How does that fare on the "1 fish, 2 fish, red fish, blue fish" scale?
Somewhere between 1 fish and red fish, but slightly ahead of 1 red fish and just behind 3 fish.
What you did there.
I see it.
Just so you know, Adam, if Tom were to convert to a 1-100 scale, he would give this game something between a 57.5 and a 62.5.
Tom, do you know how a review works?
This is an article, a short bad article, not a review.
In a review you are supposed to discuss the features of the game that you did like and those that you did not. You can't just say how much you adore the game and everything it did and then throw out a 1/5, 2/5, or 3/5.
You reserve the right to have a different opinion and in this case your opinion is extremely different as most people would say this game is in the 8.5-10 range but you actually have to tell people why you think this is a 3/5 or a 60.
If you're going to ruin a game's score at least explain why.
saw that metacritic had one mixed review. took a wild guess that it was quarter to three and sure as hell i was right. if you dont like video games you shouldnt be a "professional" reviewer. go do something else
I can honestly say I was curious about this one Tom and it was another informative review of your feeling on the game. I have read your reviews for years and they are always helpful. Even recent games like Dragon Commander, I understand why you gave it a 2/5 but I am also drawn to the creativity.
Keep up the good work.
Which incidentally is the same amount of effort you put into this comment.
"No negative points" is not the same as "perfect score."
I find it odd that the review speaks only positively of the game, yet gives it 3 out of 5 stars, or 60 percent as a verdict. I'm fine with people not liking a game, but could some sort of justification be given? This review is greatly skewing the Metacritic average score, and is one of only 2 "mixed" reviews, yet again, mentions nothing about any actual flaws.
Basically, the review is fine, but the scoring system is terrible. It looks like you just slapped a number at then end and called it a day.
Pikmin 3 sucked compared to the first 2, I mean don't get me wrong it was extremely enjoyable and my inner kidult was SO happy! But, it just had no replay ability like the first 2, and it didn't stick. Plus the new characters were kinda lame and foraging for fruit felt pointless and also lame. Not to mention 3 was even shorter than the original game. Getting sick of how gaming developers are trying way too hard nowadays. Thanks to developers wanting some crazy realistic looking game we get less than 8 hours of gameplay (or less than 5 even *cough* Halo 4! *cough*) because literally nobody can afford to make games as long and fulfilling as they used to be. The first was enthralling cause you had the time limit, and the 2nd was INCREDIBLE cause it took everything about the first game that made it awesome and made it 10x better! Albeit your mission didn't feel as purposeful, or stressful. But the challenge mode and versus mode kept an already very repayable game alive for me. I love the game world in Pikmin 2 so much, the challenges had some of the MOST creatively structured scenes ever. It was like taking your Pikmin through an Eye Spy book! I recall the challenge missions in 3 being nowhere near as creative. :/ I'd probably replay 3 again if I had my own Wii U, but 2 is still my go 2, its the best, and the lengthiest!