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

Forums - Gaming - Bioshock: Infinite- Reviews (95 on Metacritic!), game out now!

 

Where will it end up on Metacritic?

<80 19 4.44%
 
80-83 6 1.40%
 
84-86 20 4.67%
 
87-89 58 13.55%
 
90-92 161 37.62%
 
93+ 164 38.32%
 
Total:428
Hynad on 24 March 2013
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
AndrewWK said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
What AAA game does not get 85%+ nowadays?


http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/god-of-war-ascension

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-judgment

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dead-space-3


A:CM was bound to be a flop, DS 3 is just as dea, and the others are on the verge of being as high as I said. I reme,ber a time when getting 70% was rare, and nothing bar 1 game a year, if that, would get 90%+.

I don't. When was that?


PS2 era and before.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2000

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2001

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2002

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2003

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2004

and so on. I would go further back, but Metacritic only goes back to 2000.

Here's '99 on Gamerankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1999&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'98: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1998&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'97: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1997&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

You get the picture


So it is websites that are the problem. Back then I bought magazines as websites looked utter crap and the internet was dire, and they never gave such scores.

But is this a surprise? One you need a good CV for, the other you need a neckbeard and a basement for.


That's bull. All the mags I have from back then, and I have quite a few, don't nearly fit with your foggy(and/or created) memory of that era.



Around the Network
TheJimbo1234 on 24 March 2013
Hynad said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
AndrewWK said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
What AAA game does not get 85%+ nowadays?


http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/god-of-war-ascension

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-judgment

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dead-space-3


A:CM was bound to be a flop, DS 3 is just as dea, and the others are on the verge of being as high as I said. I reme,ber a time when getting 70% was rare, and nothing bar 1 game a year, if that, would get 90%+.

I don't. When was that?


PS2 era and before.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2000

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2001

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2002

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2003

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2004

and so on. I would go further back, but Metacritic only goes back to 2000.

Here's '99 on Gamerankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1999&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'98: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1998&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'97: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1997&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

You get the picture


So it is websites that are the problem. Back then I bought magazines as websites looked utter crap and the internet was dire, and they never gave such scores.

But is this a surprise? One you need a good CV for, the other you need a neckbeard and a basement for.


That's bull. All the mags I have from back then, and I have quite a few, don't nearly fit with your foggy(and/or created) memory of that era.


We what mags, console, counrty etc etc? To just say "NAH" is a bit silly.



Hynad on 24 March 2013
TheJimbo1234 said:
Hynad said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
AndrewWK said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
What AAA game does not get 85%+ nowadays?


http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/god-of-war-ascension

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-judgment

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dead-space-3


A:CM was bound to be a flop, DS 3 is just as dea, and the others are on the verge of being as high as I said. I reme,ber a time when getting 70% was rare, and nothing bar 1 game a year, if that, would get 90%+.

I don't. When was that?


PS2 era and before.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2000

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2001

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2002

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2003

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2004

and so on. I would go further back, but Metacritic only goes back to 2000.

Here's '99 on Gamerankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1999&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'98: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1998&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'97: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1997&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

You get the picture


So it is websites that are the problem. Back then I bought magazines as websites looked utter crap and the internet was dire, and they never gave such scores.

But is this a surprise? One you need a good CV for, the other you need a neckbeard and a basement for.


That's bull. All the mags I have from back then, and I have quite a few, don't nearly fit with your foggy(and/or created) memory of that era.


We what mags, console, counrty etc etc? To just say "NAH" is a bit silly.

No. What is silly is saying websites are from basement neckbearded amateurs, while in truth, most current websites started by being magazines in the 90s/late 80s. You said "they never gave such scores". I have magazines from the US, UK, Germany and even Japan. And they reviewed games with the same kind of score as right now. Some reviewers were harsher than others, the same as right now. 

So yeah. NAH! Your memory is either selective, or completely off the mark.





TheJimbo1234 on 24 March 2013
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
AndrewWK said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
What AAA game does not get 85%+ nowadays?


http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/god-of-war-ascension

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-judgment

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dead-space-3


A:CM was bound to be a flop, DS 3 is just as dea, and the others are on the verge of being as high as I said. I reme,ber a time when getting 70% was rare, and nothing bar 1 game a year, if that, would get 90%+.

I don't. When was that?


PS2 era and before.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2000

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2001

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2002

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2003

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2004

and so on. I would go further back, but Metacritic only goes back to 2000.

Here's '99 on Gamerankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1999&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'98: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1998&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'97: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1997&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

You get the picture


So it is websites that are the problem. Back then I bought magazines as websites looked utter crap and the internet was dire, and they never gave such scores.

But is this a surprise? One you need a good CV for, the other you need a neckbeard and a basement for.

Metacritic and Gamerankings include most of the major magazines, you know?

Not seeing any of the offical PS2 UK mags in those scores....



TheJimbo1234 on 24 March 2013
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:

Metacritic and Gamerankings include most of the major magazines, you know?

Not seeing any of the offical PS2 UK mags in those scores....

I checked one game and found it: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/tony-hawks-pro-skater-3/critic-reviews

OPM U.S. - 100

What were some other official PS magazines?


Yes, one game which was very good. Now how many games are given such high scores?

Also I think this has proven how pedantic a lot of people are...*rollseyes*

 

 

Hynad said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
Hynad said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
AndrewWK said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
What AAA game does not get 85%+ nowadays?


http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/god-of-war-ascension

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-judgment

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/aliens-colonial-marines

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dead-space-3


A:CM was bound to be a flop, DS 3 is just as dea, and the others are on the verge of being as high as I said. I reme,ber a time when getting 70% was rare, and nothing bar 1 game a year, if that, would get 90%+.

I don't. When was that?


PS2 era and before.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2000

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2001

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2002

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2003

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2004

and so on. I would go further back, but Metacritic only goes back to 2000.

Here's '99 on Gamerankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1999&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'98: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1998&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

'97: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=&cat=0&year=1997&numrev=4&sort=0&letter=&search=

You get the picture


So it is websites that are the problem. Back then I bought magazines as websites looked utter crap and the internet was dire, and they never gave such scores.

But is this a surprise? One you need a good CV for, the other you need a neckbeard and a basement for.


That's bull. All the mags I have from back then, and I have quite a few, don't nearly fit with your foggy(and/or created) memory of that era.


We what mags, console, counrty etc etc? To just say "NAH" is a bit silly.

No. What is silly is saying websites are from basement neckbearded amateurs, while in truth, most current websites started by being magazines in the 90s/late 80s. You said "they never gave such scores". I have magazines from the US, UK, Germany and even Japan. And they reviewed games with the same kind of score as right now. Some reviewers were harsher than others, the same as right now. 

So yeah. NAH! Your memory is either selective, or completely off the mark.

Ever seen these guys on the websites do videos? Most are fat neckbeards who have only seen a girl naked on the internet.



Around the Network
dsage01 on 24 March 2013

Guys don't get your expectations up that high there are very few games that are getting a 85 + on meta critic. Game reviews are really getting untrustworthy this late in the generation.



TheJimbo1234 on 24 March 2013
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:

Metacritic and Gamerankings include most of the major magazines, you know?

Not seeing any of the offical PS2 UK mags in those scores....

I checked one game and found it: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/tony-hawks-pro-skater-3/critic-reviews

OPM U.S. - 100

What were some other official PS magazines?


Yes, one game which was very good. Now how many games are given such high scores?

Also I think this has proven how pedantic a lot of people are...*rollseyes*

 

I think this has proven that you were wrong.


No, I didn't say it never happened, it was just rare...unlike today where apparently almost every game is sprinkled with perfection.



TheJimbo1234 on 24 March 2013
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
pezus said:

Metacritic and Gamerankings include most of the major magazines, you know?

Not seeing any of the offical PS2 UK mags in those scores....

I checked one game and found it: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/tony-hawks-pro-skater-3/critic-reviews

OPM U.S. - 100

What were some other official PS magazines?


Yes, one game which was very good. Now how many games are given such high scores?

Also I think this has proven how pedantic a lot of people are...*rollseyes*

 

I think this has proven that you were wrong.


No, I didn't say it never happened, it was just rare...unlike today where apparently almost every game is sprinkled with perfection.

Well, that's still wrong. Just check the links.

Of fanboy websites, not proper journalism.



yo_john117 on 24 March 2013

Just got a text from my Gamestop and it said there would be a midnight launch! ^_^



TheShape31 on 24 March 2013
pezus said:

Another review that doesn't break the embargo because it isn't a review copy

http://www.nave360.com/bioshock-infinite-review-before-rapture-there-was-columbia/

4/5 - "I’m left a little astonished, baffled, disappointed and amazed all at the same time"

Uh, not sure I understand how these things he mentions here are negatives:

"With future DLC updates coming, Bioshock Infinite is a game that deserves it’s place in Bioshock. It’s not as good as the first game, but miles ahead from the second. Whilst the story continues to baffle and the graphics continue to not render the way you hoped, the strong characters and the astonishing gameplay are what holds everything together. It just makes me wonder where the DLC will go; you’ll think the same upon completion. It’s also a real shame they didn’t decide to pursue a multiplayer, but then again Bioshock 2′s wasn’t exactly pretty."


Much of his criticism came from a graphical standpoint (other complaints mostly about the story), but bear in mind that he's playing the X360 version.  So low res textures will certainly disappoint anyone looking for high end visuals.  From what I've read, the PC version looks incredible.  If he had reviewed Infinite on PC, I bet it would've gotten a 4.5.

I can't wait to play it.  On PC, of course :)