Joe always gets his thread and his reviews are unique, can’t say the same about GameCritics.
FFX.
God of War Review Thread
- Thread starter Minaret
- Start date
- Status
Quite a few reviews are yet to come actually :)
Pelit
LEVEL
GameSpew
Playstation country
PlayStation Official Magazine UK
PlayStation Official Magazine Australia
The Digital Fix
LaPS4
CD-action
Games(TM)
Riot Pixels
Toronto Sun
App trigger
Games Master UK
Let's play Video games
Arcade Sushi
Why should there be?
If there's a perfectly good review thread why do certain review(er)s need special promotion?
In this case its unique because it's an outlier. If an outlier review is well written, it's worth discussing. Often times they're garbage. This one appears to be well reasoned.
I believe!
Apparently so. Or at least enough to make the difference between 94 and 95.
104 reviews and a 94 meta is still amazing.
I left much of what I had to say there, but regardless I think that the reviewers aren't really valid as people in their position. If you're going to be putting a score on Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes or wherever, I want to know that the critic is actually a trusted source. Not someone who is looking to stick out of the crowd just to fuel their own popularity.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/gamecritics-reviews-god-of-war-promising-but-aimless.39135/
There ya go! :)
Hopefully this means no more new threads for new reviews. Most of the time those threads don't end to well and as far as the game goes I loved it, but still behind Horizon Zero Dawn, Witcher 3, and Uncharted 4 as my games of the generation.
The thread that u created here I meant.
Botw has 109 reviews and Gow is at 104. So possibly there won't be any more reviews. It might get 2-3 more reviews and if they're perfect scores then it just might go 95. Chances are really slim coz low number of reviews left to come out.
Yeah, Game Critics has an... interesting track record with scoring titles, that's for sure. I think it just comes down to them having some very specific tastes (like, very specific), that most modern AAA games simply don't hew towards.
No it's not. It's biased, bitter, and childish.
He's crying because 'insert popular AAA game' is not Devil May Cry or Bayonetta.
I guess I'll post here since the other thread was closed. I don't understand what the problem with the review was. It was a bad idea to stop introducing enemies half way through the game. Even the aimless comment people took such offense to is somewhat accurate. The game sets up plot points that just don't go anywhere, Alfheim for example.
Obviously how much these issue bother you is completely subjective, but there's nothig objectively wrong with what they criticized.
Obviously how much these issue bother you is completely subjective, but there's nothig objectively wrong with what they criticized.
That just means highlighting the review with the lowest score, that isn’t unique, just didn’t like the game as much as others.
Let's bring the hype ferries back! :D
95 Metacritic is the destination!
Dunno, always thought it is the norm here. Maybe it was like news? Polygon news and such.
If you go back to Alfheim with Mimir you'll understand why it goes nowhere. It's a endless war that's been "won" over 200 different times. Maybe the inevitable sequel will make it more obvious.
It's reference to a thread I think of horizon zd where the op said it's slay yet basick.
It is def a perfect review if one has a poor understanding of game design and combat systems.. Sure
The GamingBrit review is embarrassingly bad. Almost like the dude was adamant that he wouldn't like the game, no matter what. Or maybe I'm just being a fanboy, I don't know.
The norm has always been to have discussions on all reviews in a single thread, even at the old place. The same applies with previews. If not you'd end up with dozens of threads that all discuss similar things.
Whether it ends at 94 or 95 at meta, it's great to see that this game after 104 reviews doesn't have a single mixed or bad review.
No it's a good review if you can handle actual opinions on this game.
Your post here really didn't show any understanding of game design or combat. The video review did. It was actually all about that.
I thought i was the only one who recognized this....thank god im not.
no one should take what he says serious all he wants to play is dmc god hand and bayo. He doesnt even like god of war and never has
They don't have a 10 review scale so It hink it's funny how somebody would care enough to change that for the dramatic effect in the pic in the OP ;)
Said this already, but he was never going to give the game a fair chance. Especially since people were apparently trying to "wreck" him over it.
Eh, converting a 5-point scale to a ten point scale (or 100 points in case of metacritic) has been a standard practice since forever. Where have you been?
The moment he started moaning about the runic attack cooldowns I switched off.
It's an RPG mechanic, if you don't like the cooldowns and want to spam OP attacks then build your character accordingly in order to max out your cooldawn status. But also be aware that you will likely have to make sacrifices to things like your defence and vitality stats.
If you don't want to do that then well... The game isn't for you but that doesn't make the mechanic itself "bad".
I prefer individual review threads(if people think the review is worthwhile) because then you'll get an actual discussion guided by that individual review. Threads like this are too big, move fast, respond to too many things, and then often are just hype threads anyway.
They probably just went of Metacritic translating a 5/5 into a 100 (10/10)
Ah.. yes.. the wonderful understanding of combat systems from an author that says DMC4 SE's combat is better than Souls if you remove encounter design, level design, enemy design etc.. Ah yess.. It is def a good review from an author with a fundamental understanding of how combat is designed.
The author praises the most banal of combat systems out there in Yakuza and then complains about God of War is what I found more hilarious.
- Status