There is a lot to say actually, like how critics reviews and user reviews don't have to match. If i or very much likely you, were to review the Mona Lisa we would probably say its a decent painting. Its retarded to say it if you know the painting and how much its worth. Although not exactly the same, the principle is identical.
That is retarded. A game is scored according to its genre. By your definition minecraft is a 1/100 because its graphics suck ass. Its a indie title, its reviewed as an indie title, and according to its price tag. If this was a 50 bucks game the score would have been way, way lower.
I also laugh when he says "noticed people felt it wasn't finished enough".
The first thing devs said when the backlash started was: "93% of players enjoy our game!". A simply outright lie.
THEN they ban players for no reason, and lie boldly when you try to get your account back. You can send an email from a not even registered account and they will reply with "We have proof of you hacking".
After that there is their no-refund policy, that is illegal. They only refunds you get are the steam ones (since steam made them refund) or if you enforce the law in your country, that likely makes them obliged to refund you.
DayZ is free. Ofc because its a mod you need the game.
But thats a retarded way to look at it. The mod itself is free, the only problem is that not everyone owns arma2. There are a crap of half life mods and you can consider those free because everyone has the game.
So yes DayZ is free, their creators got no money for the arma2 sales it created.
Graphics are more than polygons, they are art. Honestly BO2 looks like crap. All it has are some nice lightning effects, the textures and so forth are low res.
Not to mention the game of the year can have crappy graphics. Games are about gameplay not shiny objects.
@made_u_look If you look at it the best games are almost always console exclusives. Halo, MGS, etc.
Its much easier to program for 1 specific console and make the game fit that console than to do a general game that fits in all. Most multi platform games lack in quality. It isn't impossible but its very hard to have a multi platform game of very high quality.
Look paid DLC is only a lie when its day one DLC (that shit should be with the game). In other words content that has been done, by time of release or should be done and they still charge extra for it. Take capcom an the SFxT. They had paid DLC that was on disk. That's bullshit.
This is true DLC, to extend the life of a game. Nothing wrong with paying for DLC that was created after the game released.
Any paid DLC that comes within 3 months is nothing short of a robbery.
Its like ordering a pizza and you notice there are 2 slices missing. When you ask the waiter he replies: "Ho one is pre-order bonus and the other is day 1 paid DLC."
True DLC worth the money should be 4~6 months apart. This one is idd late but at least its not robbery.
This is a common sense rule: Just because something has nothing wrong with it doesn't make it perfect.
This holds true for anything, including game reviews. Just because diablo doesn't mess anything except the online doesn't mean its a perfect 10. The combat is good and rewarding but there are games with better combat. Two games with "Good combat" can be a worlds apart.
So a game that is good at almost everything is great (8.0s to 9.0s) but for a game to be above 9.0 it must innovate or exceed in certain points. Diablo 3 is a great game, but hardly revolutionary. Its too close to its roots.
snakept69's comments