It's not a Sequel, Its a Prequel.

Well it's not like R* is an unknown quantity, it's virtually guaranteed that it's gonna be of the highest quality in most aspects, the only place I could see them dropping the ball is post-release transition to online /microtransaction model and perhaps the story, given that RDR's is so fantastic

Crackdown 3 lol.

@Unreal01
LOL It certainly ain't going to be game of the year but i'll give it a try on gamepass. It could turn out to be really fun. I think a lot will hinge on wrecking zone which is the multiplayer mode. Should find out more at XO18

the only reviewer I trust is ACG

One day is not enough to cancel a pre order if the game turns out to be shit

You know your right. I will just wait until release day

The only reason is disagree is because of how volatile the gaming community is, looking through some of the most popular cross-console games, there are haters for the sake of hating, and article that take a non-popular view simply because...

That's fair enough. I do know the community, or at least some vocal people therein, do indeed like to be contentious when its not really needed. Even if they don't like something, they can stir things up much more than is really necessary over any given topic. I don't even think this is isolated to gaming or fandom type communities, but seems to be more a thing since social media took over how we communicate.

That being said, maybe I just don't notice it as much, because there haven't been as many multiplats this gen that interest me, and the exclusives tend to get my attention more, at least some of them. I typically don't talk much about MS exclusives in terms of their quality, or how I feel about them, because I'm not that interested in many of them. There are a couple notable exceptions though. Usually when I speak of them, it's on the broader impact of the console, and console war itself. The notable exceptions would be when people bring them up for comparison in a game I am interested in, or when it was a game I found interesting, but usually ended up being disappointing in the end.

I can understand why both parties would sign a legally binding contract if it meant they could get the game early and put their review out early. But just 1 day? Not worth it.

The way it will pan out is with random youtubers and second-rate websites flooding their impressions on the internet days before the embargo because some copies got leaked early like they always do before a big launch.

Nah, if the game is good then of course it will get a high score based on our playthrough. If there are issues or if the game is just another open world game with nothing new and an uninteresting story, then it will get scored accordingly. Why would I be biased and make up my mind before I play the game by judging my decision on the original game?

Also, how do you get from my original comment that we will be "biased anticipating ur gonna give it a low score"? I never anticipated us giving it a low score. I simply said I have no nostalgia for the series and don't see how people can instantly claim it's going to be GOTY and 95+ on MC before it's even come out.

Just look at the comments, people claiming sites that don't give it a 9 or above are simply 'click bait sites' - those people are simply going to verbally attack sites which doesn't give this game a perfect score. That's your 'biased' crowd right there...

Again - why? I clearly said that I'm going into it without the pre-conception that it's going to be a 9+ game. Basically, I'm gonna go in and see what it's like without the biased mindset a lot of people in this thread seem to have with their "less than 9 means the site is click bait", "this is GOTY", "This will be 9.5+ with no issues" etc...

Those people will be the ones instantly jumping on every single review which goes out that doesn't score it high. I can't say what we will score it, I may not be the one reviewing it as I may give it to my colleague when it arrives. I'm just saying that a lot of people, and people who are currently reviewing it for certain sites, will instantly give this game a pass on any flaws it may have (I don't know as I've not played it yet - that's the key point here), just because it's RDR. Just like how so many reviewers game Zelda BotW a free pass on a lot of its mistakes and flaws just because it was Zelda. Also, don't forget all the 9's and 10's Shenmue got a few months back, just because they were reviewing the game as if they were playing it on release, 10 years ago, rather than on modern consoles today. In the process, they overlooked its black cutscenes, terrible controls, very boring and primitive mission structure and a large array of bugs and glitches.

There is a lot of bias in video game reviews as it's how the reviewer felt after playing the title they are given, and not a set rulebook which people must follow when they put down a subjective score. All I'm saying, which the people who have replied to me so far don't seem to understand, is it's clear to see within this thread who will be jumping on all the non 9+ reviews in the next week and claiming the reviewers are wrong when nobody in here will even have started playing it by that point. That's all. You seem to be reading way too much into what I'm saying and putting words into my mouth. If the game's good, which it probably will be, then the subjective score will be typed in accordingly. If it's a massive open world with little going on and a bad story (which I honestly don't think it'll be), then that would obviously be taken into account.

Again though, explaining myself for the third time because you can't comprehend what I've said is getting rather boring by this stage.

"Previous RDR was absolutely a 10. One of the best games of that generation, if not the best. I can state my opinion as fact too!" - Wish I'd seen this first - kinda proves my point nicely. You're clearly one of the ones who will jump on the non 9-10/10 reviews.

Nah, I meant the third time I've had to explain myself in general. And again - you're reading way too much into what I said. I never got into RDR because at the time of release I wasn't really a fan of open world games - that's changed over the years but I've never gone back to it. GTA is just a personal preference thing - I've never been a massive fan of the series. That doesn't impact how I'll feel about a game though - if I didn't like the first iteration of a game, I'll still go into the second with no pre-conceptions or biased mindset.

Also, I never said if it gets a high score it'll be dishonest - another case of you reading too into it. I was commenting on those people saying if it's below a 9 then it's a clickbait site. Which is a load of crap. IF a site gives it lower than a 9 (not saying they will, I'm saying IF), then as long as they have justification within their text then how can it be passed off as clickbait?

I agree, the guy who gave TR a 2/10 is clearly doing it for a laugh based on what he wrote, but those are the anomalies, I'm talking about general publications who may see fit to give it less than a 9 for various reasons - they shouldn't be attacked by the angry mob which is seemingly already gathering on this site. We all remember the death threats the GTA V reviewer got when that was released.

that's all I was saying and you and the other person decided to read into what I said and come to your own conclusions of what I said. Well done. Like I said from the beginning, our copy hasn't arrived yet so I've not played the game - as such, how people can come to a conclusive opinion about a game when they haven't played it and have only seen a few trailers is rather silly and creating a biased opinion whether you want to believe it or not. An yeah, I believe a lot of the reviews will appear with biased opinions within them, but I don't care - it's not them who will get jumped on 'IF' something stops this from becoming a perfect 10 - 9.5

Also, you're right, we're not on Metacritic but we're on the list to be reviewed for it later this year - not that a MC score actually affects how a person should feel about a game they're excited for...