Don Bradman Cricket in the Press

^^^
I don't know whether you should be over the moon that Chunnster gave DBC 14 a 10 or maybe a touch worried ;)
 
^^^
I don't know whether you should be over the moon that Chunnster gave DBC 14 a 10 or maybe a touch worried ;)

God that's a hell of a read, this guy has some serious mental problems. If they ever redo lord of the rings he sounds like a perfect gollum.:lol

Still a 10/10 is a shock as i would not give it that. I would love to read the Fonz review now.

PS I love how he talks like there is two people when he writes.:lol
 
Aren't reviews from sites like Planetcricket or IVG considered by metacritic?


Neither are on the list at the moment: They have a list of accredited sites and you have to apply to be considered for inclusion. They update the lists a few times a year (annoyingly... one of my games got a really low score from one site which hurt the average: the site in question was removed at the next re-shuffle, but because they were accredited at the time it remained there forever!)
 
Neither are on the list at the moment: They have a list of accredited sites and you have to apply to be considered for inclusion. They update the lists a few times a year (annoyingly... one of my games got a really low score from one site which hurt the average: the site in question was removed at the next re-shuffle, but because they were accredited at the time it remained there forever!)

One would assume that for sports based titles (especially niche ones like cricket or rugby), they would make an exception to the policy and consider reviews from the renowned sites for that sport. I mean you are more likely to get a more realistic score for a cricket video game from a cricket gaming website than from a known gaming site, say Gamespot or IGN, which don't even have folks who understand cricket all that well.
 
One would assume that for sports based titles (especially niche ones like cricket or rugby), they would make an exception to the policy and consider reviews from the renowned sites for that sport. I mean you are more likely to get a more realistic score for a cricket video game from a cricket gaming website than from a known gaming site, say Gamespot or IGN, which don't even have folks who understand cricket all that well.

Metacritic are legendary for being absolutely firm and unbending. They don't do exceptions, right from refusing to include updated review scores to divulging how the metascore is calculated (it's not an average: each publication has a different weighting)
 
I believe "Upgraded" is the correct term.
 
I was in the shops today well doing some shopping when i had a quick look though the new Australian official playstation magazine and saw they had a review of DBC14.

They said the normal stuff, great controls and feels like cricket and also CA and how they love it.

Downsides were the same as other reviews, feels unfinished and buggy as hell and looks like a Canadian club cricket game.:D

They also talked about how different the game was and also ashes 2013 bomb.

Score was 8/10.
 
I think I just got called Australian in that Chunnster review. :mad

That was the one part of the 'review' that made me laugh the most.

Close second was the fact he obviously forgot his loggin name kinda made it obvious he was breaking his arm trying to pat himself on his back.
 
NZCricketFan is also chun-tastic.

He still hasn't figured out how to player-link correctly...
 
Last edited:
NZCricketFan is also chun-tastic.

He still hasn't figured out how to player-link correctly...

There is no doubt in my mind that he's trying to screw the game up for people with incorrect linking and putting himself in teams.

BTW Careful Snowy, you'll get a letter from the "HotMale"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top