My point is that one needs to have his or her own opinions about games period. Metacritic and gamerankings are in no way decent ways of backing up opinions on the quality of games because te reviews themselves may just be a load of crap so if a poorly done review gets placed into the average it can fuck the whole thing up. Ratchet and clank future for example has something like 37 90+ scores on metacritic 20 80+ scores. Review scores simply don't tell you whether a game is good or not for that one would have to A. Read the review itself and B. Pray that the person writing te review actually talks about the game. I've seen games get 9's even though the person reviewing the game actively recommended skipping the normal difficulty because it was too easy.
How the hell does that make sense? "This game is a nine but you will have to up the difficulty otherwise you will just blow through the game." I found myself saying wait a minute if the game is so easy that you recommend what is essentially hard mode be what people start out with, doesn't that mean something is seriously wrong with the way the game was made? Wouldn't that mean that the ease was taken to such an extreme that the game actually stops being fun at all on normal? I've also seen games loose points because they do not have multiplayer; I've heard people say Bioshock sucks because it is sinle player only. (Granted the game is not really good at all but not for that reason.) Ratchet and clank got docked points for having mini games in one review I guess the reviewer forgot that the target audience is really ten year old kids.
One review for Assasin's creed complained that Altair has an American accent even though the reason for this is given within the first ten or fifteen minutes of starting the game! I've read reviews for Tenchu games where people complained that you could just run to the end of the level, completely missing the whole point of the game which is to leave a body trail without getting spotted doing so. There simply is not a need to force the player to kill people since in principle it should be possible to navigate an entire level without killing anyone at all.
How the hell does that make sense? "This game is a nine but you will have to up the difficulty otherwise you will just blow through the game." I found myself saying wait a minute if the game is so easy that you recommend what is essentially hard mode be what people start out with, doesn't that mean something is seriously wrong with the way the game was made? Wouldn't that mean that the ease was taken to such an extreme that the game actually stops being fun at all on normal? I've also seen games loose points because they do not have multiplayer; I've heard people say Bioshock sucks because it is sinle player only. (Granted the game is not really good at all but not for that reason.) Ratchet and clank got docked points for having mini games in one review I guess the reviewer forgot that the target audience is really ten year old kids.
One review for Assasin's creed complained that Altair has an American accent even though the reason for this is given within the first ten or fifteen minutes of starting the game! I've read reviews for Tenchu games where people complained that you could just run to the end of the level, completely missing the whole point of the game which is to leave a body trail without getting spotted doing so. There simply is not a need to force the player to kill people since in principle it should be possible to navigate an entire level without killing anyone at all.