American McGee and Eurogamer.it have had a very public difference of opinions.
Kind of have to agree with him, the way they do review scores...well any site in general is silly in my opinion I've seen COD Ghosts for example get 8s and 9s for being the same old crap, yet something like Killzone Shadow Fall which is actually pretty good and better then COD Ghosts is stuck with lower scores. I mean come on dmc is another one, better reviews then DMC4 despite the game being an inferior DMC game.
The silly thing - pre emptive strike there as i see it incoming and inbound from some - is that no you can't just chalk it up on those games being tried by a wide variety of persons , hence the difference of opinions . It might be true , but in quite a few cases in the press , you can easily see the same exact and precise individual you've read , flip flopping and being unconsistant at an alarming rate . possibly leaving you wondering about the mental health of some :p . And yes of course people do change their mind , and taste is subjective , but it gets over the top and globally impossible to rely upon . I've seen to many cases of "pros" calling games awesomes , only to admits in (not even so old) later column , or reviews of other titles sharing similarities , that the XXX game they hyped was crap or not that great . And too many evidences of people clearly not playing the games they are reviewing , or using a generic template for a franchise , or genre they dont care about n
Once upon a time, reviews were far less opinonated than we see today. Younger gamers do not recall that era as they were not privy to it. But many publications and early websites had standards, published standards. They also had an editor in chief among whose duties it was to minimize opinion among reviewers and promote more objectivity. As it stands now the gaming media does far more damage to our hobby than anything else as publishers seek to please them more than the purchasing gamer. Development is less about the gamer experience and more about the pursuit of the almighty 9. It is a shame really in this age of social media that publishers do not take it upon themselves to communicate more directly with their consumers. We could all avoid the 20-30 popups at places such as IGN as well as being spared their inane rambling and basement imaginings that only serve to ram another great IP into the ground as publishers choose to satisfy a few people in the worthless press rather than 100% of their paying demographic. In no other hobby does the press do the degree of damage to said hobby as we see in gaming.
I dont believe so , not at least for the gaming press i once read from a few countries . Many of the cases i'm talking about actually happened in that distant past . Part of the issues today , is that , yes many untested writers and bloggers come seeking sensationalism , headlines , and many dont have any professional background nor actual interest in videogames ... Or they use articles as a podcast of their own personal issues and preferences However in the past , there were blatant cases of nepotism , corruptions and weird friendships happening . Some were of their own admission more busy building up a social network and list of contact , for when they decide to go into gaming designing and dvelopement , than caring about properly reviewing games . I can't say i have a positive outlook about the reviewing side of gaming "journalism" ... be it then or now . I just watch the trainwrecks with popcorn , and rant once everywhile about it
It was that way. Yes there were smaller highly opinionated tantrums but most major publications, and I use that word as during those times we were on the BBS and websites were a relatively new thing, followed a structured review system. The most noticeable shift was with EGM and how they began to chase some imaginary hipness and chose poorly the tack of what they felt to be humorous (actually humorLESS) opinionated pieces, bordering an attack, would generate more readers. Their erred desperation led them to bring in persons such as Dan Hsu and he was the death knell for that magazine. It was sinking and he blew open the bottom of the ship. It is back now after it's several years hiatus but will never be what it was. Then again no print media will ever achieve those glory days. But there was a more fair system once. Even fledgling IGN adopted a standard...which they rapidly abandoned in favor of vapid fanboyism. Reviewers now feel they work in the industry when in reality they write ABOUT the industry. They feel themselves a kind of celebrity and more important than the work which they so often degrade. In the past publications sought to service the gaming demographic. No longer. Now such sites write for revenue and for the same reason a housewife in Peoria is constantly tweeting - a sense of self importance and that their opinion matters. Hers does not and neither do the voices of these idiot reviewers whose shortsighted reckless actions do so much to damage gaming.
"I've seen COD Ghosts for example get 8s and 9s for being the same old crap, yet something like Killzone Shadow Fall which is actually pretty good and better then COD Ghosts is stuck with lower scores. I mean come on dmc is another one, better reviews then DMC4 despite the game being an inferior DMC game." I may not be the biggest fan of many game critics, but you're going to need a better argument than 'a lot of them scored another game higher than the one I think is better' to prove your point. At this point, it's almost as if any difference of opinion from 'COD is objectively bad' threatens to make your opinion worthless in the eyes of everyone.
Familiarity with the situation might help. See, in the case of Killzone, many of the faults and flaws that saw its score drop were nonetheless glossed over or even praised in other titles. Whereas Killzone would be called "tired" for having a similar feel to earlier games, Call of Duty would be praised as being "familiar." While much of a Killzone review focused on- and criticized- the campaign, Battlefield's campaign would be glossed over, despite less effort and polish being put into it. That's the sort of thing he was talking about. Can't speak on dmc, since I didn't keep up with the scores for that one, but you can safely assume something similar occurred. The lack of consistency is obvious and glaring, and some reviewers are more guilty- and biased- than others. Which is kinda the whole point.
That's all stuff that's been present for years now and still doesn't seem to be that well thought-out. -**Whereas Killzone would be called "tired" for having a similar feel to earlier games, Call of Duty would be praised as being "familiar."** The thing you have to remember, though, is Call of Duty's now-familiar template was the first to innovate in this regard. It's the series that defined this gen with modern-military titles, the FPS equivalent of the Skinder Box, and revamping how its linear campaigns would be structured. When a different series uses that template for its OWN game, without providing enough of something new or appreciated, it's kind of like a lesser-creative developer leeching off of someone else's success. -**While much of a Killzone review focused on- and criticized- the campaign, Battlefield's campaign would be glossed over, despite less effort and polish being put into it.** Depending on where you looked, some of Shadowfall's missing MP features (on release) were mentioned as well. And there's quite a number of BF4 reviews that did bring up the single-player campaign being bad as well. When it comes to the score disparity in general, I wonder if more of the community 'glossing over' what the actual text says, and its enthusiasm for said reviewed game, to get to the score is more of the problem. Given what technical ambitions BF4 seemed to contain (haven't played it though) within multiplayer, it doesn't seem like that much of a crime to understand why this or that fault would be glossed over. Sure, there's always going to be that level of trustworthiness that'll be questionable for game reviews, but to use simplistic assumptions like "a game I enjoyed more got a lower score than this other one therefore bias" and sprinkling words like 'inferior' to make your opinion seem more objective is simply immature and not helping the argument in any way.
Sorry Coolbean but you lost me. COD is allowed to be the same and not be called "tired" because it changed the military shooter what 4/5 years ago? But Killzone can because it predocessors didn't do anything new? That makes little scense to me even more so when Shadow Fall is massive different from Killzone 1.2 and 3, it's a bit more open, it's not as grey, it has new mechanics (OWL) and even has stealth sections. You can see why I would be a little confused. As for review scores they should be banned. So many times reviews, even on EG, either don't cover or are not informative enough to all a games feature. Many a time I have seen "but what is this like?" "How does this (usual a big mechanic of the gameplay) effect the game?" "What's multiplayer like?" "How is the match making?" All because a reviewer is too concerned about standing on their soap box rather than telling us "the game is a good example for how a game should work because..." Or "it's not a bad game but A.B and C let it down".
@Mr_Writer85 Oh...I missed the "tired for having a similar feel to earlier games" part of Killzone and thought it meant similar to COD, which is what I've seen a lot on here blame KZ3 of doing. That's where the "when a different series uses that template for its OWN game, without providing enough of something new or appreciated, it's kind of like a lesser-creative developer leeching off of someone else's success" comes from in my reply. If Killzone burrowed out its own character that felt like a step in another direction, was polished, and built upon that in well-designed ways, I don't see how it would get slammed with being "tired" by many reviewers. Since that's not what it's done when KZ3 came around, that's where I'm comparing and contrasting.
@coolbeans I thought so lol thankfully for me Killzone is nothing like COD, but is also different than other Killzone games, not drastically but enough for me to agree with the OP that calling it "tired" was a way off. But I do agree with you that if you have a game in one mold, and then it changes to fit another mold then it can't get credit for being fresh.
@Mr_Winter85 Thanks for pointing that problem out by the way. From what limited time I had with KZ3 (in demo), it really did feel...kind of wrong from KZ2 in how the gameplay felt. Instead of that laborious feeling to aiming and moving, everything in 3 felt so instant. I still want to give that and Shadowfall a fair chance by playing the full version though. So yes, it would definitely be hypocrisy of a reviewer to mix up "tired" and "familiar" like Hicken described; but I honestly haven't seen too many specific cases of that.
I thought it was rather funny, that pretty much every site defended DmC before release. Obviously the reviews and praise from sites were a little shady.
You know what I found funny with dmc...all away through it's development hardly no big site defended it when people we're rightfully criticising it however a month before release, ONE MONTH before it went on sale, in December 2012 you had a massive release of defence articles for the game, all which were saying the same kind of stuff in their arguments, actual lines you could pick up from a few sites that meant roughly the same thing, then you had the reviews themselves which stated, again, roughly the same thing It all seemed too "perfect" for me...like they were told what to say.
I think review scores have become quite static, I think the industry needs to think of a better way of conveying what they think about the game from the standpoint of how consumers will like the game. They should be giving what the game is about, how it works and if it works as it should from a design aspect and of course if it is fun who will find it fun. As no one game is going to hit every single consumer. Reviews I believe need to have the writers opinion as they are the one writing it but they need to also write it in a way that the reader can make their own assumption of the game to weigh up their own ideas of what they think and if they want to buy it.
Precisely , reviews will always be ultimately colored by one's opinion , positive or not . But i should be able to notice "what a game is about" , the basic plot if needed , without spoilers , any needed technical infos , gameplay infos , potential bugs and issues , and most of all accurate intel . Instead you mostly get rehashes . negative about a game being "generic" , with no real explanation about it and the feeling . or vague "It's awesome !" hyperboles . They should leave the infomercial hype for previews , it's their purpose
The problem is with the way review scores are read. On a scale of 1-10 it is understood that anything below a 6 or 7 isn't worth playing and scored of less than 4 are just insults to a developer on their chappy job. In reality a 5 should be average with only the better games scoring a 6 or higher with only anything below a 3 being warranted as bad or awful. If reviewers were not slated for using the whole scale (Tom chick comes to mind, he always catches flack for his reviews for this reason) then perhaps the scales would be used properly.
"If reviewers were not slated for using the whole scale (Tom chick comes to mind, he always catches flack for his reviews for this reason) then perhaps the scales would be used properly." Irony at its finest. Believe it or not, Tom Chick gets flack because he is on Metacritic for some reason (seriously, why the **** is he there?!) and his reviews are 100% based off opinion. According to the site, the review scale is 5 is love, 4 is really liked, 3 is liked, 2 is didn't like, 1 is hated. So if Tom Chick simply dislikes a game, then it is instantly a 4/10, which goes on Metacritic and messes up the average. Especially because it's entirely possible to dislike a game like Beyond: Two Souls and because you didn't care for it, it's suddenly on par with Alien: Colonial Marines. No joke, both games got a 1/5 ( http://www.quartertothree.c... ) from Tom Chick, which goes to show why that... gets flack.
Review score is just silly reminds of the joker from Batman
Wonder if there'll be another Alice game
Unfourtunately, that's on EA's hands, as they own the IP.
They tried a kickstarter to raise funds to buy the license and couldn't raise enough, so they are making a Wizard of Oz game and possibly a Alice movie. Not sure how those kickstarters went. They wanted them on mobile devices so I kind of lost interest.
That wizard of oz game was supposed to be made on the original xbox. Thete was a book game and film. Awesome concept of a great war with scarecrow soldiers with bladed arms and a demonic witch. It all looks so amazing and steampunked but unfortunately like BC, another amazing title lost in the midst of time.
who cares about reviews for any entertainment these days? Its all just corporate opinion.
I blame the ones who listen to the reviewers.
I got Madness Returns for PC a couple years ago and i don't think it deserve 5/10. A 7.5/10 is more like it. Of course it has some flaw but the story still interesting and i had fun with the gameplay too. It like it because i'm tired with Alice from Disney.
I blame the ease that people can write a review and get people to read it. When I read a review, I look at who's reviewing it. For instance in the old Reviews on the Run with Vic and Tommy I would listen to one more than the other depending on the game. If the game was and rpg Victor would get my ear more than Tommy because Tommy didn't like them and was usually all negative nancy. A violent action game Tommy usually would tell me if he had fun and Victor would get more technical. We as the consumer need to reflect and get reviews where we can trust them. We should not be validating or feeling invalidated by someone's opinion if they are an anonymous peanut or simply do not have our taste.
Madness Returns was the most an underrated game of last gen, really felt like a throwback to the N64 platformers. Awesome level design too.
I think reviews are largely a farce and/or based too highly on the reviewers opinion then actual subjective points. Take a game like Bioshock Infinite. Most reviews either A) Didn't at all talk about actual game play and squarely focused on characters/story, or, B) Talked about game play and talked about it negatively. This is where opinions are taking over near facts/subjectives. Reviewers would claim that the shooting and game mechanics were pretty boring/generic/bad but yet would give the game a 9 or 10 out 10. My question is HOW? If the actual GAME part of a GAME is boring to downright sucking then that right there should severely affect the score of the GAME. Instead what we got was that game play was boring but OMFG DAT STORY!!! 10 OUT OF 10 PERFECTION!!! It's like...da wut? So to me a review should be based more on technical aspects (you know, how good is the actual GAME part, how well it works, graphics, etc) and other things like story...stuff that is based purely on opinion...should remain separate or at least shouldn't affect the score that much as those are things that can truly depend on a person to person level. But again, as with most reviews these days, it all boils down to ones opinion. To me I thought Infinite was pretty ho-hum and generic with a story line that, again, was pretty standard fare for any sci-fi geek like myself. So over all I didn't enjoy the game nearly as much as people I know that aren't into stuff like that. I do find it slightly odd though that the more money a developer has and the more "pull" they have the more their games generally score well. Not calling it a conspiracy or anything but it does seem to mesh well together.
@Android. Kind of like if a movie review went like this? The casting was all wrong, full of awful acting, the direction and camera work was amateurish, and the special effects looked cheap and tacky. Yet the story was amazing 5*
Exactly. At least someone seems to get it! :) Bioshock Infinite really is the extreme of this example though.
I find most reviews quite useful. I typically only buy games that reviewed well and have rarely felt mislead. Mind you I do read numerous reviews with both high and low scores.
What if there was a game you really liked the look of and sounded really fun and just the type of game you would enjoy. And every review gave it a low score? Would you still not take a punt?
Rarely. I bought Lord of the Rings War in the North even though it reviewed badly (metacritic of 63) because I'm a fan and it is a genera I enjoy. Unfortunately I was disappointed, I didn't play it for long at all. The only other one I can think of is Dante's Inferno which some might not consider as reviewed badly with a metacritic of 75. That score is on the low side for me. I thought it was ok but not a keeper, traded it in fairly quickly. Dust 514 was another game which reviewed badly (metacritic of 59) that I liked the sound of and ended up enjoying quite a bit. I don't typically play shooters so my standards were probably low. Can't really say I took a punt on it though as it's a free-to-play game. That's all I can think of. I've probably not bought many with a metacritic below 80.
Wow That's madness
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.