Sony Playstation Plus games February '21: Control Ultimate Edition, Concrete Genie, Destruction All-Stars

[skillzdadirecta]

7 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

Reviews are okay in the 60s. I had no problem finding a game though.

60's are ok these days???

[DarkStar189]

I had a game start with only 5 people total. Took forever to score any points. Some matchmaking times have seemed longer as well. 

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

60's are ok these days???

 

They've always been OK, old man.  

 

Most sites I see use the entire scale, so 1 - 10 means 5 is average.

[BloodyHell]

11 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

They've always been OK, old man.  

 

Most sites I see use the entire scale, so 1 - 10 means 5 is average.

I mean, most sites have a scale of 1-10, but they rarely use anything lower than a 6, even when they should.

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

I mean, most sites have a scale of 1-10, but they rarely use anything lower than a 6, even when they should.

 

People really should utilize the entire scale or else don't use 1 - 10, you know? To get below 5, you have to be bad, and I don't think a lot of devs are making truly terrible games that are deserving of it, so I wouldn't go below 5/6 much either.

 

It was that way when I was reading EGM in the early 2000s, it was that way with Gamespot, and it's been that way with IGN since the beginning AFAIK. Here's their 6 for Black Ops Cold War multiplayer which literally says 6 is OKAY.

 

[SaysWho?]

So yeah, I don't really get the idea that 6 is consider okay now when that's how it's been. People tend to do this which tells me nothing:

 

 

Though I think this is a good update:

 

[TheLeon]

I remember back in the IGN days if a game didn’t get at least an 8.5 and “Editor’s Choice” it was a massive disappointment. 

[Keyser_Soze]

7.9'd

[crispy4000]

OpenCritic gives you a better idea of the true spread.

 

5 is by no means average if you aggregate.  The highest number of games are rated in the 70-72 rage, but the full story is that chart.

[BloodyHell]

10 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

7.9'd

Fran was right!

[Bloodporne]

Between Days Gone and Control, PS+ is delivering for me right now. Played a few hours of Days Gone during the snow day yesterday and when I needed a break, I decided to download Control. I didn't really like it at first but once it picked up a bit, I started digging the gameplay and whole fun mystery of it all. It's a surprisingly old-school game that reminds me of the 2000's which isn't really a compliment but not a criticism either as it sorta works here? 

 

One thing I will say about it is that the irritating amount of memo, video and other story-related pickups really interrupts the flow of gameplay and atmosphere both. Sadly I'm one of those OCD players who hates a big red icon over my Inventory menu telling me there's new shit there so I can't just not read it. With there really not being any item pickups like ammo or health, it feels like the majority of rooms and areas to explore really contain nothing but more pace-grinding reading material. I'm not sure how else they could've communicated this amount of lore and all but it's overwhelming and the implementation feels archaic and disruptive. 

[SaysWho?]

53 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

OpenCritic gives you a better idea of the true spread.

 

5 is by no means average if you aggregate.  The highest number of games are rated in the 70-72 rage, but the full story is that chart.

 

The sites saying '7' are saying something is good, which means the average game is good. Which I don't feel is a controversial opinion considering how games have improved upon what they were like at the start of the 3D transition (similar to how SNES/Genesis is much more refined than Atari). A good example is a licensed game: licensed games used to be like Blues Brothers and The Matrix and Superman 64, and now they're like Shadow of War and Batman Arkham and Miles Morales. It used to be that all the money on the licensing meant no money was put into making a good game. Nowadays if you have a game based on a movie or TV show, that doesn't spell doom for the game as it used to because a good licensed game used to be a surprise. People used to wish for high-quality Batman games. Batman Arkham Asylum's quality was surprising at the time for plenty of people, including me.

 

Even the OK games nowadays usually have some kind of hook, something going for them even if they're by-the-books, and they typically aren't game-crashing buggy.

 

5/6 typically means there are things going for the game but there's a lot going against it. 

 

44 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

Between Days Gone and Control, PS+ is delivering for me right now. Played a few hours of Days Gone during the snow day yesterday and when I needed a break, I decided to download Control. I didn't really like it at first but once it picked up a bit, I started digging the gameplay and whole fun mystery of it all. It's a surprisingly old-school game that reminds me of the 2000's which isn't really a compliment but not a criticism either as it sorta works here? 

 

One thing I will say about it is that the irritating amount of memo, video and other story-related pickups really interrupts the flow of gameplay and atmosphere both. Sadly I'm one of those OCD players who hates a big red icon over my Inventory menu telling me there's new shit there so I can't just not read it. With there really not being any item pickups like ammo or health, it feels like the majority of rooms and areas to explore really contain nothing but more pace-grinding reading material. I'm not sure how else they could've communicated this amount of lore and all but it's overwhelming and the implementation feels archaic and disruptive. 

 

That reminds me of Bioshock, actually. I remember a ton of audio logs, and usually you'd have to go to a menu to listen to them if I recall correctly. I actually dig audio logs depending on what they're like. Horizon Zero Dawn has some fascinating ones that I REALLY liked, all dealing with how the world became as it was.

 

I played many of the games in the PS+ Collection, but there are a few that I've thought of trying but really don't know if I want to put in the time. Fallout 4's a great example, mostly because the branching dialogue system seemed really bad compared to 3.

 

 

How you liking Days Gone? I'm clearing out a ton of hordes late game right now.

[Bloodporne]

6 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

The sites saying '7' are saying something is good, which means the average game is good. Which I don't feel is a controversial opinion considering how games have improved upon what they were like at the start of the 3D transition (similar to how SNES/Genesis is much more refined than Atari). A good example is a licensed game: licensed games used to be like Blues Brothers and The Matrix and Superman 64, and now they're like Shadow of War and Batman Arkham and Miles Morales. It used to be that all the money on the licensing meant no money was put into making a good game. Nowadays if you have a game based on a movie or TV show, that doesn't spell doom for the game as it used to because a good licensed game used to be a surprise. People used to wish for high-quality Batman games. Batman Arkham Asylum's quality was surprising at the time for plenty of people, including me.

 

Even the OK games nowadays usually have some kind of hook, something going for them even if they're by-the-books, and they typically aren't game-crashing buggy.

 

5/6 typically means there are things going for the game but there's a lot going against it. 

 

 

That reminds me of Bioshock, actually. I remember a ton of audio logs, and usually you'd have to go to a menu to listen to them if I recall correctly. I actually dig audio logs depending on what they're like. Horizon Zero Dawn has some fascinating ones that I REALLY liked, all dealing with how the world became as it was.

 

I played many of the games in the PS+ Collection, but there are a few that I've thought of trying but really don't know if I want to put in the time. Fallout 4's a great example, mostly because the branching dialogue system seemed really bad compared to 3.

 

 

How you liking Days Gone? I'm clearing out a ton of hordes late game right now.

I actually really don't mind audio logs and stuff like that if it's done within reason. Control right now is quite literally every other room. I think I just need to get off that OCD horse and stop reading every damn thing I pick up RIGHT then and instead just play until I feel like now would be cool to sit down and read some of the back story documents. 

 

ANYWAY! I really like Days Gone, surprisingly so. It's much better than it sounds on paper. I've been having a lot of fun with it and I like the atmosphere of the setting a lot. Only thing that kind of made me give up for the day yesterday was that sometimes the missions can get real buggy, at least for me. Like picking up that girl and bringing her back to the work camp. It totally bugged out for me the first time where she wouldn't get off the bike, then some of the enemies in the tunnel didn't spawn and it failed me for leaving the mission area bla bla. This has happened with a few big missions now and it's obnoxious. 

 

 

[SaysWho?]

17 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

I actually really don't mind audio logs and stuff like that if it's done within reason. Control right now is quite literally every other room. I think I just need to get off that OCD horse and stop reading every damn thing I pick up RIGHT then and instead just play until I feel like now would be cool to sit down and read some of the back story documents. 

 

ANYWAY! I really like Days Gone, surprisingly so. It's much better than it sounds on paper. I've been having a lot of fun with it and I like the atmosphere of the setting a lot. Only thing that kind of made me give up for the day yesterday was that sometimes the missions can get real buggy, at least for me. Like picking up that girl and bringing her back to the work camp. It totally bugged out for me the first time where she wouldn't get off the bike, then some of the enemies in the tunnel didn't spawn and it failed me for leaving the mission area bla bla. This has happened with a few big missions now and it's obnoxious. 

 

 

 

It's a hugely enjoyable game, but definitely buggy. I had defeated a horde earlier in the game that the game didn't declare I defeated. I thought, "Huh, weird." Apparently it was part of a story mission LATE in the game, so once I got to that mission, I was required to ride past there to get to another area. Usually, you'd just fight the horde at that point and clear them out. But since I killed them already, the mission was basically me riding west for a while, and then Deacan shouts exasperated, "OKAY! PHEW! That's... that's all of them," and I'm thinking with more polish, they would have written that into the story quest, something like Deacon going, "I actually already defeated the horde so let's GO!"

 

I'm really glad you're enjoying it because despite its glitchiness, there's so much good in the game. I was bummed that I couldn't find more people to talk about this game with pre-release because a lot of hardcore gamers were calling it a B-Game, or said "Of all the IPs you could tackle it's just another zombie game," and I always thought there was so much going for the game if people gave it a chance. Before the game released, they talked about no place feeling safe on the map, and between the hounds that run as quickly as your bike, the hordes and their migration patterns, the ambushes that trip you off your bike, that's what happened and it makes you vigilant. They talked about every freaker in the horde doing its own thing and not just being one big mass coming your way, and that's how it happened. They talked about every side mission feeling as if it had something to do with the main story, and I think the infestation zones, ripper camps, NERO checkpoints, camp jobs and trust, and hordes all tie into the overarching story in their own way (they're not, "Hey, this woman can't find her fryng pan," which I honestly don't mind as a side mission lol). They talked about the number of objects that you could use to craft items, and into late game, you're continuing to accumulate crafting recipes, whether you're using car alarms, airbags, or bottles. 

 

The hordes are obviously the showpiece, but they really deliver. I love that they have migration patterns because they may be in a different spot one night to the next, and they may be traveling up a dirt road that you're using, and you'll run into them and then, especially early game, haul ass out of there. And there are some especially big hordes that they put in well-designed locations that allow you to slip through cracks in doors so you can whittle down their numbers -- until they break down the door, and they'll be explosives littered around and environmental objects that you can use to slow down their progress. 

 

So yeah, buggy, but there's so much it does very well so I hope they really nail down the polish on the sequel. And I can't wait to see why a PS5 horde is like.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

The sites saying '7' are saying something is good, which means the average game is good. Which I don't feel is a controversial opinion considering how games have improved upon what they were like at the start of the 3D transition (similar to how SNES/Genesis is much more refined than Atari). A good example is a licensed game: licensed games used to be like Blues Brothers and The Matrix and Superman 64, and now they're like Shadow of War and Batman Arkham and Miles Morales. It used to be that all the money on the licensing meant no money was put into making a good game. Nowadays if you have a game based on a movie or TV show, that doesn't spell doom for the game as it used to because a good licensed game used to be a surprise. People used to wish for high-quality Batman games. Batman Arkham Asylum's quality was surprising at the time for plenty of people, including me.

You can think the average game is good, sure.  I probably wouldn't disagree with that.  But making 7 an average isn't using the whole scale, really.

 

Game reviews nowadays skew similar to school grades in their weighting, IMO.  Anything below a 70 doesn't pass the class.  Below 60 means an utter failure.

 

And I don't think the licensed game comparison holds water at all.  Licensed games occupy a completely different space today than in the past.  We almost never see overt movie tie ins, kart racers, rushed releases capitalizing on a trending IP, etc.  Both Arkham and mobile gaming changed the business model.  On consoles today, it's a drip feed.

[Bloodporne]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

It's a hugely enjoyable game, but definitely buggy. I had defeated a horde earlier in the game that the game didn't declare I defeated. I thought, "Huh, weird." Apparently it was part of a story mission LATE in the game, so once I got to that mission, I was required to ride past there to get to another area. Usually, you'd just fight the horde at that point and clear them out. But since I killed them already, the mission was basically me riding west for a while, and then Deacan shouts exasperated, "OKAY! PHEW! That's... that's all of them," and I'm thinking with more polish, they would have written that into the story quest, something like Deacon going, "I actually already defeated the horde so let's GO!"

 

I'm really glad you're enjoying it because despite its glitchiness, there's so much good in the game. I was bummed that I couldn't find more people to talk about this game with pre-release because a lot of hardcore gamers were calling it a B-Game, or said "Of all the IPs you could tackle it's just another zombie game," and I always thought there was so much going for the game if people gave it a chance. Before the game released, they talked about no place feeling safe on the map, and between the hounds that run as quickly as your bike, the hordes and their migration patterns, the ambushes that trip you off your bike, that's what happened and it makes you vigilant. They talked about every freaker in the horde doing its own thing and not just being one big mass coming your way, and that's how it happened. They talked about every side mission feeling as if it had something to do with the main story, and I think the infestation zones, ripper camps, NERO checkpoints, camp jobs and trust, and hordes all tie into the overarching story in their own way (they're not, "Hey, this woman can't find her fryng pan," which I honestly don't mind as a side mission lol). They talked about the number of objects that you could use to craft items, and into late game, you're continuing to accumulate crafting recipes, whether you're using car alarms, airbags, or bottles. 

 

The hordes are obviously the showpiece, but they really deliver. I love that they have migration patterns because they may be in a different spot one night to the next, and they may be traveling up a dirt road that you're using, and you'll run into them and then, especially early game, haul ass out of there. And there are some especially big hordes that they put in well-designed locations that allow you to slip through cracks in doors so you can whittle down their numbers -- until they break down the door, and they'll be explosives littered around and environmental objects that you can use to slow down their progress. 

 

So yeah, buggy, but there's so much it does very well so I hope they really nail down the polish on the sequel. And I can't wait to see why a PS5 horde is like.

I pretty much agree with all that and I said in another thread that the game is kind of my favorite parts of TLoU minus the restrictive format. I know most people love the story in TLoU and I thought it was cool too but I really disliked the structure of 'cutscene, arena, cutscene, arena'. This game kind of very competently manages to take that gameplay but take the chain off and let you loose in its own world with some of its own cool ideas.

 

Also, the encounter design of the various towns and encampments is much better than any other open world game I've played. There are always pretty natural funnels due to specific landscape design etc. that kind of set up a cool encounter that doesn't just boil down to Witcher 3 design where shit just kind of stands around in aimless groups. They're more like mini-levels sometimes the way I see it. 

 

There's also a tone thing I enjoy about this game. It's a serious story but it doesn't take itself too seriously and isn't up its own ass pretending it's more than it is, I give it quite a bit of credit for that. The design seems to always be in favor of fun gameplay over 'but this doesn't make sense'. It's in small details but I've noticed that. There's also always a ton of fun shit around to play with like the explosive barrels, those big gas tanks with the red cap and so on. 

 

And I definitely thought it looked fucking lame for the reasons you already said when I saw it pre-release. On paper, it sounds insanely played out but actually playing it randomly, quite frankly out of boredom, it's much more fun than it sounds and I think there's a ton of great stuff in here.

 

The way the game pulls you abruptly into missions if you accidentally walk into an adjacent area, glitches in silly ways like you said or just bugs out though is definitely a legitimate strike against it but it's not HUGE for me or anything. You can be doing something totally different on foot and if you walk into a mission area accidentally a cutscene will trigger with you riding down the road on your bike...that's pretty bad but I mean I just laugh at shit like that. Interestingly enough, the game has a lot in common with The Evil Within 2 in my opinion and I enjoy this way more.

[SaysWho?]

30 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

You can think the average game is good, sure.  I probably wouldn't disagree with that.  But making 7 an average isn't using the whole scale, really.

 

Game reviews nowadays skew similar to school grades in their weighting, IMO.  Anything below a 70 doesn't pass the class.  Below 60 means an utter failure.

 

And I don't think the licensed game comparison holds water at all.  Licensed games occupy a completely different space today than in the past.  We almost never see overt movie tie ins, kart racers, rushed releases capitalizing on a trending IP, etc.  Both Arkham and mobile gaming changed the business model.  On consoles today, it's a drip feed.

 

It's not that they're making 7 an average; it's that 7 is good and the average game is at least decent and hovers around there. There are very few offensively bad games I play that I can't think of a single thing it does correctly. 

 

Second sentence I already showed isn't really true. Another example: Marvel's Avengers received a 6 on IGN. "Marvel's Avengers' campaign is fun and endearing, but the loot-based post-game meant to be the meat of this meal is unrewarding and overly repetitive." And it says OKAY.

 

Dualshockers gave Werewolf: The Apocalypse - Earthblood a 5. "In Werewolf The Apocalypse Earthblood, every advantage is neutralized by a disadvantage, leading to a totally mediocre experience." Not an utter failure of a game. Just mediocre.

 

Habroxia 2 got a 5 on this site. "It feels like someone put a lot of heart into Habroxia 2, but heart only goes so far. It’s a decent enough attempt at a side-scrolling shooter, but lacks the polish I’d expect from a game these days."

 

Twin Mirror from Dontnod got a 4/10 from The Digital Fix. "Whilst it has a lot of interesting ideas and some nice mechanics, none of them feel fully realised. Twin Mirror is bursting with potential, which is why it feels so disappointing."

 

Godfall received a 5/10 on Gamespot, which is 'Mediocre' using their scale. "This is a shallow game bolstered by decent combat that struggles to bear the weight of an entire game. Uninteresting loot mixed with a monotonous and grindy structure is not a good combination, and for as satisfying and fun as it can often be to hack your way through one battle after another, there's not enough here to sustain that enjoyment for more than a few hours."

 

I'm sure some sites rate using the meme pic I showed, but 5/6 clearly aren't failures/teetering on failures for most review sites. And if that's someone's scale, then they should likely alter it to make the score match the content of the review. That's what I'm saying: 6 was and is "Okay."

 

 

I don't really catch your logic on the licensed game. We're not getting rushed releases on capitalizing on a trending IP.... yes, a trend that leads to better games, among other factors. What am I missing?  

[Keyser_Soze]

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

It's not that they're making 7 an average; it's that 7 is good and the average game is at least decent and hovers around there. There are very few offensively bad games I play that I can't think of a single thing it does correctly. 

 

 

You listed a bunch of bad games that got bad game scores.

[crispy4000]

13 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

It's not that they're making 7 an average; it's that 7 is good and the average game is at least decent and hovers around there. There are very few offensively bad games I play that I can't think of a single thing it does correctly.

 

If they used the entire scale in earnest, 5 would be average for games released in any given year.

I've got no problem with how it works now, mind you.  I just think of 70 as a C- in terms of aggregate critical opinion.  Games that score that low typically have some fairly significant flaw that you have to routinely look past to actually enjoy it.  Or at the least, most the critics think so.

 

I'm not speaking about individual reviews here, like you've posted.  But OpenCritic averages.

  

13 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I don't really catch your logic on the licensed game. We're not getting rushed releases on capitalizing on a trending IP.... yes, a trend that leads to better games, among other factors. What am I missing?  

That there's significantly less licensed games these days on consoles.  Yes, they're generally better.  But that's because publishers now view them as a riskier endeavor, and spend 3+ years making them.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

 

You listed a bunch of bad games that got bad game scores.

 

Some found them bad and gave them lower scores than a 5, which is why the average score they received is on the lower end. The 5s and 6s weren't from people who thought they were bad and thus gave them a score that wasn't bad.

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

If they used the entire scale in earnest, 5 would be average for games released in any given year.

I've got no problem with how it works now, mind you.  I just think of 70 as a C- in terms of aggregate critical opinion.  Games that score that low typically have some fairly significant flaw that you have to routinely look past to actually enjoy it.  Or at the least, most the critics think so.

 

I'm not speaking about individual reviews here, like you've posted.  But OpenCritic averages.

 

 

 

 The average would be 5 if most reviewers considered most games mediocre, which they don't as I've pointed out.

 

You have to look at individual reviews because the actual review tells you if they consider a 5 "utter failure" or mediocre, and we've seen that it does not mean it was a failure, as you thought. All the average shows me is that there are many good games out there, but maybe not games I'm rushing to play. And 7 seems pretty much in line with that.

 

  

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

That there's significantly less licensed games these days on consoles.  Yes, they're generally better.  But that's because publishers now view them as a riskier endeavor, and spend 3+ years making them.

 

Why they're better doesn't really change that they're better.

 

Which is my point lol. 

[Keyser_Soze]

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Some found them bad and gave them lower scores than a 5, which is why the average score they received is on the lower end. The 5s and 6s weren't from people who thought they were bad and thus gave them a score that wasn't bad.

 

Well my own personal scale is something more like @crispy4000 mentioned earlier

 

10, perfect basically, 9 great, 8 very good, 7 average, 6 below average 5 bad.

Once you get to five it's basically how bad is this bad game. So 5 is bad, and 4 is even worse of a bad, and so on.

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Well my own personal scale is something more like @crispy4000 mentioned earlier

 

10, perfect basically, 9 great, 8 very good, 7 average, 6 below average 5 bad.

Once you get to five it's basically how bad is this bad game. So 5 is bad, and 4 is even worse of a bad, and so on.

 

3 is MEGA bad, 2 is ULTRA bad, 1 is SUPER BAD

 

 

But that's not really using the whole scale.  You and I aren't one of the reviewers, and we're talking about what Allstars averaged based on reviews. I said the reviews were OK, around a 6, and that's what the consensus was. That also means some found it much better and some found it bad, and it averaged around 6.

[crispy4000]

22 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

 The average would be 5 if most reviewers considered most games mediocre, which they don't as I've pointed out.

 

The average would be 5 if most reviewers considered 5 average.  Generally speaking, they don't.  Most review outlets stopped trying to save face on that years ago.

 

22 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

You have to look at individual reviews because the actual review tells you if they consider a 5 "utter failure" or mediocre, and we've seen that it does not mean it was a failure, as you thought. All the average shows me is that there are many good games out there, but maybe not games I'm rushing to play. And 7 seems pretty much in line with that.

 

Individual reviews don't reflect the aggregate, which is what I've talked about here.  A reviewer who treats 5 as average is well outside of the norm.  They're counterbalanced by the reviewers who are scoring average games high 7's and 8's.  Because like you, they (subconsciously) believe the quality of games has improved and that numbers should be higher to reflect that.

 

I personally don't think the weighted grading scale has changed much over the past 20 years or so.  In terms of aggregates, a 7 is still very much still a C- judged by the standards of the time.  Critics still generally don't recommend games they score low 7's.

[SaysWho?]

13 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

The average would be 5 if most reviewers considered 5 average. 

 

The average would be 5 if most reviewers thought most games were mediocre and gave them a 5. 

 

  

13 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

A reviewer who treats 5 as average is well outside of the norm. 

 

You're more than welcome to actually show that.

[Keyser_Soze]

Also, look at a site like Rottentomatoes. To be considered fresh it needs to be at least 60% though even those scores are somewhat polarizing.

[SaysWho?]

6 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Also, look at a site like Rottentomatoes. To be considered fresh it needs to be at least 60% though even those scores are somewhat polarizing.

It should say a lot that 60% is still considered to be recommended. Because that meter is strictly based on whether the movie is recommended or not. It’s almost like 60% means it’s OK.  

[crispy4000]

26 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

No, the average would be 5 if most reviewers thought most games were mediocre and gave them a 5. 

 

That doesn't actually negate what you quoted.

 

Most reviewers don't see 5's as mediocre these days anyways.  It's below a failing grade by the way the scores are weighted today.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Also, look at a site like Rottentomatoes. To be considered fresh it needs to be at least 60% though even those scores are somewhat polarizing.

 

The closest equivalent to that in the gaming space is the Critics Recommend meter at OpenCritic.

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

That doesn't actually negate what you quoted.

 

Most reviewers don't see 5's as mediocre these days anyways.  It's below a failing grade by the way the scores are weighted today.

 

Except they do as has been demonstrated.

[crispy4000]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Except they do as has been demonstrated.

 

Your demonstration was cherry picked.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Your demonstration was cherry picked.

Then it should be easy for you to actually show how most reviewers think below six is utter failure. Because honestly I could’ve gone on but it’s responses like yours that lead me to believe going on will just fall on deaf ears.

[crispy4000]

21 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Then it should be easy for you to actually show how most reviewers think below six is utter failure. Because honestly I could’ve gone on but it’s responses like yours that lead me to believe going on will just fall on deaf ears.

 

OpenCritic's Critic Recommend averages.  It's imperfect, but the best we have.

 

The vast majority of games averaging below 7's are not recommended by a majority of critics.  Twin Mirror, Destruction Allstars, Avengers, etc.  Games averaging under 6 tend to do even worse.

 

There can be some softening up in some reviews under 6's. (ie: 'so bad it's good,' 'maybe a sequel gets it right')  And of course, those rare exceptions that treat a 5 as average.  But by and large, the implication is that it was a botched attempt.

[SaysWho?]

13 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

OpenCritic's Critic Recommend averages.  It's imperfect, but the best we have.

 

The vast majority of games averaging below 7's are not recommended by a majority of critics.  Twin Mirror, Destruction Allstars, Avengers, etc.  Games averaging under 6 tend to do even worse.

 

There can be some softening up in some reviews under 6's. (ie: 'so bad it's good,' 'maybe a sequel gets it right')  And of course, those exceptions that treat a 5 as average.  But by and large, the implication is that it was a failed attempt.

 

OpenCritic also says the 6ish average is "fair." That's clear cut, again, that 5/6 are mediocre/OK.

 

Recommended tells me nothing. Take this 6.5 review of Destruction Allstars.

 

Quote

Destruction AllStars certainly has its charm. It exudes personality, thanks to a varied cast of characters that - despite having zero story - seem to have something about them that makes you want to learn more about them, such as their name. You're here for the cars, and they are fun. The smashing, or destruction, of other cars, is a genuinely fun experience that's made all the better by each character having their own ability to mix things up. The game modes do keep things ticking over, though It needs to be said that the game needs to add more in the future to keep things fresh. This isn't a bad start for Destruction AllStars, but it's also one that needs to focus on the strengths and drop the weaknesses - particularly the abysmal on-foot gameplay - to make this game the online draw it could be.

But whether or not that's considered recommended to OpenCritic is irrelevant. The closest thing we have is the review itself. And the 6 reviews on your own link, top to bottom, are not teetering on failure.

[crispy4000]

31 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

OpenCritic also says the 6ish average is "fair." That's clear cut, again, that 5/6 are mediocre/OK.

 

Actually, 6.5 or below is "Weak" as they categorize it.  As in, worse than "Fair."  I'd say that's pretty accurate by how reviews go today.  "Weak" is also their lowest category.

 

 

31 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Recommended tells me nothing. Take this 6.5 review of Destruction Allstars.

But whether or not that's considered recommended to OpenCritic is irrelevant. The closest thing we have is the review itself.

Recommended tells you the % of critics recommending it.  That's not nothing.  It's the closest thing to Rotten Tomatoes' scoring model for movies and TV.

A review is the most direct opinion of one reviewer.  But a singular quote hardly speaks to the criticism of the game across outlets. 
Hence, cherry picking.

 

 

31 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

And the 6 reviews on your own link, top to bottom, are not teetering on failure.

 

I provided 3 links.  Can you specify?

[SaysWho?]

22 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Actually, 6.5 or below is "Weak" as they categorize it.  As in, worse than "Fair."  I'd say that's pretty accurate by how reviews go today.  "Weak" is also their lowest category.

 

 

Recommended tells you the % of critics recommending it.  That's not nothing.  It's the closest thing to Rotten Tomatoes' scoring model for movies and TV.

A review is the most direct opinion of one reviewer.  But a singular quote hardly speaks to the criticism of the game across outlets. 
Hence, cherry picking.

 

 

 

I provided 3 links.  Can you specify?

 

It is nothing in this conversation. Would you recommend a game that's "OKAY?" You might, you might not, but many won't. RT is all about recommendation. Its average rating, and Metacritic's average, are all about the degree of praise/criticism.

 

An actual review and the words the person use are the only way you can actually ascertain what said person thought about a game. The idea that you need an aggregate to determine what the numbers mean instead of the person who wrote the review and gave it a number is quite a weird leap of logic. 

 

So you have to actually read the reviews and take in the words. Take AllStars:

 

IGN: "Destruction AllStars can provide fun bursts of frantic car combat action, but never adds up to much more than that." That's a 6. Clearly not teetering on "utter failure," as you're saying.

 

Metro: "A fun, uncomplicated romp that's a great way to relax for 20 minutes or so. Beyond that though it struggles to entertain, especially given the grubby approach to microtransactions." That's a 5. Does utter failure mean it's at least a fun romp and a great way to relax for brief periods? No, but it clearly does mean it has its charms but has a lot working against it.

 

Wcctech: "Destruction AllStars certainly has its charm. It exudes personality, thanks to a varied cast of characters that - despite having zero story - seem to have something about them that makes you want to learn more about them, such as their name. You're here for the cars, and they are fun. The smashing, or destruction, of other cars, is a genuinely fun experience that's made all the better by each character having their own ability to mix things up. The game modes do keep things ticking over, though It needs to be said that the game needs to add more in the future to keep things fresh. This isn't a bad start for Destruction AllStars, but it's also one that needs to focus on the strengths and drop the weaknesses - particularly the abysmal on-foot gameplay - to make this game the online draw it could be." This is a 6.5. Does it sound like it's reaaalllly close to utter failure? It sounds more like the reviewer is using the entire scale, sees a fun gameplay loop in the game in vehicles, but also sees drawbacks in on-foot and the amount of content.

 

Lords of Gaming: "So while Destruction AllStars has the potential to be greater in its post-launch life, it is going to be a steep hill drive up. The game looks and runs fantastic on Sony’s newest console, but that does not detract from the obvious shortcomings. A poor progression system and microtransactions are just surface-level problems." This is a 6. The review talks about the game's potential and positives but thinks its microtransactions are holding it back heavily. 

 

Shacknews: "As far as gameshow/sporting event-style games go, Destruction AllStars is maybe some of the most fun I’ve had in a while. I love the pageantry when a match starts and my character does their intro before kicking things off. The visuals are smooth and pristine throughout the fast-paced action and the gameplay in different modes is absolutely delightful. I would like the foot game to be boosted a bit, and it desperately needs some better cosmetics and an easy-access Mute All function, but there’s an absolutely enthralling foundation here in Destruction AllStars. I want to see more characters, more arenas, events… I want to see where Destruction AllStars goes in the long run and I’ll be happy to keep playing as we work our way there." This is an 8. This isn't just a game that's OK or kinda good. This person is having a ball and sees a lot of potential. And it's possible the potential isn't met, but follow his review, and this isn't just one point above a C- for the dude.

 

 

Just about every review follows this. 5 is mediocre. 6 is OK. These conversations would be much easier if people just read reviews instead of jerking off to numbers.