https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
In short, the Open Source license means the work you created can be used by anyone, for any purpose, read, modify and share the original source and your modifications. There are variations of Open Source licenses and debates to what even Open Source means.
Why do you think Metascores critic score is more useful than OpenCritics? I don’t think that Metascore is more useful, just because it weights IGN more and ignores certain sources. I prefer a more neutral representation, than a hidden algorithm that controls the outcome (similar to how Google controls their search results).
The 42 in Squadron 42 stands for the year 2042. Compared to Star Citizen, it’s truly imminent to release.
Depends on how long you waited for it and what expectations you had. “They demonstrated the first Duke Nukem Forever trailer at the E3 convention in May 1998”… and reading in Wikipedia to look this up, I just by accident saw there was/is a Doctor Who themed DLC! Wow I think I need to get into it again (never finished it however).
I still have haunted nightmares of the pod stage under water.
How is Terranigma mentioned here? It’s one of the most beloved Action Adventure RPGs on the system and to my knowledge, most people who have played it liked it. I also had the game back then, purchased it randomly because Lufia 2 wasn’t released yet (in Germany). Honestly, I think Terranigma is one of those universally loved games, never heard anyone disliking it.
I’m also confused. I mean sure, there are people who didn’t like it. But putting the game under “most people didn’t like it” just sounds wrong. Earthworm Jim was one of the best platformers of its time, with so much character and creativity. Just a bit short. :-)
Unirally in PAL / Uniracers in USA, 1994 on Super Nintendo
It’s a side scrolling racing game, up to two players. There are regular races and stunt points races. Unfortunately no interaction with the other player, its only about time. So its one of those two player modes that wasn’t super fun for us, but we loved playing fore highscores. Game is super fast, imagine Sonic as a racing game. What most people get it wrong is, they think they have to react to the changing course parts instantly. But in reality the course parts are color coded and you know in advance what is coming.
The game is from DMA Design, who also made Lemmings and later GTA; the company you know as Rockstar today. Also they got sued by Pixar. Yes that Pixar, making films. Because the pre-rendered unicycles were looking similar to the Pixar film. What an incredible dumb lawsuit, as this is how unicycles look like in general. But Pixar won and the game had to be taken from shelf quickly before it could sell much. Game didn’t even make it to Japan. It’s a rare game most people didn’t play on original hardware!
On one hand it has treesitter and has a builtin optional modal mode with Vim shortcuts. On the other hand it is VSCode. On the side above it, it is a terminal application. And one more side is, it is written in Rust. Cursed, through and through.
On a more serious note, this is more than just an alternative. Its the bridge between VSCode people and those who want to try working in a terminal. I think this is actually a really good idea.
With this one game, yes. I’m not talking about one game, but in general. The overall score of this specific game is not even my main point.
But that is a systematic issue of those outlets, not an issue with the aggregator. OpenCritic just collects the ratings and presents an average. It’s not their job to control more. OpenCritic is just a mirror of those ratings. If those sites and outlets gave 10/10 all of them, then it should be reflected in the OpenCritic (and in Metascore for that matter).
The point is not that OpenCritic matches your taste or expectations of a game better than Metacritic. The point is that OpenCritic is more fair by giving everyone the same voice (average instead weighting) and allow more people to speak / vote. This does not guarantee a better result for you, it just makes it more fair and even. This way OpenCritic has less control of the result than Metacritic, because Metacritic has a hidden algorithm that weights voices differently.
I can’t talk about how this game in particular is designed, but agree on oldschool point & click adventures having often nonsensical puzzles and solutions. I’m not a fan of that too. And critique is rightfully so. I just don’t know to what extend and if those are really softlocks or just getting stuck and not finding a solution. It’s like calling some online player cheater, just because it “looked like cheating”, as an analogy.
My point is, if this was a real big problem, then more people would probably talk about it. That’s where I come from.
Watching a video playing someone else is not the same as playing yourself, thinking about next steps, solving puzzles and immerse into the action by your own hand and decision. This is not a game like Mixtape where watching a video is equivalent to “playing” it.
No game is perfect and one can have fun with games that have bugs (i don’t know how buggy this game is) or logic problems. Getting stuck or frustrated is not alwasy a bad thing to me, and no I am not sarcastic. If you don’t have the nerves for this kind of thing, then this game is not for you (again I did not play the game, but I played other oldschool click adventures).
Don’t get me wrong, i absolutely understand the critique and I am glad people point that out. (user reviews are important)
The first cyberpunk (with magic and fantasy mixed) game I played was Shadowrun on the SNES. The Blade Runner game is definitely something a game I missed back then and wish had experienced it in that time period. Maybe I prefer the ScummVM version based on Windows CD with 1.8gb size, just so I can play it in RetroArch with my favorite configuration and shaders to mimic an old screen.
BTW I just looked up the list of reviewers having an impact on the OpenCritic score, at https://opencritic.com/faq under the section “Where can I find a list of all publications on OpenCritic?”. The list of Top Critics is separate from the others, and include The Jimquisition, The Angry Joe Show and Skill Up in example And their opinion is weighted as much as the one from IGN. And I think this is a good thing.
Edit: Forgot why I was looking this up. I could not find The Critical Drinker in the list of Top Critics there. So you are good to go. ^^
But what do they filter on?
Details how Metacritic is operating is uknown. Another reason to avoid it.
There’s certain critics (think right wing nut jobs like Critical Drinker) that I wouldn’t want impacting a score as they’d just rate it low because there’s a minority included in a game.
That’s your personal taste and this is good. But imagine someone else decides for you who can impact the score and how much. If you like Metacritic, that’s okay. But OpenCritic takes a more general approach and does not discriminate (at least not as much as Metacritic) and provides a “real” average value. In example I don’t want IGN to impact the score too much too, but Metacritic values scores from places like IGN higher than most other platforms. And with excluding Critical Drinker, IGN’s opinion has even higher impact on the score.
If you really like that, by all means keep using and looking up IGN. I don’t think its the worst in the world or anything like that. I just think OpenCritic operates a little better and that’s it. My initial point was to provide and alternative to Metacritic, because I do not like how it operates overall.
Metacritic is selective at what critic is allowed to be on the site. While OpenCritic is selective too off course, its accepting more voices than Metacritic (and weights them all the same).
I think people give Metacritic too much credit. Better look at OpenCritic in my opinion, where Mina The Hollower and Schrödinger’s Call are the highest rated games of the year with a score of 93. One of the issues of Metacritic is, that it weights certain sources higher than others. And OpenCritic includes sources that Metacritic would not want to have.
https://opencritic.com/game/19213/mina-the-hollower and https://opencritic.com/game/20596/schr-dingers-call
My point with Google was, that Google is in charge and controls the output. Maybe not the best comparison here to make a specific point, as all other things around doesn’t matter to what I was trying to say. Google off course is there to find websites and an algorithm to weight them is important, to ignore spammers and such. So Google tries to give a score to each site, where there does not exist a score. So yes, it was my bad for bringing this up, because that is a different task than an aggregator for gaming scores.
Metacritic should be seen as an algorithm with their own rating, rather than an aggregator. They have their own opinion, compared to OpenCritic who just reflect the current state of the ratings. I think an algorithm (especially if its hidden and prefers certain outlets) is bad by definition (by my definition to be precise). I do not want such an aggregator to filter out stuff. If you like that, sure, but I don’t think Metacritic should have such power.