NHL 15 News Post

NHL 15 Review (XB1/PS4)

10:39 AM - September 12, 2014 by RaychelSnr

NHL 15 on Xbox One and PS4 has presented me with one of the biggest cases of cognitive dissonance I've had in some time. From one perspective, it looks better than it ever has before, and it plays very well. From another point of view, it provides no meaningful ways to enjoy the game, offline or online. Sure, there are a handful of modes to be found in NHL 15, but when you consider the plethora of options that users have had before now, it just leaves a real bad taste.

Bottom line: this game isn't worth full price.

Read More - NHL 15 Review (XB1/PS4)

Game: NHL 15Reader Score: 6.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / PS4 / Xbox 360 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 16 - View All

NHL 15 Videos

Member Comments

# 21 Pezell04x @ 09/12/14 01:32 PM

For anyone who is wondering about the new scoring system, here you go.

Quote:


	0 - .5 (Absolutely horrendous) -- These are the worst of the worst. Think about games that just don't work at all and they go here. For a developer to get this, it almost has to be due to gross negligence. Don't just avoid these games, make fun of people for buying such a piece of crap if you see it happening. 1 - 1.5 (Really Bad) -- This is a game that is somewhat functional but still quite bad. These games are the types of games that just don't play well at all; there are no redeeming qualities except that they actually work -- mostly. Avoid these games. 2.0 - 2.5 (Bad) -- These games are just plain bad. There may be one redeeming quality about these games, but there are very serious flaws that cannot be overlooked. You might think about renting these games -- for achievements or something like that -- but avoid buying these titles unless they're for super cheap. 3.0 - 3.5 (Subpar) -- While there is a redeeming quality or feature to these titles, their execution is poor and there is very little that can be helped in the long run. This is a buy if it's the only option, and you are a huge fan of this type of game -- but even then it's probably best to wait for a discounted price. 4.0 - 4.5 (Below Average) -- This game is close to average, as there are some redeeming qualities about the title, but there are serious flaws that still outweigh the good. If you are a fan of the sport, you should consider the game -- but only if there aren't better options on the market. 5.0 - 5.5 (Average) -- This is the quintessential average game. There are good spots, there are bad spots. You might love this game, then you might hate it. In the end, you'll just feel like it could have been so much more. Rent these for sure if you are a fan, and you might even buy the game if you can overlook the many flaws. 6.0 - 6.5 (Above Average) -- These games are definitely above average, but definitely not good yet. There are still some big flaws that need tuning, but overall these games can be quite fun for fans of the sport. 7.0 - 7.5 (Good) -- These games are pretty good, and while having several notable flaws, they generally play well and are quite fun. They definitely are not great yet, but with a few fixes they could get there. These are solid buys, especially if you like the sport. 8.0 - 8.5 (Great) -- These games are really quite good. There are a few notable flaws with the game holding it back from being a classic, but these games are worth the money, and for even casual fans of the sport they are definite purchases. 9.0 - 9.5 (All-Time Classic) -- These games are the type of games we talk about for a long time on OS. They are great in nearly every way, and while they have a minor flaw or two, they are easily overlooked because of the level of greatness present here. These are rare, but they are quite awesome when they come around. A must buy for any sports fan. 10.0 (Genre Defining) -- There are essentially zero flaws with this game. While no game is perfect, this game is great in every regard and could be played for years without it becoming all that stale. These are the titles which everyone should own, even RPG only gamers.

# 22 Armor and Sword @ 09/12/14 01:41 PM

A very fair review. I can wait a couple of years to get a fully featured, fully realized next gen version of NHL. I love NHL 13 and will just continue playing that for a few more seasons.

# 23 Peter10 @ 09/12/14 02:00 PM

I got a question. Several guys in here are saying the gameplay itself is fine and that would be a good reason for me to buy it. However, a lot of reviews i have seen mention that defense and goaltending in particular are aweful and beyond.

From the video footage that i have seen so far (youtube, twitch), the AI seems to be only slight improved and goalies look like sieves, so that would be a big no-go for me.

So is there really any significant improvement?

I could somehow do without all the missing modes if the game itself would be somewhat realistic but considering that i would have to buy a PS4 first, I just can not justify this.

# 24 GROGtheNailer @ 09/12/14 02:06 PM

This review is spot on imo. Great job on that Glenn. I suspect defensive issues are going to be a bigger problem as the game is played a lot more. The big issue is, you cannot really do anything with all the modes missing, what a let down on it's next-gen debut. This is another reason why EA as a company is so disliked. The did manage to get the money-grubbing HUT in though didnt they?

# 25 statum71 @ 09/12/14 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookjn


	I wish people would stop defending this game. FIFA 14 and MLB: The Show 14 also provide great gameplay experiences without sacrificing the modes that many of us rely on for replayability. If those two titles can offer consumers both great gameplay and value, why does NHL 15, a game that only offers great gameplay, deserve a comparable review score?

Absolutely. Gameplay is indeed top priority. But even if gameplay is good it's only gonna last maybe a good month before the replay value is dead for me.

I can't believe ANYBODY would put out a sports game without a Season Mode. The reviewer forgot to mention that was left out too.

# 26 Inhocmark @ 09/12/14 03:05 PM

The gameplay is fun but the http://assets1.osftw.com/images/button_submit.gifreview is spot on that its a bitter sweet experience because of the missing modes and terrible execution. I have it, I sort of regret it, and I hope that once the inevitable price drop comes there's some reward for those of us who shelled out full price.

EA should be embarrassed. The NHL game was a crown jewel, the resources should have been there, especially in the first year while building everything to offer feature parity with the previous gen.

# 27 RaychelSnr @ 09/12/14 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simaofan-20


	Its quite sad that gameplay isn't the most important thing when reviewing a game. After all, that's the core of a game and the reason why we play them in the first place. No way this game is a 5.5/10, I wouldn't give it a 9 but a 5.5? That's way to low, thats close to the game being broken or it has a ton of glitches. If the main reason why the score is low is because of not enough features, thats incredibly disappointing . I skimmed through most of it, I don't recall anything about the confirmed patch that implements some of the missing features already

"5.0 - 5.5 (Average) -- This is the quintessential average game. There are good spots, there are bad spots. You might love this game, then you might hate it. In the end, you'll just feel like it could have been so much more. Rent these for sure if you are a fan, and you might even buy the game if you can overlook the many flaws."

We review games and assign scores based on the entire game's total value. The word after the number and what it represents in the Rubric (now linked in the review) are just as important as the number itself in describing the game. We don't like the college grading scale where you are essentially using one of four ratings. If we wanted to do that, we'd switch to a star system and call it good

# 28 statum71 @ 09/12/14 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMChrisS


	"5.0 - 5.5 (Average) -- This is the quintessential average game. There are good spots, there are bad spots. You might love this game, then you might hate it. In the end, you'll just feel like it could have been so much more. Rent these for sure if you are a fan, and you might even buy the game if you can overlook the many flaws." We review games and assign scores based on the entire game's total value. The word after the number and what it represents in the Rubric (now linked in the review) are just as important as the number itself in describing the game. We don't like the college grading scale where you are essentially using one of four ratings. If we wanted to do that, we'd switch to a star system and call it good

Good explaination Chris.

These guys that talk gameplay, gameplay, gameplay don't seem to understand that it's only one faucet of the game title. Yes, gameplay is tops. But it's not impossible to make a game with outstanding gameplay and still have great presentation, graphics, audio, and modes.

Just look at The Show and NBA 2k......they do it almost every year. (Almost, 2K wasn't good last year on PS4)

# 29 thejudicata @ 09/12/14 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter10


	I got a question. Several guys in here are saying the gameplay itself is fine and that would be a good reason for me to buy it. However, a lot of reviews i have seen mention that defense and goaltending in particular are aweful and beyond. From the video footage that i have seen so far (youtube, twitch), the AI seems to be only slight improved and goalies look like sieves, so that would be a big no-go for me. So is there really any significant improvement? I could somehow do without all the missing modes if the game itself would be somewhat realistic but considering that i would have to buy a PS4 first, I just can not justify this.

I've played about 30 games, gameplay is a slight improvement over NHL 14. Computer D and goaltending is awful. Visually the gameplay just looks better because the animations are much better done.

I also feel like boardplay has been downgraded more. Along the boards seems to be the only place the computer D suddenly wakes up and plays D....

# 30 Inflict @ 09/12/14 06:48 PM

EA Sports UFC got a 7.5 from the same reviewer when it has even fewer modes and is even more devoid of content then NHL. The reviewer also admits solid gameplay form both games, so how is it that NHL gets a lower score? Either EA Sports UFC was rated too highly or reviewer is scoring the game purely based on the negative hype surrounding NHL 15.

I myself give it a 7 as the gameplay is the only saving grace for this game (presentation to a lesser extent too). Lack of online co-op really hurts deep as do other missing modes, but the game has a solid foundation on which to build upon. I will also re-iterate that the game should be 10-20 bucks cheaper too.

# 31 Inflict @ 09/12/14 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter10


	I got a question. Several guys in here are saying the gameplay itself is fine and that would be a good reason for me to buy it. However, a lot of reviews i have seen mention that defense and goaltending in particular are aweful and beyond. From the video footage that i have seen so far (youtube, twitch), the AI seems to be only slight improved and goalies look like sieves, so that would be a big no-go for me. So is there really any significant improvement? I could somehow do without all the missing modes if the game itself would be somewhat realistic but considering that i would have to buy a PS4 first, I just can not justify this.

The good:

Defensive AI is actually head and shoulders better then NHL 14. They will actually get sticks in the lane if they are in position and a hard pass through a maze of players rarely works anymore.

The AI is also more aggressive I've found. They will attack you from the wing when you enter the blue line, and will more likely then not, go for the man instead of taking away the pass. This leads to AI teammates being open more, but more AI puck-on-stick deflections mitigate this most of the time.

AI breakouts are extremely well done too. More options to change this through strategies exist and the horrible offside AI problem has been mitigated as well.

The Bad:

Goalies ARE a lot easier to beat and it does take away somewhat from the improved defense. Hopefully the goalies are improved through a tuner set.

The game has become more of a puck possession game now, and players tend to hold onto the puck way too much. The cycle game is reduced due to the AI intercepting passes easier but your teammates are usually in good positions (another big improvement from NHL 14) if you can get the pass through.

Overall, I would wait until you can get it cheaper as it's hard to justify paying $60 or $71 bucks for this.

# 32 IG 88 @ 09/12/14 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inflict


	EA Sports UFC got a 7.5 from the same reviewer when it has even fewer modes and is even more devoid of content then NHL. The reviewer also admits solid gameplay form both games, so how is it that NHL gets a lower score? Either EA Sports UFC was rated too highly or reviewer is scoring the game purely based on the negative hype surrounding NHL 15. I myself give it a 7 as the gameplay is the only saving grace for this game (presentation to a lesser extent too). Lack of online co-op really hurts deep as do other missing modes, but the game has a solid foundation on which to build upon. I will also re-iterate that the game should be 10-20 bucks cheaper too.

UFC was def low on modes, but personally, I wouldn't expect as much from a new UFC game (modes beyond Ultimate Fighter and online ranked require a while to come up with and are much less meaningful in a non team sport).

Compared to team sports competitors like FIFA, MLB the Show, Madden and NBA 2K...NHL 15 falls miles short. I like NHL's 15's gameplay...but not enough to overcome all that. I played my 6 hours of early access and felt like I got most of what I wanted. Might be a little different after a few patches...but who knows.

# 33 Wiggy @ 09/12/14 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inflict


	EA Sports UFC got a 7.5 from the same reviewer when it has even fewer modes and is even more devoid of content then NHL. The reviewer also admits solid gameplay form both games, so how is it that NHL gets a lower score? Either EA Sports UFC was rated too highly or reviewer is scoring the game purely based on the negative hype surrounding NHL 15. I myself give it a 7 as the gameplay is the only saving grace for this game (presentation to a lesser extent too). Lack of online co-op really hurts deep as do other missing modes, but the game has a solid foundation on which to build upon. I will also re-iterate that the game should be 10-20 bucks cheaper too.

I figured somebody would ask, so I'll explain.

For starters, a score is a score. The text of the review ultimately speaks to its quality, but we have to assign scores to help give some kind of shorthand.

Comparing EA Sports UFC to NHL 15 is apples to oranges in a lot of ways. They are completely different genres, and they come loaded with way different expectations in terms of what you'll find within. EA Sports UFC was also a first effort for the franchise, whereas NHL 15 was the continuation of a brand. I understand that NHL had limited time to make the transition, but that's on EA. It's not acceptable to remove so many ways to play the game in NHL (and basic features) and just say that it's a reset for the franchise. They should've contracted a team to work on the last gen version and given more resources for NHL 15 on new hardware.

EA Sports UFC to me is a good game. Is it light on content? To an extent, yes, it is. However, the expectation for that genre (as well as a first effort) is much different. They've also created gameplay for UFC that I love, as I've logged about 500 online matches. Could the career mode be better? Yes. Could it have more modes (PRIDE, etc.)? Yeah, it could.

FIFA 14 and Madden 25 made the transition properly. Were they perfect? No, but they generally did right by the brand. NHL did not. On top of that, they alienated many users and waged a very poor PR campaign to hide a great deal of the details.

I guess what I'm saying is that I enjoyed -- and continue to enjoy -- EA Sports UFC, and my expectations were adjusted for a game that was the first in a series. NHL is not in that situation, and it's judged by different criteria.

I didn't just "join the negative hype train" in order to slag on NHL. I respect the dev team (as said in my review, etc.), and I love the series. I didn't want to give a score like that, but the game is just missing so much that it's impossible to turn a blind eye. UFC got the score it did because the gameplay and presentation stand taller in a one-on-one game. Everything is reviewed in context.

# 34 Tomba @ 09/12/14 09:53 PM

the demo had me hooked then i saw the same adboards being used throughout stadiums for the demo have no idea if it like that in the full game nba presentation adds so much

# 35 Inflict @ 09/12/14 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggy


	I figured somebody would ask, so I'll explain. For starters, a score is a score. The text of the review ultimately speaks to its quality, but we have to assign scores to help give some kind of shorthand. Comparing EA Sports UFC to NHL 15 is apples to oranges in a lot of ways. They are completely different genres, and they come loaded with way different expectations in terms of what you'll find within. EA Sports UFC was also a first effort for the franchise, whereas NHL 15 was the continuation of a brand. I understand that NHL had limited time to make the transition, but that's on EA. It's not acceptable to remove so many ways to play the game in NHL (and basic features) and just say that it's a reset for the franchise. They should've contracted a team to work on the last gen version and given more resources for NHL 15 on new hardware. EA Sports UFC to me is a good game. Is a light on content? To an extent, yes, it is. However, the expectation for that genre (as well as a first effort) is much different. They've also created gameplay for UFC that I love, as I've logged about 500 online matches. Could the career mode be better? Yes. Could it have more modes (PRIDE, etc.)? Yeah, it could. FIFA 14 and Madden 25 made the transition properly. Were they perfect? No, but they generally did right by the brand. NHL did not. On top of that, they alienated many users and waged a very poor PR campaign to hide a great deal of the details. I guess what I'm saying is that I enjoyed -- and continue to enjoy -- EA Sports UFC, and my expectations were adjusted for a game that was the first in a series. NHL is not in that situation, and it's judged by different criteria. I didn't just "join the negative hype train" in order to slag on NHL. I respect the dev team (as said in my review, etc.), and I love the series. I didn't want to give a score like that, but the game is just missing so much that it's impossible to turn a blind eye. UFC got the score it did because the gameplay and presentation stand taller in a one-on-one game. Everything is reviewed in context.

I understand your logic, but the score still reflects expectations rather then the available content. The score would reflect differently otherwise. You will get no argument from me that they had pretty poor PR, but that shouldn't reflect a review score, IMO. Maybe you will feel different on this, but I feel that a review score should be determined by only the game itself not for the game plus/minues your expectations.

As for the EA sports UFC comparison, you could argue that EA's first foray into MMA was EA Sports MMA, which still had more content. UFC and NHL ARE completely different games, but similar in that they were both built from the ground up unlike Madden or FIFA. Those games were upgraded ports IMO. Should they have gone that route with NHL? I don't know, but I like the game they have so far.

# 36 Wiggy @ 09/12/14 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inflict


	I understand your logic, but the score still reflects expectations rather then the available content. The score would reflect differently otherwise. You will get no argument from me that they had pretty poor PR, but that shouldn't reflect a review score, IMO. Maybe you will feel different on this, but I feel that a review score should be determined by only the game itself not for the game plus/minues your expectations. As for the EA sports UFC comparison, you could argue that EA's first foray into MMA was EA Sports MMA, which still had more content. UFC and NHL ARE completely different games, but similar in that they were both built from the ground up unlike Madden or FIFA. Those games were upgraded ports IMO. Should they have gone that route with NHL? I don't know, but I like the game they have so far.

Well, the PR campaign was more of an admission on their part that there was something to hide (negative stuff), which there was. That didn't directly correlate to score.

Every review is in context. To say "expectations" shouldn't factor into it just doesn't hold water with me, as you're basically then talking about reviewing things in a vacuum. All genres of games are compared to their peers in the field. That is an expectation. If someone does something better, then I'm going to call a game out for not doing it as well.

NHL has only itself to be compared to at present, and I'm not going to go into an isolation chamber and review a game and not acknowledge what it had done before. This is an existing brand. They don't just get to reboot and throw out everything that made the game enjoyable to so many. I agree with you that the gameplay is very good, and the presentation (mostly) delivers, but this game is about much more than those things. It only works if there are a suite of modes to enjoy it.

UFC is not in that situation, as its gameplay is more pivotal since it's a one-on-one game. I expect it to have a better career mode, etc. next time out, but they nailed online play and most of the gameplay this time. Again, it is a first effort. EA MMA was five or six years before, which isn't relevant to this current franchise (made by an entirely different dev team).

I agree that FIFA and Madden were more "port-ish" than NHL or UFC, but that doesn't mean that NHL should ship with scores of modes missing and basic features MIA. The whole product was mismanaged, and consumers deserve to be warned against such a cynical release.

Again, I love the NHL series, but this one is missing a lot of what makes the brand great. I'm clearly not the only one to be saying this, and I'm not going to give something a pass when it's incomplete.

Everyone brings some level of expectation and bias into a review, and to want tabula rasa every time is just not realistic, in my view.

# 37 RUFFNREADY @ 09/12/14 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GisherJohn24


	serious question, does anyone know what EA was thinking when they released this?

$$$$ - that's what they were thinking, and always thinking! They would sell you a lemon, and patch in controllers later! EA isn't in on the front end of anything anymore; they are in the back end waiting for a riot to breakout!
I am sorry to say it but, EA is that average looking neighbourhood car dealership, with a sleazy salesman, that will sell you any eye appealing car, with no "Engine" (back seats, door handles), at major car dealership prices (New/full price). They will send you the steering wheel and brake pedal later on (in a patch)! Oh, and have a nice day; after you finish paying for it, before it leaves the lot!
SMH as I LOL

# 38 RaychelSnr @ 09/13/14 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggy


	Well, the PR campaign was more of an admission on their part that there was something to hide (negative stuff), which there was. That didn't directly correlate to score. Every review is in context. To say "expectations" shouldn't factor into it just doesn't hold water with me, as you're basically then talking about reviewing things in a vacuum. All genres of games are compared to their peers in the field. That is in expectation. If someone does something better, then I'm going to call a game out for not doing it as well. NHL has only itself to be compared to at present, and I'm not going to go into an isolation chamber and review a game and not acknowledge what it had done before. This is an existing brand. They don't just get to reboot and throw out everything that made the game enjoyable to so many. I agree with you that the gameplay is very good, and the presentation (mostly) delivers, but this game is about much more than those things. It only works if there are a suite of modes to enjoy it. UFC is not in that situation, as its gameplay is more pivotal since it's a one-on-one game. I expect it to have a better career mode, etc. next time out, but they nailed online play and most of the gameplay this time. Again, it is a first effort. EA MMA was five or six years before, which isn't relevant to this current franchise (made by an entirely different dev team). I agree that FIFA and Madden were more "port-ish" than NHL or UFC, but that doesn't mean that NHL should ship with scores of modes missing and basic features MIA. The whole product was mismanaged, and consumers deserve to be warned against such a cynical release. Again, I love the NHL series, but this one is missing a lot of what makes the brand great. I'm clearly not the only one to be saying this, and I'm not going to give something a pass when it's incomplete. Everyone brings some level of expectation and bias into a review, and to want tabula rasa every time is just not realistic, in my view.

To back up Glenn, again reviews are about value. NHL 15 doesn't offer a compelling value to customers who own NHL 14 or other previous hockey efforts -- it doesn't even hold compelling value over NHL 15 on previous gen consoles. It's prettier, the gameplay is slightly improved, but you are still getting less of a game than a game on older consoles. It's review theory, and there's no wrong way except inconsistency. Whereas UFC had only the THQ outings to compare itself to (and in essence compare the relative value of), NHL had two directly relevant titles within its own series to be compare to. Each game is different and the value they offer is judged differently.

It's the same thing as to why mobile games can get an 8 but not be nearly as technically efficient as a console game. We approach scores (and the words which back them up) as a value proposition to the gamer on a full 10 point scale. Right now (and for the past few years) our approach is to communicate that value with a word (Good, Great, Average, etc.) and number that correspond with each other. If a reviewer believes a game is good, then it's a 7.0 or 7.5. The .5s correspond to how exactly a game is within that. In this case, a 5.5 indicates its closer to a 6 than a 4. A .0 indicates a game is closer to the number (and category below) than above. It's a simple and linear process which we try to keep things consistent within.

# 39 ChaseB @ 09/13/14 12:32 AM

I enjoyed reading the review and do not envy Glenn having to write it because it's a tough case of having to sort of look really hard at the idea of "review what the game is" not "what you want the game to be."

As a rule, I do think you should review the game as it stands, not what you hoped it would be. However, even if you don't think "hype" should play into the review process and the reviewer should live in a vacuum of sorts, past iterations have to creep into your mind here even if you were not distracted by the news leading up to launch. The past games are the past games, and switching generations doesn't mean it's a clean slate even if you want to make the argument that the game "fundamentally" changed during the console transition. At the end of the day, you still have to think about "consumers" picking up the game. And as much as you want to feel for the development team and know they want to make the best game possible, people buying the game aren't going to care -- most of them that is -- about the excuses for why XYZ are not in one of their favorite games to play.

Either way, this is something that would have really messed with me had I been tasked with writing a review of this game.

Also the 5.5 has been explained, but from an outsider, one of the perks of OS not being on Metacritic is that it seems like there would be even less pressure to feel a need to push a score closer to a 7 than a 5, which gives OS more breathing room to use 0-10 to me. Of course, it also means people coming here will at times think a 5.5 is the worst thing in the world rather than closer to a "normal" 7 but the rubric is always there to see.

# 40 Wiggy @ 09/13/14 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseB


	I enjoyed reading the review and do not envy Glenn having to write it because it's a tough case of having to sort of look really hard at the idea of "review what the game is" not "what you want the game to be." As a rule, I do think you should review the game as it stands, not what you hoped it would be. However, even if you don't think "hype" should play into the review process and the reviewer should live in a vacuum of sorts, past iterations have to creep into your mind here even if you were not distracted by the news leading up to launch. The past games are the past games, and switching generations doesn't mean it's a clean slate even if you want to make the argument that the game "fundamentally" changed during the console transition. At the end of the day, you still have to think about "consumers" picking up the game. And as much as you want to feel for the development team and know they want to make the best game possible, people buying the game aren't going to care -- most of them that is -- about the excuses for why XYZ are not in one of their favorite games to play. Either way, this is something that would have really messed with me had I been tasked with writing a review of this game. Also the 5.5 has been explained, but from an outsider, one of the perks of OS not being on Metacritic is that it seems like there would be even less pressure to feel a need to push a score closer to a 7 than a 5, which gives OS more breathing room to use 0-10 to me. Of course, it also means people coming here will at times think a 5.5 is the worst thing in the world rather than closer to a "normal" 7 but the rubric is always there to see.

Thanks for your comments.

Indeed, the rubric is there for folks to see. Of course, any site reviewing with a Metacritic score in mind has got all sort of other problems, so no one should be doing that. I wouldn't be writing for OS if we kow-towed to Metacritic pressure and things like that.

But just to go back to the "review the game as it is" point, that's ultimately what anyone should be trying to do, but that is going to be informed by precedent, comparison and usability. I can review the "new" Be-A-GM "as it is," but that's a proposition that is basically flawed at the outset, as it's worse than it was last year. For me to supposedly put that out of my mind when looking at it just isn't feasible. It's worse than it was. I can't just pretend I don't know that. As it is, it's a bad version of the mode -- just like Be-A-Pro, just like HUT.

I honestly think a lot of the confusion from some is because most sites DON'T use the whole scale, and a score like this is alien. Then again, lots of other outlets gave similar scores, so there's that (I had posted my reviewer impressions and had started to form a score in my mind well before other reviews were posted, FYI).

I think these are important questions to ask -- how a reviewer considers external factors, hardware transitions, PR campaigns, comparable games, etc. Still, I think the comments about reviewing the game "as is" are basically coming from folks who want to see a higher score. Well, that's not how I saw the game, so there's a disagreement on the score, basically.

Either way, glad to hear discussion on this.

« Previous 123 4 Next »

More Links

NHL 15 Review (XB1/PS4)