Zeh Don said:
Treblaine said:
Ocarina of Time on 3DS didn't score a perfect 10/10, the aggregate was 96%
I didn't say aggregate, so we'll ignore the rest of your straw man argument on that topic, and I didn't say Human Revolution - I said Deus Ex. As in, the original. As in, the often-cited Best Game of All Time.
Reviewer A gives Ocarina of Time a 10/10. And, really, why not; it's a masterpiece. But, then Deus Ex comes along and redefines what a game can be. As a result, they like Deus Ex more than Ocarina of Time. What do they do?
Now, you went on to talk about "comparing". How can we compare Ocarina of Time to Deus Ex? Answer: we can't, which is why the 10 Point Score system
doesn't fucking work. A 10 Point system is a ranking. To prove why it's worthless let's try this: rank the following games:
Baldur's Gate II
Deus Ex
Homeworld
Half-life 2
Braid
Mass Effect 2
Give it to different people, you'll get a different ranking. However, the 5 Start Tier system is a better indication of a game's overall quality. We can, probably, all agree those games are 5 Star games. Which ones you prefer is up to you.
Treblaine said:
It is EXACTLY what the fans have been asking for in terms of balance and pacing. So much has been done to get rid of camping and overpowered perks like Commando-lunge. The Multiplayer is REALLY GOOD, it is like COD4 but without the bullshit of 3x-frag spam, everyone packing juggernaut, the air-power killstreaks have been nerfed including danger-close. The game is so well balanced for close range toe-to-toe combat.
Sweet. Who gives a fuck? Minor tweaks that could have been made with a fucking a patch doesn't justify the AU$110.00 price tag, nor the 5 hour campaign that is - by all accounts - borderline insulting in it's handholding. Modern Warfare was about as dumb as a shooter can get before it starts to work against itself. Modern Warfare was a well paced and executed game, and it earnt it's review scores. It's one of my personal favourite games of all time. And, Modern Warfare stands at about a 9/10 overall. Modern Warfare 2 is worse in every conceivable way, and it pulled the same scores because "HAHA FUCK MAN, I LOVE SHOOTING N00BS IN THE FUCKING FACE!!". The fact that you believe a retread with altered variables is worth a full retail release every year is why review scores are as worthless as they are.
Don't bullshit me. I TOLD YOU that even the original Deus Ex got 90% back in the year 2000, while 3 years earlier Ocarina of Time got 99% aggregate average. And they are on completely different platforms! Who "declared" for the good of all people everywhere that Deus Ex was the best game of all time? Because it's not that simple.
For Nintendo gamers, Ocarina of Time really was a 99%. For PC gamers, Deus Ex really is a 90% game.
Just because the scale doesn't work ENTIRELY on its own that does not make it completely worthless. You can tell that a 95% aggregate game you are very likely to enjoy but not if it is your genre. I don't give a crap about racing games no matter what the metascore. Nor do I give a crap about MMORPGs.
But I can tell a 70% FPS game I am unlikely to enjoy. I might, but my tastes would have to diverge greatly with the industry consensus.
"Minor tweaks that could have been made with a fucking a patch"
Have you even SEEN Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer? No way that ON CONSOLE you could have made all those changes with a patch. Left 4 Dead 2 didn't. I've done enough coding in my time to know that trying to patch Modern Warfare 2 into Modern Warfare 3 would be a nightmare, it would be hugely expensive and it MOST DEFINITELY DOES COMPLETELY CHANGE THE GAME yet how can you sell this? TF2 paid for it with the Mannconomy. That it a model that isn't possible on consoles.
Who cares if the single player is crap. Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike and Unreal Tournament don't have any single-player AT ALL!
Look, YOU PERSONALLY may value COD4 for its single player, and when the review-scores lined up with your opinion back in 2007 you seemed to assume they were in line with you. Nope. COD4 was loved by the critics back in 2007 for its multiplayer, and it has improved and expanded on it greatly with each game. Stop arbitrarily clinging to the single-player as the only part that matters, everyone knows that the multiplayer is the main selling point for the COD series and has been since COD4. Example: World at War had a good single player but crap multi, and sales and review were lower than either.
And Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer really is the best in the series: most balanced, most fun, most fast paced. Air support is hugely toned down, everything has been rebalanced to favour run-n-gun gameplay, discourage campers and eliminate explosive spamming. It really is COD perfection.
Just bloody CONSIDER MW3! Yes, it is quite a retread but it's not like this is the first time this has ever happened
Doom -> Doom 2
Half Life 2 -> Episodes 1 & 2
Portal -> Portal 2
Bioshock -> Bioshock 2
Tomb Raider Legend -> anniversary
Arkham Asylum -> Arkham City
You are acting like re-using assets makes the game fucking unplayable, un-enjoyable, without any redeeming worth when so many other games do it and if they are good they get praised for it. I have played so much of Left 4 Dead 2 - hundreds of hours - and still enjoy it. Doom 2, the absolute prototype FPS game reused so many assets from Doom 1, does that make it a shit game that should have 30% of the score deducted?
Do NOT say "it's different now" it is the same.
And again, Modern Warfare 3 is getting an 88% aggregate. That's 6% lower than COD4! Fair considering it is a GOOD GAME! But not exactly fresh. But Novelty should not be overvalued, as when it is you can end up with gimmicks like Blood 2 going 3D but the gameplay stagnating. Surely as a gamer you must appreciate how completely changing the gameplay is better than a reskin, and when time is short and you can only have either the gameplay redesign is preferable to just a reskin.
Gameplay first, graphics second - to complement the gameplay.
And remember, the review aggregates is nothing but the INDUSTRY CONSENSUS! When it comes to tastes in entertainment there is no such thing as "wrong" but you may call it "wrong" when your tastes don't conform. Nothing the matter with non-conforming. That doesn't mean the review system is broken, the problem is with the very people reviewing game. It's not a "mistake" that Modern Warfare 2 got 94% average, because the industry REALLY DID feel that way! You can throw your toys out the pram that console gamers won't try PC games and recognise how poor MW2 is compared to many PC games, but the point is MW3 really is one of the best competitive FPS games on Xbox 360 and PS3 right now.
And if it isn't, then WHAT IS?
To show how well the system works, on PC Modern Warfare 2 and MW3 fared much worse because in that part of the industry there was a lot more competition with COD and higher standards. The critics for console had much lower standard because, hell, it was for console. MW2 lacking dedicated servers was relatively fine on 360 but bullshit on PC. Everything it relative.
The system works. You're just pissy that THE ENTIRE SYSTEM won't conform to your particular tastes!
