Support NeoGAF

[randomengine]

What's the point of coming into a review thread to say I don't trust reviews...It happens so often its mind boggling

Individual reviewers you know, trust and understand their biases (everyone has them) is fine. Aggregate review score are worthless, however.

Happens about as often as people telling everyone to never pre-order a game. Some people like giving advice. You certainly don't have to listen to it.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

This is Guerilla Games' TLOU moment, when they announce themselves on the world stage as a world class developer.

Because not only is this a great game, it's technically a new bar. Something that TLOU didn't do at the time of release for sure. So it's something special in that regard.

Yep, people are paying attention to GG. Expectations are high from this point forward.

Lmao right, I always laugh because people seem to genuinely think they're gonna sway people overnight

Same.

It is like....okay? lol

 

[BlackBuzzard]

 

[Elandyll]

Where do you get that idea?

I am saying review aggregates are meaningless and filled with sociological and cultural bias. They won't remove bias, they amplify them.

Nioh is only 1 pt off with an 87. I am sure there is a world of difference between the two games that cannot be explained by a 1 pt difference.

I am not shitting on any specific game in general, just the process of aggregate reviews.

You remind me of people railing at Rotten Tomatoes day in and day out.

I don't think you really understand the point of an aggregate. You think you do, but you really don't.

An aggregate isn't here to score the game itself, or to tell you if the game is for you.

It's just here to tell you what the consensus is among critics. Then, it's up to you to find reviewers that gel with your opinion, and do some reading.

I kinda prefer RT which simply summarizes into a watch/ no watch kinda way (though still with a %, which still too many people think is the actual score given to the movie), rather than do a review score weighted average like MC.

88 (possibly back to 89, but we'll see with Edge eventually) is not Horizon's score per se. It's the MC (weighted) version of the critical consensus around it.

If anything the "mention" related to it means more than the score itself. 88 means "most critics, not all, really liked it, and it is very near, but not quite, a universal acclaim".

As in many cases, the bias you perceive being part of aggregates is mostly your own.

 

[MKIL65]

I live in a household. I am not a single "forever alone"

Literally no one has said this to you.

What is the point in posting this?

 

[ironcreed]

Let me preface my remarks by stating that I am not going to impugn the quality of a game I haven't played. Horizon could very well be a very good game.

However, looking at my own history, my own measure of my absolutely favorite and best games, compared against their review and metacritic scores......there is absolutely no correlation between high review scores and games that I enjoy.

I have played games with 90+ metacritic that I absolutely hated - Bioshock Infinite

My favorite game of all time - Binding of Isaac: Rebirth has...

an 88 Metacritic for PS4
a 78 Metacritic on 3DS (despite being the exact same game - a 10 pt difference)
and a no-score on the Wii U version because there weren't enough professional reviewers of that version to muster 4 whole reviews.

We typically get PS4-only reviews despite the fact that a lot of games (not this one) release on Xbox One as well. For those games that get reviewed on both, typically one system is favored over another.

This is just a long way of saying I simply don't trust reviews anymore. You simply cannot trust an aggregate. Too much sociological and herd bias. Find a reviewer your trust, learn their taste and measure their review accordingly.

For example, I loved Roger Ebert when it came to film reviews. We agreed maybe 60-70%. If we agree so infrequently, why did I love reading his reviews and taking them to heart? Because I knew his biases. I knew he liked spectacle films with little substance - Jurassic Park. I knew he hated films that were exploitative - he had a soft spot. All these known biases, helped me determine if I would like a film if he liked it. With aggregates you miss all of that.

My favorite game of all time before Binding of Isaac: Rebirth was Guardian Heroes for the Sega Saturn. A cult classic for sure, but it didn't light the charts or the reviews on fire. Mystaria is another. I liked GTA III and GTA: Vice City, but hated San Andreas, GTA IV and have yet to play V because of my declining interest in it. Yet, the series is just "The best game ever" with 90+ metacritic.

My own personal history and favorite games ever would never have been experienced if I followed the reviews. Which is to say, as an aggregate I don't believe games are reviewed properly. The culture has it all wrong.

Well, either the game appeals to you or not. Great scores either solidify the interest or have no weight if the game does not pique your interest. That is how it goes for me at least. Get what appeals to you, regardless. And if it does well score-wise, then gravy.

 

[Siege.exe]

I think reading is not your strong suit. The quality of the game doesn't bother me. Good games existing doesn't bother me, what a strange idea. Using an aggregate review score to measure a game is what bothers me as it has lead to failure in the past. They are not indicative of game quality.

Play the games you like. Read the individual reviewers you like, trust, and know their biases.

I don't think you not liking a game that reviewed well/liking a game that didn't review well is indicative of the aggregate score not reflecting quality. I don't care about plenty of well-praised stuff, that doesn't mean the scores are wrong, just means people have different tastes. If people trust the aggregate score, and haven't been let down by relying on it, there's no reason for them to not continue trusting it.

 

[DriftingSpirit]

In fact the story seems to be one of the game's highlights. Which is amazing since I think we all expected this aspect of the game being nothing special.

Most reviewers are praising the story and the character. John Gonzales is the man!

Yep, look in the expectations for Horizon thread. People were thinking the story would be forgettable, poor and outright trash in some cases.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

In fact the story seems to be one of the game's highlights. Which is amazing since I think we all expected this aspect of the game being nothing special.

Most reviewers are praising the story and the character. John Gonzales is the man!

Well the New Vegas writers were working on Horizon so I expected the story to be pretty good.

 

[onemanasylum]

Looking at the tons of 8/10s, it seems the narrative/tropes have shortcomings, but the higher scores seem to weigh the combat above it.

So for a sequel, I hope they properly learn from their mistakes and really expand on the narrative. Seems they can do just that if they hire the right people, and so Im expecting the sequel to be even bigger.

For a first effort, and for a game out of their genre, the scores are astonishingly strong, and I bet the sales will be too. But this also means Horizon 2 will do even better, and maybe Horizon 3 on PS5 will be a guaranteed reliable hit if GG makes a launch title.

It's awesome to see GG become a juggernaut for Sony.

Story seems to be the most praised feature.....

 

[LastMinuteHero]

Wtf happened here.

And goddamn　it that bob ross gif got buried by the trollpost with doom avatar

 

[5taquitos]

This is Guerilla Games' TLOU moment, when they announce themselves on the world stage as a world class developer.

Because not only is this a great game, it's technically a new bar. Something that TLOU didn't do at the time of release for sure. So it's something special in that regard.

I mean, TLOU is great, but everyone and their mother already knew that Naughty Dog could bring the heat.

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

I mean, TLOU is great, but everyone and their mother already knew that Naughty Dog could bring the heat.

Mm maybe my memory is hazy but wasn't it a Rocky start for tlou

 

[FATALITY]

Looking at the tons of 8/10s, it seems the narrative/tropes have shortcomings, but the higher scores seem to weigh the combat above it.

So for a sequel, I hope they properly learn from their mistakes and really expand on the narrative. Seems they can do just that if they hire the right people, and so Im expecting the sequel to be even bigger.

For a first effort, and for a game out of their genre, the scores are astonishingly strong, and I bet the sales will be too. But this also means Horizon 2 will do even better, and maybe Horizon 3 on PS5 will be a guaranteed reliable hit if GG makes a launch title.

It's awesome to see GG become a juggernaut for Sony.

This game has more 9 than anything

 

[Tigress]

Well the New Vegas writers were working on Horizon so I expected the story to be pretty good.

Yep. Or at least decent. Glad it worked out though cause I'd be extra pissed if they made it so we can't have another Fallout written by them only to have them make a game with crappy writing (and yeah, I'd blame it on the fact they were surrounded by different people this time).

I mean I'm excited for this game but I had mixed feelings when I heard they got the head writer of New Vegas (and I think another guy from that group too). Because even though it probably wouldn't happen anyways, that means no chance now of another Fallout written by them (New Vegas is my favorite game of all time.. and the first one to kick FFVII off that. Before I always was looking for a game that got me as infatuated/immersed as FFVII that I don't even notice time pass and I'm fully in the game when I'm playing. Now it's New Vegas that sets the bar).

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I mean, TLOU is great, but everyone and their mother already knew that Naughty Dog could bring the heat.

I think this is their Uncharted moment. Jak and Daxter were fine games but Uncharted was on another level. Just like Killzone and Horizon respectively.


I hope they never have a TLOU moment, that game was such a disappointment.

 

[onemanasylum]

I think this is their Uncharted moment. Jak and Daxter were fine games but Uncharted was on another level. Just like Killzone and Horizon respectively.


I hope they never have a TLOU moment, that game was such a disappointment.

LOL, TLOU is far better then UC, by far.

 

[LotusHD]

I hope they never have a TLOU moment, that game was such a disappointment.

D:

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Mm maybe my memory is hazy but wasn't it a Rocky start for tlou

Huh its like the second highest reviewed game on opencritic.

 

[More_Badass]

I don't like complaining about reviews opinions and I've been avoiding reviews but that usgamer 50% score seems ridiculous.

I don't need a consensus but this is clearly not a 50% game.

Review scores are not 100% correlated with quality of the work. Hence bad things can get good reviews, and good things can get bad reviews.

It's not science. It's not a rubric. It's not even an indication of quality, because as said before, many movies and other works considered genre classics and masterpieces today received poor reviews and were not box office success when they released. The Thing, The Shining, Vertigo, and so on

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

Huh its like the second highest reviewed game on opencritic.

No I mean when it was first shown off

 

[5taquitos]

No I mean when it was first shown off

No way, hype was out of control after that E3 gameplay reveal.

 

[Unaha-Closp]

I love seeing humans getting all worked up about review scores lol I'm not human by the way. Beep boop beep beep boop.

 

[Proxy]

Where do you get that idea?

I am saying review aggregates are meaningless and filled with sociological and cultural bias. They won't remove bias, they amplify them.

Nioh is only 1 pt off with an 87. I am sure there is a world of difference between the two games that cannot be explained by a 1 pt difference.

I am not shitting on any specific game in general, just the process of aggregate reviews.

From your unprompted meandering post about review aggregation?

 

[Icolin]

I hope they never have a TLOU moment, that game was such a disappointment.

 

[Blackleg-sanji1]

No way, hype was out of control after that E3 gameplay reveal.

Was it? Maybe I'm thinking about something else

 

[BlackBuzzard]

No I mean when it was first shown off

Nah it was probably the most hyped game of the game awards in 2011. Then at E3 2012 the stage demo had ppl going crazy.

 

[Tigress]

I think this is their Uncharted moment. Jak and Daxter were fine games but Uncharted was on another level. Just like Killzone and Horizon respectively.


I hope they never have a TLOU moment, that game was such a disappointment.

I'm not a huge fan of Uncharted honestly. DRake annoys me and I hate how they treat the interaction between him and his "love interest" (it's so very stereotypical "typical guy/girl" banter / female whose made to be a little spunky but then the guy has to save her anyways. He's very much written as a "we think this is what guys think is cool in a guy". Very eyeroll worthy). The gameplay is fun though but as with any linear game I get tired of it halfway to 3/4's of the game and want it to be done (that's just more my preference though, not a huge fan of linear games that you just walk a path through the game). I will say it is pretty well paced.

I loved TLOU. It's what put ND on the radar for me. I love the gameplay more (but I'm more of a fan of stealthy stuff tbh and not a huge platformer fan (though I can enjoy a platformer) and the story much more interests me. And i like how the characters are written, they are much more "real" to me and not just written as your typical guy/girl stereotypes but written as people first rather than gender first. And despite being a linear game it kept my interest much longer (but I'd say the last 10-15% of the game I was ready to be done. Still considering it's longer than your usual linear game and I usually am ready to be done at least by the last 25% that's pretty good).

 

[LotusHD]

I love seeing humans getting all worked up about review scores lol I'm not human by the way. Beep boop beep beep boop.

...

....

......

Spoiler

2B?

 

[Dusktildawn48]

I hope they never have a TLOU moment, that game was such a disappointment.

Booooo.

 

[The Last One]

No way, hype was out of control after that E3 gameplay reveal.

The game was first shown off before that though.

 

[reKon]

I'm not a huge fan of Uncharted honestly. DRake annoys me and I hate how they treat the interaction between him and his "love interest" (it's so very stereotypical "typical guy/girl" banter / female whose made to be a little spunky but then the guy has to save her anyways. Very eyeroll worthy). The gameplay is fun though but as with any linear game I get tired of it halfway to 3/4's of the game and want it to be done. I will say it is pretty well paced.

I loved TLOU. It's what put ND on the radar for me. I love the gameplay more (but I'm more of a fan of stealthy stuff tbh and not a huge platformer fan (though I can enjoy a platformer) and the story much more interests me. And i like how the characters are written, they are much more "real" to me.

Just a random thought. Which other games have something like this in an action game of this sort?

I think this is their Uncharted moment. Jak and Daxter were fine games but Uncharted was on another level. Just like Killzone and Horizon respectively.


I hope they never have a TLOU moment, that game was such a disappointment.

This comment is a disappointment

 

[Unaha-Closp]

...

....

......

Spoiler

2B?

or not 2B. I have studied this Shakespeare to facilitate my hiding in plain sight.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Review scores are not 100% correlated with quality of the work. Hence bad things can get good reviews, and good things can get bad reviews.

It's not science. It's not a rubric. It's not even a indictation of quality, because as said before, many movies and other works consider genre classics and masterpieces today received poor reviews and were not box office success when they released. The Thing, The Shining, Vertigo, and so on

I guess there's a review as a personal opinion and a review as a suggestion to the reader.

A personal opinion is handy if you know and agree with that person but there should be an element of recommend/not recommend for the general reader as well.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

Looking at the tons of 8/10s, it seems the narrative/tropes have shortcomings, but the higher scores seem to weigh the combat above it.

So for a sequel, I hope they properly learn from their mistakes and really expand on the narrative. Seems they can do just that if they hire the right people, and so Im expecting the sequel to be even bigger.

For a first effort, and for a game out of their genre, the scores are astonishingly strong, and I bet the sales will be too. But this also means Horizon 2 will do even better, and maybe Horizon 3 on PS5 will be a guaranteed reliable hit if GG makes a launch title.

It's awesome to see GG become a juggernaut for Sony.

I'd be very, very interested to see how sidequest design works from beginning to end of development on a game like this. Personally think that even TW3 (probaby the high watermark in terms of hitting both quality and quantity) can be very, very repetetive in the structure of its sidequests. And thinking about it, I don't really know how that can be avoided.

You put 200 quests in your game, you'll start noticing patterns, so you have to come up with something new for each one, be it a mechanic, a choice, a reward, a structural beat. Get the quality control badly wrong, and you end up with Dragon Age: Inquisition. Let it become a bit bloated, and you get Skyrim. Dispense with the proliferation of sidecontent altogether and you get Mass Effect 2.

They're all valid ways of doing it I guess, but the MMOish nature of the way it was implemented in DA:I makes a poor game imo. I haven't the inclination to ignore quests where they're available, or the ability to switch my brain off and spend time doing the exact same unsatisfying thing over and over with such little narrative reward.

I'll be delighted if Horizon can hit a midpoint between Skyrim and TW3 in terms of how much thought has gone into each quest, since they don't seem to be as numerous and its their first attempt at a game like this.

 

[LotusHD]

I'd be very, very interested to see how sidequest design works from beginning to end of development on a game like this. Personally think that even TW3 (probaby the high watermark in terms of hitting both quality and quantity) can be very, very repetetive in the structure of its sidequests. And thinking about it, I don't really know how that can be avoided.

You put 200 quests in your game, you'll start noticing patterns, so you have to come up with something new for each one, be it a mechanic, a choice, a reward, a structural beat. Get the quality control badly wrong, and you end up with Dragon Age: Inquisition. Let it become a bit bloated, and you get Skyrim. Dispense with the proliferation of sidecontent altogether and you get Mass Effect 2.

Maybe 200 is too many...

 

[Memento]

The game was first shown off before that though.

It was revealed at VGA2011 with a cinematic trailer. People were pretty hyped but some were like "ohhh zombies? Come on!"

Then there was the E32012 first gameplay demo and the hype took everyone. That was one of the best gameplay demos ever in any E3.

 

[randomengine]

I don't think you not liking a game that reviewed well/liking a game that didn't review well is indicative of the aggregate score not reflecting quality. I don't care about plenty of well-praised stuff, that doesn't mean the scores are wrong, just means people have different tastes. If people trust the aggregate score, and haven't been let down by relying on it, there's no reason for them to not continue trusting it.

I use the example of Bioshock Infinite a lot. The game was obviously rushed and unfinished. The first half was quality and then it just went off the rails. I enjoyed the original Bioshock, but this one had obvious game design flaws that reviewers overlooked and replaced with their own wishful thinking. I think time has proven that correct.

I am not saying that is the case here, but it is illustrative of the problem.

Like Bioshock Infinite we may not know if the game is good until first we play it and have time to digest what it has to offer. Prerelease reviews are more or less hot takes, with little if any time to fully digest and reflect upon the game.

Doom was another game I had trouble with. Really great reviews, really great word of mouth. I played the whole campaign from beginning to end and after felling the last boss I was filled with disappointment. While the game was certainly long, there simply wasn't much there. Area, kill, area, kill. There was some exploration, but I felt much less than the games that came before it. It felt like Doom 3 replacing room, kill, room, kill with open area, kill, open area, kill. Maybe the problem was pacing, I don't know. Something was wrong with it and I didn't enjoy it as much as the review score led me to believe.

If a review score is not meant to measure that kind of thing, what is it measuring?

 

[Unaha-Closp]

It was revealed at VGA2011 with a cinematic trailer. People were pretty hyped but some were like "ohhh zombies? Come on!"

Then there was the E32012 first gameplay demo and the hype took everyone. That was one of the best gameplay demos ever in any E3.

That was the one that ended with the shotgun applied directly to the head wasn't it? That was some brutal shit.

 

[5taquitos]

I use the example of Bioshock Infinite a lot. The game was obviously rushed and unfinished. The first half was quality and then it just went off the rails. I enjoyed the original Bioshock, but this one had obvious game design flaws that reviewers overlooked and replaced with their own wishful thinking. I think time has proven that correct.

I am not saying that is the case here, but it is illustrative of the problem.

Like Bioshock Infinite we may not know if the game is good until first we play it and have time to digest what it has to offer. Prerelease reviews are more or less hot takes, with little if any time to fully digest and reflect upon the game.

Doom was another game I had trouble with. Really great reviews, really great word of mouth. I played the whole campaign from beginning to end and after felling the last boss I was filled with disappointment. While the game was certainly long, there simply wasn't much there. Area, kill, area, kill. There was some exploration, but I felt much less than the games that came before it. It felt like Doom 3 replacing room, kill, room, kill with open area, kill, open area, kill. Maybe the problem was pacing, I don't know. Something was wrong with it and I didn't enjoy it as much as the review score led me to believe.

If a review score is not meant to measure that kind of thing, what is it measuring?

If you don't post this exact same drivel in the Zelda review thread....

 

[randomengine]

Review scores are not 100% correlated with quality of the work. Hence bad things can get good reviews, and good things can get bad reviews.

It's not science. It's not a rubric. It's not even a indictation of quality, because as said before, many movies and other works consider genre classics and masterpieces today received poor reviews and were not box office success when they released. The Thing, The Shining, Vertigo, and so on

Thank you! Now everyone else attack this man for being a Nintendo fanboy. It's only fair.

 

[Lemondish]

I'm not a huge fan of Uncharted honestly. DRake annoys me and I hate how they treat the interaction between him and his "love interest" (it's so very stereotypical "typical guy/girl" banter / female whose made to be a little spunky but then the guy has to save her anyways. He's very much written as a "we think this is what guys think is cool in a guy". Very eyeroll worthy). The gameplay is fun though but as with any linear game I get tired of it halfway to 3/4's of the game and want it to be done (that's just more my preference though, not a huge fan of linear games that you just walk a path through the game). I will say it is pretty well paced.

I loved TLOU. It's what put ND on the radar for me. I love the gameplay more (but I'm more of a fan of stealthy stuff tbh and not a huge platformer fan (though I can enjoy a platformer) and the story much more interests me. And i like how the characters are written, they are much more "real" to me and not just written as your typical guy/girl stereotypes but written as people first rather than gender first. And despite being a linear game it kept my interest much longer (but I'd say the last 10-15% of the game I was ready to be done. Still considering it's longer than your usual linear game and I usually am ready to be done at least by the last 25% that's pretty good).

Funny you say that. If I recall correctly, Elena is actually the one to save you in the first game. In Eddie's prison cell.

 

[More_Badass]

Where do you get that idea?

I am saying review aggregates are meaningless and filled with sociological and cultural bias. They won't remove bias, they amplify them.

Nioh is only 1 pt off with an 87. I am sure there is a world of difference between the two games that cannot be explained by a 1 pt difference.

I am not shitting on any specific game in general, just the process of aggregate reviews.

That's a fact with every review for every medium. Things can have the same score, and be good in completely different ways. A game having the same score as another doesn't mean that game is as good as the other in any comparable way. It's a point of comparison only in the most abstract fashion.

Obviously there's a world of difference, they're different games in different genres.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[Salex_]

Life stories in a review thread, huh? I guess this thread is dying out. Next week is going to be crazy.

Looking at the tons of 8/10s, it seems the narrative/tropes have shortcomings, but the higher scores seem to weigh the combat above it.

So for a sequel, I hope they properly learn from their mistakes and really expand on the narrative. Seems they can do just that if they hire the right people, and so Im expecting the sequel to be even bigger.

For a first effort, and for a game out of their genre, the scores are astonishingly strong, and I bet the sales will be too. But this also means Horizon 2 will do even better, and maybe Horizon 3 on PS5 will be a guaranteed reliable hit if GG makes a launch title.

It's awesome to see GG become a juggernaut for Sony.

For anyone interested, here's a breakdown of the Metacritic reviews.

74 Reviews
88% average

Score - Number of reviews
100 - 5
98 - 3
97 - 1
96 - 1
95 - 8
93 - 3
92 - 3
90 - 24
88 - 3
87 - 2
85 - 5
80 - 11
75 - 1
70 - 2
50 - 1

48 out of 74 gave 90% and above
21 out of 74 gave 80% - 88%
4 out of 74 gave 75% and below

 

[Icolin]

If you don't post this exact same drivel in the Zelda review thread....

He'll be too busy calling Jim Sterling a gamergator and boycotting Respawn.

 

[Jawbreaker]

Let me preface my remarks by stating that I am not going to impugn the quality of a game I haven't played. Horizon could very well be a very good game.

However, looking at my own history, my own measure of my absolutely favorite and best games, compared against their review and metacritic scores......there is absolutely no correlation between high review scores and games that I enjoy.

I have played games with 90+ metacritic that I absolutely hated - Bioshock Infinite

My favorite game of all time - Binding of Isaac: Rebirth has...

an 88 Metacritic for PS4
a 78 Metacritic on 3DS (despite being the exact same game - a 10 pt difference)
and a no-score on the Wii U version because there weren't enough professional reviewers of that version to muster 4 whole reviews.

We typically get PS4-only reviews despite the fact that a lot of games (not this one) release on Xbox One as well. For those games that get reviewed on both, typically one system is favored over another.

This is just a long way of saying I simply don't trust reviews anymore. You simply cannot trust an aggregate. Too much sociological and herd bias. Find a reviewer your trust, learn their taste and measure their review accordingly.

For example, I loved Roger Ebert when it came to film reviews. We agreed maybe 60-70%. If we agree so infrequently, why did I love reading his reviews and taking them to heart? Because I knew his biases. I knew he liked spectacle films with little substance - Jurassic Park. I knew he hated films that were exploitative - he had a soft spot. All these known biases, helped me determine if I would like a film if he liked it. With aggregates you miss all of that.

My favorite game of all time before Binding of Isaac: Rebirth was Guardian Heroes for the Sega Saturn. A cult classic for sure, but it didn't light the charts or the reviews on fire. Mystaria is another. I liked GTA III and GTA: Vice City, but hated San Andreas, GTA IV and have yet to play V because of my declining interest in it. Yet, the series is just "The best game ever" with 90+ metacritic.

My own personal history and favorite games ever would never have been experienced if I followed the reviews. Which is to say, as an aggregate I don't believe games are reviewed properly. The culture has it all wrong.

I look forward to seeing this post from you in the Zelda review thread. ; ]

 

[randomengine]

That's a fact with every review for every medium. Things can have the same score, and be good in completely different ways. A game having the same score as another doesn't mean that game is as good as the other in any comparable way. It's a point of comparison only in the most abstract fashion.

Obviously there's a world of difference, they're different games in different genres.

What point are you trying to make?

The same exact point you made, only apparently I am not as cool as you.

 

[SomTervo]

I live in a household. I am not a single "forever alone" gamer. I have a wife and child. I own a PS4, Xbox One, and Wii U (incl. 3DS, Vita, PS3, and soon to be Switch). I also have a gaming-capable PC.

*I* am going Nintendo only. However, my wife continues to play Playstation games. They are her systems and if she wants a game, I research and purchase it for her. She is currently playing through the Mass Effect Trilogy.

My son and I on the other hand are Nintendo-only. He only seems interested in Nintendo, so he can play Playstation all he wants, he just chooses not to.

Since my wife is a big fan of Tomb Raider (the sole reason I bought an Xbox One for her the Christmas Rise of the Tomb Raider was released), Horizon seemed like a good fit for her. That means I have to research the game, evaluate whether she will enjoy it. She isn't a core gamer like me.

With my vast experience, 30 years of gaming, on almost all of the systems, I can say that if I followed only aggregate review scores for games, I would have missed out on many of my absolute favorite games over the years.

Maybe it's ok for someone to point that out. The game could still be really good - I have no idea, I haven't played it. But no need to get salty just because I am making a valid point based on decades of my own experience.

This is fine but is becoming very irrelevant to the discussion and Horizon: Zero Dawn.

And by the same metric, Horizon: Zero Dawn could be one of your favourite games of all time.

The "aggregates are meaningless" argument is a two way street.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I use the example of Bioshock Infinite a lot. The game was obviously rushed and unfinished. The first half was quality and then it just went off the rails. I enjoyed the original Bioshock, but this one had obvious game design flaws that reviewers overlooked and replaced with their own wishful thinking. I think time has proven that correct.

I am not saying that is the case here, but it is illustrative of the problem.

Like Bioshock Infinite we may not know if the game is good until first we play it and have time to digest what it has to offer. Prerelease reviews are more or less hot takes, with little if any time to fully digest and reflect upon the game.

Doom was another game I had trouble with. Really great reviews, really great word of mouth. I played the whole campaign from beginning to end and after felling the last boss I was filled with disappointment. While the game was certainly long, there simply wasn't much there. Area, kill, area, kill. There was some exploration, but I felt much less than the games that came before it. It felt like Doom 3 replacing room, kill, room, kill with open area, kill, open area, kill. Maybe the problem was pacing, I don't know. Something was wrong with it and I didn't enjoy it as much as the review score led me to believe.

If a review score is not meant to measure that kind of thing, what is it measuring?

They of course are meant to measure that kind of thing. But of course no review score is going to accurately reflect everyone's like of a game.

Take Doom, I believe it's an 85 on MetaCritic. To you that seems high as you came a way disappointed and repetitive. To me I seems a little low as I loved every minute of it as I play games like Doom to just feel like a bad as murdering the shit out of room after room of demons in crazy fast paced combat and it 100% nailed that.

 

[Memento]

That was the one that ended with the shotgun applied directly to the head wasn't it? That was some brutal shit.

Yes.