By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Samus Aran on 22 November 2014
Edit Thread
Tachikoma said:
Samus Aran said:

Lmao, are you really comparing the sales of an exclusive game (often on a smaller userbase than even one of the other consoles) with a multiplat game that has a huge advertisement budget to boot?

As for reviewers thinking it's better, explain me this:

Why is Pokémon Alpha Saphire and Omega Ruby rated so much lower than the original versions?

- It has a bigger graphical overhaul than The Last of Us and GTA V on the PS4/XBONE

- It has actually new content added: Pokénav features, soar ability (fly everywhere you want to and discover new islands and legendary Pokémon), new mega evolutions, the Delta episode, some cities are even redesigned completely and much more.

- The game isn't fucking one year old at the time of the remaster.

Or explain me this:

Why on earth does New Super Mario Bros. U have a higher metacritic score than Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze? Looking at the user score, people clearly don't believe that New Super Mario Bros. U is better, so your logic doesn't fly.

Ergo, metacritic has its uses, but also many flaws. Just because a game scores higher doesn't mean it's automatically better. There are more factors that come into play. Like how some games are heavily overrated (GTA, The Last of Us, Ocarina of Time, etc).

I quit playing GTA games after Vice City. I loved both GTA3 and Vice City, but the games just become too repetitive and they sure as hell aren't going to win any awards for story telling. Or they shouldn't anyway... The missions weren't that great.

It scored higher because it's seen as a better game, by more people, simply as that, you disagreeing, or other people disagreeing doesnt change that, it just means that some people think SBB4 is better, but more people think GTAV is better, remaster or not.

Why on earth does New Super Mario Bros. U have a higher metacritic score than Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze? Looking at the user score, people clearly don't believe that New Super Mario Bros. U is better, so your logic doesn't fly.

Metacritic userscore average? are you serious right now?

Ergo, metacritic has its uses, but also many flaws. Just because a game scores higher doesn't mean it's automatically better. There are more factors that come into play. Like how some games are heavily overrated (GTA, The Last of Us, Ocarina of Time, etc).

Publication aggregation produces an average across the major outlets, if that score is higher, then by sheer logic alone, the result is simply that more reviewers scored the game higher. you agreeing with them or not makes no difference.

I quit playing GTA games after Vice City. I loved both GTA3 and Vice City, but the games just become too repetitive and they sure as hell aren't going to win any awards for story telling. Or they shouldn't anyway... The missions weren't that great.

You quit playing and yet you feel in the position to comment on their story?, I never played Zelda : Link to the past, how much do you think my opinion of it's storyline would be in any way valid?

Honestly, so many peoples pride has been obviously stung by this, it's actually quite pittiful, if you think SBB4 is a better game, more power to you, but in general, the gaming media finds GTAV to be the better game, get over it.

Lmao, your arguments are beyond stupid.

First of all, metacritic user scores for Nintendo games are often very accurate (the average of them I mean). Second of all, did you even read anything in this thread? It's not about whether or not GTA is a better game or not than SSB, it's about remakes of one year old games scoring higher. 

Third of all, did you read some of these metacritic "professional" reviews? Some of them are more laughable than the user reviews! Hence why there's currently a popular meme in existence about games having too much water. 

And story in a Zelda game? Have you ever even played a single Zelda game? No one cares about the story, it's practically non-existant. There's a thing called watching/reading reviews and let's plays of games. I don't need to have played GTA V to know what the story is about. Just like I don't need to have played Sonic 06 to know how horrible that story is (although GTA V is far better than that train wreck of a story lol).

Clearly the people actually playing DK: TF enjoyed it more than the critics, so what does that tell you about these so called "professional" reviews who's opinion you seem to think are facts? Just because a game has a higher score on metacritic doesn't mean the gaming community thinks  the same. When the difference is as small as 2-3% it matters even less. Game critics are the minority here, so why value them so much? I have yet to see a gamer on the internet or in person claim they thought New Super Mario Bros. U was better than DK: TF. The vast majority of those who played both games prefer DK:TF. It has better graphics, better soundtrack, more variety and better level designs, better co-op, more secrets to find, more easter eggs, etc  

There's a huge difference between what critics think of a game and what the average gaming community thinks of something. Critics can be bought off as well which reflects a lot of metacritic review scores. 

I don't care if people think GTA V is better than SSB4, that's a perfectly ok opinion to have. And since I haven't played both games how can I comment on it? What I find ridiculous is a one year old remake getting such high reviews. Why on earth would I want a remake of Super Mario 3D World for example? The game came out a year ago.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan