Minecraft Reviewed

[Adam]

Because it's not as popular and doesn't have enough to it.

I'm not saying that Minecraft is deep, but it's deeper than Noby Noby Boy. It's in the same vein of fun as Painkiller: not deep by any means, but what it aims to do/actually does, it does really well.

[Kazooie-Tooie]

Originally Posted by AndyNPC

It's at least better then this one.

hoooly shit
really

Originally Posted by Balobo

Why isn't Noby Noby Boy getting constant 10/10's from the press then?

because no one knows what the **** that is
if it's fun, good
if it's 10/10 fun, i'd be surprised, because people usually catch wind of that

[Balobo]

Originally Posted by Kazooie-Tooie

because no one knows what the **** that is

So you admit that game reviews are based off of popularity and that this review should be trusted more because it doesn't cater to Notch's overly sensitive fanbase/Reddit children?

Originally Posted by 3V1L L33T

Because it's not as popular and doesn't have enough to it.

I'm not saying that Minecraft is deep, but it's deeper than Noby Noby Boy. It's in the same vein of fun as Painkiller: not deep by any means, but what it aims to do/actually does, it does really well.

So why does a disorganized unstable incomplete mess like Minecraft have a higher Metacritic score than all these pure fun games that actually have enough features to be feature complete, have developers that actually know what they're doing, etc.?

[Adam]

No. Because if a reviewer has never heard of a game, how the **** is he supposed to review it?

[Balobo]

Originally Posted by 3V1L L33T

No. Because if a reviewer has never heard of a game, how the **** is he supposed to review it?

Obviously it has been reviewed by a lot of critics.

[Adam]

Then those critics don't find it fun if they gave it a low score.

Did those same reviewers review Minecraft? That would be a better comparison because quite frankly, reviews with numbers attached are pointless to compare to each other. They might be like IGN and a 6 is a bad game or they might be like Angry Joe and a 6 is a slightly above average game.

[Balobo]

Originally Posted by 3V1L L33T

Then those critics don't find it fun if they gave it a low score.

Did those same reviewers review Minecraft? That would be a better comparison because quite frankly, reviews with numbers attached are pointless to compare to each other. They might be like IGN and a 6 is a bad game or they might be like Angry Joe and a 6 is a slightly above average game.

I just brought it up as an example because obviously games made just for pure fun don't get that many good reviews.

The problem with Minecraft's reviews is that it's getting better scores than more polished, deeper, and "funner" games. Is there any reason for this game to get 10/10 when the reviewer states that it has flaws?

[Adam]

Because those flaws don't matter because of how fun it is?

If I were to be critical of Oblivion, I would give it an 8. It has tons of glitches (some game breaking), the jumping is downright awful, the weapons aren't as extensive, the armor isn't as extensive, magic may as well not be used if you're not going to specialize in it, etc. I'd still give it a 10, though. It's still so fun and addictive I go back to it now and again between booting up Skyrim.

[AndyNPC]

Originally Posted by 3V1L L33T

Because it's not as popular and doesn't have enough to it.

I'm not saying that Minecraft is deep, but it's deeper than Noby Noby Boy. It's in the same vein of fun as Painkiller: not deep by any means, but what it aims to do/actually does, it does really well.

It seems you still have much to learn. I was like that once, we all were. You'll understand in time.

[Balobo]

Originally Posted by 3V1L L33T

Because those flaws don't matter because of how fun it is?

If I were to be critical of Oblivion, I would give it an 8. It has tons of glitches (some game breaking), the jumping is downright awful, the weapons aren't as extensive, the armor isn't as extensive, magic may as well not be used if you're not going to specialize in it, etc. I'd still give it a 10, though. It's still so fun and addictive I go back to it now and again between booting up Skyrim.

Yeah, we totally should disregard all of Minecraft's flaws. funnezt gaem ever!! no othr gam can compre

Thank goodness you're not a game reviewer.

[Adam]

But even if I were a game reviewer, the number system wouldn't be a factor; I've already mentioned how silly they are. When it comes to reviews, numbers only complicate things. Some people think one number means something else to another person yadda yadda yadda.

And I didn't disregard the flaws. I plainly mentioned them. Of course, the game is still tons of fun to me and so I'd say so. A game review isn't (or at least it shouldn't be) just a number. If I had my way, sites like metacritic and rotten tomatoes wouldn't exist. You can't compare a number to another number. I like Oblivion a lot despite it's flaws. I like Minecraft a lot despite it's flaws. I have fun with video games. God, you guys are condescending for no reason.

[Balobo]

So we shouldn't compare video games?

[Adam]

Yes. Yes we should.

We shouldn't compare numbers from game reviews because for one person, a 5 is awful. For another a 5 is average. You can't really compare those numbers because they mean different things.

[Balobo]

Originally Posted by 3V1L L33T

Yes. Yes we should.

We shouldn't compare numbers from game reviews because for one person, a 5 is awful. For another a 5 is average. You can't really compare those numbers because they mean different things.

Fine. Minecraft is glitchy, incomplete, and boring when compared to this holiday season's titles.

[Adam]

Okay.