By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lonely_Dolphin on 06 April 2018
Edit Thread
Jumpin said:
Cloudman said:

I mean high standards in the sense that a general score of 73 is considered 'bombing' for a game. in the 70-80 range, a game would still be considered 'good'. Even games in the 60 range can still be enjoyable. It's not a matter of settling for something that is 'lesser' than previous games, but enjoying, or not enjoying said game, and look forward to the next game.

I have already explained exactly what is wrong with the reasoning in your argument multiple times, including with the post you are responding to. You are trying to assess "this is what a good game is" completely out of context of quality expectation of the game in question.

 

Let me try to put it to you another way: for book reviews, books in the 65% to 75% range are generally considered good.

Fans of Song of Ice and Fire have waited 6 years for the next book in the series. The books generally score about 85%-88% by reviewers and are expected to offer a certain amount of length. If GRR Martin, in all that time, and with the television show present, only released a book of perhaps 480 pages and had a 73% rating with reviewers; should readers be happy and satisfied that they got a good book? Of course not, this is the first book in the Song of Ice and Fire series in 6 years, the expectation is for something more substantial and of higher quality.

But as I pointed out earlier and you conveniently ignored, gamers are clearly happy and satisfied with Star Allies as the sales show, proving their expectations are not what you claim them to be. It's a bit silly to try and speak for the fanbase while ignoring that fact. The "what if" examples you keep making don't hold any weight against cold hard numbers of the actual game in question here. I'd say most people's expectations are simply good games, which Star Allies is whether in a vacuum or compared to it's predecessors.