It's safe to say that Stalker 2's reviews have been quite varied so far - we went with a lower score of 4/10 due to a litany of bugs, glitches and game breaking issues experienced during our review time, but plenty of other critics went higher. This has led to a somewhat middling Metacritic average for the game - and Arkane Studios founder Raphael Colantonio has taken issue with that.
Posting on social media recently, the former Arkane dev claims that "safe boring games" are likely to score higher for being "polished at launch" - and that this in turn puts game studios off from taking risks. Colantonio then uses Stalker 2 as an example of a game that's apparently scored lower than those 'safe' games just because it's "a bit rough on the edges at launch".
Here's the post in question:
While we sort of see what the developer is getting at here, we do think the situation is a lot more nuanced than this - which is no surprise for a social media take, is it. Colantonio does go on to reply to some responses, adding that it's a "complex issue" overall and that there are exceptions to this way of thinking.
The Arkane founder also brings up how low review scores can cling to games even when they're patched "3 months later" - going on to question whether the current way most of us review games still makes sense. It's certainly a complicated topic - and one that lots of us will have opinions on!
Speaking of opinions on this topic, we'd like to hear yours. How do you feel about this developer's thinking here? Do you believe the way games are reviewed these days should change?
Keep it civil and comment down below telling us what you think.
Comments 40
I think it’s yet another example of the ‘Xbox tax’, yes the game has a few bugs but nowhere near CP2077 back at launch as some reviewers were saying, also they’re being very picky with the game itself complaining about even the smallest of things, I expect the very same thing to happen with Indiana Jones (might even score below 80) but when the PS5 version launches it’s gonna be “GOTY”.
Sorry a game should be good to go day 1. - bar a few minor issues - that’s not just stalker that’s everything.
No other product do we stand for broken/half finished things.
Everything should be taken into account, but when there are issues they rightly should be marked down. And if they aren’t, where is the incentive for a dev to release a quality game.
There is plenty of goodwill for stalker to succeed, people are supporting the devs, willing to wait for updates.
But at the end of the day people also go to work 40hrs a week (or whatever) and choose to spend their disposable income on gaming, so it’s only fair that Consumers get a finished working product. Or else they will spend their money on a different hobby. - or as is happening wait for it to hit a sub.
@IOI see. Nonsense. It’s rated lower on PC than Xbox.
Oh and then let’s not mention the fact it isn’t even an Xbox game.
He's not wrong but allowing games to be released - clearly before they are ready is going to lead to this happening. Are all the professional reviewers out there now responsible for a 'three months in' review? YouTube is great for this but it shouldn't be the norm. Developers and publishers should be doing better QA testing and releasing games that only need minimal patching after release.
He sounds like a kindergartener complaining to the teacher.
@IOI Disagree. See for example Days Gone. It's on a yellow score on Metacritic because it was full of bugs.
@PsBoxSwitchOwner The mere fact it’s not available yet on PS5 leads to higher scrutiny from reviewers, whether they’re playing on PC or Xbox.
So Stalker 2–a game literally developed in the middle of an ongoing war—is a bit buggy, and it gets slammed. Meanwhile Slob Howard and Bethesda churn out broken trash on a conveyor belt and they get unending, unwarranted praise. To this day I cannot play Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim/Fallout 3/4/76 for more than 20mins straight without falling through the floor, getting stuck in the stairs, crashing to the dashboard or encountering any one of an infinite number of game breaking bugs. Most overhyped studio that ever existed bar none.
@IOI so how do you feel about the guys that have rated it 10/10 or 100? Clearly ignoring the issues that the developers themselves have come out and acknowledged.
Or the fact that Xbox tax is changing to ‘games not on ps5’ which doesn’t account for good ratings for things like age of mythology aoe2 etc. or the fact that hundreds of pc and switch games don’t come to ps5 and do perfectly fine in reviews.
@IOI Who said that? The voices in your head don't count.
@IOI mess me with that bullcrap. Reviewers were given a busted version for review so of course reviews are going to be low. “Xbox tax” is a hawt load of crap. It’s pretty clear the reviews are pretty accurate based off of what they played. At least for players GSC had a better version ready to go day one and they are finding success.
@IOI keep on stuffing Xbox down your throat bud lol
I can agree. It has been a fantastic experience and vying for top spot in games for me this year.
Even with the few bugs I've ran into, still somehow a better than most I play.
I can understand what he is saying, but I think this game is both a little niche AND had a LOT of bugs during the review window, that is why it scored 73. If it was a more polished experience it would have scored a lot higher, that is on the devs & publisher.
But it's also a more hardcore game, not very user friendly, some people won't like that and will score it down, that's also fair. I think if you like the genre and don't mind the jank it's possibly a personal 9 out of 10. But neither is wrong.
IOI wrote:
What an utter load of nonsense. I suppose PJ gave it a 4/10 on an XBOX SITE because he's biased, bought and paid for too, right?
Press X to doubt
I actually had few issues on launch day playing on my Series X. That day one patch did wonders it seems and wish reviewers had been able to review it with that. I expect it would have gotten higher scores.
AFAIK it is getting a lot of love on PC and I am enjoying a much more convincing post apo rpg here than Fallout by Todd Howard.
The review score system is flawed. 6 months from now those scores will not represent the game and will never be updated. In this case, it was day 1 that they fixed many of the issues reviews dinged them for. So users never saw a lot of the negatives from reviews. Many, many games evolve over their life and are shackled to a score given to it in a pre release state.
I think you will find a better sense of the game looking at recent user reviews on steam.
Sea of thieves is a good example of a game that was designed to transform over time and is stuck with its 69 metacritic that is based solely on the launch window.
The game is not good. I tried playing it and was very surprised how bad I thought it was. I agree with Purexbox - a four is a good score. Starfailed started off rocky and now it's much better, but the game is still not good.
Taking risks with a game shouldn't mean releasing them in a broken state.
I'm prepared to give Stalker 2 a pass on this given the circumstances but everyone else needs to get their act together here.
I really want to see things that are new and exciting, I really want devs to push the boundaries and I'm happy to accept a bit of jank to get there but too many games are not doing enough to target platform specs and many are releasing in such a shambolic state they never recover.
The industry needs to reset itself before it buckles under this mountain of horse s*it publishers are trying to feed gamers.
“It’s unfair to rate our vehicle badly at release. Yes, the collision detection wasn’t working, the gear shift wouldn’t let you go above second, and it got 10 MPG. But we’re working on all that! These low reviews are just not warranted!”
-Complained no car manufacturer EVER, but somehow expected from software devs these days.
As for the whole ratings three months later thing..if it takes three months to fix the freaking bugs, maybe…and this is a crazy statement, I know…don’t release the game in a rough buggy state and MAYBE hold off for three months? Releasing a finished product is difficult, I know, but somehow other companies and industries seem to manage it…
@BacklogBrad you're right but at the same time reviewers can only review the version they've been given. Many games have been marked down over the years for being buggy so it's really on the devs to send it out when it's truly ready (though obviously I sympathise with the unique challenges they've faced).
By all accounts the game seems to have sold quite well and the steam reviews are positive so I don't think the metacritic score has actually done much harm this time.
@awp69 some reviews did wait, PX and EG among them.
There’s still issues and no one can dispute this, because the devs themselves have acknowledged there are.
Two completely different issues. You can’t get a good review if the product is buggy… the review is based in the current version and not the potential… the second issue of safe ideas getting better scores is totally inaccurate. The third issue not raised is that if the game is not 60 fps the game seems to get a lower score….
I agree with Colantonio here, I'm now around 20h in and love Stalker 2 . Sure it has its issues, but once invested in the survivalist and atmospheric adventuring the game offers, it's a great.
@BacklogBrad I rely on everyone here giving their thoughts on games over time more than any one review…
Same story with every xbox exclusive... Xbox tax is real and reviewers prove it with every release.
@Llamageddon there is room for improvements to how websites handle reviews. IGN for example, could go with more of a game profile instead of an article approach. If someone with reviewing capabilities happened to be playing an older game like cyberpunk right now in their free time they could post a 2024 score to the game profile that would affect the sites aggregate score. This way there is at least a path for a review score to evolve along with the game even if the sites cant afford the time or resources to get around to updating it.
With dev times often being well over 5 years (more like a decade in this case) it's not really realistic to just wait longer to release something that is costing a lot more than past games and not making any money at the moment.
@GeorgeKal good job it’s not Xbox exclusive then eh?
@AlwaysPlaying that's a good practice. I like the steam reviews because it also gives the playtime of the person reviewing it. Not only does it prove that they played it, but also gives it a little more perspective if it's a dislike after 2 hours played or 30 hours played.
@themightyant
I suppose PJ gave it a 4/10 on an XBOX SITE because he's biased, bought and paid for too, right?
I personally think PJ gave it a 4/10 because the game its not set in the Arkham Verse,or made by Rocksteady😉....
Having watched DF about this too, especially as the Day Zero patch seemingly made quite a big difference, I can see their perspective that the reviews are 'misleading' and not representative of the 'Day 1' experience.
However, I also believe that they shouldn't have sent out review codes if the game was in that bad a state. Its not the reviewers fault the game was in that state and I see it more as a Dev/Publisher issue to ensure the reviewer has the 'Day 1' code at the very least to give a 'fair' review. It's their fault the reviews are 'misleading' if they don't ensure the game is up to standard before shipping (and I include to reviewers too). The reviewers cannot assume the Patch will come Day 1 and/or that it will fix issues so its a 'fair' reflection of the Game at the time.
If they had a Day Zero Patch, maybe they should have released it sooner or not released the Game to reviewers until it was patched for a 'fairer' review that better reflects the Launch state.
What’s gonna make matters worse for the
XDL. Xbox Defence League.
Is when it releases on PS5 and Pro it will have a lot of issues patched and will probably get a higher review score.
Additionally the PS5 Pro will also get an up tick of best console to play on.
@PsBoxSwitchOwner it is and that why it gets bad reviews
@GeorgeKal xbox bought steam?
@Sol4ris Considering PJs last 5 reviews before Stalker 2 were 10, 9, 6, 10, 5 and none of those were Arkhamverse or Rocksteady I think it's fair to say he just gives them what he thinks.
(puts on tin foil hat)
Oh wait! Those two 10s were Death Stranding which is a "PlayStation game" and Metaphor Re:Fantasio... "Atlus loves Sony and hates Xbox" therefore it all checks out beyond doubt and by my mental gymnastics he's a Sony shill. Xbox tax is real fo sho!
I sort of agree. Stalker is an ambitious game and I’m still not sure if it’s for me, but there’s definitely a case where some ambitious and unique games get trampled. Meanwhile, inoffensive and dull games that run well typically hit that 7/10, 8/10 spread, so their scores make them look like a better game. If a game gets some good and some bad reviews, that often looks worse than a game that gets uniformly decent reviews.
@BAMozzy DF has one of the few very balanced views on the whole situation & one of the few to acknowledge what they reviewed was different to what consumers got day 1. The whole launch & review code was a mess all around.
However I do hope folks give Stalker 2 another shot after a few patches as there really is a superb game under all the issues. Diamond in the rough is certainly apt.
Here's my take on gaming reviews today.
If a low score is awarded due to story or technical issues, that's fair. If story is bad, do better. If due to technical issues, then why was it released? The days of release it now and broken and plan to patch later, is just unexcusable and unacceptable.
If any lesson is to be learned from this, it's to ensure the game is solid out of the gate rather than continue this trend of release now and patch later.
Now, I will give this developer a little leeway. It's had to deal with tanks and bombs outside their homes, move studio operations to a whole new country, lose teammates to war, etc.
It's essentially had a troubled development for reasons outside of its control.
I'd say they did the best they could under the circumstances and perhaps couldn't afford to delay the game any longer after already delaying the game multiple times.
Perhaps the developer felt that it would have the day 0 patch ready before review time, but missed the mark.
It does seem like the community is also more forgiving than the reviewers because they got to play a game that, while still "rough around the edges" was much more playable than what reviewers had access to - it was enough to get the game 1 million sales in 2 days.
The good thing is, the game isn't going anywhere. On PC it can be played indefinitely. And as long as consoles makers continue to support backwards compatibility from here on out, it can be played indefinitely there, too.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...