Ok my jaw dropped when i saw this :
I never expected to see a game with score lower than 1 in my life. And with that many voters..... wow. Oh and the biggest haters are xboners with 0.5 .
To be fair, in the modern gaming market, with all the journalistic integrity of a mountain-Turk, a metascore of 73 is
terrible for a high-profile AAA+ EA-level mainstream just-before-Christmas-season multiplatform game release in the biggest genre, multiplayer shooters.
I realize what stands out here is the 0.8 User Score, and that's genuinely hilarious, but a curated metascore of 73 is absolutely awful in today's market (sadly, but that's another issue).
I totally forgot that there is a critics score. Who the fuck even looks at their reviews? I haven't even noticed their scores for years. All i care about is the user reviews.
User reviews are retarded, but at least they're not corrupt. Still, though, I couldn't help but to notice that the Metascore is absolutely horrific for a title such as this, in the current climate. It's actually kinda funny, because it could signal a shift amongst gaming journos, too, which is interesting, to say the least.
But the suits at the top of Fucknormous Game Publishing Superconglomerates like EA do care about the critic scores very much, and to them 70% is indeed a shit rating, just look at Mass Effect Andromeda, they did "Mock reviews" that predicted the game would earn a Metacritic score between the low and mid 80s but then went full "You have failed us" on Bio Montreal when the real reviews aggregated a score of less than 75%. It's one of the only things that makes them pay attention.
I mean, prestigious gentlemen such as ourselves may scoff at scoring systems and the inflation of the gaming industry, but the fact of the matter is that scores.. well..
matter. Whether we like it or not. Whether it matters to "real gamers" or not. If it didn't, they would never have inflated. There wouldn't have been bribery and coercion regarding them.
A score of anything less than 85% basically means that it won't feature in any commercials or promotions. It can't be plastered on boxes. It means that it won't be taken serious if there's awards, and people will make fun if it when they label it their own "Game of the Year" (apparently,
every game these years is game of the year).
It shits on a ton of free positive promotion, and yes, especially in regions where digital platforms or purchases are not endemic (and you'd be surprised how many regions still depend on this), this will affect what game Billy gets for Christmas when his out-of-the-loop dad is trying to get him something nice with the least effort possible.
"This looked good, but apparently it's not that great. I'll just grab.. uhm.. humtididum.. this thing here looks cool and have a score of 90. Done."
The only reason the game isn't a 90/100 is because of the loot box microtransaction drama.
The game itself is an easy 9/10
You say "the game itself" as if microtransactions, pay-to-win mechanics and microgambling isn't a fully integrated part of the game, insinuating that a game as a whole can somehow be judged based on certain parts of it in a vacuum.
Which is an absolutely fucking retarded idea.
