And there are tens of other reviewers that are saying the exact opposite. Clearly it works for some and doesn't work for others.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Gears 5 Review Thread
- Thread starter NovumVeritas
- Start date
Oh yeah. Page after page of "but Spider-Man was actually better than its score while we know, definitively, that Gears is not because [insert vague console warring rhetoric here]."
This 100%. Let's remember Jeff also didn't bother to finish highly rated games like RDR2, God of War, or Uncharted 4.
Having said that Gears seems to be one of those games I figured he'd enjoy. I remember his Geara 4 review because he specifically echoed my praise and criticisms pretty much to a tee.
Context is important and that was lacking from the clip. So excited to play it tonight.
Quite. From what I have played Jack offers the player several new ways to do things, and so far at least, this is tied to player choice, exploration and skill. This is all good stuff.
Same here. And Jeff is one of my favorite gaming media personalities out there. His opinions are fun to listen to but very unique to Jeff. He doesn't even like Last of Us which is my #1 reason to own a PlayStation. I listen for entertainment more than info.
This is off-topic but TLOU's multiplayer is unique and actually quite good.
It's a great addition to the single-player campaign, and many of the reviews mention this.
That's super disappointing. My favorite segment of Gears 4 was the mech gameplay at the end
I've been in all these shit show threads, they are the same across the board.
they should do the R* approach, release multiplayer later so it doesn't conflate with the scores
What? Many Gears fans play Gears for the MP, this would just piss half the fans off.
7 and half hours if you have the ultimate edition/Gamepass Ultimate. You can set your location to New Zealand if you wanna play now tho. Tuesday if you have the standard edition/ game
I don't think it would really work. With RDR and GTA, you can get lost within the singleplayer portion for a while because there's so much to do. But you can complete a fairly linear game like Gears a lot faster. And like m23 said, a lot of folks play Gears for its multiplayer/horde modes.
Review threads for exclusive games are peak Restera, that's for certain. I never miss them.
Not sure if gamersrd reviews count on meta or not but they gave it a 9.5
It's not listed on the metacritic gears 5 reviews right now. Just checked.
Nice, the glowing reviews keep on coming in. I guess we're starting to get more since some reviewers are actually taking the time to review the full package lol.
Why do people struggle believing this is as good or better than Spiderman? I see them to be on exactly the same level really, both well-honed games that land the important parts perfectly. The high 90s and above are for things that push further and give people more than what they were expecting.
A high 80s game is a bloody winner.
A high 80s game is a bloody winner.
Haven't played competitive,but horde has some nice quality of life improvements.
- Bots
- Vote to skip the wait time between rounds
- Health bars
- Points are shared
- Character progression is guaranteed to be for the character you were playing with.
Hard to say right now, but they didn't fuck the Gnasher up so that's a huge positive.
I've said this many times, but I feel multiplayer will boost some of the reviews that were happy with the SP, but not blown away. I think MC 87-89 is definitely possible.
Nice Ill probably be playing Horde more than anything else
That Guardian review is why MC sucks. A glowing review, but because they literally only have 5 places to place their score, it's effectively got an 80 MC from them. Using 5 stars does not translate to MC at all. That said, a 5 star system is much better in other ways. 3 star films, for example, are still well worth seeing in many cases. Can you imagine people here trying to defend an equivalent 60 MC game?
Yea. It's quite interesting. This is another reason why MC is especially not useful at the top of the scale. What's the difference between a 80 and a 90? Who knows, there's no way to tell XD. Scores don't really capture the intent in reviews, and because of various scales and math, averages just obscure them even further. That's compounded by all the people who are just moving away from scores in general. I wonder if it would have been more productive to just get a small brain trust of people from different outlets to anonymously score games on a consistent scale. And phrase it as "What would you like to see this game's overall consensus score end up at". A totally subjective question that isn't about "how good is this game" or "balance the merits blah blah". That way, we would get a score, but we'd also all know that it's BS in its own special way. That anonymity would go a long way IMO.
Feels like a 7.5 for me from what I've played so far. Fun but junky and familiar. Nothing particularly innovative or memorable but a fun blockbuster thrillride while you're playing it.
That's not a problem with MC though - the problem is with some people in gaming community that want to see winners and losers based on these MC scores.
Good to see a lot more reviews coming in and they've all been great. well done TC. G5 is amazing.
It's a general problem with trying to find a numerical average of people's opinion. It's inherently a little flawed. The only solution is for fans to stop caring so much about the average score. Just use reviews as a recommendation to play or not.
Been paying koth for a few hours ago and this too me no longer feels like a gears game. I'm really disappointed. The game is too fast and doesn't have the feeling of heft and weight of previous titles which is what made gears, gears. I'm hoping something clicks soon but this is the first entry I'm really not enjoying. The shotgun is ridiculous as well. Hype completely deflated. Hopefully horde and the new mode escape are good as if they are it could be the first entry where I no longer player pvp
The MC score can help show what the general opinion reviewers have about a game in comparision to similar titles, like if there is something like a 10-20 points difference between a game and its predecesor. But the obssesion with the exact score and especially when its just a few points difference between titles is pointless since there's so many variables like number of reviews, different scoring between reviewers, different reviewers for the same publication on different titles and such. And it's all based on peoples subjective impression.
Mm, sure, anything can be weaponized. But no, I would definitely argue that this is an inherent shortcoming of the MC format. There are several layers of problems. Who is the audience for MC? By design, it's trying to aggregate as many different perspectives as possible and homogenize them into one easily digestible figure. It's meant to be a quick and dirty benchmark for a casual audience that isn't necessarily going to dive into the reviews and read them. There's absolutely a market for that - most people aren't going to read 2 reviews on a game, let alone 50. Still, that's the reason why MC doesn't really concern itself very much with interpreting words and scales into something consistent. It doesn't really matter to them.
HOWEVER, the scale that they use implies that the process is much more precise than it actually is. It collates, but doesn't include reviews that don't score or use a different scale. It assigns a number out of 100 (even to scores that can't reasonably be interpreted that way), and implies and even encourages on the website and in marketing that a single point of difference is meaningful in some way. Is a game scoring 85 better than a game that scored 83? MC may not outright say that.. but they're not NOT saying that either. And they're happy to let people run away with that assumption and blast it all over the internet.
That's before we even get to the methodology of aggregation. MC is an average. I don't know if it's a weighted average (maybe that would be better), but regardless.. the math gets in the way at the top end. The people who really really love a game can't give it 120, there's an upper limit to the score. Therefore, people who think the game is bad OR EVEN just think it's decent but not great can have an outsize influence on the score the closer it gets to the top of the scale. High MC scores are fundamentally an indication of consensus. People like the game, and there weren't too many outliers. That's especially a problem for games that are divisive. If 1/3 of the audience LOVES a game, but 1/3 of people don't like it, does that mean this game is middling? Nope. It just means it appeals to a specific group of players, and not to everyone. But wait, isn't that true of EVERY game? Yes. It is. So why is that a problem?
Because video game reviewers are not the same as the general audience that MC is targetting. We've had this discussion before, so in brief, reviewers are a specific breed of people. They tend to be knowledgeable about games and history. They tend to have a decent grasp on trends and movements in the industry. They tend to play more games and more varied games than most people. They tend to be early adopters and be interested in seeing new things (partially because they remember and play more games). Importantly, they also have audiences - often audiences that are different from the wide net cast by MC. And.. why will a racing game almost certainly not win GOTY this year or next year or the year after that? Because it's not the kind of game that reviewers value in that way. DOES THAT MEAN REVIEWERS ARE BAD AND THEIR SCORES ARE MEANINGLESS? No, certainly not. The point is not that their reviews or scores are bad, merely that they don't fit into the system that is set up with MC.
In sum, yes, I think the MC concept is deeply inherently flawed in many ways, even though I think it does serve a legitimate purpose for people. Still, I would personally entirely rework the way the system is run. Rotten Tomatoes is often seen as an analogue for MC, but it's really not. It sums up the number of reviewers who would RECOMMEND a movie. I think that can be a fairly useful metric, because then we understand that the difference between 83% of reviewers recommending a game and 85% is fundamentally not important. And, of course, we haven't even touched the trend of reviewers moving away from scores entirely (and even reviews!). But, I agree, THAT issue is not on MC. Wow I wrote a lot. Sorry.
Can't see any score? but then it's review in progress since it just campaign only.