Wright said:
|
Well this is my metric:
90-100 = Amazing
80-89 = Great
70-79 = Good
60-69 = Decent
50-59 = Mediocre
0-49 = Bad
Splatoon is definitely more than just decent!
Wright said:
|
Well this is my metric:
90-100 = Amazing
80-89 = Great
70-79 = Good
60-69 = Decent
50-59 = Mediocre
0-49 = Bad
Splatoon is definitely more than just decent!
Einsam_Delphin said:
90-100 = Amazing 80-89 = Great 70-79 = Good 60-69 = Decent 50-59 = Mediocre 0-49 = Bad Splatoon is definitely more than just decent! |
Well, even if I take my solid post and bound it by the rules of your metrics, I'd stand still. It's a 67 Decent game. Fun in short bursts, throwaway campaign (my guess), lack of content in vanilla game and stiff competition from other games like Mario Kart or Smash Bros that will make it struggle to keep relevant.
Skullwaker said:
There's also the fact that Kirby didn't have an online mode, only local (Splatoon has both) and Splatoon allows for multiple control options while Kirby limits you to touch controls. At the very least, Splatoon should match Kirby but I suspect it will be higher than that. |
Kirby and Toad are the same lenght. Toad is 81 because is fresh, polish and fun. Kirby doesnt have the Toad score because it is polish and fun too but you have to play with a stylus in a 480p screen insted of your tv, and the game is not the first with the innovative concept (that was canvas curse, ), also is a 2D game, something percived as "cheap", Splatoon has none of those problems. If something it would match the Toad score just for the single player, and we know that the single player is where we are going to spend just the 5% of the time in this game, so... we´ll see.
Moyu said: 76 Hopefully I'm wrong and the game gets even lower scores |
Have you even played it before?
This comment is hilarious to me. Based on your recent history though, it's unsurprising.
Moyu said: 76 Hopefully I'm wrong and the game gets even lower scores |
Your entire credibility is thrown out the window in the other thread. Not because of a prediction, because of your last sentence :-/
Wright said:
|
Is a terrible score for metacritic standars.
Ka-pi96 said:
Way too pessimistic! Why hate on the game with such a low score? |
I would of went with a 99 but i didn't want to sound like a Fanboy
Samus Aran said: So all you care about is how good the reviews are, not the actual game itself? Good to know. I'm not the one who brought Driveclub in this thread, I don't go to the Sony Discussion to talk smack about that game. Weather makes a racing game better now? It seems you don't have your priorities straight. They should've fixed the framerate instead. |
You sure as hell don't mind talking smack about the game in here.
And what kind of a jump to conclusion is that? I already said that I don't care about Driveclub, how do you go from that to "I only care how good the reviews are"? I told you about my opinion on when the game should have released to get the best possible reviews, because that's what we're talking about: Games only being reviewed for the content that's being available at the time of the review.
And lol if you don't think that weather effects make a racing game better. How about you take that claim to the Forza fanbase, who has been requesting weather effects in the main game since forever? Or how about you go look up any of the articles that actually call Driveclubs weather one of its, if not the best feature? Again, don't talk smack if you're seriously just completely uninformed.
Ka-pi96 said:
While true it does seem that metacritics standards are slowly lowering. There's actually a fair few good games down around those numbers these days. |
I don t think so.
Wright said:
Well, even if I take my solid post and bound it by the rules of your metrics, I'd stand still. It's a 67 Decent game. Fun in short bursts, throwaway campaign (my guess), lack of content in vanilla game and stiff competition from other games like Mario Kart or Smash Bros that will make it struggle to keep relevant. |
You may stand still good sir as we all have our opinions, however your reasoning is very flawed. It is fun in short burst, but if you're implying you can't spend hours at a time on it aswell then you're mistaken. Like Smash Bros. and Mario Kart, the game is highly addictive due to it's dynamic every changing battles making each one different from the last. Only good things have been said about the campaign, even comparisons to Galaxy. Sure most will probably only play it once and be done, but they still played it and it offered a different experience, so was not a waste putting it in. There is no lack of content either, it just wont all be there immediately, instead coming in free updates that help keep the community active. How do Mario Kart and Smash have any effect on the quality of this game other than making it easier to explain why it's so good?