Ok.....so tell me what word should the entire gaming internet use when a meta prediction falls short?

Because right now you could say I and others, use the word flop "for lack of a better word". You are welcome to tell me an alternative; one syllable since it is fast to type and gets the point across quick. Because clearly this is the real issue at play in this thread: how to properly label when a meta prediction goes sour -_-

Until another suitable word is used, I shall henceforth please my rival peers with "flop (for lack of a better word)" whenever we must quickly express a moment where a game fails to meet its critical hype.

EDIT: Flop FLOABW for short :P

happy? Also the link you sent me....theres more then one definition. #12 was the one I used.

Great game so far. just loving it

Erm... All I said was that I've never come across the term "flop" to describe" critical acclaim before. Believe it or not, you can't pass comment on that because that's purely my experience. I was just pointing out that I've not come across it before.

As for the internet, it's roots trace back to the late 50s and it really exploded in the late 60s. You clearly are confusing it with something else, possibly the "World Wide Web" which came about in 1993. Though that was still 20 years ago. I guess having a degree in E-Commerce had educated me better in such topics...

I know it's a shock, but the Internet wasn't invented by Microsoft for the Xbox.

half way through im really enjoying it.
caontols are great aiming great not like before.
graphics are freaking awesome.

an easy 8.5

Some of you have really never heard people talk about critical flops before?

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/23/michael-bay-sorry-for-critical-flop-armageddon
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.movies.current-films/Kt46remY8ao
http://critflop.blogspot.com/
http://whatculture.com/film/10-critical-flops-that-deserve-more-praise.php
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/01/before-black-swan-darren-aronofskys-critical-flop/68985/
http://www.ibtimes.com/m-night-shyamalan-finished-again-brutal-after-earth-reviews-could-mean-career-ending-flop-once

I thought it was a commonly used and known phrase. Idk if Killzone 6 applies, I think it's up to 75 or 76 now. But it is certainly much lower than probably anyone expected.

You all know very well why Shadow Fall flops on metacritic. It should be at 79 now without Polycrosoft.

But the score will increase fortunately ( only 22 reviews now, weird, like if something or...Someone prevented Metacritic to add the other reviews... )

But how would you know whether you like it before?

Play a demo. Still, even if there isn't a demo, listening to some dumbass spout his opinion about a game really isn't going to be of any use. The only review site I find that is half decent is eurogamer, with most others being populated by fanboys and pretentios college dropouts. 

How do you decide which reviews to trust? If they give good scores on games you like? No matter what, SF doesn't seem to be a good game in general. Of course people will like it - there are even people who like games below 70. But one has to ask himself: is this game really worth 69 euros? To me it's not and it's sad that the new attempt won't help the series to establish a new big ip besides Gran Turismo to Sony.

This is why I'm probably not going to get another Killzone or Resistance game again.

I'm the type of gamer that collects games, if I like a franchise, I want all of it. Killzone is too inconsistant, even Killzone 2/3 the better games in the series, I thought were only average. Heck Killzone 3 really annoyed me when I couldn't continue a single player campaign from the level I made it to in co-op.....