This topic is locked from further discussion.
People still think that 8/10 is a "bad score".
This is just beyond pathetic.
Looking at it in context, it is. 8/10 for Daikatana is a great score. 8/10 for Last of Us, which happens to be the 25th highest rated game of all time, is a bad score.
Nope, still great.
People still think that 8/10 is a "bad score".
This is just beyond pathetic.
Looking at it in context, it is. 8/10 for Daikatana is a great score. 8/10 for Last of Us, which happens to be the 25th highest rated game of all time, is a bad score.
Nope, still great.
Great if you dont take into account the game that's getting the score.
If a flunky gets a B it's awesome. If a straight a student gets a b it's bad.
People still think that 8/10 is a "bad score".
This is just beyond pathetic.
Looking at it in context, it is. 8/10 for Daikatana is a great score. 8/10 for Last of Us, which happens to be the 25th highest rated game of all time, is a bad score.
Nope, still great.
Great if you dont take into account the game that's getting the score.
If a flunky gets a B it's awesome. If a straight a student gets a b it's bad.
These aren't grades though. You saying an 8 isn't a great score is pretty much saying anyone who doesn't think this game is "the bestest ever" should be disregarded. That sounds to me like a 10 year old crying because someone else doesn't agree with them. An 8 is a great score, there's no argument here.
@lostrib: I'm a GAMING fan, not SONY fanboy, stupid!
The point of what I was saying is there are standards and criteria that the ENTIRE WORLD adheres to, but shitface Gamespot drones insist we check the world at the door and go by their own "standards".
No wonder people insult these douchebags. Flop means failure not "just short or a perfect" or whatever, dumbass! You buttpluggers are ALWAYS going to be a punching bag going with that dumbshit.
Try to stick to the real world. I know it's hard, but at least try.
one.
@lostrib: I'm a GAMING fan, not SONY fanboy, stupid!
The point of what I was saying is there are standards and criteria that the ENTIRE WORLD adheres to, but shitface Gamespot drones insist we check the world at the door and go by their own "standards".
No wonder people insult these douchebags. Flop means failure not "just short or a perfect" or whatever, dumbass! You buttpluggers are ALWAYS going to be a punching bag going with that dumbshit.
Try to stick to the real world. I know it's hard, but at least try.
one.
...wow, someone is still really upset that TLOU flopped. Calm down, it's just a game. A flop in system wars simply means it didn't meet the hype. No need to be upset
two
@lostrib: Gamespot buttplugger status cofirmed.
"One" is slang for "peace", stupid.
People still think that 8/10 is a "bad score".
This is just beyond pathetic.
Looking at it in context, it is. 8/10 for Daikatana is a great score. 8/10 for Last of Us, which happens to be the 25th highest rated game of all time, is a bad score.
Nope, still great.
Great if you dont take into account the game that's getting the score.
If a flunky gets a B it's awesome. If a straight a student gets a b it's bad.
These aren't grades though. You saying an 8 isn't a great score is pretty much saying anyone who doesn't think this game is "the bestest ever" should be disregarded. That sounds to me like a 10 year old crying because someone else doesn't agree with them. An 8 is a great score, there's no argument here.
First off, video games are scored on a unique scale. Average film for instance gets a 59 while the average game gets a 7.3, or in Gamespots case a 6.8.
How exactly is 1.2 points above the average make it a great score?
It's a relatively bad score, relatively bad scores get more attention. That was the whole point.
People still think that 8/10 is a "bad score".
This is just beyond pathetic.
Looking at it in context, it is. 8/10 for Daikatana is a great score. 8/10 for Last of Us, which happens to be the 25th highest rated game of all time, is a bad score.
Nope, still great.
Great if you dont take into account the game that's getting the score.
If a flunky gets a B it's awesome. If a straight a student gets a b it's bad.
These aren't grades though. You saying an 8 isn't a great score is pretty much saying anyone who doesn't think this game is "the bestest ever" should be disregarded. That sounds to me like a 10 year old crying because someone else doesn't agree with them. An 8 is a great score, there's no argument here.
First off, video games are scored on a unique scale. Average film for instance gets a 59 while the average game gets a 7.3, or in Gamespots case a 6.8.
How exactly is 1.2 points above the average make it a great score?
It's a relatively bad score, relatively bad scores get more attention. That was the whole point.
Because on GS, an 8 is considered a great score, it's pretty simple stuff here. Take a look right underneath the score on GS and tell me what it says.
I'm quite curious where you got these statistics from, source please.
People still think that 8/10 is a "bad score".
This is just beyond pathetic.
Looking at it in context, it is. 8/10 for Daikatana is a great score. 8/10 for Last of Us, which happens to be the 25th highest rated game of all time, is a bad score.
Nope, still great.
Great if you dont take into account the game that's getting the score.
If a flunky gets a B it's awesome. If a straight a student gets a b it's bad.
These aren't grades though. You saying an 8 isn't a great score is pretty much saying anyone who doesn't think this game is "the bestest ever" should be disregarded. That sounds to me like a 10 year old crying because someone else doesn't agree with them. An 8 is a great score, there's no argument here.
First off, video games are scored on a unique scale. Average film for instance gets a 59 while the average game gets a 7.3, or in Gamespots case a 6.8.
How exactly is 1.2 points above the average make it a great score?
It's a relatively bad score, relatively bad scores get more attention. That was the whole point.
Because on GS, an 8 is considered a great score, it's pretty simple stuff here. Take a look right underneath the score on GS and tell me what it says.
I'm quite curious where you got these statistics from, source please.
I know what label they slap on 8's. I dont agree with it and as i said previously, I look at scores in a relative fashion. A score that's lower than what I feel it deserves is a bad score.
A 7 gets a Good label. 2/10 of a point above the Gamespot average makes it good? You agree with that?
Who do you think would have all of the critics scores on record?
Great if you dont take into account the game that's getting the score.
If a flunky gets a B it's awesome. If a straight a student gets a b it's bad.
These aren't grades though. You saying an 8 isn't a great score is pretty much saying anyone who doesn't think this game is "the bestest ever" should be disregarded. That sounds to me like a 10 year old crying because someone else doesn't agree with them. An 8 is a great score, there's no argument here.
First off, video games are scored on a unique scale. Average film for instance gets a 59 while the average game gets a 7.3, or in Gamespots case a 6.8.
How exactly is 1.2 points above the average make it a great score?
It's a relatively bad score, relatively bad scores get more attention. That was the whole point.
Because on GS, an 8 is considered a great score, it's pretty simple stuff here. Take a look right underneath the score on GS and tell me what it says.
I'm quite curious where you got these statistics from, source please.
I know what label they slap on 8's. I dont agree with it and as i said previously, I look at scores in a relative fashion. A score that's lower than what I feel it deserves is a bad score.
A 7 gets a Good label. 2/10 of a point above the Gamespot average makes it good? You agree with that?
Who do you think would have all of the critics scores on record?
So what you're trying to say is that everyone should have some kind of uniformed opinion and no one should deviate from that opinion? Because that's what it sounds like here since you're labeling scores that don't adhere to your's or the general consensus as bad.
Yes (if I took scores seriously, which I don't), because GS and most other reviewing outlets do not review most of the absolutely shit games that are made. They tend to review only the biggest and thus normally more polished games when if you take a look at each system's library of games, there are a number of games that do not get reviewed by the big sites. A lot of these games (not all mind you) can be quite horrible, for instance all the shovelware systems like the Wii and PS2 had. So if GS's average is 6.8, that doesn't necessarily mean that games below that mark are considered bad, more so that they don't review games that are in the lower part of the scale mainly due to resources being tight.
Great if you dont take into account the game that's getting the score.
If a flunky gets a B it's awesome. If a straight a student gets a b it's bad.
These aren't grades though. You saying an 8 isn't a great score is pretty much saying anyone who doesn't think this game is "the bestest ever" should be disregarded. That sounds to me like a 10 year old crying because someone else doesn't agree with them. An 8 is a great score, there's no argument here.
First off, video games are scored on a unique scale. Average film for instance gets a 59 while the average game gets a 7.3, or in Gamespots case a 6.8.
How exactly is 1.2 points above the average make it a great score?
It's a relatively bad score, relatively bad scores get more attention. That was the whole point.
Because on GS, an 8 is considered a great score, it's pretty simple stuff here. Take a look right underneath the score on GS and tell me what it says.
I'm quite curious where you got these statistics from, source please.
I know what label they slap on 8's. I dont agree with it and as i said previously, I look at scores in a relative fashion. A score that's lower than what I feel it deserves is a bad score.
A 7 gets a Good label. 2/10 of a point above the Gamespot average makes it good? You agree with that?
Who do you think would have all of the critics scores on record?
So what you're trying to say is that everyone should have some kind of uniformed opinion and no one should deviate from that opinion? Because that's what it sounds like here since you're labeling scores that don't adhere to your's or the general consensus as bad.
Yes (if I took scores seriously, which I don't), because GS and most other reviewing outlets do not review most of the absolutely shit games that are made. They tend to review only the biggest and thus normally more polished games when if you take a look at each system's library of games, there are a number of games that do not get reviewed by the big sites. A lot of these games (not all mind you) can be quite horrible, for instance all the shovelware systems like the Wii and PS2 had. So if GS's average is 6.8, that doesn't necessarily mean that games below that mark are considered bad, more so that they don't review games that are in the lower part of the scale mainly due to resources being tight.
Critics can deviate all they want and I have the right to criticize those critics and say a review is bad.
Theres also a lot of indies and arcade games that score above average that not all the review outlets get around to reviewing. Gamerankings has a list of the worst scoring games of all time and Gamespot reviewed most if not all on the list.
Gamespot has no creditability. They cant review games for shit.
This ^ ^ ^ ^
I really could care less what GS thinks, but it fun watching Cows take their scores so seriously and run to Metacritics to try and prove that their games are better then what GS scores them. lol!! Overall the only review scores that counts for me is mine.
So what you're trying to say is that everyone should have some kind of uniformed opinion and no one should deviate from that opinion? Because that's what it sounds like here since you're labeling scores that don't adhere to your's or the general consensus as bad.
Yes (if I took scores seriously, which I don't), because GS and most other reviewing outlets do not review most of the absolutely shit games that are made. They tend to review only the biggest and thus normally more polished games when if you take a look at each system's library of games, there are a number of games that do not get reviewed by the big sites. A lot of these games (not all mind you) can be quite horrible, for instance all the shovelware systems like the Wii and PS2 had. So if GS's average is 6.8, that doesn't necessarily mean that games below that mark are considered bad, more so that they don't review games that are in the lower part of the scale mainly due to resources being tight.
Critics can deviate all they want and I have the right to criticize those critics and say a review is bad.
Theres also a lot of indies and arcade games that score above average that not all the review outlets get around to reviewing. Gamerankings has a list of the worst scoring games of all time and Gamespot reviewed most if not all on the list.
Yes, you can critisise them, but that doesn't make their review bad, just that you seem to think that everyone should think the exact same, which is honestly quite inane.
Yes, but does that include all the shovelware that is released? For instance, I searched barbie (first thing that came to mind) and they haven't reviewed most of the games that fall under that label. I don't think it takes much imagination to see that those games wouldn't review well. Even looking at user scores (which I think are worse than critic scores), most of these games scored quite low. These games are not taken into consideration with that average, meaning that it is a pointless statistic since it's not really a random sample of games, it's the games that GS thinks are worth taking the time to review (which generally means the more popular releases).
So what you're trying to say is that everyone should have some kind of uniformed opinion and no one should deviate from that opinion? Because that's what it sounds like here since you're labeling scores that don't adhere to your's or the general consensus as bad.
Yes (if I took scores seriously, which I don't), because GS and most other reviewing outlets do not review most of the absolutely shit games that are made. They tend to review only the biggest and thus normally more polished games when if you take a look at each system's library of games, there are a number of games that do not get reviewed by the big sites. A lot of these games (not all mind you) can be quite horrible, for instance all the shovelware systems like the Wii and PS2 had. So if GS's average is 6.8, that doesn't necessarily mean that games below that mark are considered bad, more so that they don't review games that are in the lower part of the scale mainly due to resources being tight.
Critics can deviate all they want and I have the right to criticize those critics and say a review is bad.
Theres also a lot of indies and arcade games that score above average that not all the review outlets get around to reviewing. Gamerankings has a list of the worst scoring games of all time and Gamespot reviewed most if not all on the list.
Yes, you can critisise them, but that doesn't make their review bad, just that you seem to think that everyone should think the exact same, which is honestly quite inane.
Yes, but does that include all the shovelware that is released? For instance, I searched barbie (first thing that came to mind) and they haven't reviewed most of the games that fall under that label. I don't think it takes much imagination to see that those games wouldn't review well. Even looking at user scores (which I think are worse than critic scores), most of these games scored quite low. These games are not taken into consideration with that average, meaning that it is a pointless statistic since it's not really a random sample of games, it's the games that GS thinks are worth taking the time to review (which generally means the more popular releases).
You can think whatever you want about that review. I say its a bad score considering how highly acclaimed the game is by the majority of critics.
If they did review all those Barbie games then they might have a greater appreciation for the more polished games. Reviews are all about how the game compares to it's previous entries in the franchise and it's competitors.
If they only review the highly polished games then their standards are raised.
If all the highest rated military shooters didnt exist and Medal of Honor was the best military shooter then it would get great scores.
So what you're trying to say is that everyone should have some kind of uniformed opinion and no one should deviate from that opinion? Because that's what it sounds like here since you're labeling scores that don't adhere to your's or the general consensus as bad.
Yes (if I took scores seriously, which I don't), because GS and most other reviewing outlets do not review most of the absolutely shit games that are made. They tend to review only the biggest and thus normally more polished games when if you take a look at each system's library of games, there are a number of games that do not get reviewed by the big sites. A lot of these games (not all mind you) can be quite horrible, for instance all the shovelware systems like the Wii and PS2 had. So if GS's average is 6.8, that doesn't necessarily mean that games below that mark are considered bad, more so that they don't review games that are in the lower part of the scale mainly due to resources being tight.
Critics can deviate all they want and I have the right to criticize those critics and say a review is bad.
Theres also a lot of indies and arcade games that score above average that not all the review outlets get around to reviewing. Gamerankings has a list of the worst scoring games of all time and Gamespot reviewed most if not all on the list.
Yes, you can critisise them, but that doesn't make their review bad, just that you seem to think that everyone should think the exact same, which is honestly quite inane.
Yes, but does that include all the shovelware that is released? For instance, I searched barbie (first thing that came to mind) and they haven't reviewed most of the games that fall under that label. I don't think it takes much imagination to see that those games wouldn't review well. Even looking at user scores (which I think are worse than critic scores), most of these games scored quite low. These games are not taken into consideration with that average, meaning that it is a pointless statistic since it's not really a random sample of games, it's the games that GS thinks are worth taking the time to review (which generally means the more popular releases).
You can think whatever you want about that review. I say its a bad score considering how highly acclaimed the game is by the majority of critics.
If they did review all those Barbie games then they might have a greater appreciation for the more polished games. Reviews are all about how the game compares to it's previous entries in the franchise and it's competitors.
If they only review the highly polished games then their standards are raised.
If all the highest rated military shooters didnt exist and Medal of Honor was the best military shooter then it would get great scores.
Which again links back to me thinking it's stupid that you think everyone should think the exact same, what a boring world you want us to live in.
Your argument doesn't disagree with what I said, those barbie games aren't in the same genre as most of the popular games that get reviewed, thus they wouldn't have an impact on the scoring of such titles. When reviewing a game, they should be comparing it to games in the same genre (or better yet, games which are trying to achieve the same thing), those barbie games that I linked you aren't trying to be a military shooter so wouldn't have an impact on how those types of games are reviewed. If they're doing their job correctly, they'll be using the scale that they have set for themselves (ie 8 being "great") and then use that to base their reviews on. Just because they don't use the bottom half of the scale, that doesn't mean that they aren't using their already preset scale, it just means that they aren't necessarily reviewing the games that fall into that part of the scale. I don't really see how that's such a hard concept for you to grasp.
So what you're trying to say is that everyone should have some kind of uniformed opinion and no one should deviate from that opinion? Because that's what it sounds like here since you're labeling scores that don't adhere to your's or the general consensus as bad.
Yes (if I took scores seriously, which I don't), because GS and most other reviewing outlets do not review most of the absolutely shit games that are made. They tend to review only the biggest and thus normally more polished games when if you take a look at each system's library of games, there are a number of games that do not get reviewed by the big sites. A lot of these games (not all mind you) can be quite horrible, for instance all the shovelware systems like the Wii and PS2 had. So if GS's average is 6.8, that doesn't necessarily mean that games below that mark are considered bad, more so that they don't review games that are in the lower part of the scale mainly due to resources being tight.
Critics can deviate all they want and I have the right to criticize those critics and say a review is bad.
Theres also a lot of indies and arcade games that score above average that not all the review outlets get around to reviewing. Gamerankings has a list of the worst scoring games of all time and Gamespot reviewed most if not all on the list.
Yes, you can critisise them, but that doesn't make their review bad, just that you seem to think that everyone should think the exact same, which is honestly quite inane.
Yes, but does that include all the shovelware that is released? For instance, I searched barbie (first thing that came to mind) and they haven't reviewed most of the games that fall under that label. I don't think it takes much imagination to see that those games wouldn't review well. Even looking at user scores (which I think are worse than critic scores), most of these games scored quite low. These games are not taken into consideration with that average, meaning that it is a pointless statistic since it's not really a random sample of games, it's the games that GS thinks are worth taking the time to review (which generally means the more popular releases).
You can think whatever you want about that review. I say its a bad score considering how highly acclaimed the game is by the majority of critics.
If they did review all those Barbie games then they might have a greater appreciation for the more polished games. Reviews are all about how the game compares to it's previous entries in the franchise and it's competitors.
If they only review the highly polished games then their standards are raised.
If all the highest rated military shooters didnt exist and Medal of Honor was the best military shooter then it would get great scores.
Which again links back to me thinking it's stupid that you think everyone should think the exact same, what a boring world you want us to live in.
Your argument doesn't disagree with what I said, those barbie games aren't in the same genre as most of the popular games that get reviewed, thus they wouldn't have an impact on the scoring of such titles. When reviewing a game, they should be comparing it to games in the same genre (or better yet, games which are trying to achieve the same thing), those barbie games that I linked you aren't trying to be a military shooter so wouldn't have an impact on how those types of games are reviewed. If they're doing their job correctly, they'll be using the scale that they have set for themselves (ie 8 being "great") and then use that to base their reviews on. Just because they don't use the bottom half of the scale, that doesn't mean that they aren't using their already preset scale, it just means that they aren't necessarily reviewing the games that fall into that part of the scale. I don't really see how that's such a hard concept for you to grasp.
I said you can think whatever you want. What about that didnt you understand?
"I say its a bad review." Where in that statement am I saying everyone should agree?
I'm pretty sure every single shooter gets reviewed on Gamespot so a 5 should be the average score but it's not.
People still think that 8/10 is a "bad score".
This is just beyond pathetic.
Looking at it in context, it is. 8/10 for Daikatana is a great score. 8/10 for Last of Us, which happens to be the 25th highest rated game of all time, is a bad score.
No, it's not. It is a "great" score, by its very definition, and it was assigned to that game because the reviewer thought it was a "great" game.
You people act like GS saw everybody else giving it 9s and 10s, saw a 95 on metacritic, and then decided to troll everyone with some kind of terribly low score. Unfortunately for the fanboys around here, that's not how it works. GS assigned their score before metacritic had an average to compare to, and it just so happens that it ended up being on the low side of the average. So what? McShea gave it a score he felt that it earned, just like every other reviewer out there. And there is absolutely no context in which 8/10 is a bad score. The fact that such an idea even crosses people's minds is proof that they're blind fanboys, who literally worship Sony, and think they can do no wrong. McShea obviously loved the game, and gushed over it in the review. Yet, ultimately, he didn't think it was the single greatest achievement in the history of interactive media, like so many other overly-enthusiastic, hype-blinded reviewers did. And the fanboys act like he set out on a mission to punch the entire playstation fanbase in its collective dick.
The fact there was such an uproar over it just shows that system wars is populated by emotionally unstable basement dwellers, in desperate need of a reality check.
TLoU getting GOTY just showed how pointless reviews are. And i'm not saying TLoU is a bad game, its very good.
8 rated game > all 9 rated games, no problem.
...wow, someone is still really upset that TLOU flopped. Calm down, it's just a game. A flop in system wars simply means it didn't meet the hype. No need to be upset
two
The fact that the game won PS3 GOTY over other higher rated games here show how screwed here was TLOU score,and gamespot is owning them self this game has 95% on meta yet here has 80,worse the same crappy reviewer actually gave B2S 9 to a game that has like 72% outside here.
So yeah gamespot screwed up this score and now they are fixing it,it would be a blast if TLOU wins goty here,i think it will be the first 8 game to win Goty over all in this site ever,it would really hurt that whole flop argument.
No, it's not. It is a "great" score, by its very definition, and it was assigned to that game because the reviewer thought it was a "great" game.
You people act like GS saw everybody else giving it 9s and 10s, saw a 95 on metacritic, and then decided to troll everyone with some kind of terribly low score. Unfortunately for the fanboys around here, that's not how it works. GS assigned their score before metacritic had an average to compare to, and it just so happens that it ended up being on the low side of the average. So what? McShea gave it a score he felt that it earned, just like every other reviewer out there. And there is absolutely no context in which 8/10 is a bad score. The fact that such an idea even crosses people's minds is proof that they're blind fanboys, who literally worship Sony, and think they can do no wrong. McShea obviously loved the game, and gushed over it in the review. Yet, ultimately, he didn't think it was the single greatest achievement in the history of interactive media, like so many other overly-enthusiastic, hype-blinded reviewers did. And the fanboys act like he set out on a mission to punch the entire playstation fanbase in its collective dick.
The fact there was such an uproar over it just shows that system wars is populated by emotionally unstable basement dwellers, in desperate need of a reality check.
My problems with the review.
1-Done by one of the most controversial reviewers here.
2-The reviewer doesn't actually point problems with the game,just stupid minor crap like Characters not been sympathetic.
3-This is the same reviewer who gave 9 to a game consider to be in the 70 range.
MC Shea has been flame for been an attention seeker,he give low score to great games just to win this site hits and get attention,he is a troll and TLOU getting GOTY on PS3 basically own gamespot and MC Shea then self period,no matter what you claim GOTY games are based on score and how great the games are,an 8 game is not better than a 9 one we all know that is the essence of score,the higher the better period.
2 games on the 9 to 9.5 range are in the same league a 9.5-9 and a 8 game are not,scores should reflect quality that is the purpose of a score,is the reason why Ryse will not win goty or Killzone for PS4.
Let the healing begin
It just show how stupid and silly this site is when it comes to score..haha
B2S is better than TLOU some how and was review by the same person so there is no excuse here,and now gamespot say B2S is not GOTY material after the reviewer say with a score that it was a better game than the TLOU.?
different genres... not everyone thinks a linear 10 hour zombie game is the "best game ever" just because it has top notch graphics and cinematics...
not even my top 25 of this generation.
casuals gonna casual.
its just 1 mans opinion... stop taking reviews too seriously
@clr84651:
Bioshock Infinite. The best of the trilogy, and one of the best games this gen.
I've heard it's pretty shit. Especially with regards to the story that doesn't know what the **** it's doing.
The story is pretty straight forward, it's just that gamers in general that played the game are pretty stupid.
different genres... not everyone thinks a linear 10 hour zombie game is the "best game ever" just because it has top notch graphics and cinematics...
not even my top 25 of this generation.
casuals gonna casual.
AC4 is not in the same genre as TLOU doesn't stop them from competing for goty,Halo and Journey are not on the same Genre either never the less they compete with each other for GOTY last year.
All games are linear even sandbox games like GTA you don't fallow a line you don't progress in the game period,regardless of how open they are and how many options they give you,you just have multiple choices but they are choices you have to make either way one way or another to progress in the game you can't just jump from the 5 minutes of gameplay to the end of the game for that reason.
So now TLOU is for casuals.?
lol Now i have heard everything...
different genres... not everyone thinks a linear 10 hour zombie game is the "best game ever" just because it has top notch graphics and cinematics...
not even my top 25 of this generation.
casuals gonna casual.
AC4 is not in the same genre as TLOU doesn't stop them from competing for goty,Halo and Journey are not on the same Genre either never the less they compete with each other for GOTY last year.
All games are linear even sandbox games like GTA you don't fallow a line you don't progress in the game period,regardless of how open they are and how many options they give you,you just have multiple choices but they are choices you have to make either way one way or another to progress in the game you can't just jump from the 5 minutes of gameplay to the end of the game for that reason.
So now TLOU is for casuals.?
lol Now i have heard everything...
Thats not the point, you are comparing a score of 8 in the third person shooter / zombie survival genre... a genre filled with games... good ones, people still play left4dead / Killing Floor ect because they offer great gameplay ... and lets be honest something beyond graphics that LAST OF US does not.
Beyond 2 souls is an adventure game, a premium one... they are VERY RARE now. so why compare an 8 and 9 in 2 different genres. the 9 for the adventure game does not even remotely suggest that its "better" than last of us, unless ofcourse one hates zombie games or tps and loves adventure. your own logic fails you...
Yes, all games have objectives, well done. point is linear shooters, no matter how flashy, no matter how good their story or characters ... are still linear a dime a dozen and not impressive from a gameplay standpoint. just like uncharted... neither games have prime shooting mechanics even, they have "make do".
how is TLOU hardcore? its a mainstream game, touted for graphics, the games overall concept is as simple as it gets, people bought it in droves because of its graphics.
yes... pleanty of casuals in that mix. not a difficult game, not a complex game, not much depth... just a roller coaster down corridors that is extremely pretty.
and we have all seen how bad the A.l is... despite all those "glorius reviews" just shoving "fantastic A.I" in there to make it seem l;ike they gave a s*it about any of the gameplay aspects beyond "oh you can either go up this ladder or through the door..."
Gotta laugh at the reviews at the top of metacritic "depthful gameplay" .. wtf is this alternative reality people enter when a flashy brand game comes out?
...wow, someone is still really upset that TLOU flopped. Calm down, it's just a game. A flop in system wars simply means it didn't meet the hype. No need to be upset
two
The fact that the game won PS3 GOTY over other higher rated games here show how screwed here was TLOU score,and gamespot is owning them self this game has 95% on meta yet here has 80,worse the same crappy reviewer actually gave B2S 9 to a game that has like 72% outside here.
So yeah gamespot screwed up this score and now they are fixing it,it would be a blast if TLOU wins goty here,i think it will be the first 8 game to win Goty over all in this site ever,it would really hurt that whole flop argument.
still a flop. once again, flop doesnt make it a bad game. Not that hard to understand
still a flop. once again, flop doesnt make it a bad game. Not that hard to understand
In what fu**ing part i say been a flop mean it was a bad game.?
The only morons who claim the game to be a flops are fanboys here,either you,other herms and lemmings,regardless of been consider a flop or not,the game has 8 which is lower than 9 if you actually went to school and learn math you would know that on a metric system were higher number = better that would mean that Beyond two souls,AC4,GTA5,Ni No Kuni and The Puppeteer are all better games they have have better score you know.
still a flop. once again, flop doesnt make it a bad game. Not that hard to understand
In what fu**ing part i say been a flop mean it was a bad game.?
The only morons who claim the game to be a flops are fanboys here,either you,other herms and lemmings,regardless of been consider a flop or not,the game has 8 which is lower than 9 if you actually went to school and learn math you would know that on a metric system were higher number = better that would mean that Beyond two souls,AC4,GTA5,Ni No Kuni and The Puppeteer are all better games they have have better score you know.
...what does the metric system have to do with gamespot ratings? as far as I know there is no metric or SI unit for game ratings. Any ways, the review scores and the GOTY awards are determined differently so it is not surprising that TLOU could win. I still can't believe that fanboys are upset because of one point, an 8 vs 9. let it go
People still think that 8/10 is a "bad score".
This is just beyond pathetic.
Looking at it in context, it is. 8/10 for Daikatana is a great score. 8/10 for Last of Us, which happens to be the 25th highest rated game of all time, is a bad score.
No, it's not. It is a "great" score, by its very definition, and it was assigned to that game because the reviewer thought it was a "great" game.
You people act like GS saw everybody else giving it 9s and 10s, saw a 95 on metacritic, and then decided to troll everyone with some kind of terribly low score. Unfortunately for the fanboys around here, that's not how it works. GS assigned their score before metacritic had an average to compare to, and it just so happens that it ended up being on the low side of the average. So what? McShea gave it a score he felt that it earned, just like every other reviewer out there. And there is absolutely no context in which 8/10 is a bad score. The fact that such an idea even crosses people's minds is proof that they're blind fanboys, who literally worship Sony, and think they can do no wrong. McShea obviously loved the game, and gushed over it in the review. Yet, ultimately, he didn't think it was the single greatest achievement in the history of interactive media, like so many other overly-enthusiastic, hype-blinded reviewers did. And the fanboys act like he set out on a mission to punch the entire playstation fanbase in its collective dick.
The fact there was such an uproar over it just shows that system wars is populated by emotionally unstable basement dwellers, in desperate need of a reality check.
Always with the name calling I see. Typical action of an unhappy and immature person. I counted 8 name callings in that post. Having a bad day? This post comes off as very angry and you call others emotionally unstable?
Just because Gamespot calls it a great score doesnt mean it's great. To me 7 is average and 8 is good. Many games get 8's, in fact there were about 80 games in 2013 alone that scored 8 or above.
Didnt take a crystal ball to know that Last of Us was going to get a great metacritic. Anyone with even a casual following of the game industry would know that it would get great scores within the first few hours of play.
How often do you see a GOTY getting a mere 8? How did Last of Us beat all the higher rated games? Because the rest of the staff disagreed with Mcshea. If you disagree with something it's bad in your eyes.
8 for a GOTY? Now that's a bad score!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment