>game is good>give it a bad score anyways
Lot to like, even more to hate.
>>58771713OH NOOOOO ZASSISTERS EVEN PEOPLE LIKING THE GAME HATE IT
>>58771713>game is good but not worth 30 dollars on top of what I already paidA 50/100 is more than fair.
Terrible is right.
>>58771713>should’ve been in the base game to begin with>made after the base game was finishedAre journos retarded
>>58771746and? not only was the dlc announced before the game was even out they could've made this as a free update
>>58771731So where are the honest reviewers giving games 50/100 on principle for being $70 or having $100+ of DLC?
>>58771713>IMG
>>58771746>made after the base game was finishedcome on, anon. i know you're not this naive
>>58771769Don’t we literally know this because of the Teraleaks?
>>58771713Score should be lower
>>58771759It's not my job to find and provide these things for you, and it serves no purpose in the argument.
>>58771845t. Couldn’t afford it
>>58771746>should've
>>58771713seethe, poketard
>>58771759...people constantly say "this game is good but definitely not worth $70"
>>58771713>9000 hours played>score: 2
>>58771713>if dlc is bad you can give it a bad score>if dlc is good just claim it shouldn't be dlc and give it a bad score anywayOption selects have no place in game reviews.
>>58771713Average isn't bad, retard. I hate how 7 is the new 5.
>>58771759>where are the scores shitting on overpriced incomplete crapThis should be your baseline assumption unless you're profoundly retarded.>>58771977Average isn't "objectively" bad because words mean things, sure, but when media consumption requires the expenditure of a nonrefundable resource (read: time) it inherently biases attention to "above average" media because anything less is a waste of that time by comparison; why the fuck would you bother wasting time on objective 3's and 4's if you could be playing objective 7's, 8's, or 9's instead? Therefore an objective 5/10 becomes subjectively "below average" because the threshold for relevance is "above average" to begin with, rendering an objective 7/10 "average" for this subjective criteria.You're essentially arguing -against- a collective raising of standards that, objectively, benefits consumers including yourself... and the real issue isn't the perceived mediocrity of the objective 7/10, but rather the desperate shilling for objective 3's and 4's to somehow be considered 7's and 8's and even 9's.tl;dr? An objective 7/10 is average -among media worth consuming- and this is a good thing; relaxing standards to the point that there are so few objective 7+ that 5/10 (or lower) must be settled for is a nightmare scenario.>new craptchaHiroshitmoot needs to kill himself already.
>>5877197750 isn’t average you stupid fuck
>content should have been in base gamei think the same way about battle frontier with ruby sapphire and diamond pearl
>>58772040Completely terrible fucking argument functionally defending the move from 5/10 to 7/10 to appease game publishers and to sell more games at Gamestop aside,>new captchaWhere the fuck you've been? It's been here since the 16th. Also Hiroyuki didn't make this change, Rapeape is the one who took the blame.
>>58772060>hurr you're a shill for publishersWhat kind of retarded strawman is this? I explicitly stated the exact opposite: that inflating shit products to artificially high ratings is a worst case scenario. I'm defending the -perception- of objectively high quality as a "new average." God help you if you think gayme journos rate anything objectively though lmao>where have you beenShockingly I don't live on 4chin.>it wasn't hiroshitmoot, it was some other Literally Who faggotWe'll split the difference and all three of you can kys.
>>58772048yes it is (actually it might even be above average with how much shit is out there)
Would you hate Mega Dimensions if it was postgame instead of DLC?
