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

It's not even relevant when comparing games of the same genre because of unfair biases.

Is LIttle Big Planet 3 really that much worse than Little Big Planet 2? Somehow I doubt it. 

Little big planets always had some average platforming gameplay hidden behind the level creators. IMO up until now it's received inflated scores because of how good the creation content has been. At this point I feel reviewers aren't wowed by the creation tools for the 5th time, couple that with them being harsher in general with scores and id assume thats why the third one has such a lowered socre.

However im yet to find anyone who really enjoyed GTA4 and thats meta is off the charts, so yeah, it can be difficult to take a meta as gospel.

In regards to is LBP 3 worse than LBP 2, the answer is no. It doesn't really matter if an individual finds the platforming average, the franchise (and games) have all been good at what they set out to achieve. LBP 3 fine tunes everything wrong with the past games (albeit, with a bug here or there, something the series has always had to suffer from, to a degree, given everything available). But my opinions of each game is also irrelevant.

What's wrong with reviews today are not the reviews themselves (evident by the fact that most reviewers agree that LBP 3 is the best in the series), but because everyone chases numbers instead. I can call a game crap, but give it a 9, while calling another game excellent and then give it a 6. At the end of the day, my words mean zilch, because the numeric score will overshadow them. That is what's wrong with modern day reviews.

I've said this since the end of the 6th generation, they need to go back to how they were during the Atari 2600/NES days (yep, I'm old enough to remember that). Back then, it was word of mouth, not whether a game got a 7 or a 9.

Reviewers are inconsistant and unreliable. It's a shame that LBP3 has had such lower scores. It certainly deserves much better. And if reviewers were consistant, they'd give much better scores to it.

But I'm not againts numbers. They are the objective part of it. If I say game A is excelent and game B is superb, we don't know which one is better, nor what exactly that "excelent"/"superb" means. But if I give a 9 and a 10, then you know. The problem is not the numbers. The problem is the inability of reviewers to use them.

I find the correlation between metascore and the true value of games quite low. For me, the best rating system I know is that of IMDB. You have thousands of people voting (not just tens of critics), those people have a knowledge about movies above the average and their votes are weighted. I find the correlation between that score and the evaluation I do on the movie quite high.