Quantum Break Review Thread: 76 OC (70 Reviews) 77 MC (105 Reviews)

[Raven]

"Since when is 78 a bad score?!"

First, it's not a "bad" score. However, it is a highly disappointing score when the expectation being created by Microsoft, its fans, and the media was a game closer to 90. I do believe there were references to Quantum Break being the XB1's The Last of Us well before this game even had review copies out. Furthermore, the game was announced all the way back in May 2013 at the XB1 reveal event. Meaning this game pretty much took three whole years to release from the time the public was officially made aware of it. That was a long wait for a game that scored below an 80.

There's also the fact that this greatly strengthens, if not proves, the assertion that Remedy is overrated. That they don't create these masterpiece titles that certain circles try to praise them for. Max Payne and Max Payne 2 were amazing games in their time but Alan Wake wasn't nearly as well received and its sequel/stand alone expansion got even less praise. When you now add Quantum Break, there is a significant downward slide from where Remedy was with Max Payne 13 years ago to where it is now with Quantum Break.

Let's also not forget that a significant number of titles score in the 70 to 79 range. In fact, of all the games Open Critic has reviewed, games that score in the 69 to 80 range make up the majority of titles. Going further, it is not until a game scores at least an 84 that it starts finding itself in a far more exclusive crowd. There is a significant drop off between the number of titles that score up to an 83 compared to those that scored at least an 84. Meaning that Quantum Break finds itself planted firmly into a large crowd of unexceptional titles.

[Legend]

Quick prediction!

77 MC.

Yay!

Sounds like a fun game, but just an average fun.

Biggest problem is that this game had such high expectations.

[Dr. Pezus]

I figured out MCs poorly executed dog conversion for 5 point scale. Their flaw is that for each point they multiply by 20. 5 stars = 100. However, what they fail to take into consideration is that there are actually 6 points. I mean, what if a game was so cringe worthy, so broken that out of a 10 point scale the reviewer rated it a 1? What would the counterpart for said game be with stars? Definitely not 1 star. That would be a 2/10. It would really be a 0/5. So you have, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 stars making 6 values. Each star should be worth -17 points. 4/5 = 83. 3/5 = 67. 2/5 = 50 1/5 = 33.  Seriously, 3/5 star reviews tend to be closer to a 70 vibe than a 60 vibe. Especially 2/5 seems closer to 50 than a 40

0 doesn't count, just like on a 10 pt scale (it isn't called 11 pt scale)

[the-pi-guy]

Ouch.  

[Aura7541]

Welp, that was lower than expected.

[ethomaz]

Every year is the year of the Xbox One, it literally has the greatest lineup in Xbox history all the time, it's just reflected neither in sales nor reception.

Btw. guess who jinxed it: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/quantum-break-preorders-well-ahead-of-plan-could-b/1100-6436196/

Ohhhhh looks who is claiming it is a mega hit lol

This guy

BTW the meltdown about Jeff 2/5 in GAG is amazing... there are others 2/5 but the focus on Jeff is fun.

[Max King of the Wild]

0 doesn't count, just like on a 10 pt scale (it isn't called 11 pt scale)

Uh... Wha? 0 is inherently factored into  the 10 point scale. It is not factored going from one to another. MC just sucks with their conversion.

[the-pi-guy]

Uh... Wha? 0 is inherently factored into  the 10 point scale. It is not factored going from one to another. MC just sucks with their conversion.

0=0
0.5*2=1
1*2=2
1.5*2=3
2*2=4
2.5*2=5
3*2=6
3.5*2=7
4*2=8
4.5*2=9
5*2=10

How many articles actually give a zero on either scale?  How many have you seen give a 0/10, or a 0/5?
I can't think of any really.  
Regardless of that it works either way, MC also weighs different reviewers differently.  So even if MAmagazine gives the game a 5/10, they might get calculated in as a 4/10 while IGN's 7/10 gets calculated as a 7.5/10.  
Well, that's not exactly how the math works.  But basically 2 reviewers give it a 5, 10 respectively, MC could basically say that it's a 9/10 game because the second reviewer got weighted higher.  

[ethomaz]

The easiest way to determine which review comments to ignore: start with anyone who converts your score into a Metacritic-friendly number.

— Jeff Gerstmann (@jeffgerstmann) April 1, 2016

[Max King of the Wild]

0=0
0.5*2=1
1*2=2
1.5*2=3
2*2=4
2.5*2=5
3*2=6
3.5*2=7
4*2=8
4.5*2=9
5*2=10

How many articles actually give a zero on either scale?  How many have you seen give a 0/10, or a 0/5?
I can't think of any really. 
Regardless of that it works either way, MC also weighs different reviewers differently.  So even if MAmagazine gives the game a 5/10, they might get calculated in as a 4/10 while IGN's 7/10 gets calculated as a 7.5/10. 
Well, that's not exactly how the math works.  But basically 2 reviewers give it a 5, 10 respectively, MC could basically say that it's a 9/10 game because the second reviewer got weighted higher. 

The star scale usually doesn't do the 0.5 increments. MC gives out 0/100 though. I've seen it. That's reserved for F's on a letter scale... Again, makes no dang sense because MC just sucks with their conversion

[ethomaz]

The star scale usually doesn't do the 0.5 increments.

Giantbomb start scores are explained:

5 - While we don't believe any game is perfect, we recommend this game without reservation.
4 - Still very good and easy to recommend, though it doesn't quite live up to its full potential.
3 - The halfway point. An inherent appreciation of this game's specific gameplay style, characters, subject matter, and so on may play as big a role in your enjoyment as the actual quality of the game.
2 - This game's problems outweigh its good qualities.
1 - This game will make you wish you had died in a fire moments before turning it on.

There is no 0 and like Jeff said it doesn't convert to 100% friendly Metacritic.

[Dr. Pezus]

Uh... Wha? 0 is inherently factored into  the 10 point scale. It is not factored going from one to another. MC just sucks with their conversion.

So it is in the 5 pt scale

[Max King of the Wild]

So it is in the 5 pt scale

No, it isn't.

[Gooch_Suplex_Hold]

[ethomaz]

Usual UWP...

yo





yooooo

Not even the worst part apparently.