Like I said, I’ve been actively boycotting Blizzard for years now; I’m not sure why you think I’d want to “slop on their dick”. But yes, if a game is fine on a technical level and mediocre in every other sense, why wouldn’t it be a 5/10? A game that runs properly and is otherwise unnoteworthy is probably already better than the average game out there. There’s a lot of shovelware.
There’s a reason review outlets like IGN rarely give scores below 5/10 - it’s that almost any AA or AAA studio is going to be competent enough to get their game to run and have something to it. Even Redfall is a 5/10 on Metacritic. 5/10 games aren’t generally worth your time, but that’s only because there are so many 7+/10 games competing for your time/attention.
Even though I have no love for Blizzard as a company, and have never played Overwatch 2, I refuse to believe it’s in the bottom half of all games ever. A lot of the grievances I’ve seen about it seem completely justified, but it’s not a game that’s truly awful. It’s good on a technical level. It has good art direction. The characters are unique and identifiable, even to people who’ve never played Overwatch. I get that people don’t like the balance, they don’t like Blizzard’s money-grabbing, they don’t like the change to 5v5(?), and they don’t like whatever else people are complaining about. But that doesn’t make it the worst game on Steam, and it doesn’t make every single aspect of it bad.
Steam doesn’t let you actually rate a game; only recommend it or not. So, a game may be a 7/10, but if people can’t recommend it for something like its monetary practices or frequent bugs/crashes, then it can end up on that list. That low rating doesn’t necessarily mean people think it’s the worst game on Steam, but rather that only about 10% of players think it’s worth playing. Though, it’s also worth mentioning that it has something like a 1.2 rating on Metacritic. It’s generally considered a worse game than its predecessor in many aspects (including the readability of its characters, apparently. I guess they made some changes to the original characters’ models that made them less identifiable?), and the reasoning behind shutting down the first one for this new free to play model was canceled. It’s also been having issues with player attrition leading up to the Steam release, so the complaints don’t seem unwarranted, but this probably wouldn’t be happening if these players had some other outlet for their grievances.
Removed by mod
Why the (obliquely homophobic/misogynistic) hate in the second half of your comment? No need for that here, friend. Be(e) Kind.
You could have made your point in a much more constructive and kind way very easily.
Like I said, I’ve been actively boycotting Blizzard for years now; I’m not sure why you think I’d want to “slop on their dick”. But yes, if a game is fine on a technical level and mediocre in every other sense, why wouldn’t it be a 5/10? A game that runs properly and is otherwise unnoteworthy is probably already better than the average game out there. There’s a lot of shovelware.
There’s a reason review outlets like IGN rarely give scores below 5/10 - it’s that almost any AA or AAA studio is going to be competent enough to get their game to run and have something to it. Even Redfall is a 5/10 on Metacritic. 5/10 games aren’t generally worth your time, but that’s only because there are so many 7+/10 games competing for your time/attention.
Even though I have no love for Blizzard as a company, and have never played Overwatch 2, I refuse to believe it’s in the bottom half of all games ever. A lot of the grievances I’ve seen about it seem completely justified, but it’s not a game that’s truly awful. It’s good on a technical level. It has good art direction. The characters are unique and identifiable, even to people who’ve never played Overwatch. I get that people don’t like the balance, they don’t like Blizzard’s money-grabbing, they don’t like the change to 5v5(?), and they don’t like whatever else people are complaining about. But that doesn’t make it the worst game on Steam, and it doesn’t make every single aspect of it bad.
Steam doesn’t let you actually rate a game; only recommend it or not. So, a game may be a 7/10, but if people can’t recommend it for something like its monetary practices or frequent bugs/crashes, then it can end up on that list. That low rating doesn’t necessarily mean people think it’s the worst game on Steam, but rather that only about 10% of players think it’s worth playing. Though, it’s also worth mentioning that it has something like a 1.2 rating on Metacritic. It’s generally considered a worse game than its predecessor in many aspects (including the readability of its characters, apparently. I guess they made some changes to the original characters’ models that made them less identifiable?), and the reasoning behind shutting down the first one for this new free to play model was canceled. It’s also been having issues with player attrition leading up to the Steam release, so the complaints don’t seem unwarranted, but this probably wouldn’t be happening if these players had some other outlet for their grievances.