You’ve apparently never made an entertainment product before. Entertainment is highly subjective and getting a large number of people to agree on a subjective rating is actually pretty hard. Like I said before, most developers would be very happy to get an 84 on Metacritic, an 89 on OpenCritic or a Very Positive on…

I’m not using my standards. I’m using the standards of the critics and consumers who thought the game was good (i.e. 8/10 or higher).

Nope. “Mixed” or “average” are synonyms for mediocre. That’s why Metacritic has separate ratings for “Generally Favorable” and “Mixed or Average.” They are two different things and the former is a higher rating than the latter.

*shrug*

The reviews in aggregate are not mediocre, assuming that we use a western grading scale where a C is average. ~85 would be a B. If we use the typical videogame rating scale, 7 = average, 8 = good and 9 = great. Either way, the reviews as a whole are good.

I agree. That’s why citing specific reviews that reinforce our particular opinions isn’t productive. Looking at the reviews in aggregate is far more useful and overall, the reviews are positive.

Apparently this won’t have a physical release. At first that seemed baffling given that this is a AAA first-party release. However, it’s been revealed that the game is going to be pretty short (estimated at around 8-10 hours) so that gives some more context to the digital-only decision. As a physical game, people…

The data is the reviews,* which call the game repetitive with dull combat.

All the data suggests otherwise but you do you, I guess.

Hogwarts did succeed on its own merits. If it was a bad game, it would have flopped, just like many crappy Harry Potter games have in the past. However, the developers delivered a good game that many people enjoyed, hence the positive reception and commercial success.

Yes, shame on them for making a critically and commercial successful game that millions of people (including non-Harry Potter fans) enjoyed. They should burn in hell!

I wish it looked like an updated Hexen. At least the combat would have more impact. Everything in this footage just felt soft. If you’re doing first-person melee, you really need to sell every hit through particles, sfx, reactions, camera shake, etc. See the Vermintide/Darktide games. Or even the IJ game shown in the…

Think they went with first person because the studio has a ton of experience with that perspective and it helps distinguish it from Tomb Raider and Uncharted.

Alright, I’ll make sure to let developers know that getting 165k positive user reviews on Steam (resulting in a Very Positive overall rating), a 84 Metascore and 8.5 User Score on Metacritic and a 84 Top Critic Average and a 89% Critics Recommend on OpenCritic (resulting in a Mighty overall rating) is mediocre and…

I thought Outer Worlds, PoE1&2, Tyranny, Grounded and Pentiment all looked quite good for their respective genres and budgets.

It has over 5000 positive user reviews on Steam written in the past 30 days, over 165k positive user reviews on Steam total (resulting in a Very Positive overall rating), a 84 Metascore and 8.5 User Score on Metacritic and a 84 Top Critic Average and a 89% Critics Recommend on OpenCritic.

I’m just going to copy and paste part of my response to another commenter:

pessimism actually made that exact claim.

I don’t know. I’m trying to understand your thought process. You seem to believe that a game is only good if it’s culturally relevant a month after release and if that’s true, then more culturally relevant games would therefore be better games.

I guess you must not enjoy much of anything if that’s the case. Fortnite and Call of Duty have way more cultural relevance than TotK. Does that make them better games?