RolStoppable said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
I can't find a single non-sports game above 84 on Opencritic that I would consider to be bad. What didn't you like that got high eighties?
P.S. The first game of the Arland trilogy sits on my shelf waiting to be played. I'll get to it as soon as I've had my fill of Into the Breach.
|
Dead Cells and Enter the Gungeon are awful games. Especially the former is a mystery, because its score should be docked significantly for its technical performance alone; that's on Switch, but that version is rated like the other versions.
|
I haven't played Dead Cells yet, but what didn't you like about Enter the Gungeon? I played it on Switch, but that was way way after launch, so the performance issues must have been ironed out by then.
I admit that the rogue-like genre is a bit flawed in that the randomness can sometimes screw you over. But that's kind of like criticizing rpgs because they have turn based battles.
John2290 said:
^Probably the most insightful comment I've ever seen from Rol. Completely agreed. EDIT: The first reply, not the dead cells comment, I completely disavow calling dead cells an awful game.
@cerebralbore101 You really are doing yourself a diservice, Aggregate scores stopped being useful three or four years ago and like you said, you are already filtering games out so why not go that extra mile and research games on an individual basis, it sounds like a pain but it can actually be quite enjoyable and has a high success rate. Cutting games off at a solid score like 78 (or even 80) is ridiculous with modern aggregates and the pool of reviewers that they pull from. May I suggest though, if you are dead set on using aggregates to define your gaming schedule, take the critic score and the user review and find split the difference, as long as the game isn't being bombed for controversial reasons this score is, albeit not ideal, slightly more useful than the critic score.
Just to name one game that you have locked yourself out by teo points is GT sport which is PHENOMENAL. There are probably loads more but I can't think off the top of my head, infamous first light was a 70, The sniper elite games are always tilting that line.
But whatever gets ya through, funds and time are obviously a factor and I can see the merits of wanting to play the best of the best but it's such a waste, like only eating at four star restaurant's and never getting to bite into your local pizza places special or some KFC. This is why AA games are dying and we can only have indies or AAA games with the later often failing for reaching beyond their means and ability. Pity.
|
Well I'm sitting at work with nothing to do all day, so I kind of do research games extensively. If Days Gone winds up being something I fall in love with, I'll adopt that method over using aggregates. Interestingly enough, most games that fail to score within my cuttoff point weren't things I was interested in anyway. I think user reviews are probably the worst thing on the internet. The only exception would be steam, since people have to have at least bought the game in order to review it. I dream of one day making a user-review website that asks for your XBL/PSN/Steam accounts, and then only lets you review a game if you have earned at least 25% of achievements/trophies for said game. And even then I would limit people to giving one 10 per year, five 9's, five 8's, one 0, etc. That way there are way less user reviews that read like "10/10 IT HAD JUMPING AND CLIMBING", and "0/10 IT DIDN"T HAVE GUNS!"
