Push Square: "The review embargo for God of War: Ascension lifted yesterday, prompting a cavalcade of forum posts regarding the status of Sony Santa Monica’s savage Spartan series. The title scored lower than previous entries, resulting in a Metacritic rating of 79 at the time of writing. According to the aggregate’s scale, that number suggests that the game received “generally favourable reviews” across the board. So, why are people acting like it’s the worst game of the year?"
From The Growing Stones and Valkyrie Interactive comes The Mildew Children on Xbox and PC. Ready for the fairy tales and horror it brings?
Typically when players think of visual novels it’s a classic like Steins;Gate. Presentation is similar to an RPG, just with diverging paths based-off player choices, and preferences. While this can make for a unique experience, or something like Ace Attorney, Nerial went in a different direction with their Reigns series. By simplifying the process, along with making choice a constant element, they delivered an experience that resonated with a number of players. With Reigns Beyond they hope to take this vision to other worlds, but is it an adventure worth exploring? - IS
Overwatch 2's newest offense hero feels like a breath of dusty, rock-filled air.
Some people do. I always make a point to play a game or its demo before I judge it. Once a games reception becomes word of mouth, people just seem to take it as fact.
Good article. The way reviews are handled is pretty flawed because people focus on the number too much instead of what that score means from that particular site. Honestly the problem is sites like Metacritic which emphasizes the total averaged score
Because that is how people behave these days. Any slightly lower scores means it is the 'worst game ever'. People were just waiting to see if it was going to do badly and even if it doesn't do as badly as they thought it would they still have to harp on about it not doing as good as they thought it would.There are games that do much worse then certain games but people still treat them as if they have the plague.
An 8 for instance for GOW in certain people's eyes makes it an average game but for Tomb Raider an 8 means it is just fine. It all depends on if you want the game to succeed or not is what lets people let scores slide. The new DMC for instance scores were way above average but people preferred to harp on about every score that was 8 or slightly lower claiming that makes it a bad game.It all depends on the person's perspective.People right now attack you if even mention that Tomb Raider is only an 86 on metacritic as compared to Uncharted 2 and 3 but if Tomb Raider had a higher score then Uncharted on metacritic people would be quoting it constantly.People just use scores to belittle or one up a game for their convenience.An 7 or 8 for example can be bad or good depending on how much you want the game to succeed or fail. If you want it to fail anything below a 9 is bad. If you want it to succeed anything above a 6 is good
The general public doesn't. If they purchased a game in the same series or franchise, they will mostly likely purchase the next game if they liked and enjoyed the one before it. It also comes down to the developer and the games they made in the past.
People tend to worry more about reviews and the score when its a new IP. At least that is what I have gathered. Look at COD and AC on the Vita. And Sleeping Dogs and Dishonored. Both sold well, but the Vita games got low reviews and the ones on home consoles sold better with higher reviews.
No, we just can't be bothered reading the whole review.