The Quantum Break Metacritic/review thread, Current meta: 77

[kurasakiichimaruALT]

Goodnightmoon said:

AEGRO said:

So do you think reviewers have been harsher this gen?

Or that games just havent been that good?

Whats your opinion on the matter?

Its a mix. I think critics were too impressed by HD gaming and the hardware possibilities of the new generation and they gave really high scores to anything that looked impressive in some way, now it seems they are not that impressed already, the differences between both gens is not that big.

 But I also think triple A gaming is getting worse and worse everyday: games broken at launch, incomplete games with expensive dlc, too much care about the graphics over the gameplay, overambitious games with unreasonable budgets that need to sell 10 milions and trying to appeal to absolutely everyone finally end up without any kind of soul, etc 

I think its a bit of both. But great games like Bloodborne or Bayonetta 2 still get great scores anyway, a 78 nowadays has more value than some years ago, but it certainly not the score of a great game.

Or maybe last gen was full of hype instead of substance that cause a lot of games scoring the 90s undeservingly.

It's imo that this gen, reviewers are much more critical because they knew they butchered the review metric system by scoring too much 9s and made the perception of 80 70 60 grades being average, mediocre and horrible respectively which was  imo caused so much due distress to developers to hit the 9s in the metacritic system. I know a lot of gamers skipping games below 8 or 7 scores. So I see that as a way to standardize the review system into a more realistical one.

It's not about quality. It's more about teaching the readers that they should read game reviews beyond the grade they gave. That's what I think anyway.

 

And FFXV doesn't need 10M to be considered a success. It has been clarified if that's what you're hinting. Most AAA games doesn't need that much.