraction of owners as the PS4. Just wouldn't make sense would it?

It would if the developer is Sony.

Not really. I've invested a lot into iRacing in the past year, but a) it's not sustainable and b) I won't need to going forward as I have most of the content I need. Years 2+ will get cheaper (comparatively). By dint of iRacing being my main gaming hobby now it's relegated my PS4 is to a secondary device. I can't justify upgrading to the Pro (and CBA with selling my PS4 boggo edition anyway).

But you know, defend a shitty practice that is poor for consumers if you like.

I forget who you work for sometimes - in-thrall to huge multinationals.

I think you're reading way too much into one shittily-written game with a famously troubled development history. None of the other big launches this year have suffered in this way.

As I said, I'm hoping it's a one-off and not a general trend.