While I am impressed that No Man’s Sky pulled a 180 in the end

It didn't really. They added a lot of what they promised, but still not everything Sean Murray lied about at the beginning.

A hypothetical mainstream consumer is the least educated person on the topic and is exactly the kind of person that gets swindled constantly by review scores. They're the ones that need to hear more than ever that following review scores as some objective truth is stupid.

Once a generation you might get a Death Stranding 2 or something, and really enjoy it, but other times you’re stuck with the original Lords of the Fallen, because you like Souls-likes, and that’s your only game this month or quarter.

And sometimes the original Lords of the Fallen is exactly what you want to play, even if everyone else says it's bad. That's entirely my point. General consensus of "good" and "bad" means nothing. Equating popularity and quality is dumb

The Steam deck is very quick though. I just paused Like a Dragon Gaiden and it took about 2 seconds to go to sleep, left it sitting on the table for an hour or so while I did some errands. Picked it back up and hit thepower button and I was back on the pause menu in about another 2 seconds.

Steam Deck "sleep" is more like locking your phone than it is like putting a Windows PC to sleep

How does the open world affect it? One of the reasons I liked Zombies mode in the earlier CoDs was being able to do quick maneuvers through tight spaces and really getting the game down to a muscle memory to see how far you could go.

For me I just don't get how anyone can realistically extrapolate a game's score to anything about the game itself. Reviews are fine, and people providng their own experience and interpretations of and pros/cons is fine, but then boiling that perosnal subjective into an interpretive score that somehow is supposed to convey they same information just makes no sense.

I do agree that most people just see a score and don't bother to look further past that, it's very annoying to see comment sections just talk about the score itself and how it might be "right" or "wrong".

That's the part I don't get, when people think that someone giving CoD a 6/10 is "wrong" because another reviewer gave it a 9/10. Like, seriously, who cares what the score is. I don't play games because the score is high, I play games because they sound interesting to me. I don't care that some website gave Death Stranding a 4/10 because they didn't "get it". I still liked the game and their review doesn't tranish that in any way, neither of us is right or wrong because not every game is made for everyone and people's own subjective tastes and stuff will obviously affect the kinds of games they like.

I just overall think people care WAY too much about some arbitary scores that ultimately don't mean shit. IGN giving a game I didn't like a high score doesn't mean I was "wrong" about the game, but too many people want to just use scores to argue with other people. Like bro, just go play the games that interest you, stop caring about scores

That is something about this acquisition that benefits customers and not just Microsoft.

Yeah, but only the customers that Microsoft allows to play that product. What about Bethesda games being longstanding multi platform IPs that are now locked to Xbox consoles and Playstation users who might have been playing them on their consoles since Oblivion now get fucked.

Acquisitions like this are fine UNLESS it's a multi trillion dollar conglomerate gobbling up the industry's largest players. That is not beneficial to anyone. And there is no way to justify it is

Also, reviews are never objective.

I agree, which is why I think creating companies around subjective reviews by boiling things down to a score that people are expected to take objectively as a measure of a product's worth is entirely asinine and silly. ESPECIALLY when the general triat of capitalism allows these review companies to have their bias and subjections swayed by not wanting to bite the hand that feeds their comapny's existence

Review scores and review sites are dumb

"Graphics:" are the only thing consoles can actively advertise on since "graphics" are the easiest thing to showcase in a screenshot or video.

It's why so many gamers whine and complain about "graphics" being the most importnat thing that determines whether they buy a game or not, which I find completely asinine.

Notice I put graphics in quotes a lot. That's because I distinctly and separating graphics/fidelity and art direction/aesthetic. I would much rather take a great game with a unique art style and lower fidelity over a game that has good fidelity, but a bog standard boring art direction and a color pallete of mostly browns and grays where 90% of the budget went to visuals and not the gameplay or content.

It's why I pretty much don't play modern AAA games. Year after year it's just the same crap rehashed in a slightly differnet $60 package. Why would I buy Call of Duty 26 or Open World Collectathon But This Time There's a Spider-Man Coat of Paint On It when I can play shit like Signalis or Crow Country or any of the Yakuza games or Nier or Antichamber or Death Stranding or Monster Hunter

It's not about how many Microsoft owns. It's how large the ones they own are. Microsoft has essentially made long time huge third party developers/publishers part of their company now, that's corporate consolidation and should never be defended or justified in any way.

Microsoft has trillions of dollars. They have the capital, workforce, and time to build up their own studios. If the only way a trillion dollar company can "compete" in a space is to consolidate that space by applying anti consumer tactics like buying out longstanding publishers, that's stupid and a lie.

Eh, I don’t think the big review sites can survive if they get blacklisted by one or a few publishers.

Then those review sites shouldn't exist. It directly conflicts with their entire business model of "reviewing products objectively" when they can't review products objectively without fear of the hand that feeds getting mad at them for saying the truth

A review site that lies isn't a review site. It's advertising

It's not even a Nintendo Curve (They might have a stronger curve), but the vast majority of the time these large review sites are all in the pockets of publishers (event invites, interviews, exclusive first looks, review copies etc) and in order to keep that gravy train going so their review company doesn't fold means to not bite the hand that feeds too much, even if you have to lie.

They're a public company. their shareholders are the customers they have to please. Not you.