And the new highest selling PS3 exclusive is! Yes you guessed it GT5!

[DonFerrari]

Scoobes said:

fighter said:

Facts :

Metas are the most reliable indication of a game's quality. It has its' flaws but there is simply no better indicator than it. It is the aggregation of professional reviews, what else ?

GT5 is quality-wise the declining point of a series, metas might have been lowered due to the difference between the expected and the delivered, but in all honesty, the PS3 crowd has to choose :

Either uberhyping increases metas (due to the rolling tsunami of marketing versus little underpowered journalists) or uberhyping games hurt the sales (due to this very same difference between the expected and the delivered and the egocentric reviewer who decides the game must be punished).

But it certainly cannot be both - and it certainly cannot systematically be the one which better suits PS3's interests - typical example of this double standard : Halo's meta has been hightened due to over-hype / GT5's has been lowered due to over-hype)

And please oh please the "you have to play it to understand the value of a game" is the worst argument ever. Every-single bad game has had a fan (- maybe not the really bad onees as the ET games in the early 80's, although who knows ?), a fab of a bad game who would tell you it's great, especially at about 75% of its' completion.

 

The italics kinda destroys the metacritic argument. How professional are these reviews? The state of video games "journalism" is a joke at best. Most reviewers and writers in the industry are barely above the standard one finds in forums such as these.

I most certainly played a lot more than those reviewers in the games I have... most of them are platinated or i couldn't bother to end 3 times a game i didn't liked tooo much... but never would give a full review playing less than 10 hours...

So we as gamers as more professional (by a huge margin) than any analyst and reviewer, and most knows games better than them.

@player: And about having a better quality measuring... ethomaz and CGI-quality have geniously gave one, gamers opinion as the game is niche and sells a lot, the people playing it more usual praise than bash. And as you like reviewers too much have you bothered to read them? because as anyone here that played we also read the reviews (below the grades, that hard part to understand, when they write with letters) and they sumarize it well: "best simulator in any console to date" so don't be fouled or try to foul anyone, the Metacritic here isn't the best way to valuate a game.

To finish about Metacritic i use it just to gauge the range of games I don't know but want to play - but can't afford to purchase or rent them all (rent in Brazil is BS) - so a game bellow 75 that i never played a prequel i won't bother paying more than 5~10 bucks... but a game 80 i can pay 20 bucks to play... and for publishers i know that just put the cream the la cream out there (Naughty Dog i.e.) i can buy a new IP without fear or metascore... And altough i never played Zelda i can understand it being at top in Meta, but couldn't care less playing any GTA no matter how high the Meta.