Quantcast
Gears of War - Metacritic (currently 85)

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Gears of War - Metacritic (currently 85)

Bristow9091 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Yes. Gears 5 is on Game Pass for PC! Goes live tomorrow (or midnight tonight, depending on where you are). If you have Game Pass Ultimate, you can already play it.

trasharmdsister12 said:

It is being added to GamePass for PC. I have GamePass Ultimate and have been playing it on PC for a few days since Ultimate subscribers got access to the game 4 days prior to release. The campaign in 5 is better than 4 from what I've played so far.

Oh snap, looks like I'm getting Game Pass boys! :D

This is going to be very interesting to watch over the next couple of years - big games coming to Gamepass day one drives subscriptions, probably a whole lot.  But, will those people continue to subscribe after they're finished with Gears, or will they lapse and re-up when Halo hits next year?  That's really the big question mark and challenge for all subscription services that offer short terms options.  

For my part, I took advangage of the $1 upgrade deal.  My XBL sub ran out in July.  So, I purchased 3 more years of XBL for about $160, then upgraded to Ultimate for $1.  So, I'm at about $4.50 per month for Gamepass for the next three years.  That made it a no-brainer.  I did this in anticipation of games like Halo and Forza Horizon that I'll want to play going forward.  The back catalog helps, of course.  But, really, that wasn't a big factor for me.  It was the future value proposition.  At $4.50 month, the math is clear.  At $10-$15, it would be a much harder call.  



Around the Network
VAMatt said:
Bristow9091 said:

Oh snap, looks like I'm getting Game Pass boys! :D

This is going to be very interesting to watch over the next couple of years - big games coming to Gamepass day one drives subscriptions, probably a whole lot.  But, will those people continue to subscribe after they're finished with Gears, or will they lapse and re-up when Halo hits next year?  That's really the big question mark and challenge for all subscription services that offer short terms options.  

For my part, I took advangage of the $1 upgrade deal.  My XBL sub ran out in July.  So, I purchased 3 more years of XBL for about $160, then upgraded to Ultimate for $1.  So, I'm at about $4.50 per month for Gamepass for the next three years.  That made it a no-brainer.  I did this in anticipation of games like Halo and Forza Horizon that I'll want to play going forward.  The back catalog helps, of course.  But, really, that wasn't a big factor for me.  It was the future value proposition.  At $4.50 month, the math is clear.  At $10-$15, it would be a much harder call.  

The only way the business model can work is basically with people signing for one game and seeing the price not being high and keep sub or even forget to cancel.If people just sign for the month the big game they want releases and basically have the sig 1-3 months a year they would be making much less money than the direct sales.

Time will tell what balance they may find.



DonFerrari said:
Pemalite said:

Sea of thieves deserved it's score, it was a pretty bare-bones and average game on release, even if it's premise was relatively unique.

But you are right, a games score should be reflected against games releasing around the same time as well... But I don't recall any big AAA releases in this current release window that would drag down Gears of War 5.

Gears 5 is certainly a superior title over Gears of War 4 in every regard, so it still baffles the mind that it's score doesn't reflect that.

Well it isn't just in the same timeframe but they also compare to the best games that released within the same gen.

We have seem many great games score within 85-90 even though we personally though it deserved 95, and usually it have to do with reviewers not evaluating what the game is and have, but what they wanted to be, what it doesn't have (even if the dev didn't want to put it and fans don't care) and details or mechanics other games have used.

If you force your memory to the start of the generation you'll see cases of games that were much better than last gen counterparts but received lower scores.

Anyway at least 85 is a pretty good score, but I'll trust you on that it should have been higher based on your impressions of the game.

Well, Gears of War 4 released in the same generation as Gears of War 5, so Gears of War 5's score should be reflected against that... It doesn't need to be a 95, it just needs a score higher than Gears of War 4.
If we were comparing it against a 7th gen Gears of War title, then that is another issue entirely.

Either way, it doesn't really matter, anyone who enjoys Gears will pick this game up, those who don't, probably won't grab a copy, irrespective of a couple of irrelevant metacritic points.

My issue is just the consistency of review scores, irrespective of platform or game.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

VAMatt said:

This is going to be very interesting to watch over the next couple of years - big games coming to Gamepass day one drives subscriptions, probably a whole lot.  But, will those people continue to subscribe after they're finished with Gears, or will they lapse and re-up when Halo hits next year?  That's really the big question mark and challenge for all subscription services that offer short terms options.  

For my part, I took advangage of the $1 upgrade deal.  My XBL sub ran out in July.  So, I purchased 3 more years of XBL for about $160, then upgraded to Ultimate for $1.  So, I'm at about $4.50 per month for Gamepass for the next three years.  That made it a no-brainer.  I did this in anticipation of games like Halo and Forza Horizon that I'll want to play going forward.  The back catalog helps, of course.  But, really, that wasn't a big factor for me.  It was the future value proposition.  At $4.50 month, the math is clear.  At $10-$15, it would be a much harder call.  

Thats why games like Gears and Halo offer massive multiplayer options because multiplayer games tend to hang around alot longer and increases the games life spans.

So i wouldnt say Gears, Halo and lets add Forza in there as well as short term options. They have huge MP features where gamers will stick around for.

Its why i prefer games with these options because once i finish the campaigns i tend to try out MP modes with my friends.



Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

Well it isn't just in the same timeframe but they also compare to the best games that released within the same gen.

We have seem many great games score within 85-90 even though we personally though it deserved 95, and usually it have to do with reviewers not evaluating what the game is and have, but what they wanted to be, what it doesn't have (even if the dev didn't want to put it and fans don't care) and details or mechanics other games have used.

If you force your memory to the start of the generation you'll see cases of games that were much better than last gen counterparts but received lower scores.

Anyway at least 85 is a pretty good score, but I'll trust you on that it should have been higher based on your impressions of the game.

Well, Gears of War 4 released in the same generation as Gears of War 5, so Gears of War 5's score should be reflected against that... It doesn't need to be a 95, it just needs a score higher than Gears of War 4.
If we were comparing it against a 7th gen Gears of War title, then that is another issue entirely.

Either way, it doesn't really matter, anyone who enjoys Gears will pick this game up, those who don't, probably won't grab a copy, irrespective of a couple of irrelevant metacritic points.

My issue is just the consistency of review scores, irrespective of platform or game.


High scores may bring some additional sales, but being on gamerpass it is likely that anyone not sure if they will like or want to buy may at least try a short sub to test the game, so I agree there isn't much issue on the 85 itself (and also agree that a better game should have a higher score, but to many times that isn't true on the reviews).

And about the consistency, professionalism, objectivity, etc of reviewers that is a discussion almost all metacritic threads have and usually most agree reviewers do a poor job.



Around the Network

Currently 85... thread says 86.



JRPGfan said:
Currently 85... thread says 86.

When I started the thread it was 86. Thanks for call.



And for the complains of Gears 5 being a better game than Gears 4 and should have a better score, it still is 1 point above. Also just remember that even though the publication is the same it is likely that the review was made by different people so the fact the reviewer think the game is better the score may be lower (because it wasn't his score on the previous game).



DonFerrari said:
And for the complains of Gears 5 being a better game than Gears 4 and should have a better score, it still is 1 point above. Also just remember that even though the publication is the same it is likely that the review was made by different people so the fact the reviewer think the game is better the score may be lower (because it wasn't his score on the previous game).

Yes, most big publications have different reviewers. I think it is just a bit shocking as Gears 5 is seen as one of Microsoft's big guns and it delivers the goods as far the series goes. It seems this gen in particular there has been a lot of scrutiny over Metacritic/Gameranking scores for big titles and exclusives.  Let's remember HZD which ranked in the 80s though plenty of people loved it (myself included), very few games get to that mid 90s range. I still value Metacritic ....rarely has a game in the 90s range not turned out to be special. So I usually jump in blindfolded of a game gets those scores.



this is really a great game. lots of fun, first game I've enjoyed on xbox in awile.



steve