Jerykk
Jerykk
Jerykk

It’s nice that you don’t care about Metacritic or OpenCritic or Steam ratings or any other quantifiable metric for quality. Unfortunately, I don’t really care about your arbitrary opinions. They need to be supported by facts and logic. Or in this case, basic math.

3.5 / 5 = 70%. OpenCritic and Metacritic describe 70% as Mixed or Average/Fair. Avatar has a 72 aggregate review score on both sites. Therefore, the critical consensus is that Avatar is Mixed or Average/Fair or, in star ratings, 3.5 out of 5 stars. On a 3 star scale, 70% would be 2.1 stars, rounded down to 2 stars for

3.5/5 is 70% so those statements conflict with one another.

Again, you’re bad at math. 80% = good. Failing = 59%. 70% is closer to 80% than 59%.

70% isn’t near failing. It’s average/mixed/okay/fair/mediocre. I’m pretty sure we’ve already covered this.

If you consider math stupid, sure. 3.5 is 70% of 5. There’s nothing subjective about that. If you’re offended by objective reality, that certainly explains most of your opinions.

Now I’m really curious as to where you actually went to school. First you say 83% is a C, now 60% is apparently an F instead of a D.

70 is halfway between 3 stars and 4 stars, yes. 3.5 x 20 = 70. Math is amazing!

Seems pretty logical to me. 3/5 = 60%. 3.5/5 = 70%. Therefore, Avatar would have received 3.5 stars on the 5 star rating scale.

Wait, now you’re just contradicting yourself. This is what you said earlier:

Alright, you’re just wasting my time if you can’t even pretend to say anything of substance. At least pessimism puts a little bit of effort into his trolling.

You seem confused. 3 stars = 3 x 20% = 60%. 3.5 stars = 3.5 x 20% = 70%. C would be 70, not 60, which is why 3.5 = C = okay/mediocre/fair/average/mixed.

If the quality scale is 0-100 and that’s divided into 5 stars, then 1 star = 20 percent. Therefore, 3.5 stars = 70%. 4 stars = 80%. 5 stars = 100%. This is basic math.

Interesting that you specifically chose to say “an Avatar video game” instead of “the Avatar video game.” Why the distinction? Sure, there have been a few Avatar games released in the past but clearly the one released a month ago would be most relevant, no?

You stated that 83 was a C in your school so your school experience clearly wasn’t standard. Also worth nothing that to real human beings, the difference between a C and C- is irrelevant. When people rate things they’ve watched or played, they give general ratings like “it was okay” or “it was good.” They don’t say

Sorry, you’re talking out of your ass again. Metacritic categorizes 72 as “Mixed or Average” and OpenCritic categorizes it as “Fair.” If you disagree, that’s fine but your opinion isn’t representative of the general population’s.

You can still develop the character’s personality while having fewer and better paced cutscenes. Plenty of games already do that. The modern Wolfenstein games have great character development, for example.

As always, your arbitrary definitions of words are irrelevant. The game has a 72 Metascore which the site categorizes as “Mixed or Average.” Otherwise known as “mediocre.” On OpenCritic, it has a Top Critic Average of 72 and is categorized as “Fair.” Also otherwise known as “mediocre.” Therefore, the general consensus

You’re going to need to provide a specific citation for that. I do remember you claiming that nobody cares about the Avatar IP and that the game selling well despite being mediocre would prove you wrong. We don’t have any sales data so too early to tell either way.

I’ve really tried to get into the Yakuza games. I’ve put plenty of hours into Yakuza 0 and the first Like A Dragon. But the pacing is just so awful. Way too many cutscenes and the cutscenes are too long and boring. If you’re just going to show two characters talking, you don’t need a cutscene. Just use the regular