Mass Effect: Andromeda
- Thread starter Kamikaze Revy
- Start date
Games should be rated as "good" or "bad". Forget numbers, all they do is provide fuel for the stans to have their pissing matches.
Great, good, acceptable, poor, crap.
I'd rank this as acceptable. The problems don't destroy the fun factor.
That's essentially a 5 point system. Nothing would change.
Call a game good or bad and let the people decide what degree of good or bad the game actually is on their own.
I'd like to see reviews reduced to 2 choices for ratings (Or none at all) and focus more on the written portion.
Not all games are good or bad. Some are just ok. Some are really bad and some are really good. Your scale is flawed because it lumps together the greatest game of a generation with a game that barely passes as ok.
The problem isn't the scale it's that the buyers rank anything below an 80 as bad. Truth is anything below a 70 is bad but people only want greatness in a $60 title.
If anything below 70 is bad then you're rating games on a 4 point scale.
A review should give you a general idea of a game, it shouldn't be looked at as the gospel truth to be used as talking points in a stan argument. The bottom line ya'll put too much stock into what another person tells you to think. The way I see games...Did you enjoy the game? Yes or No? That's all I need to know as far as a rating goes.
Yep that floating dude is a problem. Plus shyt coming from all directions.... Doesnt matter how good you are, just need high level teams. Im just not fukking with the multi anymore, my level 1 in game 'squad' beat that shyt while i couldnt
You gotta chill out on the main menu for a second. If you hit continue or load game it stops the connection to online. And if not that you prob need an EA account
thanks
yo if anyone do any strike missions on xbl throw me your GT
Xbl
When did i say i didnt like the game?
The game has problems, so that effect your experience, but, i had fun taking off to play it all day.
There are different degrees of bad. I've played bad games that on some level were a little enjoyable and I've played bad games that I dropped because there weren't worth playing. It's not a 4 point scale it's just that buyers are going to create a pretty high cutoff point and ignore everything else below a certain score.
Part of the reason for this is games cost $60. The vast majority of mainstream retail games come out at that price and it has nothing to do with quality. Should a 97 game come out and cost the same as a game rated 60? In other areas pricing related to quality or perceived quality at least on some level. In other forms of media like movies or music the initial price is low enough for that to not really be a factor. There's a difference between wasting $15 on a movie or cd when it releases and having it be subpar and spending $60 on a game.
At least with the way the scale is now people look and see a 75 and say that a 75 isn't worth full retail to them and wait for a sale. If it's just good or bad and nothing else the decision becomes murkier for them.
No spoliers brehWent back to eos after the radiation cleared got damn its alot more to do
O.T.I.S.
Veteran
Well I thought I was clear in asking if people liked the gameWhen did i say i didnt like the game?
The game has problems, so that effect your experience, but, i had fun taking off to play it all day.
Your answer was completely negative
