You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
Big Devil May Cry Fan and played both DmC and MGR, my vote goes to MGR. Once I beat DmC I couldn't gain any interest replaying it; however, MGR I have been replaying multiple times trying to collect everything. Those reviewers just suck at games and shouldn't even be reviewing games. MGR has a very small learning curve and once you got it, the game actually becomes fun.
I think there is a tendancy to put too much weight on what final score a game gets. What is more important is what the reviewer said about the game when they were discussing its pros and cons.
For instance, some of the best games I have played this gen like Red Faction Guerilla and Dues EX: HR got 8/10's from most reviewers but when you actually read the reviews that went along with those scores you can totally tell that almost all reviewers who played the games had a total blast playing them. The 8/10's arose because of obvious technical issues like the graphics weren't super stellar on some buildings or some other reason which doesn't really matter but keeps it from becoming a "triple A" title in their eyes.
I haven't played Rising yet, but most reviews I have read said they had a total blast playing it and didn't really mention any important negatives at all, and then at the end the score is still an 8/10. Oh well, it just goes to show that it is hard to quantify something like "fun" that is completely intangible.
*see's the topic on the gameFAQs homepage and walks in, not even bothering to read the posts*
It means you are looking at Metacritic and should stop. They can manipulate numbers however they want, and are completely arbitrary. An example is a website that uses a F - A rating system. Metacritic can look at a B+ and say "Welp, B+ obviously means a 70. Cut. Print." Review scores are usually arbitrary and dumb to begin with, but Metacritic takes it to a whole new level.
There's also a thing that happened with Natural Selection 2. I forget what site, but some "reviewer" wrote a factually inaccurate review for them that makes it seems the guy never even played NS2. Metacritic's response? "Let's see, its factually inaccurate, does not reflect any of the views of your company, lowers the arbitrary score number, and is just plain idiotic? Lol no, we're not taking it off. GG no re." How can anyone defend anything Metacritic does?
If a real site that could properly aggregate all review scores together in a reasonable fashion, maybe MGR would have a "87%" and DmC a "77%".
*walks out and never looks back*
You know that game I never played? That one? 10/10, GoTY and Best (insert genre here).