Nah GTA IV is still the worst, sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at metacritic best games of all time list.This is the worst 10/10 I've ever seen
PUBG is a great game, but not worth a 10
Talk about easily pleased, if that's the case.
Unfinished games getting ten out ten's, yikes and get granted console ports before their even finished. Love this great new movement...
Tell me of one game(non-mobile) that sold as much as PUBG did as quickly as it did, in the last 20 years. Calling PUBG a never-before seen phenomenon or paradigm shift isn't a stretch.
Fallout 4 didn't get many from my memory. Skyrim definitely got more.
But trying to compare a game like Skyrim and a game like PUBG is a bit ridiculous. PUBG is an extremely focused and narrow game while Skyrim is an incredibly broad and expansive game. And just stating a sentiment like "Buggy games still get high scores!" is ignoring any semblance of nuance to how those bugs/performance issues/animation issues actually affect the game.
What's the point of this kind of response?
But I'm not getting heated...didn't even say a single bad word.If this is something you can't discuss without getting heated, I recommend you refrain from posting in this thread.
"Turning a complex opinion into a score is iffy, so I'll argue against the score instead of the opinion"
So on your scale, basically a 10 is unachievable, since we are talking about an art form, and one that relies on tech that is constantly becoming out-of-date to boot. It's impossible to produce a game with "no mistakes" because tech will never be perfect, and the experience is subjective anyway.
Fair enough, but surely you can understand why it's highly illogical for any publication to avoid using a 10/10 altogether? Imagine browsing a magazine rack in 1997 and seeing a bunch of "9/10s". Does that really mean more to someone than a 10/10? I personally don't think so; in this case you're just shifting the scale to the left instead of to the right.
I support a 10/10 meaning "This game delivered an experience that was above and beyond expectations relative to other experiences available at the time."
If you are waiting for a game with zero graphical issues, that is fun for every second of the experience, every single time, and which caps off your session by giving you a 20 minute orgasm, well, keep waiting for that game I guess.
No it doesn't. Not in the slightest.
It means the reviewer considers it in the top tier of games they played.
Probably. But I might be able to dismiss a few spelling mistakes, even though it looks careless. If you make spelling mistakes in other forms of tests they will reduce your points too as it is easy to fix in most cases.So if a game blew you away like no other game has and actually ends up giving you a new perspective on life due to its greatness, but there's a spelling error in the pause menu. Is that game not 10/10?
Literally no reviewer worth their salt scores games like that. Or anything else.
Nothing is perfect. Nothing. If you treat 10 as perfect why even have a 10. The scale would be 1-9.
Critical reviews aren't an objective test lol. When will they learn
Or its another overhyped unfinished "early access game" that people are latching on to.
Sorry, I'll run it by you next time.
In my opinion, more focused games should mean higher expectations should be placed on the stuff that is there. A game like Super Meat Boy better have solid performance, great controls and very limited bugs. Where as a game like Skyrim I can forgive more performance issues and bugs because the scale of the game is so much larger.You have to look at this game as the whole package. What is it being sold to you for? A solo/co-op battle royale game. Nothing more, nothing less.
Nah GTA IV is still the worst, sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at metacritic best games of all time list.
That said GTA V was amazing so i am not anti gta.
1.0 is both optimized and finished, the game had a ridiculously good update development and was never abandoned. I wish all early access games were like this.Not the person you quoted, but I agree with him. Game is technically unfinished and still a bit of a mess on PC (and arguably unplayable on Xbox One).
Not about being bitter, it's about what I'd like to be able to expect as a videogame consumer. And I'd like to be able to expect optimized, finished games when I purchase them.
PUBG is fun, but it's not a perfect game. It's also not a great sign of things to come regarding "early access" and general multiplayer only titles.
People asked me this before and of the top of my head I can't name any. Even my personal games I would rate higher then any reviewer are not a 10/10. You can always be better. Simply giving a perfect score reduces the whole scale you use to grade games. 10/10 means perfection in everything, gameplay, story, atmosphere, graphic and other technical stuff. You don't get a perfect score in an exam with multiple mistakes.
Fallout 4 didn't get many from my memory. Skyrim definitely got more.
But trying to compare a game like Skyrim and a game like PUBG is a bit ridiculous. PUBG is an extremely focused and narrow game while Skyrim is an incredibly broad and expansive game. And just stating a sentiment like "Buggy games still get high scores!" is ignoring any semblance of nuance to how those bugs/performance issues/animation issues actually affect the game.
It just makes you seem like you can't handle other peoples responses is all. It's as immature as asking someone their age.
Oh okay, sorry about that.I was talking about the other half of the message where everyone who disagrees with it being 10/10 are salty negative people.
GTA IV is 10. One of the best GTAs in my opinion.Nah GTA IV is still the worst, sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at metacritic best games of all time list.
That said GTA V was amazing so i am not anti gta.
Not a single one of these games is better, no. Why would I care about what Brendan thinks about what game is the best, exactly?It's not. There are better games like Zelda, Mario and Horizon. Even Brendan agrees with me.
ihttp://www.ign.com/articles/2017/10/31/pubg-dev-i-dont-know-if-we-deserve-goty-award
1.0 is both optimized and finished, the game had a ridiculously good update development and was never abandoned. I wish all early access games were like this.
Objective reviews would be completely terrible and meaningless, and would make deciding whether a game is worth buying a thousand times harder.But I want reviewers to be objective and not subjectively say they like a certain game. Them using their subjective view does not help me to decide if the game is worth buying.
That's like saying Overwatch wasn't finished until Sombra was released. Multiplayer games regularly release with a roadmap or announced DLC in the future.It's not finished. They have two maps and have already advertised a third. Finished (IMO) would be all three advertised maps.
God I cannot believe the attitude this place still has towards subjectivity/objectivity in game reviews. Like, there are still pockets of completely early-00s thinking about this stuff around here. Never fucking changes. Games aren't cars or fridges, they can have jank or technical problems and still provide the most transcendentally new and great experiences worth celebrating as that.
Besides, if you've been following the times Polygon people have personally been having with PUBG this doesn't come as a surprise at all.
No I bring it up because review whining was a thing that derailed threads with 100s of pages of arguing that wouldn't go anywhere until mods had to step in.It just makes you seem like you can't handle other peoples responses is all. It's as immature as asking someone their age.
Not a single one of these games is better, no. Why would I care about what Brendan thinks about what game is the best, exactly?
If that's what you think it's "unfinished", then never buy a single worthwhile multiplayer game, because by your standards they are all "unfinished" as they constantly get new content.It's not finished. They have two maps and have already advertised a third. Finished (IMO) would be all three advertised maps.
I will give you that with vaulting and the recent optimization tweaks it feels much more like a 1.0 game.
No, it shouldn't.Yes, they are better imo and I think the creator of PUBGs opinion should bge taken into consideration, since he is the creator of the game.
Not the person you quoted, but I agree with him. Game is technically unfinished and still a bit of a mess on PC (and arguably unplayable on Xbox One).
Not about being bitter, it's about what I'd like to be able to expect as a videogame consumer. And I'd like to be able to expect optimized, finished games when I purchase them.
PUBG is fun, but it's not a perfect game. It's also not a great sign of things to come regarding "early access" and general multiplayer only titles.
It's not finished. They have two maps and have already advertised a third. Finished (IMO) would be all three advertised maps.
I will give you that with vaulting and the recent optimization tweaks it feels much more like a 1.0 game.
It's not finished. They have two maps and have already advertised a third. Finished (IMO) would be all three advertised maps.
I will give you that with vaulting and the recent optimization tweaks it feels much more like a 1.0 game.
Test server has been mostly peachy for me and my 3 year old laptop.A game that is so bad on a technical level should not get a 10, no matter how good the idea and the general concept behind it is.
I enjoyed em all except IV it's so different compared to the more "goofy" and "arcade" like GTA's. I did however enjoy the dlc episodes those were quite good i admit.IV was the easily the worst GTA I've ever played. And I think I've played them all except for IV's DLC.
By your standard a game like World of Wacraft or Overwatch is never finished because they keep adding new content. That's not the reality of GaaS. By that standard, even Zelda BOTW isn't finished because it continues to get new DLC