Yeah god forbid people that spent 60 dollars on a game want to play it, damn so butthurt.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its a fun game but god they fucked up in so many areas that should not on this type of game, as of now GTA V(Even 4 can be argued, though I hate that one...), Saints Row 2, and Sleeping Dogs are way ahead in those aspects...
Comment has been collapsed.
See I saw SR2 as an expanded better version of SA with a create a character.
The AI was also great, not the enemy AI but the way people did things in the game world, felt very alive.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, you have me beat. I didn't think it was this bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
MY GRAPHING CALCULATOR CAN'T RUN THIS GAME. 0/10.
Comment has been collapsed.
MAN, WHAT JERKS, PATCHING THEIR GAME AFTER RELEASE. THIS IS NONSENSE. WHY CAN'T THEY EVER JUST LEAVE THEIR GAMES AS IS AFTER RELEASE.
Comment has been collapsed.
^Part of the problem right here guys!
(Why is it that everyone that's stupid or a troll caps everything?)
Comment has been collapsed.
Part of the problem? If you don't expect some growing pains on a major game release, you're an incompetent fool. It's only a problem if they don't fix it within the first couple months.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, let's all bow down to our publisher overlords who charge 60 bucks for games they rushed out of the door to get their next pool full of money! After all they will (might?) fix them in the next few months, who are their customers to complain- nobody, that's who! [/sarcasm]
I don't have the game myself, but if it isn't working properly for a lot of their users, then they deserve all the bad-mouthing they can get. Publishers should not be allowed to get away with charging for faulty products and people SHOULD be angry. If people are not angry, then said publishers will just do it again and again, never to learn a thing, never to improve. Criticism is a tool for progress. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
He also thinks its ok for them to take months to fix it, so we pay 60 now and in a couple months the games 10 dollars on sale and works. Don't worry we can play it then! :-D
Haha.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're part of the problem if you're going to pay $60 on launch and then cry about your game not working. Maybe if you had actually waited for the game to come out and read some reviews you could have waited until the game was patched so we could all be spared your crybaby whining? People pay good money for PROMISES of games on Early Access, I don't know what's so big and evil about paying for a fully finished game that's a bit rough around the edges for the first couple months. You guys are psychotic.
Comment has been collapsed.
"a bit rough around the edges"?
Game entirely not loading for people (stuck on a "Loading" screen), causing BSODs, or crashing to desktop, irrelevant of hardware setup / power.
Gameplay affecting performance issues irrelevant of hardware - not being able to drive well because of stutter becoming worse as you speed up.
Mouse lag / acceleration coupled with rebinding controls being impossible for most keys on the keyboard (as in, it doesn't work entirely) due to bad port work and lazyness causing controller being the only realistic option at the moment.
Horribly cropped FOV, which can't be adjusted.
Clipping issues coupled with world pop-in causing things like this.
Game breaking bugs such as people having their entire save be corrupted by something as innocuous as having played any of the online game modes, once.
Online play being problematic to even get working as a lot of the time, people will de-sync and drop, if they can even connect in the first place.
The online "player invasion" hacking being entirely broken in its' implementation, allowing sore losers / people who don't want to lose points to simply disconnect when a player hacking them is 90% done with the hack, rather than discouraging / punishing people for doing that in any way whatsoever.
Nothing to do at all in "free roam mode". Lazy, useless game mode tossed in for the hell of it, no effort done whatsoever on making it interesting to play, no objectives, nothing. Hardly anything interesting to do with a group of friends to begin with.
Entirely local memory variables causing people with very simple memory editors / trainers to cheat online - invincibility, infinite ammo (no reloads), etc. More and more people doing this, making all the online game modes entirely useless to play.
And you say "it's a bit rough around the edges, stop bitching". Types like you are the fucking worst. Get a brain, learn to think for yourself instead of mindlessly defending the right of companies to sell broken products.
Yes, some slight issues with a game post-release here or there, some minor performance issues that need some tweaking, a small bug only encountered in a unique situation by a small percentage of players, all that is expected and shouldn't be made such a fuss over (as long as it's being worked on) but these issues aren't just some minor problems - these are game breaking, experience ruining problems that entirely invalidate the cash you spent on the game to begin with, especially considering what they marketed and presented it as. And that's if it even runs well enough for you to be able to play it on your rig, which also seems to still be a case of luck rather than the quality of your machine. As for them "working on it" - they promised a patch was being worked on, but haven't given any sort of indication on when they expect to be able to push out their first patch, or even given any sort of show of effort or goodwill by releasing at least a hotfix for some of the easier to fix, smaller issues. The nature of some of the problems also indicates they didn't bother play-testing or thinking about the implementation of many of their ideas, they just tossed em in and sold the game, not even thinking of something as basic as "but people can just disconnect and waste the time of someone hacking them". This is a case of gross negligence, not understandable, minor bugs.
Also, this game has never been on early access, so bringing that up is irrelevant. This is / was a hugely anticipated AAA title with millions spent on its' development, by a well established, huge game company with a long track record of games of varying degrees of quality. For people to expect better than what they have put out now and concurrently bitch and gripe about this in a very pissed off manner is entirely warranted, reasonable, and doesn't come close to any form of "entitled whining by dumb kids who don't have a clue about games", which is what you were suggesting. Again - try using your brain some time, independent thought is a terrible thing to waste.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got it for even less, thats the thing, being a PC gamer allows us to not go throw away 60 dollars. Even if we did though, should not be unreal to get a finished game...
:-)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm gonna buy it once it's a valid purchase, but I don't need to "evaluate" it in butthurt. Still, the game itself has a lot of aspects and they surely aren't all as bad as the port so the zeros... nope. I'd like to be able to exclude zeros, tens and day-one reviews on metashitty.
Comment has been collapsed.
"you're an incompetent fool"
Big words for an idiot.
"It's only a problem if they don't fix it within the first couple months."
Wow, months? Really, you really are an idiot.
Comment has been collapsed.
OMG I NEED IT NOW I DESERVE IT GIVE ME IT THIS MOMENT.
You realize the alternative to a game coming out with a handful of bugs and being patched up as soon as they can is waiting several months longer for the game's release, and then you'd all cry about delays and demand they release it now and threaten not to buy it. A AAA game has to hit its launch window or it will be doomed to horrible failure by the same people that will condemn it for having launch issues.
Grow up and learn to take responsibility for your own purchasing power, people.
PS: I don't even own the game. I'm waiting for it to be a more reasonable price.
Comment has been collapsed.
If people pay 60 bucks for it, then... yeah, they kinda DO DESERVE IT at the time they were promised... and at the very least working. Customer's always right! No matter how much publishers try to convince you otherwise. Not enough customers= no publisher.
But like most big names Ubisoft is too far up it's own ass to push back the release date in order to have enough time to properly test, locate and fix most of the problems people are experiencing.
Also, REALLY, a game cannot be successful if it doesn't hit it's launch window, Mr. Freeman? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
The customer is almost never right. If the customer is too dumb/lazy to do their research on a product before making their purchase, or refuses to weigh their options, they're not entitled to complain about their purchase. I've been in retail long enough to know that people think everyone owes them the world, and it's always everyone else's fault, not theirs. Guess what? It's not the store's fault that you bought the wrong thing. It's yours, for not knowing what you needed. It's not the publisher's fault that you bought a game that launched with some issues. It's yours, for not researching the game before you purchased it.
At the end of the day, when you buy ANY launch game, you should expect SOME issues. This is typically the point where you judge whether it's worth buying early and dealing with some issues, or delaying your purchase until you know the software is stable. No one is making you buy anything.
In summary, being ignorant isn't an excuse to complain about anything other than the fact that you're ignorant. No one makes you ignorant, that's self-inflicted.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, by law, the customer does have the right to complain. They also have the right to sue if the company produces a faulty product or doesn't live up to what it states or shows in its advertising. Companies are allowed a few days to fix mistakes, but if they don't do so, then the customer is owed a refund. To even attempt to deny the buyer any of that is against the law.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're talking about false advertising. There's nothing misleading about their advertising. The game having optimization issues and some bugs here and there within the launch week is hardly grounds to file a suit.
Comment has been collapsed.
They advertised a working game, as shown in the videos. If they advertised a buggy and sometimes unplayable game that doesn't work well with AMD cards, then there would be no issue. But since that's not what was advertised, and this AMD issue was brought up by magazines a year ago, Ubi will only get the standard few days to iron things out or to otherwise appease buyers, else people will have grounds to demand their money back.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like to see this law you keep referencing wherein they indicate that a developer has "a few days" to fix optimization issues and minor glitches.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sigh. And it's that kind of thinking that got the games industry where it is today...
Since (judging by all your comments here) you apparently won't listen to anyone but yourself, let me point this out: with a single exception, I never pre-order or buy games at launch and always wait until they are at least on a 75% sale. This is partially because I'm very thrifty/frugal/<whatever the proper English word for that is> and patient, but also so that I can have a lot of information about said games to decide exactly how much they are worth for me. So in a sense, at least from your constantly pointing out about how you're "not ignorant about games", we're similar.
Launch-day issues and general rip-off games don't affect ME in any way directly. Does that make it ok for publishers to pull them off? No, of course it doesn't! Saying that customers should shut up and be "less ignorant" about their purchases because it doesn't directly affect you is in and of itself absolute ignorance.
An industry requires trust- you are less likely to buy a product from a company which is known to deliver faulty products. Game publishers have lately been trying to find out just how far you can push trust before everything collapses (after all a gaming industry collapse has happened before). They have turned triple A games into a marketing contest- who can get the most sales and money fast- instead of concentrating on actually making functional games, which are now a second priority after advertisement and hype.
Those people were promised an open world game about hacking stuff from the trailer and ads- if they got a game that barely works then they have all the right in the world to complain.
If enough people complain about it to make a standing, then publishers will eventually be forced to put games on the front of their priorities or risk failure. If people go "yeah, that's expected" and don't do anything about it, then they'd be proving that publishers can do whatever they please without having to hold to any obligations and THAT is true ignorance- putting a bucket over your head and saying that people should just take it in as the norm.
Earlier I said that this doesn't affect us directly. However if publishers get too arrogant, it'll be no time before they start saving money by leaving their games buggy and not fixing the issues. You know- like some already do.
Actually... why am I even wasting my time trying to explain stuff here. From now on I'm gonna reply to you with videos that give counterarguments to your "arguments". Here you go.
Comment has been collapsed.
pffffffffft!
The world's most-anticipated, best-selling, AAA games were sold as-is, no patching required back in the days before digital distribution. If the consumer simply refused to buy broken games, the distributors would damned-well make sure the games were finished before putting them out. Since consumers don't care, however, we get first-day patches.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games were also about 100 times less complex back then. Perspective. Get some.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1. Seriously, this guy. All of my internet cookies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perspective. I have tons more than you do, apparently.
Take a moment to go all the way back to the year 2000 and see what games programers were making at that time. Consider what they were able to accomplish in these games through sheer ingenuity, not only including the bells and whistles that are almost required of today's games, but managing it on hardware that was not prefabricated to do the work for them. And, in case you have forgotten, let us not forget that multiple platforms were indeed a factor, back then. True, many of those platforms are unfamiliar to most people because they died so quickly, but they did exist.
The processes required to make a game, today, are the same ones people have been using for the past 30+ years, including coding, debugging, and quality-control. Sure, the minor details keep changing, but this is nothing new. New programming languages and new hardware (and even new media) were constantly adding to the challenges successful programmers faced to accomplish their tasks. And they continued to meet them. The only thing that has really changed (besides all of the shortcuts developers can now take) is that software publishers are more ignorant and less likely to give developers sufficient time to finish their projects.
Your "response" reminds me of a something a student once said about how mathematics has "advanced to the point where we now need calculators to do it." What this student failed to realize is that mathematicians "back then" were doing the same calculations as mathematicians of today, only without calculators. In the "old days," our brains were still strong enough and skilled enough to do the job without using the crutch of today's tools. Calculators were a convenience, not a necessity.
I apologize if my rebuttal comes off as a bit "hostile," but the combination of arrogance and ignorance in your response definitely rubbed me the wrong way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your rebuttal comes off as a bit "nonsensical"
Games made 14 years ago didn't have realistic physics. They didn't have persistent worlds. They didn't have much in the way of AI, nor did they have dozens of AI on screen at once. They didn't have colossal maps that needed to be stream-loaded as the player explored. They didn't have extremely high poly models. They didn't have ultra high res textures. They didn't have facial animations or lip syncing. There are literally hundreds of ways that a modern game is incredibly more complicated than a game from the year 2000, but if you want to live inside your illogical box of nostalgia, go right ahead.
Comment has been collapsed.
You feel that my rebuttal is nonsensical. Interesting. Your rebuttal seems nonsensical to me. Perhaps that is because you claim that games from 14 years ago lack:
Beyond the fact that your claims are absurd, none of them have anything to do with the complexity of a game. Complexity of a game is defined within the industry as the ability of players to perform increasingly complex and unforeseen actions--actions which the designers never intended--while still eliciting appropriate responses from the game's systems. By such a standard, many of today's games lag far, far behind older "classics" such as Ultima Online.
Returning back to my original point, however (something which you overlooked completely), the reason today's games need patching on Day One is because of sloppy programming, not game complexity. In fact, sophistication of coding is measured in how much the program can accomplish with the fewest number of calls while avoiding errors. If your program is bloated, missing features, and/or keeps crashing, it sucks and should be improved.
Personally, I do not believe that today's professional programmers are less gifted than their predecessors and therefore unable to put out high-quality work. To the contrary, I believe they are up to the task. If the games hitting the store shelves have serious programming issues, I assume the cause to be a lack of time and/or funding, both of which are controlled by the publisher. The publisher may withhold sufficient money or time from the developer if the publisher thinks he or she can get away with selling an unfinished product. When consumers buy those unfinished games, they prove the publisher right.
We, the buyers, have been continually lowering the bar on product quality for years. It's time we started raising it, again.
Comment has been collapsed.
None of the games you listed are even close to the scope or complexity of a modern title, nor do they do them all simultaneously.
Further, you have some weird fantasy version of programming in your head that is simply not reality. A modern AAA game has hundreds of thousands more lines of code than a game from 14 years ago. A game can't just magically do more things without adding more lines of code.
Comment has been collapsed.
And yet, despite that ease of programming in the past, Ubisoft still released buggy, unfinished games that people couldn't play back in the 90s. They are also known for breaking games with patches and leaving them unplayable for weeks at a time (MAC). They've even pulled an Atari a couple times and actually left a game in a broken state forever. Ubi's QA department has been a joke for decades.
Comment has been collapsed.
I try not to change to much, change is bad, Obama proved that bro...
Comment has been collapsed.
Ya'know... Games show System Requirements for a reason...
If your system does not meet the requirements, it may not run, or at least is not likely to run properly.
Comment has been collapsed.
You must be in the dark or something, people who exceed the system requirements are having issues.
Hell people with Titans are getting bad drops from what I am hearing, if you have AMD you are even more screwed.
Ubisoft already acknowledged the issue so saying this now is dumb....
Comment has been collapsed.
Best to look up gameplay videos on youtube and decide for yourself. Just because someone is being paid to give their opinion does not mean it should match yours.
Comment has been collapsed.
in the PC virgin there is a lot on glitches compered to the ps4 virgin to the PS4 virgin ... i feel so disappointed that Ubisoft lied to us about these game and the e3 trailer was way better than the final game.
fucking lol'd yeah definitely trolls
Comment has been collapsed.
Mostly reviewers live off of ads and thoes are payed for game companies. So yeah, they are payed off.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Gamekingz channel said that all reporters received a new phone prior to release. Hm.
Comment has been collapsed.
If a company creates great hype about a game, this happens.It'll have hundreds of haters, hunderds of lovers and retarded reviews.
If you ask me, Watch_Dogs is a fail.It's not a bad game, easily worth 80/100 but all that years in development, all that hype and commercials said that it'd be a 95/100 game.Ubisoft tried to sell using hype, not using the actual game AGAIN.
Sleeping Dogs is way better if you ask me.People soon will see that the hypetrain comes with stupid games and they'll stop pre-ordering games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Best first-day sales and more pre-ordered new IP, not best ever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sleeping Dogs was amazing and ran great on release, loved that game.
Its the little things they messed up in Watch Dogs mainly, like shooting out of cars for example.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're trolling right? You can put the phone away, have you played the game? I have....
Comment has been collapsed.
if you haven't noticed, while in car you have to hack everything you drive by, street traffic lights, garage doors and such. i don't think he's in a position to switch from an assault rifle to a smart phone in a split second while driving at 180km/h
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure but it should be a choice...its not like games are super realistic anyways...come on.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's an open world sandbox game with guns and hacks, enemies shoot out of cars, you don't always have to use the hacks to even chase down the guy, have you played it? Also during non missions it would be nice to have the option, Sleeping Dogs was mostly a hand to hand combat game yet it had shooting out of cars and it worked just fine.
It's an opinion, many agree. This was only one of the small details players are a bit annoyed with, I am not alone on this, you don;t have to agree of course.
Comment has been collapsed.
And Doom has a BFG yet I don't expect it to be in any other game.
And that is like the dumbest thread on earth, you could only beat that on youtube. 1/6th of the comments are yours and the others are neither conclusive nor, in most parts, even intelligible. "Emerson" wtf.
Comment has been collapsed.
Conspiracy everywhere.
Reptilians are coming for you. For all of us.
Comment has been collapsed.
that metascore looks like when i pay for my grades in college
Comment has been collapsed.
For some reason, I feel oddly satisfied when big AAA games turns out to less than expected.
Comment has been collapsed.
@hilldog, just between us did you stage bengazi so you could have an excuse to frame/scapegoat, violate the 1st amendment rights of and jail some random youtube asshole who once made an unflattering comment on your blog?(and then fake a stroke or something(also something about stan lee))
Comment has been collapsed.
Haven't been paid either, it runs perfect here, I find it gorgeous and very fun to play. I would give it 85 or 90/100.
I want to hate you, Watch_Dogs, I really do, but you're not making this easy to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same here, 8.5-9 for me too. Runs great on my system and I find the game incredibly engaging. I feel bad for those that can't run it because it's an amazing game, but I can't base my score off others, only my own experience.
Comment has been collapsed.
So damn glad that I'm too old to actually give a f*ck about hyped games anymore ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
I stopped listening to user scores after the whole Mass Effect 3 debacle. An amazing game in almost every sense, scoring about a 10 out of 100 for months by users (hovering around 50/100 now) because of plotholes and a lack of choices in the ending. Granted, it's a very story-driven game and it's important to get it right... but holy shit.
Phil Fish, developer of FEZ, said it once... gamers are the worst kind of people. I'm inclined to believe it.
Cry a little harder, kids.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you dense?
"gamers are the worst kind of people. I'm inclined to believe it."
He is obviously just as bad if not worse....
Is that so hard to see? -_-
Comment has been collapsed.
He's just as bad because he said something mean about modern Japanese games (which truthfully isn't that far off... citing Final Fantasy XIII)? I don't think you realize just how awful gamers can be...
Comment has been collapsed.
Phil seems like the same type of person as the gamers he bashes, its ironic is all I said which is damn true if you read up on the guy.
I loved ME3 personally, I tend to ignore everyone now when it comes to reviews but Phil is fucking terrible and I would not take anything he says for real, dudes a joke, his game is a joke to if you ask me which is funny because apparently he thinks it better then Japanese games....I mean how can you even say that, so many games, he is the one crying if you ask me and insulting a whole race pretty much.
Why care for his opinion? He is a hypocrite, and its ironic, that is all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't believe gamers are scum because he said it.
I believe it because of the article I posted, the hundreds of articles about death threats from gamers for the smallest things, and the fact I spend an unhealthy amount of time on gaming forums.
If I took his name out of my post, would you feel better?
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey I am just saying its funny coming from him, do what you like when posting man :-)!
I feel its the vocal minority that make all gamers seem bad personally, most of us are normal people that like to chill after work and play a game.
Comment has been collapsed.
The user score is the only number people should actually trust. The corporate review score is only good enough to print on paper and wipe your butt with. They are getting heavily influenced (or threatened with a review-copy embargo; "give as at least 80/100 or else") for doing "reviews".
If you release a game that runs like total crap on high-end machines, and get an 81 corporate review score, then that's pretty much proof of how useless that number is.
Trust the users, not the "review" corporations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Usually the overreacting user is doing it for a reason.
This game didn't get perfect scores even corporate, I think many reviewers are being legit here its just this game has so many performance issues that they pretty much ignored them and reviewed the game and nothing else, not mentioning performance as to not put out a bad metacritic score that would be invalid in 2-4 weeks when its patched.
Hope that kinda makes sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would hardly consider an 81/100 as a "perfect score". It's borderline average, this day and age.
But hey, why look at things logically when you can cry, spam 4/10's on Metacritic and send bad reviews about Ubisoft to the BBB... so they can hopefully replace EA as "worst company in America" because they released a buggy game. That's a reasonable thing to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's obviously not paid reviews.
People are overreacting but its to be expected with a heavy release like this, people don't like paying 60 bucks for an unpolished game that barely works right on Titians...
Comment has been collapsed.
Has Ubisoft acknowledged the issues? If not, then that's a damn good reason to feel like you've been slated by them.
It sounds like there's a patch in the works. These things happen. I'm not sure why you guys are hellbent on trusting the reviews of people sending death threats because their game isn't running well. It's the same hypersensitive, overreacting toddlers with too much time on their hands.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree its fucked up that people do crap like death threats, its ridiculous, people are retarded I swear.
Ubisoft has said its working on it but I am not so helpful that it will be enough, game seems badly codded, its gonna take a lot of work I think to make it playable on decent systems.
I don't trust the reviews, Its actually a decent game, not great but at least a 7.5 or 8 out if 10, I just wish I could enjoy it, as of now I cant because of the massive fps drops and stuttering.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it seems very specific, hopefully they figure it out soon....
Until then I will play other stuff I guess, sorta a bummer, but whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was actually a little relieved to find that the game has optimization issues. I do get the odd stutter or framerate drop from time to time, and I was hoping it wasn't a sign that my PC wasn't good enough to handle newer games... or wasn't working right lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't watch close enough but people even say they see the stutter in official Ubisoft videos, so not surprising.
I think they were aware of the issue when it released but had a deadline.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. I'll just say that an "average" is never one static number, it changes based on the values being averaged, which could absolutely change over time. Academically, in the US at least, 50/100 is well below failing. I can't imagine a scenario where 50/100 was ever the "standard" for an average.
You sir, are a fool.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dumbass, 5 out of 10 for video games should mean it is an average game. Because on average from 0 to 10 5 is the middle. People have just taken this out of proportion for video games because of the system you mentioned. It's stupid as shit because with the current system normal people see 0-5 as shit, 6-7 as okay, 8-9 as perfect, and 10 as perfect, when that is total crap.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are confused. Just because a sample would have games that are excellent (like, say, 100 games with scores of 90/100 or higher), the lack of worse games doesn't make these games average. They're still excellent. 50/100 is average by definition. If you review a game, and want to point out that it's average, you give it 50/100. The reason we don't see much 50/100 games in "reviews" of AAA titles is because the reviewers are afraid, and are therefore not really reviews, but rather just promotional material for the games, disguised as reviews. In other words, dishonest and not worth anything. Well, at least most of them (see IGN, Gamespot, etc.)
If academia in the U.S. requires more than 50/100, then that means that the requirement is to be above average. It doesn't mean that 50/100 is not average.
Use your brain. It's why you've got one.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dare you to find a single review, professional or unprofessional, that rates a game 5/10 that isn't a scathingly negative review. Doesn't matter if it's AAA or not.
What you're saying is your opinion. "Average" is a subjective term. 5/10 may be average to you, and you can drum up all the BS about reviewers being afraid you feel like to justify it, but in the end it's just your opinion.
Living in the real world, 5/10 isn't average. 5/10 is bad. Either adapt, or continue to have an incorrect opinion about how the world works.
Comment has been collapsed.
"If academia in the U.S. requires more than 50/100, then that means that the requirement is to be above average. It doesn't mean that 50/100 is not average."
False. The U.S. grading system dictates that a 'C', or about a 75/100, is the average. Let's compare the U.S. educational system to other countries for a second here. If you read the first paragraph under "How did the U.S. do?" here, you can see that the U.S. is in the middle in terms of knowledge. Therefore if the U.S.'s average is a 75/100, and that's the average in terms of other countries as well, then the average is not 50/100, but 75/100.
"You are confused. Just because a sample would have games that are excellent (like, say, 100 games with scores of 90/100 or higher), the lack of worse games doesn't make these games average."
Yes, the games would not be considered average if you compared them to other games outside of the sample group, but would be if compared to other games within it. If the sample group contains mostly games with scores 90/100 or higher, then the average of that group is somewhere around there by definition of "average", whether in terms of statistics or generally accepted consensus. If you apply the same logic to games and consider the group to consist of all games, then the average would not be 50/100, but somewhere around 70-80, as that's where most of the average games are.
If we look at Metacritic's untrustworthy reviews, we can see that the reviewers rate about 73 on average. Therefore, the average game at the moment according to Metacritic has a score of 73. As Dreakon pointed out, "average" is subjective. If suddenly everybody kept rating every game as a 20, then the average would drop until it got very close to a 20. The average is not locked at a 50. Your argument is invalid.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are confusing two uses of the term "average" here. The one that applies to ratings, and the one that applies to populations that are rated (the statistical meaning of it, not human populations).
As I already mentioned, a sample of any population where everything is rated the same doesn't mean they're all average. In your example, if every game was rated 20, then that doesn't mean that all those games are average. It means that all those games are bad. However, on average, games are bad.
If the average score of games nowadays is 73, then that doesn't mean that 73 is average. It means that on average, games are rather good. Guess why the majority of games nowadays are rather good? Because of the reviews being too good even on games that aren't actually good. Reviewers are afraid to give a game a score of 50/100 when the game is "meh". This actually proves my point. I rest my case.
In academia, if you have to be at least as good as the average, that doesn't mean you have to have an average score. It means you have to be as good as the rating people get on average, regardless of what that rating is (good, bad or average). If on average everything is rather good, then you need to be good too.
Do you get it now? You cannot simply claim that 50/100 is not average, because that's the definition of 50/100. Otherwise, the bottom half of the score range loses its freakin' meaning.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, RealNC, but they are right -- that is not the definition of average. The poorest people in the world has $0, the richest has $76bi. Well, the average is not $38bi -- you must see the distribution of wealth to figure that out.
Similarly, it does not matter if people decided the scale is 0-100; the average grade will be what people decide it to be, and it does not have to be 50. I would like it to be 50 (it would give more "room" to grade everything), but it is not. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
"You are confusing two uses of the term "average" here. The one that applies to ratings, and the one that applies to populations that are rated (the statistical meaning of it, not human populations)."
Well according to my buddy Google, there are only two ways average can be used as a noun. Either as a statistic, or as something related to ships. I was using average in terms of the former definition. I don't see how I could be confusing the two, as they are completely different. If you're referring to my use of average as a commonly accepted statement (Ex: Having a cellphone is average), then your argument still doesn't make any sense. I was referring to declaring something as average based on observable evidence that that is the case. (Ex: The average of all games is a 20, therefore the average game has a score of 20). You're talking about ratings. Ratings can be measured to find a statistical average. If the average score is a 20, then the average game has a score of 20.
"In your example, if every game was rated 20, then that doesn't mean that all those games are average. It means that all those games are bad. However, on average, games are bad."
Notice my wording here. I said EVERY game. If EVERY game is rated 20, then the average score is a 20.
"If the average score of games nowadays is 73, then that doesn't mean that 73 is average. It means that on average, games are rather good."
Let's replace everything here with my grade example. "If the average grade nowadays is 73, then that doesn't mean that 73 is average. It means that on average, grades are rather good." I'm sure the majority would argue that a 73 isn't that good. And no, it means exactly what it says. The average grade is a 73, so 73 is average.
"Guess why the majority of games nowadays are rather good? Because of the reviews being too good even on games that aren't actually good. Reviewers are afraid to give a game a score of 50/100 when the game is "meh". This actually proves my point. I rest my case."
I agree, but we're used to a system(A,B,C,etc.) where basically everything below a 70 is bad. If we give games 50s, people won't consider it an average game. They'll consider it to be a bad game. A 50 on a test would be an F; a failure.
"In academia, if you have to be at least as good as the average, that doesn't mean you have to have an average score. It means you have to be as good as the rating people get on average, regardless of what that rating is (good, bad or average). If on average everything is rather good, then you need to be good too."
Your first sentence contradicts itself. If you have an average score, then you ARE as good as the average because you ARE the average. Your second statement is harmful with respect to academia. If the average grade fell to 30%, then it's very likely that the standards would barely, if not at all, change. Lowering the standards is not a good way to go.
"You cannot simply claim that 50/100 is not average, because that's the definition of 50/100."
That's not the definition of 50/100, nor is the definition of average 50/100. The definition of 50/100 is 50 divided by 100. Please show me a credible source that says the definition of 50/100 is "average".
Edit: Going to end my responses here. We're venturing too far off the topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh really? Like Jeff Gerstmann getting fired from GameSpot because he didn't listen to the "suggestion" of what score should be given to "Kane & Lynch", regardless of whether he thought the game was actually any good or not, in order for GameSpot to stay on good terms with Eidos? That's not delusion. That's fact. If publishers stop sending you review copies of games before release and stop paying for advertisements, your site or magazine is going to be dead. So many reviews are pretty much fake, with bloated scores, in order to avoid getting blacklisted by game publishers.
Go and read about what Jeff Gerstmann had to reveal about corporate review business. Educate yourself and see how delusional all this is.
Corporate review sites are owned by multi-billion companies. There's too much money involved for reviews of not-so-good games to be truthful.
The only ones who are immune to this kind of pressure, are the masses of users. That's why I trust only them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can I interest you in some "complimentary" tablets, OP?
Comment has been collapsed.
Metacritic is bullshit, don't trust it, don't even use it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I use Metacritic to good effect. It's just a matter of understanding how to interpret the scores.
Reviewers' Score: What uppity 'professionals' think about the game after taking into account the size of the bribe.
Users' Score: What petulant fan-boyz think about the game after reality has once again asserted itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
To avoid the extremes of both sides whether it be corporate pay offs or butthurt people just giving 0s I take an average between the two.
Which happens to be 63/100. I havent played the game so I have no opinion worth listening to when it comes to this game, but with the uplay fiasco and various other issues, a 63 sounds fair to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that user scores tend to deliberately over-react against the metascores when they feel it's too high -- there's an "OMG WTF NO WAY THIS GAME IS A 8/10" response that makes people rate it lower than it deserves.
Based on the reviews I've read, 63/100 is probably about right. It doesn't sound like a terrible game, and if you're lucky enough to not encounter any bugs you could enjoy it as a free-roamer, but it doesn't live up to the concept and is deeply flawed overall.
Comment has been collapsed.
People tend to give shitty reviews on things. I was once shopping for monitors on newegg, and this guy gives 1 star (well, egg) for the monitor. Everyone else? 4-5 eggs. Why did they give it 1 egg?
The cord it came with was a different color from the monitor. (black monitor, beige cord)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's probably because of Uplay. Also reviewers tend to inflate scores. Not to mention that anybody running and AMD card is pretty much screwed.
Even so, the game is full of "press x to hack" and "press x to win" and there's so many bugs and design errors that it's not even funny. Not to mention the obnoxious use of memes in the game like they were trying to "are we cool yet" the entire game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Watch_Dogs is the result of the hype Ubi loves to makes. I prefer Sleeping Dogs over Watch_Dogs (dog fight! :) ) And as for that price you can have Wolfenstein: The New Order wich is gorgeous
Comment has been collapsed.
Both are actually pretty similar....open world, solving crimes, catching criminals, hacking, serious story lines, side missions, random city events, etc....
Comment has been collapsed.
I see a lot of people, that don't even own the game and/or didn't play it, say it's garbage. I don't know what their motives are but I know for myself that I really love this game. People nowadays have too high expectations. That's why they don't get a girlfriend/good game. Everything looks ugly to them but when you ask why, you don't get a reasonable answer to that. My score would be in that area too.
Comment has been collapsed.
5 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by Sh4dowKill
1,763 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
47,106 Comments - Last post 48 minutes ago by kbronct
14 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by FullMetalZ
49 Comments - Last post 59 minutes ago by blueflame32
4 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ZPE
9 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Arvennios
790 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by MayoSlice
70 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by cg
21 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by Kyog
159 Comments - Last post 39 minutes ago by zzzwlagga
9 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by reallurker
175 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by samwise84
10 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Fluffster
Userscore 46/100
Metascore 81/100
Ubisoft pay for this?
Comment has been collapsed.