Why is anything under 9 treated as bad?

Hello friends,

Lately i have seen here many people are calling 8/10 or 7/10 flops or anything under 9 is worst game ever made. but is not 8 is such a great score and 7 means good???

i mean lets face it. RE7 and Prey are one of my fav games this gen but i cant give them more than 8 because they are heavily flawed. Metro exodus i enjoyed most this year but to me its 8.5/10 which is great but scriptness and bugs prevent from being 9. RE2 which i consider just ok i gave it 6/10. means its decent game. not bad. and thats the example

but i have seen trend here. a game get 8. "OMG its flop. its worst ever. its garbage".

so my friends is everything under 9 really consider trash?

lets discuss.

Meaningless Fake news and Fake reviews... Scores mean absolutely nothing for the last decade or two.

If you really want to know how good a game really is, just ask me. lol :P

Ghost upset Metro failed.

but RE2 is overrated. because of all nastolgia.

RE2 is 5 hour game. Metro is 20 hour game. more worth and value.

Why is 9/10 or 10/10 games considered overrated?

And to answer your question, cause you like em.

Don't take the scores of a game seriously. Just play the game to your heart's content :)

Why is anything colourful considered kiddy by Ghost??!1 Whyyyy?!??!111
WHY CAN MANLY MEN NOT APPRECIATE THE COLOURFUL GAMESSS?11

I once enjoyed a 6/10 game o_O

Don't tell anyone

@pyro1245: I enjoyed a 3/10 once... I win.

Im guessing it depends on the hype. But more or less, I don't care about scores.

Because game reviewers trained an entire generation of gamers that anything below 9.5 is trash.

The sheep have nuclear meltdowns if Nintendo’s games get under 9. In their delusional mind, they just assume every Nintendo game should be rated 11/10 or 9.5/10 as the absolute lowest.

To the question, I think its pretty simple. You have these games that have been in the news since E3, PAX, TGS, some other special event, or just announced out of the blue for whatever year it is. Then you have the time from announcement of a game to the actual release of the thing which brings with it all this anticipation, especially if its a sequel on an already established IP. Finally, the game gets released and I don't know about you all, but when I am getting excited for a game (or movie or book or TV show), I don't want that thing to be a 7/10 ok, passable experience or even an 8/10 great, but got some flaws that hold it back from awesomesauce. If I've been anticipating the release of a game and it goes below a 10 or 9, I don't get upset, but you have to admit it kind of deflates you. You've been getting hyped and hoping this new game (be it truly new or a sequel on an IP that you've loved playing for years) will just blow the old one out of the water and when that isn't the case, well, that's kinda where the rage comes in. Because you've been expecting it to do so well given all the time they had, supposedly.

So for me, personally, when Red Dead 2 was announced, I was creaming my pants and getting excited and anticipating that thing for the whole 2+ years we knew it was a thing. It came out. It dominated. The story is riveting and it touched on everything I wanted in a game (while having some small insignificant flaws, of course nothing's perfect). I personally hold it as my favorite game now, but I do have a bias towards westerns.

Now you take a game like Anthem and I personally had a strong feeling that thing was going to fail, but lots of people were hyping it up because they were thinking of the Bioware of old and perhaps this is their last chance so they were going to really blow our minds or get shuttered by EA (also people liked the iron man flying around, which I thought was neat for a minute). It comes out, gets a 6 and of course everyone is bitching, and for good reason too. Especially if you paid for that shit.

Because games scoring under 9 aren't bad.......when games get consistent 7's or 8's they are probably good games with a couple of flaws or just for a specific audience.

Yakuza is a great example, these games consistently get AA scores, they have a few flaws and they definitely have a specific audience but that doesn't make them bad games. Yakuza 0 is my Game of the Generation so far.

Now if a game is getting scores of 6 or lower consistently......then yeah that might be a sign of a bad game.

Because a new generation of gamers are here and they let others decide what is good or bad for them based on a number given to a game. Real wuss bags.

Sniper, you've been here for years, yet you still don't understand how hype works?

"It'll score a 9!"

*scores 6*

"What a flop!"

A flop literally means it didn't score what it was hyped. That's it.

It's the hype. When you wait for a game for a long time and read little articles that keep giving you bits and pieces of the game it raises anticipation. Once it sets in it's real, it's all or nothing for you. This game has to score a 9 or a 10. I was super happy when Red Dead Redemption got 9's and 10's everywhere and GOTY acclaim. I'd preordered and I knew I'd be getting my money's worth. I was disappointed when Kingdom Hearts 3 scored a 8 here. After all that waiting the fanbase wanted nothing less than perfection lol

I think alot of people generally don't take journalist seriously any-more.

In ye old days, prior to the internet we generally had a single magazine as a source of information, and many of these were sponsored by the company itself. Less a information book, and more a way to advertise shit.

In the early 2000's people clung to metacritic like it was the end of all ends.

Now, what with gamegate showing both gamers, and many journalist as, well... pieces of shit, and a bunch of other stuff like Jeff Gerstmann fired, IGN stealing reviews from youtubers, IGN only playing half of Resident Evil 2, thinking it was the entire game, and reviewers throwing in activism under the guise of journalism, along with the simple fact gamers are much older now and able to get multple sources for information, we are more skeptical than ever.

Not to use broad brush-stokes, this is not the case for everyone. Their are still good people.

But this is generally a good thing. Limiting information, trying to actively influence people, and using a shallow indicator, is bad, obviously.

Resident Evil 2 would be regarded as superior to Metro regardless, which is great.

Immaturity, i guess.

Anything above a 7/10 was always considered to be good. With the high standards we have had these days, great games with 'low' scores are even more common. I have played fantastic games with metascores in the 60s and low 70s.

There's a problem with the way games are scored. 5 should be an "average" game and 1's and two's should be about as prevalent as 8's and 9's. The way it works out though is that the worst games tend to get 4's and 5's. This compresses the scale and it ends up where 7's are average games, and anything above average is a 8 or 9.

I don't think anyone genuinely thinks an 8/10 means a bad game. It's just trolling.

To me, 5/10 or under = bad, a 6/10 = "fair / fairly mediocre". 7/10 = "good". 8/10 = "great" and 9/10 = "awesomesauce" while I'd only give 10/10 to games I'd consider a masterpiece.

I agree, but that's exactly what happens. 9+ scores are rare, like they always have been, and the reason why we don't see scores as low as 1s and 2s, is because games that bad don't even come out anymore. Standards are simply too high these days.

or maybe if a game is constantly getting called out for similar problems from IGN to Gamespot to the ACG youtube reviewer, they'd rather not plunk down that $60, which for me is a good chunk of change to be doling out for a fun thing.

I mean, I get it. Its other people's opinions and you should always go by what you feel rather than let others dictate what you should do, but these things cost some good money. So if the bad outweighs the good about a particular game, then it makes sense why so many people still put stock in reviews.

Never understood why people think reviews are bad, outside of the shadiness of paid reviews like what happened with Jeff Gerstmann here back in 2007.

Maybe sometimes. Case in point: Just Cause 4 scored around 70 on metacritic because critics were fed up with the formula (reminder - these are people who play games pretty much around the clock, for a living). BAM - it's on Gamepass now, just a couple of months after release, and subscribers couldn't be happier.

Scores are a kind of a weird remnant of consumer magazine culture and the aggregate review sites that critics are forced to enroll into are set to bite their hijacked crews in the ass.

@ghosts4ever: bite your tongue, re2 is a great game regardless of nostalgia. Metro has the issue of living up to the older games and being a 3rd game which always have a been there done that feel. And they removed the bullets are money mechanic, how can you like such a casual game now?

The real question here is "why does anything colorful, cute or cartoon-like make ghosts feel insecure?"

@poe13: I don’t because at near 47 I know what I like in life. Ive been playing games longer than Peter Brown has been alive. I track games that interest me and play them as long as I have the means. Lately money has been tight so passed on almost everything so far this year.

Nobody tells me what to do. NOBODY!!!

But you are always free to leave your opinions on a game and I will listen to whatever you have to say :)

Don't single out sheep because I've seen other factions have the same kind of reaction when a score didn't meet their expectations. This kind of thing isn't exclusive

Play whatever you like. I've played all kinds of 6-7 range games this gen, I even liked some. Hell, I enjoyed Far Cry New Dawn, mainly because I wanted to see where the story ended up from 5. If you're really worried about what people think of games instead of just playing them though, you need to stay off boards like this one, where the whole purpose is confirmation bias and antagonizing people with list wars. Which is great fun all in itself. LOL!

He is always asking people what they think about his favorite games and I'm here like one week or so and it's been innumerous threads about this made by him.

My bottom number is 7.

So if a game looks interesting to you but scores below a 7 you wouldn't play it?

Probably not, reviews save me from shit buys.

Anything under a 9 is bad. Absolute tripe. Barely worth a mention. You clearly lack the superior taste of we 9+ gamers!

This is the only correct answer.

@uninspiredcup said:

@ghosts4ever said:

@uninspiredcup said:

Ghost upset Metro failed.

but RE2 is overrated. because of all nastolgia.

RE2 is 5 hour game. Metro is 20 hour game. more worth and value.

This is a valid argument!

@son-goku7523 said:

@uninspiredcup said:

This is a valid argument!

This is the only argument ever needed for RE2. Screw it being an absolutely brilliant game...

You guys didn't get the memo? The lower the score, the better the game. Big Rigs baby!

Righto lol. I've not even done Hardcore runs yet... I've been busy and playing other games.

I already know what I'm going to buy way before reviews are even out, so does not matter to me what score a game gets.

@lundy86_4 said:

@ghosts4ever said:

but RE2 is overrated. because of all nastolgia.

RE2 is 5 hour game. Metro is 20 hour game. more worth and value.

Righto lol. I've not even done Hardcore runs yet... I've been busy and playing other games.

Pretty much all RE games are longer than Metro.

@uninspiredcup: lol, nice. Yeah, RE's heavily impose multiple play-throughs to enjoy the games. The game is only 5 hours if you do a single character, which is a waste. I can't comment on Metro Exodus, as i'm buying the game when it hits Steam.

lol playing multiple times. for that logic playing 2 times mean metro is 40 hour long.

characters donot matter since they are almost same. in same location with some few changes.

@cainetao11: Well then if you enjoy games that score lower then that's the only thing that matters. For me, time and money are finite (as you pointed out) and I vaguely remember buying a few low-scoring games in the past, before I bothered to watch/read reviews/footage and I got burned. Meaning, I spent $60 on some games that I only played for a few hours, if that. Then I never played them again, sold them, got rid of them, and felt nasty pangs of buyer's remorse.

Now I know better. I wouldn't call that being a wuss bag but agree to disagree.

And that's why we get each other. As Ricky Gervais says, "when we die we realize, none of the shit we feel so strong about really matters"

@ghosts4ever: RE 2 with both scenarios can easily be 14 to 16 hour game the first time.