im one mission into this game and already i want to make the developers go away permanently its a really mediocre game
THQ Hammered by Sub-Par Homefront Scores
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
People expect new games to be better than previos ones in one way or another. either better graphics, better story, better or innovative gameplay.
some feel it would be worth it just for great graphics.
some would exuse a lot of faults if the story is good, however weither a story is good is subjective.
Lacking good story, a game can do well with interesting gameplay mechanics, like bulletstorm.
some feel it would be worth it just for great graphics.
some would exuse a lot of faults if the story is good, however weither a story is good is subjective.
Lacking good story, a game can do well with interesting gameplay mechanics, like bulletstorm.
We are truly doomed when a score of 3 out of 5 and 73 out of 100 are considered "Failures" by any stretch of the definition.
If anything the game might be AVERAGE, but that just tells me that maybe the people who really liked it might be too busy still PLAYING IT to bother typing up a review.
I wish people would give stuff like this a chance. Call of Duty World at War was a boner in my book, but apparently nobody cried about it. They just waited til Modern Warfare 2.
Well THQ, I like the game. I hope this doesn't automatically cancel out a sequel... I mean, Prey is getting a freaking sequel and I don't know ANYBODY who played that absolutely average game.
If anything the game might be AVERAGE, but that just tells me that maybe the people who really liked it might be too busy still PLAYING IT to bother typing up a review.
I wish people would give stuff like this a chance. Call of Duty World at War was a boner in my book, but apparently nobody cried about it. They just waited til Modern Warfare 2.
Well THQ, I like the game. I hope this doesn't automatically cancel out a sequel... I mean, Prey is getting a freaking sequel and I don't know ANYBODY who played that absolutely average game.
How is 73 a critical failure? 73 says to me generally good quality with some flaws, non essential purchase, but definitely on the "to play" list.
This, exactly this.Murmillos said:
Everyone's having a go at CoD, but it's all pretty misguided. In nearly every review I've read of the past four games, they have all been criticized for short campaigns.
The fact is, the campaign is never the focus of CoD.
You get previews of it, sure, but Treyarch and Infinity Ward never boasted about it's emtionally-gripping campaign.
As a side note, I've loved all the 4 recent CoD campaigns, fuck how short they are. I just retry them on Veteran for replay value, and I often replay missions just because they were enjoyable.
Anyway, the point is THQ are failing for the exact reason Murmillos has said: They over-sold themselves. Bigged up the campaign too much. And, when it was only a 75-80% game rather than a 85-90% game, that counts as a failiure because it wasn't as good as CoD.
I guess they've learned their lesson that they can't beat the CoD Juggernaut now.
I'm not saying that as a CoD-fanboy statement, just as (well, what I think is) the truth.
However, Portal was not sold as a full-price title. Aside from the Orange Box release, I believe the solo-release was sold for about £15 in stores (About $20 in funny money).Kontar said:
I think every gamer who has paid some attention to the scoring of games in recent years should have been able to realize that review scores of games are generally high. How often do you encounter a game that gets a 5/10?Void(null) said:
That is mainly because there are very few games made by big studios which are really terrible. Some might say they are horrible, have a number of bugs and whatever else. But you can't really defend giving it a very low grade while many aspects are probably quite good.
But game reviewing in general is fucked up and that is why I never rely on just a single review. I also try to find reviews where they score different aspects seperately and don't just slap on a score from 50-100.
The fact they where selling this on it's single player, is the first problem, we live in a age where a good single player doesn't matter. Also having the writer of Red Dawn doesn't instantly make it good, they two different mediums that handle story differently.
I hope the Devs are able to get back on there feet.
I hope the Devs are able to get back on there feet.
The problem I see with the current gen of "modern combat shooters" is there all the same, genetic characters, genetic bad guys, no storyline and a reliance on multi-play. I don't multi-play so have no interest, I need a good story line to grab me or I'm not going to buy!
I'm sorry but this doesn't seem like a bad score, certainly not disastrous at all. When the hell did games getting less than 9/10 from everybody equate to a bad game? Try out the game you think is interesting, if you like the sounds of it then buy it or wait for it to come down in price, this is extremely simple and the solution I've always used.
Was anybody really expecting this to get perfect 10's or be some sort of revolution any way? I think it looks interesting and will try it out when I get the chance.
Was anybody really expecting this to get perfect 10's or be some sort of revolution any way? I think it looks interesting and will try it out when I get the chance.