• ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It was on the lower end of favorable, lots of 8s about 10% of professionals being mixed. That’s not well received. Steam was about 75% positive, that’s not glowing reviews. It’s a good, but not great game. That’s great for a random indie title or a yearly release, but for once a decade franchise title, it’s not good.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      • IGN: 9.5
      • PC Gamer: 88
      • Metacritic: 87 critical, 6.8 User (game was very divisive for the old fans in particular so that’s not unusual IMO. You can see reviews swing wildly there with sub-5’s and 9-10 both all over the place)
      • Steam: is not 75%. I am not sure where you’re going that. It’s 83% all time, 89% recent, which I find very interesting actually.

      You’re welcome to throw out all of the above if you don’t like the sites for whatever reason, but if you could show 3-4 other examples from sites you’d consider valid if you take with issue the above I’d appreciate it. They were the top hits and all are major-known sites, that’s about it. I just don’t want to get bogged down in a source argument.