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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 2011: Top 10 games thus far (META SCORES) [UPDATED: Uncharted3 92; Skryim 96; Zelda 95]

Areym on 10 November 2011
Mr Khan said:
Areym said:

Sad to see uncharted 3 dip to 92 but it' still universal acclaim, still my game of the year. I got a question if anybody can help me out. Why is it that the PS3 version has 33 reviews and 96, while the 360 has 77 reviews and a 94. How exactly does that work? It's multiplatform, shouldn't it all go into one?

EDIT: This whole argument on mario and zelda and HD exclusives is pretty stupid. Just about every post has a biased opinion. Hell, I do to. PS3/360 Exlcusives > Wii Exclusives. One group isn't to convinced the other, so why bother?

Because one group is taking their stance from a fallacious perspective. Our Joker friend is asserting that these Nintendo games are categorically inferior or that the HD games are categorically superior, which is false. Each game exists in a vacuum when its merit is judged, and therefore no factors of categorical superiority or inferiority can exist, and the opposing argument is false. The Nintendo side is not contending that Nintendo games are categorically superior, just that they tend to be superior on the whole, much like how one could say that the New York Yankees are superior to the Pittsburgh Pirates, which for the last 20 years has been true and tends to be true, but is not categorically true (that is, by virtue of being Yankees they are inherently superior to the Pirates)


So basically, a vast majority of Nintendo games have proved to be of higher quality over the past few years over it's competitors. I can't  disagree but I also don't quite fully agree. I personally feel as at this point, games like Mario and Zelda (my usual prime examples) can't really be dissapointing. They reached that "transcendetal" kind of status where they can do no wrong, in the eyes of the fans. Now, that doesn't take anything away from how great the game actually is, but to me, it puts that "It's Mario/Zelda, it's gonna be good either way" mentality on a lot of the reviewers. Again, just my personal thought, but I do understand where the Nintendo side is coming from. I can't say that the past few AAA Nintendo titles have dissapointed or have taken a step backwards, with maybe Metroid the other M being the only one that fits the category, depending from fan to fan. Nintendo games stick to the formula and do what they do better than most.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Around the Network
badgenome on 10 November 2011

Wow. Uncharted is sinking like a stone. 92? That's just embarrassing. I wonder if I can get a refund.



MasterVG71782 on 10 November 2011
The_Joker_Product said:
MasterVG71782 said:
The_Joker_Product said:
 

Thats the thing, its just jump and run, thats all you've done in these games since the first one, Little Big Planet had jump and run, but unlike Galaxy it allowed anyone to create their own levels to the extent of their imagination, the levels some of the people have made far exceed the official levels in the game. Theres literally millions of levels and never ending content.

The sequel introduced racing and other things, yet those games get a metacritic of 95 and 92. Whereas Mario can magically get a 97, but its only because its Mario.

Graphics are fine for a Wii game but still inferior to PS3/Xbox, not its fault but anothe reason why its no match. Musics also fine its that the characters dont talk and mumble out some childish babble instead.

Even if people dont play the games for the story they still have one, and everyone one is the same, they cant change it up even a little bit. A game that just involves you running around and jumping like in all the previous games should not get a 97. That 97 is higher than every single PS3 or Xbox game except for GTAIV which its reviews were paid for anyway.

If LBP was just the single player game with no online and no creation system, the scores would've been horrid for it (or at least I think so). The mechanics of the platforming in LBP just didn't feel right.

I think that's why the scores for Mario games are high. The mechanics for the platforming is just done so right that it's easy to play, and it's actually very fun. It's one of those games where you can just pick it up to play it and have fun. The level designs are almost always good as well and the soundtracks for Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 have been phenomonal. I've only played a little bit of Galaxy 2, but Galaxy stands as my favorite 3D Mario game. I've played A LOT of platformers and Mario games have always been up there as some of the best.

Course it wouldve been horrid, but it does have those things, you could never even begin to play all the levels in the game. Its like endless DLC. Everything you just said other games have but they dont get a 97.

Uncharted 2 had a great level design, its platforming was fun, its music wasnt as good as Marios but it unlike Mario had voice acting, it was funny, the characters are all likable, you do more than just climb things, it had a story, it had online, it had fantastic graphics, it won a ton of GOTY awards, is one of the highest rated games this gen.

And it still doesnt have a score like Galaxy.

If you took Galaxy exactly as it is, then swapped out the Mario characters for new original characters and it was made by Namco, it would never under any circumstances get a 97 or anywhere close to it.

If it made by Namco, then it would probably never have seen the light outside of Japan :P

You can't compare Uncharted 2 with Mario, though, as they are two completely different games. It's like comparing Gran Turismo 5 and FIFA 12; they're not the same. You keep stripping down Mario as nothing but running and jumping, but the same can be done with Uncharted. Uncharted is nothing but running around, shooting at guys and climbing objects. The main premise in all three Uncharted games are the same, with only a change of scenery, characters and story.

Mario's never needed voice acting, other than the few phrases he says; people come to expect voice acting in pretty much all newer games now. Giving the characters in Mario games voice acting would ruin the experience of the whole game.

I love both series, but for different reasons.



Aldro on 10 November 2011

Seriously what the fuck?

If you are going to do a Top 10 games based on meta scores, you should use the versions that have the MOST reviews. Isn't that just obvious?

You're choosing a game like Portal 2 and Uncharted 3 that has 60+ reviews, and you are putting them against Batman which has one version at the exact same reviews (70 being the 360 version) but instead you pick the PS3 version that has roughly HALF the reviews of the 360 version. Come on, you're better than that >_>. Otherwise might aswell take Skyrim on the PS3 version which has 92 as I am writing this since it only has like what? 7 reviews? I just don't see your reasoning buddy. Taking the highest scores for the lulz?

* = Can change

1.Zelda = 98*
2.Skyrim = 95*
3.Portal 2 = 95
4.Batman = 94*
5.Uncharted 3 = 92*

Thats how it should be.



The_Joker_Product on 10 November 2011
RolStoppable said:
The_Joker_Product said:

Its level designs are good but they are nothing special, theres better designed user created levels on Little Big Planet. How can they not have any lasting appeal, they have online at least you can keep going back to that, with LBP there will always be something new each time you go back on and play it.

I bought Galaxy 2 and played it for an hour when i had it Xmas and still havent bothered to go back and play it again because i can play better games on the PS3.

Boring games remain boring even if there are more levels through endless DLC. No fun equals no lasting appeal. I doubt you would go back to play a game that is a snoozefest.

I wouldnt thats why i never bothered with Galaxy 2 again.



Around the Network
The_Joker_Product on 10 November 2011
MasterVG71782 said:
The_Joker_Product said:
MasterVG71782 said:
The_Joker_Product said:
 

Thats the thing, its just jump and run, thats all you've done in these games since the first one, Little Big Planet had jump and run, but unlike Galaxy it allowed anyone to create their own levels to the extent of their imagination, the levels some of the people have made far exceed the official levels in the game. Theres literally millions of levels and never ending content.

The sequel introduced racing and other things, yet those games get a metacritic of 95 and 92. Whereas Mario can magically get a 97, but its only because its Mario.

Graphics are fine for a Wii game but still inferior to PS3/Xbox, not its fault but anothe reason why its no match. Musics also fine its that the characters dont talk and mumble out some childish babble instead.

Even if people dont play the games for the story they still have one, and everyone one is the same, they cant change it up even a little bit. A game that just involves you running around and jumping like in all the previous games should not get a 97. That 97 is higher than every single PS3 or Xbox game except for GTAIV which its reviews were paid for anyway.

If LBP was just the single player game with no online and no creation system, the scores would've been horrid for it (or at least I think so). The mechanics of the platforming in LBP just didn't feel right.

I think that's why the scores for Mario games are high. The mechanics for the platforming is just done so right that it's easy to play, and it's actually very fun. It's one of those games where you can just pick it up to play it and have fun. The level designs are almost always good as well and the soundtracks for Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 have been phenomonal. I've only played a little bit of Galaxy 2, but Galaxy stands as my favorite 3D Mario game. I've played A LOT of platformers and Mario games have always been up there as some of the best.

Course it wouldve been horrid, but it does have those things, you could never even begin to play all the levels in the game. Its like endless DLC. Everything you just said other games have but they dont get a 97.

Uncharted 2 had a great level design, its platforming was fun, its music wasnt as good as Marios but it unlike Mario had voice acting, it was funny, the characters are all likable, you do more than just climb things, it had a story, it had online, it had fantastic graphics, it won a ton of GOTY awards, is one of the highest rated games this gen.

And it still doesnt have a score like Galaxy.

If you took Galaxy exactly as it is, then swapped out the Mario characters for new original characters and it was made by Namco, it would never under any circumstances get a 97 or anywhere close to it.

If it made by Namco, then it would probably never have seen the light outside of Japan :P

You can't compare Uncharted 2 with Mario, though, as they are two completely different games. It's like comparing Gran Turismo 5 and FIFA 12; they're not the same. You keep stripping down Mario as nothing but running and jumping, but the same can be done with Uncharted. Uncharted is nothing but running around, shooting at guys and climbing objects. The main premise in all three Uncharted games are the same, with only a change of scenery, characters and story.

Mario's never needed voice acting, other than the few phrases he says; people come to expect voice acting in pretty much all newer games now. Giving the characters in Mario games voice acting would ruin the experience of the whole game.

I love both series, but for different reasons.

Uncharted is the same each game aswell, it however has a strong story and likable characters that talk to fall back on. Mario is the same game but also has the same story and with no real characters that interact and make me laugh. Mario may not need voice acting so much but it would have helped something like Zelda.

Its all of Nintendos games, Brawls story was completley awful because nobody could say a word in the thing.



The_Joker_Product on 10 November 2011
RolStoppable said:
The_Joker_Product said:
RolStoppable said:

Boring games remain boring even if there are more levels through endless DLC. No fun equals no lasting appeal. I doubt you would go back to play a game that is a snoozefest.

I wouldnt thats why i never bothered with Galaxy 2 again.

It seems to be pretty obvious that we are reaching a very opinionated dead end. You have no real facts to back you up. Neither have I.

In such a situation the VGC rules dictate that post counts serve as tie breakers. Too bad for you, but it looks like my opinion is worth more than yours, so you've been wrong all along.

I couldnt care less who has the most posts, 2 or 2000 its all the same, nobody at all should care whatsoever as it holds no importance in anyway. People who brag about post count may aswell brag about spending all their time indoors.



Mr Khan on 10 November 2011
The_Joker_Product said:
MasterVG71782 said:

If it made by Namco, then it would probably never have seen the light outside of Japan :P

You can't compare Uncharted 2 with Mario, though, as they are two completely different games. It's like comparing Gran Turismo 5 and FIFA 12; they're not the same. You keep stripping down Mario as nothing but running and jumping, but the same can be done with Uncharted. Uncharted is nothing but running around, shooting at guys and climbing objects. The main premise in all three Uncharted games are the same, with only a change of scenery, characters and story.

Mario's never needed voice acting, other than the few phrases he says; people come to expect voice acting in pretty much all newer games now. Giving the characters in Mario games voice acting would ruin the experience of the whole game.

I love both series, but for different reasons.

Uncharted is the same each game aswell, it however has a strong story and likable characters that talk to fall back on. Mario is the same game but also has the same story and with no real characters that interact and make me laugh. Mario may not need voice acting so much but it would have helped something like Zelda.

Its all of Nintendos games, Brawls story was completley awful because nobody could say a word in the thing.

Limitations on what you can do breed more artistic originality. Brawl's story would have been worse if they had spoken, but as it is it was quite charming while still retaining the mystique of the characters



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Areym on 10 November 2011
RolStoppable said:
The_Joker_Product said:
RolStoppable said:

Boring games remain boring even if there are more levels through endless DLC. No fun equals no lasting appeal. I doubt you would go back to play a game that is a snoozefest.

I wouldnt thats why i never bothered with Galaxy 2 again.

It seems to be pretty obvious that we are reaching a very opinionated dead end. You have no real facts to back you up. Neither have I.

In such a situation the VGC rules dictate that post counts serve as tie breakers. Too bad for you, but it looks like my opinion is worth more than yours, so you've been wrong all along.

How the hell do you even determine that?



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Mr Khan on 10 November 2011
Areym said:
RolStoppable said:
The_Joker_Product said:
RolStoppable said:

Boring games remain boring even if there are more levels through endless DLC. No fun equals no lasting appeal. I doubt you would go back to play a game that is a snoozefest.

I wouldnt thats why i never bothered with Galaxy 2 again.

It seems to be pretty obvious that we are reaching a very opinionated dead end. You have no real facts to back you up. Neither have I.

In such a situation the VGC rules dictate that post counts serve as tie breakers. Too bad for you, but it looks like my opinion is worth more than yours, so you've been wrong all along.

How the hell do you even determine that?

Mathematically



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.