Critical reviews have always been at the center of the video game world. Making or breaking a new release depending on the score it receives, the response surrounding a title always becomes an immediate talking point, with discussion getting heated when some publications don't line up with others.
Such consensus isn't just important to players, though, as developers often have clauses in their contracts that require them to hit a certain number on Metacritic in order to receive a bonus or to be considered a success.
Despite the stock people put into official reviews, critics and fans are often divided on the biggest releases, resulting in acclaimed video games that players actually hate, and big titles that were shat on by publications ending up being loved by fans
Arguably the biggest complaint with Destiny 2's seasonal approach is a concept referred to as a Time Gate. - IS
RPGs like Borderlands, Destiny 2, and Elden Ring all become much more enriching experiences with the inclusion of buildcrafting.
Destiny 2 cheat maker Aimjunkies is seeking a new trial against Bungie claiming the studio never actually checked their cheat's source code.
It amazes me how they don't see what they're doing as completely wrong regardless of source code not being copied.
Well lets be honest most of the time journalists have their head so far up developers/publishes asses that they'd miss plenty of flaws they'd crucify other games for just incase they'd upset them. Then you have the fact many of them get some great unique press kits worth a lot of money if they were to sell them.
I wouldn't really say a game that is in the 70s counts as "critically acclaimed."
mass effect 3 and dragon age 2 were good games though
never believe user scores they are rife with fanboys.