Too many gamers expect excellent scores

When a major blockbuster game is released, reviews start to pour in. Fans are very happy to find that the game has received good review scores 9’s, even 10’s. If a review comes out giving the game a 7, fans of the series immediately flock to the comments section of whatever website released it, and rage, calling the review a fanboy, a retard, a hater, and more. Gamers are far too expecting of 9/10, or 10/10 on their major franchises, and it’s the industry's fault that gamers have this mentality.

[thebudgetgamer]

i just expect fun.

[Neckbear]

Yeah, same here. And most of the time, either overlookd or not-rated-too-well/not overhyped games deliver that fun factor much, much better than their big-budget counterparts.

At least based on my personal experiences, that's it.

[thebudgetgamer]

totally agree, the perfect example is earth defense force 2017 on metacritic it rates 69 witch just seems wrong to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[Persistantthug]

90 scores are not common as the article suggests at the end, and I haven't found 1 game with a 90 that didn't deserve its score.

And to thebudgetgamer @#1.1.1, I don't think earth defense force 2017 really applies because it was a download game. Some download games get unfairly compared to full retail titles and they shouldn't be. That's what happened to Fat Princess and why it sits at a 79.

At any rate, yeah...I consider 90'ish games as must buy games, assuming I like the genre.
I buy 80'ish games too, but they are more like my "second stringers".
70'ish games, will get bought if their special.

That's just how I roll, and my system hasn't really let me down yet.

[trounbyfire]

i want quality and i have high standards

[marioPSUC]

I think its dumb to flame the crap out of a review because it gives a low score for a game you like, if you like it then cool, but maybe the review didnt like some of the stuff in it and lowered the score.

But then again there some times I do get mad when I see many websites giving games like COD 10/10's. They never complain that the graphics arent anywhere near many of the other games and that the gameplay is exactly the same as each iteration

[nsabic]

I expect that if i'm paying around a crazy $100(AUS) when the aussie dollar is up on the US dollar, then, hell yeah, I want high quality games which look spectacular and play amazingly well...

[Kyur4ThePain]

No, they don't. All we expect is consistency and logic.

Again, get rid of the stupid numeric scoring and rate everything BUY, RENT or SKIP.
I still don't understand how anyone can justify a score like 8.7 out of 10 for anything. WTF does that mean? What would make it an 8.8? Or 8.6?

[RedPawn]

Agreed, but it's so funny how some of these people clearly grew up in gaming, in some shape or form. These same people know, if you want to cause the most damage in this day and age, is flood the internet with garbage. G4TV, EDGE, Eurogamer, are some of the main aggresors with this, and they know it. I play what I want and give an honest split opinion. One that actually looks at the game from the design standpoint, and two from my own personal critique on why I actually have that game in my collection.

Dan Hsu even said that more than half of these people abuse their journalistic privileges. I always found it funny that when a game is most notably terrible, they have no problem giving it a bad score. In the end I don't care cause I've already filtered these wolf piss potent reviewers under irrelevant.

[HeavenlySnipes]

at the score. I read the review. In case you guys didn't know, professional reviews aren't supposed to be the opinion of that person. Those are what the user reviews are for.

Pro reviews are supposed to highlight flaws in the game with proof, and also highlight all the good things about the game. For example, Gametrailers had the best review of InFamous 2. They didn't give the best score, but they highlighted all the good and bad things about the game. The reviewer rarely offers his personal opinion because that would present a bias in the review.

Edge on the otherhand, gave a review with the author just giving completely opinionated statements without using any ingame proof to back anything up.

http://www.gametrailers.com...

http://www.next-gen.biz/rev...

[blackburn10]

I agree. I couldn't care less what the number score is but if you give it a low score with some BS review that is nothing but nitpicking and unreasonable garbage then is when i get irritated. Edge's review gave no proper reasons for giving IF2 a 6 spouting nonsense like 'The obviously superior Prototype'. Obvious to who?

[Rikan]

I guess I'll just set this post on an appropriate N4G track: only PS3 has excellent game scores!

[ShinFuYux]

Honestly, nowadays, I just simply want a really long informative, entertaining game. More like, a game that tells you a story and you just simply follow it and learn from it.

Like what the Metal Gear Solid series was, it just kept you wondering until the end. Then when it hit the end, you were like "Wtf, there has to be another one!"

I guess Assassin's Creed and the Uncharted series has taken Metal Gear Solid's Place but I still miss hearing those random gun facts or survival facts. I guess Assassin's Creed teaches you history but in a very odd way..

That's what the PS2 era was so special to me, everything revolved around Metal Gear Solid Series. Final Fantasy X made me shed a tear, Zone of the Enders was fun and Gran Turismo 4 taught me a lot. But none of those games are memorable as MGS2/3.

GTAIV taught me a few things about how foreigners view america, AC taught me how life was like back in those days, and the uncharted series taught me how embracing video gaming can be. But none of them are as memorable as MGS2 and MGS3.

MGS4 plainly sucked, it lacked everything those two games had, MGS:PW came back with a lot of its old features but it still lacked something... Honestly, this generation really disappoints me... I guess that's why i'm very excited for the MGSHD collection, even though it's nothing new....

[Who]

MGS4 was the first MGS title I've played other than MG on the NES. I found it quite good apart from the lack of gameplay in the later acts. I've always wanted to play the entire series, and now that the HD collection is coming, I will get a chance to play and compare for myself.

Uncharted was the first game I bought with my PS3. Actually it was the reason I bought a PS3 and it did not disappoint. My only fault with the uncharted games is that I find the shooting and melee attacks a bit stiff and awkward, but still one of my favourite action games.

I own all three AC games. But like all open-world games, I find it gets a bit repetitive after a while. I always find myself going back to MGS4 just to mess with the AI, CQC, try a different face camo, set traps, etc. Although I know what to expect, its still fun experimenting all the different combinations of things you can do in that game. To this day, I'm still playing MGO online. I know many people don't like it, but I mainly play it for the Teamsneaking mode which I find unlike any other online experience I've played.

[mananimal]

WRONG WRONG WRONG, what gamers expect is Great games, the scores dont matter, just cause a game gets a 9 or 10, doesnt mean its a good or great game. The scores are really lies and deception in the reality of it. Since everyone in the Industry are such great professional Liars, gamers must learn to rely on themselves to determine what is a good or great game to them, not what the Industry tries to say through market Hype by way of vids that show nothing and interviews with developers who's job is to convince you their game is gonna be great, YET, how many of those games actually turn out to be good or great, very few, how many times have you seen a game, and you know its gonna be crappy, yet the publisher and developer say just the opposite, C, lol, lies and deception.