"'If you're backwards compatible, you're really backwards,' said the president of Microsoft's Xbox division. According to Microsoft, only 5 percent of players use a new system to play games from a previous generation, which means that it didn't make sense for them to invest in backward compatibility for Xbox One."
Honestly, backwards compatibility is something that's nice to have, but I'm not going to get butthurt if it's not there. It's the reality of consoles. While it exists on PC and some handhelds, backwards compatibility is a relatively new/rare thing for consoles. That's because of the specific architecture each system uses. There's a reason emulating N64, Saturn, Dreamcast, etc. is so jacked up. There's a reason not all original Xbox games worked on the 360. There's a reason not all 360 games work on X1. It takes work, time, and money to get that stuff to run properly. It's a lot of effort just to please that 5% crowd.
@timmah1979: Another buyer rating it based on hopes and dreams, not what currently exists. You want to justify the money you spent. I get it. You're having fun with it. I'm happy for you. But what is being sold right now is broken and empty by most standards. This game shouldn't have been released in its current state. Don't lower your standards and let developers think this is OK. You, and all gamers deserve better.
@unc84: Nothing unfair about it. Gamespot even took their time before finishing the review. They gave it an extra chance the game didn't deserve. Reviews are based on what the game is, not what it will hopefully be one day. This is not a beta. This is not early access. This is a product sold for money, and it's broken. If the devs weren't ready, they shouldn't have released it. But they did release it, and reviewers not only have the right, but an obligation to tell people exactly what they're paying for. What is being sold right now is a poor product, thus, a poor score.
Scoring a game based on potential that may never be realized is dumb. Waiting to review it completely goes against what reviews are for. They can revise the score IF the devs revise the game. Not a moment sooner.
@sammyf: Exactly. Many early access games never leave early access, even though people have paid full price for them. It's not OK for developers to get away with that. I saw one developer with 4 games in early access, each abandoned one by one. I don't understand how Steam could allow them to continue doing that.
@linkbuscus01: I disagree that we should lower our standards and accept it because it's "modern day gaming." This isn't sold as a beta or early access game. This is sold as a full release, and should be rated accordingly.
@BassMan: I feel like this is the PC score since he called the other versions "intermittently unplayable." If the scores were separate, I think the console scores would be lower, not the PC version higher.
Totally fair. Some people seem to be having fun with it, and I'm happy for them. But a game with so many issues should not be given a pass. Poor efforts deserve a poor score. Period.
mddg_mmcc's comments