View Post

[DonFerrari]

yvanjean said:

DonFerrari said:

A half decent game (your call) really doesn't deserve any score above average. So 60 meta is about right. You wanting to give half decent a 7.5 really would be a score distortion, how would you differentiate a half decent, decent, average, good, great, excellent and epic? Would all be on a 0.5 difference?

@thread It is funny to see people that say score doesn't matter defending this game should have scored higher, also even funnier that on games that have achieved 90+ meta when others criticized the odd score of 40 they would defend that some people didn't agree that game was great but then here can't accept that most critics didn't like this game.

I said they took a half decent game and made it good by adding Terry Crews combine with solid gameplay and polish in term of performance.  This game keep getting score in the 40 or 50 which should be reserve to broken game. If you read the review they are punishing the game for not delivering on it's promise rather then rating base on what was the final product.  

After playing this game, I hope that we get a Crackdown 4 or Free DLC but this time focus on campaign that is centered around Terry Crews. 

 Instead of cancelling yet another failure development, Phil Spencer and co at Microsoft tried to salvage the work done so far and made a half decent game. Including Terry Crews to the game really help it stand out for what was a very mediocre effort help give character to the game.

 

This is what you said... not that they took a half decent, but that they made a half decent game. Terry Crews doesn't change the game one iota. It certainly can help promotion or some people enjoyment, but the game doesn't change because of he.

So again your evaluation of half decent doesn't deserve a 75 score.

Also I agree that a game shouldn't be evaluated on expectations, but on what it delivers. But matter of fact unless you think there is a conspiracy of reviewers it seems like they don't like what was delivered more than just taking points on their expectations. If we were discussing a 90+ game that deserve let's say 95 but lost some points in some reviews because the reviewer wanted stuff that is his like not what the game is about that would be a different discussion.

Could swear I remember a Metacritic thread where some people were defending that for game 70 is average/mediocre and other group defended that average would be 50 up to 60. VGC really lacks a consensus on what thresholds we separate broken, bad, regular, good, great, excellent, epic, etc.