Originally Posted by The_B
And how many of those are for the PC version, specifically? And we're not just talking tech here, there's a difference in what PC gamers expect as an audience in their games as well and similar factors to consider.
As has been pointed out in the thread, you're making the mistake of assuming scores live in this static field. There's a risk here at bringing up the score debate once again which is really a separate argument, but as has been said does a game that for example scored 94 ten years ago better than a 94 percent game today? The scale would have to bust through 100 if score concepts remained static.
This is just a case of you once again not reading the text properly: He says "I've played it on three machines, and on two that run Skyrim smoothly..."
even if its not an identical game to Blood Money though, no way does the game itself deserve to be called 'a disaster' because it's not the same as BM..
and this little finisher you put down:
'This is just a case of you once again not reading the text properly: He says "I've played it on three machines, and on two
that run Skyrim smoothly...'
you realise it's actually a case of YOU not reading the text fully..
the magazine says:
'i've played it on three machines, and two that run skyrim smoothly, it's almost unplayably sluggish: fifteen frames per second even on minimal graphics settings, with occasional freezes of a second or more, and level load times are over a minute'
which brings me back to my point: how can a reviewer effectively review a game running at 15 fps with occasional freezing?
and there are 2 other reviews for the pc version, and they havent had any problems at all.
but seriously, try actually learning to read yourself before you suggest that I haven't been reading properly.... berk.