SKMBlake said:
Yeah no, bad example, cause Cyberpunk has a great Metacritic score on PC (86) and always had. And in my opinion, 86 is way too high for a cheezy RPG/shooter with still a lot of bugs. |
No, it did not at launch, it got destroyed and they "updated" most reviews after, that's not a bad example at all. And it showed very well how the social medias are actually brainwashing people to believe something is trash when it is not. In the case of Cyberpunk, it was trash on old gens, but still today if you talk to people who never played it, they will tell you for the majority that this is a bad game... I guarantee you that.
Also, that's my point, the game IS good, but you would give it a bad review (or worse than 86) because it has bugs and you think it is a "cheezy RPG/Shooter"; which is like the majority of Western first-person RPG. This is biased from the start. Bugs, unless they are REALLY pre-dominant, should not lower the score that much. I mean this is my opinion at this point; if you think it is justified; fine; I do not :) And I think that the medias/social network influence has a lot to do.
Another example, you can ALREADY see people coming up with "if Starfield comes with bugs, they should tank the reviews". What the hell is that; this is software and the more complex the engine is, the more chance you have to find bugs. The difference is how game-breaking it is (and not just for one quest or whatever)) and how much the game offers to you even with a few bugs here and there. People cannot make the difference these days, it is all white or black, nothing in between.
Just the fact that reviews seem to be a a way to judge games from the start is putting a lot of red flags for me anyway :)