The mixed response to Death Stranding signals more critical and nuanced game reviews for a medium that's long overdue for it.
But 90% of the reviews were really positive. Or did the writer also mean non-"professional" critic reviews?
It's just fake concern and can be called trolling at this point when a simple research online will prove that DS has major positive reviews. Click bait
This just in, an 84 meta score (Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order) is "amazing", "its doing really well", while an 83 meta score (Death Stranding) is a "mixed response", "boring", "empty" and "that product placement concerns me".
Yeah right, very nuanced how you had either 10/10 or like 2/5, a lot of nuance In that.
LOL. Leave it to gamerant to try and say how awesome game journalists are. Reviews across the board aren't more nuanced, they're still all over the place, and all I see is that game criticism holds itself generally holds itself to absolutely no standards. They can't even bother to do proper reviews, and interject their own opinions as objective review. Lets say that what the author here says is true. Then I can say that that doesn't actually apply to this site.
Here's the example of an objective review https://www.youtube.com/wat...
When taken to the extreme yes. Objective doesn't mean robotic, it means being able to put aside one's bias, to see if their subjective opinion is relevant for the reader. I'm sure we've had this conversation before. I know you can't agree that reviews need to be objective, and that it's fine if the reviews that base their idiocy on subjective material, but I also know that you're feelings of if something is subjective or objective really hinges on if you agree with the review itself. At least I can readily admit that there is plenty of crappy reviewing all around nowadays, but concede that general consensus is at least a good barometer for the quality of a game.
I don't agree at all that it's when it's taken to the extreme. It's that he couldn't say if something is good, bad, enjoyable, boring, useful etc because the moment he or any reviewer says that, they're immediately injecting their opinions and that's when a review ceases to be objective. Are there bad reviews? I certainly think that there are some better than others not because of the score at the end but because of the the differences in the depth of the analysis. Regardless of me agreeing or not with Angry Joe to me he is one of the best reviewers because his reviews are extremely detailed or they used to be because I haven't watched one of his reviews in quite some time.
As I've said in the past, it's not about removing all subjective opinions, it's about using those subjective opinions to form an objective review. The subjective is just used to recognize how the objective measures can be determined, and using that, you form a conclusion on why the objective measure does or doesn't meet expectations. That is then expressed to the readers in a way that is relevant to something they may care about. It's not rocket science. Before the internet age went mainstream, there were plenty of reviewers who could write a proper review, and remain objective. It seems you think that my point of view requires the reveiwer to completely remove their opinion from their conclusion, and that's not the case. I also agree that Angry Joe is probably one of the best reviewers out there. He does subject his opinion into his reviews, but he does so in an objective way, and is very good at expressing why the game doesn't measure up to objective criteria, based on his subjective opinion. I'll also put in that not all reviewers are bad. But, as with most things, we tend to generalize the discussion for the sake of brevity, and I would hope that most people realize that we are talking generally, and that there will be exceptions to the rule.
I think it adds to their irrelevance although it has been obvious for years.
It's funny how the game has a higher metacritic score on more reviews than Pokemon Sword/Shield but yet it's still considered to have "mixed reviews" lol
And then it went out the window when they reviewed Pokemon.and Star Wars.
Some really good points in this article, fairplay.
Worst game i've played in years! I sold it after a week of playing ... soooooo boring!
So you played it for a week before finding in boring? I play many games that are lucky to get ten hours before i'm done...............
I was hoping for it to get better but it just never did. I feel I gave it a good go before selling it on.
@demonic36 maybe try it online ? and that game isn't for any1...also there's hide&seek&pewpew for USA ppl :P
That's cool. RDR2 is on Stadia. I bet that is more your speed.
Yeah I think that's more my type of game.
Game reviewers should have to spend their own cash on games, then we would see a growth in game criticism.
No it does not. Can someone do this to Red dead redemppton 2?
"critical and nuanced", oh is that what we're calling it now? How about just calling it what it is biased and fanboy driven.
I'd say the opposite! In the 90's I had much more faith in the objectivity of gaming journalists. The main factor now is how only certain games get these "concerned " pieces up until said games release because we fans can actually play them for ourselves. That and the fact that most reviewers don't actually buy the games they review and a lot speed run through them to be the first out. Also some do negative reviews to be edgy because they are much smarter than us simpletons! I don't base my buying habits on reviews at all. If I had I'd have missed out on some incredible experiences. Sure if a review happens to line up with games I like of course it's a good feeling because they get out of the game what I and many others did.
Can't see this in the recent Pokémon sword and shield reviews...
Lol no it doesn’t.
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.