Wonktonodi on 24 February 2015
| irstupid said: 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. |
There is a big difference between movies and games. An active vs passive activity. And there are different levels of broken. There are cosmetic, they are those that cause reloading saves and those that make games or parts of games unplayable.
For me the scale of one to ten was like grades 1 to 5 are all failing. 6 a D 7 a C and considered "average" 8 B 9 A 10 A+
As for the mini game comparison. There are more than 2 types of side quests in addition to that not being the main part of the game. A game all about mini games is different and shouldn't be treated like an open world super hero game.
