DonFerrari said:
RaptorChrist said:
@Don
Well said; I get where you're coming from. Games do seem to get higher scores than movies. But I think a lot of it has to do with things like RottenTomatoes giving a thumbs up versus thumbs down, rather than a concrete score. But yeah, it's hard to imagine a AAA game getting a 5 or 6.
@john
Six hours? I haven't looked into release times, but is this midnight around your area? Usually games come out at 11:00 p.m where I live; should I expect it sooner?
Edit: I live in CST, which puts me at 1:17 p.m. at the moment.
|
I do love to see some movies I love and have a very bad imdb score or rotten tomatoes.
FloatingWaffles said:
A game being playable, not broken, and running well (or at least decently) shouldn't be praiseworthy when that's supposed to be what is expected of a game. That's literally what the norm of any game should be, or I supposed sadly used to be now. We've hit a point where some companies have shit things up so badly in recent times that now it's seen as something special to just do the bare minimum and release a competent functional product. I see what your point is, I just wanted to mention that.
Gameplay is a huge factor, it's 99% of what you'll be doing in any game. If it is apparently so bad that it actively ruined their enjoyment of the game then why can't they review it that? There's also no guarantee that the story is "at least good for sure" just because someone has done good stuff in the past. You can have faith the story will be good but there isn't an actual guarantee.
And if they can't review it that according to you, then what is the lowest they can score it? If they hated it they still have to give it a 6/10 at minimum? 7/10? How much do they have to overlook at that point? Because a lot of reviews already look like they've done that given the amount that mention how the gameplay is tedious, not fun, etc but still gave it an 8/10 or 9/10.
|
You may think it isn't praiseworthy. But on your school having a minimum knowledge of the subject already gave you an average score as well. And your test wasn't 20 questions long with one worth 7 points with the others sum 3.
|
Well I should clarify, I don't mean to say that it isn't praiseworthy at all. Obviously a game coming out and running really well and not having any major issues is commendable and should be noted, especially in comparison to some shit other companies pull nowadays. So it can be praised for that.
I just mean in this case using that as a reason as for why it should still be fine if the rest of the game, whether it be gameplay or anything else, is subpar (or at least in some of these reviewers eyes) just seems like a weird thing to try to say imo. There are plenty of other games that come out and are competent in those regards but those games don't get a pass with their other issues as a result, but if we were to base it on "well they were competently made though so it's at least a 7/10" or some logic like that would just seem weird to me, like setting limits on what must be given even if someone has huge issues with the game.
