This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why didn't Spec Ops: The Line get better reviews?

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 3
  3. Why didn't Spec Ops: The Line get better reviews?
2 years ago#11
You_Need_A_Life posted...
I really how people now call 7/10 a bad score.


It isn't a good score. That's low for a big release and don't pretend it isn't. Show me a review website that has 5 set as their average and actually awards an average game a 5. Just doesn't happen.

Just because you think 5/10 should be average and 7/10 should be "good" doesn't mean that reviewers actually score that way. 7/10 is basically average on most review sites, where basically every big name release gets an 8.5 or better.

For reference, IGN lists 7.0 as "good," but their definition of good seems a little skewed since by 6.9 they're already down to "you shouldn't buy this game, maybe rent it." 7.0 to them is basically "just good enough," AKA, not actually that great.

Source: http://www.ign.com/wikis/ign/Game_Reviews

Other sites are like this too.

Think of it like a college grading scale. 7/10 is only a C- AKA barely earning credit, 5/10 is an F.
2 years ago#12
Habefiet posted...
Show me a review website that has 5 set as their average and actually awards an average game a 5.


They all used to. It's only this gen and the second half of last gen that this has started happening.
2 years ago#13
Spec Ops: The Line review: <Explicit Language> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMslWjc5F8U
2 years ago#14
Yes, the gameplay was bland.
But, that's not why you should be playing it in the first place. The story, and the voice acting are absolutely amazing, and several parts where truly terrifying. It's all incredibly psychological.
---
Thou shalt not hide stakes in my shrubbery.
2 years ago#15
The game went over the heads of reviewers. They criticized it for shallow reasons, such as bad multiplayer, lack of gimmicky features, and short length, while making very little mention of the ingenuity of its story. Meanwhile, games like Call of Duty, Uncharted, etc land good reviews due to their simple to understand stories, gimmicky features, cutscenes, and multiplayer.
---
sig here
2 years ago#16
Agreed!
The story was absolutely genius. Watching the main character break down from a hardened soldier, to a broken shell of a man was the most mesmerizing experience in recent video game history. The first time you use White Phosphrous was especially terrifying.

Reviewers, and most of the "gamers" who gave this a bad score assumed yet another shooter with multiplayer ala CoD. It isn't At all. It's all about the story.
---
Thou shalt not hide stakes in my shrubbery.
2 years ago#17
EvilCactus posted...
while making very little mention of the ingenuity of its story.


People generally don't care about "story" in a shooter. People don't buy shooters because they think the story will be good.
2 years ago#18
But, that's the point!

The "shooter" aspect comes second.
---
"So selfish them" would be their cry. And, who'd be brave to argue? Doin' what you people need is never on the menu!
2 years ago#19
BeastLeeAdams posted...
You_Need_A_Life posted...
I really how people now call 7/10 a bad score.


Well it is...this happened a while ago, get with the times.


The times are stupid and so is anyone that goes with them.

In this particular scenario anyway.
---
Know that if you allow someone to take advantage of you, they might make it a habit.
2 years ago#20
because its a 5hour generic shooter(which you can argue is the point) with an above average story and pointless multiplayer. The story makes the expereince more interesting than normal, but i cant see this type of game getting above a 7.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 3
  3. Why didn't Spec Ops: The Line get better reviews?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived