@doodoflife: How the f*ck could Gears be on the list if it is available on PC? Do any of you know what Exclusive stands for? AAA does not involve indie titles like cuphead, that's why its AAA. There's a lot of uneducated gamers here :D Sorry for FFXV , I didnt know its also on Xbox One
@jlenoconel: You are absolutely right. I don't debate any of that. All I'm really trying to point out, that for both system to work, you need a tremendous amount of gamers. without them a bad system doesn't work anymore... So it's not exactly a one-sided fault....
I really don't think that is EA's fault... Don't get me wrong EA is a very money-hungry, unethical company, but they are operating on a free market system. That means that the reason they can do whatever they do, is because there is a demand for it on the market. They could't sell things that are not needed on a free market. It is the fault of those gamers , who whip out their creditcard and let them! Its just human weakness, and a company thrives on that. Remember the proverb: Don't hate the player , hate the game? Its exactly the opposite what you have to do this time :D Banks thrive on the fact that you don't have enough money to instantly buy something, chips manufacturers thrive on the fact that you are a slob,a pharmacy thrives on the fact that you have a shit immune system. EA thrives on the fact that you have weak personality
@RicanV: You see that's where I'm a little bit handicapped within the gaming community. " review a game against itself". I'm sorry... I just can't. I know I'm the sh*t person here, but to tell you the truth , I always thought game development is a progress that keeps going, evolving ,and keeps getting better and better. In my childhood, it was easy to see that progression. NES->SNES--> PS1--> PS2/xbox-->PS3/360 it was a gaming evolution , that took place and was on a very clear path of progression. Until 2010 , with Limbo and such titles, indie came to existence. From that point on people kept saying , that this and that 2D pixelated mess gets better score than the latest COD, because they " review a game against itself" . Well I don't believe in this. What happened was, they derailed from that path of progression, created something that is easier to create and fund, and can market it to players with moderate financial standings. That is where this " review a game against itself" mentality came from. Before that, we the player community had a very good idea, and opinion on what we actually wanted, and I do believe we still do. (the absence of micro transactions, visual improvements, new ideas,and so on.. well at least in AAA development) The player community might stand out of different personalities, people with different standards and wishes, but there are key elements we all want in a game , and what we all understand is important. That was one of the reason witcher 3 was so good, because it listened to those needs, and those were average gamer community needs! And it is those very average gaming-community needs which is the reason people on metacritic bashed this game so brutally. There IS! a consensus on what people would like to see in a AAA game, and you can't go around that. So exactly the opposite of what you are saying is actually how it should be, reviewers has to know what that consensus is, and they have to create a review with that in mind. Again, I know I'm wrong, I'm no longer represent any community's idea but my own. Funny story: When I was trying to get a 360 for one of my friend about 4 year ago, he was very excited about it, and we scrolled trough GS to see what games to get. We landed on the reviews page where most games that week was indie ( that was around when Farcry 3 came out). My friend perceived the gaming progression the same way I did, so he was expecting some mind blowing things to see, since he left the gamer community a few years earlier. When he clicked on some of those indie titles I was laughing my a** off because of his reactions. His reactions included: Wtf is this sh*t? , Who let that happen'?! What on earth happened? Is this one of those java-game reviews? He was blown away how miserable game development got. And then I explained to him, that this is a new trend. its called indie. And the same question came up: How do these games keep having the same scores as big titles? Well: I think RicanV has a good answer to that.
@Brakkyn: But If that metascore Mogan is talking about is 5 points lower than the actual subjective review one a 1- 10 scale, we can agree that you can't use that review as a point of reference. (Which suppose to be the purpose of a professional review site) Since most reviews are made by a different person on the site, who's player identity/style is pretty much unknown for us, just like his or her standards on a certain field (gameplay, graphics, voices , effects usw) Than we the players cant really reference anything that is written or said in the review to anything, which makes it obsolite.. isn't it? If you say something is better , or just simply good, we need to reference it to something , to know what your standards are for "good". If a site uses different reviewers all the time, where is that reference point? There are people who thaught Elex was a 10 pointer. And maybe for them , it was... But if you use their opinion as a reference point, you might just buy a game that you don't want to play for even a minute. That's why it is actually better for a site to use impartial reviewer with average standards (I really can't find a better way to say it). But if I really think about it, at the end of the day , I'm wrong, because who the hell really decides to spend 60-100 $ based on just one sites review? I believe noone... So Im wrong anyway..This review is just one entry in the metascore results, but what bothers me is the bad flavour of it.. GS kept having 30 second nonskippable ads for this game like crazy, and then scored it crazy high. They delayed the scoring anyway, so just out of simple ethics someone should have double checked it, or should make a 2. review with someone else like they did with DS2 . It just smells bad and its very offputting.
Don't you just love, that when something fishy happens on Gamespot that players see trough right away, they always come up with a "that's why we did it" episode . It happened so many times that it's hard to even get mad. Sure they put the "subjective opinion" in capitals , but that just doesn't fix the problem on the global scale. A review site's purpose is to give a review on a game that resembles an average players respective opinion on that game within a certain genre. That is the reason why you don't allow a person to review games who has specific , non average needs and values in a certain genre that deviates from average needs and values. Its that simple!!! Because if you do so, you simply scam the average customer, -who uses the review as a point of reference- into buying the game. There's your problem!
For PC players, who buy a console for secondary gamesystem, mostly for the exclusives, the One X is not really an option... For others, the One x really is the top shelf hardware.
@Lord_Sesshy: You're right! As long as we are talking about the console itself. But what does the thing worth without games? To give you some perspective : at 576.hu a hungarian software dealership (I'm hungarian) the pricetags on new AAA xbox one games are on average 2000 Ft more than on the PC versions:
As you can see, the pc version are dropping in prices at a much higher rate than console version ,and also much earlier too. This is a tendency that you have in almost every country, and about the same pricepoints . So if you calculate , that you get just 30 new games for that console in its lifespan ( which is not a big number) you are 200 euros down if you sticj to the console version. So the minute you get practical about it, the higher pricetag is a true statement. And I have to tell you again, Im playing on 4k too with my 2 year old pc. Sure Im not exactly anywhere near on ultra settings, but its not like consoles are.
Banyek's comments