Yeah I think so too. But an 85-90 and basically anything below a 95 will lead to lots of threads with extremely deflated and betrayed fans.
People never learn. The game could legimately fail to break into the top metacritic contenders
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Red Dead Redemption 2 review embargo will lift on 10/25
- Thread starter Scrobbles
- Start date
Yeah I think so too. But an 85-90 and basically anything below a 95 will lead to lots of threads with extremely deflated and betrayed fans.
People never learn. The game could legimately fail to break into the top metacritic contenders
"There's too much to do in this game that it distracts you from ever being able to compete the story!
3/5"
I'm feeling a 98.
3/5"
I'm feeling a 98.
If you mean reviewers, that shouldn't affect review scores anyway. They're reviewing the product. Not how it was made.
If you mean players, yeah, people will buy the game regardless. Nothing will stop them. Most people don't care anyway.
I don't mean it in a bad way, it's more like you have all this controversy in the morning and then at night it's like REVIEWS COMING THIS DAY
Well yes, it and Odyssey are the only two this gen above a 95. Way less than last gen.
I say it's less about reviewers being harsher and more about that last gen had many innovative games and this gen is basically more of the same but bigger and prettier with a sadder story. Last gen was a big jump in tech and that allowed huge leaps in game design. This gen not so much.
Maybe it's just to give the reviewers enough time to really explore and do as much as they can in the game without rushing... I'm guessing review copies are already out and about.
I'm just here for the people crying "UNPROFESSIONAL!" at whichever reviewer happens to drop the Metacritic from a 90-something to a 90-something-minus-1.
The Metacritic score will be the same as the weekly hours a Rockstar employee works
I'm not concerned a single bit about their embargo being just the day before. If it was a brand new/unproven developer and/or a brand new IP, I'd be worried, but Rockstar have proven themselves time and time again.
I'm not concerned a single bit about their embargo being just the day before. If it was a brand new/unproven developer and/or a brand new IP, I'd be worried, but Rockstar have proven themselves time and time again.
Going with the high 60s, because although the game will be indisputably great, the workplace practices exercised during its development will be decried across the board, as journalists stand together to place the importance of employee well-being above game quality.
Not saying this game won't be good but game review scores are pretty pointless if you can predict a top decile score with this level of confidence.
Edge gives Rockstar games a 10 the second they're printed on disc lol. It's one of the places their harsh attitude to reviewing doesn't show up.
Have you read the previews?
As open worlds go this game is going to be a watershed moment and by most accounts everything that came before - including Rockstar's own software - will feel antiquated.
Every preview I've read has stated that this game is operating on an entirely different level. I haven't seen this type of effusiveness from the press for a very long time.
My expectations are that the first two hours will be a 98. However the rest of the game, about 60.
So metascore, 98.
The amount of bs I've heard about this game before release would put a Bethesda fan to shame. Dynamic/believable world? Yeah right. Try looking at a horses arse for 20 minutes and then shooting a bunch of guys with clunky combat.
So metascore, 98.
The amount of bs I've heard about this game before release would put a Bethesda fan to shame. Dynamic/believable world? Yeah right. Try looking at a horses arse for 20 minutes and then shooting a bunch of guys with clunky combat.
