God of War is the game of this generation. Regardless of Last of Us 2 score, it is near impossible to top a game of the magnitude of GOW.
God of War is the game of this generation. Regardless of Last of Us 2 score, it is near impossible to top a game of the magnitude of GOW.
Bonzinga said:
I actually agree with you in a way, I do believe reviewers need to base a game off its technical merits. Someone that hates JRPGs shouldn't just give a game a 2/10 just because they don't like the genre.. to an extent. I believe a reviewer should discuss a percentage of the game based off its merits and a small percentage off there own opinion if they personally like it or not as well. Giving a game a 7 is far from a bad score and maybe lower than the average for this game however the 7 is obviously giving the game credit in the fields it does right as well, they just fall a little harder on things they didn't like about the game compared to others and that's okay. If all reviewers base their reviews only on the technical aspects of the games and how well they are engineered without having a personal taste or opinion added to there own scores than it defeats the purpose of having 100 reviewers as the scores will all be the same. Regardless, this game scored incredibly well, I don't know many people who would complain about a 90+ score. |
Well even on the technical front and objective you'll find some different balance. Not all reviewers will be able to do (or care) for the same aspects of Digital Foundry or Anandtech.
And certainly a well written review giving a 70 for a 96 could be valid. And that is why I didn't asked about generic score but about the 3 reviewers that had given that score. When that reviewer say the game is better than the previous in every aspect but the story and then give it 26 points less than the average (and over 20 points below the previous game) that is were is the problem in this case. Since you also agree that 70 is an average score on metacritic, a game that is very much above average (and one may dislike the game but see that it is above) then 70 would also be to low for this specific game.
But sure I can concede that a 70 would be harder to be a clickbait review, for those the reviewers would preffer to be really obscene with 4s and the like. To show on the red side.
On the other hand I had a problem with some reviewers on BoTW, they pointed plenty of defects and weakness but still gave a 100. Those should give like 95 if they found that many problems on the game. But in the end giving a number is hard and it is much better to read the critic than to look at the score.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
| John2290 said: To everyone in this thread, this game costs 69,99 euro but time costs you nothing. Wait and see, journalists are popularity meters in this industry. Wait for the community. |
Actually time is our most costly asset. You can easily buy money with time but you can't buy time no matter the amount of money.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
Ps4 is sold out in Australia, think you can expect quite a boost in sales from this game
Just buy it if you want to play it or don't buy it if you don't want to play it. Its not rocket science. No need to attack each other for how you feel about the game.
BraLoD said:
TLoU2 and GoT sure will try. And seems like TLoU2 had done a very good try. I placed GoW4 behing TLoU, so 2 definitely has chance to top it too. GoW4 is currently my GOTG, tho. |
I believe you guys have misspelled Zelda BOTW :P
John2290 said:
I didn't think I was going to get into a philosophical debate with this, lol. While time can be costly in certain circumstances within a society it's not the case here, waiting for a video game isn't going to cost you anything up front. In this case, it's leisure time and leisure time is priceless, pricless things have no monetary value or lack a monetary value based on perception. Hence, time is priceless and costs you nothing if you choose it to be, so while TLOU2 has a hard price of 69,99 and people may get ripped away from that money, wishing for it and the time back. Waiting is the best option here, there is only loss by not waiting. |
Hey man I understood what you said. Waiting a little won't cost us anything in the end, we can do other stuff while waiting to confirm if the game is worthy or not.
Bonzinga said:
I believe you guys have misspelled Zelda BOTW :P |
This thread is about TLOU2 so better not to bring this here.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
DonFerrari said:
No you don`t, you have to pay a penalty since you said there would be no score lower than 90 and there were plenty. |
You take a my words in a very literal way... I cant predict what 1000 reviewers will do. Still i got it right at 96. But now after reading them I believe the user score will be even lower. A dont even want to play the game anymore.
DonFerrari said:
This thread is about TLOU2 so better not to bring this here. |
Its also not about GOW and GOT..
EnricoPallazzo said:
You take a my words in a very literal way... I cant predict what 1000 reviewers will do. Still i got it right at 96. But now after reading them I believe the user score will be even lower. A dont even want to play the game anymore. |
You were very direct on reviewers not being allowed to give it less than 90 "because of progressism" and whatnot. And we didn't need 1000 reviewers to have it, in 80 reviews we had 3 70s, 1 85, 4 80s. So 10% of the critics gave it less than 90.
You are free to not play the game and I don't even care. But your reasoning was wrong and you are trying to back pedal on it.
You may not be able to predict 1000 reviewers, but funny enough I was able to predict that at least one reviewer would give less than 90.
Bonzinga said:
Its also not about GOW and GOT.. |
Sure isn't.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."