@@Sebastianator01from what I understand, if you like the Ubisoft style Star wars outlaws isn't exactly a bad game(not worthy of a 70 out of 100, but equally unworthy of the garbage wars title you have given it)
@retrohanska4441 so is the space marine review made to upset people? Because if so does that not just piss off the corporate entity by giving it a low score. your 2nd part is about?
Who is they? The reviews were written by two different people. It's not a team who all works together on the review. It's one dude who didn't like the game, calm the duck down
@@Alex.Holland that's not how it works at all. The only other person involved would have been his editor. So what now anyone's who's opinion you don't agree with shouldn't be allowed on the Internet? Be real
When IGN gave Alien Isolation a 5.9/10, the excuses given were not good enough excuses. It was clearly a phoned in review. Yet the developers were still devastated financially by it.
The save system was incredibly divisive so I understand putting an asterisk on the review for something like that, but giving that game a 5.9 is blatant lying. you're actively lying to people about the game's quality.
@@OlDirtyBaronthe save system was absolutely crucial to the gameplay. Nothing divisive over that and certainly no reason to take points away. Quicksave wouldnt make sense in this game. Savescumming would absolutely destroy it.
correct me if I'm wrong didn't alien isolation release with a game breaking bug were the Alien would like stop working/bug out (i may be thinking of a different alien game).
Ooh you are wrong. They are. So if you see low rated game, you just know you need to play it. Reversed psychology. Not intended from them but it is what it is.
I don’t even trust Internet personalities I will check out a stream and decide myself not Thor per say but guys like shroud and many other get bags to tell us insert new game of the year every month
1998 PCG would have given this a perfect 10. I have some hard-copy issues from then on my shelf in my office; it's astounding looking back through them from time to time and seeing the massive difference in journalism quality between then and now.
The people who worked at PC Gamer then, were gamers, they're long gone now. These days they are all politically motivated DIE hires with no clue about the audience they are meant to cater to.
@doc_sav it's beyond that. You could tell that the writers of those articles were gamers first and journalists second; they were genuinely enthusiastic about the hobby and knew what they were talking about. The only agenda displayed was a motivation to encourage new releases to be the best they could be and the emphasis was on having fun, not beating the audience over the head with political propaganda.
Which was a meme based on a voice line in Dawn of War 2. And, well, when you're beyond eight foot tall and pack more cybernetics than any cyberpunk character could ever dream of, you tend to forget that small arms fire is something you're not supposed to take a shower in.
Lets just stop listening to them, dont click on their pages and just curate them off the sites, they have proven they dont want to honestly review the games out of fear of corporate BS then we will let them die from their own fear and greed,
theieer opinon of rating games should mean no more than any other person. the only expertise they may posse is the ability to write about their opinion. I never understood why people go out of their way to get mad at people's opinions they already don't hold with much regard to begin with.
@@ObstagoonGuy Not even the worst instance of ratings nonsense from IGN. They gave Dustbin, concord AND Blackmyth Wukong 7/10. Blackmyth has record breaking sales and has been universally praised by people who played the game and the others had the player bases of 30-ish (Dustbin) and 700-ish (Concord) with open mock from the whole internet to the point where Concord died in 2 weeks.
This is why I like independent reviews. Mad love and respect to people like Yahtzee at Second Wind, SplatterCat, Riloe, and TotalBiscuit (god rest his soul) who are just there to give an honest review. Note, I did not say unbiased, I said HONEST. I've heard many a review from these creators, and others like them, where a "negative" of the game for them was my motivation to try it! This also ties into my disdain for review scores. Not only because they are trying to quantify opinion (except in the case of technical aspects, but even still I want a breakdown) but also because of how scores have been weaponized against studios and developers.
The icing on the cake for this game was the thanks to Totalbiscuit at the start of the credits. These devs KNOW their fans and aren't afraid to show it.
@@crushycrawfishy1765 _The community_ liked TB. He went against almost every "standard" modern journalists follow these days. Or, in simpler terms: he was honest, and they're not.
What are you referencing about TB in the game? I wouldn't likely be able to identify it. I watched him play a warhammer ttrpg on the RUclips channel itmejp after he'd already passed, and that is the only reason I know of him. He was fantastically entertaining.
@@UTSareth That argument doesn't even work here, we got a scottish captain, an asian and a black guy who's missing an arm as our subordinates, and a pretty heavily accented (not sure what kind, latin american maybe?) female cadian commander as the first few people we meet in this game. I don't personally mind it but god damn did it stick out like a sore thumb.
@Druark -- First, not what market manipulation is. Bot accounts and harassment arent allowed on steam reviews. Review bombing trends also are subject to that. Second. No, it doesnt matter if the game is niche or very popular, review bombing due to literal misinformation is very common when it comes to review bombing. Harassment campaigns against games with gay or just women characters face this the most, not to mention the onslaught of "zomg, sweet baby inc" or lies like "this URL allows for spying".
@@TheKiroshi I still trust going through and reading reviews on steam over gamer journos. I can read the most extreme reviews of both sides of the coin and then also find reviews that are better written then most large platforms like PCgamer. the good thing about steam reviews are.. you can read as many as there are.. but on game journo... you have one article by someone who probably didn't even really play the game other then rush through it to half ass write a review. I am not saying you are wrong.. just that the steam reviews are not as bad as you claim them to be. If you read the reviews you can tell who is a bot and trolling and who is not.
@freed991 -- you can find singular, individual reviews on steam that are good, but you kinda proved the point. Sifting between all the "has X thing, so buy" or bot reviews, the genuinely bad reviews that simply miss who even knows why they simple features. PCGamer isn't nearly as bad on a large scale. It dips in and out with the individual reviewing them. The bias here is that you cherry-picked from the steam platform, and you over focus on the bad examples, like PCGamer or whoever did thay old Cuphead infamous review. All im saying is that every problem we have with these shitty reviews from companies is so much higher from normal users, with the addition of being more fickle. You can still totally focus more or less on either, you SHOULD be digging though both for good reviews (quality, not good ratings). Its just going to be harder to do that on steam. They used to have a genuine fix for this.. curators. Curators were singular people you could follow that would show you their reviews.. but sadly it got ditched.
This game is a love letter to fans of 40k and anyone who has ever had a passing interest in the 40k setting. If someone jumps in to SM2 without being a fan or ever having that slight interest, it’s still just a fun game. To me it plays exactly like the campaigns of Halo and Gears that people love - super soldier run here, shoot there, and then press the interact button on occasion. You travel slightly off the beaten path for weapons and ammo only, and then it’s back to being a super soldier. SM2 opens the 40k setting to everyone who doesn’t have an interest in the books or the miniatures (yet), and should be the starting point for allowing us to play out some incredibly grand moments within the setting!
so you just answered the question Thor wanted to but couldnt. "To me it plays exactly like the campaigns of Halo and Gears that people love " in 2024 we shouldn't be lauding an IP that's been around for over 40yrs now for making a Gears clone.
@@mrobots8764 no, we should be lauding a company making the same game, a clone of itself, year after year instead. What should be the takeaway is that this is actually good, and fun to boot. Who gives damn if it’s similar to gears in gameplay? If it’s fun, if the story is good, then screw similarities, especially if it ca stand in its own regardless.
@@mrobots8764 couple things here- In what way shape or form is it a gears clone? IPs don’t create anything, they are used to create media. Warhammer 40k, in particular, is a setting used to in miniature war games, novels, video games, comics, card games, and eventually tv and film. And the owners of Warhammer 40K, Games Workshop, didn’t make all of those things. They sold the IP, so other people could use the setting for what they made. If you’re making a single player super soldier game, you can plug in plenty of IPs and it’ll probably be a fun representation of that IP, but it could also be bad. That doesn’t mean the IP is good or bad, there’s plenty of Warhammer 40k media that isn’t good, most of that would be the video games, but nobody is praising GW because space marine 2 and rogue trader are good games.
I remember IGN also giving Pokemon Alpha Sapphire an 8.1/10, with the only negative being listed as 'Too much water." A game with a whale on the cover, who's main antagonists wanted to flood the world, was docked points for being ocean based.
On the topic of corruption of games journalism: Back in the day - around ten years ago - I had a short stint in the international marketing department of a video game publisher. While advanced copies were a perk we'd grant, the real pressure method we had, was advertisement. If you thrash one of our games in a way we don't like, we'd just reduce the allotted marketing budget for advertisement to that publication. Games journalism won't bite the hand that feeds them. That is why games from big publishers tend to get higher scores than they deserve, leading to the inflationary use of 9/10, because otherwise the publication won't get the ads and wont get paid.
They'll also give a game that's a 3 a score of 7 and they'll give a 1 a score of 5 or 6. How many times have we ever seen something lower than a 6 from a major studio? They've released some stinkers recently that didn't even make back 5% of their budgets, and they're rated as "6"?
I remember the day I switched over completely to RUclips reviewers. One of the cod games was broken to the point of unplayability at launch. IGN or some other hopefully dead publication gave it a 10/10.
@@TsuiIzumi The thing is, most game journalists are not journalist and just glorified bloggers. There used to be good journalists, actually doing research, understanding the craft and actually doing more than just reviews. They had opinions and ethics and were bad for business kicked off of sites like IGN, Gamespot etc.
Follow the money. "Journalists" are reponsable not to the public or audience but to the companies that buy ads. They're ad sellers, and their commodity is our time and attention.
You literally aren't even talking about the same game. Whats the problem with any of the interface? Literally what? The tech tree? Do you mean upgrades? Literally play a weapon and level it up? Are you joking that ita "complex" Customization is kinda silly but thats a cool driving factor for playing atill.
@@TheKiroshi The interface isn't really a problem, more just poorly explained. Perks and Mastery tree for weapons has the same issue, poorly explained but mostly fine if poorly balanced as some are blatantly useless. Customisation is arbitrarily limited because of GW's obsession with lore accuracy which could be a pro/con depending on the person but locking it behind a ludicrously high number of wins PER class when almost half of them are exactly the same between classes but with an extra purity seal etc, is just padding. Plus, DLC locked colours are stupid.
i'll buy week-1 if the games worth it, remarkably few are worth it. Helldivers 2 came outta nowhere for me, i had 4-6 weeks of post-launch game of the year gameplay-fun. THEN the "railgun nerf" patch landed and amongst all the other spawn-changes (not having enemies/planetary-kill-FX spawn under the player-camera on top of the players was good change) they caused a bug made solo/duo runs get 4-stack spawns, this is back when solo was "supposed" to have 1/6 the spawns of a 4-stack because you had no cover when reloading, no gear-sharing and no control over your MUCH lower respawn count locations (plus they also added in invisible walls blocking basically any drop-pod control around objectives because eff the playerbase having ANY fun anymore). Glad i did buy in when i did but by damn it's been downhill ever since that first true nerf-patch "this weapon is too helpful due to a number of unrelated cross-play/PS5 bugs, so we decided no more fun allowed from now on", alas for me a friend bought in that same day so their experience was MONTHS of the 2 of us fighting overlapping enemy patrols/reinforcements/tele-frag-ambushes and never being able to stand still for more than 15 seconds lest enemies walk out from behind a rock that was previously clear and slam a rocket/machine-gun-burst/sharpened-claw through the back of your head usually for an instant kill or a 60-65% HP "headshot".
me buying early AND for 100€ lmao definitely not worth that much noney but 60€ I'd have gladly paid for it (i did pay that much to get a copy for my father so we could play together)
@@hamishwalker9637 Let's not forget the reviewer who was fired for giving Army of Two a bad review on a site that was running full page adverts for the game... This has been happening for decades, long before the rise of Metacritic, and it's only gotten worse since then. But oh boy those whacky Gamers love their meaningless arbitrary ten point scales....
@@trielt1 Or a mission with Orks again, so I can tell how much of my frustration is the new combat mechanics and how much is 'nids are just harder than orks.
I haven't used game or movie reviews from professionals for years. It's all about user reviews or reviews from friends that I trust that like similar games that I typically enjoy.
You are so right, this bare bone skeleton of a shooter is definitely worth 60 bucks in its current state with a roadmap which might not be completed. Sure, let me just spend enough money to buy food for a week for 6 story missions and a coop mode which sucks with randoms. Yea, you are so right, they should charge 100 dollars after season 1 of the roadmap, thats how good this game is. Totally dont have 9 games like this from the last decade in my library. Nah, this one is special.
@@lexmortis5722 Its a good game but I agree. So many games now have roadmaps. And it feels like its an early access game and that when the roadmap is finished it’s released.
They lost all credibility the second Gamergate happened to be frank and everyone took their sweet time realising how worthless and incestuous they actually are.
There are some I like a lot, like PeopleMakeGames. They are fantastic investigative journalists and genuinely advocate for workers in the industry, but good games journalists are few and far between.
Apparently Saber CEO made a based comment somewhere under Asmon's videos about when they signed Space Marine 2 they wanted to make a throwback to simplicity of just fun of gameplay and immersion without unnecessary complexity and how he hopes this is and some other recent good games is a start of 'reversion' to the times when those things take priority. With devs like these we'll get far.
There's no evidence it was the actual CEO. Some guy just said "I'm the CEO" and people just went "surely, nobody goes online and lies...he must be telling the truth"
@@crushycrawfishy1765 It was a verified account, and it was the CEO. Seriously, stop commenting on RUclips when you are speaking out of your ass. It might help you IRL.
@@Zomgnomnom1 no. dont "just" curate your library. its okay to actively voice and push for game development for games YOU want. dont settle. it shouldnt have to be an easter egg hunt to find playable games.
@@crushycrawfishy1765that’s actually true... But still, even if he is not the CEO, IGN made an entire article of him, saying that he made controversial things and saying that the studio don’t confirm still if he was or not the CEO and if they support his “controversial” comments on gaming space. I think what you say is probable, but I still find IGN a little bit biased against him. Again, What you said is valid, I just wanted to say this.
True story: no game should get even an ounce of credit for a roadmap. Whether you believe in the promises or not, the review should be based on what's actually released at launch and is playable. Otherwise I'm in full agreement.
Ok, but should game reviews be updated over time then? Like No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk2077 are perfect examples. I wouldn't give them a note above 5/10 at release, now after updates and delivering on their promises they would easily be 8/10, even 9/10 for my personal taste. I agree you can't judge a game on promises, as they might never be delivered on. But it's also part of the LaaS model. Not taking them into account is like not taking online multiplayer into account for fighting games or FPS games. You're cutting a huge part of the game as it is planned.
@@Darkilikill Nothing wrong with a reviewer choosing to update a review, or to do a re-review at a later date. But there is no basis whatsoever for doing a review of things that literally do not exist based only on the promise that they may exist at some point.
For live service games I would agree. However this isn’t a live service game and at the very least shows that they still want to improve and do more with the already great game
@@jupitergaming5146 @mowermen1762 - I agree this dev has a good reputation, and I agree it's nice that they want to provide additional content to a good game. But ask yourself, how can a reviewer ethically review something that does not exist? How do you subject a promise not yet delivered to scrutiny? No review should ever gain or lose points due to a roadmap.
Also an important 1 month later note, the new PVE mission and weapon have released on time, meaning unlike most “road maps” for unfinished triple A games, we will be receiving all of the new free content promised, for a completed game that was amazing on its own, and we will receive it on time. Absolutely incredible. This studio is one of the few pillars keeping triple A gaming alive, and we need to protect them at all costs.
"This IGN Jurno has obviously mistaken video games as an outlet for their fetishes so weird deviant art wouldn't touch it and that's why their ratings seem skewed. Obviously in need of therapy, that is if they're even a real person. 7/10"
This is actually an absolutely god tier idea. People can rate media, rate the website, and rate the individual critic. All scores would be aggregated and listed hierarchically based on the the score of the critic, with higher rated critics having their score of the media be weighted higher l in the games overall score. Every score would have the score of the critic and the website be listed alongside the score of the media to always give context. This could easily be the greatest critic website of all time while also introducing accountability to critics everywhere and could slowly help to change game (and media generally) journalism.
It's a good idea, but I don't like it. A system that rates journalists based on the perception of the public would manipulate journalists into publishing reviews that maximized the public support they would receive. If I was a journalist and I had an opinion that disagreed with the majority of the public, why would I publish my opinion instead of following the band wagon? That being said, the current state of journalism is hardly immune to external influence already; publishers pressuring journalists to write positive reviews (because why would publishers give review copies to journalists who keep writing negative reviews), ad companies fiscally rewarding journalists to use provocative language (because provocative language attracts more engagement than neutral language), etc. So maybe I'd support the implementation of this idea anyways, even if I don't like it.
Any journalist that just caters to popular opinion will be highly rated, no matter how good of a journalist they actually are. It's because of this, that I can't imagine your idea working, sadly.
no its not, 2 diferent people were giving the score for every game, so it could happen, different people have different standards for scoring something
@@m0usey929 The quality of the game itself is irrelevant because, at the end of the day, it all comes down to subjective opinions. A score that one person considers the worst, like 64, may be seen as decent by another person who thinks 60 is an acceptable score for a game.
It isn‘t PC Gamer who reviews the game and gives them a score it‘s employees and contractors working for PC Gamer. So the score is entirely up to one person. It‘s like asking a youtuber or a streamer for their opinion on a game (and always has been).
It's virtually the same score. Read the reviews. What about them do you think is so far off base? Or did you just hear Thor read a number and not look into any further? What games would you give a 60/100? What would it take for them to be a 70, 80, or 90+?
Space Marine 2 was so good that I’ve finished the first three books in the Horus Heresy and have a backlog of books that I can’t wait to enjoy. I previously knew nothing of the 40k universe. Only 150ish books to go.
I was extremely disappointed with the melee combat, it's way too clunky and slow for my preferences. But I understood it was a style choice, not an error in design. These are walking tanks, they don't move like ninjas.
Well, no media has ever captured how Space Marines actually move. The novels have them moving faster than peak-humans while in armor with reflexes to match. Best analogy I can think of is watch videos of cats reflexes, now that what a Space Marine can do while in armor. Well, unless they're wearing Terminator armor.
@@Tullaryx Well yeah, because it is a power fantasy beyond fantasy physics. And the novels aren't exactly consistent. Like which was the one were they moved faster than the human eye can perceive (basically dbz levels)? Which is also one of the many year long critiques: Same with this game. We now have the Grapnel Launcher which went from a mobility enhancing tool for scouts to a spiderman-esque slinger for full loadout space marines to do dropkicks with. Sure it's fiction, but come on GWS, decide.
According to the Nightlords omnibus, Talos was moving at an average of 23.611 METERS PER SECOND. so safe to say the average marine likely moves perhaps 20% less than that. Still, monstrously fast.
@@Kinuhbud you could call any magazine "x's shilling" big whoop that the store that sells EXLUSIVELY videogames and videogame related things also sells a magazine about VIDEOGAMES it just fits under the market and allows people without access to E3 to find out about new releases
@@BigDaddyWes the contrarianism I'm referring to is rating a widely well received game comparatively poorly to other new releases. I did read most of the review, and there are numerous takes that indicate that the particular PC gamer reviewer did not learn much about the combat system during the 8 hours they played the game, a point which was frequently visited upon. A portion of it seemed like fluff, but I imagine something about quotas or a minimum word requirement would perhaps be the culprit? Overall I'd say the review wasn't entirely egregious and my comment is definitely playing it up a little bit, but I don't believe they should be faulting a game they evidently didn't take the time to learn. If matchmaking, performance issues, bugs, content and etc were cited as reasons I'd understand a bit more, but from a purely gameplay perspective I strongly disagree with SM2 being a 6/10.
@@blitz7514 How long should he have played? If he, supposedly, didn't learn the mechanics after 8 hours, why would that change? If you played chess for 8 hours, and didn't enjoy it much, why would you ever put in another 8 to learn a few more openings? The campaign isn't particularly long, and the depth isn't an ocean. The reviewer just didn't like it. So it was a 6.
Some additional bugs: - if you have max amount of hp modifiers - when you swap loadouts in armory pods, you get full health. Works for bulwark and heavy. - Sometimes heavy stance bugs out for heavy, not letting him shoot his gun untill he swaps weapons. - sometimes the sound effects of being under psychic control of zoan/neothrope lingers throughout the mission. - enemies can shoot you through elevator floor, killing you. Yeah, that's not a lot and bugs are minor. The problem is peer-to-peer connections. Holy Emperor this game pisses me off with lobbies. So you start the game. Now you load into your lobby. Now you select mission. Now you joining the lobby of some other player. If you joining fails - you get kicked to main menu to start again. If you joined and lobby host decided to leave - you get kicked to main menu to start again. If you joined and started the mission and lobby host leaves/disconnects - you get kicked to main menu to start again. Obviously losing all mission progress, exp and rewards. If you joined, completed the mission and returned to his lobby - he might leave and you get kicked to main meny to start again.
I’m gonna tell you more. Remember that story mission on the elevator where you need to protect the chains? Yeah, enemies can often shoot through any cover there and some pickups bug out and you can’t interact with them. Might be a problem with elevators.
The game is good, and you could say it is feature complete, but compared to how the first game released, this one was a bit barebones. Im glad about the PVP and the PVE, they are fun game modes, and I am so happy that the battlepass is only cosmetics. But the lack of armor customization in pvp for chaos, and colours locked behind the battlepass is.... well that annoys me. I love the game, but 40k is all about painting and kitbashing armor. They did good, but they could have done better. But I'd still give a 7/10 if I were to give a score, and not a 6. Gollum being higher than it is.... thats just bad judgement or bad reviewers.
Sounds like the reviewer needs a prescription to Growacet, because I'm getting wiped at the same difficulty (entirely new to Warhammer period) and it just makes me want more
The guys who got me into this game, who has been warhammer fanatics and was hyped for this game...They played on easy. No kidding, they did veteran and then to normal and then to easy bec a mission was difficult. If warhammer fanatics struggle, imagine a journalist who only plays strategy games will fair in the deadly arena that is space marine 2.
A bug I noted (obvious in hard mode, others not so much) is on the transport bridge (the big bike-chain lift that moves you horizontally that swarmers try to chew through to drop the Space Marines) the Tyranids with projectile weapons shoot you through the map, they can shoot through EVERYTHING, and they lurk on the outskirts of the lift so you have to sprint around and kill them quick or have a teammate on "bug-squashing" duty or they'll gun you down through shipping containers as you're fighting.
Yup, I had this exact problem with my group as well. And to make it worse, on reset all of the consumables would show up, but we couldn't interact with them if we had already picked them up once before.
This is actually an issue throughout the game, not just the elevator. The elevator just shows it the worst, because of the setup. It also doesn't seem to be consistent, as sometimes cover works fine. Other times, I have damage indicators pointing me towards a solid wall.
we did a angel of death run of the campaign, think we died the most on that exact elevator because of that bug. I also found out that if you died at a certain height, weapons would reset but the ammo caches would stay suspended in the air where you died perviously. It's a mood to run out of ammo and to see some magic floating crates of ammo up in the distance, out of reach
That bridge made my entire trio lock in for an hour straight on veteran going full tryhard lmfao We had to replay that sequence 4 times cos of the gameplay bugs 😂
PC Gamer is basement-tier games journalism now. I miss the old era when they had a coconut-based mascot and put some actual thought and opinion into their articles. At least that was interesting.
@@ender_3807 I am talking back in the day, when I was 13/14, 25 years ago.. if I am interested in a game I go watch a live stream on twitch or I watch YT videos to see the game play..
Back in the days of Doom and Quake, their issues were like 200-300 pages each. Yeah, some of that will be advertising, but most of it wasn't. Journalism as a whole, regardless of genre, has gone down the shitter in the past 10-20 years, all due to advertising and clickbait.
I have like 20-30hrs on it already. Love it, and the glitches. If you love a game, you will show support no matter what. Report bugs, write reviews and help newbies. Love
Alanah pearce made a good video about explaining how the rating of those review sides work which I thought was very interesting. Basically whenever a new game comes out and a certain journalist is really hyped about it he will grab himself that review, that's why certain games get sometimes higher rated even though they are very bad such as the golum game. On the other hand it's also possible that a game comes out and nobody really wants to play it, so it's possible that someone who usually reviews strategy games now has to review a beatem up, which will clearly result in a worse rating than usual.
A margin that wide, though, should simply not be acceptable in a single publication. If their review margins are that wide, they need to evaluate their standards. Publications sell on the basis of their reliability. If a publication is going to fall back on the excuse of "different reviewers, different scores," and allow for such a wide margin of difference that a should-be-4/10 and a should-be-8/10 both end up as a 6/10, then they have no reliability as a publication, which then defeats the purposes of having a f*cking magazine in the first place. At the end of the day, video games are technical products and technical products have objective technical value. If objective appraisal of technical value is being waylaid in favor of opinion, then it's a bad product review. When I read reviews on my new lawnmower, I wasn't interested in whether people "liked" their lawnmower. I was interested in what it did and whether it lived up to what it advertised itself as doing.
@@maltdairy2164 videogames are not entirely technical products they are mostly entertaining material and obviously some people are more entertained by it then others. That being said the objectiveness of a technical product in a videogame usually also gets partially rated, that's why a game like concord gets a 7/10 by IGN. It's a functioning game that barely has any bugs, works well, doesn't crash etc., that's why it automatically gets a 7/10 but it's not entertaining that's why nobody wants to play it, yet people get upset about the game being rated 7/10 even though the reviewer was objectively rating it, like you wanted lol. If people made an objective review of vampire survivors nobody would even try that game because objectively it's not a great game but the game is really entertaining for most people, that's why it gets rated high.
Hot take, I’ve played over 50 hours of the game and it’s honestly kind of mid. Like it’s fun at first but the gameplay loop feels TOO simple. I don’t think the game is bad by any stretch, it’s just not very entertaining in the long run.
I enjoy the game but I can agree to this. PVE feels more like a grindy slog than a truly fun progression with some weird choices (Cosmetic Money is the same as your progression money so you have to choose between a new weapon OR customization) so while there's a lot to grind, right now it's the same six missions. I think it'll get better but I think Thor's "There's SO MUCH CONTENT" is kinda false when you consider most of that content is grinding up stuff to max out weapons. PVP is great though. Just needs more maps.
@thewhyzer campaign is about 10 hours and they currently have 6 repeatable operations with 4 different difficulties to master and pvp. If you were to play the campaign and operations 1 time each I'd say you're looking at about 15-20 hours of gameplay, then ya know pvp can be as many hours as you like I reckon. I should add the operations tie into the story.
I feel like its a very, very solid foundation for the devs to build on. As it stands right now- I understand your mid comment. However, I can see the potential and the roadmap points to that
After 50+ hours too, im still having fun af Like i didnt overplay operations so its still super fresh, and the pvp is super fun and very team based which feels dope, the best thing you dont wanna do, is burn yourself out by constantly playing the same missions. Take a break for a bit and come back to it
@@isturbo1984 A quick Google and I find like three articles parroting what I just said they did. So...not false. They praise it NOW, because they can't deny how popular it is. And they focus on the LGBT stuff instead of the parts that make AAA studios look bad.
@@isturbo1984 I mean there are some fair arguments to be said about trying to compare every game to Baldur's gate 3. Absolutely with AAA games baldur's gate 3 should be the expectation but more indie style games. Like the original tweet came from Xalavier Nelson Jr who's most popular game people would probably know about would be "Space Warlord Organ Trading Simulator" or the recently released "I Am Your Beast". BG3 is an anomaly but we have to sort of remember it has alot of its backing from fans before it was ever released. I don't think people would like AAA studios releasing a EA title or launching a kickstarter to help fund their games.
Just a clarification, I’m pretty sure for new enemies they mean new types of tyrannids/chaos, like winged Tyrannid primes (like a flying version of the warriors) or vortex beasts (huge daemon with a black hole as a power source). Necrons seem likely, but probably not until late next year since it takes so much polish
I don't really get why you complain about PC Gamer giving 60 and present it as "all game journo is bad" - when on metacritic the overall score is 83 and user score is lower, 80 🤷 IGN Adria gave it 90, IGN Deutschland gave it 80, IGN France gave it 80, IGN Portugal gave it 80, IGN Italia gave it 75.
@ussassu well that's exactly it, how many games have 7, 8, 9, or 10/10 scores? A lot of them, but then there will be plenty of people who didn't enjoy those same games. Because that's just purely subjective, and genres exist for a reason. So there is no sort of organizing journalists based off their fav genres, instead it's whoever is available to review it. So all reviews do seem like dice rolling or just 7-10 scores.
Would LOVE to see Thor actually go through the text of the review and offer his perspective as well as his own personal score (of what the game actually is, not what a picture on the steam page says the game will eventually be)
I dont usually agree with everything you say, but this is one of those times where your perspective on this is 100% spot on. Thanks for pointing this out, some people really take these *review* companies to heart and I cant think of one mainstream videogame critic that isnt a complete parasite.
According to OpenCritic, PC Gamer gave the following titles 60/100 as well Bluey: The Videogame Fallout 76 Saints Row (2022) Space Hulk: Deathwing I chose the most interesting and/or humorous examples (to me). There's also a bunch of Warhammer games with 59/100.
@@UnknownSquid Deathwing needed more development time for sure, but the art and environment department absolutely blew it out of the park. I actually prefer it over Space Marine 2. But yeah reviewers are just paid advertisement or believe they can control the world of gaming by controlling people's opinions. Regardless, they aren't worth talking about or giving any airtime, best to just forget they exist and avoid anyone or any channel that gives them a spotlight, even to make fun of. Won't take long before we are all on the same page and they run out of air.
@@sh4dowst3p in Space Marine? my dude, do you know anything about Warhammer 40? it is impossible for a Space Marine to be a marry sue through their trials and tribulations. try again. do yourself a favor and look up one of the many awesome Warhammer 40k lore channels on the subject. bring a mask, as there is a lot of toxic masculinity.
I wouldnt put to much stock into a road map, we have seen time and time again where stuff gets put on the chopping block. Also if you'd read the other article PC gamer was experiencing massive issues with performance, among other things. The amount you've grappled onto this article seems a bit much. A lot of people don't spend as much time to spend on games as you, they spend 40+ hours working and just want to unwind at the end of the day and skim some reviews to see if something is worth the limited amount of disposable income they have in this terrible economy. The person who reviewed it at PC Gamer wasn't a fan of the game play loop and had issues with performance relating to multiple hardware configurations, games are subjective, they're art.
1: You need to stop thinking and talking about IGN. Enough brothers! 2: 6, 7 is still a good game in my opinion if 5 is average. It doesn't have to be awesome for everyone but for you it might be a 9. We are too focused on numbers that mean nothing because it's always subjective, always. 3: You need to think for yourself, have your own opinion and taste, play what you want 4: Space Marine rocks!
True, but I don't think that was his point. It's already feature-complete, and not absolutely broken. How does it get a worse score than other games that aren't?
@@mobrocketthing is, its either that, or making re reviews mandatory. If you critique points you know are being adressed in planned content updates, but do not award the points you took away after its in the game, it will affect the score negatively for ever. Tbh i think re reviews SHOULD be mandatory. No mans sky still sits at 60 or 70 but by now its more than what star citizen ever wanted to be.
@@jedidethfreak Same reviewer? Doesn't matter... I think Concord was average and SM slightly above I love how "average" is considered bad and never used as a rating even thou 50% of games should be average or worse
The only bug I experienced was in the campaign during cut scenes sometimes the the hip armor pads left and right would just start flapping and they cracked me up all the time
my thought on "battle barge expansion" would be a training area with like target dummies for you to try out your weapons in a controlled environment and maybe also an area where you can fight your squadmates for fun
Is it really a big deal to not like someone's review? I don't agree with plenty of reviewers. I don't think my opinion is any more fact than theirs is.
people love to bitch about game reviewers when their favourite game of the month gets a mid score. IMO i like SM2, but 6/10 is probably fair in release day. given how unplayable it was for me and my friends, 6 might have been generous, though since then the game has been very fun
What point does their review serve if it is so obviously out of touch with the majority of players? How does the review help me to make an informed purchasing decision? Games journalism is not supposed to be a personal blogging activity. Nobody cares what a games journo thinks.
@@spacejunk2186 I don’t think it’s that far out of line with most players though. It has valid points, and a lot of my friends express the same views. Not that we don’t enjoy the game, but from the release experience, it’s pretty much right.
That's funny... I just saw a video on Alanah Pearce's channel exactly about how reviews work from the journalists perspective, framed as a "why is everything a 7/10" that touches a bit on your complaints in this video. Maybe check out that video Thor, I genuinely think you'll find it interesting!
Personally, I think Alanah leans too heavily on the "I did this for x years, so I have some insight" aspect in quite a few of her videos, and it's a bit grating. I've been doing my job in my respective industry for 4 years, I'm quite competent at it, but I still wouldn't make a video claiming to have key insight into some industry process. I wouldn't even make a video claiming to have key insight into my company. I'm a drop in the ocean as far all that's concerned.
@@maltdairy2164 She also went to journalism school. It would be foolish to discount her experience when getting a peek behind the curtain of the Journalist side of things.
Alanah shills for Game Journalism and game devs constantly. Plus her logic in that video doesn't explain how Gollum got a better score than a polished game like Space Marine.
I like the game but I personally think a 7/10 is probably about right. For sure it's gonna hit harder for some but on the PS5 I've encountered a ton of bugs, some game breaking, such as not being able to pick up ammo and stim packs, which makes some of the missions on the third hardest difficulty setting basically impossible. I think the gameplay is just kind of so so as well, it's not bad it's just not amazing. And as much as I like the multiplayer, it feels basic and I find it strange that no one has made the comparison to the original original game which had much more more customization options, like an absurd amount of customization
this feels very out of touch. there is not a lot of content in this game, it is very bare minimum viable product level stuff. especially at asking price. the game had a lot of performance issues and missing settings. No FOV slider.... It will be a good buy on sale in a years time
If you've gotten to a certain point in the campaign there's some narrative detail that could be a clue as to who the new enemy type maybe if it is a new faction. Though a new faction would mean a lot of new assets to put into the game, but if it happens at the end of 2025 then its a possibility.
I have a feeling that if they do add a new enemy Faction, it might be Necrons. It’s just a hunch of mine but it seems plausible given certain things in the story.
@@americankid7782 The lead designer went into it on a Q@A I think. He said it would require a lot of time and might be something for game 3. He really likes the idea of Necrons tho
I bought the game at full price because of that review. I got 14 hours on it atm and it made me get into warhammer 40k as a franchise. Thanks pc gamer!
Game reviews are inherently subjective. Every person is going to have a different perspective and experience with a game. Scores, especially with the pointless granularity PC Gamer delivers, are always arbitrary. It's assigning a quantified measure to something that is a subjective experience doubling the inconsistent nature. An "eight" to me is a "six" to someone else and a "ten to another person (hence why I don't use any numerical values). Then to top it all off, when you bring multiple reviewers under the same umbrella, you're taking this doubly inconsistent situation and saying "all of these reviews are reflections of this single entity." Space Marine 2 and Gollum were reviewed by different people, the latter of whom is a freelance writer.
I think this is wrong, and I don't buy the mindset that "reviews = opinions." You would be right that two schmoes sitting on their couches can and do have wildly differing opinions on games purely as laymen, and that that's perfectly fine. In the world of JOURNALISM, wherein people are being paid either salaries or per article as professionals, there needs to be a set of standards designed to ensure a level of objective evaluation of the technical quality of games. On the couch, the mental score of a game can land anywhere between 0 to 10, but at the typewriter, if you have a competent journalist and game reviewer, it should simply not fluctuate that much. Reviewers are called reviewers, not opiners, for a reason. Opinion is a factor in reviews, but a review is not 100% opinion. It's hard won evaluation of how well a game actually performs as the kind of game it's trying to be irrespective of whether you like it. If someone gives Super Metroid a 0/10 because they hate scifi, then they're giving an honest opinion, but they're not giving an honest review because they've elected to rate on the game on the basis of their opinion only, and not on the technical quality of the game. In the review world, if all reviewers were competent, possessed the proper skill set, and were given adequate time to rightly review games, then you shouldn't and wouldn't see a wide open range of scores for a given game. What you would see is a margin of perhaps 2 to 3 points in the scoring. And that's industry-wide, but we're talking about these scores within the same publication. Differences of opinion are out the window when you work for a publication. It doesn't matter whose name is on the article. It's a PC Gamer review (or an IGN review, etc...). For a single publication to give Gollum a 63 and Space Marine 2 a 60 means they either have no standards for giving a comprehensive and objective (as objective as is possible) appraisal of games, or they do and their editors are asleep at the wheel. You can bet your damned ass that if I was an editor, it would never let a score distribution like that go through me and reach press. If I approved a 63 for Gollum, there's no way I'd approve a 60 for Space Marine.
@@maltdairy2164 I know where you're coming from, but I think if you had to sit down and take the time to hash out what objective evaluation standards are, it's going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible. Lets say for instance you agreed to count bugs as -0.5 points; is a minor visual bug in a menu the same as an NPC falling through the world and breaking the story progression? Does a bug that only happens two a tiny subset of people count? It gets out of hand really fast. And that's not even touching on creating an objective system for evaluating story, music, art style, all the artistic decisions. Those are inherently subjective. Find a reviewer whose opinions tend to align with yours, and try the games they recommend. Compare that to a system where every outlet is trying to figure out some objective points system that every reader will agree on. It's just not going to work. I do this with movie review; there's a few reviewers I go back to repeatedly not because they get it objectively "right", but because our tastes tend to align.
Honestly their criticisms seem pretty fair. 6/10= good but has a lot of issues holding it back. From my experience it looks spectacular, and the visuals capture the 40k essence excellently, but the progression is way too simplistic and grindy, there are a lot of bugs and nuisances in the game that hamper it for me, and in my opinion even on the highest difficulty the PvE isn’t very challenging. Comparing the moment to moment gameplay in Darktide, another 40k game, SM2 doesn’t have that same feeling like you’re facing down overwhelming odds in PvE. There’s not much enemy variety, most of the toughest guys are just bullet sponges, and the melee combat feels like you’re wielding a pool noodle. The PvP is good arcadey fun and all, but only 3 maps at launch and having some egregiously bad balancing on classes, looking at you Vanguard, makes me tire of it really quick. Honestly, if this game didn’t have the beloved 40k IP attached, fans would be dragging it every which way through the mud, and that’s coming from a 40k fan. I don’t think this game is really built to last in its current state though, which the studio clearly wants to do with the promises of the road map. I fear the game’s simplistic elements are gonna lead to a lot of casual players getting their fill in a couple of months before leaving for games they can really sink their teeth into.
It absolute it a complete game. I'm running through the campaign for a second time, not on a harder difficulty. I think Space Marine 2 is honestly the most complete game we've been given in the last 3-5 years.
I'm kinda curious what your metric for an appropriate amount of content is. Does potential build depth or diversity factor into it? Is it just enemies, maps, and campaign? For example the Ubi-standard open world has a metric f-ton of shallow content. Path of Exile has an absolutely absurd amount of complexity. CoD has a dozen maps and a campaign, maybe a splash of alt content of varying quality. MOBAs have traditionally one mildly complex map and a varying degree of build complexity. If its just ability to hold interest than I'd say thats almost so subjective that its a worthless metric. For me I hardly could get past the Zelda: BotW tutorial area before I tapped out because it didn't hold my interest, but it is quite obviously an amazing game.
@@Ilestun You kind of missed the entire point of my reply. I was arguing neither for nor against the content of Space Marine 2. In fact, I don't even own the game. I just want to know what is considered appropriate value for money when it comes to content. According to Diablo 4, a single particularly sparkly skin is equal in value to half a AAA title. Conversly Helldivers 2 at $40 didn't really have much by way of content complaints for the first month or so even though it arguably had much less content. On the oposite end of the spectrum there is BG3 which, quite frankly, could have sold each act as a full priced game and I think people would have still applauded it.
@@thehob3836 I think the only complain to this game is the lack of diversity for online missions. I did not read much complains about anything else. People are quite happy with the gameplay, classes, solo storyline..... Know new missions have been announced, lots of new content also......and it will be free. You can expect same kind of Diablo 4 prices for future cosmetics of Space Marine 2.
@@Ilestun That was kind of the gist of my understanding as well. This was more about how the parent comment seemed to be saying they were unhappy with the content amount for the price they paid. I just like discussing value for money ratios in gaming as there is such a strong divide between people who will drop $100 on a skin for a game and people who say 30hrs of gameplay is not worth $30 (using extremes, though can personally think of a number of people that go with the $1 per 1hr of gametime metric for value). Personally, I do not have the disposable income to hardly participate in the hobby anymore, but I do like the discussion.
I disagree with the premise that "games journalism" is in the worst state ever right now. I just think it's format shifted into new media via RUclipsrs who stay in their area of expertise and represent genres for communities who trust their opinions. Gaming got too big, and the race to the bottom for 'game review websites' accelerated the death of written reviews in a canned corporate structure. To that point, that's how you get large organizations like PC Gamer that can review Gollum higher than SM2 - the parts of the machine are disconnected from each other and so there's no consistency/reliable source of critical review. Edit: I think it's cool to praise the road map, but content that doesn't exist yet should not be included in Pirate's rebuttal here. If we're being honest: Games Workshop doesn't exactly have a sterling record of putting their fans first, so the review should really be: does the content that exist today warrant the buy-in price? If so, what's the overall score to represent that value?
I personally have run into game breaking bugs that didn’t allow me to progress through the story. I couldn’t even pick up ammo or weapons in the elevator sequence where the bugs are destroying the chains.
I had a bug in campaign on mission 3 (I think 3) when you need to defend the chains of the elevator from swarms. My partner and I couldn’t pick up stim packs or any of the weapons if we tried it more than once. It was also random-I couldn’t pick up guns on attempt 1, she couldn’t pick up stims on attempt 1, then maybe I’d also not be able to pick up grenades on attempt 2 while she couldn’t pick up guns anymore. After 4 attempts smother of us could pick up anything at all. This was a problem cus my checkpoint had me entering the fight with the sniper, and her out of stims. Going to the barge and changing equipment didn’t fix. Finally we just turned the difficulty down, reached next check point, turned it back up. Solved. That’s it on bugs after 60 hours.
Campaign is great, beats sm2 but everything else is flat. sm1 had better pvp and pve, more customization and not as janky controls (6 co op missions, 3ish pvp maps and NO CHAOS CUSTOMIZATION to start. SM2 is still a great game but wont hold a candle to sm1 as of now. They already made it awesome once, why couldnt they top it again? Not to mention "Horde mode" in 2025 Q2? A horde game, built with a horde engine DOESNT have a horde mode? It needed more time to bake for sure. Not saying I disagree with Thor but this is my experience SM1 vs SM2
Thor's take on this proves reviews are just personal opinions and very bias honestly poor take on their part. Him trying to say the game isn't repetitive and fully complete was wild to me then of all things adds points cause its got a fancy roadmap 😂 so much of that should have been in at launch..
interesting, I'd like to see what the review said because most of the time when people crap on the reviewers it's because they never read the review and only saw the score. Like the wukong screenrant review said the game lacked diversity but it turned out she only played chapter 1 and 2 which was actually correct. I presume something similar happened with this review because giving gollum 63 and space marines 60 is strange so I wonder what the context would be.
@D4C_LoveTrain1 i mean im pretty sure it was 2 different people who reviewed gollum and sm2 its not like they are comparing them, people really have it out for this guy for rating a 7/10 game a 6/10 🤣
Space Marine 2 is a seriously great game. Easy contender for game of the year. The mission design is fantastic. The combat design is fantastic. Serious, careful thought has been put into the pacing of everything, from individual fights to entire chapters of the story. It's a game that achieves the near impossible feat of simultaneously making you feel like a posthuman god of war, unmatched by any foe on the battlefield, and making you feel tiny and alone and terrified in the face of an unstoppable alien onslaught. The sheer sense of scale is breathtaking. With all that being said, I really want to know where people are getting "New faction" from when it comes to the roadmap. The post by Saber says "A new enemy". That reads, to me, as one single new enemy unit. I've not seen the word "faction" used anywhere by Saber. If I'm missing something I'll be delighted to be wrong, but right now I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment with this talk of entire new enemy factions being added.
I’m surprised you’re so positive about space marines 2. There is no cover, no kneel, no radar, and the characters felt sluggish. I think I made it through the campaign… (not clear). I played pve enough to level up my weapons to the first level… many connections issues (which granted may be improved but still very frustrating)… the interface reminds me of a windows 3.1 app dev, I don’t feel like there is much skill, strategy, or flow while playing the game… lore may be good (I’m not sure this is my introduction to 40k lore)… but playing the campaign was not fun… there has to be some fun somewhere… the player experience feels “clunky” to me. I’ll try it again in a few months but at this point, I’m disappointed.
Hypothetically, a 60% shouldn't be that bad. That's above average. I think the most telling thing is what they're saying is "wrong" with the game. They say it has messy action and unengaging multiplayer. Which is just objectively not true at all. I have issues with the game myself and, I definitely think that its overrated in general. But the multiplayer is fun as hell and the action is really tight. Like.. what is PC Gamer playing at here?
@@castlesbard1547 While I 1000% agree that this *should* be the case; it's pretty well established that game reviews are inflated. Generally, mediocre/adequate games are rated around 6.5-7/10. Your typical pretty good game usually at least scores an 8. I don't agree with this metric, but it's the one that's been pushed and used for decades now by reviewers. 6/10 is not an above-average review.
@@CptSteiner It is unfortunate. With how much the communities have gotten together with their shared hatred of journalist/reviewers I'd always hoped we'd come together on our use of the grading system but it doesn't seem like it'll happen either.
@@castlesbard1547 It really is a shame. Though, I can't entirely blame reviewers for continuing the system at this point. This video is a great example of why it would be hard to review a game "properly" out of 10. When every other outlet is inflating reviews and has done so for a long time, if you come along and give a well-meaning, functionally identical review of plusses and minuses, but give a lower score, you're going to be attacked by fans purely for giving the more accurate, lower value and not necessarily for the content of the review... I don't think that's what's going on with this review. I think they are just under-rating the game by a bit, but yeah, it sucks. 5/10 should be average; 10/10 should be functionally unattainable. 9 and 9.5s should be GOAT contenders only.
We need to stop implying that 6 or 7/10 are terrible scores. It means the game is above average which is sometimes more than enough. I love this game but let's not pretend it's some hidden 10/10 masterpiece. It's a very simple horde shooter with a campaign which is basically a remake of the first game, it has good, albeit slow, progression, and very bare-bones PvP component.
The reason for this (at least I think) is that at one point some publications graded games the way American schools do (A, B, C, D, F). “C” is considered average and getting 70-79% of questions correct on a test is usually a “C.”
@@kwakerjak Okay, that makes sense, I never thought of it that way. When I rate games I start at 5/10 and then I add or subtract points based on what I think the game does well or poorly.
I actually experienced my first bug playing operations with my friend the other day. After beating a PVE mission the game loaded me into the upper area where the Chaplains room is. This area is normally not accessible at all in Operations and walking around it the area was totally depopulated of all NPCs, lighting was off, and it had a bunch of unloaded textures. I also couldn’t leave without using the fast travel through the menu cause the elevator didn’t work. No idea how the bug triggered but it was kinda funny cause the game teleported me somewhere unexpected and I had no clue how or why.
the game is kinda boring. it is what it is. just because it shares a name with something you like doesnt mean the game has to be good. if it was free it would be decent. for the price? nah. not worth it at all.
Its always worth noting that the problems is not games journalism, it's the entire business of advertising games. Everyone in the gaming space is criminally underpaid while execs get billions.
Journalism overall has degraded so goddamn much. Too much clickbait, a lot of stretching in the articles, forcing you to read until the end only to realise it wasn't worth it. Feels like it was a problem for a while, but now it's just way more obvious. If it is possible to try the game first, better do so. Don't trust the reviews, try it yourself first or at least watch the playthroughs and decide for yourself whether you want to carry on.
Gollem: 62
Suicide Squad: 67
Skull and Bones: 68
Star Wars Outlaws: 73
Overwatch 2: 74
Space Marine 2: 60
"No way, I can't believe this!" - Dr Eggman
Wild.
Oh really? Did those reviews have any effect on me spending my $100 on preordering SP2 instead of Garbage Wars Outlaws 😂
@@Sebastianator01from what I understand, if you like the Ubisoft style Star wars outlaws isn't exactly a bad game(not worthy of a 70 out of 100, but equally unworthy of the garbage wars title you have given it)
LOL
The state of modern games journalism can be summed up with two rules:
1. Upset the readers for clicks.
2. Avoid upsetting the corpos for access.
100%
Unfortunately you are correct.
It was a long time since I cared what they think. I mostly only note how bad they are thanks to this type of videos.
@retrohanska4441 so is the space marine review made to upset people? Because if so does that not just piss off the corporate entity by giving it a low score. your 2nd part is about?
I'm not sure at all how that's your takeaway from this review. What about it makes you think that?
They rated Gollem higher than Space Marine 2. Absolutely hysterical
LMFAO
@@RedheadJack The Gollum Won The Argument Heresy.
Who is they? The reviews were written by two different people. It's not a team who all works together on the review. It's one dude who didn't like the game, calm the duck down
@@Swerg20 "they" is the publication.
@@Alex.Holland that's not how it works at all. The only other person involved would have been his editor. So what now anyone's who's opinion you don't agree with shouldn't be allowed on the Internet? Be real
Thor: The bugs are basically non-exist
Tyrannids: Am I a joke to you?
Lol
@@iGleeson Thor is just very efficient at exterminating Nids
If you're efficient, the game shouldn't be full of bugs
*racks bolter* In a second you wont be
Thor is lying to us. This game is full of bugs, swarms of them.
... well... you're not wrong
Are tyranids bugs 🤔
@@DizzyDisco93 Yes. Filthy xeno bugs that should be purged. For the Emperor!
@@DizzyDisco93 they are insectoid, so yes they are bugs
I thought this was a bait comment which… bugged me 😂
When IGN gave Alien Isolation a 5.9/10, the excuses given were not good enough excuses. It was clearly a phoned in review. Yet the developers were still devastated financially by it.
@@AveryCorvus the fck!
The save system was incredibly divisive so I understand putting an asterisk on the review for something like that, but giving that game a 5.9 is blatant lying. you're actively lying to people about the game's quality.
@@OlDirtyBaronthe save system was absolutely crucial to the gameplay. Nothing divisive over that and certainly no reason to take points away. Quicksave wouldnt make sense in this game. Savescumming would absolutely destroy it.
Alien Isolation had the huge problem that no money was sent to IGN, so of course they felt affected enough by that to consider it a bad game.
correct me if I'm wrong didn't alien isolation release with a game breaking bug were the Alien would like stop working/bug out (i may be thinking of a different alien game).
I think we've all accepted that "official" reviews aren't worth paying attention to and have found internet personalities that we trust instead.
You've nailed it, these "games journos" are all jokes.
Ooh you are wrong. They are. So if you see low rated game, you just know you need to play it. Reversed psychology. Not intended from them but it is what it is.
I don’t even trust Internet personalities I will check out a stream and decide myself not Thor per say but guys like shroud and many other get bags to tell us insert new game of the year every month
yep, it has been a long time since I read any "official" review to actually get informed about some game
That's the way with everything.
You find a reviewer with similar tastes as you so that when they review something and like it you know you'll like it
1998 PCG would have given this a perfect 10.
I have some hard-copy issues from then on my shelf in my office; it's astounding looking back through them from time to time and seeing the massive difference in journalism quality between then and now.
The people who worked at PC Gamer then, were gamers, they're long gone now. These days they are all politically motivated DIE hires with no clue about the audience they are meant to cater to.
I noticed this while reading some 90s gaming mags recently. Written at a much higher literacy level, way more interesting takes for the most part.
@doc_sav it's beyond that. You could tell that the writers of those articles were gamers first and journalists second; they were genuinely enthusiastic about the hobby and knew what they were talking about.
The only agenda displayed was a motivation to encourage new releases to be the best they could be and the emphasis was on having fun, not beating the audience over the head with political propaganda.
this game has an achivement called "my face is my shield" if you can smack your face into enough orbital debris
@@override367 guess someone at Focus is a fan of a certain Slavic burrowing mammal.
It better (loved that joke in Badger’s vid)
@@override367 i still quote that Badger joke regularly😂
Which was a meme based on a voice line in Dawn of War 2. And, well, when you're beyond eight foot tall and pack more cybernetics than any cyberpunk character could ever dream of, you tend to forget that small arms fire is something you're not supposed to take a shower in.
@SirusDiarota
Me an american taking a shower in boolet;
"Whaddya mean Im not supposed to?!"
Lets just stop listening to them, dont click on their pages and just curate them off the sites, they have proven they dont want to honestly review the games out of fear of corporate BS then we will let them die from their own fear and greed,
Beautifully put.
💯 totally agree with this.
Yes. And if you must share, archive and share so they don't get ad revenue.
If you look at google trends, no one clicks on their pages already.
Or read the review and go beyond the simple number that does not explain anything
PC gamer, IGN and Game Rant - 0/10 as critics
Definitely! I remember when IGN single handedly burried Alien: Isolation, one of the greatest horror games ever
As far I can tell, Game Rant articles are AI generated bs.
theieer opinon of rating games should mean no more than any other person. the only expertise they may posse is the ability to write about their opinion. I never understood why people go out of their way to get mad at people's opinions they already don't hold with much regard to begin with.
They gave it that for political reasons.
@@ObstagoonGuy Not even the worst instance of ratings nonsense from IGN. They gave Dustbin, concord AND Blackmyth Wukong 7/10.
Blackmyth has record breaking sales and has been universally praised by people who played the game and the others had the player bases of 30-ish (Dustbin) and 700-ish (Concord) with open mock from the whole internet to the point where Concord died in 2 weeks.
This is why I like independent reviews. Mad love and respect to people like Yahtzee at Second Wind, SplatterCat, Riloe, and TotalBiscuit (god rest his soul) who are just there to give an honest review. Note, I did not say unbiased, I said HONEST.
I've heard many a review from these creators, and others like them, where a "negative" of the game for them was my motivation to try it!
This also ties into my disdain for review scores. Not only because they are trying to quantify opinion (except in the case of technical aspects, but even still I want a breakdown) but also because of how scores have been weaponized against studios and developers.
The icing on the cake for this game was the thanks to Totalbiscuit at the start of the credits.
These devs KNOW their fans and aren't afraid to show it.
You can bet the journos didn't like that when they saw it
@@4.0.4 why? TB was generally pretty liked.
@@crushycrawfishy1765 _The community_ liked TB. He went against almost every "standard" modern journalists follow these days. Or, in simpler terms: he was honest, and they're not.
@@crushycrawfishy1765
TB openly aligned himself with GamerGate and the leftoids are _still_ mad about it a full decade later.
What are you referencing about TB in the game? I wouldn't likely be able to identify it. I watched him play a warhammer ttrpg on the RUclips channel itmejp after he'd already passed, and that is the only reason I know of him. He was fantastically entertaining.
Because space marine 2 did not buy a massive ad campaign on the game reviewing websites.
Thats how you get 10/10 reviews
@@mowinckel10 honestly given some of pc gamers previous criticism it's probably because it stuck true to the lore with no wokey pandering.
@@UTSarethnope. It’s well known that these reviews are paid for
@@Acrophobia2 that too
@@UTSareth That argument doesn't even work here, we got a scottish captain, an asian and a black guy who's missing an arm as our subordinates, and a pretty heavily accented (not sure what kind, latin american maybe?) female cadian commander as the first few people we meet in this game. I don't personally mind it but god damn did it stick out like a sore thumb.
I mean Amazon is considering cancelling the warhammer show unless they let them have female space marines….. maybe PC gamer just wanted that?
I only trust community reviews on Steam at this point.
Honestly much worse. If you think game's media is quick to sour, literally false information will change steam reviews.
@@TheKiroshi Not by any meaningful number unless it's already a niche game with
@Druark -- First, not what market manipulation is. Bot accounts and harassment arent allowed on steam reviews. Review bombing trends also are subject to that.
Second. No, it doesnt matter if the game is niche or very popular, review bombing due to literal misinformation is very common when it comes to review bombing. Harassment campaigns against games with gay or just women characters face this the most, not to mention the onslaught of "zomg, sweet baby inc" or lies like "this URL allows for spying".
@@TheKiroshi I still trust going through and reading reviews on steam over gamer journos. I can read the most extreme reviews of both sides of the coin and then also find reviews that are better written then most large platforms like PCgamer. the good thing about steam reviews are.. you can read as many as there are.. but on game journo... you have one article by someone who probably didn't even really play the game other then rush through it to half ass write a review. I am not saying you are wrong.. just that the steam reviews are not as bad as you claim them to be. If you read the reviews you can tell who is a bot and trolling and who is not.
@freed991 -- you can find singular, individual reviews on steam that are good, but you kinda proved the point.
Sifting between all the "has X thing, so buy" or bot reviews, the genuinely bad reviews that simply miss who even knows why they simple features.
PCGamer isn't nearly as bad on a large scale. It dips in and out with the individual reviewing them. The bias here is that you cherry-picked from the steam platform, and you over focus on the bad examples, like PCGamer or whoever did thay old Cuphead infamous review.
All im saying is that every problem we have with these shitty reviews from companies is so much higher from normal users, with the addition of being more fickle.
You can still totally focus more or less on either, you SHOULD be digging though both for good reviews (quality, not good ratings). Its just going to be harder to do that on steam.
They used to have a genuine fix for this.. curators. Curators were singular people you could follow that would show you their reviews.. but sadly it got ditched.
This game is a love letter to fans of 40k and anyone who has ever had a passing interest in the 40k setting. If someone jumps in to SM2 without being a fan or ever having that slight interest, it’s still just a fun game. To me it plays exactly like the campaigns of Halo and Gears that people love - super soldier run here, shoot there, and then press the interact button on occasion. You travel slightly off the beaten path for weapons and ammo only, and then it’s back to being a super soldier. SM2 opens the 40k setting to everyone who doesn’t have an interest in the books or the miniatures (yet), and should be the starting point for allowing us to play out some incredibly grand moments within the setting!
@@San_D._Beard big “yet” there I’m sure
so you just answered the question Thor wanted to but couldnt.
"To me it plays exactly like the campaigns of Halo and Gears that people love "
in 2024 we shouldn't be lauding an IP that's been around for over 40yrs now for making a Gears clone.
@@mrobots8764 no, we should be lauding a company making the same game, a clone of itself, year after year instead. What should be the takeaway is that this is actually good, and fun to boot. Who gives damn if it’s similar to gears in gameplay? If it’s fun, if the story is good, then screw similarities, especially if it ca stand in its own regardless.
@@mrobots8764 couple things here- In what way shape or form is it a gears clone? IPs don’t create anything, they are used to create media.
Warhammer 40k, in particular, is a setting used to in miniature war games, novels, video games, comics, card games, and eventually tv and film. And the owners of Warhammer 40K, Games Workshop, didn’t make all of those things.
They sold the IP, so other people could use the setting for what they made. If you’re making a single player super soldier game, you can plug in plenty of IPs and it’ll probably be a fun representation of that IP, but it could also be bad. That doesn’t mean the IP is good or bad, there’s plenty of Warhammer 40k media that isn’t good, most of that would be the video games, but nobody is praising GW because space marine 2 and rogue trader are good games.
I remember IGN also giving Pokemon Alpha Sapphire an 8.1/10, with the only negative being listed as 'Too much water." A game with a whale on the cover, who's main antagonists wanted to flood the world, was docked points for being ocean based.
especially since the geography of the region is based on a scaled down map of an ISLAND nation one thats SURROUNDED BY OCEAN
wasn't that turned into a meme
@@LoraLoibu 2/10 too much water
It was 7.8
A person had an opinion. No offense but that's it.
On the topic of corruption of games journalism:
Back in the day - around ten years ago - I had a short stint in the international marketing department of a video game publisher. While advanced copies were a perk we'd grant, the real pressure method we had, was advertisement. If you thrash one of our games in a way we don't like, we'd just reduce the allotted marketing budget for advertisement to that publication.
Games journalism won't bite the hand that feeds them. That is why games from big publishers tend to get higher scores than they deserve, leading to the inflationary use of 9/10, because otherwise the publication won't get the ads and wont get paid.
They'll also give a game that's a 3 a score of 7 and they'll give a 1 a score of 5 or 6. How many times have we ever seen something lower than a 6 from a major studio? They've released some stinkers recently that didn't even make back 5% of their budgets, and they're rated as "6"?
So game journalists throw away the ethics and integrity all journalist are told they should have, this explais a lot of things.
I remember the day I switched over completely to RUclips reviewers. One of the cod games was broken to the point of unplayability at launch. IGN or some other hopefully dead publication gave it a 10/10.
@@TsuiIzumi The thing is, most game journalists are not journalist and just glorified bloggers.
There used to be good journalists, actually doing research, understanding the craft and actually doing more than just reviews. They had opinions and ethics and were bad for business kicked off of sites like IGN, Gamespot etc.
Follow the money. "Journalists" are reponsable not to the public or audience but to the companies that buy ads. They're ad sellers, and their commodity is our time and attention.
"Too many bugs." has the same vibes as "Too much water."
The interface is annoying; the tech tree is pointlessly complex; the armor customization is super obtuse; The gameplay is repetitive?
"too many bugs" = "No overweight, black disabled female character"
@@InvestmentBankr "the gameplay is repetitive", what game isn't?
You literally aren't even talking about the same game.
Whats the problem with any of the interface? Literally what?
The tech tree? Do you mean upgrades? Literally play a weapon and level it up? Are you joking that ita "complex"
Customization is kinda silly but thats a cool driving factor for playing atill.
@@TheKiroshi The interface isn't really a problem, more just poorly explained.
Perks and Mastery tree for weapons has the same issue, poorly explained but mostly fine if poorly balanced as some are blatantly useless.
Customisation is arbitrarily limited because of GW's obsession with lore accuracy which could be a pro/con depending on the person but locking it behind a ludicrously high number of wins PER class when almost half of them are exactly the same between classes but with an extra purity seal etc, is just padding. Plus, DLC locked colours are stupid.
Me and my buddies read this review out over a discord call while laughing hysterically
The players are my source for reviews.
I never buy early and i never buy above value.
i'll buy week-1 if the games worth it, remarkably few are worth it.
Helldivers 2 came outta nowhere for me, i had 4-6 weeks of post-launch game of the year gameplay-fun. THEN the "railgun nerf" patch landed and amongst all the other spawn-changes (not having enemies/planetary-kill-FX spawn under the player-camera on top of the players was good change) they caused a bug made solo/duo runs get 4-stack spawns, this is back when solo was "supposed" to have 1/6 the spawns of a 4-stack because you had no cover when reloading, no gear-sharing and no control over your MUCH lower respawn count locations (plus they also added in invisible walls blocking basically any drop-pod control around objectives because eff the playerbase having ANY fun anymore).
Glad i did buy in when i did but by damn it's been downhill ever since that first true nerf-patch "this weapon is too helpful due to a number of unrelated cross-play/PS5 bugs, so we decided no more fun allowed from now on", alas for me a friend bought in that same day so their experience was MONTHS of the 2 of us fighting overlapping enemy patrols/reinforcements/tele-frag-ambushes and never being able to stand still for more than 15 seconds lest enemies walk out from behind a rock that was previously clear and slam a rocket/machine-gun-burst/sharpened-claw through the back of your head usually for an instant kill or a 60-65% HP "headshot".
me buying early AND for 100€ lmao
definitely not worth that much noney
but 60€ I'd have gladly paid for it (i did pay that much to get a copy for my father so we could play together)
Wow Ur so smart
@@definitelynotBlu You're clearly not.
Never preorder.
"If they don't rate games higher they lose early access" is suuuuch an ethics fail holy shit.
@@Lord_Aba all I could think of when that was said was "that's not freaken journalism then, that's advertising"
@@hamishwalker9637 Let's not forget the reviewer who was fired for giving Army of Two a bad review on a site that was running full page adverts for the game...
This has been happening for decades, long before the rise of Metacritic, and it's only gotten worse since then. But oh boy those whacky Gamers love their meaningless arbitrary ten point scales....
It's fine, the ethics fail is not disclosing that it's basically a sponsorship.
@@hamishwalker9637 this is what most journalism in the world feels like nowadays. gaming or not
Based on the part of the devs.
The Devs confirmed with "new Enemies" they mean new types of already existing factions in SM2.
So different Nids and Chaos Marines?
Damn. I was hoping for Necrons.
@@trielt1 Or a mission with Orks again, so I can tell how much of my frustration is the new combat mechanics and how much is 'nids are just harder than orks.
honestly, id rather they flesh out the 2 than tacking on another faction
Makes sense making a new enemy faction for free would demand so much
I haven't used game or movie reviews from professionals for years. It's all about user reviews or reviews from friends that I trust that like similar games that I typically enjoy.
If Ocarina of Time were released today, game journalists would complain that you only have 3 Hit Points and that Link has no sword. 6/10 game.
@@theJollyPaleGiant and that the game is sexist because saving the princess doesn't need a man to save her
All of you go outside
@Megaman231122 My man out here with the Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V combo 🤣
You are so right, this bare bone skeleton of a shooter is definitely worth 60 bucks in its current state with a roadmap which might not be completed. Sure, let me just spend enough money to buy food for a week for 6 story missions and a coop mode which sucks with randoms. Yea, you are so right, they should charge 100 dollars after season 1 of the roadmap, thats how good this game is. Totally dont have 9 games like this from the last decade in my library. Nah, this one is special.
@@lexmortis5722 Its a good game but I agree. So many games now have roadmaps. And it feels like its an early access game and that when the roadmap is finished it’s released.
Games "Journalists" have lost all credibility at this point and they aren't worth anyone's time.
Right who even trusts those corpo drones at this point
They lost all credibility the second Gamergate happened to be frank and everyone took their sweet time realising how worthless and incestuous they actually are.
Search Karl Jobst
Would you be willing to do better? I'm interested to read/see your review.
There are some I like a lot, like PeopleMakeGames. They are fantastic investigative journalists and genuinely advocate for workers in the industry, but good games journalists are few and far between.
The Codex Astartes does not support the Remembrancers' actions.
In Germany we have "Gamestar", these guys doing a pretty good Job being transparent and honest
@04:23 Prime is describing "Access Journalism" - and yes, it's destroying journalism at all levels of the profession.
Apparently Saber CEO made a based comment somewhere under Asmon's videos about when they signed Space Marine 2 they wanted to make a throwback to simplicity of just fun of gameplay and immersion without unnecessary complexity and how he hopes this is and some other recent good games is a start of 'reversion' to the times when those things take priority.
With devs like these we'll get far.
There's no evidence it was the actual CEO. Some guy just said "I'm the CEO" and people just went "surely, nobody goes online and lies...he must be telling the truth"
@@crushycrawfishy1765 It was a verified account, and it was the CEO. Seriously, stop commenting on RUclips when you are speaking out of your ass. It might help you IRL.
Just curate your game library. There are tons of smaller companies and indie devs who already produce wonderful games.
@@Zomgnomnom1 no. dont "just" curate your library. its okay to actively voice and push for game development for games YOU want. dont settle. it shouldnt have to be an easter egg hunt to find playable games.
@@crushycrawfishy1765that’s actually true...
But still, even if he is not the CEO, IGN made an entire article of him, saying that he made controversial things and saying that the studio don’t confirm still if he was or not the CEO and if they support his “controversial” comments on gaming space.
I think what you say is probable, but I still find IGN a little bit biased against him.
Again, What you said is valid, I just wanted to say this.
True story: no game should get even an ounce of credit for a roadmap. Whether you believe in the promises or not, the review should be based on what's actually released at launch and is playable. Otherwise I'm in full agreement.
Ok, but should game reviews be updated over time then? Like No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk2077 are perfect examples. I wouldn't give them a note above 5/10 at release, now after updates and delivering on their promises they would easily be 8/10, even 9/10 for my personal taste.
I agree you can't judge a game on promises, as they might never be delivered on. But it's also part of the LaaS model. Not taking them into account is like not taking online multiplayer into account for fighting games or FPS games. You're cutting a huge part of the game as it is planned.
I think roadmaps should only be taken into account if the company has your trust that they will provide what is planned.
@@Darkilikill Nothing wrong with a reviewer choosing to update a review, or to do a re-review at a later date. But there is no basis whatsoever for doing a review of things that literally do not exist based only on the promise that they may exist at some point.
For live service games I would agree. However this isn’t a live service game and at the very least shows that they still want to improve and do more with the already great game
@@jupitergaming5146 @mowermen1762 - I agree this dev has a good reputation, and I agree it's nice that they want to provide additional content to a good game. But ask yourself, how can a reviewer ethically review something that does not exist? How do you subject a promise not yet delivered to scrutiny? No review should ever gain or lose points due to a roadmap.
Also an important 1 month later note, the new PVE mission and weapon have released on time, meaning unlike most “road maps” for unfinished triple A games, we will be receiving all of the new free content promised, for a completed game that was amazing on its own, and we will receive it on time. Absolutely incredible. This studio is one of the few pillars keeping triple A gaming alive, and we need to protect them at all costs.
What we need is a website, where people can rate/review game journos.
"This IGN Jurno has obviously mistaken video games as an outlet for their fetishes so weird deviant art wouldn't touch it and that's why their ratings seem skewed. Obviously in need of therapy, that is if they're even a real person. 7/10"
This is actually an absolutely god tier idea. People can rate media, rate the website, and rate the individual critic. All scores would be aggregated and listed hierarchically based on the the score of the critic, with higher rated critics having their score of the media be weighted higher l in the games overall score. Every score would have the score of the critic and the website be listed alongside the score of the media to always give context.
This could easily be the greatest critic website of all time while also introducing accountability to critics everywhere and could slowly help to change game (and media generally) journalism.
It's called 4 Chan
It's a good idea, but I don't like it. A system that rates journalists based on the perception of the public would manipulate journalists into publishing reviews that maximized the public support they would receive. If I was a journalist and I had an opinion that disagreed with the majority of the public, why would I publish my opinion instead of following the band wagon?
That being said, the current state of journalism is hardly immune to external influence already; publishers pressuring journalists to write positive reviews (because why would publishers give review copies to journalists who keep writing negative reviews), ad companies fiscally rewarding journalists to use provocative language (because provocative language attracts more engagement than neutral language), etc. So maybe I'd support the implementation of this idea anyways, even if I don't like it.
Any journalist that just caters to popular opinion will be highly rated, no matter how good of a journalist they actually are. It's because of this, that I can't imagine your idea working, sadly.
Charalanahzard recently stated that in her wide experience with gaming journalism, "game reviews are just the opinion of some fuckin' guy".
And that 7 is the minimum for a working game, 5 means unplayable
Truer words were never spoken.
@@bsherman8236 That’s true for IGN. PC Gamer seems to just throw a dice from what I‘ve seen.
That is LITERALLY what ALL reviews are and always have been.
what's wrong with that? do you not want game reviews to be the opinion of some guy?
4:05 that’s crazy that they gave gollum a higher score than space marine 2
no its not, 2 diferent people were giving the score for every game, so it could happen, different people have different standards for scoring something
@@jandresshade Considering how awful Gollum is, it's quite ridiculous actually.
@@m0usey929 The quality of the game itself is irrelevant because, at the end of the day, it all comes down to subjective opinions. A score that one person considers the worst, like 64, may be seen as decent by another person who thinks 60 is an acceptable score for a game.
It isn‘t PC Gamer who reviews the game and gives them a score it‘s employees and contractors working for PC Gamer. So the score is entirely up to one person. It‘s like asking a youtuber or a streamer for their opinion on a game (and always has been).
It's virtually the same score. Read the reviews. What about them do you think is so far off base? Or did you just hear Thor read a number and not look into any further? What games would you give a 60/100? What would it take for them to be a 70, 80, or 90+?
Space Marine 2 was so good that I’ve finished the first three books in the Horus Heresy and have a backlog of books that I can’t wait to enjoy. I previously knew nothing of the 40k universe. Only 150ish books to go.
I was extremely disappointed with the melee combat, it's way too clunky and slow for my preferences.
But I understood it was a style choice, not an error in design. These are walking tanks, they don't move like ninjas.
They take the hits and hit back harder. Combat knife might be more your speed though.
Well, no media has ever captured how Space Marines actually move. The novels have them moving faster than peak-humans while in armor with reflexes to match. Best analogy I can think of is watch videos of cats reflexes, now that what a Space Marine can do while in armor. Well, unless they're wearing Terminator armor.
@@TullaryxAstartes did a pretty good job.
@@Tullaryx Well yeah, because it is a power fantasy beyond fantasy physics. And the novels aren't exactly consistent. Like which was the one were they moved faster than the human eye can perceive (basically dbz levels)? Which is also one of the many year long critiques: Same with this game. We now have the Grapnel Launcher which went from a mobility enhancing tool for scouts to a spiderman-esque slinger for full loadout space marines to do dropkicks with.
Sure it's fiction, but come on GWS, decide.
According to the Nightlords omnibus, Talos was moving at an average of 23.611 METERS PER SECOND. so safe to say the average marine likely moves perhaps 20% less than that. Still, monstrously fast.
Yall remember the good ol days? Back in the early 2010s when we had GameInformer? Those were good times
Unrelated but based profile, she was my second fav character after suzi
so you can't even remember the 2000s? I think I liked Edge magazine... Game Informer was just gamestop's shilling magazine
@@Kinuhbud you could call any magazine "x's shilling" big whoop that the store that sells EXLUSIVELY videogames and videogame related things also sells a magazine about VIDEOGAMES it just fits under the market and allows people without access to E3 to find out about new releases
@@Kinuhbud I was under 12 in the 2000s. Didn't have my first game system until I was like 9.
i loved gameinformer as a kid
"I said dumb shit to make people read"
Jokes on them I can't read
clickrate go brrrrrrr
THOR!!!!!! WHERE MY GAMES!!!!
its so easy to farm views and clicks off idiots on youtube i swear. yall got baited so hard lmao
thats a lot of words too bad im not readin em
You are a good guy. I really like your distinguished approach with understanding and sense
At this point, it seems like game journalists are posting contrarian opinions to intentionally farm engagement that they wouldn't otherwise earn.
100%. They also write their guides absurdly verbose in order to fit more advertisements.
Did you read their critique? It's not contrarian. To me it reads as very genuine.
@@BigDaddyWes Of course they didn't. They just look at the scores and start foaming at the mouth.
@@BigDaddyWes the contrarianism I'm referring to is rating a widely well received game comparatively poorly to other new releases. I did read most of the review, and there are numerous takes that indicate that the particular PC gamer reviewer did not learn much about the combat system during the 8 hours they played the game, a point which was frequently visited upon. A portion of it seemed like fluff, but I imagine something about quotas or a minimum word requirement would perhaps be the culprit?
Overall I'd say the review wasn't entirely egregious and my comment is definitely playing it up a little bit, but I don't believe they should be faulting a game they evidently didn't take the time to learn. If matchmaking, performance issues, bugs, content and etc were cited as reasons I'd understand a bit more, but from a purely gameplay perspective I strongly disagree with SM2 being a 6/10.
@@blitz7514 How long should he have played? If he, supposedly, didn't learn the mechanics after 8 hours, why would that change? If you played chess for 8 hours, and didn't enjoy it much, why would you ever put in another 8 to learn a few more openings?
The campaign isn't particularly long, and the depth isn't an ocean. The reviewer just didn't like it. So it was a 6.
Some additional bugs:
- if you have max amount of hp modifiers - when you swap loadouts in armory pods, you get full health. Works for bulwark and heavy.
- Sometimes heavy stance bugs out for heavy, not letting him shoot his gun untill he swaps weapons.
- sometimes the sound effects of being under psychic control of zoan/neothrope lingers throughout the mission.
- enemies can shoot you through elevator floor, killing you.
Yeah, that's not a lot and bugs are minor. The problem is peer-to-peer connections. Holy Emperor this game pisses me off with lobbies.
So you start the game. Now you load into your lobby. Now you select mission. Now you joining the lobby of some other player.
If you joining fails - you get kicked to main menu to start again.
If you joined and lobby host decided to leave - you get kicked to main menu to start again.
If you joined and started the mission and lobby host leaves/disconnects - you get kicked to main menu to start again. Obviously losing all mission progress, exp and rewards.
If you joined, completed the mission and returned to his lobby - he might leave and you get kicked to main meny to start again.
I’m gonna tell you more. Remember that story mission on the elevator where you need to protect the chains? Yeah, enemies can often shoot through any cover there and some pickups bug out and you can’t interact with them. Might be a problem with elevators.
0:33 PRIME JUMP SCARE
AAAAAAAH!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
The game is good, and you could say it is feature complete, but compared to how the first game released, this one was a bit barebones. Im glad about the PVP and the PVE, they are fun game modes, and I am so happy that the battlepass is only cosmetics. But the lack of armor customization in pvp for chaos, and colours locked behind the battlepass is.... well that annoys me. I love the game, but 40k is all about painting and kitbashing armor. They did good, but they could have done better.
But I'd still give a 7/10 if I were to give a score, and not a 6. Gollum being higher than it is.... thats just bad judgement or bad reviewers.
the reviewer put it on 60 because he got shitted on at difficulty 2, these mobs mop the floor with his face and dab at him
A lot of anger from it being lower than golum ....
Sounds like the reviewer needs a prescription to Growacet, because I'm getting wiped at the same difficulty (entirely new to Warhammer period) and it just makes me want more
The guys who got me into this game, who has been warhammer fanatics and was hyped for this game...They played on easy. No kidding, they did veteran and then to normal and then to easy bec a mission was difficult. If warhammer fanatics struggle, imagine a journalist who only plays strategy games will fair in the deadly arena that is space marine 2.
THE CURSE OF CUPHEAD TAKES ANOTHER VICTIM
Never played space marine. Is it worth it as a new player
A bug I noted (obvious in hard mode, others not so much) is on the transport bridge (the big bike-chain lift that moves you horizontally that swarmers try to chew through to drop the Space Marines) the Tyranids with projectile weapons shoot you through the map, they can shoot through EVERYTHING, and they lurk on the outskirts of the lift so you have to sprint around and kill them quick or have a teammate on "bug-squashing" duty or they'll gun you down through shipping containers as you're fighting.
Yup, I had this exact problem with my group as well. And to make it worse, on reset all of the consumables would show up, but we couldn't interact with them if we had already picked them up once before.
This is actually an issue throughout the game, not just the elevator. The elevator just shows it the worst, because of the setup. It also doesn't seem to be consistent, as sometimes cover works fine. Other times, I have damage indicators pointing me towards a solid wall.
@@Skewrz yup I ran into the same exact one
we did a angel of death run of the campaign, think we died the most on that exact elevator because of that bug. I also found out that if you died at a certain height, weapons would reset but the ammo caches would stay suspended in the air where you died perviously. It's a mood to run out of ammo and to see some magic floating crates of ammo up in the distance, out of reach
That bridge made my entire trio lock in for an hour straight on veteran going full tryhard lmfao
We had to replay that sequence 4 times cos of the gameplay bugs 😂
PC Gamer is basement-tier games journalism now. I miss the old era when they had a coconut-based mascot and put some actual thought and opinion into their articles.
At least that was interesting.
I miss back in the day when we had game reviews on TV, they would show you game play and give you break down on the game..
@Cent51 there are tons of youtubers who do that exact thing and do it better??
@@ender_3807 I am talking back in the day, when I was 13/14, 25 years ago.. if I am interested in a game I go watch a live stream on twitch or I watch YT videos to see the game play..
I miss Coconut Monkey too
Back in the days of Doom and Quake, their issues were like 200-300 pages each. Yeah, some of that will be advertising, but most of it wasn't. Journalism as a whole, regardless of genre, has gone down the shitter in the past 10-20 years, all due to advertising and clickbait.
I have like 20-30hrs on it already. Love it, and the glitches. If you love a game, you will show support no matter what. Report bugs, write reviews and help newbies. Love
Alanah pearce made a good video about explaining how the rating of those review sides work which I thought was very interesting.
Basically whenever a new game comes out and a certain journalist is really hyped about it he will grab himself that review, that's why certain games get sometimes higher rated even though they are very bad such as the golum game. On the other hand it's also possible that a game comes out and nobody really wants to play it, so it's possible that someone who usually reviews strategy games now has to review a beatem up, which will clearly result in a worse rating than usual.
A margin that wide, though, should simply not be acceptable in a single publication. If their review margins are that wide, they need to evaluate their standards. Publications sell on the basis of their reliability. If a publication is going to fall back on the excuse of "different reviewers, different scores," and allow for such a wide margin of difference that a should-be-4/10 and a should-be-8/10 both end up as a 6/10, then they have no reliability as a publication, which then defeats the purposes of having a f*cking magazine in the first place.
At the end of the day, video games are technical products and technical products have objective technical value. If objective appraisal of technical value is being waylaid in favor of opinion, then it's a bad product review. When I read reviews on my new lawnmower, I wasn't interested in whether people "liked" their lawnmower. I was interested in what it did and whether it lived up to what it advertised itself as doing.
@@maltdairy2164 videogames are not entirely technical products they are mostly entertaining material and obviously some people are more entertained by it then others.
That being said the objectiveness of a technical product in a videogame usually also gets partially rated, that's why a game like concord gets a 7/10 by IGN. It's a functioning game that barely has any bugs, works well, doesn't crash etc., that's why it automatically gets a 7/10 but it's not entertaining that's why nobody wants to play it, yet people get upset about the game being rated 7/10 even though the reviewer was objectively rating it, like you wanted lol.
If people made an objective review of vampire survivors nobody would even try that game because objectively it's not a great game but the game is really entertaining for most people, that's why it gets rated high.
Hot take, I’ve played over 50 hours of the game and it’s honestly kind of mid. Like it’s fun at first but the gameplay loop feels TOO simple. I don’t think the game is bad by any stretch, it’s just not very entertaining in the long run.
I enjoy the game but I can agree to this. PVE feels more like a grindy slog than a truly fun progression with some weird choices (Cosmetic Money is the same as your progression money so you have to choose between a new weapon OR customization) so while there's a lot to grind, right now it's the same six missions. I think it'll get better but I think Thor's "There's SO MUCH CONTENT" is kinda false when you consider most of that content is grinding up stuff to max out weapons.
PVP is great though. Just needs more maps.
Is the campaign over 50 hours long, or are you just grinding repeatable missions for build progression or something?
@thewhyzer campaign is about 10 hours and they currently have 6 repeatable operations with 4 different difficulties to master and pvp. If you were to play the campaign and operations 1 time each I'd say you're looking at about 15-20 hours of gameplay, then ya know pvp can be as many hours as you like I reckon. I should add the operations tie into the story.
I feel like its a very, very solid foundation for the devs to build on. As it stands right now- I understand your mid comment. However, I can see the potential and the roadmap points to that
After 50+ hours too, im still having fun af
Like i didnt overplay operations so its still super fresh, and the pvp is super fun and very team based which feels dope, the best thing you dont wanna do, is burn yourself out by constantly playing the same missions. Take a break for a bit and come back to it
News media also targeted Baldurs Gate 3 to start with all these "there's no way you can replicate this, don't expect it of us!"
@@autumneagle that was other developers on twitter, not necessarily games media
@@berengerchristy6256 It was pushed by games media as well.
false. media praises BG3 to the high heavens. game devs target it. developers have come out and defended low expectations.
@@isturbo1984 A quick Google and I find like three articles parroting what I just said they did. So...not false. They praise it NOW, because they can't deny how popular it is. And they focus on the LGBT stuff instead of the parts that make AAA studios look bad.
@@isturbo1984 I mean there are some fair arguments to be said about trying to compare every game to Baldur's gate 3. Absolutely with AAA games baldur's gate 3 should be the expectation but more indie style games. Like the original tweet came from Xalavier Nelson Jr who's most popular game people would probably know about would be "Space Warlord Organ Trading Simulator" or the recently released "I Am Your Beast".
BG3 is an anomaly but we have to sort of remember it has alot of its backing from fans before it was ever released. I don't think people would like AAA studios releasing a EA title or launching a kickstarter to help fund their games.
Just a clarification, I’m pretty sure for new enemies they mean new types of tyrannids/chaos, like winged Tyrannid primes (like a flying version of the warriors) or vortex beasts (huge daemon with a black hole as a power source). Necrons seem likely, but probably not until late next year since it takes so much polish
Never buy anything based off promises of future releases. Buy it for what it has now.
I don't really get why you complain about PC Gamer giving 60 and present it as "all game journo is bad" - when on metacritic the overall score is 83 and user score is lower, 80 🤷
IGN Adria gave it 90, IGN Deutschland gave it 80, IGN France gave it 80, IGN Portugal gave it 80, IGN Italia gave it 75.
@ussassu well that's exactly it, how many games have 7, 8, 9, or 10/10 scores? A lot of them, but then there will be plenty of people who didn't enjoy those same games. Because that's just purely subjective, and genres exist for a reason. So there is no sort of organizing journalists based off their fav genres, instead it's whoever is available to review it. So all reviews do seem like dice rolling or just 7-10 scores.
Would LOVE to see Thor actually go through the text of the review and offer his perspective as well as his own personal score (of what the game actually is, not what a picture on the steam page says the game will eventually be)
Hello SBI shill.
I would love to see him play Mouse & Keyboard Solo Angel of Death Campaign. Feature complete my ahh
@@scottgerloffs6148 Scared of having to quantify why someone else's opinion is wrong?
@@Zomgnomnom1 Nah, just know a dumb woke shill when I see one, lmao.
lets be real, he didnt say many positive things about it lol. only what it could maybe one day become. so likely a 60 or lower.
I dont usually agree with everything you say, but this is one of those times where your perspective on this is 100% spot on. Thanks for pointing this out, some people really take these *review* companies to heart and I cant think of one mainstream videogame critic that isnt a complete parasite.
According to OpenCritic, PC Gamer gave the following titles 60/100 as well
Bluey: The Videogame
Fallout 76
Saints Row (2022)
Space Hulk: Deathwing
I chose the most interesting and/or humorous examples (to me). There's also a bunch of Warhammer games with 59/100.
@@KingKoiComputer To be fair a LOT of Warhammer games suck, especially less recent ones
Deathwing was very genuinely severely lacking, but that still serves as a point for why SM2 absolutely shouldn't be sharing a score with it.
@@UnknownSquid Deathwing needed more development time for sure, but the art and environment department absolutely blew it out of the park. I actually prefer it over Space Marine 2.
But yeah reviewers are just paid advertisement or believe they can control the world of gaming by controlling people's opinions. Regardless, they aren't worth talking about or giving any airtime, best to just forget they exist and avoid anyone or any channel that gives them a spotlight, even to make fun of.
Won't take long before we are all on the same page and they run out of air.
@@UnknownSquid deathwing was fun lol, but it did deserve a 5-6/10. it was also alot cheaper than SM2 though iirc
@@KingKoiComputer bruh deathwing was amazing. Yes, by today standards it feels clunky, but core coop gameplay was there. Shame that devs abandoned it
There's a fine line between 'content' and 'grind'.
a fine line between progressive and woke shit. neither of which this game has. uh oh, 6/10
@@isturbo1984 they had that Mary sue commander that just kept showing up and surviving everything
@@sh4dowst3p in Space Marine? my dude, do you know anything about Warhammer 40? it is impossible for a Space Marine to be a marry sue through their trials and tribulations. try again. do yourself a favor and look up one of the many awesome Warhammer 40k lore channels on the subject. bring a mask, as there is a lot of toxic masculinity.
@@isturbo1984 my guy, I beat the game she’s barking at you through all of it from the start
@@sh4dowst3p it thinks it knows anything about 40k hahahaha
I wouldnt put to much stock into a road map, we have seen time and time again where stuff gets put on the chopping block.
Also if you'd read the other article PC gamer was experiencing massive issues with performance, among other things.
The amount you've grappled onto this article seems a bit much.
A lot of people don't spend as much time to spend on games as you, they spend 40+ hours working and just want to unwind at the end of the day and skim some reviews to see if something is worth the limited amount of disposable income they have in this terrible economy.
The person who reviewed it at PC Gamer wasn't a fan of the game play loop and had issues with performance relating to multiple hardware configurations, games are subjective, they're art.
1: You need to stop thinking and talking about IGN. Enough brothers!
2: 6, 7 is still a good game in my opinion if 5 is average. It doesn't have to be awesome for everyone but for you it might be a 9. We are too focused on numbers that mean nothing because it's always subjective, always.
3: You need to think for yourself, have your own opinion and taste, play what you want
4: Space Marine rocks!
Thor i don't think he can add "what they are planning to add" in a game review rating
Until it happens, you shouldn't count it as it did happen
True, but I don't think that was his point. It's already feature-complete, and not absolutely broken.
How does it get a worse score than other games that aren't?
@@jedidethfreak
Id need to read both reviews
And I don't care enough to do so
@@mobrocket they gave Concord a 7, iirc.
@@mobrocketthing is, its either that, or making re reviews mandatory. If you critique points you know are being adressed in planned content updates, but do not award the points you took away after its in the game, it will affect the score negatively for ever. Tbh i think re reviews SHOULD be mandatory. No mans sky still sits at 60 or 70 but by now its more than what star citizen ever wanted to be.
@@jedidethfreak
Same reviewer?
Doesn't matter... I think Concord was average and SM slightly above
I love how "average" is considered bad and never used as a rating even thou 50% of games should be average or worse
The only bug I experienced was in the campaign during cut scenes sometimes the the hip armor pads left and right would just start flapping and they cracked me up all the time
a bot stole your comment dude
@@komsucocugu2941 where? Never mind found it
my thought on "battle barge expansion" would be a training area with like target dummies for you to try out your weapons in a controlled environment and maybe also an area where you can fight your squadmates for fun
5:30 disagree; explanation: even bad PR is PR, if you look at it as a competition over awareness its useful to just spam the market.
Is it really a big deal to not like someone's review? I don't agree with plenty of reviewers. I don't think my opinion is any more fact than theirs is.
people love to bitch about game reviewers when their favourite game of the month gets a mid score. IMO i like SM2, but 6/10 is probably fair in release day. given how unplayable it was for me and my friends, 6 might have been generous, though since then the game has been very fun
What point does their review serve if it is so obviously out of touch with the majority of players? How does the review help me to make an informed purchasing decision? Games journalism is not supposed to be a personal blogging activity. Nobody cares what a games journo thinks.
@@spacejunk2186 I don’t think it’s that far out of line with most players though. It has valid points, and a lot of my friends express the same views. Not that we don’t enjoy the game, but from the release experience, it’s pretty much right.
@@spacejunk2186 bro that's what a review is, it's literally some dude's opinion.
@@pachupacnot quite
That's funny...
I just saw a video on Alanah Pearce's channel exactly about how reviews work from the journalists perspective, framed as a "why is everything a 7/10" that touches a bit on your complaints in this video.
Maybe check out that video Thor, I genuinely think you'll find it interesting!
Personally, I think Alanah leans too heavily on the "I did this for x years, so I have some insight" aspect in quite a few of her videos, and it's a bit grating. I've been doing my job in my respective industry for 4 years, I'm quite competent at it, but I still wouldn't make a video claiming to have key insight into some industry process. I wouldn't even make a video claiming to have key insight into my company. I'm a drop in the ocean as far all that's concerned.
@@maltdairy2164 She also went to journalism school. It would be foolish to discount her experience when getting a peek behind the curtain of the Journalist side of things.
Alanah shills for Game Journalism and game devs constantly. Plus her logic in that video doesn't explain how Gollum got a better score than a polished game like Space Marine.
@@phillconklin382 Exactly
This is why I prefer listening to Yahtzee. He doesn’t do scores for a reason, biased but open to making sure people know what that bias is.
I like the game but I personally think a 7/10 is probably about right. For sure it's gonna hit harder for some but on the PS5 I've encountered a ton of bugs, some game breaking, such as not being able to pick up ammo and stim packs, which makes some of the missions on the third hardest difficulty setting basically impossible. I think the gameplay is just kind of so so as well, it's not bad it's just not amazing. And as much as I like the multiplayer, it feels basic and I find it strange that no one has made the comparison to the original original game which had much more more customization options, like an absurd amount of customization
this feels very out of touch. there is not a lot of content in this game, it is very bare minimum viable product level stuff. especially at asking price.
the game had a lot of performance issues and missing settings. No FOV slider....
It will be a good buy on sale in a years time
Thanks Thor!
Just for clarity, new enemies in this context mean a new enemy type for the already present factions.
If you've gotten to a certain point in the campaign there's some narrative detail that could be a clue as to who the new enemy type maybe if it is a new faction. Though a new faction would mean a lot of new assets to put into the game, but if it happens at the end of 2025 then its a possibility.
I have a feeling that if they do add a new enemy Faction, it might be Necrons. It’s just a hunch of mine but it seems plausible given certain things in the story.
@@americankid7782 The lead designer went into it on a Q@A I think. He said it would require a lot of time and might be something for game 3. He really likes the idea of Necrons tho
I bought the game at full price because of that review. I got 14 hours on it atm and it made me get into warhammer 40k as a franchise. Thanks pc gamer!
Game reviews are inherently subjective. Every person is going to have a different perspective and experience with a game. Scores, especially with the pointless granularity PC Gamer delivers, are always arbitrary. It's assigning a quantified measure to something that is a subjective experience doubling the inconsistent nature. An "eight" to me is a "six" to someone else and a "ten to another person (hence why I don't use any numerical values). Then to top it all off, when you bring multiple reviewers under the same umbrella, you're taking this doubly inconsistent situation and saying "all of these reviews are reflections of this single entity." Space Marine 2 and Gollum were reviewed by different people, the latter of whom is a freelance writer.
I think this is wrong, and I don't buy the mindset that "reviews = opinions." You would be right that two schmoes sitting on their couches can and do have wildly differing opinions on games purely as laymen, and that that's perfectly fine. In the world of JOURNALISM, wherein people are being paid either salaries or per article as professionals, there needs to be a set of standards designed to ensure a level of objective evaluation of the technical quality of games. On the couch, the mental score of a game can land anywhere between 0 to 10, but at the typewriter, if you have a competent journalist and game reviewer, it should simply not fluctuate that much.
Reviewers are called reviewers, not opiners, for a reason. Opinion is a factor in reviews, but a review is not 100% opinion. It's hard won evaluation of how well a game actually performs as the kind of game it's trying to be irrespective of whether you like it. If someone gives Super Metroid a 0/10 because they hate scifi, then they're giving an honest opinion, but they're not giving an honest review because they've elected to rate on the game on the basis of their opinion only, and not on the technical quality of the game.
In the review world, if all reviewers were competent, possessed the proper skill set, and were given adequate time to rightly review games, then you shouldn't and wouldn't see a wide open range of scores for a given game. What you would see is a margin of perhaps 2 to 3 points in the scoring. And that's industry-wide, but we're talking about these scores within the same publication. Differences of opinion are out the window when you work for a publication.
It doesn't matter whose name is on the article. It's a PC Gamer review (or an IGN review, etc...). For a single publication to give Gollum a 63 and Space Marine 2 a 60 means they either have no standards for giving a comprehensive and objective (as objective as is possible) appraisal of games, or they do and their editors are asleep at the wheel. You can bet your damned ass that if I was an editor, it would never let a score distribution like that go through me and reach press. If I approved a 63 for Gollum, there's no way I'd approve a 60 for Space Marine.
@@maltdairy2164 I know where you're coming from, but I think if you had to sit down and take the time to hash out what objective evaluation standards are, it's going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible. Lets say for instance you agreed to count bugs as -0.5 points; is a minor visual bug in a menu the same as an NPC falling through the world and breaking the story progression? Does a bug that only happens two a tiny subset of people count? It gets out of hand really fast.
And that's not even touching on creating an objective system for evaluating story, music, art style, all the artistic decisions. Those are inherently subjective. Find a reviewer whose opinions tend to align with yours, and try the games they recommend. Compare that to a system where every outlet is trying to figure out some objective points system that every reader will agree on. It's just not going to work. I do this with movie review; there's a few reviewers I go back to repeatedly not because they get it objectively "right", but because our tastes tend to align.
@@maltdairy2164 that’s the best explanation of what a review should be I’ve ever seen 👏
Its leading to a scenario where the general public doesn't trust game journalism??? Wait until you see general journalism 😂 5:15
Lol valid
Have you tried ground news?
Genuinely hilarious how different the titles can be but the text is LITERALLY copy pasta
1:45 that's just basically every 3rd person shooter tho
for real. When i ran into that issue, it immediately reminded me of tons of other games with the same issue and you just kinda work around it
@@DoctorPhilGud yeah, the only way to work around it as a developer. is by making 2 reticles like they have in warthunder.
Honestly their criticisms seem pretty fair. 6/10= good but has a lot of issues holding it back. From my experience it looks spectacular, and the visuals capture the 40k essence excellently, but the progression is way too simplistic and grindy, there are a lot of bugs and nuisances in the game that hamper it for me, and in my opinion even on the highest difficulty the PvE isn’t very challenging. Comparing the moment to moment gameplay in Darktide, another 40k game, SM2 doesn’t have that same feeling like you’re facing down overwhelming odds in PvE. There’s not much enemy variety, most of the toughest guys are just bullet sponges, and the melee combat feels like you’re wielding a pool noodle. The PvP is good arcadey fun and all, but only 3 maps at launch and having some egregiously bad balancing on classes, looking at you Vanguard, makes me tire of it really quick.
Honestly, if this game didn’t have the beloved 40k IP attached, fans would be dragging it every which way through the mud, and that’s coming from a 40k fan. I don’t think this game is really built to last in its current state though, which the studio clearly wants to do with the promises of the road map. I fear the game’s simplistic elements are gonna lead to a lot of casual players getting their fill in a couple of months before leaving for games they can really sink their teeth into.
It absolute it a complete game. I'm running through the campaign for a second time, not on a harder difficulty. I think Space Marine 2 is honestly the most complete game we've been given in the last 3-5 years.
I dont know why you would call that a sh*t load of content. I am very much bored with little content there is for that price.
I'm kinda curious what your metric for an appropriate amount of content is. Does potential build depth or diversity factor into it? Is it just enemies, maps, and campaign? For example the Ubi-standard open world has a metric f-ton of shallow content. Path of Exile has an absolutely absurd amount of complexity. CoD has a dozen maps and a campaign, maybe a splash of alt content of varying quality. MOBAs have traditionally one mildly complex map and a varying degree of build complexity. If its just ability to hold interest than I'd say thats almost so subjective that its a worthless metric. For me I hardly could get past the Zelda: BotW tutorial area before I tapped out because it didn't hold my interest, but it is quite obviously an amazing game.
@@thehob3836 Even the hardest fans of the game think online missions are becoming repetitive fast.
@@Ilestun You kind of missed the entire point of my reply. I was arguing neither for nor against the content of Space Marine 2. In fact, I don't even own the game.
I just want to know what is considered appropriate value for money when it comes to content. According to Diablo 4, a single particularly sparkly skin is equal in value to half a AAA title. Conversly Helldivers 2 at $40 didn't really have much by way of content complaints for the first month or so even though it arguably had much less content. On the oposite end of the spectrum there is BG3 which, quite frankly, could have sold each act as a full priced game and I think people would have still applauded it.
@@thehob3836 I think the only complain to this game is the lack of diversity for online missions.
I did not read much complains about anything else. People are quite happy with the gameplay, classes, solo storyline.....
Know new missions have been announced, lots of new content also......and it will be free.
You can expect same kind of Diablo 4 prices for future cosmetics of Space Marine 2.
@@Ilestun That was kind of the gist of my understanding as well. This was more about how the parent comment seemed to be saying they were unhappy with the content amount for the price they paid. I just like discussing value for money ratios in gaming as there is such a strong divide between people who will drop $100 on a skin for a game and people who say 30hrs of gameplay is not worth $30 (using extremes, though can personally think of a number of people that go with the $1 per 1hr of gametime metric for value). Personally, I do not have the disposable income to hardly participate in the hobby anymore, but I do like the discussion.
It’s been 15 years since I last gave a shit about game “journalism”
Oh Thor! This will be my first no short video. Thanks for being such a chill guy.
6/10 aka "the publisher didn't pay for a good review".
I disagree with the premise that "games journalism" is in the worst state ever right now. I just think it's format shifted into new media via RUclipsrs who stay in their area of expertise and represent genres for communities who trust their opinions. Gaming got too big, and the race to the bottom for 'game review websites' accelerated the death of written reviews in a canned corporate structure.
To that point, that's how you get large organizations like PC Gamer that can review Gollum higher than SM2 - the parts of the machine are disconnected from each other and so there's no consistency/reliable source of critical review.
Edit: I think it's cool to praise the road map, but content that doesn't exist yet should not be included in Pirate's rebuttal here. If we're being honest: Games Workshop doesn't exactly have a sterling record of putting their fans first, so the review should really be: does the content that exist today warrant the buy-in price? If so, what's the overall score to represent that value?
I personally have run into game breaking bugs that didn’t allow me to progress through the story. I couldn’t even pick up ammo or weapons in the elevator sequence where the bugs are destroying the chains.
I had a bug in campaign on mission 3 (I think 3) when you need to defend the chains of the elevator from swarms.
My partner and I couldn’t pick up stim packs or any of the weapons if we tried it more than once. It was also random-I couldn’t pick up guns on attempt 1, she couldn’t pick up stims on attempt 1, then maybe I’d also not be able to pick up grenades on attempt 2 while she couldn’t pick up guns anymore. After 4 attempts smother of us could pick up anything at all.
This was a problem cus my checkpoint had me entering the fight with the sniper, and her out of stims. Going to the barge and changing equipment didn’t fix.
Finally we just turned the difficulty down, reached next check point, turned it back up. Solved.
That’s it on bugs after 60 hours.
Campaign is great, beats sm2 but everything else is flat. sm1 had better pvp and pve, more customization and not as janky controls (6 co op missions, 3ish pvp maps and NO CHAOS CUSTOMIZATION to start. SM2 is still a great game but wont hold a candle to sm1 as of now. They already made it awesome once, why couldnt they top it again? Not to mention "Horde mode" in 2025 Q2? A horde game, built with a horde engine DOESNT have a horde mode? It needed more time to bake for sure. Not saying I disagree with Thor but this is my experience SM1 vs SM2
Totally agree
Thor's take on this proves reviews are just personal opinions and very bias honestly poor take on their part. Him trying to say the game isn't repetitive and fully complete was wild to me then of all things adds points cause its got a fancy roadmap 😂 so much of that should have been in at launch..
interesting, I'd like to see what the review said because most of the time when people crap on the reviewers it's because they never read the review and only saw the score.
Like the wukong screenrant review said the game lacked diversity but it turned out she only played chapter 1 and 2 which was actually correct.
I presume something similar happened with this review because giving gollum 63 and space marines 60 is strange so I wonder what the context would be.
@D4C_LoveTrain1 i mean im pretty sure it was 2 different people who reviewed gollum and sm2 its not like they are comparing them, people really have it out for this guy for rating a 7/10 game a 6/10 🤣
@@MagicalMajestic
I agree, it is repetitive
PC Gamer is making the name "gamers on PC" look bad. They don't represent us the real PC gamers
Space Marine 2 is a seriously great game. Easy contender for game of the year. The mission design is fantastic. The combat design is fantastic. Serious, careful thought has been put into the pacing of everything, from individual fights to entire chapters of the story. It's a game that achieves the near impossible feat of simultaneously making you feel like a posthuman god of war, unmatched by any foe on the battlefield, and making you feel tiny and alone and terrified in the face of an unstoppable alien onslaught. The sheer sense of scale is breathtaking.
With all that being said, I really want to know where people are getting "New faction" from when it comes to the roadmap. The post by Saber says "A new enemy". That reads, to me, as one single new enemy unit. I've not seen the word "faction" used anywhere by Saber. If I'm missing something I'll be delighted to be wrong, but right now I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment with this talk of entire new enemy factions being added.
I’m surprised you’re so positive about space marines 2. There is no cover, no kneel, no radar, and the characters felt sluggish. I think I made it through the campaign… (not clear). I played pve enough to level up my weapons to the first level… many connections issues (which granted may be improved but still very frustrating)… the interface reminds me of a windows 3.1 app dev, I don’t feel like there is much skill, strategy, or flow while playing the game… lore may be good (I’m not sure this is my introduction to 40k lore)… but playing the campaign was not fun… there has to be some fun somewhere… the player experience feels “clunky” to me. I’ll try it again in a few months but at this point, I’m disappointed.
Hypothetically, a 60% shouldn't be that bad. That's above average. I think the most telling thing is what they're saying is "wrong" with the game. They say it has messy action and unengaging multiplayer. Which is just objectively not true at all. I have issues with the game myself and, I definitely think that its overrated in general. But the multiplayer is fun as hell and the action is really tight. Like.. what is PC Gamer playing at here?
Honestly, I see it. There are tons of bugs and a 6/10 means they still like it.
Too many people forget that 5/10 is average, 6/10 is nicely above that and with all of the minor issues the game has, 6/10 is completely fair.
@@castlesbard1547 While I 1000% agree that this *should* be the case; it's pretty well established that game reviews are inflated. Generally, mediocre/adequate games are rated around 6.5-7/10. Your typical pretty good game usually at least scores an 8. I don't agree with this metric, but it's the one that's been pushed and used for decades now by reviewers. 6/10 is not an above-average review.
@@CptSteiner
It is unfortunate. With how much the communities have gotten together with their shared hatred of journalist/reviewers I'd always hoped we'd come together on our use of the grading system but it doesn't seem like it'll happen either.
@@castlesbard1547 It really is a shame. Though, I can't entirely blame reviewers for continuing the system at this point. This video is a great example of why it would be hard to review a game "properly" out of 10. When every other outlet is inflating reviews and has done so for a long time, if you come along and give a well-meaning, functionally identical review of plusses and minuses, but give a lower score, you're going to be attacked by fans purely for giving the more accurate, lower value and not necessarily for the content of the review... I don't think that's what's going on with this review. I think they are just under-rating the game by a bit, but yeah, it sucks. 5/10 should be average; 10/10 should be functionally unattainable. 9 and 9.5s should be GOAT contenders only.
We need to stop implying that 6 or 7/10 are terrible scores. It means the game is above average which is sometimes more than enough. I love this game but let's not pretend it's some hidden 10/10 masterpiece. It's a very simple horde shooter with a campaign which is basically a remake of the first game, it has good, albeit slow, progression, and very bare-bones PvP component.
The reason for this (at least I think) is that at one point some publications graded games the way American schools do (A, B, C, D, F). “C” is considered average and getting 70-79% of questions correct on a test is usually a “C.”
@@kwakerjak Okay, that makes sense, I never thought of it that way. When I rate games I start at 5/10 and then I add or subtract points based on what I think the game does well or poorly.
My favorite is the moonwalking bug
I’m glad Frost is taking it upon himself to try and help clean up games journalism
"Messy action" is the biggest skill issue statement you could make about SM2
2 million players but cant find coop mates
maidenless
I don't have friends who have the game so I've been joining randos is co-ops and I haven't had any problems.
@@Tullaryx
@@Tutel0093 go back to main menu and continue the game again. Works for me, only needed when its peak gaming time.
To be fair, I'd rather take the AI most of the time lol. These randoms be doing some random ass tactics lmao🤦♂️
I actually experienced my first bug playing operations with my friend the other day. After beating a PVE mission the game loaded me into the upper area where the Chaplains room is. This area is normally not accessible at all in Operations and walking around it the area was totally depopulated of all NPCs, lighting was off, and it had a bunch of unloaded textures. I also couldn’t leave without using the fast travel through the menu cause the elevator didn’t work. No idea how the bug triggered but it was kinda funny cause the game teleported me somewhere unexpected and I had no clue how or why.
the game is kinda boring. it is what it is. just because it shares a name with something you like doesnt mean the game has to be good. if it was free it would be decent. for the price? nah. not worth it at all.
Its always worth noting that the problems is not games journalism, it's the entire business of advertising games. Everyone in the gaming space is criminally underpaid while execs get billions.
Journalism overall has degraded so goddamn much. Too much clickbait, a lot of stretching in the articles, forcing you to read until the end only to realise it wasn't worth it. Feels like it was a problem for a while, but now it's just way more obvious.
If it is possible to try the game first, better do so. Don't trust the reviews, try it yourself first or at least watch the playthroughs and decide for yourself whether you want to carry on.
You can blame audiences for click bait and the 5 second attention span of folks now
I've noticed the same thing about sniping but it's still a really fun class to play and can really shine in it's roll