Tachikoma said:
tbone51 said:
Captain_Tom said: Because it's a better game? |
But is it? Hmmmmm...... Maybe, just maybe!
|
Multiple reviewers clearly think so, and *looks at the sales*, yep, so does the public.
|
Lmao, are you really comparing the sales of an exclusive game (often on a smaller userbase than even one of the other consoles) with a multiplat game that has a huge advertisement budget to boot?
As for reviewers thinking it's better, explain me this:
Why is Pokémon Alpha Saphire and Omega Ruby rated so much lower than the original versions?
- It has a bigger graphical overhaul than The Last of Us and GTA V on the PS4/XBONE
- It has actually new content added: Pokénav features, soar ability (fly everywhere you want to and discover new islands and legendary Pokémon), new mega evolutions, the Delta episode, some cities are even redesigned completely and much more.
- The game isn't fucking one year old at the time of the remaster.
Or explain me this:
Why on earth does New Super Mario Bros. U have a higher metacritic score than Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze? Looking at the user score, people clearly don't believe that New Super Mario Bros. U is better, so your logic doesn't fly.
Ergo, metacritic has its uses, but also many flaws. Just because a game scores higher doesn't mean it's automatically better. There are more factors that come into play. Like how some games are heavily overrated (GTA, The Last of Us, Ocarina of Time, etc).
I quit playing GTA games after Vice City. I loved both GTA3 and Vice City, but the games just become too repetitive and they sure as hell aren't going to win any awards for story telling. Or they shouldn't anyway... The missions weren't that great.