Board 8 > Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon Review Zone

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://opencritic.com/game/15125/armored-core-vi-fires-of-rubicon
https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-5/armored-core-vi-fires-of-rubicon

FromSoftware returns to its roots a bit and brings back one of its most iconic franchises with the first new entry in a decade and implemented some of the lessons they've learned since then to provide a modern take on this classic franchise.

Let's be real here though the reviews of past never really got Armored Core. It was often too difficult in both its controls and challenge and confusing at times in what you had to do to customize your mech in just the right way to overcome the next challenge. Most of these games fell in the low 70s/high 60s range and was extremely niche. I only ever played them at a friends house who had all the PS2 games and did struggle with them, but I'm looking to give it another shot. This game might still be that, but the most polished and best looking its ever been.

Armored Core VI so far is averaging an 85% through 31 reviews on OC and an 88% through 37 reviews on MC so far which is far and away the highest scoring game in the franchise. Reviewers say it's one of the best mech games they've ever played, but if you're not a fan of the genre to begin with it's not going to convert you over either.

GamesHub - 10/10
Armored Core 6 is an unsympathetic and cold-blooded game. It's a cup of bitter, black coffee and thankfully, that suits my palate perfectly. It's full of moments that make you feel very powerful in both effortless and hard-fought ways and moments that make you very, very small. In the face of it all, you're pushed to overcome the impossible. And you'll come out on the other end wearing an exhausted, wry smile.

Noisy PIxel - 9/10
Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon might be a return to form for FromSoftware, but the series is brand new for players who only recently discovered them within the Souls-like genre. Armored Core VI has everything to stand on its own within the developer's current lineup of titles and the other entries of this series. It excels in fast-paced mecha action by providing an experience only Armored Core can deliver. Similar to the intricate ACs you'll surely create, this game is refined to its core offering highly challenging action with plenty of options to fit your playstyle. Armored Core VI is a must-play mecha action game, no matter your knowledge of the series.

Worth Playing - 9/10
Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon is a darn fine entry into the franchise. The buttery-smooth gameplay and incredibly cool combat make it an absolute delight to play. It's easily one of the best mecha action games, and only Gundam Breaker 3 has a more involved and enjoyable mech customization system. If you're looking for a really fun and well-crafted robot bashing experience, look no further than Armored Core VI, which is a delight to play.

IGN - 8/10
Armored Core 6 doesnt look to reinvent the bipedal legs of the mech action genre, but it does update, refine, and polish them to an aggressive shine. Every sortie is a satisfying combat puzzle to solve thanks to fantastic mission design, intense boss encounters, an extremely wide assortment of weapons and parts that can dramatically affect how your mech plays, and excellent, explosive combat that manages to take very complex systems and mechanics and make them easy to understand and execute. Its interesting premise is stifled by bland storytelling told through mission briefings and radio chatter, but this is still nonetheless a welcome return of a classic mecha series.

Gamespot - 8/10
Armored Core VI represents a new beginning for the long-running series. It still remains true to From Software's original vision, but the whole experience has been refined to welcome an audience that cut its teeth on the studio's most recent work. Its story is a letdown and there may be some early growing pains due to its lopsided approach, but these shortcomings quickly scurry to the back of your mind once you start weaving your fully customized mech between incoming attacks while unleashing a salvo of rocket fire, sword swipes, and plasma rounds.

Push Square - 7/10
Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon admirably weds satisfying combat with extensive mech customisation, with short missions letting you quickly experiment with new ideas and builds. However, once you've settled on an optimal loadout, it's those same quick-fire levels that begin to blunt the fun. The result is a game that can be just as enjoyable as it is frustrating. A littering of good boss fights and rock-solid performance on PS5 make it a worthwhile experience as a whole, but Armored Core VI: Fires of Rubicon won't go down as a classic in the same way other FromSoftware titles have for the past decade.

VG247 - 3/5
Armored Core 6 is the essence of a soft reboot. It has the unenviable task of drawing newcomers to a niche, sometimes overly challenging series without changing too much of what made fans like it to begin with. The result is a mixed experience that, while it has some shining moments of brilliance, feels a bit loose and never plays to its strengths.

This is like Nier Replicant's situation all over again

We gave it a 9.

https://www.thegamer.com/armored-core-6-fires-of-rubicon-review/

This is promising. If I ever have money again, I might buy it.

Are there invasions tho

Honestly this still smells of critics not getting it. While Im grateful weve graduated from 6s and 7/10s, some of these scores are a little baffling.

steep learning curve, otherwise perfect, 8/10

not enough story, 7/10

idk what this is, but i dont wanna piss off the publisher, 8/10

And as someone whos invested in TOTK vs BG3 for highest rated of the year, its frustrating the Fromsoft game is getting left out of the party

I'm sure most of them have never even played an AC game before

TomNook7 posted...

And as someone whos invested in TOTK vs BG3 for highest rated of the year, its frustrating the Fromsoft game is getting left out of the party

what party lmao

First, it's way too soon to say that this game won't be nominated for GoTY at the Game Awards. I would bet money that it is.

Second, I don't think "not getting it" applies here. This isn't people complaining about SMTV for not being like Persona. These are reviewers who are giving high scores to a game that has challenging aspects to it. In other words "8's are okay."

I dont really care about the game awards lol. Theyre fun to tune in and tune your brain off, but they dont add up to much at the end of the day. Im much more interested in these review aggregates.

Also theres more at play here than just 8s are okay. Demons Souls and Dark Souls got 8s back then for similar reasons, but nowadays everybody knows how silly that was.

Right now the top dogs are TOTK, BG3 (needs like 100 more reviews tho lol), RE4make, and SF6. Maybe AC6 deserves to be up there, maybe not. But right now its not even reaching the same heights as Hi fi rush, ff16, diablo 4, pikmin 4, dead space remake etc. Its barely staying above hogwarts legacy.

I just find it hard to believe the new fromsoft game doesnt reach those heights lol.

TomNook7 posted...

I just find it hard to believe the new fromsoft game doesnt reach those heights lol.

Why? Armored Core 5 was terrible.

It's a niche game, even if it's more accessible than ever.

It's why aggregate review scores are absolutely worthless and always have been. They only hold value on getting a finger on the pulse of the industry for analytical reasons, but they don't have any actual value of any kind. A review only matters if you read the body.

Thats true that its niche. Any genre other than action, adventure, RPG, or sports, and critics are fucking baffled lol.

Definitely disagree these numbers are worthless tho. Im a pretty big collector, but i definitely dont have the time/money/energy to buy every single game, let alone play them, so reviews help a lot with weeding out the garbage. Also theyre super helpful when prioritizing which games come up next in the backlog

And AC5 wasnt good, sure, but that game had a lot of mismanagement behind the scenes iirc, and they eventually got their shit together with Verdict Day

TomNook7 posted...

Definitely disagree these numbers are worthless tho.

Numbers aren't worthless, aggregate numbers are worthless.

If someone who hates all the games you love and loves all the games you hate gives this game a 2, that gets added to the same pile as the rest. If you read his review you know his 2 is worthless to you personally, but if you look at a metacritic score his review has the same weight as everyone elses, you suddenly care about his 2 by proxy.

TomNook7 posted...

so reviews help a lot with weeding out the garbage

How do you actually know this? If you only play 85+ aggregate games, you'll never know what you're missing

foolm0r0n posted...

How do you actually know this? If you only play 85+ aggregate games, you'll never know what you're missing

Thats true, and it definitely depends. Critics arent the end all-be all. I wouldve never played Deadly Premonition if i only cared about critics. Games with higher user scores than critics deserve a chance too. But im just saying, theres like hundreds of indie games getting limited prints every year, and aint no way im buying all of them lol

foolm0r0n posted...

How do you actually know this? If you only play 85+ aggregate games, you'll never know what you're missing

I don't understand this dichotomy of either you only use metacritic to make every decision or you never use it.

Metacritic is very useful for weeding stuff out when used in conjunction with other factors. If a game I know nothing about gets 96 on metacritic, it's a hell lot likely I'll give it a second look than if it got 66. But that doesn't mean I won't ever play a game with 66, since it could also depend on word of mouth, are my friends playing it, is it a company/genre I like, is it on gamepass, did it get patched post-launch, etc.

No one's suggesting that. Just use a better filter than 85+ metacritic. Especially since that filter is actively harmful to the industry.

Like if you like souls games, watch Iron Pineapple's soulslike review series and pick the ones that look nice to you. I've found a couple cool ones from there myself.

Or look out for certain keywords like Metroid and movement based exploration. That's why I gave Pseudoregalia a chance and it's one of my favs this year. But it's almost definitely not gonna be on an aggregate site.

squexa posted...

Metacritic is very useful for weeding stuff out when used in conjunction with other factors.

I get what you're saying and it's more logical than Nook's strategy for sure. But the argument is deeper than that since metacritic is actively harmful and bad even as just 1 ingredient in your formula.

That's a much bigger argument so no need to get into it now. But obviously some factors are straight up bad, so consider that aggregates could be one of those bad factors.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Numbers aren't worthless, aggregate numbers are worthless.

If someone who hates all the games you love and loves all the games you hate gives this game a 2, that gets added to the same pile as the rest. If you read his review you know his 2 is worthless to you personally, but if you look at a metacritic score his review has the same weight as everyone elses, you suddenly care about his 2 by proxy.

Sure, but regardless, universal acclaim almost always signals the game is something special. The way i look at it, getting a 90+ on opencritic is pretty damn rare. Especially something thats like a 97 with 150+ reviews all in agreement. If something that high doesnt signal goty potential, idk what does. A critic giving TOTK a 2 seems highly unlikely, and even then, his review would pretty much vanish under the weight of the other 149 reviews, and hed probably lose all clout anyway. Theres definitely an invisible hand to all this, and if youre someone with limited free time, its not a bad way to go.

And also high rotten tomatoes scores are literally advertised on streaming services and the fronts of blu ray boxes, so these aggregates definitely hold a lot of influence whether you think theyre worthless or not in your mind

squexa posted...

If a game I know nothing about gets 96 on metacritic, it's a hell lot likely I'll give it a second look than if it got 66.

See I also don't think this has any value outside of data collection because what games get high or low scores on the AGGREGATE often just follows industry trends.

Right now, the industry loves big, open world games with a ton of exploration and freedom of choice in what to do. This is something I absolutely hate. A 96 aggregate for, taking the obvious example, Tears of the a Kingdom means nothing to me, because I know that the reason the game is getting such high scores are for things I don't like and the game isn't appealing to me at the things that I personally value. While I know this is why it gets these scores, say I didn't. I would find this out by actually reading the reviews, and knowing what those reviewers value, and I would realize it didn't align with me.

A review's number is worthless if you don't actually read the review. Since an aggregate is just a number and the score itself has no text behind it, it's meaningless.

RT is a well respected aggregate specifically because it doesn't use numbers, just thumbs up and thumbs down. Most ratings systems have moved to that because it's much more informative, if you do need an aggregate of sentiment. It specifically does NOT track quality. Steam does this too which is why those ratings can be pretty informative. Games media are just super behind on this for some reason.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Right now, the industry loves big, open world games with a ton of exploration and freedom of choice in what to do.

Check this shit out
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/7/7/AAZVUhAAEx7V.png

foolm0r0n posted...

Check this shit out
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/7/7/AAZVUhAAEx7V.png

It has been....a devestatingly long trend.

Thank God for RE4make.

hey it's the 2015 SHINE GotY

SHINE_GET_64 posted...

hey it's the 2015 SHINE GotY

i was going to say whats wrong with mgs5 lol

A lot

UshiromiyaEva posted...

See I also don't think this has any value outside of data collection because what games get high or low scores on the AGGREGATE often just follows industry trends.

Right now, the industry loves big, open world games with a ton of exploration and freedom of choice in what to do. This is something I absolutely hate. A 96 aggregate for, taking the obvious example, Tears of the a Kingdom means nothing to me, because I know that the reason the game is getting such high scores are for things I don't like and the game isn't appealing to me at the things that I personally value. While I know this is why it gets these scores, say I didn't. I would find this out by actually reading the reviews, and knowing what those reviewers value, and I would realize it didn't align with me.

A review's number is worthless if you don't actually read the review. Since an aggregate is just a number and the score itself has no text behind it, it's meaningless.

Sure, I obviously don't buy every game with a high Metacritic, but I give it a second look if it's sufficiently high. I have zero interest in CRPGs, but I still gave a second look to BG3 to understand a bit why everyone's going gaga over it. Still have no interest in buying BG3, but I've discovered many all time favorites just from checking out why some random game I've never heard of is scoring so high. Neon white is probably my favorite game of the past 5 years and I probably would not have checked it out otherwise.

Curious why foolmo thinks aggregates are bad for the industry. One thing ive noticed, a movie that sticks to a certain formula will probably land a better RT score, so i guess you could argue review aggregates are making art safer and more formulaic? (I definitely dont agree with this, but i could see an argument for it)

SHINE_GET_64 posted...

hey it's the 2015 SHINE GotY

Also for sure the 2015 Ctes GotY

though I get most complaints

I have no issues with review aggregates, but I think it's a bit alarmist to worry about AC6 in this regard

foolm0r0n posted...

I get what you're saying and it's more logical than Nook's strategy for sure. But the argument is deeper than that since metacritic is actively harmful and bad even as just 1 ingredient in your formula.

That's a much bigger argument so no need to get into it now. But obviously some factors are straight up bad, so consider that aggregates could be one of those bad factors.

I legitimately don't get this gatekeeping. I really don't have that much time for gaming these days and there's only so many games I can play. I also don't consume much "game media" and know the personal tastes of every random gaming influencers or whatever. I already have a massive backlog so I'm going to be pickier for games that are outside my comfort zone. I don't like CRPGs at all so I don't know why I'd spend the same amount of effort checking out all the random CRPGs with 50s on metacritic as BG3.

squexa posted...

I legitimately don't get this gatekeeping. I really don't have that much time for gaming these days and there's only so many games I can play. I also don't consume much "game media" and know the personal tastes of every random gaming influencers or whatever. I already have a massive backlog so I'm going to be pickier for games that are outside my comfort zone. I don't like CRPGs at all so I don't know why I'd spend the same amount of effort checking out all the random CRPGs with 50s on metacritic as BG3.

If you have a massive backlog you should be clearing it out instead of buying more games, IMOIMOIMO

It's a better formula than buying for the sake of buying

Snake5555555555 posted...

A lot

it only has one five in the title?

neonreaper posted...

it only has one five in the title?

Exactly!

it actually has no 5's in the title

squexa posted...

I legitimately don't get this gatekeeping.

Here's what it is. If you're ok with having poor curation of the games you spend your time on, I don't believe that you legitimately have little time for gaming, since you're ok with spending your time poorly.

I guarantee I have less time to play games than you, which is why I value my game curation ability extremely highly. It's a huge bang for buck and I can't imagine spending my time on a top 10 list instead. That's just giving up on your standards, which is totally different than being too busy.

I'm looking at the top games on Metacritic and there are 13 games with a 95 or higher that I think are bad, including some in genres I like, excluding dupes.

Good to see my favorite game of all time hanging out there with that hot 96 with only 10 reviews though, NGL.

Truly a game 96% as good as the best possible game
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/3/3/AAZVUhAAEx8N.jpg

foolm0r0n posted...

Here's what it is. If you're ok with having poor curation of the games you spend your time on, I don't believe that you legitimately have little time for gaming, since you're ok with spending your time poorly.

I guarantee I have less time to play games than you, which is why I value my game curation ability extremely highly. It's a huge bang for buck and I can't imagine spending my time on a top 10 list instead. That's just giving up on your standards, which is totally different than being too busy.

It took me a while to realize this post is ironic lol. Well played.

So legitimate question. Only play Metacritic games above 85 for the rest of your life or only play Metacritic games below 70? There's a ton of games below 70 so you'd get a lot of bang for your buck.

foolm0r0n posted...

Truly a game 96% as good as the best possible game
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/3/3/AAZVUhAAEx8N.jpg

User reviews are the pinnacle of society.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/3/6/AAeolZAAEx8Q.jpg

squexa posted...

So legitimate question. Only play Metacritic games above 85 for the rest of your life or only play Metacritic games below 70? There's a ton of games below 70 so you'd get a lot of bang for your buck.

I'm afraid this post shows this convo is completely over your head

All ways of curating what you play are bad. I've played plenty of games I thought looked great in gameplay videos that I turned out to hate. Likewise games from devs with great track records.

Even trying the games for yourself is a bad way of telling whether you'll like them, since there's lots of stuff that I thought was great at the beginning and disliked by the time I was finished with it (and vice versa, of course).

I know you're being a little sarcastic, but I'll never forget enthusiastically knocking out Dragon Age 2 over a 2-3 day period and then immediately after finishing going "wait a minute, that was fucking terrible".

Those are 2 of the best cases honestly. If you can detect that you don't like the game early, you can just stop playing it. Playing a game you don't like is worse, but what's really bad is missing out on a game you would've liked. Or a game that takes 2 hours to get great but you quit it already. Tunic was like that for me. I put it down for a year before getting back into it and basically playing it nonstop.

Speaking of aggregators I just found this is out due to this topic. Def gonna one of my fav games this year.
https://opencritic.com/game/15344/marble-it-up-ultra

78 for a god damn sphere and some ramps. That's equivalent to a 99 for a typical game.

Ocarina of Time is still #1 so metacritic checks out

foolm0r0n posted...

Speaking of aggregators I just found this is out due to this topic. Def gonna one of my fav games this year.
https://opencritic.com/game/15344/marble-it-up-ultra

78 for a god damn sphere and some ramps. That's equivalent to a 99 for a typical game.

https://youtu.be/brt1gCgVN_Y?si=iRnxXnrJIUT8hJYX

foolm0r0n posted...

I'm afraid this post shows this convo is completely over your head

I mean either you think Metacritic score is completely uncorrelated with how "good" a game is, in which case a game scoring in the 50s would have equal probability of being "good" as a game in the 90, so the collection of games scoring <70 Metacritic would be way better than those >85 due to sheer quantity. Or you think Metacritic score is actually positively correlated, in which case it's not illogical to use it as one of many factors used to curate games.

At the end of the day, it's literally just games. It's not some high culture thing. If you have fun and enjoy yourself, that's really all that matters.