• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Infamous: Second Son Review Thread

Bgamer90 said:
Man, only three months in too. Welp.



So honesty in the way reviews are done is pathetic?
Click to expand...

Nobody needed to hear all that yapping, review the game and thats it.

He seemed like was forced to play this and hate it on purpose,
just say you didnt enjoy it, dont try to ease up the 3 stars blow with yapping nonsense.

Go watch the bioshock infinite review side by side with this one, its like two differen people, who is the real Sessler? The Elegant talker or this goof babbling that Infamous world is nothing special, worst review of 2014.
 
Haha, I just went back and read through the first few pages... soooo much Polygon hate, then Polygon gives the game an 8.5 after those two 7/10's from Edge and Eurogamer. Just amazing.
 
I'm not bothered by the scores themselves I'm more concerned about the shortness of the game. I'm sorry but in a day and age where there are games that have 100+ hours of re-playability, paying full price for a short experience makes no sense at all. Add the fact that many places are selling this game for MORE than the usual price and you have a "no way" from me.
 
I haven't been keeping up with a lot of the stuff going on due to work. What are the complaints from reviewers with the game?

I did see a few comparing Titanfall in the mix for it's overall metascore vs this game. Is the game bare bones and suffering from frame rate issues like TF had?
 
Trey said:
Does Second Son make an entire genre workable on controllers in a way that makes sense and becomes the standard for every game in its genre since like Halo has? Does it introduce a game mechanic to the mainstream that became the standard for almost every single game in its genre like Halo did with its recharging health system?

Does Second Son make multiplayer (or anything) a mainstream, nearly must have component in a game like Halo solidified? Does Second Son prove that good framerate is desirable by the masses, like Call of Duty did. Does Second Son make a cinematic landmark on its genre, to the point that most single player campaigns follow its set piece-to-set piece format, like Call of Duty did. Does Sucker Punch's latest entry introduce a revolutionary unlock system that most games, regardless of genre, has tried to emulate in order to keep players playing, like Call of Duty has?

A better line of argument would have been trying to prove anything listed above as possible regardless of the generation they premiered inside. Gaming has undeniably evolved in each generation, and odds are it will do so again.
Click to expand...

Again Halo did nothing that other games in the genre didn't already do. It just came out at a time when gaming was really blowing up and becoming mainstream. the same can be said of COD. They just do those things at a time when people are starting to take notice.
 
I'm just happy there's a new game I can play!

Seriously guys, get what you want to play, all reviews are based off that individual's opinion, and not your own. If you want to know how good or bad the game is, try it for yourself.
 
BigSpleenAttack said:
Sigh, in that case every game is a system seller, thats makes the notion of a systems seller stupid. Look at PS4 sales at launch......systems, libraries, brand sell systems. The promise of future games sell systems. Everyone has a game or 2 that made them pull the trigger but if they were the ONLY games on those system ever, you get the point. This system seller nonsense is just that,.
Click to expand...

I can agree there's a slight differentiation, but I think what you're describing is what most people mean. I bought a 2DS last month because Pokemon made me pull the trigger, but it has a great catalogue (FE:A, Persona Q, Mario, Zelda, etc). I think the hope was that ISS would be a system seller for some people, i.e. the game that pushed them over the edge. I don't think anyone honestly thinks anyone buys a system for one game and that's all they use the system for.
 
codhand said:
i was never a math wiz in school but still certain an 8 is an 8
Click to expand...

I agree with his point though, 8 is considered almost average on most scales even though it says "great!", average games get 7.5 - 8, good games get 8.1-8.5, great games get 8.6 - 8.9 and amazing games get 9+ and anything below a 7 people usually call bad. Not all reviews are like this but it seems to be the hivemind. 6 should be average, 7 should be good, 8 great etc etc. The scales on the sites say thats what they mean but the content of the actual reviews is at odds with the metric.
 
People are to concerned about review scores way to much. If u were interested in the game buy it dont let a score change ur mind unless its score is due to some terrible performance issues. Same goes for buying games u had no interest in dont buy it bc it had good scores.
 
Levito said:
It's getting wonderful reviews, what exactly is the problem?
Click to expand...

Since this is the only major title PS4 has going for it (especially going into the next 4 months), people wanted this to be an 88-90 metacritic game. They see an 81 (and it could drop to 78-79), as not being a killer app title like Titanfall was deemed being by the press for X1.

I don't agree with this of course. Considering this is out of a 100 (or 10 scale ), this overall got great reviews.
 
codhand said:
really movies? they domt generally apply 100 pt scales to film, in addition most movies nowadays arent very good by historic standards
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you don't venture into offtopic portion of gaf, where they have a RT % watch for certain movies. When a hotly anticipated movie gets a bad review that's put up on RT it is almost guaranteed to stir up a reaction.
 
DryvBy said:
I haven't been keeping up with a lot of the stuff going on due to work. What are the complaints from reviewers with the game?

I did see a few comparing Titanfall in the mix for it's overall metascore vs this game. Is the game bare bones and suffering from frame rate issues like TF had?
Click to expand...

Plays pretty much like Infamous (not really a negative, not a positive either), open world doesn't hold a whole lot of mission variety.
 
mocoworm said:
Geeez. Last time.

I thought this game was going to be truly 'next-gen' , built for PS4 only and an absolute MUST HAVE NOW! game.

Instead it is these kind of reviews which make me not want to put down almost £400 to see if they are right. It's alright for people who already have a PS4, taking a £50 bet on the title. Not so easy if you need to pick up a PS4 as well.

I'd rather wait and get a PS4 when I know I simply HAVE to have it.
Click to expand...

I fully understand your point.. BUT BUT BUT... you praise Dead Rising 3 (and even mention it as a reason for getting a Xbox One).. while reviews say this (reviewers you seem to trust)..

Eurogamer said:
Dead Rising 3 takes place in the city of Los Perdidos, a very loose rendering of Los Angeles in California, and Capcom Vancouver may live to regret that choice. Not because Los Perdidos is poorly put together - split into four districts linked by freeways, it's host to plenty of interesting locations - but because it's impossible not to compare it to the other game we played this year that took on the City of Angels. Grand Theft Auto 5, with its astonishing attention to detail and beautiful art direction, makes Dead Rising 3 look like it's struggling with the limitations of ageing hardware.

It's not though; it's an Xbox One launch title, although it may be a while before you believe that. The first minutes of the game are some of its worst, as pixels crawl along the jagged edges of road signs while canned shots of the surroundings strain to set the scene against the weight of slowdown. Slipping into the mechanic's overalls of Nick Ramos, players are dumped in a dingy tunnel full of boxy cars, rigid cloth tents and dodgy textures. The controller lag is jarring as you wrestle Nick around, fumbling to pick up desired objects in a swarm of competing contextual prompts, bashing zombies with whatever you can.
Click to expand...

can you really not see why your posts here (that clearly try to downplay inFamous SS as a good game) are confusing for some posters here.-.?
 
Pain said:
Reviews are decent. About what I expected. Did people really expect a 90+ Meta?
Click to expand...

I thought it would be just under 90. I didn't expect it to be as close to 80 as it is. I also expected Titanfall to be in the 90s, so I think I'm going to start adjusting my metacritic predictions to lower scores in general. More publications are choosing to use a great range in their 1-10 scales nowadays, and I think we're really seeing it at the beginning of this generation.
 
Nibiru said:
I'm not bothered by the scores themselves I'm more concerned about the shortness of the game. I'm sorry but in a day and age where there are games that have 100+ hours of re-playability, paying full price for a short experience makes no sense at all. Add the fact that many places are selling this game for MORE than the usual price and you have a for certain no way from me.
Click to expand...

They just added 6 hours of gameplay (see new neogaf thread), so its 17 hours good now and 17 hours bad karma I think

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/infam..._missions_5_hours_of_additional_gameplay.html

Add in new content each week for 6 weeks and SS is now a BIG game...
 
Magicman103 said:
Yeah and after you beat the game it is noontime all the time,
Click to expand...

Yeah, this sucks. But if they can make a huge patch for day one, surely they could make a patch so the time changes after a set amount of time in the gameworld, or heck even give you options, post-ending to change it yourself to your liking.
 
Chill Penguin said:
It's a little surprising some people are putting down GTA V to prop up Infamous. Infamous could learn a thing or two from Rockstar. GTA V was a master class in open world design, and the standard to which all other open world games will be judged.
Click to expand...
InFamous has never been nor has Sucker Punch ever tried to provide that type of experience though. Fundamentally inFamous is a fairly linear action game in the trappings of an open world. If people are expecting it to suddenly become Grand Theft Auto V because a new generation of consoles started, I don't know what to tell you. I think that expectation is a bit out of whack with reality.

Realistically, you're given a sandbox primarily to provide exploration for blast shards and the ability to execute the (very cool) traversal powers for better or worse. In the past traversal was more tied to a combination of powers and platforming. With Second Son, they've all but dumped platforming in favor of a variety of speedy and immediately satisfying power traversal. Making the open city even more important as a means to allow the player to "stretch their legs" if you will. That's where the real evolution in gameplay come forward in Second Son along with the different power sets you can play with. You're not just locked down to electricity anymore and there have been plenty of nips and tucks to how combat, aiming and general combat plays out.

Side missions in the previous games have always been a bit of distraction primarily to pad content and build Karma and Second Son is no different in that regard. If there is real criticism to be leveled its in the repetition of its side missions and Sucker Punch not doing more to flesh them out and I can't say I would disagree much with that having beaten the game myself.

That having been said, I think you're right in saying the inFamous could learn some lessons from GTAV in how to better provide more diversions in its open world. Though I'd argue GTAV could learn some lessons on how to provide a narrative that doesn't feel like it was a complete waste of time after 60+ hours I spent with it. To each their own in that regard of course.:)
 
azhar said:
Haha, I just went back and read through the first few pages... soooo much Polygon hate, then Polygon gives the game an 8.5 after those two 7/10's from Edge and Eurogamer. Just amazing.
Click to expand...

Don't forget about Sessler. That's why i never take any of the "X outlet is biased" nonsense seriously. Changes with the wind. Just wish people would at least recognize their own fickleness.
 
I heard that a lot of the reviews are spoiler-y, so I just stopped reading entirely. Most seem to be positive, and I haven't heard any deal breakers so far.

However, I have heard that one review apparently docked it points because its open world is not in the same league as GTAV...ugh.

I really hope that doesn't become a trend. Taking every open world game regardless of how different they are, comparing it to GTAV, and then taking off points if it's not on the same scale? Really?

Might as well dock Arkham Knight points right now. It'll probably have a great open world and much more interesting things to do than Arkham City/Origins. But hey, it's no GTAV!
 
farisr said:
I'm guessing you don't venture into offtopic portion of gaf, where they have a RT % watch for certain movies. When a hotly anticipated movie gets a bad review that's put up on RT it is almost guaranteed to stir up a reaction.
Click to expand...
i get the whole 7-10 scale argument,. but if the avg reviewing standard goes up, ie scores get lower, ppl still cite the 7-10 scale, when it's clear even AAA exclusives like this are not exempt, in short if someone gave an 8 i trust they arent lying to their readers or themselves.
 
Trey said:
Does Second Son make an entire genre workable on controllers in a way that makes sense and becomes the standard for every game in its genre since, like Halo has? Does it introduce a game mechanic to the mainstream that became the standard for almost every single game in its genre like Halo did with its recharging health system?

Does Second Son make multiplayer (or anything) a mainstream, nearly must have component in a game like Halo solidified? Does Second Son prove that good framerate is desirable by the masses, like Call of Duty did? Does Second Son make a cinematic landmark on its genre, to the point that most single player campaigns follow its set piece-to-set piece format, like Call of Duty did? Does Sucker Punch's latest entry introduce a revolutionary unlock system that most games, regardless of genre, have tried to emulate in order to keep players playing, like Call of Duty has?

A better line of argument would have been trying to prove anything listed above as possible regardless of the generation they premiered inside. Gaming has undeniably evolved in each generation, and odds are it will do so again.
Click to expand...


Wow your giving a lot of credit to Halo and COD. And Ignoring a lot of games that did similar things. Buying the most popular does not make you revolutionary. Is Nsync the best band of all time because they where the most popular?
 
Just watched the gametrailers review, i'm not sure i like the fact that they have taken the cover system out of the game. I also don't like the fact that climbing is pretty redundant now as you can just zoom up to the top of buildings.
Good review though.
 
Phoenician_Viking said:
Yes you are. What are the other 999999999 objectively wrong with the game? You can´t fool anyone.
Click to expand...

Empty, lifeless city. Boring missions. Generic characters with bad voice acting. Awful graphics and ever worse frame rate.

So there you have it. What good games are supposed to have, this game has not.
 
darkjedi187 said:
Why use a 10 point scale if you not going to use it all. By definition average should be 5. Wow!
Click to expand...

I like to look at it like a point-scale for exams. Anything below 50 % is considered unsatisfactory or insufficient. The exact number then just conveys how bad exactly it is. By that logic, an average game would be in the 60-75% range. Flawed, but still enjoyable if you are willing to pay for it.
 
farisr said:
Some of the BS excuses used to justify the lower scores. If they had proper critiques without that BS added in, there would be less of a reaction.

"not next-gen gameplay" is poor writing. That is all.
Click to expand...

I can understand that frustration, I just personally don't give a shit :P

I'm getting Second Son tomorrow because I want an inFamous game. I don't give a shit if it's not a "post-GTAV game", whatever the fuck that means, has "next-game gameplay", whatever the fuck that means, if it "justifies a PS4", or if its MC rating stacks up against Titanfall's as part of console warz dick waving. I just want a third inFamous game, and it seems like it's definitely along those lines.

I think it's prudent to just extract the information that's relevant to you in reviews. I'm not even talking specifically Second Son, I'm saying in general. Many journalists want to add this side of extra "baggage" to AAA reviews to spice up their article and build a narrative. Many reviewers come in with preconceived notions or wishes that may or may not even be in line with what a game is trying to do. It's easy to pick these out because they tend to flip out over the most bizarre things.

Majestad said:
Empty, lifeless city. Boring missions. Generic characters with bad voice acting. Awful graphics and ever worse frame rate.

So there you have it. What good games are supposed to have, this game has not.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to grasp what "objective" really means. All opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Saros | Review Thread
Review  8 9 10 11 12
586
3K
ByWatterson replied
Mina the Hollower | Review Thread
Review  2
94
920
Ceadeus replied
REPLACED | Review thread
Review 
23
991
AJBungah replied
Motorslice | Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
77
1K
Guilty_AI replied
Invincible VS | Review Thread
Analysis Review 
0
334
Draugoth replied
Top Bottom