squid5580 said:
Really? So trying to do something new is better than making a quick craptastic cash in game? Jesus with that kind of mentality it is no wonder the industry is in the shitter and the only innovation comes from indie devs.
There's innovation. And then there's innovating
well. You could make a brand new genre, it's incredibly innovative and nobody has even thought of it before - but if it doesn't work, isn't fun to play, is full of bugs and has previous gen graphics - it's going to get a low score.
Damnation wasn't even very innovative, mixing platforming and shooting has been done before, and better, in fact Damnation was, for all intents and purposes, a Gears of War clone with awful platforming.
Giving Terminator an above average score is just utter crap.
Another day, another person that doesn't understand 5 is not the average score in the games industry. However sad that statement is, it's true.
It was mediocrity at its finest. it should have gotten a 2.5 just like Damnation.
It had decent, if bland graphics. Unlike Damnation.
It was playable, and had few bugs. Unlike Damnation.
I can't really say much more because the game was nothing special - but at least it wasn't fundamentally broken.
Or a 2 because at least Damnation tried to do something new (regardless if it failed)
That's a stupid attitude to take, innovation should be rewarded if it works; if not then there's little point in adding that to your game.
at least they tried to push the envelope. Not just get a game on the shelves to get as much green as possible with no regard for quality. Knowing it would sell based soley on the title.
That was the case, but again scores should be based on the quality of the game, not the fact it includes poorly done innovation.