Home
OS Scores Explained NHL 15 Overview (Xbox One)
Pros
Excellent new visuals; solid gameplay; puck and collision physics show promise.
Cons
Minimal value, both online and offline; shoddy commentary implementation; missing basic options and features hurt big time.
Bottom Line
NHL 15 is missing too much to recommend to anyone but the most ardent diehards.
5.5
out of 10
NHL 15 REVIEW

NHL 15 Review (Xbox One)


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.

Believe me when I tell you that this isn't what I wanted to say about NHL 15. Like many others, I was jazzed about the awesome reveal trailers and even the slightly buggy showing at this year's E3. I kept on telling people: "Be excited."

I did this because I saw some great presentation in the trailers, and I enjoyed what I played at E3. I had no doubt that they would include many — if not all — of the standard modes. Well, I was half right. The gameplay, to an extent, and the presentation provide some next-gen sizzle and fill me with hope for where the franchise could go in a few years, but the lack of modes is just so mind-boggling that it almost drives me to cynicism.

I could be angry and say that the game's inclusion of HUT mode but none of its other tent-pole experiences seems calculated and cold. I could say that neglecting the online components seems like a complete misread of today's gaming landscape. I could even say that the absence of basic features — player creation, proper simulation features (Be-A-Pro, Be-A-GM), All-Star Game, Three Stars, Winter Classic and more — presents the game as rushed and haphazard. Maybe some of those things are true. For a company as bruised and battered as EA to take this approach, when they've recently said the contrary, is just crazy.

To be clear: I put this at the doorstep of the higher-ups and corporate paymasters at EA. The hockey dev team is following a schedule. They shouldn't be punished for getting half the resources they need to finish a game. These realities are made all the more galling when you know how much EA makes off of Ultimate Team modes and DLC. Some of this profit needs to be put back into the product; otherwise, that's a dangerous path to go down. Consumers hold sway over a franchise like NHL, as it doesn't have the built-in advantages of a FIFA or even Madden.

 

Gameplay

The sad thing about all of this is that NHL 15 plays relatively well. To be clear, it’s not a major deviation from what the NHL series has delivered up until this point, but the addition of new puck physics, a weightier pace and an increased separation of upper and lower body on deking makes for a reasonably fresh gameplay experience. The speed of the game has been dialed down a bit, and I found the action satisfying, particularly when I turned the game up to hardcore sliders and superstar difficulty.

As always, the game plays much better when there is human cooperation or competition (which, I guess, means one-on-one online this year), but the AI does show some flash on that higher setting. They will actually possess the puck and move it around in the offensive zone for some one-timer and slot chances, and they even step up to close gaps slightly better than before (but still not enough). Then again, you can cut through the defense fairly easily in certain situations, especially with the new deking allowing for a bit too much control for low-end grinders. It’s not as much of an issue for me, but I can see how it will bother some users. I’ve written before about user input and sports games, and my sentiments still apply here. Vision control, joystick wankery and button spamming are always going to present problems for gameplay, and there’s really just no way around it. I’ve still had competitive games against the AI, and human competition (in its limited form) remains an option.

Some of the gameplay feel does benefit from a few other on-ice additions, including a better net cam, the puck bouncing in and out on goals, four officials on the ice, hybrid icing and an ability to collide with the goalie when crashing the net. These are all fun details on their own, but they each add something subtle to the gameplay that ends up having a meaningful cumulative effect.


Some players will be disappointed that defense and goalies remain relatively unchanged, other than the visual boost they’ve received and a deeper lunge on poke checks for d-men. Defensive strafing and hitting works as it did before, but now hits will cause both players to fall down slightly more often. Goalies have a few new animations, and they will let in a variety of goals thanks to the new puck physics, but they do still have some wandering habits and troublesome short-side animations.

The collision physics on all 12 players creates some oddities, but I do like the feature overall. There is some unpredictability to some sequences in front of the net, and it is amusing that you can take out your own players by losing an edge and bowling them over. But this feature still feels like a first-year effort, to be sure.
 

Presentation

EA certainly touted the visual and audio upgrades that new hardware afforded, and they also perked some ears with their seemingly unique approach to commentary and game day presentation. Well, I consider the new arenas, crowds and player models to be a success, with a handful of small caveats. The arenas do look tremendous, as they feature great-looking banners, walkways and sightlines that really bring the place to life. Helping with that is the crowd, who has a lot of variety in terms of how they react and how they’re shown. You’ll also see all sorts of custom signs and props, and the explosion of frenzy when a goal is scored carries great emotion. It would be great to see more camera cuts and cutscenes involving the crowd going forward, but this is something that EA definitely did right as is.

The next-generation hockey player, as EA called it, looks quite good, with a meaningful upgrade in detail and a decent number of unique player faces (not everybody, though). Some of the animations are a bit all over the place during transitions, and the improved jersey tech does get into wind-tunnel territory, but I will take the advances the developers have made over where things were.

The game day presentation and new commentary are less of a success. In a basic sense, it’s nice to see fresh blood from the play-by-play of Mike Emrick and Eddie Olczyk of NBC, and TSN’s Ray Ferraro actually makes the most impact at ice level. Then again, hearing them in action kind of kills the effect, as you’ll hear lots of inaccurate comments, odd exclamations and poor line reads. Even the stitching of the audio is problematic. The NBC broadcast presentation permeates the entire game, and EA had the idea of superimposing the play-by-play guys (via green screen) in front of the various in-game arenas. It’s an interesting idea, but it’s limited by the fact that EA can only record so many versions of New York and LA… or any other team for that matter.

I should point out, too, that the collision physics that are now in the game do create some funny and entertaining sequences, but you will see when playing that they’ve also infused a bunch of awkwardness and jittery transitions during cutscenes and on-ice play.
 

Offline Modes

The offline selection of modes for NHL 15 is a touch better than the online offerings, but that’s not saying much. Even more problematic is that what’s here has been gutted and altered so much that it’s hard to recognize them from what they were. When modes like Be-A-Pro and Be-A-GM have been relegated to sub-menu status in NHL 14 and before, it’s painful to see them trotted out as “the ways to play the game,” especially when most are shells of their former selves.

When it comes down to it, the options available are HUT, Be-A-Pro and Be-A-GM. There is exhibition mode, which is so standard it’s not even a mode, and NHL Moments Live, but even that is just a novelty. Be-A-Pro is the only “career” equivalent left in the game, and it’s basically dead on arrival when you realize that you can’t edit your player in a meaningful way or play in the minors (you just get placed on a team). You can’t even guarantee a number on a team, as a player already there will take priority. The most damning thing is the inability to simulate to the next shift, which pretty much means you’ll be doing a lot of waiting to finish your games.


Be-A-GM is similarly problematic, with no player drafting, an inability to play with your minor league team, long simulation times and a clunky interface. While new menus help give things a bit more pop in this mode, everything just feels like a mode that wasn’t really ever put in a primetime spot, and now it has to be because there isn’t much else in the game.

Hockey Ultimate Team is also present and accounted for, and it remains more or less in tact, save for the inability to play against friends or in tournaments. The new line editing is definitely problematic, as the lack of “bench” makes it hard to swap out players with ease. While I’m not the biggest HUT fan in the world, I can’t see how a middling version of what’s been there before is going to get too many longtime fans that excited.
 

Online Modes

The online landscape for NHL 15 is quite barren, as the game limits you to basic one-on-one online play through either exhibition or HUT. As has been well documented, there is no EA Sports Hockey League, GM Connected, Online Team Play or Shootout. As bothersome as some of these bigger omissions are, how is that something as basic as shootout mode hasn’t made the jump to next generation hardware? Was that really so much of a time sink that they couldn’t get it in? Whatever the case, the absence of meaningful ways to play with your friends, either cooperatively or competitively, is just so blatant that it’s tough to really know what to say.

In this day and age, shipping a product that doesn’t have any meaningful way to play with or against your friends (online franchise, league, team play, etc.) just isn’t going to fly. What we’re left with is a one-on-one multiplayer option that admittedly is fun, but even that isn’t perfect. There was a touch of lag when I first played with some users, but this has cleared up for the most part. Also, the usual issue of tuning and penalty sliders comes up, as there really should be an update to add some interference penalties considering all of the collision physics and bumping that now takes place. I’ve had some good matches online, but it really just reminds me of all the fun I’m not having with friends.
 

Final Thoughts


I wish NHL 15 could’ve been the game that we were all hoping for, but sadly that’s not the case. The new presentation, taken as a whole, adds some much-needed life to the listless proceedings of years gone by, and the gameplay remains enjoyable (especially against humans), but the dearth of modes and copious feature omissions move past the points of “understandable” and “problematic” right on over to “downright troublesome.” If you’re looking for a basic hockey experience that provides some solid gameplay and no frills, I guess this game could work for you. But for everyone else, this is a game that does not — and should not — represent what sports gaming is and can be.

Learning Curve: As usual, EA provides a reasonable selection of control options and difficulty modifiers so that you can find the right gameplay experience for your skill level.

Control Scheme: The NHL 94 button controls remain an option, but the skill stick works well this year, even with slightly different timing on the deking and slapshots.

Visuals: EA has done good work imbuing the players, crowd and arenas of NHL 15 with life and detail, but some odd animations (thanks to collision physics) rear their head. The green screen stuff is also a bit hit-and-miss.

Audio: It's great to have a new commentary team, but I don't think EA has added much when it's really a first-year effort that's only distinguishing factor is that it's new. Music is pretty good this year, and the crowd audio is still great.

Value: There just isn't any — straight up. For offline you've got a handful of also-ran modes (that aren't even what they were), and online is missing the heart and soul of the franchise (EASHL). Other missing features and basic options add to the feeling that this product was rushed and under-resourced.

Score: 5.5 (Average)
What This Score Means


Scoring Note: I took into account where the series had been in the last few years and what was expected in this version. I felt the absolute dearth of features hurt the game so much that it negated many of the positives.

 


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.
 


Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.