yvanjean said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
I think folks are justified in their frustration. Take a look at another high-profile third-person shooter: Uncharted 4. That game sits 9 points higher than Gears 4, despite an inferior campaign, inferior multiplayer and co-op options, and much less replay value. Uncharted 4 was praised for "perfect adjustments to a functional gameplay formula" while Gears is subject to deductions for being "overly familiar" and for using "Epic's foundation."
I think one of the reasons I pay less and less attention to Metacritic these days is that my tastes as a critic are far out of sync with the tastes of critics from bigger outlets. Gears might not have the opulent visuals or artistry of Uncharted, but in terms of gameplay (what really matters) it's a superior product.
To be clear: I'm not trying to start a console war here. I'm just pointing out some inconsistencies with the video game review process using two of the marquee third-person shooters of 2016.
|
Metacritic is a flawed but valuable system. I think that the mentality of gamers that anything that receive a metacritic of less then 90+ is sign of a bad game is the bigger problem. Gears of war series doesn't cater to everyone and you will always get reviewers that have no love for the gears series and will be let down.
I think mopst of us will agree that Gears 4 campaign < Uncharted 4 campaign and Gears 4 Multiplayer < COD or Battlefield 1. But, if you take the full package the Co-op aspect and Hordes 3.0. You got a killer app for Microsoft. It's one of the few games that might make you concider buying a Xbox One.
|
How do you compare 2 different genres' MP? Based on what?
Gears gameplay is totally opposite of COD twitch shooting. Your comparison is like comparing hockey to soccer.
