By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

If I were to give a 7 to a game it would be on the realm of the forgetful, won't touch this anymore. If you are asking about metacritic, for the history of VGC 80 have been considered average and 70 bad, and you won't ever see me in any thread saying I agree or use metacritic for anything (in fact most users on this site don't agree with metacritic and when looking at reviews prefer to look at a reviewer that have similar taste to them). Still the point stand (not that SoT is bad because of the metacritic) but that a 69 on metacritic have been considered a bad score (not a bad game, you can differentiate right) for a long time on VGC.

Reason I am asking is because if many in here want to jump on SoTs reviews based off Critics than all games should be considered equal. I remember you defending Gran Turismo Sport that suffered the same fate as SoTs with its lack of content at launch where the game sits on a 75 Metacritic. Someone like yourself who is a GT fan, do you consider GTS a bad game because its a 7 game by majority of critics?

Reviews are nothing but guidelines, I can see that some gamers fall in love with games that reviewed averagely. To me games are only judged by those who actually played them. 

Yes all games scores should be considered equally (even if I personally think Nintendo scores are inflated and that a lot of points taken from franchises on other consoles are overlooked on Nintendo), so yes GTS suffered low score on reviews (reason I were saying the reviewers were doing a very lousy job, which can also be the case for SoT).

I don't consider GTS a bad game (and neither that it have low content), and also didn't say SoT is a bad game (unless you can find any quote saying this). What I said and repeat is that the score is low and that for a long time 70 and below on VGC was considered a bad score (and sure enough if I didn't know about the game a 69 score would probably prevent me from buying it, as probably someone that doesn't know GT would put other games in front on priority list due to score).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."