Pathfinder
Member
I think you are heavily misunderstanding exactly what these review events are.
There's a reason why some reviewers refuse to attend them.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Wars: Battlefront | Review Thread | A disturbance in the force
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
I think you are heavily misunderstanding exactly what these review events are.
There's a reason why some reviewers refuse to attend them.
Yeah, IGN and Eurogamer are exceptions as they spending time at launch to play.
AHA-Lambda
Member
The modern video game review scale, it has always been a mediocre score.
I swear this comes up every time.
No, I'm not, not if you actually read that I mention review copies on top of the review event.
Those reviewers refused this review event because they would rather just play the EA Access version on Xbox One and make a review based on those 10 hours and that is what I have a problem with.
For a movie this would be a good score. But if you follow reviews for video games at all you would understand this is fairly mediocre.
Pathfinder
Member
Look, regardless, I'm still kind of confused about what you're so upset about. It's obvious that the PS4 version is getting better scores. Are you only upset because the OP linked to the Xbox One score?
Somehow I get the feeling that if PS4 had EA Access too, this would be a non-issue for you.
This game does not have a single player, and it costs 110usd (Base game + season pass).
And my brother bought it and I bought the season pass (split). God damn.
To be frank, I love the Battlefield series, never touched more than 5 minutes of single player campaigns, but I knew the money I paid covered the single player portion. This makes Battlefront the most expensive game I have paid for.
And my brother bought it and I bought the season pass (split). God damn.
To be frank, I love the Battlefield series, never touched more than 5 minutes of single player campaigns, but I knew the money I paid covered the single player portion. This makes Battlefront the most expensive game I have paid for.
excaliburps
Press - MP1st.com
Our review: http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2015/11/17/star-wars-battlefront-review-ps4-not-trap/
PlayStation LifeStyle 8/10.
PlayStation LifeStyle 8/10.
73 on OpenCritic is the average score of all games scored there.
For Gamespot atleast, they went both to the review event and also EA Access.
Either way, I hate review events and wish all reviewers skipped out on them.
You can't use leveling up as a reason why the scores maybe low. You may as well say if you don't prestige in COD your review has no credibility.
Plus 10 hours is enough time to get a feel for the game and how much you may or may not like it.
drotahorror
Member
Wait, so that jump pack and sniper rifle from the beta were trait cards right? And in the full version they don't unlock til lvl 15?
That's dumb.
I thought the way Black Ops 3 locked specialist challenges behind lvl 17 or something was stupid but this is sort of absurd. It'd be like not letting you use perks in CoD until you've leveled up quite a bit.
It isn't at all. 74 means it's a solid game.
eh, it's not necessarily 'bad' so much as it's completely average and some would say mediocre as far as games go. 8 is pretty much the standard of 'yeah, does the job, what most people expected', and anything below is usually qualified as a disappointment and potentially not worth full price
some people will refuse to buy anything below 8 or 9 though because they really love high numbers
hodayathink
Member
The modern video game review scale, it has always been a mediocre score.
I swear this comes up every time.
That is an absolutely terrible image. Like, awful and completely untrue. It's basically saying a 7.5 is a bad score, which I don't think any gaming website that does reviews would agree with. I'd argue that 7.5 usually means decent for the genre it's in, and anything below 7 is where you get into the "bad" category.
I have to agree.
Selling a season pass when the base game is so light on content seems kind of ridiculous.
It is not in fact it is a pretty solid score but it looks poor in comparison with Halo and COD.
EatinOlives
Member
Sad to know the full game doesn't address the shallowness that I had an issue with during the open beta. That's the single reason why it fell off my radar but I was hoping it was just the limited scope of the beta that made me think that.
That's the actual distribution for all games on OpenCritic. Granted, that's only the last 2 years of games since we started tracking in November 2013.
But hopefully that gives you a better idea of the actual distribution.
Impulsor
Member
Whatever reviewers say about this game, and as much as I'd love to have more content from the get go, I'd rather have what's there, as good as it is, because its good, very good, than more content not as good, if you catch my drift.
What I played these days feels more satr wars than anything star wars I've played before.
What I played these days feels more satr wars than anything star wars I've played before.
I think my 3 or so posts clearly explain what I have an issue with. And now you're just getting silly with your last remark.
Well, that's good.
Since when did 10 hours become enough to give a review score that should be taken serious?
No, the jump pack is lvl 13.
Traits are passive abilities tied to your current kill streak.
AHA-Lambda
Member
It's a joke/exaggerated image obv, but the point remains 74 isn't a good score.
TBiddy
Member
For a strictly online shooter 10 hours seems to be a fine amount of time in order to determine whether it's a bad, good or great game.
How many hours would you suggest is appropriate?
Pathfinder
Member
I don't think I am.
From what I'm seeing, you feel that a reviewer who didn't go to EA's special review event shouldn't count as much as a reviewer who did.
AHA-Lambda
Member
No idea where this came from, sounds like spin to me.
meanspartan
Member
Wolfenstein was at 79 metacritic. Was on many people's GOTY lists.
Not saying this will be that, and this is in the low 70s, not high 70s like The New Order. But still.
10 Hours is a good time for one to decide whether one likes the game or not, so the review can reflect his/her view on the game. Also it's not as if this is a single player game with a 20 hour linear campaign. Also, if we are to disregard review scores like that, we should disregard both high scores and low scores.
QuantumZebra
Member
This.
I'm having an absolute blast. Been playing for 3 hours on ps4 and can't wait till I'm off work tomorrow. I like Blops 3 but that just took a back seat. This game is amazing.
Triggerhappytel
Member
This is going to have a lot more appeal to casual gamers than Fallout ever could.
AHA-Lambda
Member
EA going to make bank >_>
meanspartan
Member
I think reviews are harsher this gen. This woulda been at least at 8 on metacritic 5 years ago.
Basically. I miss Lucasarts...
Except it's not an online only shooter, so those 10 hours need to be spread between the missions and the MP. I already mentioned IGN, which haven't given a score yet based on their 30 hours of play.
For reasons I already explained more than once, yes.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Evolving critical scrutiny and standards is a good thing.
TBiddy
Member
Sorry, I forgot you can also play offline against bots.
Do you think 30 hours of play is an acceptable minimum before reviewing a game?
They have to be. They were losing a lot of credibility when games would always score 80-90 on Metacritic with the user score at 40-50. I think they're still too lenient.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Watching Angry Joe's twitch. My God, the game looks BEAUTIFUL!
meanspartan
Member
Absolutely. I didnt say it was a bad thing. But Im happy to be back in a place where a game in the low 70s means problematic, but decent. For a while I could safely ignore anything that got less than an 8. And even 8s felt weak. Like the "bare minimum" a good game could get.
Aztechnology
Member
It's a pretty accurate example of the average players perception though. We are roughly conditioned because of school to believe that a 60-69% means it's pretty awful. 70-79% is just ok. etc. Anything that scores in the 6 or lower range is essentially considered terrible. This is why the 1-10 review scale, and honestly even the 1-5 review scale is so bad. More reviews like Kotaku's Yes/Yes If/No/No If approach and less arbitrary numerical scores are needed.
Pathfinder
Member
As more and more reviewers refuse these set up "review shops", this is going to steadily become a bigger issue for you then.
OsirisBlack
Banned
having a lot of fun with the game so far.