It's a bit silly comparing them now when some games don't represent their metacritic score. Like driveclub in it's current form is an exceptional game.
It's a bit silly comparing them now when some games don't represent their metacritic score. Like driveclub in it's current form is an exceptional game.
| The Fury said: Resogun in the pretend seems a little unfair, it's not like it's on PC like the rest. |
This is where platform bias shows its influence.
Rise started as an exclusive, and then ceased to be an exclusive after the Windows port, improved over the XBO original.
Resogun was definitely a PS4 exclusive and one of the better games in the entire PS4 catalog. A year and change later PS3 and PSV ports are released, albeit scaled down due to the processing power gap, making it no longer an exclusive PS4 title.
Personally, I still consider Resogun to be a PS4 title. I've played the PS3 and PSV ports and they are not the same, but it's good that they were made if for no other reason than that Resogun should be made available to as broad an audience as possible because it's very good.
Of course, due to the OP criteria for this selective chart, Rise didn't even make it to the "pretend exclusive" list because it missed the Meta score criteria.
The Meta scores as we all know, at least those of us who aren't selectively using data to support our claims, skew high for lower budget indie titles, and generally tend to rake any major release (hyped and highly marketed), big budget title that isn't so good that only click bait reviewers nitpick to justify a non-concensus low score over the coals.
It's odd how development and marketing costs alter perception of the quality of a given product. Call it a sense of fair play as well as a consumer cost to entertainment value perception.
I don't personally think it's up to debate that there are in effect, two separate grading scales for low budget and big budget titles.
| greenmedic88 said: The Meta scores as we all know, at least those of us who aren't selectively using data to support our claims, skew high for lower budget indie titles, and generally tend to rake any major release (hyped and highly marketed), big budget title that isn't so good that only click bait reviewers nitpick to justify a non-concensus low score over the coals. It's odd how development and marketing costs alter perception of the quality of a given product. Call it a sense of fair play as well as a consumer cost to entertainment value perception. I don't personally think it's up to debate that there are in effect, two separate grading scales for low budget and big budget titles. |
I am well aware of the different standards AAA and indies are held by reviewers, which is why they are in seeperate categories.
daredevil.shark said:
|
Op should maybe take off the green tinted glasses. Add wii u in that chart and watch it dominate.
Thespiralmatrix said:
|
Due to Wii U's lack of 3rd party support, it's lead in exclusives is more or less useless.
Exclusives don't matter to someone who owns all the consoles, and if someone owns only one console then the overall library is much more important than just the exclusives. So until Wii U's exclsuives are numerous enough to completely negate it's handicap of no 3rd party titles it'll always be a non-option for someone only lookingto get one console.