What would you Rate the PS4 Launch Lineup?

[STRYKIE]

Michael-5 said:

outlawauron said:

Michael-5 said:

I feel scores are over-inflated nowadays, while most of these games are scoring 70-80, they deserve 60-70.

With that said, I voted decent. Sega Dreamcast, Gamecube, X-Box 1, and Wii had a better line-up. I think a good launch lineup needs at least 1 much have title, and PS4/XBO lack that. Dreamcast had Sonic Adventure, Cube had Pikmin/Luigi's Mansion, and Melee followed 2 weeks later, XB1 had Halo, PGR, and Dead or Alive 3, among others, and Wii had Zelda/Wii Sports

Be specific.

I think Battlefield, Killzone, Assassin's Creed and pretty well every big name game in the launch line up is over rated. Not just for PS4, but in general I feel high budget games never get the scores they really deserve because they fund gaming websites with ads.

Need for Speed especially, no NFS game deserves a score above 75/100, except maybe the original Most Wanted.

I feel Knack got the only honest score, and that's a 60.

----

So why I say PS4 is average is because there is no gem in the lineup. N64 for instance only had 2-3 games in the launch lineup, but Super Mario 64 was a game people bought up until the console died, it was awesome. Twilight Princess for Wii was much the same, and I gave other examples above.

A launch is suppose to have at least 1 game which justifies why someone developed a console. Killzone and 7/8th gen multiplats don't do this, they just give you reason to play a game in 1080p. Wii Sports and Super Mario 64 on the other hand, justified a new console, you could not play a game like that in any way on the Gamecube/SNES.

Not necessarily, the Dreamcast's talking points at launch were an arcade port, and a cancelled Saturn game.