Slashdot Mirror

Of course most big games like this are never finished so your anecdotal evidence matches up with all big games like this https://www.theguardian.com/te... . Shit, in the article's major example just 6.4% of players finished Pillars of Eternity.

People not finishing big games has been a well known trend in gaming for at least a decade.

"They made it too slow for the audience. "

  It's fairly certain that if you dont like a game with scores like these https://www.metacritic.com/gam... it's not a problem with the game, the game is just not to your taste.

"RDR2 is pretty, like really pretty. Unfortunately that's about all it has going for it. Once I stopped being fascinated by graphics I found it to be one of the more boring RPGs I've played."

Sure, that's why it is so well reviewed. Because it's boring ( https://www.metacritic.com/gam... ).

Based on reviews like that it's safe to say there isn't much wrong with the game, it's just not to your taste.

Personally, I love the pacing in Red Dead games. It feels like it fits the western genre it's set in incredibly well.

Shigeru Miyamoto created Mario, The Legend of Zelda, and evenradically different games from established series. Mario64 got a 94 while Mario Odyssey got a 97. Zelda N64 got a 99 while got a 97.

Fools! It might be terrible to the ego to admit that Nintendo's old games are better than the new ones.

You're thinking of Sega.

Shigeru Miyamoto created Mario, The Legend of Zelda, and evenradically different games from established series. Mario64 got a 94 while Mario Odyssey got a 97. Zelda N64 got a 99 while got a 97.

Fools! It might be terrible to the ego to admit that Nintendo's old games are better than the new ones.

You're thinking of Sega.

Shigeru Miyamoto created Mario, The Legend of Zelda, and evenradically different games from established series. Mario64 got a 94 while Mario Odyssey got a 97. Zelda N64 got a 99 while got a 97.

Fools! It might be terrible to the ego to admit that Nintendo's old games are better than the new ones.

You're thinking of Sega.

Shigeru Miyamoto created Mario, The Legend of Zelda, and evenradically different games from established series. Mario64 got a 94 while Mario Odyssey got a 97. Zelda N64 got a 99 while got a 97.

Fools! It might be terrible to the ego to admit that Nintendo's old games are better than the new ones.

You're thinking of Sega.

I don't know if I fully fault them either.

It is... Nintendo basically is an insular company, for instance starfox wouldn't have died as a property if they'd given it to Voltion (the people who made freespace 1 and 2) see below...

Freespace 2 open (vid)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Starfox Zero WiiU review

http://www.metacritic.com/game...

Freespace 2 score metacritic

https://www.metacritic.com/gam...

Basically Team voltion/descent has been rotting for 20 years as Miyamoto and company have fucked the pooch on starfox franchise, even though that team is probably the best space combat making game on the planet. Nintendo not having a general understanding of what it means to be a gamer that games on all platforms has passed up opportunity after opportunity to get western devs to make good use of their IP's.

Nintendo's japanese teams never made a good transition to the HD era, all of there games have suffered quality issues outside of maybe mario and kart and Smash brothers.

Another big mistake was not getting Team Vigil (of darksiders 1 fame) to do a Zelda game. Even though darksiders 1 is better than all the zelda games Nintendo made outside of maybe latter half of windwaker.

I don't know if I fully fault them either.

It is... Nintendo basically is an insular company, for instance starfox wouldn't have died as a property if they'd given it to Voltion (the people who made freespace 1 and 2) see below...

Freespace 2 open (vid)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Starfox Zero WiiU review

http://www.metacritic.com/game...

Freespace 2 score metacritic

https://www.metacritic.com/gam...

Basically Team voltion/descent has been rotting for 20 years as Miyamoto and company have fucked the pooch on starfox franchise, even though that team is probably the best space combat making game on the planet. Nintendo not having a general understanding of what it means to be a gamer that games on all platforms has passed up opportunity after opportunity to get western devs to make good use of their IP's.

Nintendo's japanese teams never made a good transition to the HD era, all of there games have suffered quality issues outside of maybe mario and kart and Smash brothers.

Another big mistake was not getting Team Vigil (of darksiders 1 fame) to do a Zelda game. Even though darksiders 1 is better than all the zelda games Nintendo made outside of maybe latter half of windwaker.

Fortnite's metascore (average of reviews) is 77 for PS4, 78 for PC. Its user ratings are 4.7 (out of 10) for PS4, 3.4 for PC. That sort of divergence between review and user ratings is usually a pretty good indication that reviewers are being paid to promote the game.

Fortnite's metascore (average of reviews) is 77 for PS4, 78 for PC. Its user ratings are 4.7 (out of 10) for PS4, 3.4 for PC. That sort of divergence between review and user ratings is usually a pretty good indication that reviewers are being paid to promote the game.

"Avatar is whilst successful on release is widely regarded to be a bad movie..."

It's fine you don't like Avatar but don't make things up.

Metacritic: 83 (user score 7.5) http://www.metacritic.com/movi...
Rotten Tomatoes: 83% (audience score 82%) https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Those are not the ratings of a movie that is "widely regarded" as bad.

"Does a story become good or bad because of the race or gender of the author?"

No but different backgrounds bring different results and what's more different when it comes to people than race and sex? Variety is a good thing whether you're talking about cinema as art or entertainment (or anywhere inbetween).

No, the gripe is a legitimate one. The way RT's scoring works, a mediocre movie that everyone agrees is mediocre will get a very low score, while a really bad movie which appeals to a small number of people will get a better score. A controversial movie will get a score in the middle, and the top end has the same problem as the bottom - scoring is more about agreement between critics than it is about how much the critics like or dislike the film.

It's not a great system. Does anyone know why Rotten Tomatoes seems to be the popular one, while others (like Metacritic) are less often cited?

Why Are Some Great Movies Panned and Some Inferior Movies Praised?
Why Are Some Great Books Panned and Some Inferior Books Praised?

Because people have different tastes?
Because there are times when critics are completely out of touch with the intended audience?
Because they are shilling for the big publishers to get free playstations?

Take your pick.

Why Are Some Great Movies Panned and Some Inferior Movies Praised?
Why Are Some Great Books Panned and Some Inferior Books Praised?

Because people have different tastes?
Because there are times when critics are completely out of touch with the intended audience?
Because they are shilling for the big publishers to get free playstations?

Take your pick.

My theory is that soldner was buggy, had bad gameplay, had no single-player mode, had disappointing graphics, and server problems.

While you point out that soldner was innovative, you don't refute any of the criticisms made of the game. So it seems like you already know the answer. Perhaps, to you, those things could be overlooked because it was so innovative. That might work for geeks and indie fans, but the general public needs things to work the first time. The game is a decade old. Even if the bugs are fixed now, it is too late to change history.

The metacritic reviews for soldner seem to confirm the criticisms. Even the positive reviews complain it is buggy.

Here's the top user reviews:

...if people will try using the online patches then they will think "hey look Söldner isn't buggy", instead of thinking "buggy piece of s**

It's a shame there's so many negative reviews, but what you have to realize is these reviews were written over ten years ago, the game is still going

Ghostbusters 2016 is still certified fresh?

Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean that other people can't like it.

Most viewersdidn't like it, most critics did. I'd trust the viewers on this one.

There is a big disconnect between critics and audiences on that one... 27% to 65%

This is really just a problem with the methodology that Rotten Tomatoes uses. 27% just means that there is broad agreement among critics that it's not a very good movie, it doesn't mean that those critics, or any critics, would give it a rating of 2.7/10.

It's a shame that Rotten Tomatoes functions this way, it means that an uncontroversial movie like Batman vs Superman will get a lower score than another movie which may be generally worse but more controversial. If you check Metacritic for Batman vs. Superman you'll see that the user score is pretty similar but the critic score is higher. Though, okay fine, it's still a pretty big disconnect.

With rating movies statistically there are a number of methods:

- Box office takings, such as Box Office Mojo

- DVD and Video sales

- Movie audience figures (when broadcast on television or similar)

- Industry awards, such as the Academy Awards or the Baftas

- Ratings from critics, such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic - Ratings from general users, such as IMDB

- and finally, "Best of" listings voted on by critics or interest groups.

I include the last not because it is really a very good statistical comparison as compared to any of the other methods, but because it is the only one analogous to the sorts of lists being considered in the Worlds Without End rankings.

To get a good statistical ranking for books or movies we need to get a comprehensive set of data that covers all (or most) of the entries, and which applies the same rankings to each. None of the rankings for Movies which I have listed really does that, but some do better than others in some ways at least. For example, ticket and unit sales cover all movies, though they have the problem that the number of people going to movies, and the price they pay per ticket, have increased over time so that the ranking metric isn't the same for all movies. It also has the disadvantage that ticket sales are not necessarily related to how good a movie is. Industry awards can probably be assumed to cover all movies released in a given year and therefore cover the whole population, but have the problem that the award givers may not cover all entries equally, and may be subject to bias. Critical judgement, whether from professional critics or members of the public, also have the problem of coverage - I personally cannot expect to be able to see every movie made, and the ones I do see will be affected by by things like advertising budgets which are not necessarily related to how good the movie actually is.

With books we do have some similar data sets. Figures for number of books printed, or sales on the likes of Amazon can be compiled, though these have the same problem of not being related to quality. I don't know of any compilation sites for professional book critics (anybody?), but there are sites such as Goodreads where members of the public can give their subjective rankings. Industry awards also exist, such as the Hugo or Nebula awards, but these have the disadvantage of being subject to politics (*cough* Puppies vs SJW anyone?). Finally, there are "Best of" lists, such as the ones cited by Worlds Without End.

Books have a problem compared to movies in that far more books get published than movies get made. While a good critic can expect to see all the movies that come out in a year (at least all those released theatrically), reading every book that is published is impossible. This eats into the quality of critical rankings out there, or even into Industry awards. Any "Best of the Year" list can't really hope to be definitive, because a book - especially a ground breaking, iconoclastic new classic - will take time to find a wide audience and be widely recognised.

For my money, I think the likes of Goodreads are probably the best bet as an objective, comprehensive and timely statistical source for

I made no comment about it being good or bad (which is subjective). However, looking at sales, and most critics, it's not a failure. Though again that's subjective.

Disney spent $4Bil on this, it's not too hard to believe that some of those reviews have come under the influence of the Disney marketing budget.
I'm willing to believe that this movie had some smarts that I completely missed, but so far everything I've seen and read says that this is a turkey. And after the hype curve fades, time will reveal more honest opinions.

I made no comment about it being good or bad (which is subjective).
However, looking at sales, and most critics, it's not a failure. Though again that's subjective.

Are you implying Lucas would have done better? The prequels and updated original trilogy is, for the most part, disliked in favor of the originals (where Lucas did not have as much involvement).
Also the notion that "X doing thing is bad, therefore Y would have been better" is the same fallacy thought that happens in the US every time $president does something ("oh if only $otherCandidate won! everything would be better!")

I agree - I don't bother reading "professional" reviews these days, I just don't care what the "gaming journalism industry" thinks about games. Instead, I go to places like Metacritic where Fallout 4 has an 89/100 from the industry but a 5.4/10 from users. But even that's useless, because most of the 10/10 reviews are from obvious fanboys whose opinions don't matter to me because they were never going to criticize the game even if it deleted their entire hard drive.

So, ultimately, I just wait until a general consensus has been reached, and it sounds like you do the same. I've seen so many games where the early impressions were great and it was only after people had a few weeks with it that people realized that the game was pretty terrible.

Plus there are things like that Arkham City game where it was released broken for PC and it's now something like six months later and they STILL haven't fixed it for the PC. Waiting is the only way to give people enough time to discover that the game breaks an hour before the ending and that the developer still can't, even after six months, figure out how to get it to run with less than 12GB of RAM.

released within the last year http://www.metacritic.com/brow...

There are a lot of PC co-op games. And lets not pretend that the consoles are especially great at supporting that at this point.

There are single player console games, multiplayer over the internet console games, and co-op split screen games. And not all console games fall into the final category.

There are PC games that do that... either because they ported the console concept or because they do have split screen or screen sharing ability.

Trine is such a game. There are a lot more of them than you'd realize. The single player or online multiplayer PC games don't let you do that but then neither do the console versions of the same games so it is more of a wash than you'd realize.

As to people getting by without a PC but having a console... I've never seen that and I frankly suspect you're talking about unicorns.

As to a member of the family hogging the PC... get them a tablet. That will cost you 100 dollars and lets be honest they were probably just looking at webpages on the PC anyway.

As to your point about waiting 5 years etc... this would make any sense if the consoles were not replaced with subsequent generations at around that interval. Lets look at the console replacement intervals:
Playstation 1994
Playstation 2 2000
Playstation 3 2006
Playstation 4 2013

Basically every 6 years you get another console.

So... can a 6 year old PC compete with a 6 year old console? Easily.

Your argument there is at best a wash and at worst you lose because I can upgrade the PC with a new graphics card, ram, etc without having to wait for the console companies to move the bar. You're not going to match PCs on graphics dollar for dollar or at time of sale or over the time of the unit. The PCs win all of that and pretty much have since the first graphics cards started coming out.

As to your comment about malware... I don't know what you're talking about. Clarify your position.

As to are there games like this on the PC?... yes.

Your first link was funny because the PC had a game almost exactly like that way before that called Audio Surf:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Next we have "Katamari Damacy" which is a puzzle action game... and there are tons of those on the PC. Wouldn't portal 1/2 count? I mean... I can probably cite a dozen puzzle action games. Is it literally the exact same IP as Katamari Damacy? No. I didn't claim it would be though. I claimed it would be the same sort of game and that there would be more of them. And there are.

As to super mario brothers, you're talking about 2d platformers... do we have those? Of fucking course we do. We have shovel knight, braid, Fez... the whole 2d platformer thing is really popular with the indy developers because its easier to make them.

As to third person RPGs... f'ing trillions and zillions of them:
http://www.metacritic.com/brow...

As to cockfighting RPGs... there are literally pokemon games... same IP on the PC:
http://www.gameyum.com/pokemon...

As to other games like that... it's basically a digital pet game crossed with an RPG... with maybe some puzzle mechanics in it.
Arguably most of these would fit the bill:
http://www.listal.com/list/bes...

Animal crossing appears to be an open world RPG... we have zillions of those. Are they as cute as that game? There are a few that are... let see...
Trove and cubeworld appear to be more open world than anything before them, pretty cutesy... same basic thing from what I can tell. Does mr squirrel give you his nuts? That's more a Sims thing. I think your animal crossing game is sort a cuter version of the sims... with fewer options and less depth.

If you want to play who is weirder... I me

I can go on Steam (Or anywhere else to buy games), buy any game, and it is guaranteed to work.

As much as I want to agree with you this just isn't the case. I'll raise you Arkham Knight which was pulled from Steam. Receiving lots of negative reviews due to being a shoddy port. Oops.

There are always some crappy ports (which can also happen on consoles), especially by certain publishers, but Arkham Knight is more of an exception than the rule. In any case, even that game does "work", it is just not well optimized.

I can go on Steam (Or anywhere else to buy games), buy any game, and it is guaranteed to work.

As much as I want to agree with you this just isn't the case. I'll raise you Arkham Knight which was pulled from Steam. Receiving lots of negative reviews due to being a shoddy port. Oops.

The final nail in the coffin is that SEGA's first party development teams were just kind of bad at their jobs.

I beg to differ, Segas 1st party titles during the Dreamcast era were at the top of their game and produced titles and franchises that are STILL making them money re-selling on different platforms as many of them have become cult-classics. Crazy Taxi, House of the Dead 2, Jet Set Radio, Panzer Dragoon, Virtual On OT, Space Channel 5, Chu Chu Rocket, Shenmue, etc. Even their flagship driving game Metropolis Street Racer when on to spawn 4 sequels in the Form of Project Gotham Racing and was the Xbox's flagship driving game until Microsoft introduced Forza.

The Sonic games released on the Dreamcast were actually rated fairly well and fairly well received by fans. Most consider them to be the first 3D Sonic titles made by Sega that didn't suck.
Sonic Adventure on GameRankings scores an 86: http://www.gamerankings.com/dr...
Sonic Adventure 2 scores an 89 on MetaCritic: http://www.metacritic.com/game...

Metacritic is also a great - and in some cases the only - way to get *negative* reviews. Review sites are astroturf at best and completely useless at worst. I could care less how awesome a paid reviewer thinks a product is; I want to hear about the experience somebody who paid money for a thing has had with it - if they think they got their money's worth, what pisses them off about it, etc.

Then there's the fact that with games the product is largely subjective - for example Metacritic gives Dishonored a 91 (see here) and Metro: Last Light a an 82 (see here). I've played both and personally I'd rate Last Light an A+ and Dishonored a solid D, maybe a C. Both games curve pretty similarly on graphics and gameplay - Dishonored *looks* like an Unreal engine game and the reward curve on stealth mechanics feels capricious at best - it's possible to finish a level without tripping any alarms but you still "fail" (accumulate chaos) if the guy you knocked out and stuffed in a dumpster at the beginning of the level is eaten by rats - and the end-of-mission screen is the only indicator this has happened. Last Light, on the other hand, is a similar-length game that rewards stealth but also requires a satisfying amount of run-and-gun, and is 100% pure lighting porn. It's gorgeous, immersive, and you aren't capriciously penalized for non-lethal kills - stealth mechanics are strong, realistic, and don't penalize the player with unforeseeable consequences.

I bought Dishonored based on the studio, price (sale), and alleged stealth gameplay. I didn't care for the steampunk aesthetics and found the lore intrusive - books all over the place easily triggered but less easily backed out of. The story didn't do anything for me and the art direction so strongly evoked Half-Life 2 that it felt like City 17 had been ported to the Unreal engine. I bought Last Light based on the studio and prior work of the development team, price (sale), and full knowledge of what to expect for gameplay. The story was engrossing and the art direction was film grade and incredibly immersive. Reviews contributed to neither purchase and review scores in no way reflect my experience with either game... and these are just two examples that I've played recently.

Metacritic is also a great - and in some cases the only - way to get *negative* reviews. Review sites are astroturf at best and completely useless at worst. I could care less how awesome a paid reviewer thinks a product is; I want to hear about the experience somebody who paid money for a thing has had with it - if they think they got their money's worth, what pisses them off about it, etc.

Then there's the fact that with games the product is largely subjective - for example Metacritic gives Dishonored a 91 (see here) and Metro: Last Light a an 82 (see here). I've played both and personally I'd rate Last Light an A+ and Dishonored a solid D, maybe a C. Both games curve pretty similarly on graphics and gameplay - Dishonored *looks* like an Unreal engine game and the reward curve on stealth mechanics feels capricious at best - it's possible to finish a level without tripping any alarms but you still "fail" (accumulate chaos) if the guy you knocked out and stuffed in a dumpster at the beginning of the level is eaten by rats - and the end-of-mission screen is the only indicator this has happened. Last Light, on the other hand, is a similar-length game that rewards stealth but also requires a satisfying amount of run-and-gun, and is 100% pure lighting porn. It's gorgeous, immersive, and you aren't capriciously penalized for non-lethal kills - stealth mechanics are strong, realistic, and don't penalize the player with unforeseeable consequences.

I bought Dishonored based on the studio, price (sale), and alleged stealth gameplay. I didn't care for the steampunk aesthetics and found the lore intrusive - books all over the place easily triggered but less easily backed out of. The story didn't do anything for me and the art direction so strongly evoked Half-Life 2 that it felt like City 17 had been ported to the Unreal engine. I bought Last Light based on the studio and prior work of the development team, price (sale), and full knowledge of what to expect for gameplay. The story was engrossing and the art direction was film grade and incredibly immersive. Reviews contributed to neither purchase and review scores in no way reflect my experience with either game... and these are just two examples that I've played recently.

Why do I keep seeing news agencies and the like reporting that The Interview is being "broadly panned" when it's not?

http://www.metacritic.com/movi...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/...

The consensus seems to be that while it's a mediocre film it's good for a few laughs.

Oh, really? Are you sure that there hasn't been at least one movie made about assassinating the President?

Oh, really? Are you sure that there hasn't been at least one movie made about assassinating the President?

Oh, really? Are you sure that there hasn't been at least one movie made about assassinating the President?

could someone please explain to me then why reviews like these aren't a major scandal all by themselves?

Yep. Grin is dead, Square Enix basically fucked them. They gave them a giant Final Fantasy project code-named Fortress, and then six months in (after Grin had spent considerable resources) completely pulled out without paying them since they hadn't finished anything, leaving Grin bankrupt.

Of course, since then Square Enix has produced the critically acclaimed Final Fantasy XIII (61/100) and XIV (49/100), so you know, clearly screwing Grin over was a good decision.

Yep. Grin is dead, Square Enix basically fucked them. They gave them a giant Final Fantasy project code-named Fortress, and then six months in (after Grin had spent considerable resources) completely pulled out without paying them since they hadn't finished anything, leaving Grin bankrupt.

Of course, since then Square Enix has produced the critically acclaimed Final Fantasy XIII (61/100) and XIV (49/100), so you know, clearly screwing Grin over was a good decision.

When journalists editorialize or propagandize, they are no longer journalists

It was *very* clear 20 years ago. The videogame 'journalists' had crap product. They were amping up games to get 3-4 page spreads for money and/or free games. They would say 9 out of 10 for a game. You would get the game and would think what sort of trash is this. Only the most obvious of crap would get a low score. We ate it up because we were young and did not know better.

http://www.metacritic.com/game...

I like to use this one as an example. The game was rather bland rushed game with some 'ok' cut scenes. However it was quite clear some people were getting paid off from advertising money from WB by the way it was hyped up. It got a mediocre score because apparently the bribe money was not washed around enough.

http://www.metacritic.com/game...

I like to use this one as a recent example. The game was 'sort of' interesting. But the gameplay was tedious and boring. The one thing which was supposed to be so good the graphics. Was extremely washed out and only good in a few key places. Not one negative review. It is bargain bin material now. I would joke with my wife 'I am going to go have tea with the girls and gossip about boys'.

So the second someone made a misogynistic remark in GG they seized upon it to make it about that. They have 0 intention of fixing their own broken legacy. They would rather fight bigotry by being bigger bigots. It is making sure the narrative is controlled by them not you.

That gawker media (the epicenter of this mess) has Jezebel amongst its properties almost ironic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... They even deliberately use the 'modern' meaning but the ironic part is what it used to mean. They are selling us trash and lies in the name advert impressions. What is really sad is you can not tell if they are just trolling us or truly believe their own words. From what I read they are basically ripping off young people to 'give them a voice'. But they are too young to realize they are just paid (in some cases unpaid) wordsmiths by telling them what to write.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Kotaku...

What is even more sad is our politics are controlled by these *very* *same* *people*. They have 0 integrity and would sell your soul for 1 clickthru. We brought it upon ourselves with the race to the bottom with free websites with 'free' news. It is not clear paid for would be any better.

When journalists editorialize or propagandize, they are no longer journalists

It was *very* clear 20 years ago. The videogame 'journalists' had crap product. They were amping up games to get 3-4 page spreads for money and/or free games. They would say 9 out of 10 for a game. You would get the game and would think what sort of trash is this. Only the most obvious of crap would get a low score. We ate it up because we were young and did not know better.

http://www.metacritic.com/game...

I like to use this one as an example. The game was rather bland rushed game with some 'ok' cut scenes. However it was quite clear some people were getting paid off from advertising money from WB by the way it was hyped up. It got a mediocre score because apparently the bribe money was not washed around enough.

http://www.metacritic.com/game...

I like to use this one as a recent example. The game was 'sort of' interesting. But the gameplay was tedious and boring. The one thing which was supposed to be so good the graphics. Was extremely washed out and only good in a few key places. Not one negative review. It is bargain bin material now. I would joke with my wife 'I am going to go have tea with the girls and gossip about boys'.

So the second someone made a misogynistic remark in GG they seized upon it to make it about that. They have 0 intention of fixing their own broken legacy. They would rather fight bigotry by being bigger bigots. It is making sure the narrative is controlled by them not you.

That gawker media (the epicenter of this mess) has Jezebel amongst its properties almost ironic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... They even deliberately use the 'modern' meaning but the ironic part is what it used to mean. They are selling us trash and lies in the name advert impressions. What is really sad is you can not tell if they are just trolling us or truly believe their own words. From what I read they are basically ripping off young people to 'give them a voice'. But they are too young to realize they are just paid (in some cases unpaid) wordsmiths by telling them what to write.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Kotaku...

What is even more sad is our politics are controlled by these *very* *same* *people*. They have 0 integrity and would sell your soul for 1 clickthru. We brought it upon ourselves with the race to the bottom with free websites with 'free' news. It is not clear paid for would be any better.

As a matter of fact, does anyone know why Steam does not prominently feature Metacritic ratings anymore? Those really helped me choose games that I wanted...

Maybe because games are given very high ratings that completely ignore the PC, even when these ratings are supposed to be for the PC versions?

I don't know about you, but when I see a AAA PC game also has a console version, I just stop right there and don't buy it, no matter what the ratings are.

As a matter of fact, does anyone know why Steam does not prominently feature Metacritic ratings anymore? Those really helped me choose games that I wanted...

Maybe because games are given very high ratings that completely ignore the PC, even when these ratings are supposed to be for the PC versions?

I don't know about you, but when I see a AAA PC game also has a console version, I just stop right there and don't buy it, no matter what the ratings are.

It's not really surprising (to me, anyway) that Crytek is failing as a publisher. Homefront was the most generic FPS ever made.

Homefront was originally published by THQ. Crytek just bought the IP after THQ went under. It can hardly be cited as a symptom of problems at the company (apart from the decision to buy it in the first place rather than just make their own similar game).

to this day, I've never heard anyone talk about Crysis outside of using it as a benchmark

There are plenty of people who liked the original Crysis (at least the first two thirds of it). I'm one of them. It has overwhelmingly positive user ratings on Metacritic. The sequels were less well received.

Aye, but once it got going the PS3 was able to do some heavy numbers. Part of that is because even with a slow start, it had hardware more-or-less on spec with the 360, so mutli-platform games were easy enough to bring over once it had a good base, not to mention HD collections of games after the fact.

The Wii U has no such future potential. No matter how many units it sells, the power and capabilities will always be far less than the Xbone and PS4, so devs not only have to worry about a small install base but would also have to go through the trouble of stripping out many "next gen" elements (mainly graphical, but perhaps some advanced AI or mob count, too) to make it play nice on the Wii U, which gamers don't want at all.[1] Furthermore, the attach rate on the original Wii was the worst for third parties out of all three consoles last gen at a bit over half of the overall attach rate, versus >75% on each of the other two (Source; however, it's from Nov 2008, and I'm having an incredibly hard time finding more recent numbers; Nintendo's own site shows a similar attach rate, though, so I doubt the overall ratio changed much for them).

So, with a small install base, underpowered hardware, and a far smaller third party attach rate than its competitors, what is the point in smaller third parties putting anything on the Wii U? And without third party games, why would anyone buy a Wii U unless they were big fans of Nintendo's first party properties, few of which have been announced in any concrete way? So Nintendo has thrust itself into a catch 22 that I doubt it will get out of this generation. With luck they'll have a repeat of the Gamecube; otherwise it's the N64 all over again.

[1] Dead Rising: Chop Till' You Drop for the Wii is an excellent example of what happens when this is attempted.

And a lot of the games these days depend on being popular with a lot of people. What's the point of playing a massive multiplayer game with 3 people.

I don't know about "a lot." Most games don't seem to be MMO. The highest rated games of this generation seem to be predominantly single player mode. None of the top 100 games for the 360 on metacritic are primarily multiplayer. Left 4 dead (and its sequel) may be the closest thing to it. I'll grant you that a lot of the shooters, most people playing it seem to be playing multiplayer most of the time, but the single player games will still work.

Unless EA starts astroturfing to bring the ratings up, I suspect this game is pretty much doomed to be a total bust, at least as far as sales on Amazon are concerned. You don't just "get over" that strong a negative reaction to your product.

If you look at MetaCritic User Reviews for SimCity, the user reviews that have a '10' score, you'd think EA is already astroturfing.

>When i first used steam, all it did was launch games

I take it you mean *sell* games, which is what we're talking about.

> Now there's a friends network, community pages, and trading system.

None of which are difficult to implement or count as major leaps forward in design or service. They've had *years*.

>Steam doesn't add DRM to another company's product.

No, they sell other companies' products with DRM in them. At this point, it becomes irrelevant who wrote it in terms of support, certainly from a legal point of view....hence my comment about returning something to a shop and the 'we just sell it' excuse not holding up, just like a 'no refunds given' sign doesn't change the law. Unless, of course, you're going to hide behind international law so that you can ignore the local ones.

> Usually some proprietary thing that devs have to buy a kit to even develop on. But the OS certainly isn't windows.

You're right, the XBox was never going to succeed. Interesting how wide you're casting the net to to bolster your claims.

>There are plenty of DRM free games on steam too, so not sure where you came up with that.

Er...I came up with it because Steam sell them. Non-DRM games - so what? Again, your statement doesn't really mean anything. If you as a company sell something with DRM, you support it. If you don't want to support it, you don't sell the game. For example, what you *don't* do is automatically enter the serial for the user upon installation, and then pretend a la linux that they should have known in advance that there was another serial number to enter to enable the content that they'd already paid for under the 'digital edition' they were selling. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples like this, a large number of them being due to Steam pretending that 'they just sell the stuff'. Doesn't work like that.

> But returning games? Sorry man, that has never happened.

Er.,...actually it has. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of times, going all the way back to the ZX-81. Personally, I returned Star Wars Galaxies because it was a crap game, X-Wing Vs. Tie FIghter because it had no single player option....maybe you're not considering places outside the US, but in plenty of countries if a product is not fit for purpose, or does not work as described, you can take it back. By law. And that's before we consider shops like Argos that will give refunds simply because you've changed your mind. None of these things vanish simply because Steam decided they're different.

>Linux on a game console sounds like a foreign concept?

Who mentioned consoles? No, linux as a desktop platform running as a games machine is pretty much a foreign concept. Probably because it's failed to make any sort of real dent in the desktop market over the past twenty years.

>What OS do you think those consoles use anyways?

Apart from the not-at-all-popular XBox? Well, that leaves the PS3, unless you're going to pretend that the Wii is still a going concern -so I guess there's an untapped market of linux desktops that nobody has bothered porting these linux-based games to, and that Sony and the rest just aren't interested in making any money.

>What was wrong with Portal 2?

Plenty. Many people didn't like the annoying sidekick - and overall, it wasn't the same as the original game.

>Never mind, i think you were just trying to act like a dick.

Sure I was, I'm not basing this opinion on what the aftermath on reddit was like in any way at all. Dick.

>The world disagrees with you though: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/portal+2/results [metacritic.com]

Wow, now critics = the world? It's like the reviews of Blade Runner and The Thing never happened....thirty years ago.

Any other not-mentioned associated issues you'd like to bring in instead of addressing the issue?

When i first used steam, all it did was launch games. Now there's a friends network, community pages, and trading system. Steam doesn't add DRM to another company's product. There are plenty of DRM free games on steam too, so not sure where you came up with that.

It would be much better if company pages were integrated into steam though. So if you have a problem with your game you can talk with them about how to fix it. But returning games? Sorry man, that has never happened. Even brick & mortar stores won't accept an opened game.

Linux on a game console sounds like a foreign concept? What OS do you think those consoles use anyways? Usually some proprietary thing that devs have to buy a kit to even develop on. But the OS certainly isn't windows.

What was wrong with Portal 2? Never mind, i think you were just trying to act like a dick. The world disagrees with you though: http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/portal+2/results

You can just use Metacritic to get a convenient list.

The highest score for a game on metacritic last year was 96. Only 23 console games, out of over 260, scored above 90. I think people might be exaggerating a bit. http://www.metacritic.com/feature/best-video-games-of-2011

Sure, but if you look at the user scores, it's also in the lowest 5-7.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/pc?sort=desc&year_selected=2012

Now, if there were only 10-15 reviews I can understand that this number may not be accurate... but generally the fans don't like the game and that tells me it's probably not worth playing, especially Blizzard fans who are usually not critical to the mothership. Currently, the majority of user reviews are all negative, by almost 2:1.

This is not the first time it's come back. Last time was in 2009. Got absolutely horrible reviews. That was clearly shovelware with the name slapped on it. This take sounds like someone is actually putting effort into it though.

"These are adventure games, not heave heavy hardcore action games."

This is the refuge of the people who have no ability to think about games intelligently. It's using vague language to get around the fact that zelda isn't fun as other games that use the exact same style. Just saying these words MEANS NOTHING. The games geometrically and mathematically are practically the same. Many of the 'action games' you so look down upon do all the things zelda does and does them better. God of war had puzzles just like zelda, god of war had 'dungeons' (the temple). You're just trolling in the worst kind of way. I grew up on zelda and many of us older gamers know that game quality - yes including zelda aren't learning lessons on what makes games fun. Games that refuse to learn and grow from what other developers have learned over the last 10 years begin to stagnate.

The problem is they aren't learning from what other games have done well in the same genre they are just doing the same thing they've always done. The combat in wind waker was going in interesting directions with being able to do more interesting things to enemies but then they stopped. Maybe you want the game frozen in time but many of us older gamers who grew up with zelda know the series has stagnated. You're just having a knee jerk reaction because you refuse to look at these games critically. I WANT nintendo's games to be top tier but sadly they are losing it because they refuse to learn from other games, anyone who says differently can just look at what happened to starfox. Starfox was trashed from a great franchise to an also ran.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/gamecube/star-fox-assault

There is much evidence you are completely ignoring in terms of Nintendo's game quality. What's keeping Nintendo afloat is demgraphic turnover (newer gamers who don't have a history of 20-25 years of games) and fanboys like yourself who have no ability to perceive the decline in game quality. Just look at your immature statement in your opening paragraph. You're being immature and a fanboy because you can't intelligently do any kind of game criticism.