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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Metal Gear Solid 4 has a review score of around 91%... I am NOT impressed!

Pristine20 on 12 June 2008

If the review score troubles you so, don't buy it. Simple



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

Around the Network
colonelstubbs on 12 June 2008

91! im sickened



I hope my 360 doesn't RRoD
         "Suck my balls!" - Tag courtesy of Fkusmot

a.l.e.x00 on 13 June 2008
Profcrab said:
a.l.e.x00 said:
Profcrab said:
OMG! 91% The sky is falling the sky is falling. God it must be depressing to be a game reviewer. So many words ignored because of 2 digits.

I give this thread a 9.1.

Next time, read the whole thing. 91% is a MASTERPIECE, but that was not my point. My point is that I thought it was rather low, with only 8 reviews, and that it may lower to about 84%, or something, seeing how review scores tend to decrease. But, if you read my other posts, I mentioned that NG4 is a more accurate source, where the game is at 9.6. Numbers mean nothing. My only point, was to talk about why it has such a low score on GameRankings, and Metacritic. That is it. This thread has been over exaggerated, far too much. It has come to the point, where I just don't care anymore. Besides, the score does not matter, but the reason for those scores. I read the articles, and some reviewers think the game is a disappointment. Some gave valid reasons, too. Now, I do not base my opinions on numbers, and other people's opinions, but I do use them as guidelines. Personally, I think the game will be the fucking shit, so I'm going to buy it tomorrow right away, and then I'll know for sure, how good the game, truly is. Next time, read more than the original post, okay?


 Wow, time to step away from your computer.  No one murdered your baby . . . and if they did I doubt it was over this thread.  There is no such thing as an accurate rating.  There is such thing as an honest rating, where a reviewer gives a gives their honest opinion.  Numbers are BS so when you talk about numbers being low, you are discussing BS.  I think it's depressing that what gets debated are their numbers.  Relax a little.  Don't drive angry.

I give that post a 9.3. 


You just wrote exactly what I wrote. I give that post a negative infinity and beyond (and if you reply with a number that is somehow lower, it's lower than that number too). There is no such thing as a perfect rating. Next time, read more posts before. I don't want to say it again. 



a.l.e.x00 on 13 June 2008
largedarryl said:
So I don't get it, a popular niche title was supposed to appeal to the mainstream consumer?

1. No.

2. I already have it.

3. It's a good game, but not perfect, like every other game. I agree with the reviews. 



a.l.e.x00 on 13 June 2008
TheBigFatJ said:
sexybeast said:
91% is bad? Man my grades suck. 93 on Metacritic right now

Well, don't factor out all of those "official playstation magazine" 10/10 scores.

What would be more interesting is seeing all the reviews flood in after the embargo has been lifted. 

I can all but assure you that they'll be lower than what we've seen so far. 

Why would you factor out those Playstation Magazine reviews? I'm sure they're not "just" giving it perfect ratings, because they're "Playstation" magazine, and the game is a top, first party "Playstation" game. Besides, if you did that, you would have to alter every other review in the database, and factor out all the Microsoft reviews of 10/10 for Halo 3, and Nintendo reviews of 10/10 for Galaxy. So no.



Around the Network
brute on 13 June 2008

i think it became around 92.5



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

a.l.e.x00 on 13 June 2008
GhaleonUnlimited said:

You're a fucking tool if you use review numbers to tell YOU how you feel about a game.

 

WTF is with the average gamer now and review scores? Nintendo Power reviewed games, but everyone just played what looked cool and then told other people about it, good or bad. Now it's "If this game didn't get a METACRITIXZ SCORE of 8.2 I WON'T TRY"


You're a fucking tool if you don't read some of the posts before, so that you would know, and not assume. Numbers are always inaccurate, so read the reviews. Don't assume again. You're wrong.



a.l.e.x00 on 13 June 2008
Pristine20 said:
If the review score troubles you so, don't buy it. Simple

1. Does not trouble.

2. Don't over exaggerate my words, because I never cared. Ever. It started out as a simply post, but grew into those atrocious mess, that never ends.

3. I already have it.

4. It's awesome, but it has its flaws.

5. Not simple.

6. Read the posts before. 



a.l.e.x00 on 13 June 2008
colonelstubbs said:
91! im sickened

You're wrong. Not 91. Was 91 too early. Thought because it was 91 too early, it would settle around 84 or something. Basically, assumed it may bomb, but it didn't. It's awesome. And it's at 92 right now, so I guess I'm wrong with the whole downward trend. It may settle at 93, which is fantastic. Read the posts before.



PooperScooper on 13 June 2008

gamerankings doesnt have OPM Italy's 100%, OPM Belgiums 96%, Power Unlimited's 90%, Cheifs 97%, Levels 100%, Joypads 95%, Jeuxvideo Magazines 100%, Hobby Consolas 96%, PlayFrances 95%, IGN UK 99%, Meristations 100%, Hardgames 90%, Famitsu's 100%, Fox News' (lol) 100%, Rise of Games' 100%, Gamers Report's 95%, Game Informer's 100% and 98%, Player Tv's 100%, or gameplayers 100%