Nah it legitimately looks terrible. 5/10 is something that people who really really enjoy the world/universe could probably drudge through. I see no redeeming value in that game though
When did Gamespot turn into such HARSH reviewers?
- Thread starter bogey_j
- Start date
if a game doesn't do anything to push the envelope but is a competently made game then it's a 6/10. at worst that's what Gotham Knights is to me
-Graphically it's far above average while incorporating all the fancy new tech like ray-tracing (and shyts on critical darlings like Elden Ring)
-Combat looks serviceable at worst. I simply don't buy into the fact this game has "bad combat"; it's far more likely to me that some of these reviewers are just trying to button-mash their way through and are trash at the game
does this look like "terrible combat" to you?
I mean it's not DMC5 or anything, but I'd say it's competently made
-Story looks okay. again, like with the graphics, there's some effort here put into the cutscenes. it's not like they put in a bunch of motion comic stills, threw some voice acting over it and called it a day.
-The gameplay loop being too grindy? okay that's a a legitimate criticism, I guess
either way I fail to see how this is a 4/10 below average game when it's far more ambitious than your average videogame. I've noticed reviewers tend to be extra harsh on big-budget AAA games, while some trash looking low-budget JRPG gets a pass for garbo story and bland, uninspired gameplay
Lol bro that looks like shyt. That looks like combat from a 2008 game
Looking at the reviews for this game, it’s likely a 6/10 game AT BEST. Most reviews are on the lower and and the one outlier is skewing the average because some reviewer was smoking crack and said it was up there with Elden Ring as GoTY contentder 
-In my opinion a 7/10 game is something like The Ascent or Outriders where the core gameplay loop is genuinely fun, but the game lacks the personality or extra features that make you really feel like it’s a next-level game worth stanning or going out your way to recommend to others. It’s still a quality game though
-A 6 would be something like Skater XL, where the core gameplay is there, but is missing content/features and has enough flaws to the point that really only a niche audience will appreciate the game, and most other people would look at it as mid or not worth purchasing
-A 5 is something that has potential, but has a ton of bugs or just straight up design flaws that hold it back in a major way. There’s potential that maybe a huge update down the line might save it, but that’s usually not the case as those kind of games are typically lower budget and DoA at that point
-4 and below means that there’s just too many flaws to overlook and is generally not worth playing. No point in even trying to articulate the nuance between a 3/10 game and a 4/10 game. It’s a bad product
IMO if you’re a busy adult you shouldn’t waste your time playing anything under a 6 unless you have some longstanding loyalty to the IP or devs, and even then I might think you’re trippin
-In my opinion a 7/10 game is something like The Ascent or Outriders where the core gameplay loop is genuinely fun, but the game lacks the personality or extra features that make you really feel like it’s a next-level game worth stanning or going out your way to recommend to others. It’s still a quality game though
-A 6 would be something like Skater XL, where the core gameplay is there, but is missing content/features and has enough flaws to the point that really only a niche audience will appreciate the game, and most other people would look at it as mid or not worth purchasing
-A 5 is something that has potential, but has a ton of bugs or just straight up design flaws that hold it back in a major way. There’s potential that maybe a huge update down the line might save it, but that’s usually not the case as those kind of games are typically lower budget and DoA at that point
-4 and below means that there’s just too many flaws to overlook and is generally not worth playing. No point in even trying to articulate the nuance between a 3/10 game and a 4/10 game. It’s a bad product
IMO if you’re a busy adult you shouldn’t waste your time playing anything under a 6 unless you have some longstanding loyalty to the IP or devs, and even then I might think you’re trippin
Grand Conde
Superstar
No, this is a 0/10 or 1/10.
4/10 should be reserved for a game that's non-functional
How does a "Bland, boring, unimaginative" game get a 6(AT WORST) which means above average
so if a 4 is supposed to be reserved for UNPLAYABLE games, what the hell do you have to do to get a 1?
This dude is retarded brehNonfunctional gets a 4 that's hilarious
A game that doesn't work gets a 4 im dead
6/10 is above average
A boring video game is not above average
Bland, boring, unimaginative - That's the new Saints Row, which is a 3/10, IMO...just go and play the remaster of Saints Row 3. It's a waste of time to play.
I swear gamepro had tye best ranking sy
spliz
SplizThaDon
Gamespot always been pretty strict with their reviews. U can check their reviews back in the day on shyt like Silent Hill for PS1 and that shyt got like a 7.8 or 7.9. Back then that meant the game was great tho.
BobbyWojak
Superstar
PC Gamer gives it a 49/100
