Onyxmeth said:
ultima said:
Onyxmeth said:
ultima said:
dsister44 said:
ultima said:
dsister44 said:
This should be in the official thread.
And this isn't going to change my mind one way or the other. I was going to buy it anyways remember Metacritic score=/= quality |
That's only true for super-hyped games. This game wasn't hyped at all, so it must be great to have such an amazing score.
|
No. It is true for all games
|
For most cases, Metascore is a very good indication of the overall quality of the game. Unfortunately reviewers buy into the hype and that's when the score doesn't really reflect the quality of the game. But seeing as this game wasn't hyped at all, we shouldn't have to worry about that.
|
Reviews are useless in this game's case. Here's what you need to know. "Is it the same game? No shitty port?". That's all. Everything else in this game was reviewed to death already. The game could have a 97, an 87, or a 37, and all that matters is whether they ported it correctly. We can assess the remainder based on the original reviews.
|
Yes, and the 97 implies that it was ported very well.
|
No it doesn't. Reading the review and seeing the words implying it was ported well is what tells you that it was ported well. You say the game isn't hyped and is getting a 97, but then explain why the originals, which were hyped to all hell have lower scores. Shouldn't it be the opposite since hype correlates to high scoring which we shouldn't bother reading?
|
The reviewers wouldn't give the game a high score if it weren't a good port. You don't need to read the review if you read the reviews for the original games.
Original games were not hyped to death, minor hype has no effect on the Metascore. It's massive amount of hype that has undesirable effects (GTAIV, Halo 3). Plus value gets factored into the score. You get two great games for $40.
