SHITPOSTERS BTFO

SHITPOSTERS BTFO

>critic score

I'm sure the game is decent but critic scores are worthless

They should be blown out because the game is fun, not because since hacks on the internet didn't completely shit on it

>when DOOM's score was 70
>"HAHA BTFO TOLD YOU IT WAS SHIT"

>now when it's 88
>"Well, come on, man. Metacritic has a history of inaccurate and wrong ratings."

The game is fun, but when it had a low rating everyone was taking it as evidence that it's supposedly bad

DOOM was never good. I played the original at a friend's house back in 1994, it's all just blood and violence with 0 redeeming gameplay qualities. All you do is look at things and press a button.

Game is great. STFU

>8.8

It's almost as if there's more than one person on Sup Forums ...

I'm so mad at how they marketed the game, they made so many mistakes and made it look like garbage. Then the game comes out and it's fucking great, if this game wasn't called Doom it would likely have bombed due to all the negativity before release.

...

>Human Revolution
>The New Order
>Doom
What will be next?

thats videogames for you.

>8.8

TNO really WAS shit though.

>look at things and press a button
>all video games: the post

Meh, I'll buy it __________on sale.___________

>General opinion doesn't exist on Sup Forums

kek, only stupid summerfags think critic scores are accurate and not paid shilling

Shitposters != General opinion

>Summerfags
Can't wait for this retarded term to be thrown around every two seconds. Thanks for reminding me.

Fuck off retard

Generally there's a lot of jumping involved, where you can usually see your character.

...

they're already here again. get used to it.

"They" have been here for months.

But jumping is also just pressing a button.

...

this game is really fucking good and the multiplayer feels like a nice bonus.

Hi. Pre-launch shitposter here. I got to be surprised by a game that looked like it was shaping up to be a premium slice of shit and instead had fun.

Yeah, I'm super btfo right now. Can't stop crying in fact.

now that's where u fall flat on taste

>User score

Cmon m80, there is nothing more inaccurate than the Meta Critic's user score

There's more to it, like timing. Environment. How long you press te button.

DOOM is just I saw something, press a button with no other requirements, I saw something, press a button with no other requirements etc.

>I hate games where you look around and press a button

>Uncharted 4 game GOTY of the year

>but critic scores are worthless
You act like it's only critic scores. User scores are just as worthless.

It's $38 on G2A. What's holding you back?

This is desperate shitposting.

Its certainly more accurate than critic scores.

only stupid summerfags think user scores scores are accurate

exactly, they're both shit

Had you read any of those user reviews?

They seem to be from people too young to post to Sup Forums

Forgot pic

>8.8

Good thing everyone's fittingly shitting on his shit reviews.

...

If you read only 10s and 0s yes. Most in between give decent feedback.

Its not perfect but its better than critic paid for (or just outright clueless) reviews.

>Game is not exactly like expected
>"Clearly the worst game I've ever played: 0/100"

>xbone

>8.8

See Also there's a huge disparity between console and PC user reviews.

No, they aren't. They are useful for showing to you what's the general consensus on the product. For example: a metascore of 10 based on around 100 critics would probably get your attention.
Stop being a hypocrite.

So what was with the IGN review?

Did they only give them half the original amount of the intended paid-review check at the last minute?

Skyrim has 94 based on 34 critics, despite the base game being incredibly shallow and decent at best.

Metacritic is dogshit.

Holy shit, this thread

>critic scores are rigged
>user scores are even more trolled
>hurr durr your arguement is invalid
>stfu summerfag
>counter troll
>etc

Somebody remind me why Im here again

>general consensus on the product
That would be user reviews m80, critic reviews are an indicator of marketing budget

and? it has 340k owners on steam. pretty good for a new PC game.

I never said a high metascore means the product is indeed great. I just said it is useful on telling people about consensus.
Missed some text interpretation classes, I guess?

Sup Forums is full of retards. people only come here to shitpost. what else do you expect

But this is correct.

Just to suffer.

I already expect nothing and somehow Im still disappointed every time.

Fuck.

GOTY OF THE YEAR

user scores are more worthless than critic scores because everyone uses a two-point system: 0 or 10

>no regenerating health
>you regenerate health when you punch people

am I mistaken? I think this mechanic sounds dumb

I guess the ride truely never ends

If a critic score for a videogame is high, frankly, it can mean anything. It can mean it was genuinely good, it can mean it's good if the writer got the game for free and only played the first five hours so they had enough to write a review, and it can mean that the writer was paid 1000 dollars to say it's great.

Meanwhile, bar cases like God Hand (where the critic was bad at the game) or Neptunia (where it's aiming at a very specific demographic), a bad score generally means that the game was so bad that not even getting it for free and getting paid for it could make someone give it a passing grade.

punching them gives you a guaranteed drop of health packs but there's also a chance of them dropping health with normal kills

I think it sounds great. Regenerating health encourages you to stick in cover and wait. Health from enemies encourages you to keep charging in without breaking pace.