| Aerys said: See? 90 was à crazy hope, but 88 is still better than i expected |
The fact that it got an 88 mean's 90 wasn't crazy at all. Someone saying 90 would have been very close to being right.
| Aerys said: See? 90 was à crazy hope, but 88 is still better than i expected |
It got really close to hitting 90, though. I expected the average to be an 86.
| Aerys said: See? 90 was à crazy hope, but 88 is still better than i expected |
Not really. That 50 review knocked it down a peg. If anything, 90 was more realistic than many people believed. 88 is only 2 points from 90, that's pretty damn close.
Still, very strong showing from a new IP
"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian
method114 said:
The fact that it got an 88 mean's 90 wasn't crazy at all. Someone saying 90 would have been very close to being right. |
It could still get 90 yet.
PSN ID: Stokesy
Add me if you want but let me know youre from this website
BraLoD said:
I wonder if there will be any unusually low score, Nintendo games are usually not targeted by those kind of bad reviews. |
From what I've seen, Breath of the Wild doesn't have much water, so it shoudl be safe from bad reviews.
Profrektius said:
Both games are in low 90s, not mid or high 90s. The only two games that manage a 94+ score on PS4 are enhanced editions of last gen games (TLoU and GTA V). For comparisons sake I looked at all PS3 games on metacritic rated 90+ and same with PS4 games. I counted the games that were made for that generation, so excluded enhanced editions, or HD ports. PS3 has 49 games rated 90+. Of those 7 being sports games. 3 being music games. And 6 being downloadable only games. PS4 has 6 games rated 90+. Of those 1 is downloadable only game. I realize that PS3 has had more time, but the difference shouldn't be that massive. It should be at least a third of that number. So either critics have gotten way harsher and don't give out as high scores anymore, or the quality of games has significantly gone down (which I wouldn't agree with). |
They have gotten harsher, or more accurately stated better.
Last gen reviews were a joke. Basically every game got a 8 or 9. They just handed out great scores like candy. I think it had a lot to do with ad revenue. You couldn't go to any of these sites and not see giant baners all over the site advertising teh very game that was just reviewed or going to be soon.
Look at those 49 games that are 90+. Do they really all deserve that good of a rating?
So far, an 88. Bit better than I was anticipating, but the 90+ kool aid that a surprising number of people were drinking has spoiled.
Right where I thought it would be. Hopefully it does better but I do enjoy being correct.... For now.
It's kind of funny, really. One of the main complaints seems to be that Horizon does some of the things you see in other popular franchises. Needing to loot enemies and gather crafting supplies to upgrade your gear, for instance, is presented as a negative.
And yet, this is something that many, many people actually like about open-world RPGs.
This is why meta-scores have so very little value as absolutes. Some people wanted a straight action game and marked off points because it wasn't exactly that. Others would have marked off points if it ended up as just a straight action game. It's really not a winnable situation.
Not sure why are people so riled up about that 2.5/5 star review - actual review has a lot of valid points, it's just that score is bit too low...though, one must understand that 2.5/5 stars is not as bad as 50/100, star system is a lot more akin to movie ratings.
Personally, I find Destructiod's review quite useful, it's 75/100, but points to some of the bigger issues Horizon has as an open-word action RPG (though calling it RPG is a bit of stretch in the first place).
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
