mZuzek said:
Can't say I agree with this notion at all. I haven't played this WWE game but I did play Cyberpunk at launch and while it was certainly glitchy, it was still a far more enjoyable and worthwhile experience than Superman 64 could ever be. I mean, honestly it wasn't even too much glitchier than Skyrim at launch, yet it got all the hate. But anyways. The game has a lot of merits, the soundtrack is good, the story is interesting and told in an immersive and awesome way, it looks absolutely stunning, it has fun (even if generic) gameplay mechanics and combat, it's an impressively built open world and has some fantastic worldbuilding. Rating it any less than a 4 is simply ridiculous for the quality it has, unless you were reviewing specifically the PS4/XBO versions at launch. If any game can get a 3/10 just for "working" properly, the scoring system is just flawed. Scores are too high across the board anyways, because people give too much value to a game's basic functionality and aren't nearly critical enough of a game's actual identity. So if a game is technically acceptable, that on its own guarantees it a 5/10 at least? It's just... ugh. Not a fan. For me, 3/10 means bad. Not terrible, just bad. Like, that's the highest 'bad' score, whereas a 4/10 is already closer to 'average'. At least that's how it should be, numerically, it's just what makes sense if your scale goes from 1 to 10. A game like Superman 64, which has absolutely nothing enjoyable or interesting or creative or worthwhile in any way, should never score higher than a 1. Edit: I mean, really, what's the point of having all those numbers down at the bottom of the scale otherwise? Is it that important to make a distinction between "absolutely terrible" and "slightly more terrible"? I ask what the 1 and 2 are for, you say it's for games that don't work... well even with that notion, why even have two different scores for the same thing? It really makes no sense. I think there should be more distinction between works that are "high" or "higher" quality, yet in gaming we just get showered with 8's and 9's everywhere as long as a game is... fine. And there goes all critical discerning right out the window. Good scores should start at 6, not 8. |
This is why you don't grant scores to things.
My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first.
