Spider man 2 reviews/ better than 1

[Ayush008]

Hey guys,

 

I hope you all guys are doing good

Please stay safe and healthy 

 

Your opinions are highly vaulable for me 

 

As we all know that finally we can 0ut our hands on spider man 2 but the question is, is it better than 1 ?

[Alex Atkin UK]

53 minutes ago, Ayush008 said:

Hey guys,

 

I hope you all guys are doing good

Please stay safe and healthy 

 

Your opinions are highly vaulable for me 

 

As we all know that finally we can 0ut our hands on spider man 2 but the question is, is it better than 1 ?

We don't know, its not out yet.

 

Basing anything on reviews is pointless as they are all comparing it to 1 rather than on its own merits.

 

Also given 2 is able to be bigger due to the work already done on the assets in 1 (even though they clearly re-worked them all), I'd be surprised if it isn't better than the first game.  It certainly looks like a more convincing alive world with so much more details and cars/pedestrians and bigger map.

[Ayush008]

1 hour ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

We don't know, its not out yet.

 

Basing anything on reviews is pointless as they are all comparing it to 1 rather than on its own merits.

 

Also given 2 is able to be bigger due to the work already done on the assets in 1 (even though they clearly re-worked them all), I'd be surprised if it isn't better than the first game.  It certainly looks like a more convincing alive world with so much more details and cars/pedestrians and bigger map.

Thanks @Alex Atkin UK,

For sharing your opinion. Your thinking is quite logical and straight. Kind of sorted 

[Ayush008]

1 hour ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

We don't know, its not out yet.

 

Basing anything on reviews is pointless as they are all comparing it to 1 rather than on its own merits.

 

But also gamespot reviews are quite accurate, they have provided 8 star but first 1 got 9 

[Alex Atkin UK]

1 hour ago, Ayush008 said:

But also gamespot reviews are quite accurate, they have provided 8 star but first 1 got 9 

That's my point though, sequels are always judged on "how much has it innovated on the previous game" and that's hugely subjective.   If they change too much, people might not like it for being too different.  If they change too little, it scores badly as not innovating enough.  I've already seen bizarre comments saying "it could have just been DLC for the first game".

 

A prime example of this is what Bethesda are doing.  Fallout, The Elder Scrolls and now Starfield, they all inherently are structured the same because their target audience clearly enjoy those games (that and it would be expensive to write a whole new game engine to change how quests work).

 

Yet the things they tried to change in Starfield some people complain saying its bad, the things they didn't try to change other people complain saying its bad, its a lose lose situation.  If they had made a game that wasn't based on the same formula I'm sure a ton of people would have moaned saying "but it doesn't feel like a Bethesda game".

 

Same with Ubisoft, everyone saying all their games are the same mechanics with a different story.  They're not entirely wrong, but then there's only so many mechanics you can make a game out of.  You could equally argue that almost all games are just the same formula with a different coat of paint.  Same argument with movies.  People have unrealistic expectations for just how many variations you can actually put in a game or movie, its all basically variations on past mechanics but people judge some companies more harshly for it than others.

 

Personally from what I've seen of the reviews it sounds like Spiderman 2 makes changes in all the right places so its rather unfair for it to score lower than the first game, but then you can't really score it higher either because a 10 implies it has no flaws which I'm sure it has.  Its why scoring systems are inherently, flawed especially for sequels.  As if the previous game scored well, you have no way to indicate that its better without scoring it too high.  I mean what happens if a game gets a top score and the sequel is better?  Its why Eurogamer ditched ratings and moved to just saying if a is recommended or not, because ratings are worthless.

 

Were at a point where game improvements basically does boil down to the micro details, that Spiderman 2 particularly cranks up on.  More detailed buildings, more dense population so it feels alive, raytracing, all things to make it feel more real while not altering the gameplay at all because you don't want to make games too complicated so they are no longer fun to play.

[Ayush008]

1 hour ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

That's my point though, sequels are always judged on "how much has it innovated on the previous game" and that's hugely subjective.   If they change too much, people might not like it for being too different.  If they change too little, it scores badly as not innovating enough.  I've already seen bizarre comments saying "it could have just been DLC for the first game".

 

A prime example of this is what Bethesda are doing.  Fallout, The Elder Scrolls and now Starfield, they all inherently are structured the same because their target audience clearly enjoy those games (that and it would be expensive to write a whole new game engine to change how quests work).

 

Yet the things they tried to change in Starfield some people complain saying its bad, the things they didn't try to change other people complain saying its bad, its a lose lose situation.  If they had made a game that wasn't based on the same formula I'm sure a ton of people would have moaned saying "but it doesn't feel like a Bethesda game".

 

Same with Ubisoft, everyone saying all their games are the same mechanics with a different story.  They're not entirely wrong, but then there's only so many mechanics you can make a game out of.  You could equally argue that almost all games are just the same formula with a different coat of paint.  Same argument with movies.  People have unrealistic expectations for just how many variations you can actually put in a game or movie, its all basically variations on past mechanics but people judge some companies more harshly for it than others.

 

Personally from what I've seen of the reviews it sounds like Spiderman 2 makes changes in all the right places so its rather unfair for it to score lower than the first game, but then you can't really score it higher either because a 10 implies it has no flaws which I'm sure it has.  Its why scoring systems are inherently, flawed especially for sequels.  As if the previous game scored well, you have no way to indicate that its better without scoring it too high.  I mean what happens if a game gets a top score and the sequel is better?  Its why Eurogamer ditched ratings and moved to just saying if a is recommended or not, because ratings are worthless.

 

Were at a point where game improvements basically does boil down to the micro details, that Spiderman 2 particularly cranks up on.  More detailed buildings, more dense population so it feels alive, raytracing, all things to make it feel more real while not altering the gameplay at all because you don't want to make games too complicated so they are no longer fun to play.

But gamespot and meta critic are quite popular because of their reviews mechanics....there must be some reason behind it. I have tried many games with my friends  saying this game is superb but in reality I'm just testing them to checkas internally, i know they suck (rated by gamespot). My friend don't like the game either despite of my praise....is this not enough to verify that rating matters especially of gamespot and meta critic.

[Alex Atkin UK]

4 minutes ago, Ayush008 said:

But gamespot and meta critic are quite popular because of their reviews mechanics....there must be some reason behind it. I have tried many games with my friends  saying this game is superb but in reality I'm just testing them to checkas internally, i know they suck (rated by gamespot). My friend don't like the game either despite of my praise....is this not enough to verify that rating matters especially of gamespot and meta critic.

I never pay attention to ratings, too many games and movies I loved had bad ratings, they are by their nature subjective.  You have no idea if the reviewer has the same taste as you do.

 

Reviews aren't pointless overall, you just need to pay attention to the actual game play is like, not the rating.

[Ayush008]

10 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I never pay attention to ratings, too many games and movies I loved had bad ratings, they are by their nature subjective.  You have no idea if the reviewer has the same taste as you do.

 

Reviews aren't pointless overall, you just need to pay attention to the actual game play is like, not the rating.

Don't you think game industry will Doom once again like in 1983, especially if gta 6 will also be a huge failure.

[Poinkachu]

23 hours ago, Ayush008 said:

Don't you think game industry will Doom once again like in 1983, especially if gta 6 will also be a huge failure.

Nope, not anytime soon.

[Ayush008]

On 10/20/2023 at 2:34 AM, Poinkachu said:

Nope, not anytime soon.

Thnx @Poinkachu, for your opinion. Would you be so kind to tell me the reason why?

[Poinkachu]

1 hour ago, Ayush008 said:

Thnx @Poinkachu, for your opinion. Would you be so kind to tell me the reason why?

Just compare what gaming scene was like in 1983 with now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983

 

1. There's a lot more games on various platform nowadays, instead of basically just some consoles like back then. Which was mainly dominated by Atari iirc.

 

2. There's a lot more game devs than back then. Be it med to big studios, or indies. And they aren't just pushing out shovelwares.

 

3. It's easier for indies / small dev to enter the game market in today's world. It's easier for them to be known and grow bigger. Example: How many people know CD Projekt RED before they unleashed The Witcher ?  Do you know that Battlebit only started with 3 devs who started as a modder ?

 

4. There is a lot more peoples gaming now. Does people who solely play mobile game cares if AAA games quality dropping each year? no.

Even as a really long time  PC gamer myself I simply think "Really... another one. Oh well, not like they're the only game out there". For casual gamers this is even more of a minor thing.

 

Will my nephew gives a shit if Spiderman 2 / GTA / Whatever has a big gameplay flaw ? He won't. Hell, he won't even complain if the game crash every 30 minutes. :x

 

Will my brother bat an eye if GTA 6 suck ? nope, he only plays Pokemon Go afterall. And he plays it more than I played FF11 back in the day, and spend money in it more than I ever paid in total for FF11 subscription fee too. That's 8 years of subscription fee beaten within 3-4 years.

 

5. There is a shit ton of online games now.

 

It's overreaching to say AAA games quality might be the downfall of gaming industry. At most it will only make peoples have some trust issues towards either big studios or AAA games in general.

 

If AAA games flopping gonna be the doom of gaming industry...., I'd say we'd be doomed already. Especially considering how many AAA games is a buggy mess at launch, some even a buggy pile of turd way after launch date.

[Ayush008]

3 hours ago, Poinkachu said:

Just compare what gaming scene was like in 1983 with now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983

 

1. There's a lot more games on various platform nowadays, instead of basically just some consoles like back then. Which was mainly dominated by Atari iirc.

 

2. There's a lot more game devs than back then. Be it med to big studios, or indies. And they aren't just pushing out shovelwares.

 

3. It's easier for indies / small dev to enter the game market in today's world. It's easier for them to be known and grow bigger. Example: How many people know CD Projekt RED before they unleashed The Witcher ?  Do you know that Battlebit only started with 3 devs who started as a modder ?

 

4. There is a lot more peoples gaming now. Does people who solely play mobile game cares if AAA games quality dropping each year? no.

Even as a really long time  PC gamer myself I simply think "Really... another one. Oh well, not like they're the only game out there". For casual gamers this is even more of a minor thing.

 

Will my nephew gives a shit if Spiderman 2 / GTA / Whatever has a big gameplay flaw ? He won't. Hell, he won't even complain if the game crash every 30 minutes. :x

 

Will my brother bat an eye if GTA 6 suck ? nope, he only plays Pokemon Go afterall. And he plays it more than I played FF11 back in the day, and spend money in it more than I ever paid in total for FF11 subscription fee too. That's 8 years of subscription fee beaten within 3-4 years.

 

5. There is a shit ton of online games now.

 

It's overreaching to say AAA games quality might be the downfall of gaming industry. At most it will only make peoples have some trust issues towards either big studios or AAA games in general.

 

If AAA games flopping gonna be the doom of gaming industry...., I'd say we'd be doomed already. Especially considering how many AAA games is a buggy mess at launch, some even a buggy pile of turd way after launch date.

So in future the AAA titles will keep on falling plus game industry will stop AAA titles and will focus on royal battle type games

[Poinkachu]

11 hours ago, Ayush008 said:

So in future the AAA titles will keep on falling plus game industry will stop AAA titles and will focus on royal battle type games

So what will surely happen in future? Who knows, I don't own a working crystal ball. I have no idea how you came with that conclusion.

 

But yea, like I've said, to say that gaming industry is going to undergo crash like in 1983 just because of several AAA flopping is quite silly. The industry doesn't revolve around GTA 6, or any AAA game, heck, nowadays I'm starting to think it doesn't even revolve around AAA games in general.

 

1. Game industry will only stop making them if people stop buying to the point no AAA games makes good enough profit. So far, people still buys them, and it's still being made. No?  In fact there's atleast 3 hyped one in the last 3 months, and atleast 2 of them is good.

 

2. There's several good ones lately no?. Or atleast decent enough. But then again, no idea what kinda game you usually buy or play, nor your criteria of "fail game".

 

3. If being nitpicky enough, every game has a flaw somewhere. Especially considering how subjective it is. But, what I considers a flaw in gameplay might not be for the person beside me. No?

 

 

 

Me personally, I don't give a shit if they stop making AAA games. And it's not because I love playing esport games or MMO.

It's because when I want to play a game, it's "I want to play a good game", not "I ONLY want good AAA game".

 

 

As for your original question :

Whether it is better or not is pretty much subjective. And yes, reviews are subjective.

[Ayush008]

On 10/22/2023 at 1:01 AM, Poinkachu said:

So what will surely happen in future? Who knows, I don't own a working crystal ball. I have no idea how you came with that conclusion.

 

But yea, like I've said, to say that gaming industry is going to undergo crash like in 1983 just because of several AAA flopping is quite silly. The industry doesn't revolve around GTA 6, or any AAA game, heck, nowadays I'm starting to think it doesn't even revolve around AAA games in general.

 

1. Game industry will only stop making them if people stop buying to the point no AAA games makes good enough profit. So far, people still buys them, and it's still being made. No?  In fact there's atleast 3 hyped one in the last 3 months, and atleast 2 of them is good.

 

2. There's several good ones lately no?. Or atleast decent enough. But then again, no idea what kinda game you usually buy or play, nor your criteria of "fail game".

 

3. If being nitpicky enough, every game has a flaw somewhere. Especially considering how subjective it is. But, what I considers a flaw in gameplay might not be for the person beside me. No?

 

 

 

Me personally, I don't give a shit if they stop making AAA games. And it's not because I love playing esport games or MMO.

It's because when I want to play a game, it's "I want to play a good game", not "I ONLY want good AAA game".

 

 

As for your original question :

Whether it is better or not is pretty much subjective. And yes, reviews are subjective.

AAA titles- action /adventure, open world etc.  

[Poinkachu]

1 hour ago, Ayush008 said:

AAA titles- action /adventure, open world etc.  

AAA just a informal title given to a game with high development and/or marketing budget.

No actual metrics or definition about it.

[Ayush008]

On 10/23/2023 at 12:11 PM, Poinkachu said:

AAA just a informal title given to a game with high development and/or marketing budget.

No actual metrics or definition about it.

Bdw do you have any hope with any upcoming title.....I mean you are quite logical and practical may be you have some gutt feeling or you know what I mean...strong feeling for any upcoming AAA title...which will be a massive hit.