Yeah but come on now, I did not imply or say that the reason gears won't get a 90mc is because of the rodeo run, but you probably already know this and are just trying to smear me anyway u can.
Not as much as a game getting 85 did for you. I suggest you grow up.Lmao, did I hit a nerve?
I was replying to another user, and we are talking about reviews in general.
None is crying.
I suggest you take an emotional break from games and connect with the real world.
To be fair.. it's not far off. Multiple full score reviews and a 85 MC/OC is certainly very very good. It's the vagaries of math that if a few sites don't like it, you're not going to get a 90. And not even just sites, individual people. If Mike Mahardy had written the GameSpot review, that might well have shifted the score, for example. Regardless, at the top end of the scale, it's really less about how many people liked it and much more about how badly the outliers disliked it.It felt like after the preview thread people ramped up their expectations and thought this was going to be 2019's God of Celeste: Odyssey in terms of critical reception.
Why are you making a change to a game? What do those changes add to the game?Because franchise and gameplay fatigue is a thing. Also, the foundation of some games simply lend better to iteration and sequels than others.
To your point, MGSV, RE7 and UC4 all offered pretty notable changes in their subsequent releases. MGS went fully open world, RE7 went first person, and UC4 added open ended environments as well as gameplay tweaks that changed up environmental and combat mobility, not to mention a complete overhaul of gunplay. Even DMC5, whilst iterative, still has you playing as 3 completely different characters with entirely different gameplay mechanics.
That's really uncalled-for.Yeah but come on now, I did not imply or say that the reason gears won't get a 90mc is because of the rodeo run, but you probably already know this and are just trying to smear me anyway u can.
And to absolutely no surprise, this thread is already an embarrassment. Console warring everywhere. Calling it a flop. Since when was a game rated in the 80s a flop? Maybe play the game for yourself before calling it a flop. It's like all people do in today's world is read reviews and call it without ever bothering to actually experience it for themselves.
From every review that I've read, Gears "open maps" approach was a negative, because it ended up being boring as fuck.So something like Gears 5 is doing? I mean, "open ended" is really not true, anyway, for UC4. It was still point to point in the end.
So something like Gears 5 is doing? At least what I could see in the footage.
Not really sure about that but then again, gunplay was hardly ever an issue with Gears anyways.
You're wrong about that. MGSV deserved a 9.
Kinda seems like reviews might be people's opinions rather than a grand conspiracy.
Uncharted did it successfully? Those parts of 4 and LL were mediocre at best and really added nothing to the experience. They must really suck in Gears 5 if that's the case.
Every game is repetitive, but only MGSV has the greatest gameplay in the history of gaming.Come on bro, a game with empty worlds, no fast travel, takes 5 minutes from base to the world, the most repetitive game ever existed. Save him, kill him, extract him. Game is finished. Cut scene ending, now repeat all that only harder and you get another scene. Yup, definitely a 9 there.
Eh I tho k it's more people that aren't fans of a series are asking for the series to be something different instead of just accepting they don't like it. I don't like souls games, it would be silly for me to say "they need to revamp the movement and add actual story into the game" etc, when those are staples of the game design. It's just not for me and I'm fine with thatWhy are you making a change to a game? What do those changes add to the game?
Some time back, a friend of mine gave an example of Dead or Alive to Dead or Alive 2. Tomonobu Itagaki and Team Ninja revamped the counter hold system, they made it very rewarding to play defense. To some degree, it was overpowered. In the very next iteration, they evolved the system, counter holds did a good amount of damage, but nowhere near as much as they did in DoA2. But he also made another change to the game by adding a layer on mid hitting moves where the counter hold for kicks was forward+Free, and Back+Free for punched. That small change added an element of chess to the game where one now either had to make a hard read on combo's that featured mid moves, or they could simply block and see where that went.
In Tekken, they added the bound mechanic in Tekken 6 and became tailspin in Tekken 7. The addition of the low parry combined with these, and the rage drive/art had more and more people inching towards launchers and juggles of launchers. Or on the other extreme, simply poking.
The people that think that this is the same Gears are those that have an agenda. There are small changes that have been made that significantly add to how you can interact with the game. There is the player initiated combat and stealth. I have seen gameplay where someone wandered through a room and through stealth killed off deebee's one at a time. All he had to do was choose a path where he could not be noticed.
I have seen an area where locust two or was it three locust were marked by JD so that Marcus and Kait could deal with them as they focused.on others. There is the added dimension to Jack, improved play by using the environment either by shooting ice or blowing up other things. There is a vastly bigger tactical element to playing career than there has been on any Gears game, so many different situations to how one can now move through a level. That was never the case in previous Gears games. There is also some interaction with NPC's, this is something I would love for them to expand on going forward.....all these things were not there in previous Gears games, but you have people stating that it is the same game.
Those tweaks are bigger than some of the things you mention. And RE7 going first person is simply a change in how we perceive the game, not how we play it. Uncharted adding a rope added more vertical gameplay, but at its core, it was the same Uncharted we have played since last generation.
So, what are people asking for? Why are they asking for it? Is it because it is needed, or is it because they have this fetish to see change for the sake of it?
This only happens on Xbox side of gaming, of course. Right? :)
Which means nothing because you can literally play it for 1$, lol.
i didnt undervalue anything, most outlets seem to be super single player focused and the people they choose to review the games are aswell, so i think that their opinions on the matter are not super relevant to me, maybe they are to you and that's fine aswellMP is still a designed thing. Absolutely reviewable, absurd to suggest otherwise, it's just different to SP. The undervaluing of MP by some on Era is really weird.
I wonder if it's allowed to be GOTY now. :P
Not as much as a game getting 85 did for you. I suggest you grow up.
still shows up as a 85.
That's the whole point of reviews Chief, to get a metric of how that experience is like BEFORE you throw down your hard earned dollars and invest in that experience. I for one like to be informed instead of blindly going in and then possibly regretting said purchase. That's just not a smart decision making by any means. It's ike going to a car dealership and purchasing a car blindly without doing any research about what it is you are getting and then driving it home but realize its not a good fit or doesn't have enough power or style for your liking.
What does this even mean?MS should not give out any review keys for their games anymore. With Game Pass, anyone can try for himself anyway.
Not real thrilled about what I'm hearing regarding the open world areas, nothing i despise more than games going open world just because they feel they need too.
I was nervous reading the previews that this would be the case and when I shared that concern people here didn't like that.
i didnt undervalue anything, most outlets seem to be super single player focused and the people they choose to review the games are aswell, so i think that their opinions on the matter are not super relevant to me, maybe they are to you and that's fine aswell
Why not Spider-Man which scored 87 is?
I asked the Waypoint reviewer on twitter and he replied that essentially it's too hard to find people to play with pre-release. I get that, but that's also why reviews should be "in-progress" and completed once you can or just wait and do the review once it's complete. This covering 1/3 of a game shit is nonsense.Wait some reviewers are ignoring the horde and the multiplayer modes ? what fucking shit show is this? Is this even fair...
You just realised you have no idea what you're talking about haha.
You literally did the whole "reviews don't matter" in a review thread. I've clearly hit a nerve calling you out on it though giving your childish responses, so I'll just leave it at I suggest you grow up.WTF are you talking about? Where in my post did I complain about scores?
Damn, Kratos must be your father or something.Lmao
Come on bro, a game with empty worlds, no fast travel, takes 5 minutes from base to the world, the most repetitive game ever existed. Save him, kill him, extract him. Game is finished. Cut scene ending, now repeat all that only harder and you get another scene. Yup, definitely a 9 there.