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

Forums - Sony - God of War review thread - Meta: 94 OC: 95

AngryLittleAlchemist on 29 April 2018

Wasn't this game originally close to a 96?

I'm not going to shed any tears at it going down, but it is a little sad, mostly because I think it's about the same level of quality as most of the recent 96-97 tier games that have released.



Around the Network
Azzanation on 29 April 2018
LudicrousSpeed said:
Errorist76 said:

Can someone please explain me how an obvious troll website like Gamecritics is even listed on Metacritic?

Gamecritics : PS exclusives: 
Bloodborne 92 meta -> 70 Gc 
Uncharted 4 93 meta -> 50 Gc 
Horizon ZD 89 meta -> 65 Gc 
Uncharted TLL 84 meta -> 65 Gc 
NieR Automata 92 meta -> 65 Gc 
Persona 5 93 meta -> 65 Gc 

lmao, because they have a different opinions on some games you enjoy, they're "trolls"? By the way, you can probably make a similar list for all three console companies. Lets experiment and see!

Gamecritics : Nintendo Exclusives
Mario Odyssey 97 meta -> 80 Gc
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 92 meta -> 80 Gc
Super Mario 3D World 92 meta -> 60 Gc
Zelda TP 95 meta -> 80 Gc
Zelda SS 93 meta -> 60 Gc
Mario Sunshine 92 meta -> 60 Gc

 

Gamecritics: Microsoft Exclusives
Gears of War 94 meta -> 80 Gc
Halo 3 94 meta -> 70 Gc
Halo Reach 91 meta -> 70 Gc
Gears 3 91 meta -> 65 Gc
Cuphead 88 meta -> 60 Gc
Quantum Break 77 meta -> 50 Gc
Forza 7 86 meta -> 60 Gc
Halo 5 84 meta -> 55 Gc

I had to go back to freakin GCN era to find Nintendo console games. To be honest I could add a lot more, for a site that people here are implying have a strong Nintendo bias and anti Sony bias, they really don't review a lot of Nintendo games and they seem to shit on everyone pretty equally. Maybe they just review harder than other sites and have their own particular ideas about what makes a good game and what they like. Which is fine. I don't watch RedLetterMedia expecting shitty costumes and screaming and fake rage like I would if I ever watched an AngryJoe review. They can have an audience and cater to that audience. And they should be on MC. After all, it's weighted. Furthermore there are more than a few Playstation focused sites giving it great scores, should those come off as well?

I mean it's a 94. That's still really good.

Strange enough GC gave GoW a 7.5/10 yet are considered bias even after they gave games like Halo 3 and Reach a 7/10. Human logic. 

Modern gamers today are too worried about the Meta of a game than the actual game itself. Its nice to know what you like is praised but honestly do they sit on there chairs playing the game and saying to themselves "Ohhhh this is definitely a 10/10 game" during play sessions? I would believe it.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 29 April 2018

VGPolyglot on 29 April 2018
NoCtiS_NoX said:

VGPolyglot said:

Different reviewers use different meanings for their scores, you call their 5/10 unjustifiable yet game reviews are subjective, so of course it's justifiable, it's based on personal experiences with the game.

What's justifiable for you? Does reviewer should be subjective?

Reviewing a game has a scale to be followed. It shouldn't be subjective. As much as possible you should be objective because you are being paid to review a game and liking and reviewing are two different things.
Reviewing a game should have a scale. 
I will use GT reviews (shame they are gone)
They use a scale

  • Presentation
  • Design
  • gameplay
  • story

If a game review is trying to be completely objective (which I don't even think is possible), then it shouldn't come with a review score, because it'd essentially just be an analysis of what the game is and what it does.



Kerotan on 29 April 2018
Lawlight said:
Kerotan said:
Yeah a 7.5 from him is superb. About the reviewer

"Mike's first exposure to video games was when his parents bought him a Game Boy and a copy of Kirby's Dream Land"

Looking at his scores he's always heavily favoured Nintendo games over playstation. A reviewer on metacritic should be impartial and leave the personal preferences out of it.

So, first Edge, now this guy. Seems like Sony pissed off a fair few game critics by entering the gaming market.

Looking at their latest financials I'd say, they "just don't give a fook" as conor mcgregor would say! 



NoCtiS_NoX on 29 April 2018
VGPolyglot said:
NoCtiS_NoX said:

What's justifiable for you? Does reviewer should be subjective?

Reviewing a game has a scale to be followed. It shouldn't be subjective. As much as possible you should be objective because you are being paid to review a game and liking and reviewing are two different things.
Reviewing a game should have a scale. 
I will use GT reviews (shame they are gone)
They use a scale

  • Presentation
  • Design
  • gameplay
  • story

If a game review is trying to be completely objective (which I don't even think is possible), then it shouldn't come with a review score, because it'd essentially just be an analysis of what the game is and what it does.

I am not good with English but I never claim completely. I said as much as possible.
Reviewers job is to educate the people on what they should expect. It shouldn't be about his opinions only. 
Hence I said there should be a scale on how will they review it.


Since you removed and ignore the list and now with more examples. Do you think there score is justifiable? They are always outside the norm for famous games. I am not going to pretend that there is nothing wrong here.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 29 April 2018
NoCtiS_NoX said:
VGPolyglot said:

If a game review is trying to be completely objective (which I don't even think is possible), then it shouldn't come with a review score, because it'd essentially just be an analysis of what the game is and what it does.

I am not good with English but I never claim completely. I said as much as possible.
Reviewers job is to educate the people on what they should expect. It shouldn't be about his opinions only. 
Hence I said there should be a scale on how will they review it.


Since you removed and ignore the list and now with more examples. Do you think there score is justifiable? They are always outside the norm for famous games. I am not going to pretend that there is nothing wrong here.

I don't understand the implications that if their score deviates from the norm that must mean they're wrong, there is no right and wrong for scoring game reviews because they're based on opinions. A review is based on people's opinions, if someone tries to say otherwise they're either delusional or dishonest.



freebs2 on 29 April 2018
NoCtiS_NoX said:
VGPolyglot said:

If a game review is trying to be completely objective (which I don't even think is possible), then it shouldn't come with a review score, because it'd essentially just be an analysis of what the game is and what it does.

I am not good with English but I never claim completely. I said as much as possible.
Reviewers job is to educate the people on what they should expect. It shouldn't be about his opinions only. 
Hence I said there should be a scale on how will they review it.


Since you removed and ignore the list and now with more examples. Do you think there score is justifiable? They are always outside the norm for famous games. I am not going to pretend that there is nothing wrong here.

You're worng. The job of reviewers is to give an appropriate score compared to hype and fans expectations.

In reference to 1st party games in particular thier job is to raise the metascorescore as much as possibile, so that fans can brag about how cool their favourite company is and the game automatically gets more enjoyable.

Last edited by freebs2 - on 29 April 2018

Lawlight on 29 April 2018
LudicrousSpeed said:
Errorist76 said:

Can someone please explain me how an obvious troll website like Gamecritics is even listed on Metacritic?

Gamecritics : PS exclusives: 
Bloodborne 92 meta -> 70 Gc 
Uncharted 4 93 meta -> 50 Gc 
Horizon ZD 89 meta -> 65 Gc 
Uncharted TLL 84 meta -> 65 Gc 
NieR Automata 92 meta -> 65 Gc 
Persona 5 93 meta -> 65 Gc 

lmao, because they have a different opinions on some games you enjoy, they're "trolls"? By the way, you can probably make a similar list for all three console companies. Lets experiment and see!

Gamecritics : Nintendo Exclusives
Mario Odyssey 97 meta -> 80 Gc
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 92 meta -> 80 Gc
Super Mario 3D World 92 meta -> 60 Gc
Zelda TP 95 meta -> 80 Gc
Zelda SS 93 meta -> 60 Gc
Mario Sunshine 92 meta -> 60 Gc

 

Gamecritics: Microsoft Exclusives
Gears of War 94 meta -> 80 Gc
Halo 3 94 meta -> 70 Gc
Halo Reach 91 meta -> 70 Gc
Gears 3 91 meta -> 65 Gc
Cuphead 88 meta -> 60 Gc
Quantum Break 77 meta -> 50 Gc
Forza 7 86 meta -> 60 Gc
Halo 5 84 meta -> 55 Gc

I had to go back to freakin GCN era to find Nintendo console games. To be honest I could add a lot more, for a site that people here are implying have a strong Nintendo bias and anti Sony bias, they really don't review a lot of Nintendo games and they seem to shit on everyone pretty equally. Maybe they just review harder than other sites and have their own particular ideas about what makes a good game and what they like. Which is fine. I don't watch RedLetterMedia expecting shitty costumes and screaming and fake rage like I would if I ever watched an AngryJoe review. They can have an audience and cater to that audience. And they should be on MC. After all, it's weighted. Furthermore there are more than a few Playstation focused sites giving it great scores, should those come off as well?

I mean it's a 94. That's still really good.

Interesting to see no Nintendo exclusives have scored as low as Uncharted 4. Also interesting to see that no PS4 first party have gotten more than 65 until God of War. Also, the Switch games have been scored higher than any PS4 exclusive.



deskpro2k3 on 29 April 2018

Basically the reason behind that 7.5 score is because GOW has to many 10s. -- explained one of the editors on gamecritics.

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 29 April 2018

Errorist76 on 29 April 2018
LudicrousSpeed said:
Errorist76 said:

Can someone please explain me how an obvious troll website like Gamecritics is even listed on Metacritic?

Gamecritics : PS exclusives: 
Bloodborne 92 meta -> 70 Gc 
Uncharted 4 93 meta -> 50 Gc 
Horizon ZD 89 meta -> 65 Gc 
Uncharted TLL 84 meta -> 65 Gc 
NieR Automata 92 meta -> 65 Gc 
Persona 5 93 meta -> 65 Gc 

lmao, because they have a different opinions on some games you enjoy, they're "trolls"? By the way, you can probably make a similar list for all three console companies. Lets experiment and see!

Gamecritics : Nintendo Exclusives
Mario Odyssey 97 meta -> 80 Gc
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 92 meta -> 80 Gc
Super Mario 3D World 92 meta -> 60 Gc
Zelda TP 95 meta -> 80 Gc
Zelda SS 93 meta -> 60 Gc
Mario Sunshine 92 meta -> 60 Gc

 

Gamecritics: Microsoft Exclusives
Gears of War 94 meta -> 80 Gc
Halo 3 94 meta -> 70 Gc
Halo Reach 91 meta -> 70 Gc
Gears 3 91 meta -> 65 Gc
Cuphead 88 meta -> 60 Gc
Quantum Break 77 meta -> 50 Gc
Forza 7 86 meta -> 60 Gc
Halo 5 84 meta -> 55 Gc

I had to go back to freakin GCN era to find Nintendo console games. To be honest I could add a lot more, for a site that people here are implying have a strong Nintendo bias and anti Sony bias, they really don't review a lot of Nintendo games and they seem to shit on everyone pretty equally. Maybe they just review harder than other sites and have their own particular ideas about what makes a good game and what they like. Which is fine. I don't watch RedLetterMedia expecting shitty costumes and screaming and fake rage like I would if I ever watched an AngryJoe review. They can have an audience and cater to that audience. And they should be on MC. After all, it's weighted. Furthermore there are more than a few Playstation focused sites giving it great scores, should those come off as well?

I mean it's a 94. That's still really good.

If anything that list shows I was right. 

They clearly are an attention seeking troll site, purposely rating popular games low in order to gain clicks.