By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lonely_Dolphin on 08 June 2017
Edit Thread
Nuvendil said:

They are not "screwed".  If that were the case, ARMS would be sub 60.  Reviewers are more lenient with new fighters than old.  If SF came out with 10 fighters, it would get skinned alive.  But they won't nor should not just give it a pass. 

And it's not 'easier' for those games.  It could be argued it's harder as they have MORE bases to cover.  It's just less likely for them to launch in the state fighting games can, with a lack of content with more coming for free later.  In RPGs the content is usually more interconnected, meaning you can't just leave pieces out.  The only game in a similarish vein to try this was Destiny and that game wasn't exactly acclaimed for it's practice. 

 

Screwed out of high scores (9s n 10s) yes, you even agreed with that earlier.

That's why it's easier because reviewers have to more evenly judge the whole package instead of putting so much weight on a single aspect.

 

pokoko said:

I can't see how that's true.  I've read several reviews for both Tekken 7 and ARMS and, if you compare the text without seeing the score, you'd think Tekken 7 was a much more polished and complete package.  In a vacuum, that the scores are only a few points apart seems kind of ridiculous, to be honest.  ARMS isn't expected to surpass all other fighting games in the same way as Tekken 7 and isn't being judged as harshly.

 

I don't really know anything about Tekken 7 but I'll take your word for it. So it's not so much expectations and more that review scores are just really inconsistent. The more games you start comparing with the more nonsensical the scores look. My initial post where I pointed out how despite ARMS clearly being the far superior game it's only two points higher than Pokken gives more credence to this. 

Oh yeah, guess I forgot this is why I don't care about review scores to begin with, that and how I can formulate my own judgments of course. :L