Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Overwatch is the only game you'll ever need....

1356711

Comments

  • Gobstopper3DGobstopper3D Member RarePosts: 963
    I can see merit to your argument about comparing it to its genre competitors.  However, when compared to other, similar genres, I still see undue bias.

    The Last of Us had an astounding campaign, excellent multiplayer, and was a third-person shooter (so much closer to Overwatch's genre).  Objectively, the overall game had more depth.  It also did everything with much poise and polish.  Yet it, too, wasn't even able to manage so many perfect scores, much less so quickly.
    Didn't the Last of Us release only on the PS?  Had it had a cross platform release it might have done far batter than it did.  Then again the PC port would have to be almost perfect to get those kind of scores and very few are able to pull that off.

    I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.

  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    DMKano said:
    Maybe it got such great scores because I don't know ... its a good game? I know that's impossible, but bear with me. Maybe the reviewers weren't biased at all, if multiple people came to the same conclusion maybe its just a good game.

    There's a difference between a good game (scores in the 70%-80%) and an OUTSTANDING game (scores in the high 90% - and 100%)

    Overwatch is without a doubt a GOOD game.

    But is it an outstanding game worthy of 90%+?

    After several months - the metacritic composite scores will show the answer.
    I know this may be hard for you to understand but because YOU think a game is "good" "70-80%" does NOT mean everyone agrees with you.  

    And no metacritic won't show the answer because you will get all the developer haters just like any game and give the game a zero and drive the score down. 
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Its because Blizzard finally gave their fans something to do other then WOW and a card game.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    Someone disagrees with my opinion, which is fact, so they can only be wrong.
    I see what you did here.

    Or maybe those people really love the game and to them, it's really the best of its genre they have played? Could it be possible?

    EDIT: There are 7 reviews now, with 4x100, 1x90, 1x85 and 1x80. Looks like people generally really like the game, no matter what your fact-opinion is ;)
    Hey didn't you know "the first reviews are from the fanboys or are paid".  Geez get with it people are not allowed to have a different opinion on things these days...it's a 70 because a couple people in here said so. 
  • ElRenmazuoElRenmazuo Member RarePosts: 5,361
    Price of a full game and no story campaign, just the multi-player mode of a full game.
  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    Price of a full game and no story campaign, just the multi-player mode of a full game.
    But if it had a story campaign you probably one wouldn't like it and two would complain it wasn't long enough right? 

    It was never advertised as a single player campaign driven game...
  • heerobyaheerobya Member UncommonPosts: 465
    Price of a full game and no story campaign, just the multi-player mode of a full game.
    That's a pretty common thing these days.
  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    edited May 2016
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    Maybe it got such great scores because I don't know ... its a good game? I know that's impossible, but bear with me. Maybe the reviewers weren't biased at all, if multiple people came to the same conclusion maybe its just a good game.

    There's a difference between a good game (scores in the 70%-80%) and an OUTSTANDING game (scores in the high 90% - and 100%)

    Overwatch is without a doubt a GOOD game.

    But is it an outstanding game worthy of 90%+?

    After several months - the metacritic composite scores will show the answer.
    I know this may be hard for you to understand but because YOU think a game is "good" "70-80%" does NOT mean everyone agrees with you.  

    And no metacritic won't show the answer because you will get all the developer haters just like any game and give the game a zero and drive the score down. 


    Then why do good Blizzard games like Diablo 1, 2 Star craft 1 all have very high user scores on metacritic??

    Why does D3 have a low user score?

    If a Blizzard has so many haters woudn't they drive ALL of Blizzard's games down ?

    The fact is good games have high user scores,  outstanding games have the highest user scores *regardless* of the haters.


    Because the campaign to hate on blizzard and large developers like it had not begun when D1,D2 and SC1 were released.  Jumping on forums and review sites to give games ZEROS or low scores made by these large developers is now the "cool" thing to do for those that need attention in their lives. 
  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    How many games do you see with a thread like this OP?  No wonder it gets criticized so harshly.  You got people running around big smiles saying its the best thing ever happened to gaming.  Anyone with half a brain knows better.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    edited May 2016
    Eadan1 said:
    Because the campaign to hate on blizzard and large developers like it had not begun when D1,D2 and SC1 were released.  Jumping on forums and review sites to give games ZEROS or low scores made by these large developers is now the "cool" thing to do for those that need attention in their lives. 
    Or maybe Blizzard and other large developers didn't sell out at the time, and were producing great games? You think D3 is as good as D2 but people gave it bad scores just because they hate large developers?
    Yep people gave it bad scores because it's Blizzard just like people like you and DM jump on random sites like this to bash a game you don't play just because it Blizzard. 

    BTW I'm not saying all bad or mediocre scores are from haters...but I would say most 0 or 1 or 2s are.
  • AstropuyoAstropuyo Member RarePosts: 2,167
    I dunno while you all argued how good/bad it was. I was mauling people with Tracer.

    Point being all this debate and pissing in the wind isn't going to destroy the fact that even were it the most mediocre game around? It'd still be fun.

    It's a FPS. I rarely play single player anyhow. I buy fps games for multiplayer. Story...eh?  I put like thousands of hours into borderlands and I barely remember it's story..or part 2...or even the pre-... Hell I can't really remember a fps single player campaign made me go OMG. The ones with story and depth I usually get bored of after a few hours... (Dues Ex I'm looking at you).


    I'm the market for this kind of crap. I'm the peasant eating oysters watching theater while you nobles are about doing noble things. Like these debates on the freaking merits of what is good and bad and the depth of a few reviews..holy batshit.
  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    Maybe it got such great scores because I don't know ... its a good game? I know that's impossible, but bear with me. Maybe the reviewers weren't biased at all, if multiple people came to the same conclusion maybe its just a good game.

    There's a difference between a good game (scores in the 70%-80%) and an OUTSTANDING game (scores in the high 90% - and 100%)

    Overwatch is without a doubt a GOOD game.

    But is it an outstanding game worthy of 90%+?

    After several months - the metacritic composite scores will show the answer.
    I know this may be hard for you to understand but because YOU think a game is "good" "70-80%" does NOT mean everyone agrees with you.  

    And no metacritic won't show the answer because you will get all the developer haters just like any game and give the game a zero and drive the score down. 


    Then why do good Blizzard games like Diablo 1, 2 Star craft 1 all have very high user scores on metacritic??

    Why does D3 have a low user score?

    If a Blizzard has so many haters woudn't they drive ALL of Blizzard's games down ?

    The fact is good games have high user scores,  outstanding games have the highest user scores *regardless* of the haters.


    Because the campaign to hate on blizzard and large developers like it had not begun when D1,D2 and SC1 were released.  Jumping on forums and review sites to give games ZEROS or low scores made by these large developers is now the "cool" thing to do for those that need attention in their lives. 

    Nah, the hater theory is BS, it's an excuse.

    What is stopping haters from driving down older games?

    Nothing.

    When you have an axe to grind with some company you don't target just one product

    Also the fans offset the haters, and Blizzard has those in spades


    Occams razor - a much simpler explanation is that when you really have a kick ass innovative game that sets itself apart from the current trends - the user scores will be in the 90% 

    The haters have zero effect on such outstanding games as they are drowned out by the overwhelming mass


    And yet here you are trying to bash the game because you didn't like the early scores...it appears you (a hater) are trying to drown out those who disagree with you by making excuses about the haters giving scores of zeros or coming to sites like this complaining about games they don't play are a myth.  It's not a myth there are a couple on this very thread right now..
  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    Maybe it got such great scores because I don't know ... its a good game? I know that's impossible, but bear with me. Maybe the reviewers weren't biased at all, if multiple people came to the same conclusion maybe its just a good game.

    There's a difference between a good game (scores in the 70%-80%) and an OUTSTANDING game (scores in the high 90% - and 100%)

    Overwatch is without a doubt a GOOD game.

    But is it an outstanding game worthy of 90%+?

    After several months - the metacritic composite scores will show the answer.
    I know this may be hard for you to understand but because YOU think a game is "good" "70-80%" does NOT mean everyone agrees with you.  

    And no metacritic won't show the answer because you will get all the developer haters just like any game and give the game a zero and drive the score down. 


    Then why do good Blizzard games like Diablo 1, 2 Star craft 1 all have very high user scores on metacritic??

    Why does D3 have a low user score?

    If a Blizzard has so many haters woudn't they drive ALL of Blizzard's games down ?

    The fact is good games have high user scores,  outstanding games have the highest user scores *regardless* of the haters.


    Because the campaign to hate on blizzard and large developers like it had not begun when D1,D2 and SC1 were released.  Jumping on forums and review sites to give games ZEROS or low scores made by these large developers is now the "cool" thing to do for those that need attention in their lives. 

    Nah, the hater theory is BS, it's an excuse.

    What is stopping haters from driving down older games?

    Nothing.

    When you have an axe to grind with some company you don't target just one product

    Also the fans offset the haters, and Blizzard has those in spades


    Occams razor - a much simpler explanation is that when you really have a kick ass innovative game that sets itself apart from the current trends - the user scores will be in the 90% 

    The haters have zero effect on such outstanding games as they are drowned out by the overwhelming mass


    And yet here you are trying to bash the game because you didn't like the early scores...it appears you (a hater) are trying to drown out those who disagree with you by making excuses about the haters giving scores of zeros or coming to sites like this complaining about games they don't play are a myth.  It's not a myth there are a couple on this very thread right now..


    I am a hater for saying that Overwatch is a good game?

    Saying something is a good game but not outstanding game is hating?

    Do you even hear yourself?


    No I said it because you got all bent out of shape saying "it's a 70" and those who disagree with you are fanboys and paid reviewers.  You realize coming out and saying how you really feel would blow your blizzard hater cover.   I pointed out just because YOU think it's a "good" game that should be a 70 doesn't mean everyone will.  Then you try to make it sound like its a bad thing they are marketing the game.  Hey you can play the passive aggressive hater all you want it's not fooling anyone.
  • kemono55kemono55 Member UncommonPosts: 124
    I love the game, but I do agree.

    Overwatch is a 70-80%, at where Dirty Bomb, for an example, would be a 50-60%.
    It is extremely polished, but with a relative small content pool.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2016
    DKLond said:

     That said, I seem to remember it getting some of the best scores of all time.
    ....  And yet, Overwatch received a larger pool of the best score of all time for a simply solid product.


    For me, it's on the same level as Destiny- solid, but coming from a gaming juggernaut....  Why would anyone expect less than polish?  It's simple math: large company has bookoos of resources to pour into new title.  Even so, they consistently release titles that have an incredibly narrow scope and can be done with a lot less resources.  EVEN SO, they weren't even able to come up with a title that does anything very memorable.  Roadhog's kit is centered around the same damn mechanic Stitches from HOTS is.  They literally borrowed the mechanic exactly as it is used in HOTS and slapped it onto their new character in this game.

    Hell, D.Va has vast similarities to the Imp from PvZ:GW2.  He's a weak, small character with laser pistols that can call down a badass mech to fight enemies with- and he even has an ability that ejects him out of said mech, leaving it to explode in enemy's faces.  Replace "he" in that sentence with "she" and it would be a completely accurate description of D.Va's kit.

    But that's the thing: I don't see these behemoths being called out for not taking a single risk with any of that big pile o' money they earned by giving us titles completely worthy of the highest praise (Bungie, I'm looking at you, too).

    Instead, we get titles that mimic other developers' successful games, down to even borrowing specific game play mechanics from those games, and we're told they're the bee's knees by early reviewers (in this instance) to rival the shaker and mover releases we've experienced in the past (Baldur's Gate, Halo, Quake/Unreal Tourney, etc.).

    If the game didn't have Activision Blizzard's backing....  Do you truly believe it would have received 4 day one perfect scores?  Do you believe an open beta of any length would have garnered 9 million players?

    If not, then, in reality, we agree.  I just happen to be more vocal about my discontent with the kid gloves they're handling Overwatch with.

    EDIT- Cut the quote down to the sentence I was responding to in order to make my point more clear.

    image
  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    Eadan1 said:
    No I said it because you got all bent out of shape saying "it's a 70" and those who disagree with you are fanboys and paid reviewers.  You realize coming out and saying how you really feel would blow your blizzard hater cover.   I pointed out just because YOU think it's a "good" game that should be a 70 doesn't mean everyone will.  Then you try to make it sound like its a bad thing they are marketing the game.  Hey you can play the passive aggressive hater all you want it's not fooling anyone.
    Even 70 is too high a score for this game and I do hate Blizzard. They ruined d3 with their greed and then apologized, but went on with a f2p model in their next gambling game Hearthstone. With HoTS, they tried to basically copy LoL and simplify it even further to get a share of the moba market, but failed. So now they released a first person moba with no hero customization to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and apperantly spent more money for marketing than game development, and it shows with terrible netcode, lack of content and depth, unsupported resolutions, etc. Why do you even care about "haters" crticizing the game if you are convinced it's a perfect game and totally worth your time?
    Ok first I have never stated what I think about the game.  My arguement here is how sites like metacritic are not accurate today for games created by large companies like Blizzard and EA for example.  The reason is exactly what you just admitted and that's you "hate" blizzard and will give all their games a bad score because you "hate" blizzard.  Thank you for proving my point. 
  • alivenaliven Member UncommonPosts: 346
    DMKano said:
    Eadan1 said:
    No I said it because you got all bent out of shape saying "it's a 70" and those who disagree with you are fanboys and paid reviewers.  You realize coming out and saying how you really feel would blow your blizzard hater cover.   I pointed out just because YOU think it's a "good" game that should be a 70 doesn't mean everyone will.  Then you try to make it sound like its a bad thing they are marketing the game.  Hey you can play the passive aggressive hater all you want it's not fooling anyone.
    Even 70 is too high a score for this game and I do hate Blizzard. They ruined d3 with their greed and then apologized, but went on with a f2p model in their next gambling game Hearthstone. With HoTS, they tried to basically copy LoL and simplify it even further to get a share of the moba market, but failed. So now they released a first person moba with no hero customization to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and apperantly spent more money for marketing than game development, and it shows with terrible netcode, lack of content and depth, unsupported resolutions, etc. Why do you even care about "haters" crticizing the game if you are convinced it's a perfect game and totally worth your time?
    Ok first I have never stated what I think about the game.  My arguement here is how sites like metacritic are not accurate today for games created by large companies like Blizzard and EA for example.  The reason is exactly what you just admitted and that's you "hate" blizzard and will give all their games a bad score because you "hate" blizzard.  Thank you for proving my point. 


    Metacritic is accurate because the majority makes outliers (zero reviews) irrelevant over time with tens of thousands of votes.

    But to an individual who loves the game, it means nothing.

    So there are two different things - personal opinion which is unaffected by what anyone else says or thinks and composite score based on a bunch of personal opinions which is what Metacritic is.

    When you have a truly groundbreaking game Metacritic ALWAYS shows it in both user and critic reviews, despite of the dev (EA, Blizzard ) and despite of the fans/haters. 

    So we are back at square one - Overwatch - is it deserving of greatness on metacritic? 

    Somebody actually give crap about user reviews on metacritic? 
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    DKLond said:

    Oh, and as much as I loved Last of Us - that was almost entirely due to the writing and the acting. The gameplay was "ok" - but nothing special at all. So, I can certainly understand why some people who're not heavily into story found it less than spectacular. That said, I seem to remember it getting some of the best scores of all time.
    ....  And yet, Overwatch received a larger pool of the best score of all time for a simply solid product.


    For me, it's on the same level as Destiny- solid, but coming from a gaming juggernaut....  Why would anyone expect less than polish?  It's simple math: large company has bookoos of resources to pour into new title.  Even so, they consistently release titles that have an incredibly narrow scope and can be done with a lot less resources.  EVEN SO, they weren't even able to come up with a title that does anything very memorable.  Roadhog's kit is centered around the same damn mechanic Stitches from HOTS is.  They literally borrowed the mechanic exactly as it is used in HOTS and slapped it onto their new character in this game.

    Hell, D.Va has vast similarities to the Imp from PvZ:GW2.  He's a weak, small character with laser pistols that can call down a badass mech to fight enemies with- and he even has an ability that ejects him out of said mech, leaving it to explode in enemy's faces.  Replace "he" in that sentence with "she" and it would be a completely accurate description of D.Va's kit.

    But that's the thing: I don't see these behemoths being called out for not taking a single risk with any of that big pile o' money they earned by giving us titles completely worthy of the highest praise (Bungie, I'm looking at you, too).

    Instead, we get titles that mimic other developers' successful games, down to even borrowing specific game play mechanics from those games, and we're told they're the bee's knees by early reviewers (in this instance) to rival the shaker and mover releases we've experienced in the past (Baldur's Gate, Halo, Quake/Unreal Tourney, etc.).

    If the game didn't have Activision Blizzard's backing....  Do you truly believe it would have received 4 day one perfect scores?  Do you believe an open beta of any length would have garnered 9 million players?

    If not, then, in reality, we agree.  I just happen to be more vocal about my discontent with the kid gloves they're handling Overwatch with.
    What do you mean Overwatch received a larger pool? Are you still stuck on early reviews? We have no idea which game will end up being the best received.

    It's still YOUR opinion that it's "simply a solid product". Others think it's a fantastic game worthy of high praise. Is it really so hard to accept that you must insist there's something rotten going on? Have you never met a person who loved something that you hated - and yet he or she had some reasons for it you could understand? What amazing arrogance.

    Yeah, we probably agree about some things.

    But we don't agree that people who like different things are wrong - or that there's necessarily anything to be upset about because of high scores in a bunch of early reviews.

    I recognise poor quality when I see it - but I have no right to tell others not to enjoy something that I consider low quality.

    But in the case of Overwatch, I'm seeing a quality game. But since I'm not a fan of the genre at all - I really have no idea why it's THIS popular, but I'm fully convinced that a LOT of people absolutely love playing it. I can tell from the forums I visit where the game is discussed. Same goes for TF2 - which a ton of people adore. Personally, I honestly can't see the appeal - at least not for an extended period of time - but I've accepted that it's all about what people enjoy and what they don't enjoy.

    Maybe they'll get sick of it soon - or maybe they won't.

    But I have zero evidence to support foul play or anything along those lines. Without something to back it up - it's good old fashioned elitism and arrogance to suggest it.

    Not that such a thing is unusual online, and certainly not here - where everything remotely casual is looked down upon immediately.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2016
    DKLond said:
    What do you mean Overwatch received a larger pool? Are you still stuck on early reviews? We have no idea which game will end up being the best received.

    It's still YOUR opinion that it's "simply a solid product". Others think it's a fantastic game worthy of high praise. Is it really so hard to accept that you must insist there's something rotten going on? Have you never met a person who loved something that you hated - and yet he or she had some reasons for it you could understand? What amazing arrogance.

    Yeah, we probably agree about some things.

    But we don't agree that people who like different things are wrong - or that there's necessarily anything to be upset about because of high scores in a bunch of early reviews.

    I recognise poor quality when I see it - but I have no right to tell others not to enjoy something that I consider low quality.

    But in the case of Overwatch, I'm seeing a quality game. But since I'm not a fan of the genre at all - I really have no idea why it's THIS popular, but I'm fully convinced that a LOT of people absolutely love playing it. I can tell from the forums I visit where the game is discussed. Same goes for TF2 - which a ton of people adore. Personally, I honestly can't see the appeal - at least not for an extended period of time - but I've accepted that it's all about what people enjoy and what they don't enjoy.

    Maybe they'll get sick of it soon - or maybe they won't.

    But I have zero evidence to support foul play or anything along those lines. Without something to back it up - it's good old fashioned elitism and arrogance to suggest it.

    Not that such a thing is unusual online, and certainly not here - where everything remotely casual is looked down upon immediately.
    I mean it received a larger amount of 10s on day one than TLOU ever received.  Same is said for many other games, most of them deserving of even higher praise than TLOU for their contributions to the industry as a whole.

    And I'd like for you to point out where I said Overwatch is an awful game.  To the contrary, I said it deserved a positive score, but that giving it a 10 is inflating it based on a love of a developer.  Take the time to think about and answer the questions I posed in my last post: do you truly believe an indie Overwatch would have received 4 day one perfect scores?  Do you think it would have enjoyed 9 million players in an open beta?  Or do you think that Blizzard's name had a hand in those things?  If so, then we're literally arguing over the color by which we agree with one another.

    Whether the average gamer enjoys it or not wasn't my point, nor is it relevant (because, as I said, I never challenged the assumption the game is good, only that it's undeserving of such high praise given).  Some folks seem to equate that with me saying the game is bad, I guess because it makes it easier to dismiss my points than to give an honest answer to the questions I posed above.

    And you can continue to make attacks on my character all you like- I've posted my opinion here enough for the regulars to know my character, good or bad.  Continuing to make passive aggressive passes at dissing it does nothing for your argument.

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    DMKano said:
    Eadan1 said:
    No I said it because you got all bent out of shape saying "it's a 70" and those who disagree with you are fanboys and paid reviewers.  You realize coming out and saying how you really feel would blow your blizzard hater cover.   I pointed out just because YOU think it's a "good" game that should be a 70 doesn't mean everyone will.  Then you try to make it sound like its a bad thing they are marketing the game.  Hey you can play the passive aggressive hater all you want it's not fooling anyone.
    Even 70 is too high a score for this game and I do hate Blizzard. They ruined d3 with their greed and then apologized, but went on with a f2p model in their next gambling game Hearthstone. With HoTS, they tried to basically copy LoL and simplify it even further to get a share of the moba market, but failed. So now they released a first person moba with no hero customization to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and apperantly spent more money for marketing than game development, and it shows with terrible netcode, lack of content and depth, unsupported resolutions, etc. Why do you even care about "haters" crticizing the game if you are convinced it's a perfect game and totally worth your time?
    Ok first I have never stated what I think about the game.  My arguement here is how sites like metacritic are not accurate today for games created by large companies like Blizzard and EA for example.  The reason is exactly what you just admitted and that's you "hate" blizzard and will give all their games a bad score because you "hate" blizzard.  Thank you for proving my point. 


    Metacritic is accurate because the majority makes outliers (zero reviews) irrelevant over time with tens of thousands of votes.

    But to an individual who loves the game, it means nothing.

    So there are two different things - personal opinion which is unaffected by what anyone else says or thinks and composite score based on a bunch of personal opinions which is what Metacritic is.

    When you have a truly groundbreaking game Metacritic ALWAYS shows it in both user and critic reviews, despite of the dev (EA, Blizzard ) and despite of the fans/haters. 

    So we are back at square one - Overwatch - is it deserving of greatness on metacritic? 

    Bullshit.

    Metacritic, Steam and all the others have become incredibly unreliable. Even months after release - you'll see both hype and hate affecting games unfairly.

    There's no accuracy possible when so many people don't give a genuine score. All you'll get is the combined average of a massive amount of unrealistic scores. That's not accuracy - that's just a middleground.

    There's no way to separate the honest and rational reviews from the haters or fanbois.

    Used to be more useful - but it's ruined now. Same goes for IMDB - which used to be extremely useful for estimating quality of movies - and now it's just a joke unless we're talking about movies that haven't been touched by the hivemind mobs.
  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    DMKano said:
    Eadan1 said:
    No I said it because you got all bent out of shape saying "it's a 70" and those who disagree with you are fanboys and paid reviewers.  You realize coming out and saying how you really feel would blow your blizzard hater cover.   I pointed out just because YOU think it's a "good" game that should be a 70 doesn't mean everyone will.  Then you try to make it sound like its a bad thing they are marketing the game.  Hey you can play the passive aggressive hater all you want it's not fooling anyone.
    Even 70 is too high a score for this game and I do hate Blizzard. They ruined d3 with their greed and then apologized, but went on with a f2p model in their next gambling game Hearthstone. With HoTS, they tried to basically copy LoL and simplify it even further to get a share of the moba market, but failed. So now they released a first person moba with no hero customization to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and apperantly spent more money for marketing than game development, and it shows with terrible netcode, lack of content and depth, unsupported resolutions, etc. Why do you even care about "haters" crticizing the game if you are convinced it's a perfect game and totally worth your time?
    Ok first I have never stated what I think about the game.  My arguement here is how sites like metacritic are not accurate today for games created by large companies like Blizzard and EA for example.  The reason is exactly what you just admitted and that's you "hate" blizzard and will give all their games a bad score because you "hate" blizzard.  Thank you for proving my point. 


    Metacritic is accurate because the majority makes outliers (zero reviews) irrelevant over time with tens of thousands of votes.
    So you agree with this list for 2016 then? 

    http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/pc/filtered


    Where are you getting these ten of thousand reviews?  The number on game in 2015 (reviewers) only had 3000 user reviews? 

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/grand-theft-auto-v

  • RPGMASTERGAMERRPGMASTERGAMER Member UncommonPosts: 516
    just because that news op
    game you named are game when they have release were high scores and they have keep these high years scores since forever.

    realy doubt overwatch will not drop after 1-2 months, that a good games but realy shallow and small, i got bored after 2 days in the open beta, that pretty much everytime the same and it bring nothing new to the genre, but yeah that a realy good games and fun to play some times.

    did not buy because i see no reason that not free to play and others games are just the same
  • AziahAziah Member UncommonPosts: 10
    Glorified call of duty for kids. 2 months people will have moved on tired of hitting the same few buttons over and over on the same few heroes running the same few maps.

    Unexperienced gamers sucked into the hype of marketing, a lesson you will  hopefully learn from in the future.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    So you agree with this list for 2016 then? 

    http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/pc/filtered


    Where are you getting these ten of thousand reviews?  The number on game in 2015 (reviewers) only had 3000 user reviews? 

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/grand-theft-auto-v

    Am I understanding your point correctly in saying that that list for 2016 is ridiculous due to a few titles being in the top 20 that are obviously not deserving of the scores lists?

    If so, that list is sorted by critic reviews, not user reviews.  Two of the top ten games on the list received less than a 6 out of 10 from users.  I'm not sure there's a way to sort by user reviews, but I would be interested in seeing what the resulting list would look like compared to the critic review-sorted list you mentioned.

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    DKLond said:
    What do you mean Overwatch received a larger pool? Are you still stuck on early reviews? We have no idea which game will end up being the best received.

    It's still YOUR opinion that it's "simply a solid product". Others think it's a fantastic game worthy of high praise. Is it really so hard to accept that you must insist there's something rotten going on? Have you never met a person who loved something that you hated - and yet he or she had some reasons for it you could understand? What amazing arrogance.

    Yeah, we probably agree about some things.

    But we don't agree that people who like different things are wrong - or that there's necessarily anything to be upset about because of high scores in a bunch of early reviews.

    I recognise poor quality when I see it - but I have no right to tell others not to enjoy something that I consider low quality.

    But in the case of Overwatch, I'm seeing a quality game. But since I'm not a fan of the genre at all - I really have no idea why it's THIS popular, but I'm fully convinced that a LOT of people absolutely love playing it. I can tell from the forums I visit where the game is discussed. Same goes for TF2 - which a ton of people adore. Personally, I honestly can't see the appeal - at least not for an extended period of time - but I've accepted that it's all about what people enjoy and what they don't enjoy.

    Maybe they'll get sick of it soon - or maybe they won't.

    But I have zero evidence to support foul play or anything along those lines. Without something to back it up - it's good old fashioned elitism and arrogance to suggest it.

    Not that such a thing is unusual online, and certainly not here - where everything remotely casual is looked down upon immediately.
    I mean it received a larger amount of 10s on day one than TLOU ever received.  Same is said for many other games, most of them deserving of even higher praise than TLOU for their contributions to the industry as a whole.

    And I'd like for you to point out where I said Overwatch is an awful game.  To the contrary, I said it deserved a positive score, but that giving it a 10 is inflating it based on a love of a developer.  Take the time to think about and answer the questions I posed in my last post: do you truly believe an indie Overwatch would have received 4 day one perfect scores?  Do you think it would have enjoyed 9 million players in an open beta?  Or do you think that Blizzard's name had a hand in those things?  If so, then we're literally arguing over the color by which we agree with one another.

    Whether the average gamer enjoys it or not wasn't my point, nor is it relevant (because, as I said, I never challenged the assumption the game is good, only that it's undeserving of such high praise given).  Some folks seem to equate that with me saying the game is bad, I guess because it makes it easier to dismiss my points than to give an honest answer to the questions I posed above.
    So you ARE stuck on early reviews.

    What is it about day one reviews that make the difference for you? I don't get it. Reviews released earlier aren't more accurate or subject to a higher standard than reviews released later.

    I haven't claimed you said Overwatch was awful? Why would you say so?

    An indie Overwatch could never happen, because there's no way an indie developer could produce a game with that kind of polish and asset quality. You need a LOT of very talented people working for a very long time to reach that. Only the big boys have that luxury - and I'd say Blizzard is quite unique when it comes to polish and fluid gameplay.

    However, if we ignore that and we pretend that a game of exactly the same quality was released and reviewed - I don't see why people couldn't give it similarly high scores.

    Again, the fact that YOU don't think it deserves such praise because YOU don't like it that much means nothing at all.

    You have zero evidence or basis for your claim.
Sign In or Register to comment.