Minecraft beats just about everything with a current 97 metascore.
- Thread starter Coldster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think, as with all metacritic scores, that Minecraft's review score is skewed and matters very little in the end. I hear all this hype about it, and yes I've played it, and in the end its nothing but a time-sink like all other games, except the substance is lacking unless you make it substantial. And sure, some gamers can love that.
But in the end its got no real plot to speak of, so is just a digital lego set. Sure its cool that people can build world sized computational device simulations or large statues of {insert popular character here}. I just don't think that it truly holds up as a game. Its a toy.
But in the end its got no real plot to speak of, so is just a digital lego set. Sure its cool that people can build world sized computational device simulations or large statues of {insert popular character here}. I just don't think that it truly holds up as a game. Its a toy.
And this, ladies and gents, goes to show that the cult of personality sells more than actual quality of content. Because, while we can sit here and fawn over the creatively limitless possibilities of Minecraft as a sandbox, it does still have its flaws - the graphics are hideous (intentionally or not, facts are facts) and there are times i've had issues such as clipping or getting stuck. Or having monsters spawn inside a fully lit building.
It has problems that barely register on the critical radar and yet i've seen AAA titles get knocked down a peg from - say a 9 to an 8 - for less reasons than that, and while people are inclined to ruffle the indie scene's hair like a little scamp and say "here's your allowance early, don't tell your mother!" i don't think that it should be necessarily excluded from the same levels of professionalism that other games in the business strive for. Yes, we all love Notch, his success story is inspiring; but such gushing praise does nothing more than damage the credibility of 'professional critics' by being seemingly oblivious to objectivity. Minecraft is a great game, i just wouldn't call it 'close to perfection'.
It has problems that barely register on the critical radar and yet i've seen AAA titles get knocked down a peg from - say a 9 to an 8 - for less reasons than that, and while people are inclined to ruffle the indie scene's hair like a little scamp and say "here's your allowance early, don't tell your mother!" i don't think that it should be necessarily excluded from the same levels of professionalism that other games in the business strive for. Yes, we all love Notch, his success story is inspiring; but such gushing praise does nothing more than damage the credibility of 'professional critics' by being seemingly oblivious to objectivity. Minecraft is a great game, i just wouldn't call it 'close to perfection'.
*Slow clap*
I feel it deserves it, say what you will. I've been playing it since October of last year. It has the ability to immerse you in its world that, for the moment is unparalleled.
Also, Escapist, I see, is the usual ball of impotent negativity... great work guys! Just couldn't let Minecraft have its day in the sun.
I feel it deserves it, say what you will. I've been playing it since October of last year. It has the ability to immerse you in its world that, for the moment is unparalleled.
Also, Escapist, I see, is the usual ball of impotent negativity... great work guys! Just couldn't let Minecraft have its day in the sun.
I haven't played it much since 1.8 was released, food requirements are a big gaming pet peeve of mine. Now that the final version is out I'll look around for mod to disable that, then jump back in - at least I will once I need a break from Skyrim.
The fact that I've owned it for around a year but still play it on a weekly basis means it's a freaking good game. I think it deserves a score in the nineties, but not something that high.
I wouldn't, and don't, trust Metacritic's non-professional review scores at all, its practically a haven for fanboy behavior.
Let me put it like this, I really enjoyed Minecraft, and I'm enjoying Skyrim more, but I wouldn't even give Skyrim 90% (that's my own personal scoring though).
Though I disagree with almost all scores chucked at games, it doesn't bother me, and I found out they do it a lot differently than I do. Some of the reviewers give high scores to games that are generally well done and have hardly any crippling flaws, even if there is nothing special about the game.
Though I disagree with almost all scores chucked at games, it doesn't bother me, and I found out they do it a lot differently than I do. Some of the reviewers give high scores to games that are generally well done and have hardly any crippling flaws, even if there is nothing special about the game.
Bah, Minecraft is essentially like Sim City - but it isn't even that much. At least Sim City offers you things to aspire to. Minecraft is GTA minus the story, Sim City minus the challenge, or Rollercoaster Tycoon minus the tools and challenge.
It simply doesn't deserve a 97 score. It deserves maybe a 77-86 score. But it is hip to play minecraft right now and fads always get more hype than they deserve. Just remember at one point frogskin Oakleys and Hyper-color T-shirts were the coolest thing ever. Once the fad dies off a bit, minecraft is going to be remembered as something great for those who participated in it and people who didn't experience it are just going to wonder why the hell people think a game that is essentially legos is so cool. When Legos themselves are just a fond memory for everyone, not a favorite pastime.
I get it if someone likes the game, sure. But a 97?
It simply doesn't deserve a 97 score. It deserves maybe a 77-86 score. But it is hip to play minecraft right now and fads always get more hype than they deserve. Just remember at one point frogskin Oakleys and Hyper-color T-shirts were the coolest thing ever. Once the fad dies off a bit, minecraft is going to be remembered as something great for those who participated in it and people who didn't experience it are just going to wonder why the hell people think a game that is essentially legos is so cool. When Legos themselves are just a fond memory for everyone, not a favorite pastime.
I get it if someone likes the game, sure. But a 97?
I really enjoy Minecraft, and seeing how much it has evolved (just search for "Cave Game"), I would give it a 10/10. The new features are buggy as all hell, but that is not the only thing the game is being judged on; it's the entirety of the game, including the old features we've grown used to.
They will fix the current bugs, and add more features, which come with more bugs, and so on. It's just an exponentially growing game, that technically has unlimited replay value.
I've been following it for like two years now, and I have to agree with the current rating. I'd say 10, but numerical ratings are stupid.
They will fix the current bugs, and add more features, which come with more bugs, and so on. It's just an exponentially growing game, that technically has unlimited replay value.
I've been following it for like two years now, and I have to agree with the current rating. I'd say 10, but numerical ratings are stupid.
I've been having a difficult time finding negative reviews with good criticism, until today.
Yeah, it's the guys known for their "retro modern gamer" joke reviews, but this one is actually real. Very insightful to all of the problems Minecraft has. "But it isn't really finished! They're still adding updates!" seems to be the most common counter to this review, to which I ask - Would you say the same thing if other games were missing things like half of their AI at launch?
Yeah, it's the guys known for their "retro modern gamer" joke reviews, but this one is actually real. Very insightful to all of the problems Minecraft has. "But it isn't really finished! They're still adding updates!" seems to be the most common counter to this review, to which I ask - Would you say the same thing if other games were missing things like half of their AI at launch?
I think Metacritic is a bad influence on the world due to trying to rareify the unquantifiable notion of "goodness". That's just me sitting here being a bleeding heart romantic though. I'd like to watch the world of review scores burn to the ground even if I know that won't happen.
Is MineCraft a good game, Vanilla? Yes I think so.
Is MineCraft a very near perfect game? Hell to the no.
Massively overrated in my opinion. The game itself is lacking content, and buggy as hell. Why people treat it like the second coming of Jesus I don't know. That game is what you make of it really, try playing single player for a whole week on your own and then tell me it's worth a marking of 97/100.
I would personally give the game a 6/10, very shaky but with some great elements in there to balance it out. I should be a critic.
Is MineCraft a very near perfect game? Hell to the no.
Massively overrated in my opinion. The game itself is lacking content, and buggy as hell. Why people treat it like the second coming of Jesus I don't know. That game is what you make of it really, try playing single player for a whole week on your own and then tell me it's worth a marking of 97/100.
I would personally give the game a 6/10, very shaky but with some great elements in there to balance it out. I should be a critic.
Like I always say, review scores should not exist.
But Minecraft earns it's badge the same way Skyrim does, is it incredibly buggy and lacking in almost every part of the game, well yes, but the overall charm carries it well and beyond all that.
But Minecraft earns it's badge the same way Skyrim does, is it incredibly buggy and lacking in almost every part of the game, well yes, but the overall charm carries it well and beyond all that.
Somebody call me?Cat of Doom said:
Also, I've never played Minecraft, but enough people seem to like it that I'm ok with it having a high score on Metacritic. I even enjoy some of the things from it without ever having played it myself, like creeper memes and such.