The death of 90+ rated Metacritic games

Instead of providing a glowing recommendation, they've become potential pitfalls.

Yes, I'm talking about a dying breed of 90+ rated games.

Have you noticed there's a lot less of them?

Have you noticed that what used to earn you a 90/100 in the previous generation has hardly made the same impression on reviewers now? Even if the game retained its core "winning formula" elements.

Even shitty shill-oriented homogenized gaming industry has raised its standards somewhat.

And you know what? That's good. Great even.

Maybe more people will turn their attention to the segment of 75-85 rated games which, de facto, is the most fruitful one.

I haven't played MGS outside Ground Zeroes but most other highly rated games were major disappointments, especially The Witcher 3 and Batman Arkham Knight. Personally I still think more fondly about 74-rated Dying Light than anything else.

I'm playing Rise of the Tomb Raider now and while it's a very good game, I'd rather play any of those two Wolfenstein games I had just bought.

Last year my game of the year was Alien Isolation which has the MC of, what, 79?

I think the concept of 90+ rated games is dying, and for all the right reasons save for a couple of annoying sacred cows, and people should open their minds more.

Games in their 70s and mid 80s score-wise offer such broader spectrum of experiences...

Is anyone with me?

I blame Microsoft and the Xbox One.

Low review scores for hyped games get more clicks. More clicks means more money for the sites. Seems pretty simple to me.

Damn so this is what happen when you don't get a single exclusive over 90% on meta in 2 years. sad.

Maybe it's a sign that putting presentation and lame video game stories above the evolution of gameplay is a bad move...

...

Maybe it's a sign that the industry is stagnating

This is true, but there's also the fact that companies may be focusing on style instead of substance. Couple that with the budgetary restraints of creating big budget games and you have fewer games that exhibit poor craftsmanship and might not even be deserving of a 9+ rating.

@GoldenElementXL: Explain TW3, Bloodborne and MGSV then? The only games people expected to scored 90+ that didn't is Fallout 4 and Batman and neither deserved it.

Only delusional fans expected Halo 5 to score 90+.

You mean because Halo and Forza no longer get 90+ on metacritic, nothing else ever will? Xbox has 2 potential games that could do that next year.

Have you played it? I'm going to guess you haven't. You shouldn't talk about game scores for games you haven't played. I have and I think it deserved a 9 on GS at the very least.

Go talk about some PS4 you played.

But you are a lemming so your opinion is worthless for Halo 5.

Now on the other i was one of the few cows who actually didn't flame Halo 5 in the hype thread when it flopped,and i even defend it i don't know if the game deserve a 9 or not i haven't play it,but i have play Assassins Creed enough to know it is more of the same shit yet score a 9 here so i say is i should pick one of the 2 to give it a 9 it would be halo 5 based on the fact that the game try several new things rather than the same climb here synch there crap,and seeing how JC3 just landed an 8 with all those problems it really show that this place has go down hill.

@kingtito: he told me he watched three missions on YouTube, he obviously knows what he's talking about.

I guess some idiots don't realize when they're being ignored. They also don't realize people can actually have objective opinions WITHOUT being biased like certain fanboys.

Go back to your moms basement

@GoldenElementXL: Seems like a conspiracy theory to me.

No doubt. Next thing he'll be doing is writing reviews after watching a commercial.

I think it has more to do with everyone and their mother being able to review games if they open up a blog or website. With this over saturation of amateur (not peer or player) reviewers comes subjective, not objective, reviewing and thus a deflation of scores.

Contrary to popular belief, reviewing is a professional occupation, and it is about remaining as objective as possible while limiting your own opinions.

Just because a game gets a 9 or 10 does not mean you'll like it. Some of my favorite games ever are below those scores and if I was to only play 90+ games I'd have shit all to play.

Bloodborne,The Witcher 3, Super Mario 3D World,Bayonetta 2,Smash Bros and MGS5 received it and expect the likes of Zelda,Uncharted and possibly Dark Souls 3 to do so.

You don't have one and is what you have shown here i am not saying i have one either just so you know.

We have higher standards now and some games are going through their +5 iterations , lack of new IPs is another reason. Overall, i don't take MC score seriously ....just bunch of random numbers.

Not going to lie, this is what I was thinking haha

I'll humor you this time. What games have I praised or put down because of so called bias? Do I run around putting down any positive news regarding the PS4? Do I run around singing MS praises just for the hell of it?

Didn't think so. Don't confuse me with your biased extreme fanboy mentality El Tormented. I enjoy my PS4, X1 and PC games/consoles and I don't discriminate based on manufacturer unlike you.

Back to the ignore list you go.

90+ games aren't even that great most the time when they do go that high, they tend to be mediocre games sucking all the right dicks politically

yes, I say more joy comes out of those mid-range sweet spot

"When you're young, it's all filet steak, but as the years go by, you have to move on to the cheap cuts. Which is fine with me, because I like those. More flavorful, or so they say."

It shows that companies create "false" hype so when consumers actually get the product, they feel rather disappointed. Whatever the hype was, whether graphics, gameplay...etc was marketed to be something that obviously did not come true.

Just get a PS4 already.

Not a single fucking game that came out this year deserved a 90+

Sorry Halo and Forza hype jobs flopped but don't hold it against games that cross the AAA threshold because they aren't exclusive to the console company you fanboy for.

QQ lemmings after hype after massive hype job flops.

Nintendo for instance has quite a few AAA games this gen that met that AAA quality level and PS4 has one or two as well...it's only xbone that lacks that type of quality game so far this gen so xbots should look to system they are fanboying and not blame the industry.

The only thing you xbone fans are seeing is people not giving a free ride to MS's hyped franchises anymore like they did in the past.

Scores don't mean much if the review is half assed.

That being said, is this damage control for something?

Real criticism is an art, not a product review. Gaming "critics" are in fact just shills for the industry, running lemming-like with their fellows to the same foregone conclusions. The laughably low ethical and artistic standards of "gaming criticism" mean that critics whine and beg like dogs for the opportunity to play the major publisher's games, allowing corporations to control the media narrative. Thus, we have review events, review embargos, and the occasional busted payola, in addition to sites packed with advertising that undermines the very points these so-called critics are supposed to be making in their reviews.

This leads to disasters like the Metacritic scoring for Fallout: New Vegas, a game that is so obviously superior to its predecessor as to completely shame and diminish Bethesda's efforts forever, which was nevertheless poorly received by morons who lacked both the time and the mental tools necessary to appreciate it, resulting in the hardworking and committed developers who produced it (Obsidian) missing out on their bonus after creating one of the greatest RPGs of all time, simply because some spoiled product reviewers felt that a few easily patched technical issues overwhelmed the sheer genius of its design.

Of all fields of criticism, no matter how bastardized the others have become, gaming criticism is at the bottom of the barrel, breaking through, and digging fast. The hivemind culture and "product value" mentality of game critics means that they will flock to a game that is undeniably very poor in certain key areas (Fallout 3, for example, and now its sequel apparently) simply because of the "pedigree" of the studio.

Metacritic is nothing but a gallery for the fecklessness and idiocy of the gaming "critic." You will never see so many supposedly intelligent people lavish heaps of praise on a moldy turd as you will on that worthless site. Thousands of years from now extraterrestrials will look back on the archived pages of Metacritic and vomit up their space-food in disgust. It is an infected gash in the asshole of humanity.

But you like Mass Effect...

Damage control.

Yo. This is true to an extent, but there is good criticism out there. I tried to write it as a freelancer for two years. Lumping any and all game criticism together is silly, man. It ain't all sites like IGN and idiots like Colin Moriarty.

@DarkLink77: guilty....

Thing is though, mass effect was a franchise that ushered in the wave of presentation heavy games we see common today... If mass effect 4 is uninspired "samezy" AAA fare, I have no issue taking it to task.

Well, yeah. Of course I'm using absurd and offensive generalities. It's what I do, after all. But take, for example, the 10/10 review of MGSV on this very website. Peter Brown.

"When it comes to storytelling, there has never been a Metal Gear game that's so consistent in tone, daring in subject matter, and so captivating in presentation. The Phantom Pain may be a contender for one of the best action games ever made, but is undoubtedly the best Metal Gear game there is."

There are lies in that sentence. The editors of gaming sites would have us believe that it's all a matter of opinion. It's not. There is such a thing as objectivity in the arts. If you raise your hand in class and say "Shakespeare is shit" you're wrong. There is no circumstance in which you would be right. Likewise, if you hold up Nicolas Sparks as a great writer for all time, you are also wrong. It isn't a matter of opinion. Not everyone gets a say.

Peter Brown said that MGSV was consistent in tone; that is absurd. Anyone who's played it knows so. He said it is the best Metal Gear game there is. Objectively, it isn't. It's unfinished. Nor is it a contender for one of the best action games ever made. Nor is it daring in subject matter. So, what we have there isn't a bad opinion, but, rather, lies. Outright deceit.

I'm not saying Mr. Brown is a liar by nature, necessarily. But, when you've spend a few days at a Konami-hosted review event eating from the publisher's hand while rushing through their unfinished, barely stitched-together game, those kinds of lies take root in your mind and then roll very easily off the tongue or off your fingertips onto your keyboard, as the case may be. Perhaps they aren't your lies, originally. Still false, though.

Not all game critics are bad. Not all game critics are morons. But every single major game critic who plays by the publisher's rules is part of a toxic system and, in most cases, helping to promote the publisher's agenda at the expense of the gamer and their own supposed "art."

You can't seriously be this insecure.

I mean, we're all guilty of it at some point, right? :P

Pretty much this, I'm surprised how many people don't realize a click bait when they see one.

Batman deserves 90+ rating.

Don't believe the anti-hype.

This is the truth. Even as a freelancer, I saw some promotional shit and just how things were handled that bothered me. I don't think any of the nice stuff they shipped to me altered what I was going to say about their games, and I honestly believe that - I usually didn't even look at it until after I'd finished a review, and gave some of it away - but it was a little disconcerting, especially since I was a small fish. Made me wonder what the big fish got.

And that's not even counting some of the NDAs I signed. There were certain games I was barely allowed to talk about because of how restrictive the NDAs were.

Is not about what you talk fool is about you being a blind derange lemming.

You don't even talk about games here dude.

Holy shit.... lol Lemming are on a roll is pathetic last gen Resistance sucked because it didn't reach 9 like Gears did,but this gen 9 games are bad because the xbox one has get the short end of the stick.

Boy i remember those 360 exclusives or console exclusives like you lemming use to call them Gears,Halo,Forza,Bioshock,Ghost recon,Oblivion,mass effect and those were out all by holiday 2007 alone with several more.

All 90+ by the way i remember how the the lemmings preferred frasse was the PS3 has no games,oh it stick with them until 2011 hell some never drop it and carry it to this gen to..lol

Now those were the good old days when 90+ games were great and 80's sucked.

I'm pretty sure I ripped on Resistance on its own merits, like it's rushed quality, mediocre gameplay, false equivalency of being deemed Gears of War's equal on PS3. I actually owned PS3 and ripped on it out of my own experience and massive disappointment with it, just as I ripped on everyone for drinking the MGS4 Kool-Aid and still do; again, games I have experience with. I rip on these turds over their merits (or lack thereof), not over their scores.

Go put up another straw-man.

That's why I don't give a shit about reviews anymore. They are a joke. These days you have to go to YouTube to get any real facts about the gameplay instead of whining about irrelevant political BS. Lots of reviews gloss over a ton of stuff in the game just so they can feel witty when they spend most of the review on only one thing they didn't like. Metacritic is even worse because there are a ton of no cred sites popping up either skewing the score high or low.

Just look up the game on YouTube/Twitch see if there is something you like about it from your past gaming history that matches up with what you want. Next best thing is to consider what your closest gaming buddies think because they might know what you like. They might not be right all the time though. They might try to get you to buy a game only they like so you can play multiplayer with them lol. (happened to me)

I don't think Halo 5 deserves a 90+. The Arena portion of the multiplayer is incredible, but everything else is a letdown. The campaign is laughable and I'm even shocked the game has a 80+ score right now.

As for the Bloodborne, TW3 and MGS V point. Those games needed some sort of hype because they proved to have no legs on the sales charts. MGS V and Bloodborne only charted once on the NPD while TW3 charted twice. Destiny, despite the negative press charted almost every month for an entire year. I'm not trying to start up the conspiracy theory train, but it's not Activision or EA's titles that rely on word of mouth and review scores. They have proved to sell in spite of them. It's the games aimed at the "message board nerd" audience that relies on reviews to push a few extra copies. COD and Madden are gonna sell regardless of what they score. Why not try to get some extra clicks by bombing one every now and then?

Sounds like major DC at this point.

MC score can be backed by user score. If they are close, its safe to assume the quality of the title (See Witcher 3, Bloodborne & Ori). For large discrepancies, like Halo5, and maybe MGS5, you gotta dig deeper.

This is some hardcore tin foil shit.

You need to remember that even the slightest feature or mechanic can sometimes outshine all the flaws a game has to offer. That's why the score that a game has isn't as relevant as you think. Usually any game that score above 70 is a decent game and could potentially be more enjoyable than the 90+ games you played. It's not the score but what the game offers. Alien Isolation gave you the atmospheric feel of the Alien movies with it's Retro-Future designed environments and well executed effects such as lighting and sound. These factors can easily make a game better to one person than it is to another. Some people just want to rant and nitpick. One guy recently said in one of these threads that he found MGSV a terrible game solely because it's save system isn't as manual as Bethesda's games. But this shows that everyone has and wants different experiences, subjectively.

The Witcher 3 impresses me but to you it's a disappointment. At the same time though, the game is brilliant objectively speaking but something subjective to yourself caused it to disappoint you.

Metacritic scores are there to give a vague perspective on a game depending on the reviewer...In my books, any game that scores above 70 is a good game.

That's a lot of goal post moving.

Neither of those games are multiplayer, so naturally they won't be played that long.

It's a fallacy because popularity doesn't necessarily mean quality. Higher sales don't necessarily mean quality. An educated human being is capable of gasping this basic concept.

Those games get criticized for being creatively bankrupt, stale, in the case of Madden being sloppy from a design standpoint as legacy issues have yet to be fixed. "They sell" isn't an argument sunshine, and modern critics actually possessing the ability to use a score other than 8, 9, and 10, is actually one of the better improvements of the last few years. They are still dog shit, because they are game critics, and they've always been garbage, but hey sometimes it's the little things that count.

Conspiracy theory? You're just fishing because you're butthurt and because you don't have an argument that doesn't revolve around a popularity contest.

Any game above 80+ MC or even 75+ is great for someone. At the end of the day, numbers are just for d*ck measuring.

That said, I think only complete packages should be 90+, games with great story, gameplay and innovation (in a good way). Not every "great" game should be above 90.

Last gen, any game could get 90+ just because it tried to follow famous trends.

Most of this I'm cool with, except, and I say this as someone who thinks Shadow of the Chernobyl is absolutely one of the 10 best games that last generation had to offer.

But, but, **** that, saying they were "easily patched" is not a good defense for how some of those games came out in the state that they did, to the point of being out right broken with a ridiculous amount of crashes. Do I think there is a double standard with that shit? Sure, because Obsidian isn't the only offender, though pretty high on the list of people that make glitchy, buggy shit. And I agree New Vegas is masterful in comparison to Fallout 3 (that game is ass cheeks...nah that's disrespectful to ass cheeks), but of the knocks that were valid, the tech issues were fair.

Their inability to see how the faction system changed the game, to how much better thought out the world design is, to the writing, to the skill checks, to the way you can't build actual jack of all trades, and how they tend to adulate a game so long as its "accessible" was a larger issue there. Tech complaints? And I'm usually big on saying it's pretty vain or shallow to dismiss a game because it doesn't look pretty, but the game should run cleanly at the least. Working should be an expectation.

Now how those assholes go to a Microsoft review event, review a game, find out that MCC is broken as shit, and don't adjust their review, speaks volumes. Btw, I agree New Vegas is terrific, it's on a very short list of Obsidian games I actually make.

I remember a time when Metacritic was irrelevant... If Metacritic becomes irrelevant once again, then that might be a good thing for the video game industry, which has become way too obsessed with review scores.

Can you give me a list of PS4 exclusives that scored higher than forza on metacritic?