resistance 3 has to be the most biased metacritic i've seen this gen. the single player is leaps and bounds ahead of most fps this gen. the gameplay is outstanding. there are barely any performance issues as well. an 83 overall seems way too low for what this did in the single player department. it kind of makes you wonder what reviewers actually rate(single player or multiplayer) because last time i checked geow2, cod mw2, cod black ops, resistance 1&2 all have higher metacritics than R3, and all of those single player modes were not even close to being as good as R3's. :/ go look at the metacritic review, there are a lot of 80-90ss, then out of nowhere some guys give it 70s or lower, i don't get it when clearly these guys gave worse games higher scores
resistance 3 has to be the most biased metacritic i've seen this gen. the single player is leaps and bounds ahead of most fps this gen. the gameplay is outstanding. there are barely any performance issues as well. an 83 overall seems way too low for what this did in the single player department. it kind of makes you wonder what reviewers actually rate(single player or multiplayer) because last time i checked geow2, cod mw2, cod black ops, resistance 1&2 all have higher metacritics than R3, and all of those single player modes were not even close to being as good as R3's. :/ SpeedsterCards
killzone 3 also got something like that and it's the best fps in a long time. SP & MP
[QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"]resistance 3 has to be the most biased metacritic i've seen this gen. the single player is leaps and bounds ahead of most fps this gen. the gameplay is outstanding. there are barely any performance issues as well. an 83 overall seems way too low for what this did in the single player department. it kind of makes you wonder what reviewers actually rate(single player or multiplayer) because last time i checked geow2, cod mw2, cod black ops, resistance 1&2 all have higher metacritics than R3, and all of those single player modes were not even close to being as good as R3's. :/ SquirrelTamer
killzone 3 also got something like that and it's the best fps in a long time. SP & MPi agree kz3 is ONE of the best, but R3 has a better campaign, and shouldn't that transfer over to a higher score?
Standards are incredibly high this late in the gen. Gears 3 is better than Gears 2 in every single aspect and has a lower meta score.
PAL360
This. Sequels that are better aren't scoring as well as their predecessors. Gears 3 is so much better than Gears 2 but it is lower. Honestly I dont understand the reviewer's mentality of "the game formula has to be new or it isnt good" because if the game is fun, why does it matter if it is familiar? Sadly TC, it seems that Nintendo is the only one who is treated fairly in this regard. Prepare for Skyward Sword to have a 96 Metacritic despite being eerily similar. The only franchise outside of Nintendo I can think of that gets that standard thrown out is CoD, and Halo to an extent but Halo always adds tons of new content.
EDIT: Also be prepared for the forum to explode with cow damage control if the cycle repeats itself on UC3. If it isnt a million times better than UC2 and doesn't feel completely different, It'll get an 8.5 and >AAA on MC.
[QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"][QUOTE="PAL360"]i don't get it, gears 2, even when released had a bad campaign and terrible bugs in the multiplayer department PAL360
Campaign was good. All it´s problems were mp related.
The campaign is a AAA experience, but the multiplayer is really bad and the Co-Op could have been better.
AmayaPapaya
black ops campaign is not AAA quality and the multiplayer in my opinion barely AAA quality...shouldn't that cancel out lol
Standards are incredibly high this late in the gen. Gears 3 is better than Gears 2 in every single aspect and has a lower meta score.
PAL360
i don't get it, gears 2, even when released had a bad campaign and terrible bugs in the multiplayer department
Campaign was good. All it´s problems were mp related.
Please. Gears 2's campaign was mediocre at best. The only good thing was that it was fairly long for a shooter. Remember this "THEY'RE SINKING CITIES WITH A GIANT WORM!!!"
[QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"]i don't get it, gears 2, even when released had a bad campaign and terrible bugs in the multiplayer department Plagueless
Campaign was good. All it´s problems were mp related.
Please. Gears 2's campaign was mediocre at best. The only good thing was that it was fairly long for a shooter. Remember this "THEY'RE SINKING CITIES WITH A GIANT WORM!!!"it is the definition of mediocre
Standards are incredibly high this late in the gen. Gears 3 is better than Gears 2 in every single aspect and has a lower meta score.
SpeedsterCards
i don't get it, gears 2, even when released had a bad campaign and terrible bugs in the multiplayer department Gears 2 had a great campaign and the bugs were really the only bad thing about the multiplayer. Gears 2 was a great game. Gears 2 likely got away with those bugs with a lot of reviewers though because alot of reviewers played the game before launched, before the millions of players had the chance to start finding bugs.
Campaign was good. All it´s problems were mp related.
SpeedsterCards
Please. Gears 2's campaign was mediocre at best. The only good thing was that it was fairly long for a shooter. Remember this "THEY'RE SINKING CITIES WITH A GIANT WORM!!!"it is the definition of mediocre It really isn't a terrible game, I enjoyed the campaign. The ending was pretty cool. But there were definitely some facepalm moments like that one in it.
[QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"][QUOTE="Plagueless"] Please. Gears 2's campaign was mediocre at best. The only good thing was that it was fairly long for a shooter. Remember this "THEY'RE SINKING CITIES WITH A GIANT WORM!!!"Plagueless
it is the definition of mediocre It really isn't a terrible game, I enjoyed the campaign. The ending was pretty cool. But there were definitely some facepalm moments like that one in it.i never said it was bad, but the pacing, story, dialogue, (literally everything that makes a game have a great story) were all mediocre.
[QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"][QUOTE="Plagueless"] Please. Gears 2's campaign was mediocre at best. The only good thing was that it was fairly long for a shooter. Remember this "THEY'RE SINKING CITIES WITH A GIANT WORM!!!"Plagueless
it is the definition of mediocre It really isn't a terrible game, I enjoyed the campaign. The ending was pretty cool. But there were definitely some facepalm moments like that one in it. Facepalm? No that was hilarious. I loved that line.
resistance 3 has to be the most biased metacritic i've seen this gen. the single player is leaps and bounds ahead of most fps this gen. the gameplay is outstanding. there are barely any performance issues as well. an 83 overall seems way too low for what this did in the single player department. it kind of makes you wonder what reviewers actually rate(single player or multiplayer) because last time i checked geow2, cod mw2, cod black ops, resistance 1&2 all have higher metacritics than R3, and all of those single player modes were not even close to being as good as R3's. :/ go look at the metacritic review, there are a lot of 80-90ss, then out of nowhere some guys give it 70s or lower, i don't get it when clearly these guys gave worse games higher scoresSpeedsterCards
Does any of this some how affect your enjoyment of the game? Hopefully it doesn't because I don't see how a number next to a game should affect your enjoyment
A meteoritic score doesn't affect ones personal enjoyment of a game per se, but I believe it does affect the games sales. There was a study not to long ago, that demonstrated that quality isn't the determining factor in how well a product sells; it's the amount of advertisement it gets. What are the chances of Sony investing more money in advertising Resistance 3 when the sequel to one of the highest rated PS3 games is just around the corner? Poor devs, they work so hard only to get shelved. Never underestimate the influence of the media friends.
Also, did you notice it? The sudden dip in game quality when the meta-average dropped below 90? I could've SWORN I saw the graphics block up, the frame-rate dip, and the controls become less responsive. Quick, people! Rate it higher or it'll only become less of an entertaining game for me!
Yeah, Metacritic and I disagree every now and then, too.
Ah haven't been to SW in ages, but still the conspiracy theories abound when someone commits the crime of not loving a PS3 game to death :Pblue_hazy_basic
Standards are incredibly high this late in the gen. Gears 3 is better than Gears 2 in every single aspect and has a lower meta score.
i don't get it, gears 2, even when released had a bad campaign and terrible bugs in the multiplayer department Eh? Gears of War 2 had an excellent campaign, bigger and better than the first in every way.
[QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"]resistance 3 has to be the most biased metacritic i've seen this gen. the single player is leaps and bounds ahead of most fps this gen. the gameplay is outstanding. there are barely any performance issues as well. an 83 overall seems way too low for what this did in the single player department. it kind of makes you wonder what reviewers actually rate(single player or multiplayer) because last time i checked geow2, cod mw2, cod black ops, resistance 1&2 all have higher metacritics than R3, and all of those single player modes were not even close to being as good as R3's. :/ SquirrelTamer
killzone 3 also got something like that and it's the best fps in a long time. SP & MP Welcome both of you... to the minority :)
resistance 3 has to be the most biased metacritic i've seen this gen. the single player is leaps and bounds ahead of most fps this gen. the gameplay is outstanding. there are barely any performance issues as well. an 83 overall seems way too low for what this did in the single player department. it kind of makes you wonder what reviewers actually rate(single player or multiplayer) because last time i checked geow2, cod mw2, cod black ops, resistance 1&2 all have higher metacritics than R3, and all of those single player modes were not even close to being as good as R3's. :/ go look at the metacritic review, there are a lot of 80-90ss, then out of nowhere some guys give it 70s or lower, i don't get it when clearly these guys gave worse games higher scoresSpeedsterCards
You can thank sites like this that rate the game as low as Kinect games with no replay value what so ever.
STALKER SoC is one of the best FPSs ever concieved and it has like a 82/100 on Metacritic, yet still loved by a lot of gamers (and modders) out there. There are other examples, point is a great game will prove itself by the longevity of the fan's support and positive reaction overtime, even though it's all personal preferance, this is how i see things sometimes. Fanboys out there being so obssesed wen games get a score lower than 9 proves how much they need a reality check, real bad.
Yeah, Metacritic and I disagree every now and then, too. [QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Ah haven't been to SW in ages, but still the conspiracy theories abound when someone commits the crime of not loving a PS3 game to death :PIronBass
You're back :o where have you been? No longer have time in work to post :P
Ah haven't been to SW in ages, but still the conspiracy theories abound when someone commits the crime of not loving a PS3 game to death :Pblue_hazy_basic
I love those claims. They're always good for a laugh. :D
Ah haven't been to SW in ages, but still the conspiracy theories abound when someone commits the crime of not loving a PS3 game to death :Pblue_hazy_basic
Res3 has a very nice Campaign. But coming from such an amazing developer on online games (60 man multiplayer with 0 lag? 8 coop with 0 lag? Black magic woo!) and make it a laggy,CoD clone with killstreaks is a no go. For the most part,i enjoyed the online of RES2 and RES1 more . Id rather have co op online than co op campaign.
The game isn't AAA worthy and scored about what it deserved. If anything, Infamous 2's should be higher than the first, which was criminally overrated but hey that's life.:P
Also standards are higher late-gen. Normally that was the case mainly with GS, but now that reviewing games has become much greater itself since 2004, standards are sharper too. Still 83 is great and I totally agree with it.:)
Seeing as how Yahtzee of all people liked it, then 83 does seem surprisingly low, especially when it got a good amount of press for the return to form and even the full blown Game Informer cover treatment.
Log in to comment