Zooming in on something is editing it? I’ve seen some terrible takes around this game, but this is one of the worst.

Don’t think of it as modifying, think of it as zooming in on one model so they both line up.

Do a google image search for “maned wolf” and tell me again how those scrawny beasts are the inspiration for the massive shoulder fluff that ends in distinct points.

“I thoroughly enjoy dismantling baseless opinions”

I noticed you changed the subject instead of addressing my actual post.

Obviously you only care about the arbitrary opinions that agree with you, like Metacritic. Their *opinion* is that an 80 is good. I have higher standards.

The more I see things like this, the more convinced I am that the French Revolution had the right idea for handling the rich.

I don’t care what Metacritic calls it. 72 is bad. If my kid came home with that on a report card he’d be grounded.

No, 3.5 is 3.5 and 70% is 70%. They’re different scales. You can’t just map them directly and have them make sense.

When I was in high school F was under 65. In college a D is often a failing grade. In the real world, if your job performance is a C, you’re getting fired.

70 is closer to failing than it is to being good.

Wow, you really do think 3.5 stars is a near-failing grade.

“3.5 out of 5 stars = 70%.”

Like I said, if you think 3 stars is a failing grade (60%), you do you.

Sure, it’s logical that a 70 is halfway between a C and a B. You do you.

I’m not contradicting myself, because that’s not my position.

You seem confused. F=1, D=2, C=3, B=4, A=5. C = 3 x 20% = 60%.

By that logic, on a 5 letter scale, A is 100, B is 80, C is 60, D is 40, and F is 20. This is basic math.

100 point and 5 star rating systems are not analogous. 4 stars is like a 90, 3 stars is an 80, and 2 stars is anywhere between 50 and 70. Translating a 72 to 3.5 stars is a joke. You’re giving it an entire extra star it didn’t earn.

It is representative of how real human beings read review scores.