Ugh. Awful.
"Wolfenstein is a video game. It contains guns in which the player can use, if he chooses to, to shoot humans dressed in Nazi iconography. It has cutscenes in-between the gameplay sections. It cost $60.
itsavideogame/10"
Reviewers should try to leash their biases, sure, but what you are asking for is literally impossible. It's at odds with what a review is, a person's opinion. You can't just isolate someone from their preferences. Unless you just want a fact sheet of verifiable truths.
Mediocre reviews, skipping this one. Maybe I'll splurge purchase it and never play it in some future steam sale.
79 metacritic is mediocre? Would 80 be great?
79 metacritic is mediocre? Would 80 be great?
Is it me or would this game have been better if they decided to add multiplayer. I think this missing element is going to hurt sales. I'm definitely waiting to grab this on the cheap in a few months.
79 metacritic is mediocre? Would 80 be great?
I get that, but there are some that will use just the scores as a measure of quality. Most egregious being Publishers. I don't see how that is possible when reviewers are all over the map. I understand difference of opinion but reviews should come from a place of objectivity.
You can be objective and discuss short comings or triumphs in performance and mechanics. Use Titanfall or Infamous Second Son as examples, there are many things to be said both positive and negative about those games that are nearly universally accepted. It's lazy to say, "doesn't feel next gen" or some other vague reasoning, 8/10. That's lazy and doesn't inform the consumer properly on what is and isn't well executed.
It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.
I didn't even look at meta critic, just at the quotes in the OP. Single Player FPSs better be getting "OMG BEST GAME EVER!" type of reviews for me to pay full price for them. That is my personal opinion obviously, as I am bored with the genre.
I didn't even look at meta critic, just at the quotes in the OP. Single Player FPSs better be getting "OMG BEST GAME EVER!" type of reviews for me to pay full price for them. That is my personal opinion obviously, as I am bored with the genre.
I think it's going to sell perfectly fine based on all the reviews and peoples reaction to it so no, not everything needs tacked on multiplayer.
Topic has been edited "Wolfenstein: The New Order shows you the horror of concentration camps from the first-person" subtle.Ugh. Awful.
It took me 20 hours.
I think if they took time to add a solid Multiplayer this game becomes an instant hit.
I think if they took time to add a solid Multiplayer this game becomes an instant hit.
There's too much going against it in the form of meh graphics and no multiplayer for practically every mainstream reviewer to give it above an 8-something. As far as single-player FPSes go, it's really good.
Well yeah those are two major reasons not to buy it. So meh graphics, no multiplayer, decent campaign. Sounds like a steam sale game to me.
Wait, is she holding a baby about to beat it? Oh boy, here comes the controversy...
Lol it would be dead within a month.
Well yeah those are two major reasons not to buy it. So meh graphics, no multiplayer, decent campaign. Sounds like a steam sale game to me.
Deplorable sound mixing would be another reason, but less people care about that aspect.
I was honestly surprised how much I dug this game. Here's my review.
Any feedback would be much appreciated.
How many views does an article about a video game get on newspaper websites? Just curious.
I was honestly surprised how much I dug this game. Here's my review.
Any feedback would be much appreciated.
Anyone see a good PS3 vs 360 comparison yet? I can only find each compared against XBO/PS4 or PC, not each other. Deciding which one to get. I'd assume 360 is better as usual though.
Fantastic game. Loved every minute of it. The game environment was really telling.
Can't wait for the sequel.
Mediocre reviews, skipping this one. Maybe I'll splurge purchase it and never play it in some future steam sale.