mZuzek said:
I think there are a lot of examples of games where the critics don't really think much about the score they're giving, they decide based on the franchise and will always rate them the same. Mainline Pokémon game coming out, 86-88 time. Mid-generational Pokémon game coming out, 80-82 time. Rockstar game coming out, obviously it has to be a 10/10. Zelda, yeah 10/10. FIFA, how about 85 every year. See, mostly everyone has widely different opinions on these games. Hardly anyone thinks the last 4 generations of Pokémon games are as good as each other, in fact hardly anyone likes them all. GTA IV is seen as a massive disappointment by just about everyone, but it's one of the highest rated games ever - and similarly, many people already think RDR2 is overrated. Zelda, many of them aren't too beloved, for example the DS games and Skyward Sword, but those were still rated 90+. FIFA is FIFA. Critics always judge games based on the series. Every franchise has a defined metascore it "should" be getting, and hardly any critics veer away from that. The same is true for Fire Emblem. |
I hate critics. Below are reasons why their scores suck ass.
They are rushed and working. A hugely anticipated/hyped game comes out and they want review out in time. They likely haven't got as much time in the game to notice all the bugs or gotten bored or been forced to use micros, ect. They rushed through game and made snap judgement. Game still not out so hype still strong and they could be riding the hype and overinflate score.
In same regard, they playing FIFA for the 10th time. It's FIFA. They bored and just score it the same with article adding in features it mentions on back of box or quick youtube video EA puts out saying new features.
They are paid to score it some way or another. Shilling. They get free stuff, ad dollars. invites, ect. No way are they partial.
They hate or die hard love the genre/franchise. Clearly biased and unless you feel identical to them the review is worthless.
