Indiana Jones and the Great Circle is rated 'Mighty' after being reviewed by 69 critics, with an overall average score of 86. It's ranked in the top 4% of games and recommended by 91% of critics.
I always had faith. I feel like everyone forgot this is the same machine games behind the modern Wolfenstein games which had really fun and ambitious storylines
Considering the flurry of early reviews (45 only, all glowing, access journalism much? It’s veilguard 2.0) are responsible for the brunt of that 86 score and 24h later most reviews were already between 7 and 8, I’d be very cautious with this. If you already susbscribe to gamepass, give it a go, but I would not spend serious money on a game where most reviews write that the game is broken and there are serious problems with pacing, perspective shifts, bugs and then 10/10. Wait for a discount or a couple reviews from tubers you follow and have similar taste or, conversely, get it on gamepass.
Generally speaking there is an inverse relationship between average review scores and the quality of the game. Considering the game is probably going to be another open-world collectathon, I’m going to wait.
Of course, but if a game’s quality was typically inversely proportional to the review scores, wouldn’t that mean 10/10 reviewed stuff like Elden Ring and BG3 was garbage and the truly great games averaged 1-3/10? I’m just confused by the statement.
Look past enemy and look at the sentiment: scores from big name reviewers aren’t a good metric for whether you’ll like a game. Statements don’t all need to be taken literally.
There’s a big difference between “not correlated” and “inversely related” though. The latter is very deliberately saying that good scores are a bad thing.
A quick way to find out what the game is and is not would be to read a review. But if there’s an inverse relationship between the average score and the quality of the game, you might be interested in Crime Boss: Rockay City.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Interesting. I didn’t have high hopes because the premise sounded incredibly dumb, but maybe they pulled together a decent story around it.
I’ll definitely wait for a few more reviews (I almost never buy day 1), but I’ll check it out.
I always had faith. I feel like everyone forgot this is the same machine games behind the modern Wolfenstein games which had really fun and ambitious storylines
Not to mention that if you want to play it now, you need to cough up 99 bucks.
But yes, I trust Steam reviews more
Yup, Steam reviews and some YT gameplay footage.
Considering the flurry of early reviews (45 only, all glowing, access journalism much? It’s veilguard 2.0) are responsible for the brunt of that 86 score and 24h later most reviews were already between 7 and 8, I’d be very cautious with this. If you already susbscribe to gamepass, give it a go, but I would not spend serious money on a game where most reviews write that the game is broken and there are serious problems with pacing, perspective shifts, bugs and then 10/10. Wait for a discount or a couple reviews from tubers you follow and have similar taste or, conversely, get it on gamepass.
Gone are the days when"critic reviews" mean anything.
Generally speaking there is an inverse relationship between average review scores and the quality of the game. Considering the game is probably going to be another open-world collectathon, I’m going to wait.
A fellow fan of Ride to Hell Retribution 1%!!!
I uh… what? I mean, sure, some reviews are bought etc but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a superb game average 1/10 in reviews. Did I misunderstand you?
Reviewers almost never give 1/10, the lowest I’ve seen recently is 5/10. And anything below 8 should be seen as the reviewer not liking it.
Of course, but if a game’s quality was typically inversely proportional to the review scores, wouldn’t that mean 10/10 reviewed stuff like Elden Ring and BG3 was garbage and the truly great games averaged 1-3/10? I’m just confused by the statement.
Look past enemy and look at the sentiment: scores from big name reviewers aren’t a good metric for whether you’ll like a game. Statements don’t all need to be taken literally.
There’s a big difference between “not correlated” and “inversely related” though. The latter is very deliberately saying that good scores are a bad thing.
A quick way to find out what the game is and is not would be to read a review. But if there’s an inverse relationship between the average score and the quality of the game, you might be interested in Crime Boss: Rockay City.