Bandorr said:
Why were they removed from Metacritic? |
Because they like to be different from others and think of themselves as "elite" testers (= "we're not friends with developers, we don't get tricked by hype, we're pure video games journalists, independant and demanding"), so usually if a game is hyped and liked by a lot of reviewers, they will try to kill it with an average score in order to show this "difference". Clickbait scores, but with the "we're too good for this game" excuse. Some of their "journalists" are simple fanboys who will give high score to their favorite franchise anyway though, but nothing else. Users usually bet on a game score as soon as they know who is reviewing it.
It's a great thing they're not on MC. But hey, according to them and their users, MC is evil and garbage, and nobody should use it because it just shows reviews made by garbage websites (="not real journalists, just fanboys or guys getting paid by the developers"). A couple of years ago, some of their journalists were on a picture of an organized tour of Sony Japan for Bloodborne, with journalists from another website (Gameblog) and a Sony employee in a restaurant. The meltdown was amazing to see, Gamekult almost insulted the Gameblog guy who took the picture, saying that they were different, that this picture shouldn't exist, that they were there for some good reasons, not because they were invite to the restaurant by the Sony employee.... Gameblog were the bad guys, Gamekult the great guys caught in a trap. It was great.
(And yes, I'm a really regular Gamekult user, but this mentality sickens me and some others)
Their excuses for the Nier Automata score are : the gameplay is repetitive, the first ending doesn't resolve things so you need several runs, the open world is limited, the technical side of the game is bad, and it's grey.
