FF7 Remake Review Megathread

Suzaku

Pro Adventurer
#5
I don't normally give Kotaku's reviews that much weight, but knowing how cynical Schreier has been about the Remake, his review was the one I was most interested in seeing, and it bodes pretty well:
Final Fantasy VII Remake is not what I expected. It’s a grand, ambitious, beautiful experiment, a bold new take on a game that millions of people remember fondly. It sometimes feels shackled by the weight of two decades worth of expectations, but it handles those restraints with aplomb. I certainly can’t wait to see what’s next. As a great man named Barret Wallace once said: There ain’t no getting off this train we on.

The three mixed (3/5) reviews mainly seem to be docking points for the same things: tedious sidequests and padding the story out.
 

Tetsujin

Ready for the mosh pit, shaka brah
AKA
Tets
#7
Sidequests are interesting to me because while I thought the quests themselves are nothing to write home about, the remake handles them in a way where you only ever get a handful during chapters with downtime and they allow you to get a feel for the community in the slums. My fear was they'd be a constant distraction from the main plot but that's not the case at all. When the plot train starts movin' there ain't no way off
 

Theozilla

Kaiju Member
#15
All right, I've now read/watched the reviews from Destructoid, GameInformer, GameSpot, IGN, RPG Site, USGamer, Twinfinite, EuroGamer, Kotaku, and GamerEscape. Most of the positives each discuss are largely the same: the gameplay system, more in depth characters, world building, and story/plot, etc.
When the reviewers were going over the stuff they were critical of, virtually all had consensus on the technical issues and glitches (the loading textures being the most mentioned) and that the Whispers, particularly their presence/additions during the last couple of chapters, are controversial and/or confusingly implemented.

What I found most interesting about some critiques though, were the differences between the reviews that absolutely love the Remake and think its fabulous and the reviews that like the game and think it's good/great but feel it drags in some areas. And the most common differences largely seemed to be about quality of the side-quests and the extension/addition of gameplay content in the more linear chapters. For some reviewers, the aforementioned content worked for them like the Yakuza or Shenmue series and facilitated more depth and attachment to the world/story, while for others they felt it made the Remake repetitive and or suffering from bloated padding. I found this subjective aspect to very interesting, as I think it reveals a lot about what type of games, particularly RPGs, a person (reviewers in this case) likes.
I've already spoiled myself on a lot the Remake, but I still can't to play it on the 10th.
 
Last edited:

NeithOF

Rookie Adventurer
AKA
Nathan
#20
There are the non scored right? Or do they not count?
They don't count, only the ones that have scores are calculated into the average.
By the way, after asking around it seems Metacritic does some kind of "culmination" to get the average (not a native English speaker so not sure how to express this) but in short the lowest score drags down the overall score for... reasons.
Opencritic is more reliable in how they calculate the average score.

It's sad that majority of people pay more attention to metacritic than opencritic, such a shitty scoring site.
 
Top Bottom