Rule 0: Be civil
Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy
Rule #2: No advertisements
Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments
Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions
Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.
Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts
Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments
Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates
Eurogamer - 2/5 Stars - "Stripped-back Ubisoft formula is admirable yet doomed"
Shocker.
Edit: Apologies for starting this off negative. I'm just tired of Ubisoft and AAA in general and didn't intend to knock the shine off of something that some folks are looking forward to.
I was looking forward to it until I saw Ubisoft.
It's developed by Massive Entertainment, which did The Division, Far Cry 3, and World in Conflict. It doesn't feel like Far Cry or AssCreed, and so far no microtransaction or pay to win crap.
Do they also shit on everything else too? Cause it's all formulaic now. Everything is a Ubisoft type open world collectathon, a soulslike, a wannabe roguelike, a breath of the wild ripoff, a wannabe games as a service shooter, or a starter valley Clone. Almost every game falls within a handful of clichés.
Very few games are truly new anymore.
Are you for real? There's more games than ever and more of them coming out all the time. It's just big budget slop that's enshittified. That is, if you don't care about game being about a thing you've heard before, i.e. some franchise.
That's a bit of cherry-picking though. Almost all reviews seem to range from 7,5 to 8,5 with a few lower ones dragging down the overall score.
It absolutely is. Not to whinge over the state of the gaming press as I'm not one of those guys, but with that said I personally stack weight behind EG's reviews before looking elsewhere. Not to say that they are the best/most objective in their field, but rather that they are consistent and don't seem to pander to publishers. Happy to hear of any other sites that leave others feeling the same.
..and to be honest, after reading a bit more the game doesn't look bad, only middling.
Well just saying, there are 59 reviews on there right now, and only 8 of them score a 6,5 and lower. I doubt that all of them are pandering to publishers, most seem pretty legit and realistic about the issues they have with the game.
That said, I don't think the game was ever meant to do anything groundbreaking anyway, so it being mid seems alright to me.
I'd never posit that all reviewers are pandering to large publishers, but rather that the majority have absolutely seen score creep that now rewards mediocrity with 7/10 in order to maintain access. This is why I unapologetically turn to a more trusted source first.