You know, one review with a 10/10 you might call bullshit. But 10 reviews with 10/10 it might just be time to, you know, pre-load the game?
I count 38 reviews and they're all above 9.
I wouldn't call it console-centric but it is a multi-platform game and they want to have the same experience on all platforms. It might be that they're aiming for the best graphics that will run at a steady 60 FPS on all consoles, but in some previous games the frame rate was directly tied to gameplay. I can't really give a good example of this because I don't fully understand it but Dark Souls 1 was a 30FPS game and the PC fix which allowed 60FPS mentioned that you might see issues with 60FPS like sliding down ladders might make you fall through the world. It might be a similar situation here, I don't know.
For people who do get performance issues, stuttering, FPS drops, etc. They suggested to reviewers to try running with -dx11 argument. I'm hoping this will still be an option for the proper launch. Something to keep in mind.
Well, I've been a gamer long enough to notice certain patterns. This includes how the critics respond to certain titles with a certain level of hype surrounding them - and with a certain desire for something to be greater than it can reasonably be.
For instance, if I take a look at the "top 10" games of all time according to aggregate sites like Metacritic - I don't see a single game I consider worthy of being there.
Now, if you really think games like GTAIV, BotW or RDR2 truly represent the pinnacle of game design and the gaming experience - then obviously they DO belong there.
I consider all of those SEVERELY flawed - but they're definitely good games. Great games I might even concede - in the spirit of objectivity.
To me, 10/10 doesn't mean "perfect" - because nothing is perfect.
It means something like "about as good as it realistically could be given the state of the art and technology" - and I think there are a few games out there which could potentially live up to that, though I can't think of a single one.
We must remember that aggregate scores are as objectively valid as votes in a democracy.
You're not looking at what is objectively "the best" - because that could never be established even if we tried.
You're looking at what "most people like the most" - which, to me, does NOT represent anything even remotely useful as an objective opinion proxy.
Now, as for past Souls games - they were very heavily curtailed on PC by console concessions. They didn't even bother changing input tutorials from controllers to keyboard - not even for DS3
They were FPS locked to 30 on consoles - and yet modders managed to unlock that and have them function perfectly on PC.
These days, having a 60 FPS lock in your game means you have no idea what you're doing on PC - or you just don't care.
I really can't see it any other way.
Now, that doesn't mean anything for the actual game itself. It COULD be a 10/10 - I just don't see anything that would justify it.
Of course, I've played enough Souls games to understand that they're not really for me, so obviously I wouldn't see that anyway.
I'm not a fan of "haha, you didn't see that coming (because we've deliberately designed it that way) - so now you're dead and you have to waste your time again".
It sort of reminds me of GTA/RDR2 mission design - which, while usually pretty easy, have the same sort of heavily designed challenges that you're supposed to trial-and-error your way through.
That's cool - we all like different things.
I also despise the opaque non-story story stuff in Souls games - but, again, that's subjective.
With all that said, I'm actually very happy for Souls fans - and I truly wish them a great time with this.
For my own part, I'm hoping for a similar experience with Starfield - which is my kind of "Souls-like"
Here's hoping it's a good Beth game.
