Shadow1980 said:
Many gamers seem to regard review scores as if they were scores for school assignments, i.e., 91-100 is an A (excellent), 81-90 is B (good), 71-80 is a C (average), 61-70 is a D (bad) and anything 60 or below is an "F for failure." Just look at how many gamers call a game with a Metacritic average of 7 as "bad" or "mediocre," or just recall the meltdowns over GameSpot giving The Twilight Princess and 8.8/10. Realistically, an honest ten-point scale should be centered on a 5/10 being "average." Hell, even Metacritic themselves feed into this notion of a "four-point scale." For movies, TV, and music "mixed or average reviews" has a range of 40-60, but for video games that range is 50-75. So, an average movie is just that, while an average game is bad, and to be considered "great" it has to be at least a 9/10. It's kind of sad that gamers put so much more stock on review scores and have an impossibly high bar for what gets considered "good." They've probably denied themselves more than one really fun experience because it didn't get a Metascore of at least 85-90. |
A huge budget game, based on the Star Wars Universe, published by one of the biggest companies (EA), previous to a new film, a metascore below 80 of course is awful.
EA is going to burn the wallet with ads on the same sites that are reviewing the game! and is still below 80! And even with the advantage of nostalgia factor!
If "Star Wars" wasn't on the box of the game, the score could be even worse.
Tim and The Princes...
