The Critic's Plight

[vlad321]

o_O.Q said:

vlad321 said:

o_O.Q said:

vlad321 said:

You admit that you gave inFamous an 8.9 when it was glitchy. You talk of the good old days of reviewing, but I clearly remember games with bugs and other stuff not getting over an 8.5 or an 8. Newsflash, the score system goes from 1-10 not 6-10. Basically, practice what you preach.

@Machina
I blame you for your terrible SC2 score/review and gave it a near 9 despite Battle.net 2.0 being so terrible, lack of LAN, etc.

were infamous' glitches severe and had a massive negative impact on gameplay? were they frequent? or were they infrequent and minor?

You don't understand. Having any glitches at all should disqualify a game from being anywehre near the top 15% of games in a nicely distributed model. But good thing you are around to prove the second half of OP's post true.

for open world games minor glitches are almost always expected to be present in some form for example : games like elder scrolls 4, fallout, gta 4 etc all have had more severe glitches than any i've seen in infamous and are all rated higher

"But good thing you are around to prove the second half of OP's post true."

i understand that you should be critical of games for having these bugs and everything but games must also be held to the same standard this isn't about favouritism for a game or whatever... all i'm saying is if fallout or oblivion gets a higher score with more severe glitches then similar games that come after them must be held to the same standard

Whoa... it's like you JUST now figured out how broken the rating system is. Welcome to 4 years ago.