For what? Their review scale is a bit different than other outlets. I think it's great that we have sites like QT3 on Metacritic. It should be be difficult for games to breach the 85-90 barrier. But let me be honest, I completely expected Tom Chick to give this a 2 or 3. I don't usually agree with his reviews but he is entitled to his opinion.Upset
I stopped paying attention to that guy years ago.
Their scores seem completely random IMO. The writing is great though.
Yeah as I said there's no consistency and it feels really random. AC3 was the worst game I played last year.
There are a lot of f-bombs, from Ellie in particular, but don't skip the game over it. When you play the full game in context, it seems entirely appropriate. Swearing can be a coping mechanism, a way of dealing with stress, not to mention Ellie grew up in a world where civilities have fallen by the wayside in favor of survival.
AC3 was mediocre at best, forgettable characters, stealth gameplay that has not advanced and feels gamey at best with little to no tension or consequence, they don't have to give tlou a 10 but low balling games like that is kind of shameful because it ends up hurting the dev for no good reason. It's like people are entitled to their opinions but oh come the fuck on, seriously.
Says who? Different publications/writers operate in different ways.
Best stealth gameplay this gen, there is actually tension and consequences, you do feel like you have to live by your wits, as Joel is outnumbered and outgunned, best undead gameplay by far.
