Plus its obviously visually appalling, and it doesn't seem to be more accessible because of the crazy tag/infinity combos.
But also Iron Man's in it and its on all platforms so who knows?
That dream was dead since e3.
I could have told you that 5 months ago.
6 is straight bad for video games. 7 is mediocre.
6 is straight bad for video games. 7 is mediocre.
Wouldn't mediocre be around the 6's to low 7's?
As far as sales go, that'll be interesting to see.
Uncharted 4: 93
Overwatch: 91
Forza Horizon 3: 91
Dark Souls 3: 89
Titanfall 2: 89
Civilization VI: 89
XCOM 2: 88
Dishonored 2: 88
Battlefield 1: 88
World of Warcraft: Legion: 88
Total War: Warhammer: 86
Pro Evolution Soccer 2017: 85
Gears of War 4: 85
MLB The Show 16: 85
Doom: 85
---------------------------- (1/3rd Mark)
FIFA 17: 84
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided: 84
Dragon Quest Builders: 83
Watch Dogs 2: 83
The Last Guardian: 83
Final Fantasy XV: 81
Skylanders Imaginators: 81
# Fire Emblem: 80
The Division: 80
Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm 4: 79
NHL 17: 78
LEGO Star Wars: 78
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare: 78
World of Final Fantasy: 78
---------------------------- (1/3rd Mark)
Street Fighter V: 77
Quantum Break: 77
Pokken Tournament: 76
Far Cry Primal: 76
Paper Mario: Color Splash: 76
Attack On Titan: 74
Steep: 72
LEGO Marvel: 71
No Man's Sky: 71
Mirror's Edge: Catalyst: 69
WWE 2K17: 69
Star Fox Zero: 69
Battleborn: 68
Mafia 3: 68
Star Ocean 5: 59
Homefront 2: 48
Story mode is a waste of time but it's needs to be done to have it on the checklist.
Wouldn't mediocre be around the 6's to low 7's?
As far as sales go, that'll be interesting to see.
Then there's a lot of bad video games.
So would this be the scale?6 is straight bad for video games. 7 is mediocre.
Story mode is a waste of time but it's needs to be done to have it on the checklist.
Meh I don't think they did, The roster is mostly fine even though I want some X-Men. The game seems like it has alot going for it more than some suggest.Medicore reviews plus a mostly boring roster with the cool stuff being DLC?
Capcom fucked this game up so bad in that regard.
Game should've been $40.
That's a little more cynical than I'd like, but basically.So would this be the scale?
6 is straight bad for video games. 7 is mediocre.
This was the list of Metacritic scores for $60 retail games in 2016. A 77 would put it at the top of the bottom third.
---------------------------- (1/3rd Mark)
Street Fighter V: 77
Quantum Break: 77
Pokken Tournament: 76
Yeah? There are a lot of bad games lol
I guess graphics and presentation does make a difference
This is about what I would expect. It's at the same Metascore as Street Fighter V.
This makes sense given that it seems like a more complete product, but expectations have also raised over time.
Everyone's saying mediocre!And this ain't one of them.
It's hardly a waste of time if it's done well.
Look at MK/Injustice.
So would this be the scale?
Seems about right.
Still crazy to me that Capcom managed to have SF5 looks as good as it does, but then make a good chunk of the MvC:I character models look like they were ripped from a mobile game
At least it sounds like it plays great, which is really the main thing i'm buying it for
It's hardly a waste of time if it's done well.
Look at MK/Injustice.
So would this be the scale?
The breakdown is generally, in terms of Metacritic average:
90+: Instant GOTY candidate, very few per year.
85-89: Includes many GOTY candidates and games that are otherwise exceptional games in their genre.
80-84: Generally considered good, but have some noticeable flaws that detract from the experience. The good outweighs the bad.
75-79: The flaws are generally equal to what's good about the game. Examples would be games with good gameplay, but are otherwise poor products, or games that do a good job setting up art, world, and story, but lack compelling gameplay.
70-74: Games that have some upsides, but the bad outweights the good.
65-69: Failed experiments. This category actually attracts some cult hits that are otherwise panned, since they often tried something interesting, but the execution was considered quite poor by most people.
0-64: This are basically considered straight up bad games without notable redeeming qualities.
So why does it look so disappointing?, were Capcom developing it as a budget title but asking AAA prices?
So why does it look so disappointing?, were Capcom developing it as a budget title but asking AAA prices?
Reviewing Fighting games is a weird thing. Street Fighter x Tekken got great reviews (84 on Metacritic), but the competitive community abandoned it because it was a bad competitive game. You can judge the content around it (Story mode, ect), but the actual game itself is the most important part of the equation, and it's going to take time to see how the game holds up to people playing it for hundreds of hours.
I guess graphics and presentation does make a difference
It's just a personal opinion when it comes to fighting games it's a bunch of nonsense, just do it like Alpha few bosses/rivals for every character and a short animated ending. Some appreciate this but to me it's just dumb. I respect those who like it though.
If your a DMC fan you owe it to yourself to see it. It's basically a huge apology towards that fanbase. lol
SFV had Sony's moneybags behind it. This game has nothing but Capcom's meager coffers.
Honestly, the visuals didn't disappoint me that much. The retread roster is what brought it down for me. It feels a bit more like UMvC3+ than a full sequel. Plays like an MvC game though.
Netcode held up fine in my online matches with my review fighterati. The PC version did have this thing where it hitched up occasionally, but I could never figure out if it was the game or my PC, and that wasn't apparent in what little I played of the other versions.
3.5 out of 5 for me. Good, but man, the roster is a bummer.
Expected a 68 Metacritic, so color me impressed lol.