A 7/10 is basically a complete failure, so why didn’t reviewers take my feelings into account before publishing their scores?

    • gk99@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      it really was just “another Saints Row game” but with better characters.

      This is sarcasm, right? If it were even close to that we all would’ve loved it. To me, it felt like the worst parts of later SR games mashed up with a desperate attempt to replicate Watch_Dogs 2’s vibe. I don’t play Saints Row to play as a dude trying to pay off their student loans while fighting “gangs” that have access to random bullshit technology like neon batons that spin real fast and deflect bullets. That’s the type of stuff that should’ve stayed in Agents of Mayhem with its far less grounded setting.

  • UKFilmNerd@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Back in the old days of 8bit computing, I remember a few magazines used to explain their scoring system.

    Most magazines reviewed a game out of ten. A score of five would be an average. The game is just ok. Not brilliant but not terrible either.

    A great game would be an eight or nine. Very rarely would a game receive a ten as that indicates perfection.

    In today’s world, the way people talk, it feels like a game needs at least an 8 (or 80%) or it’s not even worth touching.

    • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Duke: Why the hell do you have to be so critical?

      Jay: I’m a critic.

      Duke: No, your job is to rate movies on a scale from good to excellent.

      Jay: What if I don’t like them?

      Duke: That’s what good is for.

    • bermuda@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s similar with movies and TV. I think a lot of people see a 50% rottentomatoes or a 5.0/10 on IMDB and automatically assume it’ll be unenjoyable, but that isn’t always the case in reality.

      • Mothra@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not a fan of RT because I find their critic score absolutely meaningless. IMDB is much better for me, I find the average people score rating usually matches my appreciation of a movie. I am trying hard to remember a single movie with a score of 5/10 that I enjoyed though.

        • Erk@cdda.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Rt critic scores are, imo, one of the best rating scales. Think of it as a percentage chance a fairly average movie watcher is going to like this movie. It’s not saying “this movie is 75% good”. It’s 3/4 reviewers felt it was worth watching, and does not comment on if they thought it was amazing or just okay. Marvel stuff tends to score high because mostly, despite not being some peak cinema, it provides an entertaining experience that earns a passing grade from most people. Movies that are more niche tend to get a lower score but that doesn’t mean they’re bad, just more niche.

          I like this because it’s easy to understand what it means with a little research. Most game scores don’t do that and I find it annoying

          • almar_quigley@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The problem is that system lends itself to promoting bland but popular films. Like marvel movies. But gems have a much harder time on RT.