HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Other urls found in this thread:

ign.com/articles/2017/06/16/arms-review
ign.com/articles/2016/02/15/street-fighter-5-review?watch=&page=2
ign.com/articles/2016/08/24/king-of-fighters-14-review
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I can understand the art style but who the fuck cares about story in a fighting game?

I don't get it.

>the GAMEplay in a GAME is excellent
>bad reviews since the story is bad
and it looks good in motion too, so what the fuck

How am I supposed to know anything about or become attached to any of the characters if the story is bad!?! :^)

The shills are already trying to do damage control.

Plenty of people. NRS has been selling record number of copies ever since they decided to invest in elaborate story modes. Whether you like it or not, it IS added value to a game.

I genuinely don't get what's so funny.

how would I know who to waifu in DoA if not for the story?

I think I'm old

The game is shit.

>who the fuck cares about story in a crossover game?
Gee, I don't know.

>and it looks good in motion too
As a phone F2P title, maybe.

The playerbase of MvC outside the hardcore FGC are playing for the roster. If the game has a shitty lineup and the characters look like garbage, the game has failed.

The review says Good though.

>IGN doesn't even give it an obligatory 8
thank fucking god, I want this game to crash and burn like no other

The gameplay is actually excellent. It will probably be the favorite amongst the pro scene. Too bad everything else is shit.

>Only 6 (5 if you don't count Thanos) new characters, and only half of those are actually exciting
>Rehashing 4/5ths of the cast from UMvC3 instead
>Despite recycling most of it's ideas, assets, and animations from the last game, the base roster is still significantly smaller than Vanilla Marvel 3 despite that game having 21 new characters and assets being made from scratch
>Announce a season pass for six additional new characters a year before the game comes out, some of which are already on the disc and promoted heavily in the story mode, for an additional $29.99
>On top of that we get Black Widow, a 4th Marvel DLC character, instead of a 3rd Capcom character. Capcom fans shunned in favor of MCU shilling

I sincerely hope no one buys this low effort cash grab.

A 7 in modern video game rating scales is more like a 4.

Its the oppose of DBZ fighters. Where DBZ fighters has shit gameplay and beautiful graphics.

The review says one facet of it is good.

And that's honestly debatable too, tbqh

>modern
It's always been like this kiddo.

If by always you mean your lifetime, maybe.

That doesn't even make sense, why don't they just say 4? And that doesn't change the fact that the image LITERALLY says 'GOOD'. Like, the word 'GOOD' is RIGHT THERE.

>On top of that we get Black Widow, a 4th Marvel DLC character, instead of a 3rd Capcom character.

I have absolutely no reason to do this, but I'll hold out hope for Slam Masters Black Widow until the very end.

You never noticed the sheer difference in quality in either side (barring jefah who legit is well made)?

Also man they fucked up camera angles hard

I hope your aspirations come tru

I saw someone posting a YouTube video of all of the story content in the game in one long go. It amounts to something like two hours of video. While I agree with you in principle, I would say that if there's that much of it and the game requests that much of your time to watch it all, it had better be pretty good or else its failure becomes a relevant part of the experience of playing the game and a valid criteria for critique.

I did. It's actually the same ratio of new content in the base roster as well. Two new Capcom characters, four new Marvel character.

There's literally no excuse for it seeing as how Capcom doesn't need permission from anyone to draw from their library for more newcomers, it screams laziness.

"One facet"... you mean the gameplay? Sounds pretty fuckin substantial to me

Never implied it isn't. But it's still just one facet of the whole package.

Because all video game media is directly funded by publishers. It's pretty blatant too, lots of people have been fired over giving games the wrong scores over the years, it just escalated to the point where the only remaining possible scores are 6 to 10.

The gameplay is good, at least thats what the pros are saying. Capcom should still be shit on for their lazy reuse of assets and poor art direction.

So why didn't Capcom just pay to get better scores then?

True, but everything else around it being being extremely lazy brings the entire experience down despite having good gameplay.

Video games are the sum of their parts. If one element isn't quite up to par, it's easy to overlook. With MvCI though, the graphics, presentation, music, single player story mode (which was supposed to be a focal point this time around), and roster are absolutely abysmal.

Well if everyone is aware of this maybe they shouldn't even bother.

Like sound direction. Putting spiders old nostalgic theme as the credits instead of his battle theme lol.

Or the bad Voice direction (capt marvel narrates everything, Frank wests hurt sound) and constant vocalizations which compund that.

They don't directly pay for scores, they launder it as marketing. 7.7 is just the right amount to slip by without getting an angry call from Capcom asking for your head. If it was a 6, you'd be seeing a note from the guy "voluntarily" leaving IGN within days, just like that guy who dared give the Switch a low score on launch.

because the gameplay is already dogshit, so it only has the story mode left

>Slip by without getting an angry call from Capcom
>Lower score than every other game in the genre recently released in the genre

Something doesn't add up.

Game companies are smart enough to get you fired from your job by indirectly pulling puppet strings from the shadows but not smart enough to realise the 7/10 score you're giving them actually has a hidden meaning to it that everyone else is aware of apparently.

A 7 in video games might as well be an F

So why doesn't the company wring the neck of whoever wrote this review like I'm told happens if they give a bad score?

So what does it mean when a game is actually a 4?

Hardly. ARMS got a 8. So did SFV. And KOF XIV.

ign.com/articles/2017/06/16/arms-review
ign.com/articles/2016/02/15/street-fighter-5-review?watch=&page=2
ign.com/articles/2016/08/24/king-of-fighters-14-review

7.8 is not a bad score, it's a bordering-bad score in video game scale. Either way, Capcom is more interested in buying the support of the fighting game community.

It's either shovelware or a perfectly fine game the reviewer trashed for his own incompetence.

It was an actual shit game made by an indie developer without a marketing budget. Most likely it is a cellphone game. Another possibility is that it is a low budget game tied to a movie or tv franchise like CN or Nickelodeon flash games.

Personally I'm just confused as to how game publishers - allegedly - manage to be so stupid that they will eviscerate someone for giving their game a score any lower than a 7 and yet be so out-of-touch with popular opinion that they don't even realise that apparently a 7 isn't even a good score anyway.

30 years? yes.

Some of those pros want the game to be good really badly. For some it's their life, so it's very easy to become deluded.

Context helps. Infinite was clearly done in a rush with a tight budget and it shows with its phone game looks and overall quality. It'd be pretty silly to get that guy fired over what is quite honestly a generous score. Even then, the only fighting games with any staying power with casuals are Mortal Kombat and Injustice for their deeper singleplayer content. Capcom tried half-assing it and it fell flat on its face before it even released, so naturally they just dropped that angle and went back to pandering to the traditional audience. Fighting games traditionally live or die by the community reception and sure enough they're trying. Some of the bigger names seem drunk on hype or money, it's hard to tell, but they're clearly carried away. I can see this selling better than V because of the story mode alone, but once the hype dies down I predict some SFxT tier slamming.

no seriously you're a cancer on this board and the Sup Forumsedditors look up to you
the barrel goes in your mouth, point straight back

the only HAHAHAHAHA ITT is you
read a fucking comic book before you post again

Then use that number like someone with a functioning brain who doesn't just imitate every other fucking retard on the internet

DC ALWAYS WINS BABY

Well, I guess maybe if you have to consider the context on a case-by-case basis for each game I guess that makes sense. I don't like it as an explanation, but it makes sense.

Tell that to the "journalists".

As far as journalistic meddling goes, Capcom seems pretty laid back. They don't care much about fighting games scores in general journalism because their target audience rejects them and even games like Dragon Dogma and RE6, both planned as their next big things, got slammed without any repercussions that I know of.

The artstyle is atrocious

Games media is fucked and incestuous. Good example is I used to work for the new York times as an intern. We sometimes put videogame reviews from websites or publications into the paper or site because nobody there knows shit about games. So we go to 3rd parties to grab a review. There is an ethics test before we c an adopt an article. In order to adopt an article a company or site has to score a 65/100 for ethics. Not some, not most, not a lot, but every single major videogame publication failed to score above a 40. Literally most people are paid off or given something to give a false review. It do not know anything about what they are writing. I forget which game article we looked at but im pretty sure it was polygon. And the person in question never played the game. That is why you never trust games media.

not marbilfag but i thought IGN is shit reviewer?

Reviews only matter if they support your beliefs.

I'm pretty sure you're paraphrasing a Reddit post, but you don't even need an ethics test to realize that the day that journalists accepted invitations to private receptions for video games was the day that they lost their objectivity.

Just look at the Rock Band 4 preview from Polygon or The Verge or whomever it was. They sent a guy to a preview event for Rock Band 4 who didn't even want to be there, and he wrote an article all about how much he didn't want to be there, and he got paid despite not wanting to be there, all because if they DIDN'T send the guy then they wouldn't have ever had their advertisement.

>I'm pretty sure you're paraphrasing a Reddit post, but you don't even need an ethics test to realize that the day that journalists accepted invitations to private receptions for video games was the day that they lost their objectivity.
So, literally day one?

I'll never get why you kids think entertainment news is news. People over 25 understand that publications based around entertainment media are essentially advertising wings of the publishers - they have to be because if they weren't they'd have no content to print.

Do like everyone else has done for decades now - find an independent critic or two that you agree with and stop giving a shit about literal paid stories.

If you are going to add a story it better be at least decent. Their fault for adding a story that fucking sucks.

It's about a bad story implemented into anything in general drags it down, regardless of genre. So for example, if some awful elaborate story was added to Harvest Moon beyond, "You move to the country!" and had several cutscenes that actually take time away from the game and end up stating things like, "The reason you move to a farm is because you were sexually abused as a child" or some shit, then the addition of a bad story makes the entire game worse. You would pine back to the original formula where there was no story.

Pretty much. It's embarrassing how many of them don't even want to review games but they can't let go of the freebies and parties filled with brown nosers that give them the only positive feedback they ever hear.

Bravo modellers

>Infinite
>the number that represents infinity is 7
>7.7
INSIDE JOB
N
S
I
D
E

this is the only way Capcom and Marvel can fix all the bridges they burned with this

fuck, nice bod.

8.
Infinity is 8.

Since when is Captain Marvel a woman?

1980s

that's a weird shorthand for Inhumans

Just play ubisoft games, you'll understand the entire meaning of this relationship

I mean, for fuck sake, they are at what, the fucking 5 or 6th assassin creed with literally UNCHANGED gameplay they release and it always get unilaterally praised by all reviewers... I'm not joking, anyone who play it will immediately see the exact same game being ''remade'' with a different coat of paint yet its like the entirety of big name game reviewer are totally oblivious to this blatant flaw. In fact pretty much every single ubisoft game probably has rating that are inflated the fuck up, they have been doing this since the fucking sidescroller rayman games...

man, that must have been confusing for Billy. Now I see why JSA was so uppity about Courtney getting flirty with Marvel

Some biblical circles refer to 7 as the infinite to represent the 7 days it took to create the world

X-Men vs Mega-Men when? We don't need a reharsh.

>Marvel vs Capcom given a 7.7 for a lack luster story
>Super Smash bros is given a 9.8 for no story at all
What did they mean by this?

>a game with X-Men AND Mega-Man
sure, right along side the revived canceled Legends 3 game and triple-A Breath of Fire sequel in the 'even in your fucking dreams you know it'll never happen' aisle

Modern games need a story you idiot.

That's some damage control there, intern

>Inhumans
>using them after their show is confirmed to crash & burn
nice try ike