God of War PS4 Review: Why is it so good?

God of War PS4 Review

Don't forget to follow us via Twitter or Facebook to be among the first to learn of new reviews and updates.

Patch Version:  -- 1.22

Once in a while, a computer game comes along that challenges our conceptions about the quality and standards a game should aspire to. Too often do I hear the term next gen or AAA and scoff whilst heavily being sceptical. After all, what do people even mean when they say next gen or AAA? To some, it is just breathtaking graphics.  But it's far more than that, so much more.  A stunningly graphic game is nothing if the gameplay is fickle and poorly implemented, which is why whenever I hear people making such a boast I tend to roll my eyes, because as gamers we deserve a lot more for our money than some of the garbage that gets released and classified as next gen and AAA and sold as such.

It's criminal, really, when you think about it. Sony and Microsoft were once the gatekeepers of quality, yet more often than not serve us what we are told is AAA, and charge AAA yet rarely do we experience AAA.  (Don't even get me started on the price of digital copies on release day compared to the price for a physical copy because that's an entirely different bag of worms)

In truth though, the fault, as it were, is no longer Sony and Microsofts.  No longer does the power solely reside within their grasp.

So whose fault is it, and why are games allowed to be released in states that are not fit for public consumption because they are a buggy mess, or worse, are not buggy but have as much depth to them as a toddler's swimming pool. In either case, considering a AAA price tag, value for money most of the time they are not.

The answer though is not always a simple one, but in most cases, the fault can be placed at the Publisher's feet and not the Developers.  You see, Publishers ask for the impossible.  They are like children in sweet shops, they want it all.  The thing they covert the most though is a smash hit AAA game on their books that can be churned out like clockwork.  And why shouldn't they?  It's a business after all and they are fronting the cash to allow development teams to even exist, so you can't really blame them.

However, what most publisher's fail to understand, is that for a game to be great, especially if it's a new I.P., is that it can't be rushed. It can't be made on a budget with a small team trying to meet ridicules deadlines or working overtime till they drop. You have to cultivate and iterate. No game is designed on paper and remains the same from the day of its conception, and frankly, if you believe that you are a naive fool!

Further to this is another problem. You see, developers are not stupid, they know what they are capable of achieving in the time frame that publishers often push for.  But if every developer told the truth out of the gate, AAA would be dead because no publisher would front the cash.

So what often happens, is that a developer will make a pitch to a publisher, win the contract, start making the game, only to later state that they need more time to get the game up to snuff.  Sometimes publishers will agree, sometimes they will decline and just release it in whatever state it is in, come what may.  (I'm sure you can think of a few games that fit into this category.)

But here's where it gets amusing.  In the cases where the publisher agrees to give more time, they often ask and demand for more content in return, more bang for their buck.  You'd think that is a good thing, right?  From a gamer's perspective, more content equals a better game. However, if the developers are telling the publisher they need more time to do what they have originally agreed to do, adding to the content with the project extension does not fix the problem, does it?

Another issues that publishers fail to realise, is that you can't just throw a massive external Q.A. team on to a game in the final few weeks and expect all the bugs to be found and logged.  And there are two simple reasons for this:

1: Most external Q.A. teams/companies are utter rubbish, and I mean absolutely garbage, you truly have no idea how bad they really are!  And what often is the case with most games, is that the developer's internal testing team will do all the heavy lifting with a team size that is so small it's laughable.  What is more is not only is the quality of the bugs that the internal team logs, better, they log far more than the external team do in the first place, and when you consider that external teams sometimes cost more than the internal team does, that in itself is a joke.  To be fair though, sometimes, (sometimes) the reason for this is that the internal teams get daily builds of the game to test, whereas external teams get a build that's already been picked clean, which I imagine is frustrating for them in all honesty, but this still doesn't excuse the small sea of external testing teams publisher's seem adamant they want to pay for instead of bulking up the internal team instead.

2: Even if every bug in the game was found and logged, if you don't give the development teams time to fix them, it's a total waste of time even logging them.  However, what often happens is that Q.A. will in fact log the majority of the issues that you as gamers will see, let alone all the issues you won't, only to witness 1000's of these bug reports they've painstakingly found and reproduced to be closed and marked as KS (known shippable) Why?  Well, take your pick: either they are considered too minor to fix, too dangerous to fix, or there's not enough time to fix, but in the end... it's all about time.

Don't get me wrong though, you could have the perfect development team, all the money and time in the world and still make a pitiful excuse for a AAA game if the direction and management are talentless hacks who let the studio procrastinate, iterating on aspects that should have been put to rest months prior.  Or worse, a development team being led by a singular vision that no one agrees with, or doesn't feel invested with, but are forced to plough on regardless.

But here's a secret I'll share with you: no development team wants to make a bad game.  No developer sits around a table thinking up ways to make a game shit.  It's actually heart-breaking seeing the frustration in studios that have had their hands tied by a word that to those in the industry will shudder at: Scope, which, in a nutshell, means they don't have enough time to do cool and interesting things that gamers will love.

So why do publishers do this? Why tie developer's hands by giving them impossible deadlines? 

In some cases, they have to because some studios will procrastinate as I've already mentioned, but in truth, it mostly boils down to a simple reason: and that is that the game has to be out on a specific date. Missing that release window could mean the game clashes with another similar or more popular game and lose millions in sales, which leads to the development studio going under and closing because the publisher won't fund a sequel or another game from them because it's too risky.

Though you should also know that development teams rarely earn a profit from the games they make.  It's the publisher's and the distribution companies that make the money.  Development teams don't see that cash.  Their reward in most cases is nothing more than still having a job after the game is released and the pride they feel having made it.

Ultimately though there are many reasons a game can fail, and it would be naive of me and also wrong to put the blame completely on publishers, but the most common reason for a game failing is not having enough time to make it. If the publishers don't grant it, or the developers don't manage it, the game will fail.

And it really does take time to make a good game, even if that game is a platform exclusive, (which means the development teams don't have to worry about spending time getting the game working on multiple platforms).  And time really does mean money in the games industry. It costs millions to pay a AAA gaming studio year in year out.  And it's extremely rare that a publisher is willing to pay a development team millions of pounds for years on end in the blind hope they will recoup that cost on release, especially for a new I.P. let alone the next game in a series if the first didn't do well.

But if this is the case, why do we occasionally see games like God of War?  Games that are truly AAA, games that truly are next gen in every sense of the word?

Initial Score after 59 hrs of play

It took five years to produce God of war, but that is still not a guarantee of quality. But God of War is everything and more.  It doesn't settle with an idea and leave it be   It keeps you guessing, rewards you well for every step and turn, and not just on the beaten path either.  It makes you think. Doesn't overly hold your hand. Doesn't recycle what other games have done before it and half arse it.

Not many games do this.  Not many development teams can afford to do this, let alone have the drive and focus or talent to do it, but most importantly the time to achieve it.

But I don't know of course, perhaps they got lucky with God of War, but can luck make a good game?  No, it can't.  How can it?

What is clear though, is that God of War has set a new bar, and like games such as Horizon Zero Dawn or Zelda on the Switch, God of War has shown what we as gamers should expect for our money when paying AAA prices on release.

God of War is truly an example of quality.  I knew going in that it was going to be something special by the buzz of other reviews and the chatter from gamers having played it already before I started to play it myself, but how special it truly is I could not have imagined.

Every facet is polished.  Every aspect clearly has been discussed, diagnosed and made better than it needed to be. In some cases, insanely so. Unbelievably so!

I've poured almost 60 hours into it, and at no point did I feel bored.  At no point did I see what was coming next. There are of course a few aspects that I didn't like, aspects that could have been better, but these are minute and so petty that to even mention them seems silly when you compare it to other games that have been released with the AAA badge and come nowhere close in terms of quality and content.

If you are still reading this and are familiar with my reviews, I normally describe and delve into all a game has to offer and write about it, but in this case, I see no need.  You simply only have to play it for five minutes to know you are in for a treat.

If you haven't played God of War yet, although it's admittedly different to what came before it, this isn't a bad thing and put simply you won't be disappointed by this new experience.  It's like Uncharted 4 and Tomb Raider had a baby, and let's be serious... can you honestly say you wouldn't want to play that?

What is clear though about God of War that publishers should heed, is that it takes time to make a game like this, but if you can, you should, and if you do, well... the reward comes not from the sales of that game, oh no, the reward comes from the sales of the next, and the next after that, because if you can make gamers trust you... they'll throw their money at you like you're a stripper on pole!

Found this review useful?  Why not share it using the below links.