WereKitten said:
Rainbird said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Halo Wars 83% is blasphemy. It is one of the best games this gen for me. Star Ocean 79%... Okay I haven't played it yet but the graphics and the battle system looked great.
I really think reviewers are not able to review a game for what it is. Halo Wars for example is a RTS on a console and I really don't see what could have done different to make it even better. It is a great game, even though the reviewer doesn't like RTS on a console. What I am trying to say is, Ensemble Studios had no chance to create a AAA game, because they made a RTS. They did an insane job, but it didn't help, because the game is what it is.
Same for Star Ocean. I am not saying this game is AAA, because I can't judge it right now, but I knew the very first day, this game won't get good reviews. It is a JRPG without the words "Final" or "Fantasy" in it.
|
At the end of the day, Halo Wars is still an RTS, and any RTS will always be very hard to create in terms of gameplay depth on a console, and the platform a game is on, can be very decisive for the gameplay, RTSs on consoles as a clear point.
Halo Wars could have been on the PC, Halo Wars could have had deeper gameplay, but is limited by the platform.
There is a reason few RTSs do well on consoles, particularly because there are better RTSs available on another platform, PC.
And the last AAA Final Fantasy game was on the PSOne according to metacritic 
EDIT: No wait, there was one on the GameBoy Advance!
|
Uhm? FF X and XII are both 92 on metacritic
As for RE5 scoring higher on PS3 than X360, it's not like they are saying that it is the better version explicitely, it's just different sets of review bringing statistical variance. That's why I laugh when I see stuff like "ah-ha, my X game scored 94 while yur Y game scored 91 on metacritic, you pwned" or "X game only got metacritic 89, it aint AAAA it sux!1!".
Basically metacritic is an average, but every average comes with an error range.
|
