Well 4/10 does seem harsh, it does bring up a point in reviewing scores.
Seems like most people think that only BROKEN games can get a 5 or lower. Like a game has to be unplayable to get that low of a score. Shouldn't a broken game get a 0/10
Just cause a game is playable doesn't mean it deserves a minimum of a 6. That's why our review system is so broken. Video games aren't a new medium, there are very very very few broken games.
I mean go to rotten tomatoes, there are plenty of very watchable movies that get scores in the 20-40 range. Those movies are watchable but flawed, whether it be a cliche'd story, or whatever it is that gets it docked, it doesn't mean its not watchable.
Same as this game. It's lack of variety and repetativeness should be much bigger factor than whether its broken or not. If Mario Party 10 releasees and all 100 games are basically the exact same thing, it would get ripped to shreds. WHy do these open world type games that have you do only 1-2 different sidequests 100 times not get the same treatment.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
