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

Forums - Gaming - Anyone see any good reason why GTAV's(PS4/X1 editions) meta is higher than Smash U's?

Tachikoma on 22 November 2014
Samus Aran said:
Tachikoma said:
Samus Aran said:

I'm not offended by the original GTA V having a higher score than SSB4. Try again.

Both the last gen and current gen versions scored higher, and this isn't even really a re-release, simply a delayed next gen version.

Those delayed ports all got far lower scores on the Wii U though, like Batman: Arkham City armoured edition. Besides the ugly graphics (which the original versions also had I think?) and some framerate problems I found the game to be an absolute blast.

But I haven't played the original Batman: Arkham City, so maybe I'm missing something here? 

Because most of those ports were sloppy and poorly done, very few actually take advantage of the wiiU's features in any way, the difference between GTAV on last gen and current gen is night and day, not only graphically, but in how the game plays, the boost to framerate and stability increases the gameplay experience immensely, so it stands to reason that it scores very similar to its last generation versions.

If the PS4/XBO versions of GTAV looked the same as, or slightly worse than last gen, ran as choppy, and had no real improvement of any kind over the previous versions, do you honestly think it would be scoring in the mid 90s?



Around the Network
Samus Aran on 22 November 2014
Tachikoma said:
Samus Aran said:
Tachikoma said:
Samus Aran said:

I'm not offended by the original GTA V having a higher score than SSB4. Try again.

Both the last gen and current gen versions scored higher, and this isn't even really a re-release, simply a delayed next gen version.

Those delayed ports all got far lower scores on the Wii U though, like Batman: Arkham City armoured edition. Besides the ugly graphics (which the original versions also had I think?) and some framerate problems I found the game to be an absolute blast.

But I haven't played the original Batman: Arkham City, so maybe I'm missing something here? 

Because most of those ports were sloppy and poorly done, very few actually take advantage of the wiiU's features in any way, the difference between GTAV on last gen and current gen is night and day, not only graphically, but in how the game plays, the boost to framerate and stability icreases the gameplay experience immensely, so it stands to reason that it scores very similar to its last generation versions.

If the PS4/XBO versions of GTAV looked the same as, or slightly worse than last gen, ran as choppy, and had no real improvement of any kind over the previous versions, do you honestly think it would be scoring in the mid 90s?

Well, I'm still surprised Halo: MCC has 87% on metacritic even though the most important aspect of the game still doesn't work...

But you do have a point.



sundin13 on 22 November 2014

This thread hurts my brain...I can't even tell what half of you are arguing about anymore @.@



Tachikoma on 22 November 2014
CGI-Quality said:
Blob said:
Samus Aran said:

It's not even relevant when comparing games of the same genre because of unfair biases.

Is LIttle Big Planet 3 really that much worse than Little Big Planet 2? Somehow I doubt it. 

Little big planets always had some average platforming gameplay hidden behind the level creators. IMO up until now it's received inflated scores because of how good the creation content has been. At this point I feel reviewers aren't wowed by the creation tools for the 5th time, couple that with them being harsher in general with scores and id assume thats why the third one has such a lowered socre.

However im yet to find anyone who really enjoyed GTA4 and thats meta is off the charts, so yeah, it can be difficult to take a meta as gospel.

In regards to is LBP 3 worse than LBP 2, the answer is no. It doesn't really matter if an individual finds the platforming average, the franchise (and games) have all been good at what they set out to achieve. LBP 3 fine tunes everything wrong with the past games (albeit, with a bug here or there, something the series has always had to suffer from, to a degree, given everything available). But my opinions of each game is also irrelevant.

What's wrong with reviews today are not the reviews themselves (evident by the fact that most reviewers agree that LBP 3 is the best in the series), but because everyone chases numbers instead. I can call a game crap, but give it a 9, while calling another game excellent and then give it a 6. At the end of the day, my words mean zilch, because the numeric score will overshadow them. That is what's wrong with modern day reviews.

I've said this since the end of the 6th generation, they need to go back to how they were during the Atari 2600/NES days (yep, I'm old enough to remember that). Back then, it was word of mouth, not whether a game got a 7 or a 9.

Kotaku tried, but failed at that.

Because instead of a score they put "should i buy it", "yes/no/maybe" and people dont really give a crap unless it says no, at which point they run around as if its a 2/10



Samus Aran on 22 November 2014
CGI-Quality said:
Blob said:
Samus Aran said:

It's not even relevant when comparing games of the same genre because of unfair biases.

Is LIttle Big Planet 3 really that much worse than Little Big Planet 2? Somehow I doubt it. 

Little big planets always had some average platforming gameplay hidden behind the level creators. IMO up until now it's received inflated scores because of how good the creation content has been. At this point I feel reviewers aren't wowed by the creation tools for the 5th time, couple that with them being harsher in general with scores and id assume thats why the third one has such a lowered socre.

However im yet to find anyone who really enjoyed GTA4 and thats meta is off the charts, so yeah, it can be difficult to take a meta as gospel.

In regards to is LBP 3 worse than LBP 2, the answer is no. It doesn't really matter if an individual finds the platforming average, the franchise (and games) have all been good at what they set out to achieve. LBP 3 fine tunes everything wrong with the past games (albeit, with a bug here or there, something the series has always had to suffer from, to a degree, given everything available). But my opinions of each game is also irrelevant.

What's wrong with reviews today are not the reviews themselves (evident by the fact that most reviewers agree that LBP 3 is the best in the series), but because everyone chases numbers instead. I can call a game crap, but give it a 9, while calling another game excellent and then give it a 6. At the end of the day, my words mean zilch, because the numeric score will overshadow them. That is what's wrong with modern day reviews.

I've said this since the end of the 6th generation, they need to go back to how they were during the Atari 2600/NES days (yep, I'm old enough to remember that). Back then, it was word of mouth, not whether a game got a 7 or a 9.

A lot of independent reviewers I watch on youtube don't use scores. 

Youtubers like somecallmejohnny, Gamexplain, Jwitz, Wiiviewr, Wiifolderjosh, Bradleynews, thevelcrogamer, cjszero01, the completionist, etc

Check them out if you haven't heard of them already!



Around the Network
LGF on 22 November 2014
spurgeonryan said:

After reading multiple reviews I have not come across any reason why critics are giving Smash less than perfect 10's. Some say they will be playing for years to come, others say they cannot put it down and are having a chaotic blast with 8 friends in the room.

 

Every downside is minor. Extra mods are not as robust as they hoped, stage creator is not as great as minecraft, etc...

 

Can we travel the world in GTAV yet? I want every city on the planet! No? Well then I am let down. 8/10

 

Other than there being no online yet, I see no reason for this. They should wait for online like IGN is!

 

Agree? Any thoughts?

Can we play Smash Bros with all the 719 pokemons? No? Well then I am let down.

Even if we could, it would still be a 2D fighting game with a shameful scope when compared to GTA V. Indeed, I would say it would be well behind GTA 3.



LGF on 22 November 2014
CGI-Quality said:
Blob said:
Samus Aran said:

It's not even relevant when comparing games of the same genre because of unfair biases.

Is LIttle Big Planet 3 really that much worse than Little Big Planet 2? Somehow I doubt it. 

Little big planets always had some average platforming gameplay hidden behind the level creators. IMO up until now it's received inflated scores because of how good the creation content has been. At this point I feel reviewers aren't wowed by the creation tools for the 5th time, couple that with them being harsher in general with scores and id assume thats why the third one has such a lowered socre.

However im yet to find anyone who really enjoyed GTA4 and thats meta is off the charts, so yeah, it can be difficult to take a meta as gospel.

In regards to is LBP 3 worse than LBP 2, the answer is no. It doesn't really matter if an individual finds the platforming average, the franchise (and games) have all been good at what they set out to achieve. LBP 3 fine tunes everything wrong with the past games (albeit, with a bug here or there, something the series has always had to suffer from, to a degree, given everything available). But my opinions of each game is also irrelevant.

What's wrong with reviews today are not the reviews themselves (evident by the fact that most reviewers agree that LBP 3 is the best in the series), but because everyone chases numbers instead. I can call a game crap, but give it a 9, while calling another game excellent and then give it a 6. At the end of the day, my words mean zilch, because the numeric score will overshadow them. That is what's wrong with modern day reviews.

I've said this since the end of the 6th generation, they need to go back to how they were during the Atari 2600/NES days (yep, I'm old enough to remember that). Back then, it was word of mouth, not whether a game got a 7 or a 9.

Reviewers are inconsistant and unreliable. It's a shame that LBP3 has had such lower scores. It certainly deserves much better. And if reviewers were consistant, they'd give much better scores to it.

But I'm not againts numbers. They are the objective part of it. If I say game A is excelent and game B is superb, we don't know which one is better, nor what exactly that "excelent"/"superb" means. But if I give a 9 and a 10, then you know. The problem is not the numbers. The problem is the inability of reviewers to use them.

I find the correlation between metascore and the true value of games quite low. For me, the best rating system I know is that of IMDB. You have thousands of people voting (not just tens of critics), those people have a knowledge about movies above the average and their votes are weighted. I find the correlation between that score and the evaluation I do on the movie quite high.



StuOhQ on 22 November 2014
ijustlikegames:) said:
Your expectations to be able to travel to every city on the planet is ridiculous and down right stupid. More people are clearly rating GTAV higher, that's why it has a higher Metascore. If you're having fun what does it matter? Don't have to try and tear another game down because you like the game you're playing better. I'd personally say Dragon Age Inquisition is better than both of them:p


Yeah, I've been bouncing between "Dragon Age" and "Smash" for the last 24hrs. That'll probably be my combination (plus "Mario Kart") until "Bloodborne" and "Evolve" come out. 



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

curl-6 on 22 November 2014
Mr_No said:
curl-6 said:
GTAexpert said:

All games have target demographics, and the way I see it, the average SSB player is a lot younger than the average GTA player.

Unlikely; GTA is bigger with the teen/preteen crowd cos they think it's "cool" to be a criminal.

While it's true teens play the game, it would be unwise to believe that the 13-17 teen demographic is the biggest one. 18-24 is definitely the biggest.

Perhaps not the biggest, but the sub-18 demographic is definitely bigger with GTA than with Smash, as kids get to that rebellious age where they're fascinated with "grown-up" things like violence, coarse language, drugs, etc.

Smash by contrast is more concentrated on competitive gamers and longtime Nintendo fans in the 20-40 age range.



Lawlight on 22 November 2014
tbone51 said:
Lawlight said:
tbone51 said:
bubblegamer said:
Because one is more popular than the other? Just maybe...


Pokemon is more popular than both, but meta always has it between 84-89 :0


Pokemon is more popular than GTA? lol


It is lol. Technically it is


So, can you explain to me why the last Pokemon game about a third of GTAV sold?