Hmm, odd all this talk about some stupid critics giving a score to a game, good or bad. Who the F cares. I like the game , would give it a 10 easy, and don t care if anyone, yes anyone on the internet gives it a 0 or a 10. Why does this matter so much, lol.
At the time I started the thread, I was feeling ranty, had experience with the game (it was exactly what I expected going into it: a solid, but not very memorable, game), and hoped it would spark some good discussion on professional reviews. It has served that purpose well, which is what I feel these forums are for!
Your opinion that it doesn't matter is as valid as any other here, btw, so don't take this as me trying to devalue your post!
You made the big mistake to forget perspective. You tried to make your opinion be a fact. Now you are trying to make us forget that part. But we don't
I feel like my opinion was clearly labeled as such (I even included /endrant in my OP to ensure readers knew it was a rant).
I gave my opinion on the 10s, and my supporting evidence for forming that opinion. I didn't, over and over, preface my posts with, "and this is just my opinion, but..." because that's both cumbersome and unnecessary (I felt).
I don't want to go on about this after we reached such pleasant common ground, but if it was only your opinion - then why suspect bias or corruption?
Would it not have been enough to express disagreement and a lack of understanding for those high scores?
Why make it about foul play?
To me, that literally screams that you consider your opinion something that others need to share - at least on some level, or they're potentially corrupt or unusually biased.
That's what takes it beyond the realm of you just expressing your opinion.
Now, if you actually something tangible against the scores beyond your own opinion - THEN you'd have a reason to suspect bias or corruption, and it could have remained within the realm of objectivity.
I wouldn't even give some of my favorite games of all time a perfect score. Ultima 7, Ultima Underworld, Doom 1,2, and the current DOOM, Civilization 2, GalCiv2, Dungeon Keeper, Diablo 1-3, Lands of Lore, etc. None of those are 10s. A declaration of perfection isn't something to be announced lightly.
Look, I'm sure Overwatch is the best there is at what it does, but at the end of the day it's still a repetitive MOBA shooter with a handful of modes and maps. To me, the absolute highest a game like that should get is an 8.
I suppose it doesn't matter. I'll probably never play it, as I don't like twitchy, comparatively shallow PvP games like that.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
I went and bought it because, what the hell, and it's really good fun. What I think could be better is the ability to customise your characters to actually improve them, as opposed to just adding different voices, emotes, sprays etc. That would give you something really worthwhile to aim for.
Actually, there is 312 "ratings" in the 0-4 range because the red is where 4 stops and 5 starts in the yellow. There are definitely fewer actual reviews of the game in the red, but the number of ratings that are 0-4 is 312.
I wish we could see the number of ratings of 10. I can't disagree, though, there are groups of people who will vote 0 or vote 10 thinking that they are evening things out or doing the industry some sort of service. In actuality they're just muddying the waters and making it more difficult to determine what's accurate and what isn't. So then we need to refer back to these critics as the most objective source. It essentially destroys any value that Metacritic set out to create.
Unless you read the reviews, scores won't help anyway since everybody has different criteria for scoring.
I agree, but this is also a reason why critics are more reliable. A critic, in theory, has a set of metrics with multiple levels of complexity that they use to create a more objective view of each game. Users may or may not have this. If someone is scoring Overwatch as bad (0-4) then they obviously do NOT have an objective measure for the game. I'm not saying that they might not feel that way. I'm not saying that they're lying and Overwatch must be enjoyable to them, but if it's not your cup of tea and you refuse to be objective, then don't leave a review or ranking because it actually damages the system itself and makes great tools like Metacritic just useless.
Unless you read the reviews, scores won't help anyway since everybody has different criteria for scoring.
I agree, but this is also a reason why critics are more reliable. A
critic, in theory, has a set of metrics with multiple levels of
complexity that they use to create a more objective view of each game.
Users may or may not have this. If someone is scoring Overwatch as bad
(0-4) then they obviously do NOT have an objective measure for the game.
I'm not saying that they might not feel that way. I'm not saying that
they're lying and Overwatch must be enjoyable to them, but if it's not
your cup of tea and you refuse to be objective, then don't leave a
review or ranking because it actually damages the system itself and
makes great tools like Metacritic just useless.
I trust critics' criteria even less if they can give 10s so easily. We
need to settle on an objective scoring system before you can say people
giving bad scores don't have objective criteria. What if someone doesn't
care at all if the game is fun for some, and does many things right as
long as previous games did everything better? I haven't played Overwatch
much so I will reserve judgement for now, but for example diablo 3, a
game which sold millions and has technically some longevity and working
mechanics, deserve a bad score IMO, because it was worse than Diablo 2
in terms of build or item customizability, objectively the most
important thing in a h&s game. So I can see someone giving Overwatch
a bad score just because they believe it doesn't do anything better
than previous arena shooters, even though Overwatch may be crazy fun for
lots of people.
At the end critics review games for potential
buyers to help them with their decision, while some users review games
for themselves in an attempt to show developers of future games what
they want or don't want in these games. So even if both were objective I
would expect different criteria and scores from both.
Again, this is a prime example of why the general populous makes terrible reviewers. You literally talked out one side of your mouth about how critics can't be trusted and there needs to be an objective scoring system. Then you went on to say how D3 should get a bad score because it was worse than D2. It doesn't get more subjective than that!! Someone bang the gavel! Case closed!
You're right, both critics and users will have evaluation criteria. I never said that users didn't have evaluation criteria. However, what you list here, comparing D2 and D3, is a single aspect of a much larger game. Maybe you would call this "Features". However, there would also be Story, Graphics/Presentation, Gameplay, Sound, Polish, etc. A review is multi-faceted, it's not singular. You can't state something using IMO (in my opinion) and then use "objectively" in the same sentence. D3 was broken in many ways, but these were primarily design choices by the developer, not literally broken features (minus the obligatory launch issues). Story is spectacular, as with any Blizzard game, Graphics and Presentation is done very well, polish is right up there, gameplay/features? Maybe that gets a slightly lower score. No PvP either, so that's definitely something annoying. However, when you compare it in the wider context of games in general, the features are still deep. Actually, even the broken features were innovative, even if people didn't like them.
You actually show the exact problem with user reviews in your last sentence. Reviews are not a forum for people to express their opinion, they're intended as subjective pieces meant to influence people to buy, or not to buy. That isn't to say that a review can't contain feedback to the developer, it can, but when you provide little or no useful or constructive information, then it devalues the idea of user reviews overall. Actually, I think it would be prudent for Metacritic to allow for reviewers to be flagged as providing useless information and then they really need to just ban those people outright. It's quite obvious, if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5 or 10 or more who are being useless.
Actually, I think it would be prudent for Metacritic to allow for reviewers to be flagged as providing useless information --- if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one
person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5
or 10 or more who are being useless.
that goes both ways u know , the 10/10 scores with fanboys screaming best game ever nothing bad at all , is perfect , my dream come true....ect
Actually, I think it would be prudent for Metacritic to allow for reviewers to be flagged as providing useless information --- if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one
person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5
or 10 or more who are being useless.
that goes both ways u know , the 10/10 scores with fanboys screaming best game ever nothing bad at all , is perfect , my dream come true....ect
I don't want to go on about this after we reached such pleasant common ground, but if it was only your opinion - then why suspect bias or corruption?
Would it not have been enough to express disagreement and a lack of understanding for those high scores?
Why make it about foul play?
To me, that literally screams that you consider your opinion something that others need to share - at least on some level, or they're potentially corrupt or unusually biased.
That's what takes it beyond the realm of you just expressing your opinion.
Now, if you actually something tangible against the scores beyond your own opinion - THEN you'd have a reason to suspect bias or corruption, and it could have remained within the realm of objectivity.
Okay, then:
I won't talk about the Gerstmann debacle, as I think that's old enough hat that everyone knows what it is and what happened.
Some quotes from the article, to further illustrate the point and relevance:
"Every game critic will say that gifts don’t effect review scores, despite decades worth of evidence from the medical profession (who have years of training about how to make a choice) that gifts do influence decision-making."
This is more of a general relevance, rather than a specific one, to this case. However, if Blizzard, as an exception to the rule, participates in absolutely no gifting whatsoever, I haven't heard. Also, this is the very situation that led me to pose the question: were it an indie developer without the resources to present reviewers with hundreds or thousands of dollars of "swag," would they have received the same score?
However, to get more specific, we can look in another spot in the article:
"This issue was highlighted recently with the debacle that was SimCity, where the early reviews – played on exclusive servers hosted for the very purpose of showing the game off to game critics – in no way reflected the play experience at release."
Considering we've already heard talk of a screwy matchmaker (a core mechanic of an online game that, as I said, Blizzard has already had experience screwing up with HoTS), I'd say this one is of a much more specific relevance.
Considering overarching trends of day 1 reviews to skew positive, coupled with the common practice for gifting from publishers (that, whether conscious or subconscious, does have an effect on the mindframe of the reviewers), then taking my experience with truly revolutionary games and how they affected me versus how Overwatch failed to even impress me beyond its art style and polish...... I formed a strong opinion.
EDIT- some extra formatting for your viewing pleasure.
CrazKanuk said: It's quite obvious, if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5 or 10 or more who are being useless.
Same for high scores. Anyway in my experience gaming is going to shit, while fanboys are bashing anyone who dares to review games in a way that reflect this. It isn't negative reviewers or "haters" that will ruin gaming but the fanboys.
How can a fonboi ruin your gaming experience?
I have a fool proof plan in place......I don't care. I just play what I want to or enjoy.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
It's good, just not great. There's nothing dynamic about it. Having played Battelborn, Gigantic, and Paragon though it just seems shallow by comparison. They're not the same exact type of game but why does that matter? If one has more depth it has more depth, period. Personally I think Gigantic is the best out of all of these "similar games releasing around the same time".
CrazKanuk said: It's quite obvious, if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5 or 10 or more who are being useless.
Same for high scores. Anyway in my experience gaming is going to shit, while fanboys are bashing anyone who dares to review games in a way that reflect this. It isn't negative reviewers or "haters" that will ruin gaming but the fanboys.
How can a fonboi ruin your gaming experience?
I have a fool proof plan in place......I don't care. I just play what I want to or enjoy.
Because they make sure developers don't receive any negative feedback.
BS....they can't block negative feedback.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
CrazKanuk said: It's quite obvious, if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5 or 10 or more who are being useless.
Same for high scores. Anyway in my experience gaming is going to shit, while fanboys are bashing anyone who dares to review games in a way that reflect this. It isn't negative reviewers or "haters" that will ruin gaming but the fanboys.
How can a fonboi ruin your gaming experience?
I have a fool proof plan in place......I don't care. I just play what I want to or enjoy.
Because they make sure developers don't receive any negative feedback.
BS....they can't block negative feedback.
Admin control panel, edit or delete comment.
Or on a simpler level, drown everything in lots of noise.
Happens all the time.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Overwatch is in the middle of it's launch and a giant media blitz. We can't expect an honest review to be done in general until people have given time for the shiny to wear off a bit and the semantics about the gameplay, variety, choices, and longevity are all put into scrutiny.
Too many are either jiving or reacting to the most immediate and basic things at the moment still.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
CrazKanuk said: It's quite obvious, if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5 or 10 or more who are being useless.
Same for high scores. Anyway in my experience gaming is going to shit, while fanboys are bashing anyone who dares to review games in a way that reflect this. It isn't negative reviewers or "haters" that will ruin gaming but the fanboys.
How can a fonboi ruin your gaming experience?
I have a fool proof plan in place......I don't care. I just play what I want to or enjoy.
Because they make sure developers don't receive any negative feedback.
BS....they can't block negative feedback.
Admin control panel, edit or delete comment.
Or on a simpler level, drown everything in lots of noise.
Happens all the time.
Which would have nothing to do with fanbios.....right?
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
I think a fundamental misunderstanding is that reviewers necessarily mean "perfect" when they say 10/10.
In fact, it seems the highest score means a large variety of things, depending on who you ask.
Look at Gamespot, for instance, where 10/10 simply means "essential".
So, before we go criticising reviewers for handing out "perfect" scores, we should probably make sure that's what they really mean.
If we assume the perfect game doesn't and won't exist - then it's a pretty simple conclusion that 10/10 doesn't mean literally perfect.
As far as Gamespot goes... If memory serves me right, they've only given out 11 or 12 10/10's over the whole history of the site.
The rating system already screwed up enough. 5/10 should mean an ok average game, instead it means PoS. What happened to the days when an 8/10 meant the game was kick ass?
The rating system is being watered down to being almost meaningless in the name of hype and clicks. It all revolves around the almighty dollar.
It's a pretty sad day when reviews are nothing more than another form of marketing. That's the road the gaming industry is traveling down.
CrazKanuk said: It's quite obvious, if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5 or 10 or more who are being useless.
Same for high scores. Anyway in my experience gaming is going to shit, while fanboys are bashing anyone who dares to review games in a way that reflect this. It isn't negative reviewers or "haters" that will ruin gaming but the fanboys.
How can a fonboi ruin your gaming experience?
I have a fool proof plan in place......I don't care. I just play what I want to or enjoy.
Because they make sure developers don't receive any negative feedback.
BS....they can't block negative feedback.
Admin control panel, edit or delete comment.
Or on a simpler level, drown everything in lots of noise.
Happens all the time.
Which would have nothing to do with fanbios.....right?
Pretty sure that second example is largely caused by "fanbois".
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
CrazKanuk said: It's quite obvious, if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5 or 10 or more who are being useless.
Same for high scores. Anyway in my experience gaming is going to shit, while fanboys are bashing anyone who dares to review games in a way that reflect this. It isn't negative reviewers or "haters" that will ruin gaming but the fanboys.
How can a fonboi ruin your gaming experience?
I have a fool proof plan in place......I don't care. I just play what I want to or enjoy.
Because they make sure developers don't receive any negative feedback.
BS....they can't block negative feedback.
Admin control panel, edit or delete comment.
Or on a simpler level, drown everything in lots of noise.
Happens all the time.
Which would have nothing to do with fanbios.....right?
Pretty sure that second example is largely caused by "fanbois".
/sigh....rolls eyes
Pretty sure you thinks so. Pretty sure it's just not happening the way you think
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Yeah whatever. I'm just going to wait until the hype train runs out of steam and the shiny wears off and the game has to get by on its own merit and player retention. Then we'll see how this goes.
I will say though that I'm pretty sure however the game fares in future its most likely already a financial success regardless, that's the boon of big hype and a buy to play box price. If the game turns out to suck later on they've already got your money. ... Unless of course Overwatch really is the afterbirth of the long road to nowhere that was Titan. Then depending on how much development money Blizz flushed down the crapper on that game, Overwatch might need some really big numbers to just break even.
Why does this matter to you. So you want to wait until the hype dies down blah blah blah. Why does that need to happen and why are you hell bent on waiting for it? If you like the game, play it. If you don't, then don't play it. It's really quite simple.
CrazKanuk said: It's quite obvious, if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5 or 10 or more who are being useless.
Same for high scores. Anyway in my experience gaming is going to shit, while fanboys are bashing anyone who dares to review games in a way that reflect this. It isn't negative reviewers or "haters" that will ruin gaming but the fanboys.
How can a fonboi ruin your gaming experience?
I have a fool proof plan in place......I don't care. I just play what I want to or enjoy.
Because they make sure developers don't receive any negative feedback.
BS....they can't block negative feedback.
Admin control panel, edit or delete comment.
Or on a simpler level, drown everything in lots of noise.
Happens all the time.
Which would have nothing to do with fanbios.....right?
Pretty sure that second example is largely caused by "fanbois".
/sigh....rolls eyes
Pretty sure you thinks so. Pretty sure it's just not happening the way you think
Pretty sure point in case.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
.. ... Unless of course Overwatch really is the afterbirth of the long road to nowhere that was Titan. Then depending on how much development money Blizz flushed down the crapper on that game, Overwatch might need some really big numbers to just break even.
I doubt that very much. No game would survive if it was saddled with the ten years' worth of squandered dev costs that project Titan would have incurred.
Titan's losses were in all likelihood written-off years ago. If they could use some of the Titan assets to subsidize the Overwatch development, that would most likely have been seen as a small recovery of some of Titan's losses by "billing" Overwatch's budget with an appropriate figure.
lets wait a week , and see now is the honeymoon , is fun ? yeah probably is tons of fun....how long? thats the question....
History repeats itself... For every game on this site, there's always "that guy" who posts "wait a week and you'll see", then next week, "wait a month and you'll see", and then "what a couple of months and you'll see", then "wait a year and you'll see", etc...
and there is always "that guy" that make a post of Whats your favorite character ?
I like Roadhog a lot. I kick some serious butt as him. I was on fire the literal whole game after 30 seconds last night.
Edit: game was a full 10 just about, we got it near to last objective almost instantly, and proceeded to lose, but I still did well, so i suppose it's okay.
Comments
Would it not have been enough to express disagreement and a lack of understanding for those high scores?
Why make it about foul play?
To me, that literally screams that you consider your opinion something that others need to share - at least on some level, or they're potentially corrupt or unusually biased.
That's what takes it beyond the realm of you just expressing your opinion.
Now, if you actually something tangible against the scores beyond your own opinion - THEN you'd have a reason to suspect bias or corruption, and it could have remained within the realm of objectivity.
Look, I'm sure Overwatch is the best there is at what it does, but at the end of the day it's still a repetitive MOBA shooter with a handful of modes and maps. To me, the absolute highest a game like that should get is an 8.
I suppose it doesn't matter. I'll probably never play it, as I don't like twitchy, comparatively shallow PvP games like that.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
In fact, it seems the highest score means a large variety of things, depending on who you ask.
Look at Gamespot, for instance, where 10/10 simply means "essential".
So, before we go criticising reviewers for handing out "perfect" scores, we should probably make sure that's what they really mean.
If we assume the perfect game doesn't and won't exist - then it's a pretty simple conclusion that 10/10 doesn't mean literally perfect.
I agree, but this is also a reason why critics are more reliable. A critic, in theory, has a set of metrics with multiple levels of complexity that they use to create a more objective view of each game. Users may or may not have this. If someone is scoring Overwatch as bad (0-4) then they obviously do NOT have an objective measure for the game. I'm not saying that they might not feel that way. I'm not saying that they're lying and Overwatch must be enjoyable to them, but if it's not your cup of tea and you refuse to be objective, then don't leave a review or ranking because it actually damages the system itself and makes great tools like Metacritic just useless.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Again, this is a prime example of why the general populous makes terrible reviewers. You literally talked out one side of your mouth about how critics can't be trusted and there needs to be an objective scoring system. Then you went on to say how D3 should get a bad score because it was worse than D2. It doesn't get more subjective than that!! Someone bang the gavel! Case closed!
You're right, both critics and users will have evaluation criteria. I never said that users didn't have evaluation criteria. However, what you list here, comparing D2 and D3, is a single aspect of a much larger game. Maybe you would call this "Features". However, there would also be Story, Graphics/Presentation, Gameplay, Sound, Polish, etc. A review is multi-faceted, it's not singular. You can't state something using IMO (in my opinion) and then use "objectively" in the same sentence. D3 was broken in many ways, but these were primarily design choices by the developer, not literally broken features (minus the obligatory launch issues). Story is spectacular, as with any Blizzard game, Graphics and Presentation is done very well, polish is right up there, gameplay/features? Maybe that gets a slightly lower score. No PvP either, so that's definitely something annoying. However, when you compare it in the wider context of games in general, the features are still deep. Actually, even the broken features were innovative, even if people didn't like them.
You actually show the exact problem with user reviews in your last sentence. Reviews are not a forum for people to express their opinion, they're intended as subjective pieces meant to influence people to buy, or not to buy. That isn't to say that a review can't contain feedback to the developer, it can, but when you provide little or no useful or constructive information, then it devalues the idea of user reviews overall. Actually, I think it would be prudent for Metacritic to allow for reviewers to be flagged as providing useless information and then they really need to just ban those people outright. It's quite obvious, if you go and read some of the negative reviews, that for every one person who thinks they're actually being constructive, there is another 5 or 10 or more who are being useless.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I won't talk about the Gerstmann debacle, as I think that's old enough hat that everyone knows what it is and what happened.
However, there has been a statistical study done on the difference between "day 1" reviews and subsequent reviews. The result? Day 1 reviews are, as a rule, higher than subsequent review scores.
Some quotes from the article, to further illustrate the point and relevance: "Every game critic will say that gifts don’t effect review scores, despite decades worth of evidence from the medical profession (who have years of training about how to make a choice) that gifts do influence decision-making."
This is more of a general relevance, rather than a specific one, to this case. However, if Blizzard, as an exception to the rule, participates in absolutely no gifting whatsoever, I haven't heard. Also, this is the very situation that led me to pose the question: were it an indie developer without the resources to present reviewers with hundreds or thousands of dollars of "swag," would they have received the same score?
However, to get more specific, we can look in another spot in the article: "This issue was highlighted recently with the debacle that was SimCity, where the early reviews – played on exclusive servers hosted for the very purpose of showing the game off to game critics – in no way reflected the play experience at release."
Considering we've already heard talk of a screwy matchmaker (a core mechanic of an online game that, as I said, Blizzard has already had experience screwing up with HoTS), I'd say this one is of a much more specific relevance.
Considering overarching trends of day 1 reviews to skew positive, coupled with the common practice for gifting from publishers (that, whether conscious or subconscious, does have an effect on the mindframe of the reviewers), then taking my experience with truly revolutionary games and how they affected me versus how Overwatch failed to even impress me beyond its art style and polish...... I formed a strong opinion.
EDIT- some extra formatting for your viewing pleasure.
EDIT2- Typos, ahoy!
I have a fool proof plan in place......I don't care. I just play what I want to or enjoy.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Personally I think Gigantic is the best out of all of these "similar games releasing around the same time".
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Or on a simpler level, drown everything in lots of noise.
Happens all the time.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Too many are either jiving or reacting to the most immediate and basic things at the moment still.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
The rating system already screwed up enough. 5/10 should mean an ok average game, instead it means PoS. What happened to the days when an 8/10 meant the game was kick ass?
The rating system is being watered down to being almost meaningless in the name of hype and clicks. It all revolves around the almighty dollar.
It's a pretty sad day when reviews are nothing more than another form of marketing. That's the road the gaming industry is traveling down.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Pretty sure you thinks so. Pretty sure it's just not happening the way you think
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Titan's losses were in all likelihood written-off years ago. If they could use some of the Titan assets to subsidize the Overwatch development, that would most likely have been seen as a small recovery of some of Titan's losses by "billing" Overwatch's budget with an appropriate figure.
Edit: game was a full 10 just about, we got it near to last objective almost instantly, and proceeded to lose, but I still did well, so i suppose it's okay.