| iamdeath said: Never saw one review that said the controls were bad and I played it so I know they are not, they are the same as any FPS except the touch controls for secondary functions like switching weapons which works well. |
EGM and Eurogamer off the top of my head and if I cared to scour Metacritic am I sure I could find more.
77 is not a bad metacritic score. That's that throwing a fit over getting a B+ on a report card.
| trent44 said: I usually (not always) find user review average to be better representative of the quality of a game than the site review average. A keen eye for gameplay videos tends to garner the most weight in judging if I will get a game, but as far as discovery goes, I go down the list based on descending order of average user review scores. And even considering all of that, I still like Gamerankings.com better than Metacritic.com |
Even with loads and loads of fanboy troll scores on many games?
Hell, a user here was busted on GAF recently for writing up troll 360 reviews on Metacritic user scores. These kind of things make user scores even less credible than "professional" scores, which I already put 0 weight behind. Hell, I used to write for a website and still have reviews on Gamerankings.com that count towards scores for games. Aggregiate sites suck ass.
Back in the day I would read PSM (not the official one, but the bad ass one with Chris Slate as EIC), EGM, and Gamefan and would actually put some trust into those magazines. Now it's all about BS and ad dollars.
Sony kinda set themselves up for this sort of thing by promising "console quality on the go".
They defined the standards by which they are now judged.
| kupomogli said: Xenoblade is sitting with a 92 on Metacritic and I've never seen a review that has complained about its graphics. |
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/03/xenoblade-chronicles-review?page=2
Graphics 7:
What I don't understand is why the PS: Vita game that probably cost less than 25% to make is 66% of the cost.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
| ProdigyBam said: First of all, i bought a PS: Vita just for this game and was in love with it as soon as i played the beta. The full game was even better. Playing the beta i thought this game would get at least 85-90% on metacritic, most of my friedns on psn who played the beta also, thought so, too. So, after the first few reviews went in, i was shocked, everything from 50%-100% was there, averaging at 77% atm on metacritic. After reading a few reviews i asked myself why the f**k do they review the game the same as a full ps3 or 360 console game?! Thats something thats only common for sony (or microsoft consoles but as they got no mobile handheld device its irrelevant here), i mean, its a 40$ game on a handheld, not a 60$ game on a homeconsole, so why is it treated as such? ive never seen something like that for Wii or 3DS games, i mean if a game like Killzone: Mercenary gets 8/10 for its 'presentation' despite having the best graphics just because it doesnt look exactly the same as Killzone 3 on PS3, there has to be something wrong. Why do 3ds (and wii before the wii u came out) games get reviewed differently? Never are they compared to there bigger console brothers or to the hd twins, neiter technically nor gameplaywise, so why is it different with games on sony platforms? It just seems unfair to me, and the user reviews, you know the people who actually bought the games and are most of the time not biased, share my views just looking at the user reviews on amazon or metacritic: User reviews for KZ:M Metacritic: Average 9,2/10. On the Playstation Store (you have to buy the game before rating it): 4,8x/5 (just for comparison thats higher than Uncharted, Gravity Rush and so on, Call of duty got 4,0 btw) on amazon us,germany,uk,jp (yes even japan) at least 4,5 stars most of the times 5 out of 5. Seems a little high for a game rated average 77/100 from 'professional critics', doesnt it? |
Well, I think this has many reasons. People want the Vita to be successful and know there have to be good games to be successful. Then KZM is a good game with very good graphics so people tend to give it high scores. I can also imagine Sony fans just voting for the game without owning the game or even without owning a PSV.
orniletter said:
Graphics 7: This is the best that the Wii can do, but it's not really up to modern standards. The artistic direction makes up for a lack of technical grunt.
...and:
|
So Xenoblade Chronicles dropped less than half a point because the graphics score may have been lower than it should have been, but who knows. It still scored a 7 in the graphics category.
Compare that to a game that has better graphics. Ninja Gaiden 3 got trashed in pretty much every area of the game overall scoring a 3/10, but the graphics scored a 4. They look much better than Xenoblade Chronicles, so I'd make the comparison tohat the game is on an HD system is why it received a 4 in graphics while Xenoblade is on an SD system so it got a much higher 7/10.
But maybe the rating of 4 in graphics is just because Ninja Gaiden 3 got bashed left and right. Alright. How about an open world HD game. First one looked like shit, but Prototype 2 actually looks really good for an open world next gen game. Graphics are a 6/10.
Or what about a game that's similar to Xenoblade in every sense of the word. White Knight Chronicles. White Knight Chronicles has better graphics. Much better. But guess what this game scored? A 7/10. Same as Xenoblade did. Imagine ethat. A Wii game scoring the exact same as the same exact graphical style, open worldish RPG, despite having much worse graphics. Certainly it's because it's being compared graphically as a next gen title, not as a Wii title.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/19/ninja-gaiden-3-review
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/04/25/prototype-2-review
http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/02/03/white-knight-chronicles-review?page=2
.So yeah. You may have found some complaints about the graphics not being next gen, but did those graphics really affect the review scores? Probably not.
In my opinion, compared to some of the best looking PS2 and Xbox games, Xenoblade Chronicles graphics are shit. It's a beautiful game, doesn't mean the graphics don't look like crap. Here's a comparison to Final Fantasy 12. So yeah. I'd say that the 7/10 that Xenoblade received in it's graphics was entirely deserving.
Since Sony is marketing the Vita as a portable PS3, then you have Sony to blame for the comparison.3DS isn't marketed as a portable Wii U or even a Wii.
Also I have seen many Wii games take hits for not looking like PS360 games so that part is just BS.
" I didn't see anyone comparing Super Mario 3D Land to Galaxy"
http://metro.co.uk/2011/11/10/super-mario-3d-land-review-3ds-reborn-214071/
"Mechanically then the game is perfect, right up there with the very best of the series. But what stops it from being regarded in quite the same manner as Super Mario Galaxy and the others is the stages. They’re well designed but there’s no thematic link to anything, not even the stages within a specific world. And although they more or less stick to the Nintendo mantra of a new idea on every level they’re rarely as imaginative as anything in Galaxy."
http://www.ausgamers.com/games/super-mario-3d-land/review/
"Super Mario 3D Land isn’t quite on par with many of the forefathers it tries to emulate. It lacks Galaxy’s endless wow-factor, 64’s commitment to being grand and impressive, and the general near-perfection of Super Mario Bros 3’s gameplay philosophy. But it’s still a damn fine bit of jumping action, and one of the 3DS’ very best games. "
Yeah nobody ever compared it to Galaxy at all....
Systems are rated by what they can do. Not what others can do. If it was based on the best platform at the time, no console game would ever get a 10 because PC can do better graphics.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
