What do you think of Gametrailers’s reviews?
They do reviews?
I like them giving dark souls game of the year way back when that was released. Kind of amazed that it wasn’t a more clear cut winner. They apparently had an argument over it. Kind of amazed more people didn’t give Dark Souls game of the year, considering how everything is compared to it, and it’s held up as a paragon of good design, but I get the feeling it couldn’t win game of the year no matter what year it was released in.
Watched this. Most of the review is talking about the environments, the things inhabiting those environments. My first impressions of the bloodborne DLC was extremely different in focus. The coverage of the weapons is alright, as well as the Ludwig boss, though I think I did it in a bit more detail.
Average review 4/10.
The video player eats up a ton of my processing power, and the whole browser lags trying to play these, and I have to disable my ad blocker, but I’ll look over a few more.
S’alright, describes plague knight’s abilities fairly well, notes a fairly obvious issue with having to open the menus a lot. Doesn’t really mention plague knight’s mobility tricks, which were a big focus of development, nor his interaction with the existing level/enemy types.
I feel like this doesn’t really give me the sense of what it’s like to play the Witcher 3. It tells me up front what a lot of the plot is structured like and I don’t really doubt them, but it glazes over what it’s actually like to do these things. The description of combat is especially generic. I felt like there was a massive gap between the quality of The Witcher’s combat and Dark Souls, despite ostensibly being similar, especially by the third Witcher game. Again with the description of the investigation sequences, it feels more like a description of the fiction than, “you hold a button, interact with the points highlighted, follow the breadcrumbs.”
Opens with a pithy statement about how it’s easy to obsess over the game. Recalls how it’s similar to souls games. I think the remark on shields and how they let you sword and board easily is exaggerated. The remark on the rally mechanic is so-so. I’d say it’s more there to tempt people to risk themselves attacking again. Pithy statement on how it can be tough to adapt but feels good when you do. Also points for successfully parrying an enemy twice, but missing the riposte both times. No mention of how you can switch weapons from an attack as a chain attack. No remark on enemy designs. Finishes up with a ton of pithy statements.
Alright, chose two more videos, because I feel like they’re the real test.
>playing with english voices
Pithy statement for opening. I wish they’d get to the point. “Still feels like guilty gear” What does this mean? It’s true, but a subtle kind of true. They ported their original engine directly to UE3, even including a bug where negative edge didn’t work in the most recent version of GGAC+R. It’s cute how the footage of good gameplay is from online play, but offline play showcasing characters is really amateur, like they’re barely capable of moving, let alone doing special moves. I think they captured footage of other players from spectator views because they can’t really play the game themselves, even on a basic level. Also they forgot Sin when listing new characters. I would have personally remarked that the tutorial is lacking and could be a lot better, but all fighting game tutorials are, and this is among one of the better ones, and the combo trials teach combos that are actually useful introductory combos, which is unheard of in most fighting games.
Most offensively, they didn’t really comment on the core dynamics of the fighting at all. They just said it was good a lot. They didn’t really describe why Guilty Gear is one of the best fighting games, or compare it to other entries in the series. None of the remarks made are even close to the same form as those Mike Z made here:
I’m biased as all hell, and if this isn’t a negative review, or says something like, “isn’t competitive as its predecessor, but an unmatched experience in fun.” I’m discarding hope.
Opens with remarks on single player modes. Whatever.
Remarks on Omega mode as a positive thing, doesn’t mention how stupid it is that there isn’t a “no hazards” mode, and how pointless omega mode itself is when you have final destination sitting right there.
No remark on gameplay at all. Final Remark is that it’s an improvement over Brawl, but it could learn from Melee, by including a competent adventure mode. Yeah. That’s the only thing it’s missing. Sure.
I had a more on-point review of Smash 4 before it came out, without having played it. (which is dangerous to say or do, because weak evidence, but it’s still true)
No remarks on the gameplay in the 3ds review either. Ironic that it’s so negative considering the 3ds version sold way better than the console version (8 mil versus 5 mil). That may have to do with the amounts that both systems themselves sold though.