Computer games.


To be fair, that's a pretty poor review. Jim is prone to the odd one; I think he makes his mind up very early on in a game and nothing will change his mind.

Still a massive fan of his like.

Still an overreaction though

The big thing is his review meant the game got a score of 97 instead of 98 on Metacritic, which means it isn't in the "best game ever" category

Who cares about Metacritic FFS? Since when did that place become the authority on such matters?
 
You'll be able to play 4 player split-screen on the telly when the Switch is docked. You can only play split-screen 2 player in handheld mode unless you sync up to 8 more Switches.

You can play Zelda in little bursts. In an hour you can mooch about and do a couple of Shrines perhaps?! It is massive tho, so it'll take you a while to complete.

Mario Kart 8 is phenomenal BTW. There's 40 tracks and the majority of them are really good fun.

Taking a while is not a problem. I play FIFA "seasons" over 3 and 4 month periods, and haven't gotten very far in any my recent campaigns.
 
Still an overreaction though

The big thing is his review meant the game got a score of 97 instead of 98 on Metacritic, which means it isn't in the "best game ever" category

Who cares about Metacritic FFS? Since when did that place become the authority on such matters?
A lot of major publishers tie bonuses to metacritic scores.

Because it's a good way to weasel out of paying the people that make the game.
 

Yeah, but the game got a 97 FFS

I'm sure people got paid
I also doubt Nintendo has that particular policy. Think it tends to be more prevalent with the big western monoliths like EA/Ubisoft/Activision.

I could totally see one of them saying to get an x% bonus if it gets above 90 and a y% if you get in the 'best game ever' set.

Agree though. People are way too rabid about someone disagreeing with them. If you think a review is terrible, disregard it and move on.
 
So maybe I'm a bit dense, but isn't it a bit early to be declaring a game in the "best game ever" category upon its release, before the masses have had time to play and comment?

*I mean, I understand the roles of critics, but seems premature
 


One of those rare bad Jimquisitions.

The weapon durability adds loads to the title for me. Throwing a sword in a mobs face, quickly picking up a club and moving on adds a level of dynamism to what would otherwise be a standard combat system.

I really think he's allowed himself to lose a lot of objectivity with this game - you can tell from his words and voice that it's just irrational anger.
 
Still an overreaction though

The big thing is his review meant the game got a score of 97 instead of 98 on Metacritic, which means it isn't in the "best game ever" category

Who cares about Metacritic FFS? Since when did that place become the authority on such matters?

Its an aggregation website. It has been around for quite a while. While it isn't the only place I check, it can be a good indicator as it shows publication review average and user review average.

Obviously though, some people take metacritic very very seriously.
 

Got back into No Man's Sky since the big Pathfinder update. It is a lot better but stupidly hard on Survival / Permadeath levels.

Been playing loads since the Foundation update. It's the first game I've got a platinum trophy for.

The buggies are quite fun and photo mode is impressive.

Still a lot of half finished stuff though.
 
To be fair, that's a pretty poor review. Jim is prone to the odd one; I think he makes his mind up very early on in a game and nothing will change his mind.

Still a massive fan of his like.

Still remember him giving AC2 4.5/10.

He's a good games journo but a poor reviewer in my opinion.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top