| crissindahouse said: "Lack of ambition" is a lie, though. You can like or dislike it but to call this a project with a lack of ambition? Common... If at all they had too much of it especially If it comes to the technical achievements which ended in a fiasco especially on the old consoles. |
He refers to the game systems there, which he explains in detail in the above paragraphs. But true no lack of ambition rather too much ambition in the graphics department pushed out all the ambition regarding promised game play.
| shikamaru317 said: I've been following Quarter to Three for about 10 years now. In that time I've seen them give ridiculously low scores to probably 2 dozen different games that I loved, every one far below the critical consensus. We're talking 2, 3, and 4/10 reviews on games with a meta average over 80, sometimes even on games with a meta average above 90. That's more than just tough grading, Gamespot, Edge, and Giant Bomb are tough graders, what Quarter to Three does goes far beyond that. |
Reviews are personal opinions in the end, what counts is whether the text matches the score and vice versa. From pretty much all the 10/10 reviews I did not get the impression that was the case. This reads like a 2/5, guy is hard to please, wants something new, gets the same stuff in a shiny buggy new coat. And of course if you're looking for something new, you'll come away disappointed most of the time.
Strong opinion for sure, I also don't agree with the review of RDR2, 5 out of 5, it was good, not that good. For RDR2 he looks past the dated straight jacket mission design. Inconsistent just like everyone else.
Anyway just like you, he's not someone I would look to for game advice, not matching my tastes. The part about what Cyberpunk is was an interesting read though. Btw he gave NMS 1 star, still double the score for Cyberpunk!
