![]() If reviewers found the performance issues in Zelda to actively hurt their enjoyment/the execution of the game, then they have every right to bring them up and give the game a lower score for it (which some actually did) but if it wasn't a stand-out issue for them (despite experiencing said issues) then they're is no expectation that it should affect their score. A simpler goal executed well is generally preferable to a more complicated one executed badly. So too would animations were they to be an issue: but they aren't in Zelda specifically because they don't try to be so complex as Mass Effect: Andromeda's are. If you reviewed Zelda from the perspective that the narrative was a key feature - a driving force through the game - then the voice acting would be a fair drawback. The stilted voice acting actively works against the way that Breath of the Wild aims to bring the narrative forward in a more interesting and nuanced way than past titles. ![]() Time has passed and standards have changed: meanwhile, the animations haven't improved.įor instance, a better analogy from Breath of the Wild would be the English voice acting which is sub-par (it doesn't personally annoy me, but it obviously isn't great). They are at odds with the delivery of the story, in a game specifically aiming for the story to be a key feature. It's the same sort of jarring effect seen in cartoons when main characters are sharper/stand-out from everything else. I think the game will definitely still get some scores in the 90s, but a handful of reviewers are going to get stuck on the presentation issues and/or dislike the writing, and that's going to bring it down past what most people feel is an acceptable score for a big budget title from a company like BioWare or The issue with Andromeda's animations isn't that they are worse than the Mass Effect trilogy, it's that the fidelity of everything else is vastly superior to Mass Effect 1-3 and the animations haven't kept up. So what do you think the game will score, and what makes you feel that way? Did you play the trial? Did you just watch clips of some truly terrible moments and judge the game from those?Īnd yes, I do understand that we have a lot of "people sure are talking about that Mass Effect" threads here, but I thought having a poll and seeing how wrong or right we were in our review assumptions would be fun. #MASS EFFECT ANDROMEDA METACRITIC FULL#We just don't know, but it's fun to speculate, and it's going to be very interesting to read reviews for the full thing starting in just around 30 hours from now. There could be brilliantly written side quests and loyalty missions. ![]() #MASS EFFECT ANDROMEDA METACRITIC TRIAL#Dragon Age: Inquisition takes an average of almost 90 hours to finish every side quest, so who knows what the rest of the game will contain? There could be animation issues that make the worst of those found in the trial look fantastic in comparison. ![]() The interesting thing is that we haven't seen or heard anything beyond the first 6 hours or so of a game that will likely take weeks or months for most people to finish. Some are going to love the multiplayer, and others aren't going to care. I think some are going to love the massive scope of the game, and others are going to reject it. I can absolutely see some reviewers deducting serious points for the animation issues, and I can see other reviewers not really letting it bother them all that much. After reading loads of comments and opinions from both reviewers talking about the EA Access portion of the game, and just various gamers talking about their experience with the trial, I think this game is going to get the most mixed reviews of any AAA title in years. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |