There's three PC games on Metacritic with a score of 49, 48, and 45. http://www.metacritic.com/games/pc/
Is this dude smoking crack?
all websites tend to score between 60 and 100. There's never a 37. It's as if that whole section doesn't exist, so zero starts at 60, so three stars, and goes up to five. It's just not really an accurate enough measure.
What that highlights is the hype dying down. For the first month it was way up there, with choice quotes like "I'm unable to go back to straight and simple first-person shooters.That's pretty standard. Far Cry 2 did a lot very well, above and beyond most games that achieve that score, but the disappointments were also quite serious and the game lost much of its appeal when you worked out the formula.
See link again - it was not CGI. They built a working motorcycle that operated completely differently from normal bikes.I never said they didn't build a working motorcycle - I've seen the videos on YouTube. But some scenes were clearly CGI and everyone I talked to noticed it and also highlighted it as a weakness. It's obvious to a blind guy: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=l1H9k5oxero
Kong himself was absolutely fantastic, as were the T-rexes. I never once thought I was looking at CGI.Wow. Just wow.
To call the CGI work in King Kong shit, then say that Transforers was good is like...As I said some scenes were very good, while others were terrible. Iron Man also had some strong scenes but others were weak. The Dark Knight was more consistent but the CGI was still more prominent than the previous film. In general CGI is still not very convincing and I find it more of a distraction than a benefit.
Shit I just watched "Tropic Thunder" it scored 82% on Rottentomatoes. It also happens to be a steaming pile of junk. God what a crap movie.
I thought that the CGI in Kong was kind of hit or miss. Kong himself was absolutely fantastic, as were the T-rexes. I never once thought I was looking at CGI. The stampede was just alright, but the ship was awful.
Now theres a lot to say about King Kong whether you liked it or hated it. But it's CGI was nothing but absolute top notch and there has been nothing that has come remotely close in the years since.I thought that the CGI in Kong was kind of hit or miss. Kong himself was absolutely fantastic, as were the T-rexes. I never once thought I was looking at CGI. The stampede was just alright, but the ship was awful.
Far Cry 2 scored 86 on PC, 85 on consoles. That highlights the opposite - that a lot of hype can't generate high review scores.What that highlights is the hype dying down. For the first month it was way up there, with choice quotes like "I'm unable to go back to straight and simple first-person shooters. Far Cry 2 hasn’t just exceeded my expectations, it’s blown them away." from reviewers given exclusive first looks, playing the game under primed conditions, and writing reviews with adrenaline still in their veins. Hype is what companies do when such a large percentage of game sales happen in the first week of release.
It was obviously CGI in the movie, regardless of whether there was an actual model for some scenes. It was cringe-worthy when Batman rode it up a wall to spin it around on the spot. The Batpod was the cheesiest part of the entire film.See link again - it was not CGI. They built a working motorcycle that operated completely differently from normal bikes. The seat spinning? Also 100% functional and not CGI.
In order to give Batman the ability to maneuver under low clearances, the Bat-Pod can physically lower and elongate itself. On set, the front forks extended and the chassis hugged the ground, positioning Goy parallel to the ground—and that's before pulling a 360. "The saddle is free to rotate," Crowley says. "It allows you to do all kinds of odd movement within the frame of the bike."
I don't think relying on the opinions of others is really a good way to support your own opinion.I agree, it shouldn't be relied upon but it is of some use as an indicator / gauge. It's like Iron Man getting 32 - I don't need to read the full reviews to know the game is almost certainly going to be terrible, though that doesn't discount that some people could have found it enjoyable. And while I really enjoyed Clear Sky it's valid to state the score of 75 reflects that there were some problems / design decisions that reviewers found issue with. All I'm saying is that Metacritic scores aren't simply made up; they have some bearing.
don't think relying on the opinions of others is really a good way to support your own opinion. If I dislike a game, I'll specifically point out what I don't like about it and why. Explaining your opinion is the best thing you can do rather than saying "But everybody else likes it!
Is that a joke? A 10 million dollar marketing campaign and lots of hype is all that you need to get 90+ scores. See Far Cry 2.Far Cry 2 scored 86 on PC, 85 on consoles. That highlights the opposite - that a lot of hype can't generate high review scores.
You mean the Bat-pod? The one that wasn't CGI at all?It was obviously CGI in the movie, regardless of whether there was an actual model for some scenes. It was cringe-worthy when Batman rode it up a wall to spin it around on the spot. The Batpod was the cheesiest part of the entire film.
Obviously the Metacritic score alone is a poor way to judge a game but if it's used to support an argument then that's acceptable.
Also, it's annoying how people use Metacritic scores as a way to make you feel stupid for liking a game. "You liked Mirror's Edge? It's Metacritic score is 77... you're a noob!" Or the opposite, "you didn't like Metal Gear Solid 4? It's Metacritic score is 97!"Obviously the Metacritic score alone is a poor way to judge a game but if it's used to support an argument then that's acceptable. For instance, if someone says that Oblivion is "crap" then that could be countered by someone else arguing why they liked it and showing that according to Metacritic it is the second best scoring RPG, joint with Diablo; clearly it would have to have some merit if it is ranked so highly, therefore the term "crap" doesn't apply. At the end of the day games are a subjective medium and just because a game scores 98 on Metacritic does not mean people have to like it - it merely shows that a lot of reviewers found it to be of very high quality.
It doesn't really matter where the scale starts though as a game still needs to be very good to get the top scores.Is that a joke? A 10 million dollar marketing campaign and lots of hype is all that you need to get 90+ scores. See Far Cry 2.
The Dark Knight was a similar case - some incredibly well done scenes (Two-Face, at least for the most part) and some very weak scene (anything involving the bat-bike)You mean the Bat-pod? The one that wasn't CGI at all?
But it's CGI was nothing but absolute top notch and there has been nothing that has come remotely close in the years since.You've got to be kidding? The CGI was appalling in many scenes, especially during scenes like running from the dinosaurs - the direction was also pretty poor during those scenes. Even the stronger scenes left a lot to be desired. There has been plenty of MUCH better CGI since then. Transformers had some exceptional graphics for part of it, though other scenes were incredibly weak. The Dark Knight was a similar case - some incredibly well done scenes (Two-Face, at least for the most part) and some very weak scene (anything involving the bat-bike). The Lord Of The Rings and Peter Jackson's King Kong were both examples of CGI overload and it really detracted from the films.