Hitman69 Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Saber Interactive (Timeshift, Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary) has just criticized Metacritic. One could almost call it... Meta-criticism. (Cue ) That is all.
HanPL Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Hmm don't really know what to think about it Maybe soon we will see : Studio X criticized Saber Interactive for criticizing Metacritics lol But mostly users score on metacritic tells everything that is needed about game... Look at score of Dragon Age 2... Metascore 82....User Score 4.2 I played Dragon Age 2 and there is no f*cking way this game deserve 82/100 more likely 50/100
Guest Loogie Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 I think its retarded that Sony decided against an Alpha Protocol sequel because of the Metacritic score.
windpl Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Alpha Protocol was awesome, but it was missing female protagonist tbh ;p
Janet Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Alpha protocol was fun, but yes I couldn't stick with it since I don't like cross gender playing in anything more than an FPS or action game. And that is one game I'd rather of played the right gender than be stuck with a guy.
Guest Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Metacritic sucks ASS! They gave the Witcher 2 a bad score. It's an amazing game! Metacritic is worse than IGN.
gregathit Posted October 11, 2011 Posted October 11, 2011 I couldn't agree more!!! Some things they do get right but on others they just plain have their heads up their butts!!!!!!! Case in point Witcher 2 as Halo points out.....how anyone could give a game that combines a great story and T&A in one package is just beyond me!!!!!
HentaiGnome Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 I think its retarded that Sony decided against an Alpha Protocol sequel because of the Metacritic score. I'm pretty sure it was Sega, not Sony... But either way, yes it would be retarded for a company to base the longevity of lifespan of a potentially-successful product/franchise based on a single score or review. But at the same time, games are expensive to make so if it does not receive the necessary amount of attention and praise, then why spend more time and money on it? Companies sometimes try to "test the waters" and are willing to risk a little bit if it means getting some sort of result that will help guide them to releasing a better product in the future. I suppose this was Sega's intention. And seeing how most people didn't like Alpha Protocol, it was enough for them to put a lid on it. Personally, I've only played Alpha Protocol briefly and while the game mechanics could be worked out a little bit more, it seemed like a good game overall. I just wished there wasn't a time limit to making dialogue choices, but I suppose the purpose was to keep the conversations flowing as smooth and as fast as possible as if the characters were having a real chat.
Sand_Dragon Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Metacritic sucks ASS! They gave the Witcher 2 a bad score. It's an amazing game! Metacritic is worse than IGN. I've heard that the problem with reviewers is that every so often they give a game for review to someone who doesn't actually delve into the genre as much as another. While that's a good way to get some context of the "outsider", like, the one who's not actually in the demographic, I'm not really that sure if someone would buy something they wouldn't play in the first place, making the review kind of meaningless.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.