2/10 or 3/10 mediocre first party games is a better ratio than the other way around like some others. And this is not broken, not unpolished and nothing less than they said it would be, a spin off that only focus on the decoration side of AC (that is one of the most addictive parts of the game, don´t even know why).

OT: This was not really unexpected, it looks like the game delivers exactly what it promised, the problem is AC is a extremely engaging game for all its elements combined, however, the exclusive focus on the decoration makes it feel superficial no matter how they expand it, I´m sure it is fun for the people who like that in AC, but it doesn´t look half as engaging and memorable as any other AC, specially New Leaf.

Is gonna sell very well anyway because people loves that part of AC and it is targeted to the most casual audience inside of an already very casual friendly game, so what the critics says does not matter all that much here.

By selling a million in Japan alone? Sure, bomba.

Vita sold 4 million in Japan, it's still bomba.

I didn't know AC: HHD was a console. It's a super cheap budget title. I don't see many AAA exclusives that will be more profitable than this quickly thrown together game.

Still a critical bomba, as per the threads topic (metacritic score)

I'll get it just for the comfy appeal.

Love comfy games.

Doesn't this kind of prove how useless metacritic is? Skylanders: Superchargers is sitting at 91% on the Wii U, lol. No wonder people think 85% is a bad metascore, let alone 68% (still too high for AC: HHD).

AC: HHD will easily sell more than every Team Ico game combined, despite their games being critical successes. You can add the future sales of TLG in that as well.

I've stopped taking metacritic serious a long time ago.

Nobody expected this to score high (hence the thread was only made a day later), so it hardly bombed. It scored what people thought it would.

The problem with people saying metacritic is useless/broken is, they only say it when something they like scores badly or something they dont like scores well, they don't say it when something they do like scores well and something they dont scores badly.

The reality of it is simply this.

The number is worthless as the multiple reviews used to aggregate it.

The only way metacritics score will have any meaning is when review scores do too, and the only feasible way to do that is to have a reviewer who openly states their console bias for each platform, and each of the three reviewers write a review for the game, then average out the two apposing reviews, then average out the result with the fans score. - all three reviewers would score it without knowing the score given by each other.

Eg, nintendo game gets reviewed by all three.

Sony fan scores it 70
MS fan scores it 74
Nintendo fan scores it 80
thus the sites average becomes the average of 72 and 80, which is 76.

Site then has three reviews, one for each fanbase, of a particular game, holds value to the reader since they can see the review from each perspective, and the number holds meaning because it has a reduced chance of being representitive only of bias.

if ALL sites did this, metacritic numbers would be a good representation, until then (wont ever happen) theyre not.

I was expecting worse imo

SMM got great scores yet I still said how flawed MC is.

So not a reality for me, but maybe for others.

You can hardly accuse me of liking this game though, I've never even touched an AC game lol.