Battenberg said:
Ragsnstitches said:
Battenberg said:
Holy popsicles you mean that game that people bought over 2 months ago is almost to the point where it's in a playable state?! The one that got fairly average reviews on the platforms it actually worked on?!!?!
Ok. I'll just be over here playing any one of the 500 or so PC games I have that were functional from day 1.
Uh huh. What internet are you on? My internet has it at an 8.5 average for XB1 and 8.7 for PS4. Is high 8s average now? Fucking hell.
You're getting a little worked up there. I like how you ignored the user scores of 6.0 and 7.2, hardly glowing stuff. As far as the critics go if you want to trust all the sites/ magazines who gave it a high score you're welcome to. Personally I'm more interested in the opinions of individual reviewers I can trust like Jim Sterling, Angry Joe, and Total Biscuit (all of whom felt the game fell short by a long way).
I'm not getting worked up. In fact I'm actually more bemused.
User Reviews are worth shit. People who hate the games tank the the scores with unfair and throwaway low scores (look me in the eye and say the game is really worth a 4 or a 0). A metric out of 10 only works when people rate it responsibly. Piling 10's and 0's might also work, by effectively making it a like or dislike. But when people are giving a game every number between 0 and 10 something goes wrong.
You don't like the batmobile, think the story is trite, the gameplay is tired and so on... a 5 or 6 would be fair. The game's production qualities should elevate over simple tripe. If it's broken, as it is on the PC, a sub 5 can be understandable, especially when forking over 70+ bucks for the game.
Angry Joe defends the game for x and y reasons, but his final score is skewed to the negative due to the problems on the PC platform as well as a poorly executed Batmobile. Which is completely justified. Jim reviewed the game and gave it a five, primarily concerned with the technical issues marring the PC experience and showing bitterness about WBs DLC policy taking precedence over a functional game. TBs review I didn't look at (did he even do a review, or just report on the state of its release?), but I'm guessing him being a big PC gamer he was particularly harsh on the state of its release as well as the state of the industry that allows for this shit to happen.
All of which, is perfectly justified. I completely agree with all of them (probably even TB, I often do). But that's because WB took a massive shit on PC gaming and gamers with that release.
The Console Version, which you claimed only got average reviews, but I showed otherwise, and then you disputed that point with User Reviews and I was like *LOL*, is actually in pretty good shape. It's not the series best entry, but its not its worst. Some things worked really well, others didn't work well at all.
297 positives vs 70 averages vs 70 negatives on Metacritic for PS4. 58 positives vs 23 average vs 14 negative XB1.
Aggregating user reviews is a broken concept (so is aggregating Professional reviews, but for different reasons), but looking at the numbers there are vastly more satisfied consumers then there are dissatisfied (average reviews can swing either way, depending on the context the reviewer puts the score in).
And do I care? Not really. I might pick the game up when its on a massive sale in a few years with all (or most) DLC attached. WB lost my trust when they released the game on PC in such a state. So don't think I'm defending them or Rocksteady.
Also, don't think I'm trying to change your mind. Your right... there are tons of other functional games out there that are as good as if not better then Arkham Knight. The only thing I'm critical of is people convincing themselves of something that is demonstrably false. It would be nice if WB suffered for their shitty practices, but the reality paints a different story. A decent game getting marred by corporate incompetence and bullshit.
