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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Metacritics unbelievable Bias against Nintendos Thirdparty exclsuives in recent days

Johnw1104 on 18 November 2015

Fatal frame seemed to me to get rather unfairly screwed but the other two make senses I think



Around the Network
thatguymarco on 18 November 2015

I can see bias here, but it's not from metacritic, nor is against Wii U games.



I'm now filled with determination.

Danman27 on 18 November 2015

Maybe they're just bad games?



Dravenet7 on 18 November 2015
fireburn95 said:
Dravenet7 said:
fireburn95 said:
Dravenet7 said:

Everyone has a life, but if you're gonna make cheap generalizations when the information is right there and then defend this by subsequently consume more time defending your generalization then it takes to look at the very next comment, or even see the op's sig, then you yourself are willingly wasting your life away making innacurate generalizations. Claiming you have a life doesn't make sense when your wasting it yourself

EDIT:

I noticed you edited this in to your comment: "Way too much analysis of a mere comment...I recommend getting some action...Plural" 

This, of course, is the rational thing to do. When someone, points out what you are saying is wrong over general opinions in video games and groups, you decide to attempt to attack that person on a level which you know nothing about? Are you serious? This legitmately childish 


An attack?! Lol cute, you must be a SJW i'm guessing...Words hurt do they?

You'd guess wrong, which you have been doing this entire thread.

Call what you said whatever you feel like it is. I was civil, rational, and on topic. I'd like to point out that you couldn't handle criticism and went at me personally rather than logically address this. I imply asked because it was immature and wanted to be sure that this was the path you decided to take. You have done nothing but jump to conclusions, generalize, and upon responding to me, you continously went off the topic. The fact that you are calling me a SJW is both laughable and only ferments what I've been saying. 


Dude you seriously need to re-organise your priorities if you get offended by a complete anonymous person to you. I was on topic too. I shared my opinion, you challenged my opinion. Somewhere on the line a cluster of pixels seemingly has hurt your feelings and you started cutting onions. Get out more dude. ITS DA INTERNET. Not everyone here is here to bend to your whim or conform to your moral standards. I care about my family, not you (and try not to get offended over that, nothing personal but you're anonymous to me), and I will not change myself for you, good day.

 

-moded by axum
:I criticize both your statement about gathering information and your generalizations
----> In response, you insult me, not my statement, which by defintion makes it personal
:Rather than be insulted and reciprocate the insults, I criticize you for this as well as deviating from the topic.
----> In response, you say I'm insulted, which was your intention, and proceeded to call me an SJW baselessly.
:My previous statment is clear as day, no need to reiterate
--->You regurgitate your insults, claim to be on topic despite your first response being the insult I first bring up here. you the proceed to make accuasations and statements that make no sense: No one said to conform to any moral standard, tried to change you or brought up your parents randomly.
(I have no idea what molded by axum means so I won't even touch that)
The pattern is clear. Your comments are baseless, baiting insults, making them childish.The pretense that I'm trying to change you is what you made up and self-victimizing. Telling me to go somewhere and move on is hypocritical. The internet gives me the freedom to criticize your either incorrect or dimunitive comments. If you want to go back to the topic at hand, I've been more than willing. If not, why don't you move on instead of telling me to, because I'm not going to adhere to you whose only comments have been nothing but lies and insults.


nanorazor on 18 November 2015

At least they played the game, you seem you haven't played them and called them out for being bias. Also Bayonetta 2 got a high score, so your pretty much the bias person here. Useless thread is useless.



Around the Network
Boberkun on 18 November 2015
Mummelmann said:
padib said:
There's bias, that part is obvious.


Would you like to point out the obvious bias in the reviews for these three titles in the OP?

Easily

20 from Digital Spy

"It's fitting that the only Wii U-specific feature Devil's Third uses is the GamePad's poor battery life, because it gives you an excuse to turn it off."

Obvious derision of Wii U. 

 

40 from Multiplayer.it

"Devil’s Third is just terrible in every aspect, an ugly and broken action game that ends up being one of the worst Wii U exclusive ever released."

Like I said before, game is not broken. Chapter 5 is one of the most beautiful location in vidiya.


35 from IGN

"With weak combat, useless violence, and pay-to-win multiplayer, Devil's Third is not worth your time."

>useless violence

What? How can violence be useful?

>pay-to-win multiplayer

Blatant lie. You get rewards literally from everything in game.

 

30 from XGN

"With an unoriginal storyline, boring weapons, inconsistent frame rate and unfairly difficult bosses."

Wow, bunch of casuals whining about bosses (which are pretty easy even on "Hardcore" mode).

 

4 from Destructoid review:

"Fatal Frame: Maiden of Black Water seems so, so tired. Maidens, rituals, sacrifices, suicides, water, black hair growing and covering every surface...we've seen all of this done before and with more skill."

"If this what Fatal Frame is now, I don't want it anymore."

Fatal Frame is all about maidens, rituals, sacrifices, suicides, etc. If you not like it, you shouldn't review this game and you can't give it 4 only because you expect something else from this game.




NightDragon83 on 19 November 2015

Metacritic isn't the problem... those sorry excuses for "3rd party exclusives" are the problem.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Tachikoma on 19 November 2015

Metacritic isn't biased, it's just a score aggregate, individual outlets that review games can be biased in either direction, and on a case by case, reviewer by reviewer, platform by platform format, too.

What's more likely is that the reviewers just generally feel the games aren't that great.



Meret on 19 November 2015

Devil's Third and Fatal Frame are not "third party exclusives". They're both funded, produced and published by Nintendo. Fatal Frame even co-developed. So those are technically 1st party releases. You can find more 1st party releases with awful scores on Metacritic, cuz those games r just bad. Like Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival with 40/100.

Rodea is third party, yes, but it's just terrible, if you don't play it on Wii. Even creator Yuji Naka asked fans to play Wii version only, not Wii U and not 3DS.



Normchacho on 19 November 2015

Thinking more about it, I actually agree with the title.

The Metacritic bias against Nintendo is unbelievable. As in, I don't believe it.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.