why such low metascore?

Friendliest · 08-02-2011, 11:34 PM

anyone interested in this game should know pretty well what they're getting into.

having watched the totalbiscuit video, I'm pretty clear on it, myself, and it seems like a two word review of "looks fun" should suffice, especially at a price point of $2.50.

but I'm just curious what was/could be so bad about this game that it would get trashed in metascore.

I don't really care about illiterate writing or voice acting (heck, if I did, that would rule out 95% of games, these days.)

all I care about is arcadey blowing-up-of-stuff with some hopefully cool weapons, and some "arcade 2.0" deepening aspects such as upgrades, power-ups, choice of craft, "combos", and different game modes or some means of long-term replayability.

so am I going to find what I am looking for, here?

08-03-2011, 12:00 AM

I think the reviewers are only looking for what they think the audience will hear.

I don't think they just stop and ask themselves if the game is fun or not.

[sarcasm]
It's gameplay, graphics and sound that is important.
And for Gods sake, you can't have a game that repeats itself. It gotta invent the wheel every time and of course have to be groundbraking, varied, but not too varied.[/sarcasm]

What's fun and what's not fun is in the eye of the beholder, so what I usually do is that I check if there's a demo. If there's not a demo I check if someone has done a video review/first impression, preferrably the way totalbiscuit does it as it usually gives a good impression of what kind of game you're looking at.

And I don't bother looking at metacritics anymore.
Besides, some people expect the same of a triple-a title as they do from an Indie title. Not considering pricetag and the fact that the resources are very limited in comparison.

Anyway I think this game is very good, so I hope to see more from this developer

Ryuubei · 08-03-2011, 12:53 AM

For me it looses marks because of the stuttering in the game play. I found it rather frustrating after a while.

However it's still a pretty fun game. A lot of reviewers i know of who reviewed the game went into it with negative views from the outset since it's console game ported over. If the game had been earth shatteringly amazing, it would have been only "okay" because it started as a console game. Unfortunatly prejudice like that is getting more and more frequent in reviewers

DJ Cryotek · 08-03-2011, 01:39 AM

I get angry with reviewers who judge $5-$15 indie or budget games in the same way as $60 AAA titles. Usually they complain that the games aren't long enough or don't have enough "content". Well you get what you pay for, and you're paying a hell of a lot less. Price *should* factor explicitly into reviews.

Frankly I'd rather have 5-6 short but sweet indie games than one AAA title (which is probably no longer...).

dishymars · 08-03-2011, 07:09 AM

What reviews can be trusted these days? the vast majority hit up the developer for a review fee, and the review is entirely based on whetther the dev's coughed up a pay check or told em to go Eff themselves.

Sounds to me like that is what happened here. Its a great concept, and very fun game, and the only way I can see someone having any complaints about it is if it was like 30 bucks or something.

zenpunk · 08-03-2011, 09:16 AM

Yeah, this game deserves a much higher metascore ... i don't know why some simple little games get such high scores and some get so low. For it's price, this game in no way should be below a 70, I'd think. Kind of like Eufloria, which is a great game with a crazy low meta score. I would penalize Eufloria's score a little because of it's historically high price (for an indie game), but at 10 dollars Naval Warfare isn't a terrible buy ... and at it's current $2.50 is a downright steal.

Friendliest · 08-03-2011, 09:19 AM

well, ty for the good replies, all, and basically what i would expect.

(tell ppl what they want to hear, wot?

)

see you in there!

Ryuubei · 08-03-2011, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dishymars

What reviews can be trusted these days? the vast majority hit up the developer for a review fee, and the review is entirely based on whetther the dev's coughed up a pay check or told em to go Eff themselves.

Sounds to me like that is what happened here. Its a great concept, and very fun game, and the only way I can see someone having any complaints about it is if it was like 30 bucks or something.

That is sooooo not true and as one of those reviewers your condemning i find it offensive. Lets see some proof that the vast majority demand payments please. Since ALL the reviewers i know and work with (over 100 of them) have never asked for payment

08-02-2011, 11:34 PM	#1
Friendliest Join Date: Jan 2010 Reputation: 716 Posts: 3,738	why such low metascore? anyone interested in this game should know pretty well what they're getting into. having watched the totalbiscuit video, I'm pretty clear on it, myself, and it seems like a two word review of "looks fun" should suffice, especially at a price point of $2.50. but I'm just curious what was/could be so bad about this game that it would get trashed in metascore. I don't really care about illiterate writing or voice acting (heck, if I did, that would rule out 95% of games, these days.) all I care about is arcadey blowing-up-of-stuff with some hopefully cool weapons, and some "arcade 2.0" deepening aspects such as upgrades, power-ups, choice of craft, "combos", and different game modes or some means of long-term replayability. so am I going to find what I am looking for, here?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-03-2011, 12:00 AM	#2
sjoko78 Guest Posts: n/a	I think the reviewers are only looking for what they think the audience will hear. I don't think they just stop and ask themselves if the game is fun or not. [sarcasm] It's gameplay, graphics and sound that is important. And for Gods sake, you can't have a game that repeats itself. It gotta invent the wheel every time and of course have to be groundbraking, varied, but not too varied.[/sarcasm] What's fun and what's not fun is in the eye of the beholder, so what I usually do is that I check if there's a demo. If there's not a demo I check if someone has done a video review/first impression, preferrably the way totalbiscuit does it as it usually gives a good impression of what kind of game you're looking at. And I don't bother looking at metacritics anymore. Besides, some people expect the same of a triple-a title as they do from an Indie title. Not considering pricetag and the fact that the resources are very limited in comparison. Anyway I think this game is very good, so I hope to see more from this developer

08-03-2011, 12:53 AM	#3
Ryuubei Join Date: Jul 2010 Reputation: 125 Posts: 1,200	For me it looses marks because of the stuttering in the game play. I found it rather frustrating after a while. However it's still a pretty fun game. A lot of reviewers i know of who reviewed the game went into it with negative views from the outset since it's console game ported over. If the game had been earth shatteringly amazing, it would have been only "okay" because it started as a console game. Unfortunatly prejudice like that is getting more and more frequent in reviewers

08-03-2011, 01:39 AM	#4
DJ Cryotek Join Date: Feb 2010 Reputation: 140 Posts: 1,207	I get angry with reviewers who judge $5-$15 indie or budget games in the same way as $60 AAA titles. Usually they complain that the games aren't long enough or don't have enough "content". Well you get what you pay for, and you're paying a hell of a lot less. Price should factor explicitly into reviews. Frankly I'd rather have 5-6 short but sweet indie games than one AAA title (which is probably no longer...).

08-03-2011, 07:09 AM	#5
dishymars Join Date: Jul 2011 Reputation: 18 Posts: 255	What reviews can be trusted these days? the vast majority hit up the developer for a review fee, and the review is entirely based on whetther the dev's coughed up a pay check or told em to go Eff themselves. Sounds to me like that is what happened here. Its a great concept, and very fun game, and the only way I can see someone having any complaints about it is if it was like 30 bucks or something.

08-03-2011, 09:16 AM	#6
zenpunk Join Date: Nov 2009 Reputation: 19 Posts: 87	Yeah, this game deserves a much higher metascore ... i don't know why some simple little games get such high scores and some get so low. For it's price, this game in no way should be below a 70, I'd think. Kind of like Eufloria, which is a great game with a crazy low meta score. I would penalize Eufloria's score a little because of it's historically high price (for an indie game), but at 10 dollars Naval Warfare isn't a terrible buy ... and at it's current $2.50 is a downright steal.

08-03-2011, 09:19 AM	#7
Friendliest Join Date: Jan 2010 Reputation: 716 Posts: 3,738	well, ty for the good replies, all, and basically what i would expect. (tell ppl what they want to hear, wot? ) see you in there!