Just curious. Who decides if your review count to MC or not. Are there any requirements you must meet?
-
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
Just curious. Who decides if your review count to MC or not. Are there any requirements you must meet?
Let's just say that it is very difficult to get approved to be counted on Metacritic.
MC staff I think, AFAIK every year they change the list so it's not a static thing.
As far as I'm aware my boss told me that there are certain requirements, and basically Metacritic has been saying to us for years that they'll look into it.
Aha so it's not that easy huh. Thanks for the response guys.
Are these people still on Metacritic? Their last Review in their profile Is Soul Calibur V from 2012
Just finished it. Oh wow. I don't even know what to say. Just that this is definitely my Game Of The Year now. I'd go as far as say it's in the top 3 for the best games on Xbox One for the whole generation, still not decided on the placing for all platforms but this is legit awesome, I'm still trying to pick up my jaw here.
I don't think It's quite up to the standard of God of War, RDR2 and BOTW though but I won't ever understand the low scoring reviews, I can absolutely see the faults talked about but they really mean nothing in the end. I'm still watching the credits roll and enjoying the awesome music, holy crap, this game, this story, these bosses, these characters, these visuals, just wow.
9.5
I don't think It's quite up to the standard of God of War, RDR2 and BOTW though but I won't ever understand the low scoring reviews, I can absolutely see the faults talked about but they really mean nothing in the end. I'm still watching the credits roll and enjoying the awesome music, holy crap, this game, this story, these bosses, these characters, these visuals, just wow.
9.5
If their last review on there was in 2012 then I think you have your answer.
I played until the game crashed, more or less 1 hour, and the game felt just like any other Gears of War. For those happy with the formula it must be a joy. I don't judge, I love yakuza and I'm not so sure about the changes made with the combat.
Well what did you expect? The game doesn't just drop you right into the new experiences. It builds up to it.
yeah wtf lol
can't judge a game like this based on an hour of play.
holy shit why even post that in the first place XD
I love Giantbomb and i love Jeff but he's jaded as fuck with most modern video games and sometimes that makes him a bit unreasonable.
Was going to say. Jeff hates most everything. I love his interviews but ignore his reviews.
I mean the game isn't a lot different from prior Gears games so it's pretty reasonable that Gears 5 still won't do much for some people out there.
From what I've played so far, Coalition is doing everything right.
Gears hasn't been this good in a long time.
Gears hasn't been this good in a long time.
My takeaway both from the quick look and the bombcast talk is that I wonder what Jeff has been doing in those open world sections, love the guy but I wonder how he's playing the game that I wasn't:
I can TOTALLY get someone not liking the open world sections, but they're very small, and consist of a little bit of downtime between missions. If you want to you can just fly mission to mission super fast, like less than a minute in most cases, the controls of the skiff feel good, it's a pretty fun vehicle to drive, and if you want to do side stuff it's super obvious where it is, and THOSE missions are still totally great, bespoke setpieces. Some more than others, but still.
Like, my issue with the take is: Sure, you can not like that part, but it's weird to me to make such a big deal out of such a small section of the game. I definitely wouldn't put much weight on those parts if you choose to engage with them minimally, and hey if you WANT to run donuts in the snow, go for it, it's kidna fun, you can do it as much as you want. The open world aspects of this game are basically just a little hub world, essentially. It's certainly not a Ubi game or Horizon or God of War or anyhting remotely close to those.
I actually found Jack's abilities fun and helpful. I go into these open world missions and use cloak and take 3 enemies out undetected.
Yeah. It's like giving RDR2 a 7 because of the input latency. Or giving God of War a 7 because you want more enemy variety. It's not serious. The problems can absolutely be seen when looking at them up close, but as a critic you should be able to take a step back and take a look at the whole thing and not judge the whole painting for a few missed strokes.
Even with all issues people have mentioned this game is fantastic.
Gears 5 currently sitting just 2 point above Gears 4 makes zero sense tbh. One is clearly overrated and the other underrated. The critics, or I should say some critics, hasn't been doing their job here at all as far as I'm concerned.
To add to this - the open world sections (or hub areas) are definitely a new thing for Gears, but it still feels like it fits right in with Gears. It doesn't feel like Coalition is trying to take Gears into another genre that's mismatched. The RPG mechanics behind Jack, for instance, are just the right amount of RPG mechanics without feeling overbearing for the player. Everything is smartly designed in terms of taking new things and applying them to what will always be a Gears game first.
It's very obvious where to go in those hub areas too, and I think it's a good experiment to see where Gears should go further down the line.
The bar is constantly being raised. If gears 4 was as good as Gears 5 in 2016, it would have been rated higher than G5 is now. But 2017, 2018 and 2019 have all had plenty of great games. The scores 5 is getting are still great scores.
I know but some issues are clearly exaggerated in how much they affect the game as a whole. The only things I didn't like was the length, it's too short, and the open map in Act 2, it's too dead. But it's not like that would drop the score much when the rest was better than I even hoped for.
Agreed. This is why I can't respect some of the reviews. They lack nuance and understanding.
Agreed with every single word from these posts. It makes me wonder what sort of criteria these reviewers use as the things they're penalizing it for doesn't add up to me. I appreciate IGN's approach to a game with a strong campaign and MP like Gears in scoring both individually and coming up with a final score later. I found the 8.8 for the campaign silly of course, when Ryan could've easily just given it the 9 but whatever.
I feel like Jeff really liked Gears of War 4, his review
Listening to the podcast today, he basically says he likes everything about it that feels like Gears except for the new stuff (the open world stuff basically).
Hate to say it but I agree.
After getting down in multi and finishing the campaign my score is a 9.
Pretty much this, which is why I actually appreciate the Quick Look format more than reviews to begin with - the longform discussion led me to easily understand his issues with it, and apply my own tastes to them before I'd even gotten to an open world section of the game. Then it turned out to be even LESS intrusive than he led on, which is where I'm a little more perplexed than usual - I understand someone not liking that part, I just can't fathom feeling like it's a major part of the game beyond a few minutes to zip around and kind of select what order you do missions in (or if you do side missions at all, of which there are incredibly few, it's still not an open world game).
Is Giant Bomb even going to review it? IGN's score still has to come in and will likely be a 9+ so that will likely help it. Could depend on what Edge gives it. Either way an 85 is still a great score.