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

Forums - Sony - And the new highest selling PS3 exclusive is! Yes you guessed it GT5!

NotStan on 26 January 2011
ethomaz said:
NotStan said:
ethomaz said:
[..]

I said before... my gamecard (playfire) didn't update more... so I change the gamecard service... that's the only motive for not show in my sig.

And the person was @kowen... he knew I got GT5 and just said that to joke with me.

Just to clarify, it wasn't kowen, it was someone else who had an avatar with an English T shirt in the signature. But yeah everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you just decide to use yours as fact sometimes, and that's what's really frustrating.

My opinion like fact??? No... I just resume the reviews comments for said that... beside the low score all reviewers said GT5 is the best game on franchise and the best racing sim on consoles.

People here have to face the reality.

See there we go again.. I think ill settle for ignoring your posts from now.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

Around the Network
ethomaz on 26 January 2011
NotStan said:
See there we go again.. I think ill settle for ignoring your posts from now.

Ok. But please just read the reviews on the web... don't judge the game just by scores.

Thanks.



NotStan on 26 January 2011
ethomaz said:
NotStan said:
See there we go again.. I think ill settle for ignoring your posts from now.

Ok. But please just read the reviews on the web... don't judge the game just by scores.

Thanks.

I'll reply simply because you're giving me a migraine now, not sure if you're just stubborn or just like the PS brand so much. Have I ever said that the scores were what mattered? If you had bothered to read the thread, I did mention that scores are not always the best portrayal of the game, what I did say was the fact that you keep claiming that it's the best racing game ever is ridiculous, you can't honestly believe that everyone shares your opinion, you never know, someone might actually like another sim more. Again, your snide little comments and the assumptions like that without knowing the other side of the story. I personally could not care less for the racing sim genre, but I am pleased when a game succeeds. If you could kindly point to where I judged this game by the meta, I will stand corrected. Until then I think you need to begin reading the thread fully before posting.



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

Scoobes on 26 January 2011
fighter said:

Facts :

Metas are the most reliable indication of a game's quality. It has its' flaws but there is simply no better indicator than it. It is the aggregation of professional reviews, what else ?

GT5 is quality-wise the declining point of a series, metas might have been lowered due to the difference between the expected and the delivered, but in all honesty, the PS3 crowd has to choose :

Either uberhyping increases metas (due to the rolling tsunami of marketing versus little underpowered journalists) or uberhyping games hurt the sales (due to this very same difference between the expected and the delivered and the egocentric reviewer who decides the game must be punished).

But it certainly cannot be both - and it certainly cannot systematically be the one which better suits PS3's interests - typical example of this double standard : Halo's meta has been hightened due to over-hype / GT5's has been lowered due to over-hype)

And please oh please the "you have to play it to understand the value of a game" is the worst argument ever. Every-single bad game has had a fan (- maybe not the really bad onees as the ET games in the early 80's, although who knows ?), a fab of a bad game who would tell you it's great, especially at about 75% of its' completion.

 

The italics kinda destroys the metacritic argument. How professional are these reviews? The state of video games "journalism" is a joke at best. Most reviewers and writers in the industry are barely above the standard one finds in forums such as these.




Get your Portable ID!

ethomaz on 26 January 2011
NotStan said:
ethomaz said:
NotStan said:
See there we go again.. I think ill settle for ignoring your posts from now.

Ok. But please just read the reviews on the web... don't judge the game just by scores.

Thanks.

I'll reply simply because you're giving me a migraine now, not sure if you're just stubborn or just like the PS brand so much. Have I ever said that the scores were what mattered? If you had bothered to read the thread, I did mention that scores are not always the best portrayal of the game, what I did say was the fact that you keep claiming that it's the best racing game ever is ridiculous the best racing simulator on consoles, you can't honestly believe that everyone shares your opinion, you never know, someone might actually like another sim more. Again, your snide little comments and the assumptions like that without knowing the other side of the story. I personally could not care less for the racing sim genre, but I am pleased when a game succeeds. If you could kindly point to where I judged this game by the meta, I will stand corrected. Until then I think you need to being reading the thread fully before posting.

So sorry by the confusion... but just fixing (bold part)... I knew one or two racing sim better than GT5 on PC.



Around the Network
mantlepiecek on 26 January 2011

Genres which are popular are well reviewed by the reviewers. However, new and rare genres like adventure, Sim Racing titles, and others are not always well received since they are new to the reviewers themselves and they cannot compare it to anything else.

How many reviewers do people think even know about sim racing in the first place? The only people who can properly review a game are the ones that have some experience with the genre, and only then can you call them as professional.

I can understand the metacritic argument, but its not always right. For eg., Heavy Rain got a lot of flack for its gameplay(lol). Its true it still stands at a good 87 on meta, but its an adventure game and I think its unfair to compare its gameplay to the action genre. They are both different.



archbrix on 26 January 2011

Sweet, well deserved.

Here's to 10m!



justinian on 26 January 2011
Scoobes said:
fighter said:

Facts :

Metas are the most reliable indication of a game's quality. It has its' flaws but there is simply no better indicator than it. It is the aggregation of professional reviews, what else ?

GT5 is quality-wise the declining point of a series, metas might have been lowered due to the difference between the expected and the delivered, but in all honesty, the PS3 crowd has to choose :

Either uberhyping increases metas (due to the rolling tsunami of marketing versus little underpowered journalists) or uberhyping games hurt the sales (due to this very same difference between the expected and the delivered and the egocentric reviewer who decides the game must be punished).

But it certainly cannot be both - and it certainly cannot systematically be the one which better suits PS3's interests - typical example of this double standard : Halo's meta has been hightened due to over-hype / GT5's has been lowered due to over-hype)

And please oh please the "you have to play it to understand the value of a game" is the worst argument ever. Every-single bad game has had a fan (- maybe not the really bad onees as the ET games in the early 80's, although who knows ?), a fab of a bad game who would tell you it's great, especially at about 75% of its' completion.

 

The italics kinda destroys the metacritic argument. How professional are these reviews? The state of video games "journalism" is a joke at best. Most reviewers and writers in the industry are barely above the standard one finds in forums such as these.

I totally agree. 

The truth is I find some members on these forums far better and more accurate at reviewing games that any "expert" critic and they use less words and waffle, regardless of which console they support.

OT: Good sales for a game with a metacritic 84 rating and long may people make their minds up over the quality of a game by reading more than a metacritic review.





fighter on 27 January 2011
justinian said:
Scoobes said:
fighter said:

Facts :

Metas are the most reliable indication of a game's quality. It has its' flaws but there is simply no better indicator than it. It is the aggregation of professional reviews, what else ?

GT5 is quality-wise the declining point of a series, metas might have been lowered due to the difference between the expected and the delivered, but in all honesty, the PS3 crowd has to choose :

Either uberhyping increases metas (due to the rolling tsunami of marketing versus little underpowered journalists) or uberhyping games hurt the sales (due to this very same difference between the expected and the delivered and the egocentric reviewer who decides the game must be punished).

But it certainly cannot be both - and it certainly cannot systematically be the one which better suits PS3's interests - typical example of this double standard : Halo's meta has been hightened due to over-hype / GT5's has been lowered due to over-hype)

And please oh please the "you have to play it to understand the value of a game" is the worst argument ever. Every-single bad game has had a fan (- maybe not the really bad onees as the ET games in the early 80's, although who knows ?), a fab of a bad game who would tell you it's great, especially at about 75% of its' completion.

 

The italics kinda destroys the metacritic argument. How professional are these reviews? The state of video games "journalism" is a joke at best. Most reviewers and writers in the industry are barely above the standard one finds in forums such as these.

I totally agree. 

The truth is I find some members on these forums far better and more accurate at reviewing games that any "expert" critic and they use less words and waffle, regardless of which console they support.

OT: Good sales for a game with a metacritic 84 rating and long may people make their minds up over the quality of a game by reading more than a metacritic review.

The question isn't about a few subjectively prefered reviews, it's about overalls, and as objective as possible

As a whole, what is more reliable ? the average opinion of all paid reviewers - or ? *nothing else* *and certainly not the few selected reviews of a random person*



Aldro on 27 January 2011
ethomaz said:

@fighter

There is just one fact:  GT5 is the best driving simulator on consoles and the Gran Turismo ever made.

No meta score or bad review could change that.

This is true.


I am too a meta whore and will say GT5 should have gotten better and I am dissapointed in PD. But that doesnt take away what the reviews say, read any review u want, MOST of them claim it to be the best SIMULATOR on consoles and in that regard considering I play it with my G27 and want realistic driving physics, I applaud the game! Even a meta of 40 cant take that away :D

 

The fact that its best at what it claims to do is enough really. Its a driving simulator or it claims to be, then ofcourse what do you expect? You expect for it to be a good one, but no, its the BEST one. Should be enough for any racing fan.