Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Hey, at least the game can follow the movie pattern.  Most of the f13 movies had bad reviews too.  But, that doesn't stop us hardcore fans from supporting them.  Casual players? Sure, maybe it will affect them, but us lifers are gonna hang around til they shut the servers down.  Regardless of what the reviews say, it is fun as hell to play.  And nerve taxing and intense.  Just what i need to have my first heart attack.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dapper Dragon said:

Personally, I think reviewers should wait until the single player content is released.  This is an independent game that is not following the standard release norms.  Comparing this to other AAA released games is a bit of an apples and oranges scenario.

It should have been an early access game then. We don't even have a solid date for single player,nor do we know if it's anything more than offline bots with objectives. "Pop out Chad's eyes" or "throw Jenny out of a window." Reviews shouldn't be held up for something so trivial. I understand the whole "small indie dev" thing that gets brought up every single time,but it doesn't grant them a special magic pass in the gaming industry. I agree with most of the reviews I've read. On PC,with the right people,it's fun. But it's shallow and not worth $40. And if DLC isnt free,it wouldn't be worth $20.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe Gamespot gave it a 4. I mean, they'll give an 8 to just about anything. It's like their default score. They obviously don't understand the game and that's ok. What's not ok is their crap review is bound to turn some people off from playing it which is a shame.

I'm not really too concerned about the maps because they are all pretty similar anyway. It's more about the gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the game is a blast but with all the technical issues I think IGN's 6.9 is a fair score

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean you can't really blame review sites. Especially if they are playing the console versions of the game.

Xbox version has no quick play and private matches crash about 60-70% of the time.

 

played 5 games last night and 4 of them crashed.

with that being said when this game works, it's easily the most fun I've had in years. But the big thing is "when the game works".

Honestly the Xbox version at least should have been delayed, idk what the PS4 version is going through so won't comment on that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC Gamer gave it a 75/100.

IGN has it sitting at a 69/100.

There have also been a few other major publications which have given it a good, but maybe not great, review. I've read the rest of the reviews on Meta Critic and, as a former game journalist myself, I can assure everyone that most of the people that spit on this game didn't play it or played it for a few hours then reviewed it. You can tell just by the language they use in their reviews that they barely played what was there.

The game is one of the Top 10 streamed games on Youtube and Twitch, so there is definitely a disconnect here between players and reviewers. With that said, I wouldn't look too much into review scores, as most publications don't even have the faintest idea what each of those points in their review score even means.

Is the game perfect in it's current state? No, but as far as games which were crowd-funded go it is at least out and is at least what they showed and promised it would be (bar some hiccups and some minor delays). The same can't be said about a lot of games which get funded on Kickstarter, such as Mighty No 9...and it has a 55/100 on Metacritic, so that should go to show you how inconsistant and sloppy the review process is on a general scale. The 10/20/100 point review system is incredibly flawed anyways (on a 10 point review system nowadays, 7 is average...I'll let that one sink in).

Also, I hate that people are bemoaning that there is no tutorial (yet, it is coming guys, chill).

I've been playing video games since near the first generation of consoles ever released, let me tell you: hardly any early games came with tutorials. There was no hand-holding, most games plunked you in and you had to figure things out for yourself, as the only things the instructions gave you were the controls and backstory-snippets for the game. I went into the Beta for this game blind and I figured it out no problem. I hope the people complaining about there not being a tutorial never play any oldschool retro games or, god forbid, something like Dark Souls.

So with all that said, don't pay too much attention to reviews and review scores. Point in case: CoD Ghosts, generally voted as being the worst CoD game ever and no-more than a bare-bones rehash of the series, still got a 70-80/100, a score which most gamers (and even a good deal of CoD fans) agree it is far more than what is deserved (something you can tell by its 4.2/10 reader review score on Meta Critic).

If you want honest opinions about games, find people that don't work for journalism outlets owned by media conglomerates, as you're never going to get a truly honest opinion out of those owned by such groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm playing on PS4 and the first time I played I got in a Quick Play session after like six or seven minutes. It's crashed here and there since then and sometimes you can't get into an open lobby at all if you're playing at a peak time but generally speaking it's working really well (from my experience anyway). I've played a ton of private matches that worked just fine even though I had a high latency count since I was playing with people half way across the world. 

And I agree with Marik. Pro reviews are not the best thing to go by. 

I actually liked that there was no tutorial. It's not like the concept is hard to understand and half the fun is figuring it all out. I'm still discovering new things and concepts and strategies all the time. I honestly thought they did that on purpose to increase the tension of the player and the rewarding feeling of figuring something out. Old concept I know. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VideodromeStereo said:

I can't believe Gamespot gave it a 4. I mean, they'll give an 8 to just about anything. It's like their default score. They obviously don't understand the game and that's ok. What's not ok is their crap review is bound to turn some people off from playing it which is a shame.

I'm not really too concerned about the maps because they are all pretty similar anyway. It's more about the gameplay.

I wouldn't put too much stock into what Gamespot says. They haven't been a credible source of anything in a long time now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, agnes said:

I think the game is a blast but with all the technical issues I think IGN's 6.9 is a fair score

Agreed. It still doesn't work properly. Hard to give a 'broken' product a higher grade.

 

DELETE DELETE DELETE

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 7theye said:

Agreed. It still doesn't work properly. Hard to give a 'broken' product a higher grade.

 

DELETE DELETE DELETE

 

 

lol... nice

not sure how many people will catch it

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2017 at 1:17 PM, SmokeMassTree said:

It should get a 0/10 for releasing broken.  

 

No excuses, no free passes. 

These are the two best examples that invalidate this argument.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/halo-the-master-chief-collection

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-2

 

During the massive success of Xbox Live with the second generation Xbox 360 available, we have Gears of War 2. Gears 2 was one of the most unpolished, broken online multiplayer experiences to ever be released yet we see it standing at a very solid 93% on Metacritic. This is due to the rest of the content like its single player and Horde Mode but I digress.

Of course who can forget The MCC? The Master Chief Collection is hailed as THE MOST broken Triple A video game to ever be sold. Oh wait, it's at 85% on Metacritic. Do you know what this means? It means that people in this spoon fed day and age are spoiled for the most part. Sad but true, harsh but real. #CasualsKilledGaming

The team that developed Friday the 13th is an extremely small one. They made no false promises like another small group of developers(I'm naming No Man's Sky as the reference here.) They also released an expensive beta that was costly to keep running for as long as they did, even if for a short time. They have done nothing except cater to the fans. That's a fact. I'm also going to mention that Illfonic/Gun Media wants to deliver the first ever cross server platforming across all three major platforms. Just give that a little thought to realize how ambitious that really is. 

My personal critical consensus would be to give F13th The Game a 6/10 from where it stands but that doesn't mean it's terrible. You either really enjoy the game for what it is, or you hate it for what you feel it should have been. I will say however that I thoroughly agree with the OP about the critics overlooking the asymmetrical point of Jason and the counselors. Jason should be OP considering it is 7 vs 1 alone. How Jason actually works in the films transcends the game in that he kills the majority of everyone and has the highest body count of any horror movie slasher. 

It is all about communication, working together and surviving. The primary goal isn't to kill Jason, even though you actually can! The goal is to survive or escape. Even with a lot of the technical issues still present I personally think the future of F13th is an incredibly strong one. I could name countless other titles with similar launches that rated much higher but it's pointless. Like I said, the future of this game is especially bright considering the reimbursement. They will no doubt be giving back to the fans after its massive economic success. I do kind of agree that $39.99 is a little steep but they will be correcting this with possible free DLC etc...

Speaking of the technical issues for just a moment I have just one that I know will be fixed soon and that is the context of Jason's grab. Once the servers are fully functional this can start to be addressed. What I mean by the "context" of Jason's grab is that its distance of it is inaccurate. It should be much more focused upon the actual location of the player being grabbed. This is pretty much the only main issue I have so far because the rest of the issues are not completely game breaking for me. The context of the grab though does sometimes come close. 

Well those are my thoughts about the whole release. I have been around a little while, been through a ton of great and awful releases myself. This really isn't much different from what I expect due to the circumstances of the development. I expect many improper complaints to go along with predictable issues such as these. I use the term predictable pretty firmly here. I mean come on, dedicated servers are relatively new even for Triple A devs these days. Maybe not give them a "free pass" but a little sympathy goes a long way.

/MacheteMusic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 7theye said:

Agreed. It still doesn't work properly. Hard to give a 'broken' product a higher grade.

 

DELETE DELETE DELETE

 

 

Brother Jarvis... I knew you'd come.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Maddogg_8121 said:

Hey, at least the game can follow the movie pattern.  Most of the f13 movies had bad reviews too.  But, that doesn't stop us hardcore fans from supporting them.  Casual players? Sure, maybe it will affect them, but us lifers are gonna hang around til they shut the servers down.  Regardless of what the reviews say, it is fun as hell to play.  And nerve taxing and intense.  Just what i need to have my first heart attack.  

Agreed.  Hard-core fans love this game. We are not looking for critical reception. And most of the critics if you read the reviews are solely focused on server problems and bugs and not the actual gameplay. I've never looked to critics for anything regarding Friday the 13th and I'm not going to start now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its fun, when your jason, otherwise your dealing with him grabbing you from 20 feet away, being able to shift right in view of a councilor (never saw that bs in the movies), amongst other things, makes this hardcore fan, cry tears of wtf did they do to my homie jason. The memory leaks are a joke, if this thing was a boat you know how fast it woulda sunk? it's been like this with a lot of games lately, and the trend is going to contiune as long as WE GAMERS keep allowing this to happen, we have rights too, we're spending money, earned through our time, on something we're spending time on which could equivilent to more money. The reviews are pretty spot on, I gave it a 3/10. While i enjoy playing, the current state of this game is a joke and I could care less about what any little wanna be fanboy gotta say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some major technical issues as well as design issues like Jason's grip range, the game doesn't really explain how fear or stealth works really all that well. But as much as I love the game, it feels like it needed more polish before being released as a full game. People are saying that it's an Early Access game trying to sell itself off as a finished product. There is truth to that, but if Gun Media released the game as an Early Access title, it would have pissed off the backers who expected a finished game. The $40 price tag takes the singleplayer into account, but not a lot of people know that so it's very steep for what the game offers at launch. 

I expected negative reviews, game is fun but trying to pass itself off as a retail release really hurt it. It's going to be awhile before the general public considers it good. At least F13 fans love it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GonzoThe912TH said:

 

Hahahahahahah! That was awesome!That was awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30-5-2017 at 7:10 PM, lHeartBreakerl said:

Okay. So i'm gonna address the elephant in the room.

Reviewers hate this game apparently. And i'm not gonna knock and talk down on them, but from the reviews i've read they seem to have no idea what they're talking about. Most are complaining about Jason being OP and how we should be able to kill him easier. Or how easy it is for Jason to kill you if he gets his hands on you.

And i mean thats kinda the point, right?

Chad face proved to be very damaging for reviews as well. Although i think people were a little too hard on it. I mean its a fucking face.

Plenty of bugs, glitches and server issues (server probably being the worst on reviews).

But are we and the reviewers even playing the same game? They seemed to have skipped over all the fun bits or intentionally only saw the bad. Sure you can nit pick like me. I'd like to see a lot of shit fixed, and it needs to be. But it seems they've never been in a good game.

Additional note: I don't know how people say its not scary. Every time Jason walks through a door or wall i shit my pants.

 

I absolutely enjoy the game, but also this game is extremely shoddy / cruddy.
- Looking at the used game engine.. I don't think they fully employed it.
- Launch problems are common, but not being able to scale it up is simply inexperience. The last-minute server activities are not a good indication. The only ever highest peak they'll get, is done now. Would not surprise me that they've upped their network too much now.
You should not hold kickstarters / early access, if you don't have the right experience. You pay for the project/product, not personal education. (People like Garry Newman use it as educational funds)
- As said: Shoddy. Too many invisible boundraries, glitching animations (in a gamebreaking way), audio not balanced. (I'm excluding visual glitches and all non gameplay issues)
- The price is fár fár too steep (PC) for its quality; simple as that. Maybe the limited use of the game engine and the higher price are console-related issues.
If we could get it for the appropiate amount of 10 euro/dollar, the consolers would complain. Likewise the gamers complaining about not being privileged anymore to be the only one with the silly Savini skin.
- It's always sad to see a game extremely limited, because the auto aiming consolers need to be able to play it with 2 buttons. Marketing wise it is understandable, but it will cost you a lot of points as a PC game review.

Going for its quality ánd quantity, the game is nót worth its money and I wont be able to sell it to friends. (PC gamers)
Also for the OP: This game has a bit of a learning curve, which the in-game guide does not help a lot with. Also there is not a single offline mode for just walking around and experimenting interactions. If a reviewer plays a few hours, it might still be a bit difficult to win. (especially since the easier Jasons to play are higher level; if he played versus Savini, then yes. It's a game mood ruiner)
That they've released a Virtual Shack, but do not release a simple walk-thru-town mode, is silly. Sadly reminds me about Rust. (where Rust itself is the Virtual Shack)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before, the game had the potential to be a masterpiece. But maybe there are not much of 'fun bits' for reviewers when they have to wait 20 minutes to find a lobby and get a disconnect after two minutes in the game! Or as mentioned before you have to wait up to 15 minutes cause you got killed in the very beginning...plus there are (and don´t turn your back on it) content, state of art, cutscene and whatever kind of issues

You reviewing a game when it comes out and this game was a disgrace when it came out. Imagine you have 3 games to review on the table for an 8 hour day?! You see where this goes, right?! If you need more then one hour to complete one match maybe it is not that surprising that the score is pretty low (for now), specially when the other two games on the table just worked perfectly. And not talking about game mechanics here. Don´t be so blind it´s just common sense. The time you finally play COULD (!) be fun. COULD is the key word.

I hope as well, that the devs use the surprisingly big amount of money which came in to fix the game asap. Could become a legend based on an already good concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hudonj said:

Angry joe wasnt too severe and did like it a lot. Thats good news for me.

I think a 6 is fair in its current state. But, yeah. The only direction this game can go is up.

unless.... microtransactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lHeartBreakerl said:

I think a 6 is fair in its current state. But, yeah. The only direction this game can go is up.

unless.... microtransactions.

Shhhhh. They'll hear you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...