Final Fantasy XVI | Review Thread
- Thread starter John Elden Ring
- Start date
Great reviews
Outliers looking a lot more stupid than usual
Reminds me a bit of Souls games often struggling to break 90 early on, reviewers are clearly disconnected from reality sometimes
Outliers looking a lot more stupid than usual
Reminds me a bit of Souls games often struggling to break 90 early on, reviewers are clearly disconnected from reality sometimes
That's even worse than just a flat average
Median would make much more sense when there is a chance of outliers and reviews skew towards a small range in the 80s - 90s
Yes, you got 2 hours only. I have to wait 7I thought you meant time until you can play FF16
I think metacritic is just outdated. The fact that print and e-journal articles are pressured by financials more than ever incentivizes rage baiting and review bombing
I think the Eurogamer one is simpler than the diversity issue
They are a dying website and need clickbait articles. They basically said as much when they announced they are reinstating review scores
I believe they underscored TOTK as well compared to a lot of sites?
They are a dying website and need clickbait articles. They basically said as much when they announced they are reinstating review scores
I believe they underscored TOTK as well compared to a lot of sites?
You might only miss on the minor performance fixes. I don't think anything different.
Awesome then, I'll replay the demo tonight and continue from there tomorrow.
For one side it looks bad.
For another it looks good.
Like new sites that are not popular will have less weight in the overall score so it avoids these weird ones like Quarter of Three that gives scores like 1-2/5.
Seems unfair but I agree that more popular sites have more weight than smaller ones.
What decides who gets more weighting? Is it having more reviews? Being around longer? Ultimately it's one opinion vs one opinion because reviews aren't done by IGN they will be done by one IGN staff member, so they should be weighted evenly
Sites also frequently have freelancers who go from publication to publication, so why should their opinion have more weight if it's under a Eurogamer banner than when it's under a smaller sites banner?
Best formula would be the median, or an average that downweights significant outlier scores
The obsession with Metacritic is pathetic and honestly reeks of insecurity, both in one's personal taste and in the medium of video games entirely. A game doesn't "need" to hit any score to be GOTY-worthy, let alone 90+.
I looked back at some of my favorite games' Metascores.
- Devil May Cry 5 (PS4) is 88
- Yakuza 0 (PS4) is 85
- Yakuza: Like a Dragon (PS4) is 84
- 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim (PS4) is 85
- Doom Eternal (PS4) is 87
- Lost Judgment (PS5) is 82
- Returnal (PS5) is 86
- Tales of Berseria (PS4) is 79
- Final Fantasy VII Remake (PS4) is 87
If someone told me that any of these games was their own GOTY in their respective year, I wouldn't think twice about it. They're all great games in their own right.
I looked back at some of my favorite games' Metascores.
- Devil May Cry 5 (PS4) is 88
- Yakuza 0 (PS4) is 85
- Yakuza: Like a Dragon (PS4) is 84
- 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim (PS4) is 85
- Doom Eternal (PS4) is 87
- Lost Judgment (PS5) is 82
- Returnal (PS5) is 86
- Tales of Berseria (PS4) is 79
- Final Fantasy VII Remake (PS4) is 87
If someone told me that any of these games was their own GOTY in their respective year, I wouldn't think twice about it. They're all great games in their own right.
Great score. 90 on opencritic. Wish it were higher so that more people would be compelled to buy it and experience the glorious combat and ost. I've been playing for a while and it lives up to the hype.
Add Days Gone for me to thst list. I'd rate that 90 plus so fuck meta
