By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
yvanjean on 20 February 2019
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
yvanjean said:

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.

That's the main problem there no standard for rating. To some people a 4/10 doesn't mean it's broken/awful game. 

We already talk about this in a previous thread but for Metacritic they rank game in three categories:
Positive 75-100
Mixed  50-74
Negative 0-50

Personally for me:
9.0+ Masterpiece
8.0-8.5 Great game
7- 7.5 Good game
6.0-6.5 Bad Game
anything under 6 is Broken or Awful game

There are many issues with ranking this game, should you consider the price? I don't think a bad Multiplayer that can be ignored should lower the score of the overall game review. If you do consider the price you must also consider the Gamepass.

Full retail price - Campaign and MP - I would rate this game a 6.
If you ignore the price entirely and rate the package I would rate this game 7.5
Gamepass  - I would rate this game a 8