bears-game-dev-blog - Tumblr blog

[bears-game-dev-blog]

A Slight Misunderstanding (IGN Call Of Duty Black Ops 4 Multiplayer Review)

IGN decided to split the review of Black Ops 4 into three different reviews, one for each mode, Multiplayer, Blackout and zombies. while i have played all three modes the only one I have put enough time into to fairly discuss would be the multiplayer mode. While the reviewer does bring up a lot of good points both positive and negative, they also miss some key talking points. 

I think the biggest talking point with every call of duty is what is the play style, is it modern or futuristic? is it boots on the ground or are there jetpack and wall running? Miranda does cover some key game play points but misses what is the biggest game play factor for me in Call Of Duty, that being the Map flow. in some previous Call Of Duty games they centered the map on a 50/50 style. What i mean by this is the map design is made up to the half way point then is more or less copied and pasted to the other side making a pure balance. The issue with this is that there is nothing to fight over and high knowledge players can not accurately predict where other players are likely to go and cut them off as there is no reason to go anywhere aside from the middle lines of sight.

There also seemed to be a lack of knowledge and understanding of the game play and the first person shooter development processes after launch . She points out that drop shotting (a tactic where you go prone as you shoot) has been removed causing a drastic game play change. This is not entirely true the weapon attachment “stock two” allows the player to drop shot like in previous installments off the call of duty series. Miranda also notes the spawns as a key negative. At release yes the spawns were bad but this is the case in every shooter i have played not just call of duty. Bad spawns at launch are a fact of a shooter games life. Even at the time of writing this two months after launch spawns had drastically improved. I’m not saying this isn’t worth bringing up but she makes it seems like a permanent issue and a surprise.    

This review seems to be more useful to casual Call Of Duty players rather than hardcore fans. I also this if the reviewer spent a bit more time playing and took more time to look around and understand the game the review would have been a bit better. IGN gave Black Ops 4 multiplayer a 7.8/10 I Personally give it a 9/10 it was a nice bounce back for a series i think had lost it’s touch

I think overall Miranda did a fairly good job on reviewing Black Ops 4. She has always done great work for IGN and I am interested to see how she does going forward working more on reviews.

Want to check out Miranda Sanchez’s review of Call Of Duty Black Ops 4 Multiplayer for yourself? Check out this link!

https://ca.ign.com/articles/2018/10/18/call-of-duty-black-ops-4-multiplayer-review

[bears-game-dev-blog]

This party could have been Super (IGN Super Mario Party review)

IGN’s review of Super Mario Party seems unfinished and a bit uncertain, what i mean by this is a few of the points the reviewer makes collapse in on themselves.

The big issue i had with this review is the inconsistency over two main topics first being the issue Samuel had with the randomness referencing the bonus stars more than once and in the video he uses a tone of voice this implies how stupid they are, but he quickly moves on in the video. the issue here is he never complain about any other aspect of randomness. he praises the partner system which is based off compete randomness as to what partners you get and overlooks the fact that other than the mini games and the added choice of what dice to use Mario party is a game of pure randomness with little map knowledge and counting. Samuel also complains about the hardware being faulty however when listing his top five minigames two rely on the hardware's great rumble feature and his favorite game relies on the motion controls he claims lessen the games experience.

My other issue with IGN’s review is that it is unfinished Sam doesn’t cover the multiplayer modes and only briefly touches on a few of the local modes. this might just be me but if you are a review should you not just review every aspect in depth? This is really upsetting as a someone who read reviews quite often to decide on if i should buy as the think i was most excited for was to play the main mode with some friends who live in the U.S but that's not possible as the feature was never implemented a heart breaking discovery that Samuel never covered.

Do i think this was a well done review? No i personally don’t think so. Do i agree with the review? No. Samuel gave Super Mario Party a 7.3/10 I agree with the numbers but for very different reasons. I like the hardware I LOVE the buddy system i like the randomness rather than skill based but the lack of maps and the lack of multiplayer support really brings this game down for me. I give Super Mario party 7.2/10 but should have been 8+ if multiplayer was implemented. I am aware that the multiplayer servers were not active at the time of the review so i would like to see Sam re-post an updated version soon and finish the review.

Want to check out IGN’s review of Super Mario Party                                        by:  Samuel Claiborn for yourself? check out this link!

https://ca.ign.com/articles/2018/10/03/super-mario-party-review

[bears-game-dev-blog]

There is too much water... (IGN Omega Ruby Alpha Sapphire review)

IGN’s review of Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire which are remakes of the original Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire from 2002, is probably the most known and talked about review for a game possibly ever. Is the review really all that outrageous or are the points made genuine and relevant? Personally, i think the review has a few valid points.

The review does explain quite a lot of detail regarding the design and graphical improvements. Much like the reviewer i agree this is the best looking Pokemon game to date, trumping sun and moon in my opinion. The design changes to some of the cities add a lot of life and a breath of new life without really effecting how the original game was back in 2002. The review mentions Mauville City a perfect example of fresh air without changing core gameplay.

The “con” at the end of the review “too much water” is the key talking point people like to poke fun at, but if you take time to read the review or listen to the video it is a valid point that i couldn't agree with more. Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire focus way too much on water, nearly half of the game you are traveling water and a large portion of the land time is on a beach, in turn this mean you will be fighting a large amount of water Pokemon. The reviewer mentioned that if you have Alpha Sapphire as the main villains go by team aqua and use water Pokemon creating even less variety in types. Myself having played Omega Ruby faced team Magma a fire based organization. I had never thought about this but it’s a great point as the best parts of the game were fighting Magma as it created a much needed break from water.

To answer the question of is IGN’s review of Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire really outrageous and invalid. No the review brings up great points both for and against the game and i think the review score of 7.8/10 is fair sure the game doesn’t hold up well to others in the series in my opinion but it doesn’t lose marks for not being what it could have been. At least it’s not sun and moon.

Want to check out IGN’s review of Pokemon Omega Ruby and Aplha Sapphire by: Kallie Plagge for yourself? check out this link!

https://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/11/18/pokemon-alpha-sapphire-and-omega-ruby-review