Minecraft beats just about everything with a current 97 metascore.

[Coldster]

First off, I want to congratulate Notch and everyone at AB Mojang on this masterpiece. Minecraft is a truly exceptional game and I'm glad it is doing so well. However, I do not believe it deserves to be above a 90% let alone the 97 it has. To me, that is a joke. I bought Minecraft back when it was in 1.3 and I've put in over 60 hours of mining so don't tell me I don't have a decent opinion. Before you point it out, yes I know it probably won't stay as high as a 97 for long.

So Escapists, discuss what you all think of this. Does it truly deserve to beat 99.9% of all games? What do YOU think it deserves?


Source: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/minecraft

EDIT: Added some words to the original post.

 

[Westaway]

Meh, I'm thinking of downloading 1.7 I was looking forward to the new features, but I can't stand the new biome generator

 

[Zipa]

I wouldn't get worked up over it, metacritic scores are a pile of crap.

 

[redisforever]

Honestly, it's great. However, again honestly, it is buggy as shit. At least they are trying to fix everything.

It deserves it, because it is fantastic, and addicting, and creative, but also because of the work Notch & co. have done to make it this. They have said they will still keep adding more things to it. That's truly great. Also, bought it in alpha, so yay! All future updates free!

 

[Coldster]

I wouldn't get worked up over it, metacritic scores are a pile of crap.

While I would normally agree with this, but I think that since it is an average score of many different critics it should be fairly accurate. Agree to disagree I guess.

EDIT: Fixed.

 

[lacktheknack]

Simple outline to if it's a good game:

Did I have fun? Yes.

Did I have TONS of fun? Yes.

Do I want to keep playing? Yes.

Sure, I can go with 97.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I would of definitely put it above a 9, and i'm a die hard minecraft fan, but even I don't think it deserves a score that high...

 

[JochemDude]

Metacritic tends to not be a very reliable source.
Sure I've played it and indeed it's fun, but only with a well filled server and admin tools, lightning and free TNT for everyone.
Yes, I'm that guy.

As for a whole game...
6/10 Not bad, but still a little 'meh'

 

[Vegosiux]

I never believe anyone who thinks a wholesome game experience can be written as a two-digit number.

 

[Michael Hirst]

At best Metacritic can just tell you how WIDE the appeal for a game is (X amount of users rated it as excellent)

I wouldn't get worked up over it, metacritic scores are a pile of crap.

While I would normally agree with this, I think that since it is an average score of many different critics it should be fairly accurate. Agree to disagree I guess.

Metacritic is fairly useless as a means of judging what is the perfect game as all it's date is quantative at the cost of removing all qualitative information. As we all should know a review is much more than the numerical value given at the end of it and metacritic thrwos all this informaiton out the window fixating only upon a number which has absolutely no bearing on art.

Imagine a computer trying to interpret art and having a extremely sophisticated mathematical calculation for determining artistic value, regardless of how far advanced it was (exempting possible AI that isn't aware of it's own existence as an artificial being ala Blade Runner) would still be inaccurate because it was trying to apply what is a method for QUANTIFYING which is best suited for solid facts, ie "How much money can I make if I sell X amount of burgers at Y price minus Z costs" This is what Metacritic does and because of it fails to be significant at all.

Metacritic at best can tell us how WIDELY liked a game is through quantifiable means but it can never be used as a source for defining the perfect game, something which can never be done becuase like all artforms, the medium and the experience it gives are subjective and effect different people in different ways.

tl:dr I'm not too bothered by it getting a high score because it doesn't mean jack.

 

[distortedreality]

Metacritic is stupid.

Arbitrary ratings for games are stupid.

People who care about game ratings are........silly.

 

[Coldster]

At best Metacritic can just tell you how WIDE the appeal for a game is (X amount of users rated it as excellent)

I wouldn't get worked up over it, metacritic scores are a pile of crap.

While I would normally agree with this, I think that since it is an average score of many different critics it should be fairly accurate. Agree to disagree I guess.

Metacritic is fairly useless as a means of judging what is the perfect game as all it's date is quantative at the cost of removing all qualitative information. As we all should know a review is much more than the numerical value given at the end of it and metacritic thrwos all this informaiton out the window fixating only upon a number which has absolutely no bearing on art.

Imagine a computer trying to interpret art and having a extremely sophisticated mathematical calculation for determining artistic value, regardless of how far advanced it was (exempting possible AI that isn't aware of it's own existence as an artificial being ala Blade Runner) would still be inaccurate because it was trying to apply what is a method for QUANTIFYING which is best suited for solid facts, ie "How much money can I make if I sell X amount of burgers at Y price minus Z costs" This is what Metacritic does and because of it fails to be significant at all.

Metacritic at best can tell us how WIDELY liked a game is through quantifiable means but it can never be used as a source for defining the perfect game, something which can never be done becuase like all artforms, the medium and the experience it gives are subjective and effect different people in different ways.

tl:dr I'm not too bothered by it getting a high score because it doesn't mean jack.

Well I don't think I can really argue with that logic.

 

[Alex Tom]

I liked this game when i first bought it but now...don't get me wrong i think its a great game however i just got bored with it after a while. And now that its turning into s survival RPG i just stopped caring. Minecraft is a creativity toy and only needed to be that.

 

[Phlakes]

At best Metacritic can just tell you how WIDE the appeal for a game is (X amount of users rated it as excellent)

I wouldn't get worked up over it, metacritic scores are a pile of crap.

While I would normally agree with this, I think that since it is an average score of many different critics it should be fairly accurate. Agree to disagree I guess.

Metacritic is fairly useless as a means of judging what is the perfect game as all it's date is quantative at the cost of removing all qualitative information. As we all should know a review is much more than the numerical value given at the end of it and metacritic thrwos all this informaiton out the window fixating only upon a number which has absolutely no bearing on art.

Imagine a computer trying to interpret art and having a extremely sophisticated mathematical calculation for determining artistic value, regardless of how far advanced it was (exempting possible AI that isn't aware of it's own existence as an artificial being ala Blade Runner) would still be inaccurate because it was trying to apply what is a method for QUANTIFYING which is best suited for solid facts, ie "How much money can I make if I sell X amount of burgers at Y price minus Z costs" This is what Metacritic does and because of it fails to be significant at all.

Metacritic at best can tell us how WIDELY liked a game is through quantifiable means but it can never be used as a source for defining the perfect game, something which can never be done becuase like all artforms, the medium and the experience it gives are subjective and effect different people in different ways.

tl:dr I'm not too bothered by it getting a high score because it doesn't mean jack.

...I thought that was the point. No, that's definitely the entire point. You don't criticize a can opener for not clipping your toe nails.

EDIT: Unless you use a can opener to clip your toe nails, but that's an entirely different situation that involves lots of goat cheese and anesthetic.

 

[BeerTent]

TBH, I do love minecraft. It's pretty massively entertaining with friends, and an entire weekend of my life went away to killing that excuse for an endgame.

I too was iffy, but you have to hand it to him. He's got some great ideas in there, and he's starting to turn MC into a game. The new biomes are interesting, and rely on specific rules for consistency. Enchanting and experience is a step in the right direction and potions... Still needs some work, but getting there.

I strongly feel, however... That last weekend, he should have made the jump from alpha to Beta. It eats resources, very inefficient, and the server version has a lot of problems.

The game needs a re-write. From the ground up. We should start a server without a heartbeat when we do single-player, that way, we don't have to build on two different engines. We should cut back on totally useless items. (Cake) and build more into mobs, AI, and alternative objectives.

It's been said a million times, java isn't great, but we're stuck with it, so lets also try to squish all bugs and streamline efficiency. Minecraft looks great, but the possibility of going from 16x16 to 32x32 will appease people looking for better gfx, while ensuring people with low-end machines don't suffer.

Finally, as I just stated, we should aim more for an adventuring game, but we should keep the ability to endlessly build by including numerous parameters and options in the worlds we build. Don't like hunger? It's a checkbox. Don't want structures? It's a checkbox.

With all of this in mind, including the fact that I fucking love this game, IMO, it gets a 7/10.

Oh, and just get 1.0. Seriously. "I don't like change" is a pretty poor excuse for not upgrading. Hunger just makes things interesting, and if you don't want it, play creative.

 

[Kyrinn]

I'd be willing to give it an 8/10 - but that's for 1.7.3. Nowadays it's about a 5.

So glad I got the old .jar off someone, I can finally go back to the glory days

Edit: if anyone wants a safe 1.7.3, just PM me. I guess to keep from getting in trouble with the mods, show a proof of purchase or something.

Not trying to nitpick but I'd hardly call 1.7.3 "The glory days"
But I kind of get it. When I bought minecraft back in alpha I spent countless hours on it. Somepoint later I just stopped, I think it was a month after beta, can't remember. I kept telling myself I'd play more again when it released but I just can't get into it.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

If you look at the "average user score" it's about spot on with 8.7. Myself i'd have given it an 8.5. When I visit metacritic I look at the user scores and comments, not the paid reviewers.