By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why did FM3 score higher than GT5?

Squilliam said:
goforgold said:
Squilliam said:
goforgold said:

the biggest load of crap I have ever read, and on that note the biggest FAILURE of this generation, how the HELL is it a bad thing for a game to be what it WANTS to be.....

there is no amout of facepalms that can surfice the dissapontment in the shear truth of that satement.

"Not all games need to be designed to appeal to EVERYONE and back in the day, there was much more variety on the shelves than there is today and that was a good thing. So the hope is we can find our people/find our tribe and treat them like the Gods they are. We take care of them and they'll take care of us." <--- David Jaffe

what the fudge has happened to gamers these days, it'a so sad

 

I'll find you a farm simulator. The most perfect and best farm simulator out there, totally realistic. Now, you'd give it a 100% score because its the perfect farm simulator or 50% because thats the best you can muster as its the most boring thing you've played in your life?

 



that's actually a perfect example of how sad this generation is.

who are you to tell anybody what they like is a bad thing. have you ever stopped to wonder, maybe I find this boring because this is not my type of game and it wasn't made for me??? what about the people that would possibly LOVE farm simulators???? screw them right because I think it's boring. And there goes the death of true variety. This makes me a very sad gamer.

there used to be tons of games, that provided tons of different experiences, and it was OUR choice in what we wanted to play, and the simple fact that we had a choice because there were so many choices. No one cared if a game sold 10 million or 10 units as long as the people who brought the game loved it and the developers supported it.

how many game have we passed up because the reviewer shafted it for being or not being something it never wanted to be. How many developers had to close up shop because they didn't make a mass market game. how many gamers deprived themselves from games that they probably  would have loved had they given those games a chance and not focused on how different it is from that other mass market game, how many....... *sigh*

but what's even funny is how you talk about GT's fanbase as if it's small, no GT has ever sold under 9 million units. and GT5 is no different a experience for those gamers.

as it stands now, Inside Sim Racing is probably the only review I would trust as the most accurate. they did a 50 minute PART ONE review with there next part coming out next year.

Have I ever stopped to wonder about a game? Yeah I have. I can easily recognise flawed but fun in comparison to flawless but no good for me. I am however under no illusion or expectation that others do the same considering once you get into a meta range of review scores the variety of personality and review style comes into play whether it is good or bad for the overall score a game gets. However noone in their right mind ought to look at metacritic as a final judge as to whether or not it is worth shelling out $60 for a title given that variance. It is however good to look for titles which may be worth a 2nd look or a first look based off overall review impressions.

What you're seeing with games is a split between the core/niche buyer and the mainstream. It is the same with movies, the mainstream wait until they are told about a game and the core/niche buyer will actively seek out content which interests them. However the fundamental problem with this is that a niche/core game costs about as much to make as a mainstream game or at best a 5:1 ratio whereas in the movie industry the cost difference can easily exceed 100:1 between a niche movie and an expensive blockbuster. It is both a sad reality of the cost structure of the games industry and a negative black mark on the core/niche buyers whom place high content quality expectations on the media assets of games. If people want to see a return of a lot of niche games then they had better be supportive of online download services which is the only real future for niche/core titles as the retail boxed market share is evaporating.

To reiterate what I said about GT5, I wasn't talking about the 9M buyers total. I was talking about the 9M mainstream buyers whom just want a racing game, mess around with the cars and may not even finish 1/4 of all the available races. The metacritic represented the views of those people quite well and as a whole metacritic represents a more mainstream view of a game. Specific sites which cater to the other 1M or 10% of the population who wanted the simulator aspects still cater to those but it is unlikely that the opinion of the 10% would ever crowd out the opinions of the 90%. You need to qualify yourself before you can relate your opinions to people with the same values in a relevant way.

but how is GT5 any more mainstream than any other past GT, people should know what they're buying. It's the same GT as all other GT's and that's why people buy it. My question is why the heck is GT5 any different??? I could care less about the scores but it's the manner in which they're given I got a problem with. as if GT5 is the first Simulator in the franchise. in fact some would argue past GT's are probably harder and less forgiving on casuals (not gonna complete 1/4 of events). in past GT's you HAD to complete the license test to get in certain events. the leveling system is a noob proof method to stop people from putting themselves is a no win restart the game situation. There was no visible racing line ETC. Those 9 million repeat customers are actually getting the most casual of the franchise even though it's still harder than another Sim out there , so no the majority of those costumes know full well what GT is all about. so no those reviews don't cover them at all. It covers the need for speed fans, the burnout fans, etc. the people PD never wanted to play their game....

another thing I always seem to scratch my head about is how reviews and people say PD led people on with the trailers and Pics.....

REALLY????

I'm pretty sure I saw this BEFORE the game came out and they pretty much look the same to me...

show me an PIC PD showed that you CAN'T do in the game......, so me where they over hyped the standard cars. I mean they told us about the standards when june....july..... and then reviews get the game and are all like WAAAAAA, TEH FAILUREZ TO LIVEZ UP EXPECTAIONZ!!!!!!! it's like OMG standard cars are...... and get this standard cars. we the 9 million GT fans knew this FAR before hand. why is it shocking reviewers now???

there's not a single lie in any of PD marketing of GT5, every trailer and car they shown is in the game and of the exact same quality.So WTF is what I ask myself.

but maybe it's just me.......