Support NeoGAF

[Arkain]

One of these days Ben needs to share his system of juggling multiple games concurrently to play and especially for review :-x.
I personally can at most absorb 2-3 games with the 3rd being some comfort multiplayer game where there is not necessarily a lot new to absorb like SCII or Dota 2.
I still remember trying to juggle Spellforce Order of Dawn, Prince of Persia Sands of Time and Beyond Good and Evil at the same time and by the end of it feeling like I enjoyed each game way less than I could have.
Since then I've been basically doing what Huber is doing now with just concentrating on 1 game at a time.
2 games in times where one game is specifically on one of my handhelds only and the other is on the console.

The crazy thing is that Ben confirmed during the Xenoblade stream yesterday that they already have an English review copy of Persona 5. Not only does he need to juggle all the march games, he's probably already working on a review for an early april game.

These first few months are insane for gaming.

 

[CoolOff]

Finally became a Patreon today. Had to pledge my allegiance to Brand Manager.

Screw it, I'm pledging another 5 bucks to Rainy Day Ian. I guess the goal is $45 when my finances allow for it.

 

[dickroach]

"I'm going to rub that completion trophy in your face, Kyle."
Huber talking about Nioh... for posterity

 

[Holundrian]

The crazy thing is that Ben confirmed during the Xenoblade stream yesterday that they already have an English review copy of Persona 5. Not only does he need to juggle all the march games, he's probably already working on a review for an early april game.

These first few months are insane for gaming.

Yup heard that. Fully excited for all of you guys to get the game finally.
From the recent ENG trailers getting me pretty pumped if this season wasn't as busy I would have felt enticed to start a third playthrough of the game.

For me personally the game was close to perfect, although I always say people should keep in my they might not resonate with the themes of the game as much as prior games so everyone temper your expectations. I absolutely also recognize all the flaws it has myself but I'm going to shut up here :-x and patiently wait until the discussion comes back in full force in April.

 

[Mista Koo]

Frametrap was great. I'm about as far as Huber and Bloodworth were in Zelda. It's always fascinating when listening to people talk about the game and going "oh I haven't tried that yet."
Unfortunately I'm out of town for a couple of days, which is the biggest disadvantage the Wii U version has

I mean, we're not trying to Platinum the game, just play it.

Well I'm tuning in to see what the game has to offer. Aside from it being a physical game, one of the main appeals of streaming it is that most people don't have access to the game/the system.

 

[SweetJohnnyCage]

Does anyone know if there is a private iTunes feed for patrons to get the podcast early? Or if such a thing is even possible? I do almost all my podcast listening on the go and having the EZA podcast on iTunes on a Wednesday would be awesome.

I'm hoping your handle is named after the Tokyo Police Club song.

Anyway, to your point, I'm not sure if this is possible on iOS devices, but on Android, I can go to the audio link for Soundcloud, then request the desktop version of the site, and then download the podcast. For some reason, Soundcloud doesn't allow you to do it from their mobile site, but you can from the full site, which you can access from mobile if you just request it.

I know it doesn't solve the iTunes problem, but it will help you get the podcast onto your phone/device on Wednesday.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

I didn't expect Bosman and Huber to criticize Damiani's score, they should do those streams they used to do at GT , Easy 10s I think they called them .

 

[J-Skee]

If this is true, it hasn't been explained very well, as I haven't seen it documented anywhere. Of course it still wouldn't work with things like iTunes, but if more people can confirm that this is how it works, I can run it by the podcast producers.

Yeah, there's nothing on Patreon itself about it, but here's someone else doing it

https://www.patreon.com/posts/rss-feed-6768364

There's news about it from 3rd parties too, but yeah, no idea why it's so hidden.

It would be a Godsend if this was up & running. I'm mobile only, so having to constantly download the Soundcloud link & move the file to my podcast folder so I can play in my podcast app is a little annoying. Not difficult by any means, but it would be much better to just have the episode come up rather than me force it in there.

I didn't expect Bosman and Huber to criticize Damiani's score, they should do those streams they used to do at GT , Easy 10s I think they called them .

I still find it funny that they keep saying "10/10", but they use the 5-star scale.

 

[sora87]

I think mostly unique to busy season, hope they'll do one special podcast talk about their favorites game of Q1.

Yes, I want a full Frame Trap style spoilercast dedicated to Breath of the Wild, Persona 5, Nier Automata and Horizon

 

[Ultimadrago]

I didn't expect Bosman and Huber to criticize Damiani's score, they should do those streams they used to do at GT , Easy 10s I think they called them .

I haven't seen the podcast yet and have been playing a bunch of the game. From what you're saying, I completely disagree with them. I'm still in the process of fully fleshing the title out myself, but I already see reasons I wouldn't give it a perfect score. I am really enjoying it, however.

I really liked Damiani's review and could almost kiss him for a passionate and honest approach. For now though, I'll simply keep playing and see what else it has in store!

 

[Ultimadrago]

You playing on Wii U?

Switch.

 

[Maiar_m]

I haven't seen the podcast yet and have been playing a bunch of the game. From what you're saying, I completely disagree with them. I'm still in the process of fully fleshing the title out myself, but I already see reasons I wouldn't give it a perfect score. I am really enjoying it, however.

I really liked Damiani's review and could almost kiss him for a passionate and honest approach. For now though, I'll simply keep playing and see what else it has in store!

It's my favourite game ever made (before Link's Awakening and TW3) and I wouldn't give it a perfect score either...if I cared about scores. Some gameplay mechanics aren't great IMO (cooking mostly), the partial voice acting is a real issue for me, horse-riding doesn't do it for me either. The negatives still pale compared with the rest of the game.

 

[ThanksVision]

I haven't seen the podcast yet and have been playing a bunch of the game. From what you're saying, I completely disagree with them. I'm still in the process of fully fleshing the title out myself, but I already see reasons I wouldn't give it a perfect score. I am really enjoying it, however.

I really liked Damiani's review and could almost kiss him for a passionate and honest approach. For now though, I'll simply keep playing and see what else it has in store!

I've put about 80 hours into Zelda since Friday (most I have every played video games in my entire life, which says something I reckon) and I think the only grievance I have is the constant inventory management keeping me out of the world. It really isn't that bad, but I do think there are a few QoL decisions that could streamline how often you go into menus (things like batch creation of recipes, for example). With that being said, this is legitimately the only thing I've had an issue with in the game (maybe voice acting but I'm p used to bad dubs tbh), and even then, issue feels like a strong word. I can't stop playing this game and thinking about this game when I'm not playing it. I haven't felt this way about a game since I was a child lol, it's shocking me. It's like the Zelda I envisioned when I first ran through the NES game years ago, and the open world game I've been asking for for years. So, for me, these feelings and reactions I'm having with the game easily surmount any small design flaws/frame rate issues I encounter. I personally consider it an unmissable experience, which is why I can understand all of the 10/10 ratings.

I'm curious about your reasons though, super interesting to see the various feedback about this game

 

[Hasney]

I'm honestly on the side that if this game doesn't get a full score, then no game should. That's not a dig at Danianis review, every game has issues no matter how minor and how much they affect your opinion of it is going to be down to the individual, but I do think this is the best game I've played.

If you actually want to see a bad review, OpenCritic has put a GBATemp one on there that's a 7/10. Fine by itself, but the quote on the page.

But I can honestly say that I have a lot of issues with how the game works and how Nintendo setup certain aspects, and I refuse to overlook them like everyone else has "because Nintendo".

Lol at calling every other reviewer out "because Nintendo".

 

[Visceir]

I'm honestly on the side that if this game doesn't get a full score, then no game should. That's not a dig at Danianis review, every game has issues no matter how minor and how much they affect your opinion of it is going to be down to the individual, but I do think this is the best game I've played.

After having played it now...in an era where most games feel incomplete or are rushed out it feels like this game (due to the delay for switch release prob) got the extra polish and care it deserved. It does so much right.

Got no issues with Damiani giving BotW the score he gave, I just personally disagree with it and won't probably give much weight to his reviews in future.

Also wish some other allies would be streaming BotW rather than it being just him, I'm sure most of them had a different approach to the game world.

I still find it funny that they keep saying "10/10", but they use the 5-star scale.

Should have stuck with the 10 point scale!

 

[Roubjon]

This review controversy is so bizarre.

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

I'm 20 hours in of BOTW. For me personally if I was to score it right now it'd be 4.5/5. Maybe it changes but it's a steady even well done ride. Love the sense of discovery but there's QOL issues with some things (some clearly due to cutting Wii U gamepad interface) and it so far lacks the gameplay or emotional rush I generally love. But that's just me and my personal tastes. Still loving it and will finish it for sure. Doesn't feel like my GOTY so far. But a super welcome change to Zelda

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

This review controversy is so bizarre.

I'd be interested to see how Zelda is viewed 9 months from now. There is a lot of talk it is one of the greatest games ever made and I would be intrigued to see if that stands once the honeymoon phase has passed.

 

[PepperedHam]

Got no issues with Damiani giving BotW the score he gave, I just personally disagree with it and won't probably give much weight to his reviews in future.

No offense but I can't wrap my head around "not giving his reviews any weight in the future" because he didn't score the game perfect. A 4.5/5 is a pretty damn good score, one to be proud of and one that he honestly felt was the right call.

I don't get it. I don't get anybody upset at a good score like that.

 

[Visceir]

No offense but I can't wrap my head around "not giving his reviews any weight in the future" because he didn't score the game perfect. A 4.5/5 is a pretty damn good score, one to be proud of and one that he honestly felt was the right call.

I don't get it. I don't get anybody upset at a good score like that.

I'm not upset, it's just differing opinions. No hard feelings.

I doubt any reviews would ever sway me to buy a game anyway, mainly just watch the EZA reviews for the editing and vibes.

 

[PepperedHam]

I'm not upset, it's just differing opinions. No hard feelings.

I doubt any reviews would ever sway me to buy a game anyway, mainly just watch the EZA reviews for the editing and vibes.

I gotcha. Just a bummer to see some people discredit Damiani's review because it was .5 away from a perfect score. Not saying you in particular, just gave a bit of that vibe.

It's a ridiculous notion from some that a 4.5/5 is not good.

 

[ElephantShell]

You know a fan base is rabid when a 4.5/5 is not good enough. It's literally one point away from a perfect score on their scale. It takes a lot to put a 5 star review on a game and if he didn't feel comfortable doing it then that's his right. Doesn't mean he doesn't love the game or that the game isn't amazing.

edit: lol pretty much the same sentiment as the post above mine.

 

[TheCowboyPoet]

Damiani's review is fine, and if I had framerate issues like he showed, I'd have given it a 9/10 too. However, I'm playing on the Wii U, besides some hiccups when you first leaving the Shrine of Resurrection, I haven't noticed anything. It's definitely not a high framerate, but it's also not distracting from the experience.

 

[Mista Koo]

It's my favourite game ever made (before Link's Awakening and TW3) and I wouldn't give it a perfect score either...

Should have stuck with the 10 point scale!

I was recently listening to Jeff Gerstmann talk about why they moved away from the 10 point scale and one of the reasons is the implication. They wanted to move away from the traditional feelings associated with certain 10 point scale scores. He also wanted to move away from percentages and thinking of a 5-star game as a perfect game or a game with a perfect score, to a game with highest recommendation (think of 5-star hotels).

Love the sense of discovery but there's QOL issues with some things (some clearly due to cutting Wii U gamepad interface)

Yep. It's crazy to say it out loud but the game would've probably been better if it was designed just for the Wii U.

 

[Auctopus]

I've been away for two weeks but I'm coming home on Monday so I'm pretty behind on a lot of EZA stuff but I'm unsurprised that Zelda review scores are getting people flustered. Someone even said that it would happen a few days before the game came out.

I've said it before but with a lot of the EZA reviewers, I take in their opinion and usually know to adjust the score slightly. For example, I know that if Ben loves something then I'm probably gonna love it but (back -at GT), a 9-9.5 from him would probably be about an 8 for me.

It's not a big deal, it's the words that matter to me - not the score. Even better, we get so much other content that shows their personalities that you know that the guys' feelings on a game are more than just a number.

 

[sleepwalkcapsules]

I was recently listening to Jeff Gerstmann talk about why they moved away from the 10 point scale and one of the reasons is the implication. They wanted to move away from the traditional feelings associated with certain 10 point scale scores. He also wanted to move away from percentages and thinking of a 5-star game as a perfect game or a game with a perfect score, to a game with highest recommendation (think of 5-star hotels).


Yep. It's crazy to say it out loud but the game would've probably been better if it was designed just for the Wii U.

That's why I don't understand people the convert between the two rating systems.

4.5/5 stars is not the same as 90/100.

Metacritic has to do that cause of their reasons, but we don't have to view that way.

 

[WarRock]

Radio DJ Huber doing fast food reviews tho'

 

[mcw]

Good podcast this week.

Quote of the show, from Kyle: "I think skill is a fun you can learn"

 

[Kneefoil]

BotW is a game that would be very difficult for me to score. It is one of the most consistently good games I've played, and has had two of the greatest highs in recent memory, but there are a lot of small things that I don't like, like the framerate, frustrating and frequent item/gear management, mediocre voice acting and writing, etc., that I don't think I'd be able to settle on an arbitrary number to depict how much I like the game ATM. I mean, it would probably be in the 4-5 range, but I can't choose an exact score yet.

 

[Visceir]

That's why I don't understand people the convert between the two rating systems.

4.5/5 stars is not the same as 90/100.

Metacritic has to do that cause of their reasons, but we don't have to view that way.

If they agree to be on metacritic then they also kinda agree to playing by those rules.

I just think that a 10 or 100 point score system would make the scoring and reviews more entertaining and memorable. With the 5 star system there's seemingly no surprise or excitement in the score itself as they all fall in the same ballpark. Whatever they do with reviews is fine as it's not really the main selling point of EZA for me.

The allies themselves don't always agree on the score of the game, I think it's fine if reviews and games get discussed here sometimes.

 

[luchadork]

That's why I don't understand people the convert between the two rating systems.

4.5/5 stars is not the same as 90/100.

Metacritic has to do that cause of their reasons, but we don't have to view that way.

metacritic scores are the way the majority of gamers view critical response to games. you cant live in an isolated bubble and say 'but but my scoring system works a different way! dont you get it!'? its ALWAYS going to be converted and viewed within that scope.

for me thats whatever whatever. where its really confusing is the inconsistency across scores. are these scores "EZA scores" or are they "individual reviewer" scores? like someone said, is a 4/5 from ben different to a 4/5 from damiani? theyre both under the EZA banner.

either way, it makes it hard to take a lot of meaning from the scores. its just compounded by the lack of range available going from 10 points to 5 stars. theres a lack of nuance. if i'm looking to buy a game but i only have enough money for one obviously i'm going to compare scores. as it is, EZA tell me that last guardian (82) is a better game than zelda (98). but when i look at metacritic that message isnt consistent with the vast majority of critics. its obviously going to raise questions.

at the same time there is universal praise of zelda (98), eza are telling me that final fantasy 15 (81), deus ex (83), valkyria chronicles (84), and quantum break (77) are just as good.

honestly, is quantum break on the same level as zelda? i havent played either but going based on EZA reviews, yes they are.

 

[Grayfox341]

I've been away for two weeks but I'm coming home on Monday so I'm pretty behind on a lot of EZA stuff but I'm unsurprised that Zelda review scores are getting people flustered. Someone even said that it would happen a few days before the game came out.

I've said it before but with a lot of the EZA reviewers, I take in their opinion and usually know to adjust the score slightly. For example, I know that if Ben loves something then I'm probably gonna love it but (back -at GT), a 9-9.5 from him would probably be about an 8 for me.

It's not a big deal, it's the words that matter to me - not the score. Even better, we get so much other content that shows their personalities that you know that the guys' feelings on a game are more than just a number.

It's always smart to find reviewers that you agree with, but I prefer to take it review by review rather than an always adjusting scale. That seems a bit too general for my tastes. People (reviewers) change a lot over time, maturing as writers, critics, and people. Even if there is a review you vehemently disagree with at the time, it doesn't mean that person will approach every game the same way. It's why it always baffles me when people say "every review from this person is inflated/too harsh". For example, when I give a game a low score, there's always a fair number of comments saying "Ben is always too harsh". When I give a game a high score people say "Ben is afraid to be negative." The reality is a lot more nuanced than that but people don't want to put in the effort to see it that way.

 

[luchadork]

It's always smart to find reviewers that you agree with, but I prefer to take it review by review rather than an always adjusting scale. That seems a bit too general for my tastes. People (reviewers) change a lot over time, maturing as writers, critics, and people. Even if there is a review you vehemently disagree with at the time, it doesn't mean that person will approach every game the same way. It's why it always baffles me when people say "every review from this person is inflated/too harsh". For example, when I give a game a low score, there's always a fair number of comments saying "Ben is always too harsh". When I give a game a high score people say "Ben is afraid to be negative." The reality is a lot more nuanced than that but people don't want to put in the effort to see it that way.

i dont think people have any issue with the content of the reviews. you and damiani are, for mine, the best in the business. if people actually read damiani's Botw review, you'd realise how incredible the writing and critique is. its just the scoring system seems so inconsistent. do the reviews represent the voice of the individual or do they represent the voice of eza? if its the latter, perhaps there needs to be someone in charge of scoring consistently. otherwise get rid of scores completely if theres going to be a caveat with them each and every time. theres no real use for them if not for comparison.

 

[Grayfox341]

metacritic scores are the way the majority of gamers view critical response to games. you cant live in an isolated bubble and say 'but but my scoring system works a different way! dont you get it!'? its ALWAYS going to be converted and viewed within that scope.

for me thats whatever whatever. where its really confusing is the inconsistency across scores. are these scores "EZA scores" or are they "individual reviewer" scores? like someone said, is a 4/5 from ben different to a 4/5 from damiani? theyre both under the EZA banner.

either way, it makes it hard to take a lot of meaning from the scores. its just compounded by the lack of range available going from 10 points to 5 stars. theres a lack of nuance. if i'm looking to buy a game but i only have enough money for one obviously i'm going to compare scores. as it is, EZA tell me that last guardian (82) is a better game than zelda (98). but when i look at metacritic that message isnt consistent with the vast majority of critics. its obviously going to raise questions.

at the same time there is universal praise of zelda (98), eza are telling me that final fantasy 15 (81), deus ex (83), valkyria chronicles (84), and quantum break (77) are just as good.

honestly, is quantum break on the same level as zelda? i havent played either but going based on EZA reviews, yes they are.

No, we're not. Games are not all some big neutral thing that we're trying to stack on top of each other to find the best one. A well-made phone game with no story can be just as deserving of a 9 as something with AAA production values and a 1,000 page script. They're being rated individually based on their own merit. The constant comparisons become more and more ridiculous as games continue to diversify. So when you see a 4.5 for Zelda it's not, "this is just as good as Quantum Break", because how would we objectively measure that? It's different hardware, different scope, different tone, different mechanics, and a different goal. Isn't it more effective to evaluate Zelda on its own and only make comparisons when relevant?

EDIT: I suppose the natural argument is "what about game of the year?" It's a fair point, but think about how vague GOTY actually is. Many times a game with the highest score doesn't win simply because another game hit a collective editorial group harder based on preference. That's not to say there isn't any logic to it. There is, but it's certainly not some exact science.

 

[jett]

After having played it now...in an era where most games feel incomplete or are rushed out it feels like this game (due to the delay for switch release prob) got the extra polish and care it deserved. It does so much right.

Got no issues with Damiani giving BotW the score he gave, I just personally disagree with it and won't probably give much weight to his reviews in future.

Also wish some other allies would be streaming BotW rather than it being just him, I'm sure most of them had a different approach to the game world.



Should have stuck with the 10 point scale!

Oh no, it got a 4.5/5, what a disaster. An infamy. A scandal.

 

[MultiJhonny]

No, we're not. Games are not all some big neutral thing that we're trying to stack on top of each other to find the best one. A well-made phone game with no story can be just as deserving of a 9 as something with AAA production values and a 1,000 page script. They're being rated individually based on their own merit. The constant comparisons become more and more ridiculous as games continue to diversify. So when you see a 4.5 for Zelda it's not, "this is just as good as Quantum Break", because how would we objectively measure that? It's different hardware, different scope, different tone, different mechanics, and a different goal. Isn't it more effective to evaluate Zelda on its own and only make comparisons when relevant?

Thank you for saying this Ben. I feel like a lot of people try and compare games and their scores and if they feel that one game isn't as good as the other then it shouldn't score over it by default.

I'm glad that you take each game into account on their own merits rather than having some arbitrary comparison to other games.

 

[abrack08]

I didn't expect Bosman and Huber to criticize Damiani's score, they should do those streams they used to do at GT , Easy 10s I think they called them .

I didn't get that feeling from the conversation at all. Blood brought up the backlash they got from the review not being a perfect score and they all laughed it off. Then later Huber and Kyle both said they think the game is an easy 10. Where's the criticism?

 

[luchadork]

No, we're not. Games are not all some big neutral thing that we're trying to stack on top of each other to find the best one. A well-made phone game with no story can be just as deserving of a 9 as something with AAA production values and a 1,000 page script. They're being rated individually based on their own merit. The constant comparisons become more and more ridiculous as games continue to diversify. So when you see a 4.5 for Zelda it's not, "this is just as good as Quantum Break", because how would we objectively measure that? It's different hardware, different scope, different tone, different mechanics, and a different goal. Isn't it more effective to evaluate Zelda on its own and only make comparisons when relevant?

but the comparisons are inevitable. theres no point in giving a score, if not to measure it in comparison to OTHER things. thats the entire point of scoring. sports, education, and yes, critique, scores are used to determine comparative quality/rank.

i know what you are saying, and agree with you, so thats why i'm like, why even give a score then if theres is no way for the reader to consistently interpret them? if you dont want to be part of the scoring system as they apply in nearly all cases, why have scores?

 

[Auctopus]

It's always smart to find reviewers that you agree with, but I prefer to take it review by review rather than an always adjusting scale. That seems a bit too general for my tastes. People (reviewers) change a lot over time, maturing as writers, critics, and people. Even if there is a review you vehemently disagree with at the time, it doesn't mean that person will approach every game the same way. It's why it always baffles me when people say "every review from this person is inflated/too harsh". For example, when I give a game a low score, there's always a fair number of comments saying "Ben is always too harsh". When I give a game a high score people say "Ben is afraid to be negative." The reality is a lot more nuanced than that but people don't want to put in the effort to see it that way.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean it in terms of making a blanket statement for certain reviewers or games. It was more of something I've noticed over the years. I was also mainly trying to make the case that it's what the reviewer actually says than what they score it.

 

[wiibomb]

but the comparisons are inevitable. theres no point in giving a score, if not to measure it in comparison to OTHER things. thats the entire point of scoring. sports, education, and yes, critique, scores are used to determine comparative quality/rank.

i know what you are saying, and agree with you, so thats why i'm like, why even give a score then if theres is no way for the reader to consistently interpret them? if you dont want to be part of the scoring system as they apply in nearly all cases, why have scores?

what about not comparing it to other games but instead using it as a practical measurement of how complete the game is as a whole in the experience? time changes and what once is perfect might not be that later on, it is also true on the opposite. Ocarina cannot be compared the same as BotW given the many many factors in today's age of gaming.

I always use it those scores to know how much the game "fills" the reviewer when it was played.

 

[Grayfox341]

but the comparisons are inevitable. theres no point in giving a score, if not to measure it in comparison to OTHER things. thats the entire point of scoring. sports, education, and yes, critique, scores are used to determine comparative quality/rank.

i know what you are saying, and agree with you, so thats why i'm like, why even give a score then if theres is no way for the reader to consistently interpret them? if you dont want to be part of the scoring system as they apply in nearly all cases, why have scores?

Before I say anything, I get where you're coming from. Comparisons are inevitable and maybe it's naive to ignore that.

However, take education as an example. In a classroom, theoretically, all students are being rated on the same things. They're given the same homework, tests, etc. You can make comparisons because what they're doing is ideally identical. I think a somewhat similar argument can be made for sports. With games, though, we're often talking about vastly different things and that's where the comparisons fall apart. League of Legends is top to bottom different than Inside. Let's hypothetically say based on a reviewer's taste, they like Inside more, so they give it a higher score. Is it a better game? Not necessarily. Metacritic might say that is, but that's only because it's trying to formally rank a process that is extremely imprecise.

I'm struggling a bit more with the interpretation part of your question. I'm not sure what you mean and I feel like I may be missing the point. Because to me, from our perspective, it seems as though we're either recommending something, recommending something conditionally, or not recommending something and you can take that or leave it.

 

[SweetJohnnyCage]

I've been playing this fun game with myself for years with GT/EZA reviews. I'll watch a review, and then guess the score before looking at it. I'm usually correct or very close based on the praises and criticisms I hear.

That said, the content of the review is what matters, not the score. If you're basing your purchases off what metacritic score it gets, then you're swimming in shallow waters and missing out on some good stuff, and that's a shame. Do you only see movies that get 95+ on Rotten Tomatoes? Do you only eat at Michelin Star restaurants?

 

[CoolOff]

Do you only eat at Michelin Star restaurants?

You don't? smh

 

[SweetJohnnyCage]

You don't? smh

You should see my credit card bill.

 

[Brian_FETO]

The direct comparing of scores is the worst

It's why seeing one of the Zelda praise quotes be "possibly the best game ever made" is irritating. Like are you gonna compare Zelda to Gone Home?

Even something like "best open world game" is much easier to argue and wrap your head around

 

[Visceir]

Saw some Guardians of the Galaxy game screenshots being released. Didn't EZA have a bet riding on this game?

 

[SweetJohnnyCage]

Saw some Guardians of the Galaxy game screenshots being released. Didn't EZA have a bet riding on this game?

I think the bet would be that you couldn't play as the main cast of the movie?

 

[Anticol]

The direct comparing of scores is the worst

It's why seeing one of the Zelda praise quotes be "possibly the best game ever made" is irritating. Like are you gonna compare Zelda to Gone Home?

Even something like "best open world game" is much easier to argue and wrap your head around

I would never do that, Gone Home is terrible.

 

[Roubjon]

I would never do that, Gone Home is terrible.

Gone Home is great. I'd rather play it than Zelda. That doesn't mean Zelda is terrible though. It's clearly a fantastic game.

 

[WarRock]

Saw some Guardians of the Galaxy game screenshots being released. Didn't EZA have a bet riding on this game?

I think the bet would be that you couldn't play as the main cast of the movie?

Bosman bet the game would have a different cast/swap some members with new characters, maybe to introduce them on the MCU or something like that. Jones bet against it.