Anyways there is no objectively amazing game. Everyone has his/her own tastes. It is however objectively a huge IP in-terms of sales/critical acclaim.
Indeed.
If I walk into a thread and said "Knights Of The Old Republic is a 3/10 game at best", it sounds like I am flying in the face of pretty much worldwide opinion with a "correction".
Of course it isn't a 3/10 game. For me it was. I hated it. Gritted teeth, traded in hated it. Doesn't mean that I have successfully disputed its pedestal of 9's and 10's though.
Uncharted clearly was a series that averaged the 9's.
Although I would say this, that was then. I am coming in to this generation expecting my third person games to do a lot more than cinematic set piece action.
The Order looks like it is BARELY going to do much more than that, where saying that it being a third person shooter mechanics wise and that being fine is the same as saying that Heavenly Sword's brawler mechanics were fine.
Similarly, Quantum Break seems to be wrapped up in a load of reveal hype and canned footage excitement. The actual thing looks to be a solid third person arena shooter. It's done little to illustrate that it'll be lumps of story interspersed with shooting people in a box. You can dress it up in all the time special effects you want.
Games like Mass Effect have really pushed the boundary in the third person realm, marrying together the expansiveness of RPG (and we're not talking stats, numbers - we're talking a world you can approach with a degree of freedom, experience story segments, experience astounding set plays, have downtime, a sense of exploration).
By setting the bar to be "a solid third person narrative shooter", you're effectively doing the equivalent of a safe dive. You can only hope to achieve an 8/10 at most, for example. With any little failures chipping away at that score.
