Kotaku: Switch Has Three Times As Many Games as Wii U Did At This Point - And They're Better

[Cobretti2]

Alkibiádēs said:

Cobretti2 said:

Why do they need to get a score of over 80%?

You do realise half those games got lower scores because the gfx were worst that PS3 and the other reason was because controls took too long to learn because it was cutting into some of the reviewers masturbation time.

At the end of the day I played the games I listed and indicated I did not care about scores. I enjoyed them. Were they perfect? no, but that's the nature of the beast it is about enjoyment not how perfect something is.

But I guess when you are a full time troll you have no time to work and earn money to buy more games so you have to rely on outdated bias methods to tell you what is and isn't a good game. Stop being brainwashed and make up your ow mind. I am my own man and make my own decision on what I like and don't like.

And the graphics on the Switch look worse than the PS4. That is not the reason those games scored lower.

This thread is about Metacritic, so strange that you're questioning it here. It's not a perfect method, but it's the most objective way of comparing the libraries of different consoles.

I owned a Wii and I already own more games on my Switch, that says more than enough.

Yes but go back in time. PS3 first come out it was like WOW FUCK DAMN THOSE GRAPHICS LOOK AMAZE BALLZ. Will looked like shit on comparison, especially Call of Duty.

Some of the earlier 3rd party game reviews that had a PS3 counter part were marked down a point for graphics. It used to be in the cons section of a review. Controls automatically dropped the score if they didn't offer a conventional option because reviewers were to lazy to try and learn and complained how hard it was. Red Steel is a good example. The controls were by no means perfect, but after learning to use them, the game wasn't that hard to play.

With the Switch, most reviewers view it as a portable that plays on a tv so their is no bias, or less off.