Quote:
|
I can't recall, nor do I give a shit to look it up, which site had such a differential in score....but I think it was Gamespot. The PC version of NOLF received something like a 9/10 and GOTY recognition, and the PS2 version got a 4/10 or something and was deemed unplayable. The absence of Quick Save makes certain parts of the game excruciatingly difficult. I believe the Quick Save limitation may have had something to do with the console vs. PC tech limitations...so to interject between this debate:
|
Considering one game got a lower score because of an
actual gameplay difference (less save points change the game, lower graphics do not) I'd say it's justified. As long as one game doesn't lose a score because of aesthetics, I'm okay with
that because there are actual differences in the game.
Quote:
Also am I the only one who checks metacritic?
I generally follow user reviews over any other review and I like to read a lot of them.
|
I personally actually don't seek reviews. I watch a show on TV about game reviews, but I only watch it to see new games, and for their talk and evaluation of the content - not to see the score they give it at the end of that review. I basically just do a quick skim over online reviews for major bugs and how long the games are, then I just judge based on what I've seen what
I'd give the game by either rating it a "purchase" or a "Fuck this shit."