This is what modern poetry is all about.
Yeah, no.
This is, on a tangent, why I love Into the Breach. Each battle, and each shot, requires you to think of what you can gain or deny the enemy beyond just inflicting HP loss on an enemy force. Because each fight ends after a turn limit, it removes the 'also, you could just kill them all to win' idea that undercuts a lot of strategy scenario design. Often, soaking up damage with your limited force, keeping a generator or building alive for just one more turn, can be the difference between victory and loss further along in the campaign, constantly challenging you to put the objective of civil defence on the same or higher importance than preservation of your units and killing the enemy. Best original strategy game idea I've played in ages, as it doesn't revel in an overpowered min/maxed and tailored force annihilating the enemy, but in doing what you can with what you've got, and you've often not got enough.
Their list is full of low scoring games but they couldn't get in a game that has a 97 MC score...sure bro. Not contrarian or clickbaity at all, no, no.
I mean, if you want the top 30 games with the best Metacritic score, you could go to Metacritic and find those. What's the point of a personal list, then? Plus they'd have to add a disclaimer like, "I didn't particularly enjoy most of these games, but I am mandated to include them because other people said I should."
https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...edemption-2-is-at-its-best-when-im-not-a.html
No of course people can find other games better.
A third of era is down on RDR2? What? I've seen some who aren't happy on ERA about the game but most people here seem to be happy with it.
To be fair, you could say the same about Bioshock Infinite, Mass Effect 3 or Skyward Sword. Great reviews that barely touch on what people criticise them for months or years later. Outlying reviews for highly anticipated games with a large fanbase that stray more than a point from the general critical reception seem to get ripped apart by the audience, and on top of that reviews are often rushed to hit an embargo. I wish review sites did more look-backs at popular games a year after release, especially given the shady practice of publishers changing the microtransactions economy after the intial reviews. I suppose that same quickly-dying interest as players move onto the new hotness is why the games press don't do it, it's not like they have an endless budget to pay reviewers to play a fifty-hour game twice when they can barely cover a fraction of what's released as it is.
Enjoying a gentle indie game over a brace of the latest violent AAA shoot/hack-em-ups isn't necessarily the opinion of someone being deliberately contrarian. There's plenty of posters here that tend to avoid those games too, as Era GOTY ballots will show even if RDR2 and GoW inevitably end up enjoying top slots.
It's contrarian clickbait or maybe they just have a very, very unique taste.
If you read what they wrote about Florence it's because they found the game personally empowering and conveying a good message that can work against damaging societal norms.
not talking about Red Dead is going to get them more traction than talking about it...
Yeah, no.
A list isn't based on the metacritic standing of games. Surely on yours, certainly not on mine
I don't mean it in a strict sense. I mean in the sense that one could argue RDR2 deserves more credit than Florence due to production value type of content.
