Arma3: Metascore 73 | Spelunky: Metascore 91 | what the fuck?

[alleycat 28]

Arma3: Metascore 73

Spelunky: Metascore 91

wtf?

Edited September 30, 2013 by alleycat

[laverniusregalis 10]

Does not compute.

[kylania 568]

Well, ArmA3 wasn't on the Emmy's, so...

[laverniusregalis 10]

O gods...

Now this is getting silly.

[froggyluv 2136]

wtf?

Easy. No FAK's.

[antoineflemming 14]

Arma3: Metascore 73

Spelunky: Metascore 91

wtf?

Well maybe those who like that game aren't as split on the state of the game as the ArmA community is on ArmA3.

[MavericK96 0]

[dezkit 28]

I'm currently looking at the metacritic scores for recently released PC games, and it seems that ArmA 3 is one of the top 4 lowest!

This should be a sign to BIS

[antoineflemming 14]

I'm currently looking at the metacritic scores for recently released PC games, and it seems that ArmA 3 is one of the top 4 lowest!

This should be a sign to BIS

You have to take metacritic with more than a grain of salt, but BIS should be wary that this game isn't as well received as Arma 2 (I don't think, I could be wrong though).

[dm 9]

You have to take metacritic with more than a grain of salt, but BIS should be wary that this game isn't as well received as Arma 2 (I don't think, I could be wrong though).

No one gives a fuck about user scores.

And compared to Arma 2, Arma 3 is four points lower than A2. But then A2 has 38 reviews and A3 currently only 23. So we'll see what happens when those later reviews come in.

Not to mention that metacritic doesn't aggregate EVERY game review out there. There could be some really positive (and some really negative) reviews which aren't being added to the average...

[MavericK96 0]

I think the thing that hurt ArmA 3 the most in general reviews is the performance issues first and foremost, followed by the general lack of content in terms of a campaign at release. Both of these issues will be worked on over time, but reviewers only review games as they are at release.

[MissionCreep 12]

Fron the metacritic website regarding Arma 2 :

"ARMA 2 doesn't seem to be a finished game. The AI is cheating, physics and controls are out of date and the game is full of annoying bugs. That the game manages to look great from time to time doesn't help much. "

Where have we heard this before?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yeah those games are like good wines : rough when too young, then generous when getting old. Those critics are judging the first, when we know that the latter is unique. Santé

[STALKERGB 6]

Not to mention that metacritic doesn't aggregate EVERY game review out there. There could be some really positive (and some really negative) reviews which aren't being added to the average...

Metacritic weights certain reviews more heavily too, so if two major publications had negative reviews and say, 4 smaller reviews were positive, the overall result would possibly be more so-so than expected. I never liked their star-to-score conversion either. I mean, in terms of movies, when I see "4 stars" I don't expect a movie to be perfect and yet metacritic scores that at 100.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

A3 is one of the few games i didnt read any reviews on. How did it fare generally in the press?

Also, in the past many reviews of arma had been made by folk who didnt really IMHO "get" what the franchise was about.

I think the wine analogy works somewhat here in that the game improves with age. Hopefully A3 will be the same in this regard. I have some faith it will do.

Rgds

LoK

[rfxcasey 1]

Anyone soliciting praise here? Just ask and you'll find lots of people will give it, whether warranted or not.

[dunedain 48]

Metascore is complete rubbish and has always been. Those scores only matter to publishers so they have something to show to their shareholders and most game reviewers are eating out of publishers' hands anyway. I don't think those scores matter to PC gamers in the end...

Game reviewers being huge hipsters, not to use the f**got word, they love to overrate small indie games as well because they think it makes them look better. There are some very good indies out there though, Terraria for instance which got a big update today by the way.

This being said, as with previous Arma games, Arma3 suffers from various issues that make it hard for people to get into it. The various game breaking bugs and glitches, instability issues, poor netcode, poor performances, archaic server browser and mod management discouraging the use of much needed mods on public servers ect.. ect..

The "low" grades don't surprise me.

Edited October 1, 2013 by dunedain

[antoineflemming 14]

No one gives a fuck about user scores.

And compared to Arma 2, Arma 3 is four points lower than A2. But then A2 has 38 reviews and A3 currently only 23. So we'll see what happens when those later reviews come in.

Not to mention that metacritic doesn't aggregate EVERY game review out there. There could be some really positive (and some really negative) reviews which aren't being added to the average...

In your opinion, based on just this community (as I wasn't on the forums when A2 was released), how has Arma 3 been received compared to Arma 2 at it's release?

Oh, and about your little need to use language, I did say that "YOU HAVE TO TAKE METACRITIC WITH MORE THAN A GRAIN OF SALT", meaning you can't rely on it. Chill out.

[Tonci87 163]

Metacritic and Press reviews are generally bad when it comes to rating games.

A nice example that I can think of is indeed Rome 2

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-rome-ii

Compare the press reviews to the user reviews and you will understand why metacritic sucks.

If you want to inform yourself before buying a game then I suggest watching some youtube videos or reading some forums. There are a few YT reviewers I trust, mainly Totalbiscuit and Angry Joe. Their Reviews have been quite honest so far.

[krycek 349]

Metacritic pc user score gets it right in some cases.Besides some troll reviews in there,it might come as a surprise but some can actually write decent reviews instead fanatically defending or bashing a game.User score reflected some really crappy/failed games like CoH2,Rome2,Dragon Age2,Mass Effect 3,Cow of Doody 21 etc while most of the gaming press was busy buttkissing the big shots throwing 20/10 and "uber masterpiece" titles everywhere.

[dm 9]

In your opinion, based on just this community (as I wasn't on the forums when A2 was released), how has Arma 3 been received compared to Arma 2 at it's release?

About the same really. As always those who enjoy the game mostly get on and enjoy it.

Those armchair developers/experts point out anything and everything that seems wrong to them, but is clearly the end of the game/series/BI Studio. The forum has seen all the threads - "there isnt enough content" / "weapon/vehicle/soldier xyz is missing" / "why isn't it using 2357459123 cores" / "why isn't it using all my 897563242 GB of RAM" / "my fps is terrible" / "BI should switch to engine xyz" etc etc - a million times before.

"The dogs bark, yet the caravan rolls on" - Marek S. quoting Sun Tsu.

Oh, and about your little need to use language, I did say that "YOU HAVE TO TAKE METACRITIC WITH MORE THAN A GRAIN OF SALT", meaning you can't rely on it. Chill out.

Yes yes, merely pointing out that user scores on metacritic are bullshit. You can look at the aggregated review score, certainly, but even that is pretty messed up. I am chill, totally chill.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Hello there

A3 is one of the few games i didnt read any reviews on. How did it fare generally in the press?

Surprisingly, most of the PC centric reviewers gave fair assessments. Pretty much all of them mentioned the Sandbox Element of this game that no other game has, as well as the longevity it will provide. The Graphics, etc. But of course, the complaints were all the same too. No campaign, short crappy missions, so-so sound design, and spotty performance (I still think more to do with the avg perception that this simulator should perform the same as your avg controller shooter, which is ridiculous.)

[mistyronin 1181]

Yeah those games are like good wines : rough when too young, then generous when getting old. Those critics are judging the first, when we know that the latter is unique. Santé

I wouldn't been able to express myself better.

[Dark6-6 10]

I think the user score is interestingly divided.

I hope they will port in the content from Arma 2. I font care for the new weapons it vehicles as much. I don't like the new opfor uniforms. I feel the greek isle is a little too idyllic for me. I'd rather have something that looks like Georgia or Syria.

I wish they had more advanced first aid modules and some other features ready for launch. the TOH flight model being cut was a big letdown.

Overall I'd give Arma 3 as it is an 8/10.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[bad benson 1733]

Surprisingly, most of the PC centric reviewers gave fair assessments. Pretty much all of them mentioned the Sandbox Element of this game that no other game has, as well as the longevity it will provide. The Graphics, etc. But of course, the complaints were all the same too. No campaign, short crappy missions, so-so sound design, and spotty performance (I still think more to do with the avg perception that this simulator should perform the same as your avg controller shooter, which is ridiculous.)

yea i watched and read some reviews after release and most of them were pretty balanced and it seemed to me that arma 3 overall could convince more people because it looks and plays better. it makes it easier to forgive the same flaws that already arma 2, arma 1 had(not ofp since it was revolutionary). and surprisingly few were actually upset about the missing campaign. i also saw some site with user reviews where people that obviously came from the forums gave it a 0 and shit like that. there are a few of those little "movements" out there spamming these sites.

overall i think while you could subjectively (with good reason) dislike arma 3, it has a lot to offer that just can't be denied. so fuck those "reviews". no matter how rough it is. arma is still a diamond as long as they won't cut its essential strengths to make it more managable. in a way a lot of the ambitious stuff that's the root of arma's problems is what makes it so great.