Gears of War Ultimate Edition Review Thread - Meta 82

[Mr Puggsly]

the-pi-guy said:

LuckyTrouble said:
Honestly, I'm not sure why most reviews seem to be citing that the game hasn't aged all that magnificently with words, then post a review score that barely reflects that fact. Either it aged well and deserves a good score, or it hasn't aged well, is a half-assed remaster, and doesn't deserve a good score. When I hear "hasn't aged well", in my mind, I'm seeing a game that deserves a 7.5 by modern standards if it pulls everything off decently as a game that has aged poorly.

It is clear that many reviewers feel either that the game hasn't aged as well as it could've or that there are minor issues with the remaster.  

This seems to fit quite well into what the game is reviewed at.  

The original was rated 94, with 88 reviews.  

If the game aged really well or the remaster was done really well, the remaster would likely be sitting at 90+ like the original.  

I doubt it. A shooter like this getting a score in the 90s ain't easy these days. While Journey got a simple port to PS4 and has less value, but is sitting at 92.

You give too much validity to Metacritic scoring. I only argue Metacritic scoring can steer you towards good games. Do the most enjoyable games get the best scores? No.