Why do people defend low scoring games?

Why do people go out of their way so much to defend games that aren't good like 6 and below. Is it because of fanboyism or just different taste in gaming?

Bad taste in gaming

Maybe they actually liked the game

Since a review is just some person opinion

Unless a game is a glitch fest

depends what you mean by "low scoring"

also, people have differing opinions

on this forum, if it's exclusive, it's 90% chance of pure fanboyism.

If mutiplat they are 100% serious and different tastes or bad taste take your pic.

In case of an exclusive that is liked by someone who isn't a fanatic about every game that is high scoring for that system 85% chance of being completely honest.

I pulled the % out of the air so 100% chance this is just my personal opinion.

I like some low scoring games, curiously, most of them are not for the system I prefer so It my opinion can't be from fanboyism. I like what I like I guess. I liked Tao Feng from the original xbox, I don't think anyone else played it or gave it a chance because of low scores.

I say both and you will be surprise how low many gamers standards are for games

Both?

It depends on what it is, for example defending The Order which has a score of a 5 around here and defending The Master Chief Collection which scored a 6 are entirely different things and worlds apart, one is actually a good product which suffered from issues while the other is just a bad game.

Because people can have different opinions and tastes, and one persons opinion is not a fact?

Although sure it feels like 9 times out of 10 a generally low scoring game actually is pretty shit, because the critics in this medium have no fucking standards. So when they actually do shit on a game, that game usually deserves it, more so than what it actually got.

But I'd also argue that in a medium with real critics using all of the scale, a 6 out of 10 would not be a bad score nor something that should turn you away from the game. That however requires some of you to you know, not be idiots.

Both definitely deserved a low ball score for them a least the Order did

thanks for the great example of defending flops because of fanboyism.

on this forum, if it's exclusive, it's 90% chance of pure fanboyism.

Thanks for providing the "pure fanboyism" aspect of the conversation that I mentioned and the TC asked about.

He's objectively not wrong about stating this.

One is a collection of 4 well received games that was punished for technical short comings (which could and have to some extent) been fixed. At its core the Halo games are ...by the logic of metacritic bullshit- good games (I would argue the campaigns are lousy outside of 1, but it is what it is). The Order just sucks period. There was no technical disaster with that game, it was a poorly thought out experience. They were punished for two wildly different things, anyone pretending otherwise is straight up ignorant.

If he was actually going to act like the game wasn't broken when it launched, then you'd actually have a point.

Objectively speaking, Opinions are 100% subjective. So, you are wrong and so is he for stating an opinion as fact. /Deal

Someone can hate halo as is when it had no problems and it will be completely valid as their opinion but not fact, just like someone can love The Order and think it's a great game despite it's low score. Saying "bad" or "good" game is all opinion. Why the hell do I have to explain that fact?

Low scoring game doesn't mean boring or unfun game. Mario Party consistently scores in the 4-6 range, but people still buy the **** out of them and play them, because even with all the bullshit mechanics, it's a fun and great series of games to play with friends in a casual setting.

There can still be a lot of inherent charm in a title that isn't a fully realized product. Maybe the art is great and it's a shit game, or vice versa. You can still enjoy it for it's better aspects, it just depends on what you're looking for in a game and how much you value each individual design.

Different opinions and tastes.

For example, it scored really low here, but i actually really enjoy DriveClub, my favourite racing game this gen. On the flip side, Forza 5 scored really well here, yet to me it was easily the weakest game if the franchise.

Oh look, another human being who can rationally think and realize that my statement had nothing to do with fanboyism but was simply an example piece highlighting that a low score doesn't always define something as bad.

Halo games are the opposite of bad, they are objectively and unquestionably good, however the collection of them was rated low because of multiplayer issues, that still doesn't take away that they're good games. The Order though has no redeeming qualities, it got the score it did because it's an objectively bad product, a failed game, a tech demo that is nothing but on rails button mashing and corridor shooting with no control.

No it is not an opinion that 4 well received games in a package were criticized not for the design of the game, but the technical short comings of said game (IE criticized for not working properly). The Order objectively was criticized for problems they had with the actual game design (complaints ranging from the dull shooting, the derivative nature of the game, the abundance of QTEs, the lame werewolf fights). Those reviews are opinions? Yes, but it still comes back to that not all low scoring games are created equal, and that there is a difference between the cats who defend MCC today (a once broken game that's been patched to hell and back) vs The Order (the exact same game it was when it got shot on by reviewers).

Those are facts, pretending otherwise shows your own ignorance.

Ture,

Wii Party I think has a MC score of like a 7 critical rating, but is the highest selling game of last gen 40+ million copies and people LOVED it, so did the all those people have bad taste or did the reviewers goof on their rating scale?

Rating are supposed to represent what people experience when they play a game but that is clearly not always the case.

There is no ignorance on my part, you are just being dumb.

Reviews are opinions PERIOD. knowing that fact you come back talking about the critical reviews for previous halo games to back up your argument that Halo is good vs another game makes you sound idiotic. I can and do appreciate critically well received games as it says a lot of people think (opinion) that those games are good, this, still does not translate to FACT.

Nothing you say can change the fact that reviews are opinion and that was my point. And the point about saying one game is bad vs another is an opinion on this board that is usually only supported by fanboyism of the party making the argument.

Anecdotal additive: GTA V is the highest rated game this gen (remaster luz) I have it on PS4 and played it a total of 2 extremely painful times. I can't even drum up the enthusiasm to boot up the game again, the highest rated game this gen. So much for review scores, so don't come to me with arguments based on review nonsense.

Because they enjoy them?

That's fantastic, still not my point.

He wasn't wrong in stating that defending a low scoring game isn't created equal. In the case of MCC vs The Order, the people defending (besides the obvious fanboys) MCC are defending a game that was scored low for things that can and for the most part have been fixed. Is that a fact or not? Unless you're stupid, it is a fact that what MCC was punished for had to do with technical short comings and not anyones issue with actual core game design (the shit you can't patch).

The order flip side it is a fact was punished for actual core design decisions. In which case the people defending the game are defending a game critics called bad, out right. Also again a fact, a reality.

All that painfully obvious shit said, you were the one that got too emotional and wanted to argue bullshit semantics. If you can't see that basic concept at this point, then you're probably just as much of a corporate douche as you thought he is. In which case I should feel bad for someone that would rather argue bullshit and tell me with a straight face that 1+1 isn't 2.

Different tastes.

Likewise, some low scoring games can be awesome,

I would rather play The Neverhood, Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies or EVE Online (at least this got rereviewed to an 8) than high scoring but ultimately awful games like Heavy Rain, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age: Inquisition or Guild Wars 2.

Sometimes it's because of fanboism, sometimes it's matter of preference. Some games have low critic scores but higher user scores. Those games are considered underrated. Misunderstood games that become cult classics after few years.

Because the only opinion that matters to me.. is MINE!

That's barely been out long enough for you to properly shit on it.

It doesnt take long to notice that something is fundamentally wrong with the mechanics. And if the quality of hte quests has been as low as it is in the beginning of the game as it is later on... sigh.

Trust me, I may shit badly on it now, but as time moves on, I will probably shit on it even harder.

*sigh*

Ok, for one I understand all the shit you are saying and understood it before you made your *emotional* defense of your silly argument which you jumped in. It's your misunderstanding of my simple point that seems to be the issue and nothing else.

Listen, open your fucking ears, all the crap you are saying that the reviewers said to say the games are good or bad IN THIS DISCUSSION doesn't mean shit. Read the damn topic and understand the context for my post.

"Why do people defend low scoring games?"

With that context, I made all my comments...you seem to have lost focus of that somewhere. With that context, I said all reviews are still just opinions and I also gave the Wii Party example.If you can't understand that then you need to put on your thinking cap because you are a lost cause.

"If you can't see that basic concept at this point, then you're probably just as much of a corporate douche as you thought he is. In which case I should feel bad for someone that would rather argue bullshit and tell me with a straight face that 1+1 isn't 2."

This part makes me feel you are desperate for something because there we no "corporate" anything about anything in my posts so WTF are you getting at here? Stop reaching because the nonsense you are saying is irrelevant to the points I originally said and still stand. For the last time, no grips or impressions from reviewers about why a game is good or bad matters when another person forms a different opinion.

How the **** can you say someone didn't enjoy the Order or any game? You sound stupid and pretentious as ****, get over yourself. I have not played The Order and I am not defending the order. I am making an argument about how someone can form their own opinion vs the opinion of a critical reviewer. If you don't understand still then I won't bother talking to a wall.

lolol.

Guess I am similar to you GS's 10 didn't influence me at all. Gameplay videos speak 1000 words, I bought The Witcher 1 and 2 at launch because of hype, now I may pick TW3 up some time down the line in the bargain bin.

The sad and pathetic thing about reviews and game scores, is people actually believe that 9 or 6 score = fact about how good or bad a game is. When all it is, is just some twerps opinion on what he or she thinks of a game.

Because they like it? Who cares what the score is.

I think they like it and because the score might be driving people away they feel the extra need to advocate for a game they feel is being unfairly overlooked.

Sounds simply like you are a hipster hating on things because they are popular.

10 minutes playing the game tells you the controls are terrible and it's been designed for consoles.

The gaming media doesn't take this into account because they are mostly dude bro casuals more interested in marketing it/getting page hits.

An actual real pc gamer can sniff out waffles in literally minutes.

people are sick of games like MCC which had broken multiplayer getting 9/10's at some sites

games like dragon age inquisition which is medicore mmo single player game and that guy high reviews

witcher 3 i haven't played but both the other witchers weren't mainstream so its weird how much attention that one is getting maybe is due to a drought in games no competition really in big games now a days it seems

personally i would have gave MCC a 7/10 and inquistion i'd core a 6/10 mordor is a 8/10 not a GOTY or something amazing that gamespot has asaid imo

ppl need to review games better imo and stop giving such high ratings to games that don't deserve em

Because reviewers aren't gods among gamers. Often I find high scoring games to be much worse than the reviews say they are.

Again you can't grasp a simple discussion. He made a comment that two games being defended can be for different reasons, of which you downplayed as fanboyism. Which I said actually speaking from a logical and objective standpoint what he said wasn't wrong. The things those 2 games were criticized for were fundamentally different. You then proceeded to argue semantics, move goal posts, or argue irrelevant shit that had nothing to do with the initial posts to begin with. Bottom line what he stated wasn't "pure fanboyism" given what he was actually talking about, you can't seem to grasp that and want to argue nonsense.

Skip his posts at this point, because I sincerely do not care bringing this back.

Please tell me the fanboyism behind saying "MCC gets defended because it was knocked for technical failures which can and have been fixed" vs "the order was panned for actual game design decisions" . Sheepish mentality (not the stupid fanbase, the normal use of that word) sure for putting that much stock in a review, but it wouldn't be fanboyism. That is all that was actually said, and then you went on pointless tangents.

Yeah the mechanics suck, I'd still argue it's a bit ignorant to assume that the game isn't capable of getting better.

I mean yeah it's The Witcher, so it's highly likely it'll be a let down, but still premature to bury that game in the same company as Heavy Rain (Gross) or a Dragon Age Origins.

Mate, I like your routine, your ability to troll The Witcher crowd makes Lulu's trolling of the Souls fanbase looks like child's play, but humor me here, exactly what is wrong with the controls in The Witcher 3? It can't just be "herpa derp you need a gamepad" that's lazy.

Ahh the good old hipster name-calling.

Unfortunately that couldnt be further from the truth. All the 4 low scoring games I mentioned are considered classics nowadays. Meanwhile Heavy Rain has been met with criticism for its plotholes, DA:I has been heavy criticism after its honeymoon period ran out for its poor tactical camera, bad writing and lack of good content, the honeymoon period for The Witcher 3 has already ran out for some, and there are some pretty big threads out there with a lot of posts discussing how BAD the game is and Guild Wars 2 is a pariah amongst the mmorpg community.

Just because a game scores low by a random reviewer on the internet dosent mean everyone will think that its bad too or that you wont enjoy it.. i look at Destiny it got low reviews by random reviewers on the internet but i not only still bought it day 1 but i have also put over 600 hours into it and been playing it since September 2014.

Scores are there to give you an early idea of how the game is and what the person who played it thought of it but again a game that is being enjoyed by many dosent mean you'll enjoy it too and same goes the other way a game that not many enjoy dosent mean you wont enjoy it either ;)

Well, Witcher 3 not in the same tier as the rest of those turds but since it was so recent, it had to unfortunately join the rest of those awful games on there. I am not doing the game justice, but meh.

yeah yeah past was best, today is too maninstream bla bla hipster something. Heavy Rain didn't play, and the other games while obviously not perfect are good games, if you only play outdated mediocre games now "classics" by nostalgia hipsters that's on you. As for your threads about witcher 3 being bad, there will always be people like you, or just plain people that didn't like the game, not everyone has to like it and you can find that kind of threads for every major game release, right now it sits with a lot of great scores from reviews and user score 8.8 on metacritic, the game is good, even if you don't like it, as for gw 2 the "pariah" of mmorpg ROFL that is the dumbest thing ever the game sold incredibly well and even now it has a couple million people playing it, in that note it probably has a lot more population than the games you are playing, some hipster like yourself don't liking it and thinking he dictates what is well received or what the community sees as good or bad is just ridiculous.

No, Gamespot just has a habit of not giving excellent games low scores these days. Hence why they were all in the past. But I suppose a more modern title that would scored unfairly low would be Killer is Dead.

Some people are just not impressed as easily, some have higher standards than others. As of now, Witcher 3 has a myriad of issues including,

1. Combat is improved from witcher 2. But far from good.

2. Low quality quests that feel repetitive. While well written for most of the part, the actual gameplay aspect of them is piss poor.

3. Press E to harvest, Press E to harvest, Press E to harvest, Press E to harvest, Press E to harvest, Press E to harvest, Press E to harvest

4. Bad controls

5. Incredibly lackluster RPG elements, upgrades are very mmoish in design and levelling up feels very unexciting. A level 1 Geralt plays very similar to a level 20 geralt (statwise there is a difference, but in general playstyle, the difference is MUCH smaller, with a few percentual differences here and there)

6. Bugs

7. AI issues

8. Terrible optimization

9. C&C feels like a massive step down from previous Witcher games and now feels very BioWarian.

10. World feels empty or rather, devoid of interesting content. 100s of seemingly cloned NPCs dont make things better.

11. Mounted combat is terribad

As for Guild Wars 2. The game sold well, due to excellent hype and PR but the population declined really fast after launch, to the point where the game had serious population issues on some servers and they practically made a massive megaserver, to fix issues. Just play any other mmorpg or visit an mmo community, and if Guild Wars 2 is mentioned, prepare for a LOT of negativity. It is a pariah among mmorpg fans. It has a roughly 4.6 million copies, but how many of those players are still playing? ;)

Calling me a hipster isnt helping your case in the slightest.

Just because a game scores below a 6 doesn't mean it is a bad game. Just like a game that scores an 8 or higher doesn't automatically mean it's a good game.

Reviews are overrated, truthfully in the real world, a Review will not drastically alter ones opinion on a game, Take games like The Crew, it scored a 6, and has one of the highest population of online players on an mmo driver and over 2 million in sales.

but people just mainly bought it for the customization and the scaled down version of the USA, including me.

Cause Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze was not a 6/10.

Gotta love how this fanboy defends a broken product and displays the very fanboyism people are talking about.

cause opinions are a great thing.

Heres a revelation for you, try and keep up its goin to be complicated:

Because they might actually like the game.

You see to alot of people scores are just stupid numbers to be played with by fools such as yourself, me, and a lot of people like me dont really care what the number says if we enjoy the game.

There is only one "bad" games that I have played since the launch of these new consoles. The Order 1886. DriveClub, Ryse, Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze and Halo MCC are not "bad" games and I can understand why people like them. The Order is barely a video game. It's a shooter with like 5 shooting sequences and 3 boss fights. People have bitched about the lack of content this generation and there is no bigger offender. There is no reason a person should be able to platinum a game in one sitting. And I swear the actual visuals look nothing like those gifs floating around online. The Order 1886 is a blurry, fuzzy mess.

Trophy hunters should check out The Order 1886. Everyone else should stay away.

@TheFadeForever:

Because there is so much money in the industry now and people get hyped over scores to the point where sales are affected. When great games don't get the recognition, and the same tedious ones do, it affects design trends for years to come.