goforgold said:
that's actually a perfect example of how sad this generation is. who are you to tell anybody what they like is a bad thing. have you ever stopped to wonder, maybe I find this boring because this is not my type of game and it wasn't made for me??? what about the people that would possibly LOVE farm simulators???? screw them right because I think it's boring. And there goes the death of true variety. This makes me a very sad gamer. there used to be tons of games, that provided tons of different experiences, and it was OUR choice in what we wanted to play, and the simple fact that we had a choice because there were so many choices. No one cared if a game sold 10 million or 10 units as long as the people who brought the game loved it and the developers supported it. how many game have we passed up because the reviewer shafted it for being or not being something it never wanted to be. How many developers had to close up shop because they didn't make a mass market game. how many gamers deprived themselves from games that they probably would have loved had they given those games a chance and not focused on how different it is from that other mass market game, how many....... *sigh* but what's even funny is how you talk about GT's fanbase as if it's small, no GT has ever sold under 9 million units. and GT5 is no different a experience for those gamers. as it stands now, Inside Sim Racing is probably the only review I would trust as the most accurate. they did a 50 minute PART ONE review with there next part coming out next year. |
Have I ever stopped to wonder about a game? Yeah I have. I can easily recognise flawed but fun in comparison to flawless but no good for me. I am however under no illusion or expectation that others do the same considering once you get into a meta range of review scores the variety of personality and review style comes into play whether it is good or bad for the overall score a game gets. However noone in their right mind ought to look at metacritic as a final judge as to whether or not it is worth shelling out $60 for a title given that variance. It is however good to look for titles which may be worth a 2nd look or a first look based off overall review impressions.
What you're seeing with games is a split between the core/niche buyer and the mainstream. It is the same with movies, the mainstream wait until they are told about a game and the core/niche buyer will actively seek out content which interests them. However the fundamental problem with this is that a niche/core game costs about as much to make as a mainstream game or at best a 5:1 ratio whereas in the movie industry the cost difference can easily exceed 100:1 between a niche movie and an expensive blockbuster. It is both a sad reality of the cost structure of the games industry and a negative black mark on the core/niche buyers whom place high content quality expectations on the media assets of games. If people want to see a return of a lot of niche games then they had better be supportive of online download services which is the only real future for niche/core titles as the retail boxed market share is evaporating.
To reiterate what I said about GT5, I wasn't talking about the 9M buyers total. I was talking about the 9M mainstream buyers whom just want a racing game, mess around with the cars and may not even finish 1/4 of all the available races. The metacritic represented the views of those people quite well and as a whole metacritic represents a more mainstream view of a game. Specific sites which cater to the other 1M or 10% of the population who wanted the simulator aspects still cater to those but it is unlikely that the opinion of the 10% would ever crowd out the opinions of the 90%. You need to qualify yourself before you can relate your opinions to people with the same values in a relevant way.
Tease.
