Yeah but they aren't exclusively on spotify.
Gaming PS5 vs Xbox Series S|X
- Thread starter afrocentricity
- Start date
Yeah but they aren't exclusively on spotify.
You've mentioned this before. But most people don't have multiple platforms. Of the 85 games that are 85+ score, how many do you reckon the average person has got for free? For somebody like you who has all the consoles, multiple subscriptions, takes advantage of charity bundles on PC etc. Sure. But for the average gamer looking at gamepass?
Is that why you love them?
And? The fact is a lot of them have been free. And by "most people" you mean the percentage of gamers with only 1 system right?
Whatever way you want to spin it, it doesn't change my point about that or my overall one about arguing over metacritic scores.
I'm not arguing the point itself I'm considering how impactful to the majority of gamers that is.
If your point is just that people who have multiple systems and take advantage of these things, gamepass isn't appealing as it's offering games you already have - fair enough. I'm trying to quantify what % of people that actually effects though.
And yes, I'd say the majority of gamers probably only have 1 primary system but maybe I'm wrong. I think maybe 20-30% play in more than one place. What % do you reckon?
Metacritic clearly isn't the be all and end all. But it's a good starting point to bring a little objectivity to something so subjective. And it's something that has been used here plenty to demonstrate the quality of output that Sony's first party has.
I'm not in the mood to start pulling figures out of my arse, that's not a very productive discussion is it? For a start I know a hell of a lot of gamers and can't think of any with a single system, none without even a laptop and a console, but what does that prove?
And my point simply is you, despite earlier claiming it was everyone else who loves Metacritic, seem to be the only one genuinely thinking it makes for good discussion and proves your point.
Yet again I'll point out it's not really objective as they are just opinions from people, and especially as there's a handful of games in that very graphic which shouldn't be judged by the same tired old criteria. Scores to define games has never been great for discussion or reviewing, now with the types of games we get they've become even less relevant. As I said about SoT the other day (which you went quiet on), same with the likes of Conan and Ark on that graphic, they are pointless to even consider.
Whats happened in your life for you to take everything as a fight? It's a discussion not an argument
Cheer up old man.
Whats happened in your life for you to take everything as a fight? It's a discussion not an argument
Cheer up old man.
See, because you have no argument you resort to this nonsense.
This is the problem with you Xbox fanboys, you lose the backing of anyone with at least tiny stones like Bojan and Shammy, and you wilt under the slightest questioning. For shame.
And I'm bummed about Shammy. Cheer me up with a good fight!
No mate it's just a lot of effort when every post you see as a chance to patronise, sling mud or show your superior knowledge.
You raised a valid point about games that are free elsewhere, but a fair rebuttal or at least, consideration would be to look at how many people that actually applies to. If for a significant chunk of people it doesn't impact then the value proposition still holds strong for those people. You don't want to engage in nuance if it might water down your point but otherwise want us to listen to you harp on about games from 7 generations ago and the mistakes made back in the 1980s.
Obviously metacritic isn't everything. It's subjective but because it can bring some 'wisdom of the crowd' that is less prone to the bias and agendas of the masses (thousands of people giving TLOU2 a 0 for example). It's not flawless, and yes critics can have their own bias and unfortunately vested interests too - 'will this publisher continue sending me games pre-release and give us advertising budget if we don't give a good score?'
The Sea of Thieves point was irony because only days before people had been posting a list of the metacritic scores of PS5 exclusives and asking how many high scoring games Xbox has.
I've never dismissed it and always retained that it's clearly worth considering and of value, but isn't the be all and end all on whether or not a specific game is good or that you'll enjoy it. As a good indicator over a library of games though, it can be a pretty good indicator but should never be the only thing to look at.
From the games I've played this year I'd only rank it above Farming Simulator 19 and that is purely due to it having a trophy that requires completing 100 contracts (done 32 so far). Before I got "stuck" in the tediousness of this part, I'd have ranked Control bottom.
I loved Control...
Get some new material, it's boring when you get all super defensive like this. Show me where I patronised or threw any mud at you, or shut up about it every time you get rebutted with questions you can't answer. Besides I thought the Shammy/Bojan comments were enough of a wink to you, but I forget about your sense of humour (or indeed lack thereof at times).
So you agree with me then. So tell me how I offended you enough to write the first line of this post? Chill yourself dude.
As for the sea of thieves point, our discussion was a separate part as I never once mentioned PS5 or metacritic in that regard, YOU brought it up in a dig (oh no! Please don't patronise me!) because I earlier was fecking around calling it the de facto best game on the gamepass. I responded to that by making a very valid point about actually reading those bottom scores with regards to the nature of the game and how long ago those reviews were, and you just dismissed it. Basically, don't act like you aren't any different at times mate.
Anyway to continue the conversation further, lighten the mood and hopefully to an interesting area, I think the issue with metacritic and all scores is that gaming has simply moved on. Long gone are the days a game is simply released and what you get is what you get, the landscape has changed. The way we consume games, the way they are updated all the time, the very nature of some genres and early access and all that. The issue is what we replace it with, I'd have to think about that one but I fear it'd take someone way more versed in that particular subject than me (shocker I know!), but I will agree that at least with the group think metacritic is much better than the old magazine scores.
Any ideas on a better system? (though it would also have to take into account the age old thing of publisher influence and all that, but then we are going waaaay too deep into it). It's very tough because we are so ingrained with the ways things are, but there has got to be a way. For example, though obviously the thumbs up/down system on steam is ridiculous in that simplistic nature, it does at least mean you really do want to read the reviews for yourself more and see what is being said...which leads you to then easily see the bombing and all that. I overall find it a better way to gauge a game I want than a review or meta critic.
You didn't offend me Lambs it's just tiring at times (and sure I bet everybody would say the same about me 
). If anybody is getting wound up by a thread about games then there's bigger issues at play. But it's boring and not worth my time if I try to discuss your point and you say 'who cares, you're the one obsessed with metacritic and you went quiet on sea of thieves' when I've already explained 3 times. Basically just turning discussion into argument for the sake of it.
You didn't mention ps5 metacritic no but it had been discussed in this very thread in the few pages before and had been a big discussion. I thought the connection and that it was tongue in cheek was obvious.
Yep agreed that with patching metacritic can only reflect a moment in time, I said as much yesterday. Not sure what a better system is. But as we said, it shouldn't be and isn't the 'definitive' system anyway but just a tool to use when considering the reception of a game.
). If anybody is getting wound up by a thread about games then there's bigger issues at play. But it's boring and not worth my time if I try to discuss your point and you say 'who cares, you're the one obsessed with metacritic and you went quiet on sea of thieves' when I've already explained 3 times. Basically just turning discussion into argument for the sake of it.You didn't mention ps5 metacritic no but it had been discussed in this very thread in the few pages before and had been a big discussion. I thought the connection and that it was tongue in cheek was obvious.
Yep agreed that with patching metacritic can only reflect a moment in time, I said as much yesterday. Not sure what a better system is. But as we said, it shouldn't be and isn't the 'definitive' system anyway but just a tool to use when considering the reception of a game.
@Redlambs I think a better system is stop using scores full stop. Eurogamer did good when they nipped it in the bud.
Last edited:
There should be a metacritic for RedCafe posters.
thats the Ole Gunnar thread
You didn't offend me Lambs it's just tiring at times (and sure I bet everybody would say the same about me
You didn't mention ps5 metacritic no but it had been discussed in this very thread in the few pages before and had been a big discussion. I thought the connection and that it was tongue in cheek was obvious.
Yep agreed that with patching metacritic can only reflect a moment in time, I said as much yesterday. Not sure what a better system is. But as we said, it shouldn't be and isn't the 'definitive' system anyway but just a tool to use when considering the reception of a game.
Well then stop whining! And as I said, I need someone like Shammy around, him being booted made me spoil for a fight admittedly, but at least I only do it in this thread. Having someone who is a fellow condescending prick around, but on a much much larger scale (the whole CE forum for example) helped keep me in check so I don't go too hard on you brainless idiots in here. I mean if he chirped up, I knew I was going all Shammy and getting close to that line
But yeah, I'm obviously just yanking your chain about Metacritic. You know me, I couldn't help turning it around on you when you posted that...you'd do the same in the right mood and you know it
(Besides I only do it because I have respect for you, if you were Veeva or Elvis you know I'd actually mean it...)
Yeah but we do still need something to help us decide what to buy/play. I'm guessing most of us here read at least a handful of reviews when looking at a title, but as we've discussed that's not exactly fullproof. Not having scores at all would hopefully help the reviews be more open and flowing thus more attuned to our own tastes and what we would and wouldn't like (as you rightly say, Eurogamer has improved doing that), but we still need something to give the initial indicator as we can't read every single review.
As I said, Steam has the right idea kind of. The initial positive/negative on a basic scale, with recent reviews separated works as described above but then when you read the reviews, it's painfully clear the thumbs up/down isn't nuanced enough. Perhaps even the addition of a middle option, and a strict forced review structure would help there.
@Redlambs To be honest, I never read reviews until after I've played, read or watched something. Word of mouth is probably my biggest determiner, so not entirely dissimilar to what you've said about Steam.
I'll rescind my earlier point about Metacritic though because it is a useful determiner that something isn't absolutely awful. I think it's better at doing that than reflecting how good something is.
I'll rescind my earlier point about Metacritic though because it is a useful determiner that something isn't absolutely awful. I think it's better at doing that than reflecting how good something is.
Last edited:
'Kinnell @Alock1 getting rinsed again.
#FreeAlex
Currently working through the Halo Masterchief collection all campaigns one after the other near the end of the first one its not great, but more due to the terrible weapons available im expecting the other ones to be better.
The flood are also incredibly annoying and i wish they weren't even part of the campaign, pistol is completely broken its closer to a sniper rifle then a side arm.
Absolutely love the feature of being able to switch from the remake to the original game on the fly and with the modern hardware it obviously runs at a locked 240 frames so its like butter.
Once i've completed them all, i will see what the biggest xbox game has to offer a lot more then the original i'm hoping
The flood are also incredibly annoying and i wish they weren't even part of the campaign, pistol is completely broken its closer to a sniper rifle then a side arm.
Absolutely love the feature of being able to switch from the remake to the original game on the fly and with the modern hardware it obviously runs at a locked 240 frames so its like butter.
Once i've completed them all, i will see what the biggest xbox game has to offer a lot more then the original i'm hoping
Currently working through the Halo Masterchief collection all campaigns one after the other near the end of the first one its not great, but more due to the terrible weapons available im expecting the other ones to be better.
The flood are also incredibly annoying and i wish they weren't even part of the campaign, pistol is completely broken its closer to a sniper rifle then a side arm.
Absolutely love the feature of being able to switch from the remake to the original game on the fly and with the modern hardware it obviously runs at a locked 240 frames so its like butter.
Once i've completed them all, i will see what the biggest xbox game has to offer a lot more then the original i'm hoping
On Halo 1 even the remake was an Xbox 360 game from 10 years ago. It definitely feels dated. Halo 2 onwards feel better but naturally when playing games from multiple generations ago, what made them unique and game changing at the time is all lost.
I still have fun with them but if you aren't bringing nostalgia to the table then it's probably better as a co-op experience to just run through.
Agree about the flood. Waste of time. I hate them.
Halo 3 campaign is still so much fun. Incredibly well-made game.
Don't think i've ever touched that one, i remember ODST but is that an expansion or the same game with extras i also finished reach but this was a long long time ago so remember very little.
PS3 released in Europe
Once again, I'll state, Halo 1 is a GOAT for what they did to bring console FPS up to date and push the genre forward. It not only combined the last real big AI update with advanced PC graphics techniques like Bump mapping and texture stages, but also furthered the Half Life the goal of movie style grandour and set pieces without stopping the play.
There were better FPS games on PC long before it came out, of course, and playing it now is still fun for me but obviously limited. But I'm talking shear leap and leading on to making the genre popular on consoles whilst doing something different to bog standard shooters, I'm talking about actual leaps in terms of AI, graphics and direction. There have of course been better games since, including it the series, but nothing better at what it achieved.
That is why it's rightfully considered a GOAT.
There were better FPS games on PC long before it came out, of course, and playing it now is still fun for me but obviously limited. But I'm talking shear leap and leading on to making the genre popular on consoles whilst doing something different to bog standard shooters, I'm talking about actual leaps in terms of AI, graphics and direction. There have of course been better games since, including it the series, but nothing better at what it achieved.
That is why it's rightfully considered a GOAT.
forcing us to get 2nd jobsPS3 released in Europe
ODST is the same engine, but completely different campaign and character mechanics. Same weapons if I can remember rightly.
It was very expensive and I think the only thing I played for the first few months was Resistance: Fall of Man (great game tbf).
Halo 2 > 3 > ODST > 1 > Reach >>>>>> 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5
Thoughts?
Edit - Not that I disagree with the consensus 1 had the biggest leap for gaming overall.
Thoughts?
Edit - Not that I disagree with the consensus 1 had the biggest leap for gaming overall.
Last edited:
I didn't really like 2 as much as others, I thought the dual weapons were poor and the Battle Rifle ridiculously OP. But I loved the setting. 3 I just found polished, but dull. I think I was probably Halo'd out at that point though as I'd been canning the MP.
ODST was a breath of fresh air in the series for me though. Reach was poor, 4 was worse and 5...well...
ODST was a breath of fresh air in the series for me though. Reach was poor, 4 was worse and 5...well...
Halo 1 was the biz. Amazing game, even to this day for me. Halo 2 and 3 were special but primarily because of the online, which was unreal and insanely addictive.
Yeah, I actively avoid using the dual weapons as I don't think they suit the game really.
BR is OP but you gotta love it. I played them all with the half ammo skull so there was rarely a time I could rely on it exclusively.
Reach, weirdly, has a reputation as being one of the better Halo games which I'll never understand. The whole game is so samey and the story is bad. The final level with the banshees and the big gun is very anti-climactic.
ODST is just a lovely lovely game.
Sounds about right.
I was really surprised how good the Halo 2 remaster was. Looked great and played really well, nice and smooth not sluggish at all. Defo doesn’t show its age that’s for sure.
While we are on the topic has anyone jumped into the online on Halo Masterchief collection is its still popular, i've seen there's crossplay.