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

Forums - Sony - The order's 1886 first review 7,5/10

Areym on 17 February 2015
RealGamingExpert said:
Areym said:

How is a 7.5 mediocre? There are other numbers below a 5 you know.

How comes nearly no game reaches that level? Because they are all that good? No, obviously not.

A 5/10 is considered terrible or do you wanna tell me that Sonic Boom is an average game? Please don't say "yes".

7.5 is really mediocre for a videogame, almost disappointing for a AAA game.

Sonic Boom is at a 32 on metacritic currently, now that is goddamn terrible. Knack is at a 54. That is mediocre, right at the middle. Playable and functional but unremarkable overall.

I'll leave it at that, ratings work differently for most people so I'll agree to disagree that a 7.5 is mediocre. A 7.5, in my eyes, is a good game. Not great, but good. Videogames are held to a much higher standard than most other things for whatever odds reason. The sooner we start utilizing the 0 to 10 scale more often OR no score at all (in my honest opinion) the sooner we can avoid these petty quarrels.



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

Around the Network
Nymeria on 17 February 2015

Game looks great and very excited to play and try out all those cool weapons.



true_fan on 17 February 2015
DirtyP2002 said:
The cons are some major concerns, aren't they?

- Gameplay is meh
- You don't want to play it again
- You have to watch hours of cutscenes and the gaming part can be done in 180 minutes.


I don't see how a "great atmosphere" and "nice visuals" can be enough to get such a high score.
But yeah, that is the broken review system for you.

Agree 100% it seems gameplay is secondary, which is never acceptable imo.



ArchangelMadzz on 17 February 2015
mornelithe said:
sundin13 said:


Thats a bit BS....the person who writes the review gets sole dominion over what the final score means. If you think that they are using the score incorrectly, then feel free to object to their system, but do not misrepresent the review to artificially inflate their opinion on the percieved worth of the game...

No, they don't.  They can't just redefine already established words.  Sorry, that's just incorrect and stupid.  If the games below average, give it a fucking 40, why is that a problem?   We've let it go on for long enough, exemplified by how Metacritic has a different scale for Good/Bad between movies and games.  Other people can accept it, but I'll always point it out as idiotic.  Because it is.  We have numbers for below average on a 0-100 scale, and that's 49 and below.


I don't understand why we can't all just have a standard form of:
1-3 BAD
4 Below average
5 Average
6-8 Good
9 Amazing
10 Holy Shit

Or something like that..



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Zekkyou on 17 February 2015
kowenicki said:
Zekkyou said:
true_fan said:
7.5 sounds too high based on the cons listed. The amount of time you spend watching the game is nearly as much time as you are playing the game, shameful.

It's shameful for a game with a strong focus on being cinematic to have a lot of cinematic? Huh.

'cinematic style' doesnt mean lots of cutscenes and movies in it...

otherwise the ultimate 'cinematic game' IS a movie. lol.

A game focused on being cinematic doesn't have to have a lot of cut-scenes, but it's a perfectly justifiable avenue to take, and one that's been done successfully before. As long as it's backed by a degree of interactivity, it's still a video game.



Around the Network
mornelithe on 17 February 2015
Areym said:
RealGamingExpert said:

How comes nearly no game reaches that level? Because they are all that good? No, obviously not.

A 5/10 is considered terrible or do you wanna tell me that Sonic Boom is an average game? Please don't say "yes".

7.5 is really mediocre for a videogame, almost disappointing for a AAA game.

Sonic Boom is at a 32 on metacritic currently, now that is goddamn terrible. Knack is at a 54. That is mediocre, right at the middle. Playable and functional but unremarkable overall.

I'll leave it at that, ratings work differently for most people so I'll agree to disagree that a 7.5 is mediocre. A 7.5, in my eyes, is a good game. Not great, but good. Videogames are held to a much higher standard than most other things for whatever odds reason. The sooner we start utilizing the 0 to 10 scale more often OR no score at all (in my honest opinion) the sooner we can avoid these petty quarrels.

Heh, funny thing, I think it was Uncharted 2 that got a 50 from a site that Metacritic allows, hah, Knack was 4 pts better than Uncharted 2, confirmed!



OttoniBastos on 17 February 2015
Acevil said:
One of the cons established is the key reason I am not getting it. I just very much dislike QTE, they sort of take me out of the moment.


I have no problem with QTE as long as it is implemented only in situations where it wouldn't be possible for the player to interact in a diferent way.(example:some epic boss battles in God of War series).When QTE are implemented everywhere though....



sundin13 on 17 February 2015
mornelithe said:
sundin13 said:


Thats a bit BS....the person who writes the review gets sole dominion over what the final score means. If you think that they are using the score incorrectly, then feel free to object to their system, but do not misrepresent the review to artificially inflate their opinion on the percieved worth of the game...

No, they don't.  They can't just redefine already established words.  Sorry, that's just incorrect and stupid.  If the games below average, give it a fucking 40, why is that a problem?   We've let it go on for long enough, exemplified by how Metacritic has a different scale for Good/Bad between movies and games.  Other people can accept it, but I'll always point it out as idiotic.  Because it is.  We have numbers for below average on a 0-100 scale, and that's 49 and below.


Like I said, take it up with their system, but don't misrepresent their opinion by pretending that a 5 is average when that just isn't true for the vast majority of sites. I agree that the system should change, but until it does, you are just lying to yourself if you think that a 6 is considered to be above average

EDIT: Made my wording in the second sentence more clear



mornelithe on 17 February 2015
ArchangelMadzz said:
mornelithe said:

No, they don't.  They can't just redefine already established words.  Sorry, that's just incorrect and stupid.  If the games below average, give it a fucking 40, why is that a problem?   We've let it go on for long enough, exemplified by how Metacritic has a different scale for Good/Bad between movies and games.  Other people can accept it, but I'll always point it out as idiotic.  Because it is.  We have numbers for below average on a 0-100 scale, and that's 49 and below.


I don't understand why we can't all just have a standard form of:
1-3 BAD
4 Below average
5 Average
6-8 Good
9 Amazing
10 Holy Shit

Or something like that..

It's the scale we need to get back to, since that actually falls closer in-line with what numbers mean in society.



OttoniBastos on 17 February 2015
true_fan said:
DirtyP2002 said:
The cons are some major concerns, aren't they?

- Gameplay is meh
- You don't want to play it again
- You have to watch hours of cutscenes and the gaming part can be done in 180 minutes.


I don't see how a "great atmosphere" and "nice visuals" can be enough to get such a high score.
But yeah, that is the broken review system for you.

Agree 100% it seems gameplay is secondary, which is never acceptable imo.

7.5 is not a good score for most reviewers(and people) standards.

 

In the ideal world 7.5 would be a "good" score,but on "IGN-ish"/"metacritic-ish" world anything below 8 is "garbage","will buy in a bargan bin".