Biggest disparity between your opinion and Meta/Gamerankings score

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

12620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 12620 Posts

So yeah was reading the Bioshock thread and remembered how unpopular Bioshock Infinite is around these parts. Got me thinking what is the biggest disparity between an aggregated score of Metacritic/Gamerankings and your own opinion? My top 3 would be:

1. Bioshock Infinite: 94 vs 40 for me.

2. GTA IV 94 vs 60 for me.

3. Uncharted III 91 vs 60 for me.

I legit think Bioshock Infinite is a bad game. It's painfully slow-paced and boring. Shit encounter design. Shit gunplay. GTA IV has its moments but is padded with filler and horrible writing. Uncharted is just way too slow-paced and improved upon nothing from Uncharted II.

Avatar image for deactivated-6092a2d005fba
deactivated-6092a2d005fba

22663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By deactivated-6092a2d005fba
Member since 2015 • 22663 Posts

Don't know i don't use sites like Metashitic, sites like that are a waste of time and energy.

The only time i see games scores are when people on here use a score to praise/shit on a game.

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
turtlethetaffer

18973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 144

User Lists: 0

#3 turtlethetaffer
Member since 2009 • 18973 Posts

Anything by Rockstar. Their recent games have near perfect scores and I find them to be overrated, bloated wastes of time.

Avatar image for JangoWuzHere
JangoWuzHere

19032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By JangoWuzHere
Member since 2007 • 19032 Posts

Both modern Tomb Raider games. Critics like em, but they gel well with regular consumers as well. What the heck is wrong with you people.

Avatar image for AsadMahdi59
AsadMahdi59

7226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#5 AsadMahdi59
Member since 2005 • 7226 Posts

Killzone 2 and 3 - would rate the much lower.

I could list alot of games that I feel are overrated but still think are decent, but I feel like KZ2 and 3 are bad games.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

58947

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 2

#6 uninspiredcup  Online
Member since 2013 • 58947 Posts

The New Order.

Avatar image for UT_Wrestler
UT_Wrestler

16426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#7 UT_Wrestler
Member since 2004 • 16426 Posts

Operation Darkness. I'd rate it at an 85, but it has one of the lowest meta scores of any 360 game.

Avatar image for bowserjr123
bowserjr123

2478

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#8 bowserjr123
Member since 2006 • 2478 Posts

I have a lot:

1. Uncharted 2, I would give it a 7.

2. Star Wars Rogue Squadron 3 Rebel Strike, I would give it a 9.

3. Star Fox Assault, I would give it a 9.

4. Shadow of the Colossus, I would give it a 7.5.

5. New Super Mario Brothers DS, I would give it a 7.

6. No More Heroes, I would give it a 7.5.

7. God of War, I would give it a 7.

8. Super Smash Brothers Brawl, I would give it an 8.

Avatar image for Seabas989
Seabas989

13565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#9 Seabas989
Member since 2009 • 13565 Posts

I don't really use MC but off the top of my head:

  • Anything made by Bethesda (garbage)
  • Uncharted 3 (mediocre at best)
  • MGS4 (mediocre)
  • Legend of Zelda; Skyward Sword (no higher then a 6)
  • Kingdom Hearts II (awful)
  • Final Fantasy XIII (lol)
Avatar image for GhoX
GhoX

6267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#10 GhoX
Member since 2006 • 6267 Posts

There are minor differences here and there, but the only truly big one standing out is Xenoblade Chronicles, which I find exceedingly boring and grinding. Despite multiple attempts trying to get into the game, I usually give up very quickly in the first hub. The game simply feels way too much like a low-detailed MMO without multiplayer and several times the grind. It's simply not an enjoyable game by any stretch of imagination in my book unfortunately.

Avatar image for kend0_kap0ni
KEND0_KAP0NI

1231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#11 KEND0_KAP0NI
Member since 2016 • 1231 Posts

Uncharted 4 is rate way too high. I give it a 6.5/10

GTA5 was a solid 7.5 for me.

KZ:SF is a 2.0/10 for me. I know its not rated high at all but whatever it is, it shouldnt be higher than a 2.

Avatar image for Shmiity
Shmiity

6625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Shmiity
Member since 2006 • 6625 Posts

I tend to agree with Metacritic on everything except Rockstar. Then again, Metacritic doesnt really DO anything, it just compiles reviews and has a small weighting system so Gamespot's review is higher weighted than Joe's ClamshackReviews

Avatar image for jut
Jut

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By Jut
Member since 2015 • 250 Posts

Star Fox Zero.

Everyone complained about the controls, but I really enjoyed that game.

Avatar image for mems_1224
mems_1224

56919

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By mems_1224
Member since 2004 • 56919 Posts

The first Bioshock game. That game was pretty awful. It'd probably be closed to a 5/10 for me.

Uncharted games as well, I'd give those a 6, 7 at best.

Killzone 2 is one of the worst fps games I've played. No fucking clue how it has a 91. I'd give it a 4/10 at best

Avatar image for 22Toothpicks
22Toothpicks

12546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 22Toothpicks
Member since 2005 • 12546 Posts

I never go to gamerankings but from a quick peek I can say right off the bat that I don't agree with how highly GTA 5 is rated based on the all time ranks. I enjoyed the game enough but the game is a 7 at the most. Also Oblivion. After playing Morrowind it was just a huge letdown for me. Certainly not a 9, maybe 6.5

Avatar image for dakur
Dakur

3275

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 Dakur
Member since 2014 • 3275 Posts

Halo, I'll give it a 6 or 7.

Bioshock Infinite was good

Avatar image for Sushiglutton
Sushiglutton

9853

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#17 Sushiglutton
Member since 2009 • 9853 Posts

Metal Gear Solid 4, 94 on MC about a 15 for me.

Avatar image for Cloud_imperium
Cloud_imperium

15146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 103

User Lists: 8

#18 Cloud_imperium
Member since 2013 • 15146 Posts

Broken Sword 5: The Serpent's Curse. 69 MC vs 90.

Uncharted. 88 MC vs 75.

Bioshock. 96 MC vs 80.

Shadow Warrior. 73 MC vs 85.

Deponia trilogy. 77 to 81 MC vs 90.

Avatar image for AzatiS
AzatiS

14969

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By AzatiS
Member since 2004 • 14969 Posts

Omg , great thread ... but will be a pain to mention all games !

Ok here are some popular :

Resident Evil 4 : 96 meta Vs 80

Resident Evil 5 : 83 meta Vs 70

Final Fantasy 12 : 92 meta Vs 80

Diablo 3 : 88 meta Vs 70

Bioshock : 96 meta vs 80

DragonAge Origins 91 meta Vs 75

COD MW 2 94 meta vs 80

Counter Strike Source 88 meta Vs 75

And many many other games will take a while to remember

Avatar image for xxyetixx
xxyetixx

3041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 xxyetixx
Member since 2004 • 3041 Posts

I tend to know what type of games I enjoy and want to play. Most people thing Final Fantasy 7 is one of the best best games ever made, and can't wait for the remaster. For me, it's garbage and you'd have to pay me to play it.

I buy COD every year I know what I'm getting and I'll play the game for a year dropping 100's if not 1000's of hours into. Have I thought every COD game was a 10, no, but I enjoy playing them and they always provide me with some fun.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
jg4xchamp

64037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#21 jg4xchamp
Member since 2006 • 64037 Posts

Grand Theft Auto 4. Anything higher than a 4 out of 10 for that game is fucking absurd. It's core is so fucking rubbish.

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
Ghosts4ever

24921

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#22 Ghosts4ever
Member since 2015 • 24921 Posts

Doom is 95 for me

Wolfenstien new order is 50 for me

Bishock infinite is 40 for me

Tomb raider is 10 for me

Witcher 3 is 60 for me

Metro 2033 and last light are 88 for me

thats really big difference between me and metacritic

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
nintendoboy16

41532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 14

#23 nintendoboy16
Member since 2007 • 41532 Posts

Super Smash Bros for Wii U - 90 vs 70 - It's still a solid entry, but it's worse than Brawl by a longshot. Sakurai learned nothing from the former in regards to online (Tekken Tag 2 on the same console runs better at LOWER bars, that's how bad it is) and can't take criticism of a certain DLC guest star well and the single player content is lacking.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
with_teeth26

11511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 1

#24 with_teeth26
Member since 2007 • 11511 Posts

Uncharted 2: 75 vs. 96

Bioshock: 70 vs. 96

Dark Souls 2: 70 vs. 91

Risen 3: 80 vs 65

Skyrim: 75 vs. 94

Avatar image for mjorh
mjorh

6749

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By mjorh
Member since 2011 • 6749 Posts

Skyrim: 60 vs. 94

Dark Souls 2: 70 vs. 91

GTA 4 : Didn't grab me so i didn't keep on playing Vs 94

@jg4xchamp said:

Grand Theft Auto 4. Anything higher than a 4 out of 10 for that game is fucking absurd. It's core is so fucking rubbish.

Are you not a fan of the GTA series in general, or you only don't like this one?

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
jg4xchamp

64037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#26 jg4xchamp
Member since 2006 • 64037 Posts
@mjorh said:

@jg4xchamp said:

Grand Theft Auto 4. Anything higher than a 4 out of 10 for that game is fucking absurd. It's core is so fucking rubbish.

Are you not a fan of the GTA series in general, or you only don't like this one?

On balance? not really, the core mechanics have always been poor in Rockstar games, with the exception of GTAV and Max Payne 3 (and they still get in the way of Max Payne 3). The difference is I at least get the love for 3, vice city, and san andreas or even 5. 3 is a landmark title, and the sequels were very much sandbox games, the things them that made them fun was all the different ways you could dick around in that game, and it makes sense how that was celebrated so much in the early 2000s, it was pure fun factor there. San Andreas being a whole state and Vice City tapping into 80s nostalgia also made sense to me.

5 actually fixes the shooting engine, and a good chunk of the missions are varied and well done. The story is rubbish and there is way too much filler in GTA5, but okay yeah there is something more impressive about that game.

But 4? They dialed shit back, took the story way more seriously for a plot line that utterly sucks, doesn't earn its ending, and proceeds to do the rockstar thing where the plot doesn't move a fucking centimeter in the middle section of the game. Because it's mechanically regressed in terms of options from its predecessors, it's now fundamentally nothing more than a third person cover shooter, you happen to an open world, and it fucking blows cock at it. It's clunky, it's not fluid, the shooting itself is auto combat, with the enemy designs to make it at least somewhat appealing (which is what makes the boss fights in a Metroid Prime or Zelda, or Dark Souls enjoyable, even if the combat is lock on based), and realistically it's only lock-on because Rockstar has some abysmal shooting engines because when you turn that shit off it controls like absolute ass.

And I'm usually one to look at the controls of a game and think "okay, so why does this work this way, what's the intended effect"....except with GTA 4 there isn't one other than it's just poorly. So many boring missions, so many routine missions, throw in the added bonus that controlling choppers and how weirdly specific they wanted you to be was never fun, how Rockstar's brand of "american dream is bullshit" satire isn't that good, doesn't help matters either. And that's without ever using the Roman blows up your phone too much complaint.

Avatar image for mjorh
mjorh

6749

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#27 mjorh
Member since 2011 • 6749 Posts

@jg4xchamp said:
@mjorh said:
@jg4xchamp said:

Grand Theft Auto 4. Anything higher than a 4 out of 10 for that game is fucking absurd. It's core is so fucking rubbish.

Are you not a fan of the GTA series in general, or you only don't like this one?

On balance? not really, the core mechanics have always been poor in Rockstar games, with the exception of GTAV and Max Payne 3 (and they still get in the way of Max Payne 3). The difference is I at least get the love for 3, vice city, and san andreas or even 5. 3 is a landmark title, and the sequels were very much sandbox games, the things them that made them fun was all the different ways you could dick around in that game, and it makes sense how that was celebrated so much in the early 2000s, it was pure fun factor there. San Andreas being a whole state and Vice City tapping into 80s nostalgia also made sense to me.

5 actually fixes the shooting engine, and a good chunk of the missions are varied and well done. The story is rubbish and there is way too much filler in GTA5, but okay yeah there is something more impressive about that game.

But 4? They dialed shit back, took the story way more seriously for a plot line that utterly sucks, doesn't earn its ending, and proceeds to do the rockstar thing where the plot doesn't move a fucking centimeter in the middle section of the game. Because it's mechanically regressed in terms of options from its predecessors, it's now fundamentally nothing more than a third person cover shooter, you happen to an open world, and it fucking blows cock at it. It's clunky, it's not fluid, the shooting itself is auto combat, with the enemy designs to make it at least somewhat appealing (which is what makes the boss fights in a Metroid Prime or Zelda, or Dark Souls enjoyable, even if the combat is lock on based), and realistically it's only lock-on because Rockstar has some abysmal shooting engines because when you turn that shit off it controls like absolute ass.

And I'm usually one to look at the controls of a game and think "okay, so why does this work this way, what's the intended effect"....except with GTA 4 there isn't one other than it's just poorly. So many boring missions, so many routine missions, throw in the added bonus that controlling choppers and how weirdly specific they wanted you to be was never fun, how Rockstar's brand of "american dream is bullshit" satire isn't that good, doesn't help matters either. And that's without ever using the Roman blows up your phone too much complaint.

Yeah i had the same problems with the 4 hence i stopped playing, its PC port was so shitty as well.

i can pretty much say it's the best "to-dick-around" franchise ever lol, however, i usually do the missions and get over with it, and as you said, missions tend to have good variety hence worth playing.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

12620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 12620 Posts
@jg4xchamp said:

On balance? not really, the core mechanics have always been poor in Rockstar games, with the exception of GTAV and Max Payne 3 (and they still get in the way of Max Payne 3). The difference is I at least get the love for 3, vice city, and san andreas or even 5. 3 is a landmark title, and the sequels were very much sandbox games, the things them that made them fun was all the different ways you could dick around in that game, and it makes sense how that was celebrated so much in the early 2000s, it was pure fun factor there. San Andreas being a whole state and Vice City tapping into 80s nostalgia also made sense to me.

5 actually fixes the shooting engine, and a good chunk of the missions are varied and well done. The story is rubbish and there is way too much filler in GTA5, but okay yeah there is something more impressive about that game.

But 4? They dialed shit back, took the story way more seriously for a plot line that utterly sucks, doesn't earn its ending, and proceeds to do the rockstar thing where the plot doesn't move a fucking centimeter in the middle section of the game. Because it's mechanically regressed in terms of options from its predecessors, it's now fundamentally nothing more than a third person cover shooter, you happen to an open world, and it fucking blows cock at it. It's clunky, it's not fluid, the shooting itself is auto combat, with the enemy designs to make it at least somewhat appealing (which is what makes the boss fights in a Metroid Prime or Zelda, or Dark Souls enjoyable, even if the combat is lock on based), and realistically it's only lock-on because Rockstar has some abysmal shooting engines because when you turn that shit off it controls like absolute ass.

And I'm usually one to look at the controls of a game and think "okay, so why does this work this way, what's the intended effect"....except with GTA 4 there isn't one other than it's just poorly. So many boring missions, so many routine missions, throw in the added bonus that controlling choppers and how weirdly specific they wanted you to be was never fun, how Rockstar's brand of "american dream is bullshit" satire isn't that good, doesn't help matters either. And that's without ever using the Roman blows up your phone too much complaint.

Thank you. GTA IV was complete ass.

Avatar image for judaspete
judaspete

7267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#29 judaspete
Member since 2005 • 7267 Posts

Just looked up Heavy Metal: Geomatrix on MC and it has a 58. I give it an 80. Game was dumb but it was fun. Good for many of the same reasons as Power Stone.

Avatar image for cainetao11
cainetao11

38036

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 77

User Lists: 1

#30 cainetao11
Member since 2006 • 38036 Posts

My opinion applies to only my gaming. I'm not so unevolved to think others are wrong for disagreeing.

Avatar image for stuff238
stuff238

3284

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#31 stuff238
Member since 2012 • 3284 Posts

I would give every nintendo game a 5-7/10 at best. I don't know why people constantly overrate their games.

Avatar image for Chutebox
Chutebox

50556

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By Chutebox
Member since 2007 • 50556 Posts

As stated by someone else, any game by Bethesda are pure shit.