I wouldn't usually play a game if it tends to get scores of less than 85%.

AAA games are considered to be those within the 90-100% category. Strangely, AA games are often condsidered to be those that fall in the 80-90% category. 80% games aren't that good, people! In the last couple of years, scores became harsher and less lenient, so I became fine with playing games in the 82-85% range. However, I found almost everything below 82% from the last 2 years, and almost everything below 85% from the years before, to be pure, unadulterated ****. So the worse half of these so-called AA games are, IMO, mostly terrible.

You may think I have little appreciate for video games -- on the other hand, I love them tremendously. That better half of AA is well worth it.

And I'm not one of those brainless ones who likes being told what to think - most initial releases get the scores they deserve. Reviewers are a better and surer source of "quality feedback". I played much fewer ****ty games after discovering GameRankings.

AAA games are considered to be those within the 90-100% category. Strangely, AA games are often condsidered to be those that fall in the 80-90% category. 80% games aren't that good, people! In the last couple of years, scores became harsher and less lenient, so I became fine with playing games in the 82-85% range. However, I found almost everything below 82% from the last 2 years, and almost everything below 85% from the years before, to be pure, unadulterated ****. So the worse half of these so-called AA games are, IMO, mostly terrible.

You may think I have little appreciate for video games -- on the other hand, I love them tremendously. That better half of AA is well worth it.

And I'm not one of those brainless ones who likes being told what to think - most initial releases get the scores they deserve. Reviewers are a better and surer source of "quality feedback". I played much fewer ****ty games after discovering GameRankings.

the_hitman_guy

Oh man, some of my favorite games are less then 85%.

Didn't Mario Kart 64 get a sub 85% rating? System Shock 2 was in the 80s, although I'm not sure if it broke the 85% barrier. And I dislike quite a few AAA games. You should probably ignore most critics scores, just read what they say about the game, and see if it suits your tastes.

Edit: Mario Kart got a 6.4 rating here. System Shock 2 barely made the cut with 8.5. Both of these would have been far higher on my personal rating scale.

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines scored 7.7, and it's one of the best Western RPG's ever made.

Another title that comes to mind is HoM&M2, which scored 8.3 and was admitted to Gamespot's Greatest Games of All Time list.

Are you going to let some number on the screen judge what you should buy and enjoy? I know the people who judge and test, review games have been doing this all the time, but only you can know what you like!!!!!

Your gonna be missing out on alot of games!

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines scored 7.7, and it's one of the best Western RPG's ever made.

Another title that comes to mind is HoM&M2, which scored 8.3 and was admitted to Gamespot's Greatest Games of All Time list.

Lilac_Benjie

Well, hermits have different standards and many of us love and enjoy games in the 6 range. Yeah, the 6 range. Of course, when a PC game is reviewed it's usually version 1.0 and patches are never taken into account later on.

[QUOTE="the_hitman_guy"]

AAA games are considered to be those within the 90-100% category. Strangely, AA games are often condsidered to be those that fall in the 80-90% category. 80% games aren't that good, people! In the last couple of years, scores became harsher and less lenient, so I became fine with playing games in the 82-85% range. However, I found almost everything below 82% from the last 2 years, and almost everything below 85% from the years before, to be pure, unadulterated ****. So the worse half of these so-called AA games are, IMO, mostly terrible.

You may think I have little appreciate for video games -- on the other hand, I love them tremendously. That better half of AA is well worth it.

And I'm not one of those brainless ones who likes being told what to think - most initial releases get the scores they deserve. Reviewers are a better and surer source of "quality feedback". I played much fewer ****ty games after discovering GameRankings.

mattbbpl

Oh man, some of my favorite games are less then 85%.

Didn't Mario Kart 64 get a sub 85% rating? System Shock 2 was in the 80s, although I'm not sure if it broke the 85% barrier. And I dislike quite a few AAA games. You should probably ignore most critics scores, just read what they say about the game, and see if it suits your tastes.

Edit: Mario Kart got a 6.4 rating here. System Shock 2 barely made the cut with 8.5. Both of these would have been far higher on my personal rating scale.

I don't look at GameSpot's score, I look at the Critic score next to the Reader score! And if I want to read a review and GameSpot's score is way off, I go to GameRankings and find a review that is closer to the average -- preferrably a prominent website like GameSpy, IGN, or GamersHell.

My dear Mattbbpl, on GameRankings, Mario Kart 64 DID get 85%, and System Shock 2 got about 92%. So never fear the average! Embrace it!

Of course, you'll hate some well-rated games. I, for one, despised WarCraft III, and even liked WarCraft II better. (Please don't ANYBODY who likes WarCraft III comment on that last sentence!)

Hermits do have different standards. CaseyWegner can say otherwise as an official declaration of the mods, but it's still true.

Then you are playing games for the wrong reasons. I loved a game that scored 3.0 on Gamespot... loved.

You should play games you find fun.
foxhound_fox

What game was that?

Hermits do have different standards. CaseyWegner can say otherwise as an official declaration of the mods, but it's still true.

Lilac_Benjie

You and I both know it. While a major gaming outlet will never actually admit to that fact.

I mean, after Ahn'Qiraj, which was apart of a free patch to World of Warcraft, that game could have been re-reviewed and may have scored higher.

I can enjoy a game that is below %85, but I have to be interested in the genre or gameplay. I liked King Kong, which got below an 85, and I really liked Worms 3D and Worms 4, they both got in the 7's, and I thought Resident Evil Outbreak was fun, it got in the 7s. Basically I like some games below 8.5, but I have to be sure what im buying before I just go and get it.CraigJK

I didn't know there was a Worms 4. Personally, I would have preferred it if the franchise stuck to the 2 dimensional style - but 2D doesn't sell anymore.

Are you going to let some number on the screen judge what you should buy and enjoy? I know the people who judge and test, review games have been doing this all the time, but only you can know what you like!!!!!

Your gonna be missing out on alot of games!

Hermitkermit

Hey, it's not a personal rule! If I really feel like playing a game (Hitman: Contracts, 77%, Oooooh Yeah!), I go on and get it!

However!.. I TEND to really feel that MOST 82%- games really, really suck IMO.

Virtua Fighter 5, the best 3D fighting game got 8.1

Instead of looking at numbers all the time, why not try to READ the reviews? Then decide if you will like the game despite the flaws.

Many games that had 9.0 and above, I dislike very much because it doesn't fit my taste. Which is why I READ the reviews and see if it is type of games I will like or not.

Bad idea. You'll be missing out on some (great) games. Don't let other people decide the games you want to play. :|MoldOnHold

Sure, I'll miss out on SOME great games, but if I just go out and get games in their 70's, I'll lose a lot of money by not playing them for more than an hour.

What game was that?mattbbpl

[QUOTE="CraigJK"]I can enjoy a game that is below %85, but I have to be interested in the genre or gameplay. I liked King Kong, which got below an 85, and I really liked Worms 3D and Worms 4, they both got in the 7's, and I thought Resident Evil Outbreak was fun, it got in the 7s. Basically I like some games below 8.5, but I have to be sure what im buying before I just go and get it.mattbbpl

I didn't know there was a Worms 4. Personally, I would have preferred it if the franchise stuck to the 2 dimensional style - but 2D doesn't sell anymore.

They switched back to the 2-D gameplay, but they are lacking a lot of the weapons that made Armaggeddon a great game. They made a 2D for PSP and DS, Worms:Open Warfare, but it had no story mode and almost no weapons. Open Warfare 2 is coming out soon, I hope it is a little better. They also have an Xbox Live Arcade Worms, but it's basically only the weapons from Worms 1, so not much content, but it is only $10.

I think I actually liked Fantastic 4... which got a 2.9. >.> But waaaaaaaaaay to many bugs.

And Yu-gi-oh: The Falsebound Kingdom. Which I think got a 3.

Yes, my standards are low, big whoop :evil:

[QUOTE="MoldOnHold"]Bad idea. You'll be missing out on some (great) games. Don't let other people decide the games you want to play. :|the_hitman_guy

Sure, I'll miss out on SOME great games, but if I just go out and get games in their 70's, I'll lose a lot of money by not playing them for more than an hour.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

[QUOTE="CraigJK"]I can enjoy a game that is below %85, but I have to be interested in the genre or gameplay. I liked King Kong, which got below an 85, and I really liked Worms 3D and Worms 4, they both got in the 7's, and I thought Resident Evil Outbreak was fun, it got in the 7s. Basically I like some games below 8.5, but I have to be sure what im buying before I just go and get it.CraigJK

I didn't know there was a Worms 4. Personally, I would have preferred it if the franchise stuck to the 2 dimensional style - but 2D doesn't sell anymore.

They switched back to the 2-D gameplay, but they are lacking a lot of the weapons that made Armaggeddon a great game. They made a 2D for PSP and DS, Worms:Open Warfare, but it had no story mode and almost no weapons. Open Warfare 2 is coming out soon, I hope it is a little better. They also have an Xbox Live Arcade Worms, but it's basically only the weapons from Worms 1, so not much content, but it is only $10.

That's disappointing. I loved Worms2 and Worms Armaggedon. I still play them to this day.

The best first person shooter ever made actually got a 7.4 on Gamespot.

link

Gamespot also gave a low score to one of the very first RPG/FPS hybrids. It was an incredible game that just appeared on the Doom engine, when only the Build engine was considered acceptable at that point.:roll:

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]What game was that?foxhound_fox

Haha. I would have hated it (not a fan of WWII FPS's, even ones that are heralded as good), but that's kind of point of this thread I think. Reviews are just opinions, and they can vary from person to person. Most people would hate the original Alone in the Dark - my all time favorite game.

The best first person shooter ever made actually got a 7.4 on Gamespot.

link

Gamespot also gave a low score to one of the very first RPG/FPS hybrids. It was an incredible game that just appeared on the Doom engine, when only the Build engine was considered acceptable at that point.:roll:

Lilac_Benjie

I own that game...

...and it's sequel...:oops:

[QUOTE="the_hitman_guy"] [QUOTE="MoldOnHold"]Bad idea. You'll be missing out on some (great) games. Don't let other people decide the games you want to play. :|MoldOnHold

Its hte opinion of a single person, if you judge whether a game is rubbish or not based on that then you ur kinda shallow minded. Ospi

How many times have I had to repeat that it's the opinion of a hundred people, not of ONE person.

And I generally use the scores as a guide only, I always decide from the reviews how well I would like a game. (PC gamer's 94% review of Diablo II was sickening to me even before I tried the game.)

you can tell a difference between an 85 and an 84?CaseyWegner

3% makes a big difference to me.

AAA games are considered to be those within the 90-100% category. Strangely, AA games are often condsidered to be those that fall in the 80-90% category. 80% games aren't that good, people! In the last couple of years, scores became harsher and less lenient, so I became fine with playing games in the 82-85% range. However, I found almost everything below 82% from the last 2 years, and almost everything below 85% from the years before, to be pure, unadulterated ****. So the worse half of these so-called AA games are, IMO, mostly terrible.

You may think I have little appreciate for video games -- on the other hand, I love them tremendously. That better half of AA is well worth it.

And I'm not one of those brainless ones who likes being told what to think - most initial releases get the scores they deserve. Reviewers are a better and surer source of "quality feedback". I played much fewer ****ty games after discovering GameRankings.

the_hitman_guy

I got one game for this thread: Shenmue.

That is all.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Then you are playing games for the wrong reasons. I loved a game that scored 3.0 on Gamespot... loved.

You should play games you find fun.
Runningflame570

What game? Just wondering.

I already asked. Her response was:

Mortyr 2093-1944. The game that got me interested in WWII FPS's.

He/She was gratious enough to link the review above if you'd like to take a look.

Many game reviews are based on techinical aspect of gaming.

Pros and cons, flaws and positives, etc.

That is good way to review a game and make a fare judgement on the game, but it doesn't represent what kind of enjoyment you will get out from a game.

Saga Frontier II was pretty bad game technically. However, with stunning visuals and excellent story, it managed to be one of the games I have enjoyed quite a bit. More than Oblivion which is technically well made game, but due to poor story I ended up enjoying it a bit but not enjoying it that much.

If you can't read about games and figure out if it is the type of game you will enjoy or not, perhaps you deserve to miss many of quality games out there.

However!.. I TEND to really feel that MOST 82%- games really, really suck IMO.

the_hitman_guy

How many hundreds of games in that range between 8 and 8.5 have you played? Because there are literally hundreds.

BTW, according to gamerankings only the original Megaman X is worthy of your standard (those who have played the games know that many of them despite scoring poorly are excellent. Likewise most Castlevania games are not deemed worthy, including the excellent Super Castlevania IV and Bloodlines.

Most of the Shadow Hearts series doesn't meet your standards, none of the Star Ocean series, none of the Arc the Lad games (AtLC is one of the best games I own), Grandia one of the all-time greats barely surpasses it and the rest don't, Lufia II another all-time great just edges into it the rest don't come close, do you begin to see the problem?

Many game reviews are based on techinical aspect of gaming.

TriangleHard

So, for example, Baldur's Gate 2 was praised because of its infinity engine?

More than Oblivion which is technically well made game, but due to poor story I ended up enjoying it a bit but not enjoying it that much.

TriangleHard

Oblivion wasn't rated ~95% almost everywhere just because it was technically impressive. Look at Doom 3 -- it got around 85%, and its graphics were easily the best at that time. It wasn't buggy either.

prince of persia was in the high 80s and look how it turned out.elite_ferns1

You didn't like it. So what? Many people didn't, but manyMORE did.

[QUOTE="the_hitman_guy"]

However!.. I TEND to really feel that MOST 82%- games really, really suck IMO.

Runningflame570

How many hundreds of games in that range between 8 and 8.5 have you played? Because there are literally hundreds.

BTW, according to gamerankings only the original Megaman X is worthy of your standard (those who have played the games know that many of them despite scoring poorly are excellent. Likewise most Castlevania games are not deemed worthy, including the excellent Super Castlevania IV and Bloodlines.

Most of the Shadow Hearts series doesn't meet your standards, none of the Star Ocean series, none of the Arc the Lad games (AtLC is one of the best games I own), Grandia one of the all-time greats barely surpasses it and the rest don't, Lufia II another all-time great just edges into it the rest don't come close, do you begin to see the problem?

On MetaCritic, there are 625, to be exact, and that's from all time on all systems. But if I spent a week on each game, I'd waste two years on every hundred of games! 625/100x2=13 years!

There are, however, also on MetaCritic, at least as many games scoring above 8.5 ---> 650 games. That's still about 13 years, and many games take much longer than a week to complete.

As to the 80-85% games, I got Prey, and played it for less than an hour. It's been on my hard drive for almost a year now and I haven't touched it. (And GameSpot underscored it by giving it 7.5 -- GameRankings gave it~83%.

I already asked. Her response was:

Mortyr 2093-1944. The game that got me interested in WWII FPS's.

He/She was gratious enough to link the review above if you'd like to take a look.

mattbbpl

The best first person shooter ever made actually got a 7.4 on Gamespot.

link

Lilac_Benjie

I remember that game, it was so fun. But I would have to say this game was more fun to me. Only got a 7.2. They relased a expansion pack for it in 2005 (alittle late because the game came out in 97)