Post #1371824

2026-01-14 20:36 UTC

I played it at launch. It worked fine for me. But yeah, some players had technical issues that were quickly patched. That’s how launches work nowadays. The reaction seems justified in a vacuum, but if you compare it to how glitches affect the scores of other games, it’s weird. Cyberpunk 2077 still got good scores despite major technical issues that took a lot longer than a week or two to fix. I can go buy the re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-release of Skyrim and still encounter the same game-breaking bugs that I encountered fifteen years ago. So I still feel like Anthem got treated unfairly here. If it was some bland, unimaginative game that didn’t do anything else well, sure, I get why they wouldn’t pull their punches. But again, the gameplay was immaculate. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better game treated worse.

Replies (1)

@ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2026-01-14 20:44

A big site redesign just happened at Giant Bomb, so I can’t view the review, but there’s typically a difference between an always-online game not working and some of the things you listed. Cyberpunk was reviewed on PC, and it mostly worked fine for a lot of people on PC, which is what the early review codes were sent out for. Skyrim crashed a lot but kept plenty of auto saves so you rarely lost progress. In an always online game, the functionality just isn’t there if the problems are related to server infrastructure. In fact, this is rarely punished in review scores, and the likes of the latest Flight Simulator are the exception rather than the rule for it. But even when there weren’t infrastructure problems, people still weren’t thrilled with the game that was there when it worked.

Open ##1371826