I don't think the game is overrated because I cannot make that judgement having not played it.

My original point was that if you take issue with reviews below the average then you should do the same to those above, you cannot get any higher than 15 above in this case...

100 isn't the same scale when it comes to reviews on meta at all by the way.  Some sites deal in grades, others stars, some percentages, others single digit scales out of 10 and 20.  These scores are then "converted" to a 100 scale.  You're using a tool that by its inherrent design is flawed as a basis of averages.

It would seem you took issue with my point regarding games above and below Meta's average, I think I've answered that point several times already.  If the standard for most of the reviewers on Meta for a average game is 6 or 7/10 and this site rate a average game at 5/10 then that is instantly a 10 or 20 point swing upwards for the average on meta that this review cannot account for.  My point is IF you must use Meta as some basis to make a comparison to criticize a review then at least be unbiased enough to do so for inflated scores too!

I did say that a 45 points difference highwer or lower is bound to make people talk. Did you read my post? look for what is underline. Im sure if a game would have an average of 55 and then a reviewer would give the game a 100, people would talk about it in the same manner. But you did question why the PS3 fans wasnt complaining about the 100 reviews while the game is at an average of 88 actually. So yes it works both ways, but 100 to 88 is not a big difference, thats why nobody talked about those reviews. You were trying to argue on something I agree and that I even said.

Icyedge, let me break the wall of text and say from the outset I never quoted you, you quoted me and started this discussion. I didn't try to argue with you, you said I brought a very strange argument, now you're saying you agree (even if just to a certain extent).

I thought the whole point of this discussion was you disagreed with my argument yet you're now saying you don't, can you not see how I'm confused here? It doesn't matter either way to me, I just don't want to be labelled as someone "trying to argue".

This is what you do: Just like you'd find a friend with similar tastes to recommend a movie, restaurant, or prostitute, you have to find a review site with opinions relative to your own. What this just shows is that Teletext is not the site who's opinion we can relate to when it comes to prostitutes, movies, or video games.

Way to go, Teletext. You are now irrelevant.

Oh well, too bad you dont understand. Inflated score of 12% VS deflated of 45%, do you really cant understand why people wasnt complaining about the 100% reviews while they complain about the 45% one? See them as hypocrites if you want, but once again its a very strange argument to justify people are hypocrit fanboy.

I can understand thats why its called hypocrsy, obviously you do not though.  You're the one arguing here, I've more than explained myself, now you're disagreeing just to act like a child.  Try reading what I posted earlier it more than justifies my comments which ONLY you took issue with.

I agree, at first, its me that took issue you were calling others hypocrit fan for no good reason. Im still wandering why you didnt re-word that.

I thinkk people scoring it higher than an 8 havent' played all the way through, and people scoring it higher than a 7 haven't played it again. The game is a mess, and really could have used some more polish, a better script, and someone just to proof read it. I mean, there are three different years shown in game, while some things that happen specific time periods before the game starts are MAJOR plot points, and there's no consistency. It's jsut a mess, and the glitches and BS claims really hurt it. I'm about halfway through my second playthrough, experimenting with not picking up the controller at all unless I have to wlk to a certain area to cue the story to continue, just doing the bare minimum and ignoring the QTE sequences.... hasn't made a difference. Charcters will continue the conversation without you after a short delay, QTE's resolve themselves quicker without you participating (and, save for a few specific ones I haven't even gotten to yet, without any change to the outcome). It's a pretty big dissapointment, and it's fairly justifiable to give a low score to something so flawed.

It's an interactive movie that doesn't require much interactivity, your interactivity has minimal impact on the story, the scripting and the plot are very poor quality, and there are a ton of errors. Additionally, as a game, it's glitchy with very noticable graphics problems detracting from one of it's strongest points, which is its visual presentation.

4 is still harsh, but a 6 would be fair to generous on a ten point scale.

So, wait, if I don't touch the controller every time I play the game.  It will be different every time?  With a different ending?

Yeah, OK.

/sarcasm

anyone else think the demo was poor?

I thought the controls were too fiddly and awkward, this was added too by the camera which seems to limit your view, the visuals are impressive...but the controls and camera are a big annoyance imo.