Maybe it's because video games are generally more expensive and have higher expectations when it comes to selling well? If a game is considered to be decent at best, it might not have a high enough profile to match or exceed the expected sales target.
At least, that's what I think about the mentality of review scores.
Since we're on the topic of metacritic, I want to hijack this thread to bitch about something that irks me:
Why do games, and only ga… moremes, have a separate grading scale from everything else? And why do games have a harsher grading scale, in comparison to the other entertainment mediums that are generally taken far more seriously?
Like really, why does a movie that gets 65 get to still sit in the green, but a game that hits 74 is considered 'mixed'?
I just don't fully understand it personally.
What's worse is that they consider Superman 4 as the worst DC Comic game. I mean, really? Worse than Batman & Robin and Catwoman? I did hear that Superman 4 was terrible but not as terrible as those pieces of shit movies.
Since we're on the topic of metacritic, I want to hijack this thread to bitch about something that irks me:
Why do games, and only ga… moremes, have a separate grading scale from everything else? And why do games have a harsher grading scale, in comparison to the other entertainment mediums that are generally taken far more seriously?
Like really, why does a movie that gets 65 get to still sit in the green, but a game that hits 74 is considered 'mixed'?
I just don't fully understand it personally.
If I had to guess locally, Id guess I'd say because movies are all done completely, there is no viewer or in this case "player" effect in the actual product, and because movies dont have things like bugs. I still agree the scale is pretty poorly done on meta critic, but thats my best guess at it.
Since we're on the topic of metacritic, I want to hijack this thread to bitch about something that irks me:
Why do games, and only ga… moremes, have a separate grading scale from everything else? And why do games have a harsher grading scale, in comparison to the other entertainment mediums that are generally taken far more seriously?
Like really, why does a movie that gets 65 get to still sit in the green, but a game that hits 74 is considered 'mixed'?
I just don't fully understand it personally.
It truly saddens me that the majority of 'reviews' are just made up of people who give it a perfect score or near perfect one out of pure enjoyment or giving it a terrible score out of pure dislike of the franchise, company or due to the user's salt level. It doesn't seem like most people like to review things critically and assess what is good and bad about the game.
Pretty much and it's become the same for films and shows now and due to this flawed rating system of today, products need these kinds of scores to catch the audience's attention, the lower the score, the less likely a person is going to give it a try it seems.
Cory in the House has a higher user score than all of the games on here.
Take notes Telltale, make a Cory in the House a Telltale series.
In all seriousness though 7's aren't that bad a rating at all to be honest, it's actually pretty good. And there's no point paying attention to the user ones, a large majority of them are just straight 0's or straight 10's. It happens all the time, especially with console exclusives, Zelda Breath of the Wild being the most recent one to memory.
Comments
Maybe it's because video games are generally more expensive and have higher expectations when it comes to selling well? If a game is considered to be decent at best, it might not have a high enough profile to match or exceed the expected sales target.
At least, that's what I think about the mentality of review scores.
well it's a pretty freaking good anime
i prefer the mango to be honest
5 is average. 7 is a pretty darn good rating.
I only watch it in subs. Dub is for noobs.
Don't talk shit about Cory in the House; that's my favorite anime.
I wonder if this image is accurate:
Why is it always my country?
What's worse is that they consider Superman 4 as the worst DC Comic game. I mean, really? Worse than Batman & Robin and Catwoman? I did hear that Superman 4 was terrible but not as terrible as those pieces of shit movies.
If I had to guess locally, Id guess I'd say because movies are all done completely, there is no viewer or in this case "player" effect in the actual product, and because movies dont have things like bugs. I still agree the scale is pretty poorly done on meta critic, but thats my best guess at it.
Wow
It truly saddens me that the majority of 'reviews' are just made up of people who give it a perfect score or near perfect one out of pure enjoyment or giving it a terrible score out of pure dislike of the franchise, company or due to the user's salt level. It doesn't seem like most people like to review things critically and assess what is good and bad about the game.
Pretty much and it's become the same for films and shows now and due to this flawed rating system of today, products need these kinds of scores to catch the audience's attention, the lower the score, the less likely a person is going to give it a try it seems.
always gotta pick on the canadians
Cory in the House has a higher user score than all of the games on here.
Take notes Telltale, make a Cory in the House a Telltale series.
In all seriousness though 7's aren't that bad a rating at all to be honest, it's actually pretty good. And there's no point paying attention to the user ones, a large majority of them are just straight 0's or straight 10's. It happens all the time, especially with console exclusives, Zelda Breath of the Wild being the most recent one to memory.
We're North America's party poopers.
because it's canada
[removed]