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.
Stalker 2's Lower Review Scores Are 'Unfair & Misleading', Says Arkane Founder
"It's a bit rough on the edges at launch"
www.purexbox.com
