Top
150°

Editorial: Is Naughty Dog The Game Critic's Darling?

Many have accused critics of “being in bed with Naughty Dog;” i.e., being extra lenient when reviewing their games. Is this true?

The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot1235d ago (Edited 1235d ago )

Hey if they make good games and you have hardly anything to criticize what do you expect.

Although I do think that when smaller criticisms come up, like at the time it was coming out Uncharted 3 with how their online turned a little sour compared to how fantastic Uncharted 2's was...nobody wanted to know, until know where your getting more people saying "Yeah...I can see now, I really want it to go back to what Uncharted 2 was like".

So I think you could say people have a hard time critisizng them if there IS something wrong but lets face it this is a common thing with respected devs in this industry.

Rockstar with the online in GTAV and how Max Payne 3 didn't really feel or look like a Max Payne game

Konami (Kojima) with Metal Gear Solid GZ being cut and sold to us for more money

Mass Effect 2/3 with how it's turned into a massive over the top action game instead of rataining it's RPG goodness.

Halo 4's multiplayer not being good as past Halo games

GTA4 being a bit of a letdown and not feeling like a GTA game

Super Mario 3D World or Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze being co-op focused games to enjoy with your friends but not including online co-op.

Skyward Sword feeling bare bones compared to past Zelda games and what they've offered us.

Arkham Origins obviously being a quick cash in before last gen ended. Focusing more on DLC then patches.

Skyrim, it won GOTY and Bethesda got Studio of the year but the PS3 version and PC version at the start was a mess.

The 1.5 update in Uncharted 2...ND changing something which didn't need to be touched.

I could go on

Things get hushed up and the more respected the person, franchise or studio the harder it is for people to be honest...especially journalists.

Derekvinyard131235d ago

Nice post, brings back memories from when I got blasted when uncharted 3 came out and I was the only one saying it was nowhere near a perfect game and wasn't on par with #2. Gave it a few weeks and I saw people saying what I said word for word. It is hard to trust journalist tho, Always gotta try a game out for yourself

asmith23061235d ago

Damn straight. UC3's aiming mechanics were and still are goddamn awful. I have a lot of gripes with that game. I gotta say though, the set pieces were just fantastic and made my jaw drop a little.

LordMaim1235d ago (Edited 1235d ago )

I thought that UC3 reminded me a lot of what happened with the sequels to the Matrix. Lots of memorable moments and great set pieces, but strung together with just a schizophrenic plot. UC1 was awesome, UC2 was epic, UC3 was... good but could have been better. I have high hopes that they fix UC4, since it's supposed to look awesome.

gillri1235d ago

IF you single out Uncharted 3's levels they are great on their own but as a whole the game was a bit of a mess and alot of it made little sense

I disagree with Mass Effect 2 being an over the 'top action game' that is game of the generation for me and deserves it 96 metascore

styferion1235d ago

That's why I believe in gameplay video more than I believe reviews, if I like what I see then I'll buy it whatever the score is.

Tiqila1235d ago

could you explain what you mean by "skyward sword feeling bare bones compared to past Zelda games"?

I recently forced myself to play it because I hate those motion controls. But then, if you can see over that, it's in my opinion a very nice game, also compared to previous zelda titles.

-Foxtrot1235d ago

It's not as open, it's repetitive, it's slow, lot of backtracking, not many things to do.

It's a step back from past Zelda games.

Koyes1235d ago

I loved Uncharted 3. One of the best games I've played on the PS3 (best being Demon's Souls)

Ravenheartzero1235d ago

Agree, I enjoyed all three games equally, had a lot of fun, bring on UC4!

assdan1235d ago

I'm not sure what you're talking about with MGSGZ. That is the most heavily criticized MGS game yet. The fact that it existed was a complaint in literally every review I saw for it.

randomass1711234d ago

Can't say I disagree with most of this. A game can be amazing and well liked but certainly not exempt from criticism.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1234d ago
LarVanian1235d ago

Industry wide bias? I thought it was because they just made great games.
I seriously couldn't care less what any conspiracy nut says about Naughty Dog, they're a developer who I feel have gotten better through the years and I can't wait to see everything they'll do for this generation!

randomass1711234d ago

Naughty Dog has yet to make a bad game post Crash Bandicoot. Until that happens, I see little to no reason to suspect that they still don't have anyone but the best at the helm.

majiebeast1235d ago (Edited 1235d ago )

Gamers
Developers(DICE awards)(GDC Awards)
Game critics

All have a big bias towards Naughty Dog. It cant possibly mean that their games are a tier above the rest.

LordMaim1235d ago

I'm assuming sarcasm, if so *agree*.

MrBeatdown1235d ago

Pretty pointless to write an article suggesting something, only to argue against it.

Next up... Is Grand Theft Auto V a bad game?

Our opinion: No.

Click for the full story!

admiralvic1235d ago (Edited 1235d ago )

"Pretty pointless to write an article suggesting something, only to argue against it. "

Depends what the writer is actually trying to accomplish. In this case we're talking about Video Game Review Headquarters, which is obviously going to have a pro-reviewer slant. Since it's against their interest to post things that could lower reviewer creditability, you can pretty much assume that any question / article from them will paint reviewers in a positive light, regardless of what the reality is.

On-Topic

Typically when something like this happens, it isn't because critics are "in bed with Naughty Dog" or any of that nonsense, but because sites want to avoid backlash / lose creditability. In fact, this was so important to the EiC of one of the sites I wrote for, that he would edit scores / score his games off what he thought other sites would give it or off what he thought the fans wanted to see. I can get into a whole thing about this, though I'll just end it here.

VGRHQCrew1235d ago (Edited 1235d ago )

"Depends what the writer is actually trying to accomplish. In this case we're talking about Video Game Review Headquarters, which is obviously going to have a pro-reviewer slant. Since it's against their interest to post things that could lower reviewer creditability, you can pretty much assume that any question / article from them will paint reviewers in a positive light, regardless of what the reality is."

This is a lie.

One thing we don't need is gamers trying to tell us what we're about. One of the first op-ed pieces written asked the community to express their opinion as to how critics should improve.

VGRHQ is about honoring great critics for their hard work, which nobody ever does. People like you tend to just run them down every chance they get. But it's also about addressing the entire process of game reviewing. There's no turning a blind eye to anything; it's about discussing things.

We'd appreciate you not telling everyone what we do when you don't even bother to read the articles and understand the site yourself. It also sounds like you wrote for a crap source because there are no EIC's of legitimate sources who would do what he did. That's hardly professional and by the way, hardly common.

admiralvic1235d ago

@ VGRHQCrew

I could write a long winded post about why I disagree with a lot of your points, but your comment ultimately just proves my point.

All I said in my original comment is that VGRHQ has a pro-reviewer slant, that I believe a some "critics" succumb to peer pressure and that one site I wrote for actually did this.

How do you reply? You claim my pro-review slant statement is a lie, though you go on to say "VGRHQ is about honoring great critics for their hard work," which is a completely positive statement and doesn't actually refute my point (I would argue it actually proves it, though thats not really important). Followed by spending the rest of your post trying to lower my creditability, just because I said something negative about critics / reviewers, which again, makes me question why you're calling my "pro-reviewer slant" a lie. I mean, if "there's no turning a blind eye to anything; it's about discussing things," why are you so adamant about shutting me up?

showtimefolks1235d ago

they made Jak and dexter which was awesome. Before than it was Crash(which i hope sony buys back)

But they really stepped their game up with Uncharted 1. UC2 was the best game of last Generation till the last of us. Before TLOU we got UC3 which was stellar

so media's darling or just a damn good development studio.

Kojima
RS
ND
Vavle

in no order

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.