By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
elektranine on 02 April 2016
Edit Thread
KiigelHeart said:
elektranine said:

Or maybe it's because of MS/Remedy hyping up this game for 2.5+ years saying stuff like "we will radically change the way FPS games are played" "this game is big" "This is the game that will make you own a xb1" etc. Reviewers don't just randomly get these ideas.

The only thing new the game has is its time-related stuff and that doesn't really live up to the promises made by MS.

I'd expect reviewers to be professional, ignore marketing talk by publishers and judge the game for what it offers, not what they expected. Not to mention majority of reviews say good things about gameplay of course so what makes you say QB doesn't live up to these "promises"? Of course I'd say the way QB tells the story can be considered new, also visuals are partly something we haven't seen before..care to tell me how some of the other high rated games re-invented the wheel then?

If you promised the Mona Lisa but deliver no where close to that due you really expect reviewers to ignore that? No not really. Both you and I know what is going on right here....

 

Games like battlefield did not promise to reinvent the wheel and consequently they were scored differently.

Quantum break scored below 80 which is considered below average for this gen.

But how does that take away your enjoyment of the game. Unless...