Sorry but I'm pissed off, how are these idiotic "journalists" even allowed to score a game 4/10 if game is playable, not broken, looks good and runs at stable framerate, beautiful soundtrack, story that is at least good for sure, because its Kojima, cutscenes look awesome... sure you might not like the gameplay too much, but 4/10? Scores below 5 should only be used for broken, shitty games like WWE 2K20 wtf... really dissappinted with Giant Bomb and they lowered meta score to below Gears 5...
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.Last edited by FloatingWaffles - on 07 November 2019