That's interesting. It suggests the error was on Capcom's part. If Steam had mis-labeled it, it would be Steam's fault.

Hi Kirk,

Hi Kirk,

The Order: 1886 is billed as a movie-like experience, a game that combines the magic of cinematic technique with the graphical prowess of the PS4. Unfortunately, it fails even as pure eye-candy. I was impressed by the visuals in a couple of sections in the game—a brief bit atop a flying airship, or a kitchen shootout…

There just isn't any give to the game, no room for flexibility or improvisation. You enter the room from this side, the bad guys funnel in from that side. You're usually locked down behind one piece of cover. There's often a second piece of cover farther up, or to your right or left. You can shoot guys from here, or…

Yep, you nailed it. Another name is Tiger II, and yes, that's the Henschel turret.

Let's be honest, 5 hrs does seem a bit short. That said, Value = quantity * quality. Quantity seems known now, but quality will vary from one person to another.

How about a set of visual style presets that change how others looks to you? For example, I'd like a visual preset where everyone's armor looks like classic/functional armor. No retardedly huge or misshapen helmets and shoulder pads. No inane-looking weapons. Warriors wear soldier armor. Paladins wear Paladin…

Oh please, guys. Stop bashing Metacritic.

Yeah, he's right. Free speech is an important right to uphold, but he's talking about what's a good idea. Like, we could grow human ears on the backs of all our dairy cows, but just because we could doesn't mean we should.

Hi Mike,

QUOTE | "I'm going to stop doing press and I'm going to stop talking about games completely." - Veteran designer Peter Molyneux, responding to the "terrible and awful, emotional time over the last three days" after he admitted failing to deliver his Godus Kickstarter promises.

The moral: Never give Peter Molyneux money, and never believe anything he says.

For some reason, Steam is selling it for $40, not $30.

For some reason, Steam is selling it for $40, not $30.

TehKJ basically said what I would have. You're right that there's an imbalance of power. But just keep in mind that a) it was a bonus, which is above and beyond what most people get to do work. They only deserved the bonus if they did a truely exemplary job. That's why the bar was set at 90 or 85, and b) the deal…

Oh, you can compensate for that. The simplest thing is just to kick really anomolus sites off the list. So if IGN was almost always 10-15 point higher than the norm, just stop using IGN as a data source.

Okay, so, 2 things. First, I think the fact that the have dozens and dozens of contributing scores is what prevents any one (or maybe even a handful) of anomalous scores from skewing the final score. It's one of the main advantages of using some kind of average: it significantly reduces the effect of oddballs.

The pub and dev set the condition for the bonus (85+ = bonus, <85 = no bonus) and both agreed to that condition. If 84 was the same as 85, then they would have set it at 84. Or they could have said 85+ = 100% of bonus, 80-84 = 90% of the bonus, etc. but they didn't. Keep in mind the conditions of the bonus were in…

If the target had been 90 but the score had been 75, would you feel as bad? Probably not. So, the problem isn't with the target score.

This is a problem shared across a LOT of the new media tools. The problem is a lack of willingness for the owners of something to actually take responsibility for it.