I'd probably give it a 6/10 at best so that review isn't that far off.
For as great as the combat and art style is, everything else about the game is quite lacking. I look at this game as a great 1 on 1 arena combat simulator. If you like that sort of thing then this game is great. I expect more so my overall score reflects that.
PCGamer does not normally rate things that low, much like this site. Average scores are 7 plus or minus 1 so if they gave it a 5 it must be very boring.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
PCGamer does not normally rate things that low, much like this site. Average scores are 7 plus or minus 1 so if they gave it a 5 it must be very boring.
That would be the default takeaway from those reading this review. And it would be an injustice to those people because the game is actually a lot of fun. It may not cater to a certain more advanced MMORPG player demographic but for the average gamer it is a very deceiving score that may keep them away from playing a game that they would find quite enjoyable.
PCGamer does not normally rate things that low, much like this site. Average scores are 7 plus or minus 1 so if they gave it a 5 it must be very boring.
That would be the default takeaway from those reading this review. And it would be an injustice to those people because the game is actually a lot of fun. It may not cater to a certain more advanced MMORPG player demographic but for the average gamer it is a very deceiving score that may keep them away from playing a game that they would find quite enjoyable.
So you think the game is fun but the reviewer thinks that its boring. Shocker that two people have different opinions, I know. As much as you say it's an injustice and deceiving of a review, I'd say you're doing the exact same thing by insinuating such.
I played BnS and I mostly agree that while the combat may be pretty good, it's hidden behind an intensely boring PvE and leveling layer.
PCGamer does not normally rate things that low, much like this site. Average scores are 7 plus or minus 1 so if they gave it a 5 it must be very boring.
That would be the default takeaway from those reading this review. And it would be an injustice to those people because the game is actually a lot of fun. It may not cater to a certain more advanced MMORPG player demographic but for the average gamer it is a very deceiving score that may keep them away from playing a game that they would find quite enjoyable.
So you think the game is fun but the reviewer thinks that its boring. Shocker that two people have different opinions, I know. As much as you say it's an injustice and deceiving of a review, I'd say you're doing the exact same thing by insinuating such.
I played BnS and I mostly agree that while the combat may be pretty good, it's hidden behind an intensely boring PvE and leveling layer.
52 to me says more than just boring. If a site gives ~90s to games like Wildstar and SWTOR, and 70s to even worse games, 52 says "Broken" to me.
I get that other people gave those scores, but if that site is going to claim to be professional or at all authoritative in its reviews, the reviewers should try to be consistent in their scoring.
We don't need to get down to unit of speed when speaking of facts as they relate to your description of windstriding. That's just intentionally muddying the waters. You say Windstriding was a poor design because ...
* It scraps the convenient faster mount systems that have been around forever.
Fact: It is not intended to compete with other game's modes of travel. This mode of travel is unique to BnS and meant to replicate the time period (Wuxia). This is a prime example of player's who are always criticizing games for being the same, but when something new and innovative is introduced they criticize it for not being the same as the dozens of other copy/paste games currently on the market. If utilized correctly it provides for uninterrupted fast travel just as any other fast travel mechanism in any other game.
B&S in no way shape or form tries to historically represent Ming era China, the time from which Wuxia lore came. The main for of transportation back then was the horse.... Players who want/wanted a historical reference of the time played/play Age of Wushu. B&S is what it is. Some of my friends love it. I'm not knocking it, but throwing out the term "Wuxia" has nothing to do with it not have horses...
PCGamer does not normally rate things that low, much like this site. Average scores are 7 plus or minus 1 so if they gave it a 5 it must be very boring.
That would be the default takeaway from those reading this review. And it would be an injustice to those people because the game is actually a lot of fun. It may not cater to a certain more advanced MMORPG player demographic but for the average gamer it is a very deceiving score that may keep them away from playing a game that they would find quite enjoyable.
So you think the game is fun but the reviewer thinks that its boring. Shocker that two people have different opinions, I know. As much as you say it's an injustice and deceiving of a review, I'd say you're doing the exact same thing by insinuating such.
I played BnS and I mostly agree that while the combat may be pretty good, it's hidden behind an intensely boring PvE and leveling layer.
52 to me says more than just boring. If a site gives ~90s to games like Wildstar and SWTOR, and 70s to even worse games, 52 says "Broken" to me.
I get that other people gave those scores, but if that site is going to claim to be professional or at all authoritative in its reviews, the reviewers should try to be consistent in their scoring.
So you don't want varying degrees of opinion using the same scoring system? Maybe to the reviewer, the game is just that dull?
I found it incredibly dull and shallow compared to what I would traditionally consider dull games. Does that mean I shouldn't rate a game like Wildstar as a 7/10?
There were a lot of complaints in that article, I could easily see how they came to such a bad score.
PCGamer does not normally rate things that low, much like this site. Average scores are 7 plus or minus 1 so if they gave it a 5 it must be very boring.
That would be the default takeaway from those reading this review. And it would be an injustice to those people because the game is actually a lot of fun. It may not cater to a certain more advanced MMORPG player demographic but for the average gamer it is a very deceiving score that may keep them away from playing a game that they would find quite enjoyable.
So you think the game is fun but the reviewer thinks that its boring. Shocker that two people have different opinions, I know. As much as you say it's an injustice and deceiving of a review, I'd say you're doing the exact same thing by insinuating such.
I played BnS and I mostly agree that while the combat may be pretty good, it's hidden behind an intensely boring PvE and leveling layer.
To piggyback on Holdenhamlets point, for what the game has to offer a 5/10 score is deceiving. This score insinuates that the game is not worth recommending, investing any time on, or even given a shot. It discourages a player from even wanting to try it. So if the player doesn't try it, how will they ever know that it is fun? Now I know many will come out and say that regardless of a review score a person should try it out for themselves, but if that's the case, then what is the purpose of seeking a review in the first place? To discourage a person from playing a game should never be the purpose of a review. If a game has any redeeming value, which BnS does, the score should reflect that. A 5/10 score is not reflective of a game with any redeeming value. It screams move on this ain't worth your time.
PCGamer does not normally rate things that low, much like this site. Average scores are 7 plus or minus 1 so if they gave it a 5 it must be very boring.
That would be the default takeaway from those reading this review. And it would be an injustice to those people because the game is actually a lot of fun. It may not cater to a certain more advanced MMORPG player demographic but for the average gamer it is a very deceiving score that may keep them away from playing a game that they would find quite enjoyable.
So you think the game is fun but the reviewer thinks that its boring. Shocker that two people have different opinions, I know. As much as you say it's an injustice and deceiving of a review, I'd say you're doing the exact same thing by insinuating such.
I played BnS and I mostly agree that while the combat may be pretty good, it's hidden behind an intensely boring PvE and leveling layer.
52 to me says more than just boring. If a site gives ~90s to games like Wildstar and SWTOR, and 70s to even worse games, 52 says "Broken" to me.
I get that other people gave those scores, but if that site is going to claim to be professional or at all authoritative in its reviews, the reviewers should try to be consistent in their scoring.
So you don't want varying degrees of opinion using the same scoring system? Maybe to the reviewer, the game is just that dull?
I found it incredibly dull and shallow compared to what I would traditionally consider dull games. Does that mean I shouldn't rate a game like Wildstar as a 7/10?
There were a lot of complaints in that article, I could easily see how they came to such a bad score.
PC Gamer didn't give Wildstar a 7. It gave it an 89.
By giving Blade and Soul about half the score of Wildstar, to me the score (which is what most people look at) is implying it thinks Blade and Soul is absolutely horrific.
I don't think the reviewer actually thinks the game is absolutely horrific, even despite the jiggly boobs.
Sure if most sites gave games 50s for being mediocre, I could see the score being valid (although I would disagree with it).
But they don't. 70s are given for being mediocre. 90s are given for being decent. Higher than 90s are given for being oustanding.
So you don't want varying degrees of opinion using the same scoring system? Maybe to the reviewer, the game is just that dull?
I found it incredibly dull and shallow compared to what I would traditionally consider dull games. Does that mean I shouldn't rate a game like Wildstar as a 7/10?
There were a lot of complaints in that article, I could easily see how they came to such a bad score.
PC Gamer didn't give Wildstar a 7. It gave it an 89.
By giving Blade and Soul about half the score of Wildstar, to me the score (which is what most people look at) is implying it thinks Blade and Soul is absolutely horrific.
I don't think the reviewer actually thinks the game is absolutely horrific, even despite the jiggly boobs.
Sure if most sites gave games 50s for being mediocre, I could see the score being valid (although I would disagree with it).
But they don't. 70s are given for being mediocre. 90s are given for being decent. Higher than 90s are given for being oustanding.
PC Gamer has a different scale. It's a different site with different reviewers and a different scoring system. Using that as a reason of why it's a bad review is just searching for a reason to not like it.
Scoring system
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
00%-10% Absolutely no value and/or actively offensive. Are you playing one of these games? Take 3d6 emotional damage. e.g. Big Brother
11%-39% Yikes. Technically broken, or so fundamentally flawed that it's ultimately not worth any time or money. Bad. e.g. The War Z
40%-49% Functional, but majorly flawed and disappointing. e.g. Aliens: Colonial Marines, Star Trek
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
80%-89% A great game with exceptional moments or features and touches of brilliance. e.g. Arma 3, Cities: Skylines, Elite: Dangerous
90%-94% A compelling recommendation for most PC gamers. Ahead of its time and important to PC gaming as a whole. Making out with greatness. e.g. Dota 2, Alien: Isolation, Pillars of Eternity
95%-98% Absolutely brilliant. This is far and away one of the best games we've ever played, and we recommend it to the world. e.g. Half-Life 2, Minecraft, Spelunky
99%-100% Advances the human species. Life-changing. A masterpiece and more. Actively boosts the immune systems of nearby children and small animals.
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
It's a laughable score just by their previous ratings of seriously mediocre games. Also, if the writer thinks BnS is easy, just wait until BDO.
BDO has matured systems like trade, crafting, and hopefully some meaningful PvE end-game. I wouldn't say that BDO is going to be anything special but, to me, it's certainly far and away better than BnS. I also think they are fairly different in what they are and trying to be.
I disagree with his whining about "breast physics"...boobs have physics in real life too. It's a shame he wastes a whole paragraph to show his insecurity about breasts.
Boobs do in fact have physics... but they are not bouncy balls attached to a chest. Blade & Soul's boob physics are hilariously bad and deserve ridicule. But they can be ignored, so eh... whatever. Bottom line, make realistic boob physics and people won't make fun of you.
Scene:
A darkened office room, filled with desks and cubicles. A lone game programmer (let's call him "Dave") sits at his desk with a single lamp casting light off the side of his desk. He appears to be intensely concentrating on his monitor.
After a few minutes, a co-worker (Bob) strolls in from across the hall behind him. He sees the top of his teammate's head over the back of the chair, unable to see the monitor from this distance and angle. One thing does catch his eye. His teammate's head appears to vigorously jostle ever so slightly up and down as if the chair is accentuating some movement.
Curiously moving closer, Bob then sees images of female breasts taking up one quarter of the monitor, while another section has video of topless women moving about. Bob becomes stunned as he "realizes" in his own mind what Dave could be doing!
"Dave!", Bob says in a firm, audible but not overly yelling voice.
Dave is startled a little bit, and says, "Oh Bob! I didn't know you were working this late."
Dave turns around in his high backed chair, continuing to shake his protein drink.
"How do you like the realistic breast physics I am working on that I was assigned earlier?", Dave says with a smile.
"Hey...uh...riiiight. I assume that was in the meeting I missed today. Best job in the world?", Bob remarks.
"No complaints here", Dave remarks as he turns back around to his work.
So you don't want varying degrees of opinion using the same scoring system? Maybe to the reviewer, the game is just that dull?
I found it incredibly dull and shallow compared to what I would traditionally consider dull games. Does that mean I shouldn't rate a game like Wildstar as a 7/10?
There were a lot of complaints in that article, I could easily see how they came to such a bad score.
PC Gamer didn't give Wildstar a 7. It gave it an 89.
By giving Blade and Soul about half the score of Wildstar, to me the score (which is what most people look at) is implying it thinks Blade and Soul is absolutely horrific.
I don't think the reviewer actually thinks the game is absolutely horrific, even despite the jiggly boobs.
Sure if most sites gave games 50s for being mediocre, I could see the score being valid (although I would disagree with it).
But they don't. 70s are given for being mediocre. 90s are given for being decent. Higher than 90s are given for being oustanding.
PC Gamer has a different scale. It's a different site with different reviewers and a different scoring system. Using that as a reason of why it's a bad review is just searching for a reason to not like it.
Scoring system
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
00%-10% Absolutely no value and/or actively offensive. Are you playing one of these games? Take 3d6 emotional damage. e.g. Big Brother
11%-39% Yikes. Technically broken, or so fundamentally flawed that it's ultimately not worth any time or money. Bad. e.g. The War Z
40%-49% Functional, but majorly flawed and disappointing. e.g. Aliens: Colonial Marines, Star Trek
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
80%-89% A great game with exceptional moments or features and touches of brilliance. e.g. Arma 3, Cities: Skylines, Elite: Dangerous
90%-94% A compelling recommendation for most PC gamers. Ahead of its time and important to PC gaming as a whole. Making out with greatness. e.g. Dota 2, Alien: Isolation, Pillars of Eternity
95%-98% Absolutely brilliant. This is far and away one of the best games we've ever played, and we recommend it to the world. e.g. Half-Life 2, Minecraft, Spelunky
99%-100% Advances the human species. Life-changing. A masterpiece and more. Actively boosts the immune systems of nearby children and small animals.
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
So you don't want varying degrees of opinion using the same scoring system? Maybe to the reviewer, the game is just that dull?
I found it incredibly dull and shallow compared to what I would traditionally consider dull games. Does that mean I shouldn't rate a game like Wildstar as a 7/10?
There were a lot of complaints in that article, I could easily see how they came to such a bad score.
PC Gamer didn't give Wildstar a 7. It gave it an 89.
By giving Blade and Soul about half the score of Wildstar, to me the score (which is what most people look at) is implying it thinks Blade and Soul is absolutely horrific.
I don't think the reviewer actually thinks the game is absolutely horrific, even despite the jiggly boobs.
Sure if most sites gave games 50s for being mediocre, I could see the score being valid (although I would disagree with it).
But they don't. 70s are given for being mediocre. 90s are given for being decent. Higher than 90s are given for being oustanding.
PC Gamer has a different scale. It's a different site with different reviewers and a different scoring system. Using that as a reason of why it's a bad review is just searching for a reason to not like it.
Scoring system
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
00%-10% Absolutely no value and/or actively offensive. Are you playing one of these games? Take 3d6 emotional damage. e.g. Big Brother
11%-39% Yikes. Technically broken, or so fundamentally flawed that it's ultimately not worth any time or money. Bad. e.g. The War Z
40%-49% Functional, but majorly flawed and disappointing. e.g. Aliens: Colonial Marines, Star Trek
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
80%-89% A great game with exceptional moments or features and touches of brilliance. e.g. Arma 3, Cities: Skylines, Elite: Dangerous
90%-94% A compelling recommendation for most PC gamers. Ahead of its time and important to PC gaming as a whole. Making out with greatness. e.g. Dota 2, Alien: Isolation, Pillars of Eternity
95%-98% Absolutely brilliant. This is far and away one of the best games we've ever played, and we recommend it to the world. e.g. Half-Life 2, Minecraft, Spelunky
99%-100% Advances the human species. Life-changing. A masterpiece and more. Actively boosts the immune systems of nearby children and small animals.
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
Agreed.
Everything the game tries to do, it does well. It has no bugs or technical issues. It has interesting features that work (Tag Team PVP).
It doesn't fit in that 50-59% category, or even the 60-69%.
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
Agreed.
Everything the game tries to do, it does well. It has no bugs or technical issues. It has interesting features that work (Tag Team PVP).
It doesn't fit in that 50-59% category, or even the 60-69%.
Lol, TO YOU. To me and apparently some others, 50's is where it should be. It doesn't say that it must have bugs or technical issues but that it might.
People can have different opinions than your own, as shocking of a revelation as it apparently is to you two.
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
Agreed.
Everything the game tries to do, it does well. It has no bugs or technical issues. It has interesting features that work (Tag Team PVP).
It doesn't fit in that 50-59% category, or even the 60-69%.
Lol, TO YOU. To me and apparently some others, 50's is where it should be. It doesn't say that it must have bugs or technical issues but that it might.
People can have different opinions than your own, as shocking of a revelation as it apparently is to you two.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of staying consistant with their own rating system.
Although it's pretty obvious that site is pretty much a joke. There's no way SWTOR was "A compelling recommendation for most PC gamers. Ahead of its time and important to PC gaming as a whole. Making out with greatness." or 3 points away from "Absolutely brilliant. This is far and away one of the best games we've ever played, and we recommend it to the world."
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
Agreed.
Everything the game tries to do, it does well. It has no bugs or technical issues. It has interesting features that work (Tag Team PVP).
It doesn't fit in that 50-59% category, or even the 60-69%.
Lol, TO YOU. To me and apparently some others, 50's is where it should be. It doesn't say that it must have bugs or technical issues but that it might.
People can have different opinions than your own, as shocking of a revelation as it apparently is to you two.
The problem is the text following the word mediocre is not how it's used in common parlance, the description they use of mediocre is more associated with bad or poor.
PC Gamer didn't give Wildstar a 7. It gave it an 89.
By giving Blade and Soul about half the score of Wildstar, to me the score (which is what most people look at) is implying it thinks Blade and Soul is absolutely horrific.
I don't think the reviewer actually thinks the game is absolutely horrific, even despite the jiggly boobs.
Sure if most sites gave games 50s for being mediocre, I could see the score being valid (although I would disagree with it).
But they don't. 70s are given for being mediocre. 90s are given for being decent. Higher than 90s are given for being oustanding.
PC Gamer has a different scale. It's a different site with different reviewers and a different scoring system. Using that as a reason of why it's a bad review is just searching for a reason to not like it.
Scoring system
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
00%-10% Absolutely no value and/or actively offensive. Are you playing one of these games? Take 3d6 emotional damage. e.g. Big Brother
11%-39% Yikes. Technically broken, or so fundamentally flawed that it's ultimately not worth any time or money. Bad. e.g. The War Z
40%-49% Functional, but majorly flawed and disappointing. e.g. Aliens: Colonial Marines, Star Trek
50%-59% Mediocre. If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well. Might suffer from bugs or technical issues. e.g. Hotline Miami 2, Painkiller: Hell & Damnation
60%-69% An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats. e.g. SimCity, The Bureau: XCOM Declassified
70%-79% Good, but not a classic. A recommendation, but not a glowing one. e.g. Dying Light, Shadowrun Returns
80%-89% A great game with exceptional moments or features and touches of brilliance. e.g. Arma 3, Cities: Skylines, Elite: Dangerous
90%-94% A compelling recommendation for most PC gamers. Ahead of its time and important to PC gaming as a whole. Making out with greatness. e.g. Dota 2, Alien: Isolation, Pillars of Eternity
95%-98% Absolutely brilliant. This is far and away one of the best games we've ever played, and we recommend it to the world. e.g. Half-Life 2, Minecraft, Spelunky
99%-100% Advances the human species. Life-changing. A masterpiece and more. Actively boosts the immune systems of nearby children and small animals.
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
Agreed.
Everything the game tries to do, it does well. It has no bugs or technical issues. It has interesting features that work (Tag Team PVP).
It doesn't fit in that 50-59% category, or even the 60-69%.
Its no use debating with some people. Haters will hate. There is no way that an unbiased person would ever describe BnS as "If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well." You may not like theme parks or quests, but everything featured in BnS works well. And this is the very foundation of our disagreement with this review. Heck their combat mechanics alone blow that score out of the water. And it definitely doesn't suffer from bugs or technical issues.
The very definition of BnS is one of "Good, but not a classic and it should come with a recommendation, but not a glowing one." Let the reader decide based on their own preference in gaming. It's a solid game that many people are currently playing and enjoying to the tune of players still sitting in queues in a few servers even two weeks after its release. If it was really a game deserving a 5/10 score, there is no way in hell that would be the case. As the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding."
The problem is the text following the word mediocre is not how it's used in common parlance, the description they use of mediocre is more associated with bad or poor.
I associate mediocre with "meh"...
In my humble opinion B&S is pretty "meh". It has a cool arena system, above average combat, world pvp but with absolutely no meaning, gank for the sake of ganking.
If it was these systems alone that I'd judge the game on it would be about a 71. When you add in the horrible questing grind it brings the overall experience to right about "meh".
I just logged out btw. Making a new toon to play with friends.
Lol, TO YOU. To me and apparently some others, 50's is where it should be. It doesn't say that it must have bugs or technical issues but that it might.
People can have different opinions than your own, as shocking of a revelation as it apparently is to you two.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of staying consistant with their own rating system.
Although it's pretty obvious that site is pretty much a joke. There's no way SWTOR was "A compelling recommendation for most PC gamers. Ahead of its time and important to PC gaming as a whole. Making out with greatness." or 3 points away from "Absolutely brilliant. This is far and away one of the best games we've ever played, and we recommend it to the world."
I think that part about SWTOR review is probably the most important.
Any reviewers that can rate SWTOR in a relatively "high" or "good" category is clearly not trustworthy, regardless of how they review BnS.
Based on that rating scale I would put it in the 70% - 79% I do not even enjoy playing the game but I think it is above mediocre. Saying 'the ideas may be interesting but do not work well' is not true to this game. Even the 60% - 69% Is not right by this sites (PC Gamer) review standard of scoring. 'An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats' Wow that is harsh to say the game falls below that. I mean they have SimCity (2013) in the 60%-69% so they are saying that B&S is the SimCity of MMOs or even worse? Come on now. It is not that bad. This coming from someone who only played it for 10 hours in Beta and has no desire to play it again.
Playing devil's advocate here. The world pvp for example. You have these faction uniforms that enable Wpvp. The problem is there simply isn't much reason to put them on at all. The system amounts to nothing more than a flagging system typical of those on WoW style pve servers. You could say it just doesn't work very well.
Based on that rating scale I would put it in the 70% - 79% I do not even enjoy playing the game but I think it is above mediocre. Saying 'the ideas may be interesting but do not work well' is not true to this game. Even the 60% - 69% Is not right by this sites (PC Gamer) review standard of scoring. 'An interesting idea that's been poorly expressed, or a derivative idea that's executed averagely. There's something here to like, but it can only be recommended with caveats' Wow that is harsh to say the game falls below that. I mean they have SimCity (2013) in the 60%-69% so they are saying that B&S is the SimCity of MMOs or even worse? Come on now. It is not that bad. This coming from someone who only played it for 10 hours in Beta and has no desire to play it again.
Playing devil's advocate here. The world pvp for example. You have these faction uniforms that enable Wpvp. The problem is there simply isn't much reason to put them on at all. The system amounts to nothing more than a flagging system typical of those on WoW style pve servers. You could say it just doesn't work very well.
It may not work very well based on an unsubstantiated expectation of how you feel it should work, but it certainly works very well for their intended purpose. Which is for those who want to PvP can do so by wearing their PvP gear while doing the quests and playing the game. And it isn't without purpose as there are rewards in points, items, and gear that you you can gain while PvPing. That said, if what you are looking for is challenging and engaging PvP then that's what the 1v1, 3v3, and tag team arena's are for.
Comments
For as great as the combat and art style is, everything else about the game is quite lacking. I look at this game as a great 1 on 1 arena combat simulator. If you like that sort of thing then this game is great. I expect more so my overall score reflects that.
That would be the default takeaway from those reading this review. And it would be an injustice to those people because the game is actually a lot of fun. It may not cater to a certain more advanced MMORPG player demographic but for the average gamer it is a very deceiving score that may keep them away from playing a game that they would find quite enjoyable.
I played BnS and I mostly agree that while the combat may be pretty good, it's hidden behind an intensely boring PvE and leveling layer.
I get that other people gave those scores, but if that site is going to claim to be professional or at all authoritative in its reviews, the reviewers should try to be consistent in their scoring.
I found it incredibly dull and shallow compared to what I would traditionally consider dull games. Does that mean I shouldn't rate a game like Wildstar as a 7/10?
There were a lot of complaints in that article, I could easily see how they came to such a bad score.
To piggyback on Holdenhamlets point, for what the game has to offer a 5/10 score is deceiving. This score insinuates that the game is not worth recommending, investing any time on, or even given a shot. It discourages a player from even wanting to try it. So if the player doesn't try it, how will they ever know that it is fun? Now I know many will come out and say that regardless of a review score a person should try it out for themselves, but if that's the case, then what is the purpose of seeking a review in the first place? To discourage a person from playing a game should never be the purpose of a review. If a game has any redeeming value, which BnS does, the score should reflect that. A 5/10 score is not reflective of a game with any redeeming value. It screams move on this ain't worth your time.
By giving Blade and Soul about half the score of Wildstar, to me the score (which is what most people look at) is implying it thinks Blade and Soul is absolutely horrific.
I don't think the reviewer actually thinks the game is absolutely horrific, even despite the jiggly boobs.
Sure if most sites gave games 50s for being mediocre, I could see the score being valid (although I would disagree with it).
But they don't. 70s are given for being mediocre. 90s are given for being decent. Higher than 90s are given for being oustanding.
PC Gamer has a different scale. It's a different site with different reviewers and a different scoring system. Using that as a reason of why it's a bad review is just searching for a reason to not like it.
Scoring system
PC Gamer uses a 100-point scoring system, expressed as a percentage. The descriptions and examples here are meant to clarify what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a convenient summation of the reviewer's opinion, but it's worth underlining that they're not the review itself.
Personally, all of these reviews done on games where the reviewer has so little playtime are ridiculous but not as ridiculous as the weight people give them or debate how accurate or relevant they are or should be.
Scene:
A darkened office room, filled with desks and cubicles. A lone game programmer (let's call him "Dave") sits at his desk with a single lamp casting light off the side of his desk. He appears to be intensely concentrating on his monitor.
After a few minutes, a co-worker (Bob) strolls in from across the hall behind him. He sees the top of his teammate's head over the back of the chair, unable to see the monitor from this distance and angle. One thing does catch his eye. His teammate's head appears to vigorously jostle ever so slightly up and down as if the chair is accentuating some movement.
Curiously moving closer, Bob then sees images of female breasts taking up one quarter of the monitor, while another section has video of topless women moving about. Bob becomes stunned as he "realizes" in his own mind what Dave could be doing!
"Dave!", Bob says in a firm, audible but not overly yelling voice.
Dave is startled a little bit, and says, "Oh Bob! I didn't know you were working this late."
Dave turns around in his high backed chair, continuing to shake his protein drink.
"How do you like the realistic breast physics I am working on that I was assigned earlier?", Dave says with a smile.
"Hey...uh...riiiight. I assume that was in the meeting I missed today. Best job in the world?", Bob remarks.
"No complaints here", Dave remarks as he turns back around to his work.
/end
twitch.tv/itpaladin
@ITPalg
YouTube: ITPalGame
This reviewer's review is a PC Gamer review. Your post merely validate what the proponent's of BnS are saying. According to this scoring system, BnS should be in 70%-79% category.
It doesn't fit in that 50-59% category, or even the 60-69%.
Lol, TO YOU. To me and apparently some others, 50's is where it should be. It doesn't say that it must have bugs or technical issues but that it might.
People can have different opinions than your own, as shocking of a revelation as it apparently is to you two.
Although it's pretty obvious that site is pretty much a joke. There's no way SWTOR was "A compelling recommendation for most PC gamers. Ahead of its time and important to PC gaming as a whole. Making out with greatness." or 3 points away from "Absolutely brilliant. This is far and away one of the best games we've ever played, and we recommend it to the world."
Its no use debating with some people. Haters will hate. There is no way that an unbiased person would ever describe BnS as "If it has any interesting ideas, they don't work well." You may not like theme parks or quests, but everything featured in BnS works well. And this is the very foundation of our disagreement with this review. Heck their combat mechanics alone blow that score out of the water. And it definitely doesn't suffer from bugs or technical issues.
The very definition of BnS is one of "Good, but not a classic and it should come with a recommendation, but not a glowing one." Let the reader decide based on their own preference in gaming. It's a solid game that many people are currently playing and enjoying to the tune of players still sitting in queues in a few servers even two weeks after its release. If it was really a game deserving a 5/10 score, there is no way in hell that would be the case. As the saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding."
In my humble opinion B&S is pretty "meh". It has a cool arena system, above average combat, world pvp but with absolutely no meaning, gank for the sake of ganking.
If it was these systems alone that I'd judge the game on it would be about a 71. When you add in the horrible questing grind it brings the overall experience to right about "meh".
I just logged out btw. Making a new toon to play with friends.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Any reviewers that can rate SWTOR in a relatively "high" or "good" category is clearly not trustworthy, regardless of how they review BnS.
It may not work very well based on an unsubstantiated expectation of how you feel it should work, but it certainly works very well for their intended purpose. Which is for those who want to PvP can do so by wearing their PvP gear while doing the quests and playing the game. And it isn't without purpose as there are rewards in points, items, and gear that you you can gain while PvPing. That said, if what you are looking for is challenging and engaging PvP then that's what the 1v1, 3v3, and tag team arena's are for.