Quantcast
Spiderman PS4 Review Thread - Currently 87 Metacritic (97 Reviews)

Forums - Sony Discussion - Spiderman PS4 Review Thread - Currently 87 Metacritic (97 Reviews)

What will be the final Metacritic score Average?

>94 14 9.66%
 
90-94 48 33.10%
 
85-89 68 46.90%
 
80-84 13 8.97%
 
75-79 0 0.00%
 
70-74 2 1.38%
 
<70 0 0.00%
 
Total:145
PwerlvlAmy said:
I think people just need to accept that not all game reviewers think the game is the best ever and that some of them are going to disagree and give it a lower score. Not everything can be 9's and 10's and just because it doesn't match the score you personally give it,does not negate that reviewers score that put it lower. 87 is a great score and shouldn't be frowned upon at all. Everyone go out and buy the game, regardless of any reviews



                                                                                                                                            

Around the Network
deskpro2k3 said:
Similar words but the scores is all over the place. This is bullshit.

"Marvel’s Spider-Man is the best game you will play this year" - 100
DarkStation

"This feels like the most authentic Spider-Man game" - 90
The Daily Dot

"best Spider-Man game to date" - 80
We Got This Covered

"The best Spider-Man game ever made" - 70
Metro GameCentral

"This game shows tremendous love for all things Spider-Man" - 60
Guardian

Seems ridiculous that they can think the best game ever made deserves a 70 unless they think everything else is trash.. and that all the love for spider deserves a 60 do they hate it?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
deskpro2k3 said:
Similar words but the scores is all over the place. This is bullshit.

"Marvel’s Spider-Man is the best game you will play this year" - 100
DarkStation

"This feels like the most authentic Spider-Man game" - 90
The Daily Dot

"best Spider-Man game to date" - 80
We Got This Covered

"The best Spider-Man game ever made" - 70
Metro GameCentral

"This game shows tremendous love for all things Spider-Man" - 60
Guardian

Seems ridiculous that they can think the best game ever made deserves a 70 unless they think everything else is trash.. and that all the love for spider deserves a 60 do they hate it?

When someone reviews a game at the Guardian they have to give it either 1 Star, 2 Stars, 3 Stars, 4 Stars, or 5 Stars. If you told that paper's editor that there was such a thing as a score of 3.5 Stars, or 4.5 Stars his head would explode. 

PwerlvlAmy said: 
I think people just need to accept that not all game reviewers think the game is the best ever and that some of them are going to disagree and give it a lower score. Not everything can be 9's and 10's and just because it doesn't match the score you personally give it,does not negate that reviewers score that put it lower. 87 is a great score and shouldn't be frowned upon at all. Everyone go out and buy the game, regardless of any reviews

I can live with a 70 or 80. That's fine. Hell, I can live with a 60, a 50, or a 01. So long as said reviewer isn't a whopping 25 points away from the general consensus of the game. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 04 September 2018

Cerebralbore101 said:
DonFerrari said:

Seems ridiculous that they can think the best game ever made deserves a 70 unless they think everything else is trash.. and that all the love for spider deserves a 60 do they hate it?

When someone reviews a game at the Guardian they have to give it either 1 Star, 2 Stars, 3 Stars, 4 Stars, or 5 Stars. If you told that paper's editor that there was such a thing as a score of 3.5 Stars, or 4.5 Stars his head would explode. 

Then give it a 4 star if it really gives that much love.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Looks like this game is merely great, rather than amazing



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network

Wait.... So this is a bad game now cause its not in the 90s?

And what did Batman sell that this game supposedly can't outsell?



DonFerrari said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

When someone reviews a game at the Guardian they have to give it either 1 Star, 2 Stars, 3 Stars, 4 Stars, or 5 Stars. If you told that paper's editor that there was such a thing as a score of 3.5 Stars, or 4.5 Stars his head would explode. 

Then give it a 4 star if it really gives that much love.

Not to take any sides, but 3 out of 5 in the  "good" in the 5 stars system, whereas when it's translated into percentage it's 60%, which is "mediocre to terrible". If this same reviewer used the percentage system, I bet he would score above 70 at least, probably in the 75-80 range.

Therfore, I don't think metacritic should accept scores that are given on a 10 point scale or lower. For example, Gamespot uses the 10 point scale (1,2,3,4, to 10,....no decimals), and if some thinks the game is deserving of, lets say, 8.5, the reviewer is forced to round to to an 8 or round up 9, higher or lower than what the reviewer actually thinks of the game.

IMO metacritic should take any reviews under the 20-point scale (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, to 10, counting by 0.5), and encourage review sites to use the 100 point scale (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, like IGN).



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

I will be excited to see if this can get me to like Spider-Man as someone who finds most super heroes conceptually boring.

An 87 is an incredibly big score and while there were a lot of people overhyping it it's no big deal (I think in any post Arkham world this is a pretty reasonable score).



Looks like its setting around 87-88. My prediction was right.



An 87 is a great score. That's a great foundation to start off for a series. Once Insomniac irons out the kinks with mission design, the sequel could potentially be in the 90s. It'll probably outsell Arkham Knight on the PS4 and might get over 8 million lifetime like Horizon. Not a bad start for a new franchise.