20-25 hour campaign
That’s like… 120 hours for me the way I meticulously comb every inch of playable area. And die a lot.
I have 306 hours in Elden Ring and I think 250+ of that was me wandering and killing minor bosses.
I’ve got about 200 hours each on just my first 3 characters on PC. And I have the game on PS5, too.
Game’s alright, I guess.
Impressive. Last game I had hours like that in was Dark Souls 2 round 10 years ago. I am shortly going to break my first 200 hours for Elden Ring though, the DLC will send me over the breakpoint pretty comfortably. Then I get to start my second character for real, now that I have all the content for them to explore.
Holy cow, you put in work!
I love these games. They’re the perfect blend of old and new design. They put gameplay first, and then write the story around the game. They’re like the modern equivalent to Castlevania for me.
Plus I like invading. I can be a mini boss :D
It’s true. I still routinely go back to the first Dark Souls and remember the amount of time I dumped into it trying to keep progressing. The amount of times I’d die and then test out a new strategy on something as simple as dispatching 5 enemies in a series of hallways, or going down the rabbit hole on boss fight strategies. I have the hardcover guide for the first DS game and it’s amazing. It’s weird how the brutality of those games can also be something you get peace from. Souls games are still among the few that I can truly disconnect with and be completely pulled in. Just talking about it makes me want to start a new character.
my brother.
It’s IGN. They probably had this score lined up since the announcement.
Eh, I don’t love IGN but it seems like at this point nothing they do makes people happy. I remember when they gave Starfield a 7 people rioted lol, even tho the score was entirely deserved.
A seven is VERY generous for Starfield… but I know game review scores are BS and only go from 5-10.
Totally agree, tbh I even felt 7 was a bit too high. But people were pissed that it was that low.
Dunkey actually made a great video showing how any game that gets below an 8 gets slammed, regardless of the title. Was kind of funny tbh, albeit a little sad.
Bethesda should have put “Mario” or “Zelda” in the title if they wanted better scores from IGN.
Were people angry because it was low or high? I’d give it a lower score personally, though I’ve still seen some people argue it’s a perfect game
I’d say it deserves a perfectly mediocre 5. Everything it does is better in other games, and the one thing it’s supposed to do (exploration) is better in their other games. I live sci-fi so I was willing to overlook a lot of issues, but I think the biggest letdown is that the sci-fi stories it tells are boring as hell and don’t actually make use of the genre. If they really wanted to make a sci-fi game they should have been ready to tell interesting sci-fi stories. Instead they gave up all the strengths of their other games to tell uninteresting stories.
They thought 7 was too low. And I totally agree with you, I would’ve given it like a 6 or 5.
People who hate the game think it’s too high. People who like the game think it’s too low.
I believe you, but I don’t remember backlash for that score on Starfield.
There’s an extension for YouTube dislikes if you’re curious. That video got slammed with them.
Granted, people eventually agreed that the game was pretty mediocre. But at the time the only people that had played it were the diehards that paid extra for early access, and they were livid.
Can a DLC be game of the year?
Maybe? Witcher 3: Blood & Wine was similar.
It has a little something for everyone.
