Destiny Review Thread - 77 meta

[bananaking21]

celador said:

bananaking21 said:

celador said:

bananaking21 said:

if you are talking about quarter to three, then yeah, those whores are nothing but click baiting bitches. i have NO idea how metacritic even takes their scores. 

Infamous two stars.  Super Mario 3D World three stars.  Yup

I think I am right in saying that Metacritic weight publications differently depending on some criteria.  I would imagine that Quarter to Three are at the bottom of the pile in that respect

they still use them as a publication, which is shit. i once posted on article here written by a site that says a 1080p update might come to the xb1. that right now xb1 just has a 720p and 4k output, but a 1080p might be coming, which will put it in a position to best the ps4 which has just 1080p and 720p, but no 4k, which also might come into an update. but of course, that we should take this with a grain of salt, because its just a rumor. 

metacritic takes that websites review score. which is laughable. metacritic is a shitty way to base a quality of a product. 

Lol, that's incredible.

As for metacritic, I have mixed feelings about it.  I think it is good on the lower level scores, as in if a game gets crap reviews across the board and has a meta of 45 I know there is no reason to bother with it.  The higher the score goes the more murky it becomes, and you have to use your own judgement more.  

it generally gives an idea about how a lot of people are seeing the game. but saying an 85 meta scrore game is better than an 80 is wrong IMO. 

there is also a problem with reviewers. they always hide behind the " its just an opinion" line when ever they get any form of slack. and thus they have no form of objectivity when it comes to games. if a game is very niche, and targeted at a small portion of gamers, then most likely it will get shit reviews, because there are hunders of reviewers, and chances are, most of them wont be from the target audience the devs created the game for. the reviewers wont like the game, and give it shit scores, even though it might be very good at what its trying to be. ill use to the moon as an example.

IGN 75 score. "The story is good enough to recommend this game despite its relatively weak gameplay". well, fuck you IGN, To The Moon has very little focus on gameplay, in fact, its all about story. the game isnt trying to be a gameplay masterpiece, but IGN still takes away points because.. hey, i want every game to be what i want, not what its trying to be.

Thunderbolt 50 score "If you're into having your tears tugged at, this will definitely be a change from nights spent curling up on the couch spectating those romance flicks that no one else gets. If you're someone who winds up stuck with the aforementioned individual, originally promised beer and tricked into the awkward Kleenex duty, no guilt will be harbored from missing out." 

well a megafuck you thunderbolt. you basically say the game is great at what it sets out to be, but if you were promised a beer and a dude bro time, you will be dissapointed. well, you fucktards nobody promised that. they literally smited the games score because it wasnt what they wanted it to be, even though they say its great at what its trying to be. 

 

ill just give those examples, but my point stands, the game i thought about first was to the moon, and i never read these reviews before, but i knew To The Moon is a game that would have examples of what i was saying. if you havent played to the moon, its basically a 2d game in retro graphics that tells a love story. and its an awesome game. 

Metacritic is a joke, yeah, its cool when a game you are hyped for gets high scores, because if a lot of people like it, chances are you will. but if a game doesnt get high scores, doesnt mean its shit.