Brilliant game journalism

[DonFerrari]

PenguinZ said:

DonFerrari said:

PenguinZ said:

His explanation in the comments section of the first article defending the MCC score is worth reading too... The whole MCC is a complete mess, so I'm not sure about his justifications...

Please post it.

"Our review of MCC made it very clear that matchmaking wasn't working, and that those who wanted the game specifically for multiplayer would be disappointed. After talking it over with other editors, I decided that the collection as a whole was still worthy of 4.5 stars. I stand by that."

 

"What games did we score lower for similar issues? As for MCC, as I said in the review, I believe that it's an excellent collection for anyone who loves Halo or has always wanted to try it, BUT those who are chiefly interested in playing online via matchmaking will be disappointed."

 

"A review score alone is meaningless without the context of the words that explain it. A different person might have placed more weight on the matchmaking than I did, and they might have chosen to give it a different score for that reason. I made the matchmaking issues very clear, and I believe the rest of the text justifies the score. Anyone is welcome to disagree, of course, but that's part of the nature of criticism itself."

I agree with him... anygame that scores 90/100 or lower is shit and don't deserve sales... and of course the MP is just worth 10/100 at most since it being completely broken just took it from score, so if the MP was working they would give 100?

The guy is ridiculous =[