By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheJimbo1234 on 24 March 2013
Edit Thread
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:

Metacritic and Gamerankings include most of the major magazines, you know?

Not seeing any of the offical PS2 UK mags in those scores....

I checked one game and found it: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/tony-hawks-pro-skater-3/critic-reviews

OPM U.S. - 100

What were some other official PS magazines?


Yes, one game which was very good. Now how many games are given such high scores?

Also I think this has proven how pedantic a lot of people are...*rollseyes*

 

 

Hynad said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
Hynad said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
AndrewWK said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
What AAA game does not get 85%+ nowadays?


http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/god-of-war-ascension

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-judgment

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dead-space-3


A:CM was bound to be a flop, DS 3 is just as dea, and the others are on the verge of being as high as I said. I reme,ber a time when getting 70% was rare, and nothing bar 1 game a year, if that, would get 90%+.

I don't. When was that?


PS2 era and before.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2000

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2001

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2002

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2003

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2004

and so on. I would go further back, but Metacritic only goes back to 2000.

Here's '99 on Gamerankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1999&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'98: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1998&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'97: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1997&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

You get the picture


So it is websites that are the problem. Back then I bought magazines as websites looked utter crap and the internet was dire, and they never gave such scores.

But is this a surprise? One you need a good CV for, the other you need a neckbeard and a basement for.


That's bull. All the mags I have from back then, and I have quite a few, don't nearly fit with your foggy(and/or created) memory of that era.


We what mags, console, counrty etc etc? To just say "NAH" is a bit silly.

No. What is silly is saying websites are from basement neckbearded amateurs, while in truth, most current websites started by being magazines in the 90s/late 80s. You said "they never gave such scores". I have magazines from the US, UK, Germany and even Japan. And they reviewed games with the same kind of score as right now. Some reviewers were harsher than others, the same as right now. 

So yeah. NAH! Your memory is either selective, or completely off the mark.

Ever seen these guys on the websites do videos? Most are fat neckbeards who have only seen a girl naked on the internet.