Sekiro review embargo is very peculiar

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So not only won't the review embargo lift until after the release date, but Activision won't even provide review copies at all until then.

This to me could mean one of two things mostly:

A. FROM influenced this decision through not wanting any chance of YouTubers spoiling big reveals or other aspects ahead of release.

B. Activision is just "being weird" like the article says; most likely due to this being a very uncharacteristic release strategy for them (no micro transactions, loot boxes seasons passes or other preorder-baiting bs) and they are getting all moogly googly over it.

Or something else entirely. It would be a big surprise if it had anything to do with the game's quality, as nothing has been a cause for concern prior and everyone's impressions are positive. I'd hate to think it's just Activision pulling a different kind of bs out of some twisted form of spite in having to make concessions with a developer for once.

It goes without saying that game reviews these days are as much a publicity ploy for big business as they are to simply provide critical feedback to consumers, but it's odd nonetheless, as I also haven't seen any of the "big marketing push" for this once-in-a-blue-moon game that Activision is typically known for with their yearly titles.

I'm sure more will develop on this over the next week.

I know Jim Sterling claims review embargos are meant to make it easier for reviewers to review, giving them a wider window to get it done, but lets be honest they're a marketing strategy. You embargo when you want to prevent the customers from knowing something.

So not only a embargo until after release, but also review copies AFTER release tells me either From or Activision or both know something is wrong with their game. They believe their sales will increase the less consumers know about their product. They believe if a consumer read a review of the game they would choose not to buy it.
So something is wrong with the game.

Silentpony:
I know Jim Sterling claims review embargos are meant to make it easier for reviewers to review, giving them a wider window to get it done, but lets be honest they're a marketing strategy. You embargo when you want to prevent the customers from knowing something.

So not only a embargo until after release, but also review copies AFTER release tells me either From or Activision or both know something is wrong with their game. They believe their sales will increase the less consumers know about their product. They believe if a consumer read a review of the game they would choose not to buy it.
So something is wrong with the game.

That's way too obvious to be the case. That's obviously what people are going to think. I think it's a spoiler thing. Remember when Persona 5 prohibited streaming past a certain in game day so people can experience the game and the twist themselves without spoilers? I feel like it's the same thing. This is From Softwares new IP. If Bloodborn and Darksouls is anything to go from, this game is best experienced blind. And let's be honest, with the way games media is these days it's very hard to experience something fresh and blind.

Lufia Erim:

Silentpony:
I know Jim Sterling claims review embargos are meant to make it easier for reviewers to review, giving them a wider window to get it done, but lets be honest they're a marketing strategy. You embargo when you want to prevent the customers from knowing something.

So not only a embargo until after release, but also review copies AFTER release tells me either From or Activision or both know something is wrong with their game. They believe their sales will increase the less consumers know about their product. They believe if a consumer read a review of the game they would choose not to buy it.
So something is wrong with the game.

That's way too obvious to be the case. That's obviously what people are going to think. I think it's a spoiler thing. Remember when Persona 5 prohibited streaming past a certain in game day so people can experience the game and the twist themselves without spoilers? I feel like it's the same thing. This is From Softwares new IP. If Bloodborn and Darksouls is anything to go from, this game is best experienced blind. And let's be honest, with the way games media is these days it's very hard to experience something fresh and blind.

That would make sense if it was only a review embargo, but why would they refuse to send out review copies until AFTER release? If they're worried about spoilers, the embargo is enough. Not even wanting reviewers to play it until after launch is suspicious

Who cares? Gaming journalism's only purpose is advertising the game anyways, reviews are glorified advertisements. Oh noes, I'm not going to know if reviewers think it's 80-something awesome or 90-something awesome, how will I ever know whether or not to buy the game? We have full unedited sections of gameplay on Youtube demonstrating the game so it's not like we are just going off well-edited trailers showing only the good parts. And games that are shitty already have betas/demos to know they are shit like say Anthem or Fallout 76 or Battlefront 2. How is anyone that pays at least a little attention to an upcoming release "tricked" into buying some misadvertised, shitty game? In the end, it won't be until you play Sekiro yourself that you will know whether the gameplay systems work for you or not just like any other game.

Yeah gonna wait a few days for a clear image of this game to form.

hanselthecaretaker:
*snip*

*sniff* *sniff*
Do I smell a broken game? Or is it a PR stunt?

Phoenixmgs:
Who cares?

Lots of people.

Next!

It would be odd if this decision was made due to the game having issues, as

A. We haven't heard of any concerns from any preview coverage thus far

B. If a certain aspect wasn't up to par, it would be delayed. We haven't heard of any issues with development though either.

My hunch is spoiler prevention, which even journalists have been known to violate.

I was playing bloodborne till I saw the sekiro notification that it was pre-loading and I was like ''wtf did I just lose a week?'' but pre-load came early so that means it's already on the server. If that also means review copies are out idk. Now to stare at the timer I guess. *sigh* :p

Whatever publisher decisions are made concerning review embargos I don't really care in this case. I have blind faith in Miyazaki that he would never let Activision compromise on his vision. In the last decade this guy and his little studio made some of the best games ever made. Espescially the games he directed are my most favorite of all time. I have absolutely no doubt Sekiro is going to be another masterpiece.

Really weird grassrooots attempt? Get the proverbial water cooler players to talk about it before letting the often fluffed press take on it.

Or its got some crippling flaw that they plan to patch in the first day or something.

Flip a coin really. Positive previews don't really mean crap. Anthem had overwhelmingly positive previews (even if always with a footnote of "EA will probably **** this up") until the demo hit with the damp thud of general "Well its alright" ranging into "this thing just broke my machine".

Or the alternative possiblity that this is a very gameplay oriented title (which would fit with at least some of the marketing). And well, reviewers have gotten more then a little artsy (predominantly, not always) over the last decade or so. So letting players who are more likely to embrace gameplay might generate more buzz then listening to a bunch of reviewers dissect how an action game is just a string of excuses to kill all the things in various backdrops.

Hrmm. On one hand I really want this game and From Software does good quality but yeah this is a really weird thing to do if you have faith in a product. I mean I would expect Bethesda to pull this but Activision usually doesn't as far as I remember. Hmm, kinda makes me want to wait till those reviews show up, I mean I'm sure it will be good, but...

Worgen:
Hrmm. On one hand I really want this game and From Software does good quality but yeah this is a really weird thing to do if you have faith in a product. I mean I would expect Bethesda to pull this but Activision usually doesn't as far as I remember. Hmm, kinda makes me want to wait till those reviews show up, I mean I'm sure it will be good, but...

Apparently they did, with DOOM 2016. As a result it was ultimately enough to warrant somewhat of a policy change to boot. IIRC Zelda BotW also had an embargo in place until something like mere hours before release.

In a way I wonder if this relatively new practice is meant as a bit of an insulator from potential media shitstorms surrounding games that could be considered controversial, even from a design standpoint like this. Sekiro clearly represents FROM's largest change to their beloved formula since they've been on the map, and the fanbase is an exceptionally passionate one. Perhaps they figured it's best for everyone to form their own opinions equally rather than have the "professionals" blabber on about what's "good" or "bad" as far as difficulty or whatever ahead of time, thus casting doubt and convoluting peoples' expectations.

That and it's inevitable some talking head would let the cat out of the bag on some major things they want all players to discover for themselves.

CaitSeith:

Phoenixmgs:
Who cares?

Lots of people.

Next!

Yeah, I forgot the Internet only cares about shit that doesn't matter.

Seth Carter:
Positive previews don't really mean crap. Anthem had overwhelmingly positive previews (even if always with a footnote of "EA will probably **** this up") until the demo hit with the damp thud of general "Well its alright" ranging into "this thing just broke my machine".

Gaming journalism is just advertisements for the game, even the reviews too (unless the game totally shits the bed). All you have to do is watch half hour or so of unedited gameplay footage (which is out there for Sekiro) to have a pretty good idea about the game as you always have to play it to fully know for sure anyway.

Worgen:
Hrmm. On one hand I really want this game and From Software does good quality but yeah this is a really weird thing to do if you have faith in a product. I mean I would expect Bethesda to pull this but Activision usually doesn't as far as I remember. Hmm, kinda makes me want to wait till those reviews show up, I mean I'm sure it will be good, but...

When did "evil" Bethesda's anti-review policy ever hide something horrifically wrong with a game; Dishonored 2 and Prey came out and they were exactly what you'd expect from Arkane. Doom 2016 was a Doom game. Or when Ubisoft totally pulled a fast one with the Watch Dogs downgrade... but totally showed footage of the final game well before the release that was perfectly accurate representation of the game. Outside of Aliens Colonial Marines and No Man's Sky, when have gamers ever been actually deceived? When you show chunks of unedited footage of a game, there's really nothing to hide.

I'm not saying to have blind faith in anybody or any developer, but simply just watch some footage like this and judge for yourself.

Phoenixmgs:
When you show chunks of unedited footage of a game, there's really nothing to hide.

I'm not saying to have blind faith in anybody or any developer, but simply just watch some footage like this and judge for yourself.

You realize that link didn't even get to two minutes before it jump cuts, right? He literally announced so its not like its shadow editing, but kind of kills your point.

Which comes down to well, who has "unedited" footage. No Mans SKy you were watching Sean Murray "play" the thing with a controller on a TV in front of him, but that was all a trailer made out of a test build. Cowboy in your link was flown out by Activision to play a build presented to him, which we might assume was a limited demo, since it clearly doesn't start at a start point of the game (even before the jump cuts).

Obviously, once the games actually out in the wild, there's going to be dozens of presented cases that will start showing any obvious massages pretty quickly.

I would agree that the amount of meaningful deceit is generally kind of small. Its not profitable to be that studio that's spewed out controversy after controversy. Sekiro being kind of eyeballed skeptically because of Activisions involvement is proof enough of that, and Activision aren't even generally known for a lot of BS so much as formulaic games and constant, but up front, monetizations.

Seth Carter:
You realize that link didn't even get to two minutes before it jump cuts, right? He literally announced so its not like its shadow editing, but kind of kills your point.

Which comes down to well, who has "unedited" footage. No Mans SKy you were watching Sean Murray "play" the thing with a controller on a TV in front of him, but that was all a trailer made out of a test build. Cowboy in your link was flown out by Activision to play a build presented to him, which we might assume was a limited demo, since it clearly doesn't start at a start point of the game (even before the jump cuts).

Obviously, once the games actually out in the wild, there's going to be dozens of presented cases that will start showing any obvious massages pretty quickly.

I would agree that the amount of meaningful deceit is generally kind of small. Its not profitable to be that studio that's spewed out controversy after controversy. Sekiro being kind of eyeballed skeptically because of Activisions involvement is proof enough of that, and Activision aren't even generally known for a lot of BS so much as formulaic games and constant, but up front, monetizations.

I figured that video would be a better watch than one that is in Japanese. Plus, there is good chunks of gameplay without edits in the video along with it definitely not being scripted footage either.

No Man's Sky is one of the few times there was legit deception. And even then, what they showed looked cool, but how could you not constantly ask "what is it that you actually do in the game (like the normal moment-to-moment gameplay)?" when watching any No Man's Sky footage? Sure Sean Murray said you can do like everything conceivably possible in interviews but never in gameplay. There was definitely deceit but I always thought that NMS would either be like the best thing since sliced bread or it was going to be the most boring game ever (because they just showed flash and nothing else). There'll be some cool and interesting looking planets but what's the percentage of those compared to boring ass desolate planets (it is a universe randomly generated after all). Anyway, you can determine a lot even from the very selected footage shown for marketing purposes like I knew Destiny was going to be shit just from the E3 reveal and dev interviews talking about the game (and that stuff is supposed to be pure unadulterated hype).

Phoenixmgs:
Who cares? Gaming journalism's only purpose is advertising the game anyways, reviews are glorified advertisements. Oh noes, I'm not going to know if reviewers think it's 80-something awesome or 90-something awesome, how will I ever know whether or not to buy the game? We have full unedited sections of gameplay on Youtube demonstrating the game so it's not like we are just going off well-edited trailers showing only the good parts. And games that are shitty already have betas/demos to know they are shit like say Anthem or Fallout 76 or Battlefront 2. How is anyone that pays at least a little attention to an upcoming release "tricked" into buying some misadvertised, shitty game? In the end, it won't be until you play Sekiro yourself that you will know whether the gameplay systems work for you or not just like any other game.

That's a very negative take on gaming criticism. While I agree that there are a lot of issues with it, it doesn't deserve to be dismissed as pure advertisment either. A critics work is important and deserves at least some acknowledgement.

Phoenixmgs:

Yeah, I forgot the Internet only cares about shit that doesn't matter.

*Le sigh*

I'm sorry man. It's Activision. I love From Software but them doing this is setting off alarm bells.

PsychedelicDiamond:

Phoenixmgs:
Who cares? Gaming journalism's only purpose is advertising the game anyways, reviews are glorified advertisements. Oh noes, I'm not going to know if reviewers think it's 80-something awesome or 90-something awesome, how will I ever know whether or not to buy the game? We have full unedited sections of gameplay on Youtube demonstrating the game so it's not like we are just going off well-edited trailers showing only the good parts. And games that are shitty already have betas/demos to know they are shit like say Anthem or Fallout 76 or Battlefront 2. How is anyone that pays at least a little attention to an upcoming release "tricked" into buying some misadvertised, shitty game? In the end, it won't be until you play Sekiro yourself that you will know whether the gameplay systems work for you or not just like any other game.

That's a very negative take on gaming criticism. While I agree that there are a lot of issues with it, it doesn't deserve to be dismissed as pure advertisment either. A critics work is important and deserves at least some acknowledgement.

I think he has a point though. Criticism is subjective so you can wonder what it's worth if the criticism(or praise) is from someone who don't share your taste in games. Games require usually more time commitment than a movie and can't be judged solely on the merits of it's writing either like a book. In that way a videogame is more a product, but with artistic elements. Criticism about games as a product can have some merit to warn the consumer to not buy a particular game(case in point, FO76) but criticism about it's gameplay or artistic elements is highly subjective. Another example here would be Ghost Recon Wildlands, critics panned the game for being repetitive and boring but consumers still loved it as it was a major (sales) hit. It also happens the other way around. God of War and Monster Hunter World were praised by both critics and 'gamers' alike but I didn't really enjoy either game for different reasons. So yeah, opinions and all that. I also agree there is usually a sufficent amount of unedited gameplay available before launch to make your own opinion.

Leaves the question will Sekiro be broken at launch or does Activision has something to hide? Of that, both as game director and president of From Software, I am absolutely assured Miyazaki would never approve.

I'm out. Between Activision being shits about layoffs and this new set of review shenanigans, I'm waiting until it's free.

I asked VaatiVidya what his thoughts were. Spoilers on the video obviously per the title. We'll see if he says anything.

I don't read reviews before having finished games cause they tend to have spoilers. Even when I do read some it's always just to laugh at how bad at the game reviewers are or at some of their bad opinions.

I still remember the guy who reviewed a visual novel game, who skipped parts of the story cause he was getting impatient and wanted to get to a gameplay segment (-getting impatient at a visual novel game having cutscenes), and then went on to complain that the story didn't make sense.

If you didn't SKIP the story it would make sense! Gah!

I think people are confused that it's 1997 and you need your game magazine's review to tell you if you'll like a game or not. You can just watch half a dozen hours of trailers and footage and reporting about games before they come out if you want to learn that and don't care about spoilers.

PsychedelicDiamond:
That's a very negative take on gaming criticism. While I agree that there are a lot of issues with it, it doesn't deserve to be dismissed as pure advertisment either. A critics work is important and deserves at least some acknowledgement.

How can you actually have a positive outlook professional game criticism in the state its in right now? You can basically go to IGN and see a game got a 9.0/10, then chances are high GameSpot gave the game 0.5 lower at an 8.5/10. I just picked 2 current releases and that rule holds true; DMC5 got a 9.5/10 from IGN and a 9.0/10 at GameSpot and Anthem got 6.5 from IGN and 6.0 from GameSpot. Reviewers in any medium are supposed to have their own opinions but games are treated like they are objective products. I have guess what a Metacritic score is going to be for a game without even playing the damn thing and just watching a single 10-minute video about the game. For example, I've only seen a single Laymen Gaming video about the Division 2 and I'm guessing that the Metacritic score will end up between 80-85 (there is currently on 2 reviews up for it and they are 75 from Gamersky and 56 from Cheat Code Central). I'm also guessing that IGN and GameSpot will be 0.5 away from each other as well. Siskel and Ebert would greatly disagree with each other but where is that in professional game journalism, games are subjective, it's OK to not like a game (just like it is with a movie). Back in the EGM magazine days where 3 people reviewed a game (only giving a couple short paragraphs too), you got more differing opinions that you do now with 50+ Metacritic reviews. A love/hate game like FFXIII only has one negative review (from Jim Sterling, who doesn't treat games like objective products), that alone shines a bright light on the state of reviews (and shocker, IGN and GameSpot 0.4 away from each other on FFXIII).

There's some Youtubers who put out really quality criticism like Errant Signal, Super Bunnyhop, Raycevick, etc. What professional review of GTAV is anywhere near as insightful as Errant Signal's GTAV video?

I've seen enough gameplay videos of the game to be relatively sure of its quality, regardless of any review embargo. I also have a decent amount of faith in From Software and Miyazaki to not botch this game.

I'm not sure what the embargo is about but at the moment I still have my preorder in. I rarely preorder games, and only do it when it's coming from a developer whose products I trust.

If this comes back to bite me in the ass I'll be pretty disappointed, and from then on will no longer preorder From Software games. Until such a time though, I want From Software to succeed, and I want this game to have a good release, so I'm still buying it on release day despite the lack of reviews.

Dirty Hipsters:
I've seen enough gameplay videos of the game to be relatively sure of its quality, regardless of any review embargo. I also have a decent amount of faith in From Software and Miyazaki to not botch this game.

I'm not sure what the embargo is about but at the moment I still have my preorder in. I rarely preorder games, and only do it when it's coming from a developer whose products I trust.

If this comes back to bite me in the ass I'll be pretty disappointed, and from then on will no longer preorder From Software games. Until such a time though, I want From Software to succeed, and I want this game to have a good release, so I'm still buying it on release day despite the lack of reviews.

I'm more concerned about Activision pulling a fast one, but then again FROM should know well their reputation and at least have their interests safeguarded from a legal standpoint. Whatever happens it'll be a clear case of either being cool with collaborating for future projects or absolutely not.

hanselthecaretaker:

Dirty Hipsters:
I've seen enough gameplay videos of the game to be relatively sure of its quality, regardless of any review embargo. I also have a decent amount of faith in From Software and Miyazaki to not botch this game.

I'm not sure what the embargo is about but at the moment I still have my preorder in. I rarely preorder games, and only do it when it's coming from a developer whose products I trust.

If this comes back to bite me in the ass I'll be pretty disappointed, and from then on will no longer preorder From Software games. Until such a time though, I want From Software to succeed, and I want this game to have a good release, so I'm still buying it on release day despite the lack of reviews.

I?m more concerned about Activision pulling a fast one, but then again FROM should know well their reputation and at least have their interests safeguarded from a legal standpoint. Whatever happens it?ll be a clear case of either being cool with collaborating for future projects or absolutely not.

But how exactly does Activision even have the capacity to "pull a fast one" in this case?

Activision is publishing the game, yes, but it's not developing anything. It's a single player game so Activision isn't providing any help with online architecture. The game doesn't have any loot boxes or micro-transactions so Activision can't futz with item drop rates or anything of that nature.

The only nefarious thing I can possibly think of that Activision could have done to the game would be something like forcing From Software to speed up their production timetable, causing the game to end up unfinished. The thing is, that's something that From Software is already known for. Demons Souls and Dark Souls 1 and 2 were all unfinished when they came out, and are still games that are beloved despite their shortcomings and some incomplete areas and boss fights. So the worst thing I can possibly anticipate from this game wouldn't even necessarily be Activision's fault since From Software is kind of notorious for their games being a bit unfinished and we still love them.

This is a game where the amount of meddling Activision can do is actually quite limited from what I understand.

Dirty Hipsters:

hanselthecaretaker:
I?m more concerned about Activision pulling a fast one, but then again FROM should know well their reputation and at least have their interests safeguarded from a legal standpoint. Whatever happens it?ll be a clear case of either being cool with collaborating for future projects or absolutely not.

But how exactly does Activision even have the capacity to "pull a fast one" in this case?

Plus, when Activision pulls a "fast one" it's usually after launch anyway so you won't find that stuff in reviews obviously.

Activision already pulled a fast one by being the publisher when From could have gotten the game published by themselves and earn all their deserved reward for this amazing game and not share some of it with Activision. They have no need to pull another fast one at this point. The only time they do so around review times is when they're releasing bad games.

Dreiko:
Activision already pulled a fast one by being the publisher when From could have gotten the game published by themselves and earn all their deserved reward for this amazing game and not share some of it with Activision. They have no need to pull another fast one at this point. The only time they do so around review times is when they're releasing bad games.

There appears to be some logical inconsistency in your post.

Sekiro is apparently an amazing game, but it has a review embargo, which activision only does when they're releasing a bad game.

You want to maybe fix your post to make the point you were actually trying to make?

Dirty Hipsters:

Dreiko:
Activision already pulled a fast one by being the publisher when From could have gotten the game published by themselves and earn all their deserved reward for this amazing game and not share some of it with Activision. They have no need to pull another fast one at this point. The only time they do so around review times is when they're releasing bad games.

There appears to be some logical inconsistency in your post.

Sekiro is apparently an amazing game, but it has a review embargo, which activision only does when they're releasing a bad game.

You want to maybe fix your post to make the point you were actually trying to make?

I just don't consider a review embargo them pulling a fast one and more of them just having this policy in general. Pulling a fast one would be trying to pay people to review it positively.

Dreiko:

Dirty Hipsters:

Dreiko:
Activision already pulled a fast one by being the publisher when From could have gotten the game published by themselves and earn all their deserved reward for this amazing game and not share some of it with Activision. They have no need to pull another fast one at this point. The only time they do so around review times is when they're releasing bad games.

There appears to be some logical inconsistency in your post.

Sekiro is apparently an amazing game, but it has a review embargo, which activision only does when they're releasing a bad game.

You want to maybe fix your post to make the point you were actually trying to make?

I just don't consider a review embargo them pulling a fast one and more of them just having this policy in general. Pulling a fast one would be trying to pay people to review it positively.

Or simply not having faith in the product. Wondering if some suits heard about how difficult the game is and thought, "Gee, that won't attract all the newcomers we're after. We don't want people pulling their preorders so how about we pull review copies until it's out."

The ironic part is who knows what effect on preorders the lack of reviews will have. Apparently there are quite a few people that have gotten cold feet, and this "policy change" isn't even really a story yet.

hanselthecaretaker:

Dreiko:

Dirty Hipsters:

There appears to be some logical inconsistency in your post.

Sekiro is apparently an amazing game, but it has a review embargo, which activision only does when they're releasing a bad game.

You want to maybe fix your post to make the point you were actually trying to make?

I just don't consider a review embargo them pulling a fast one and more of them just having this policy in general. Pulling a fast one would be trying to pay people to review it positively.

Or simply not having faith in the product. Wondering if some suits heard about how difficult the game is and thought, ?Gee, that won?t attract all the newcomers we?re after. We don?t want people pulling their preorders so how about we pull review copies until it?s out.?

The ironic part is who knows what effect on preorders the lack of reviews will have. Apparently there are quite a few people that have gotten cold feet, and this ?policy change? isn?t even really a story yet.

That's even more unlikely imo. Why go out of your way to publish something you have such low confidence on. Ah well, it's activision so I'd put nothing past them.

Dreiko:

hanselthecaretaker:

Dreiko:

I just don't consider a review embargo them pulling a fast one and more of them just having this policy in general. Pulling a fast one would be trying to pay people to review it positively.

Or simply not having faith in the product. Wondering if some suits heard about how difficult the game is and thought, ?Gee, that won?t attract all the newcomers we?re after. We don?t want people pulling their preorders so how about we pull review copies until it?s out.?

The ironic part is who knows what effect on preorders the lack of reviews will have. Apparently there are quite a few people that have gotten cold feet, and this ?policy change? isn?t even really a story yet.

That's even more unlikely imo. Why go out of your way to publish something you have such low confidence on. Ah well, it's activision so I'd put nothing past them.

I wonder if its just because the game is so dark souls that it hurts. Like, they went so far down the rabbit hole on this one, they aren't sure if reviewers will even understand what they're dealing with and Activision doesn't trust them not to blackball the game on the basis of it being so out there. We've all heard about how reviewers sometimes get special versions of games that are easier, have cheats, or let you skip sections. If From just said "no" to that we could get another cuphead where reviewers just suck so hard at the game it makes everyone involved look bad.

It'd be preposterous for a developer like FROM to be hiding something technically so wrong that they're afraid of reviews. Activision suits I could see making that call based on the difficulty affecting review scores thus affecting preorders, but if something was fundamentally wrong with the game it would have been delayed. It's tough to see FROM suddenly having a rash of incompetence or shamelessly letting a major issue slide to "get it out on time". Previews have all been met with solid praise enough to be awash of any possible incentivized feedback here or there.

Anyways, a new gameplay trailer with mild spoilers (less than the last one at least).

Having played the game myself, as well as having seen all the preview builds from notable Dark Souls Youtubers, the game is gonna be great with the one restriction of you will need to devote the time to "get gud" enough at it in order to sink your teeth into it.

But if you like Soulsborne and Nioh, then you will enjoy Sekiro just fine.

I dunno why they are doing this review thing, but I think it symbolizes how little faith they have with the game's media and handling the difficulty (like the fiasco we saw with Cuphead) rather than anything that might be wrong with the game.

This is one of those games that I will probably rely on Vatyavidya to review versus Ign or something.

Also for anyone wondering if the game is skimping on content since it's "only single player/non RPG", the slap-dabbitty-doobilicious Future Press guide may beg to differ - all 552 pages of it. The upcoming Dark Souls Trilogy Compendium by contrast is only 464 pages, although I'm sure its layout is more concise to fit all three games on less paper.

First play through will be blind of course, but I'm a sucker for these beautiful books. I have all of the SoulsBorne hardcovers besides Demon's which I don't think they made one for sadly.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here