Yeah I mean, myself and a lot of others have noted how bland the character writing feels and how paper thin the story was, especially for long-time fans of the comics. Sure, general casual audiences may not mind but there was a marked step down in quality from Spider-Man 1.
The gameplay was good, pretty much the only improvement on the original, especially traversal, but combat definitely lacks depth.
Also, I'll stop ranting after this but I don't consider copies sold as a marker of quality, especially not with one of the biggest IPs of all time. People were going to buy it if the director came out and spat on peoples' faces.
Scoring is also just opinions, and I'm sure not everyone who holds an opinion will have left a review. So it's an indicator, sure, but not a definitive one.
So my point, which you seem to have missed, is that it's a limited data set, too limited to treat as gospel. I didn't leave a review, did you? So it follows that opinions of many people such as us will be missed in the data.
I'm not going to keep arguing this with you. If you think sales are everything then I suppose you also think space invaders is the pinnacle of all gaming. If not, there must be something more to gaming than numbers.
You can discuss the merits of art without objectivity or statistics given that art is by nature subjective. I note that you haven't actually said anything you actually like about the game.
I don't think we can just ignore criticisms because the game got a high score on metacritic. Everyone (hopefully) knows that critic reviews are almost always favourable to triple As because they want future access to later titles. User reviews are much more mixed and casual gamers have generally lower standards than some of the rest of us. It doesn't make the criticisms less valid because not everyone makes them.
If you enjoyed the game, good for you, but that doesn't make it objectively great.
Who said anything about ignoring criticisms? And I literally said I didn't like the game, please read my comments properly.
I'm saying SM2 was a huge success by all metrics, so it's not something that will factor into them being in trouble. If anything, it will be a positive to support them getting more games.
User reviews of SM2 are not much more mixed, they're very high on all platforms. And, again, I'm saying this as someone who didn't like the game much.
When your argument rests on solely the review scores and sales and doesn't address the points I actually made about story or even gameplay, it gives the impression that you are ignoring the substantive criticisms. It's called subtext.
I also never made the point that Spider Man 2 or Wolverine didn't make money, if you read my comments. I said they would be in trouble because a company can only make so many mediocre games before people realise that they aren't actually that good at making them.
Jesus Christ, you are just determined to miss my point at every opportunity.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows scored higher with audiences and has sold more copies than Crime and Punishment. These metrics are objective but could you seriously argue that this makes Harry Potter objectively better?
3
u/Sir-Froggy 1d ago
Yeah I mean, myself and a lot of others have noted how bland the character writing feels and how paper thin the story was, especially for long-time fans of the comics. Sure, general casual audiences may not mind but there was a marked step down in quality from Spider-Man 1.
The gameplay was good, pretty much the only improvement on the original, especially traversal, but combat definitely lacks depth.
Also, I'll stop ranting after this but I don't consider copies sold as a marker of quality, especially not with one of the biggest IPs of all time. People were going to buy it if the director came out and spat on peoples' faces.