Sigmund Av Volsung said:
Job related or not, that doesn't mean that the majority of your exposure to games isn't free. You guys aren't like pirates who can get anything for free for the sake of entertainment, but considering the fact that you are observing and evaluating the game for said entertainment value, I can understand why a lot of regular gamers take umbrage with stuff like say, Gone Home(not related to you specifically).
Sure, we get stuff for free, but many (most?) of us are still spending a lot of money on games. I don't see why not having to pay for some games negates the experience of paying for games.
(And it's not just games, by the way. The average critic has to pay for his/her own systems as well. Console companies hand out some systems to big publications and perhaps some individual critics who get a lot of exposure, but paying for systems out of your own pocket is the norm. Even with pc hardware reviews you don't usually get to keep the components, they need to be handed in again after your time with them is up. That's why it's a big deal when a publisher tries to give a gaming system to a critic - it goes way beyond what's seen as normal.)
It doesn't mean that you guys don't have a grasp on value, but it is a fact that you guys are exposed to games in a different way to everyone else. Job-wise or not, regardless if you buy games you don't get through code or just because you want to give back, there is still a divide, and I can understand why because of it some people may not trust games journalists to properly represent them. I understand how unfeasible the alternative would be, as well as the fact that it's a reality of dealing with a luxury hobby like video games, but it is something that influences gamers' opinions of the scene.
There will always be a divide between the professionals and the fans. Professional critics can devote their time to playing games because they're being paid. Granted, the circumstances under which they play those games aren't always ideal, but the knowledge and experience gained through playing all those games isn't something that can easily be replicated. It's not wonder most videogame critics started out as fans with a way beyond avarage interest in the medium.
But there, it's not as if there's no alternative for those who will never trust anyone who's more invested in the hobby than they are. There are user/reader reviews everywhere.
RE: Mad Max
That encapsulates a lot of issues that people have with journos. For one, a 7/10 on Metacritic doesn't just mean that 'it's a good game but not worth its asking price' because of the culture that scores have bred. A lot of people take it personally, and they take it especially personally if they enjoy a game like this for its popcorn-entertainment value. This is a flawed view, but to them it will discourage others from playing the game regardless of how engaging it may be, because said scores wield a stupidly arbitrary power in the games industry(let's not forget Fallout New Vegas whilst we're at it). Taste is subjective, yes, but this was one of the most recent examples where there was a very noticeable difference in opinions between the press and the gaming audience at large, and I don't think you can attribute that solely to individual taste.
Fans played an equal, if not larger role in creating this score obsessed culture. They people who can't/refuse to use scores as what they're actually are only have themselves to blame.
As for the difference in opinions, I don't think this is such a big deal as people are making it. First of all because a 7 is, like we both agree, a fine score. Second, there's the expectations people have. There are so, so many games out there you could only play games that score 90 or higher on Metacritic and still not have enough time to play them all. From my experience, most people who read reviews mostly stick with games that get a 8/10 or higher, occasionally buying something else just because it's based on an IP they like or is part of a series they're a longtime fan of. Sometimes that game ends up getting a 7, a score they thought was only for games that are unworthy of their time, and they take it personally. Which is weird, because the industry is filled with somewhat above avarage games that are entertaining despite their flaws.
Yes, reviwers have to play through a lot of crap often and are therefore better at spotting poorer game design, but this was almost unanimous. It again went back to value proposition argument that a lot of gamers have problems with, because the press in question get said game as part of their job, and therefore fundamentally lose a sense of risk and investment for that particular game. It's not that they never experience that, but regular gamers experience it far more often, and are more willing to compromise in order for a game to just fill the time and make light entertainment instead of having to be the next Dark Souls.
I think you're overestimating the effect the costs have on the experience the game offers. Unless the buying of the game is a emotional experience by itself (I know it can be for some people - that's why things like midnight launches exist), it doesn't really matter if you paid for it yourself or not. Like I said, most critics are adults with enough life experience to know what $50 feel like. They've felt it many times before. If needed, they can attach that feeling to whatever they're reviewing. I know I do. Even if I get a game for free, I still look up its price and adjust my recommendation if needed.
That said, you also have to keep in mind that prices tend to drop within a year and there are always sales going on somewhere. Gone Home is like 80% off during most Steam Sales, for instance. The price of a game is not stagnant, and you should not treat it as such when rating the game.
RE: Scores
That self-perpetuating problem is why I despise them even more and why I think metacritic should be done away with. It's simple to say 'just read the review' but a lot of people won't.
That's not something critics can take responsibility for, though. A review is a service we offer. If the readers decides to use it wrong or not use it at all, there's little the critic can do about it.
Similarly, a score can be part of that service, as is Metacritic. It's an useful service that's often abused.
Justifying it by saying that metacritic gives exposure and that's what matters just makes me feel disheartened about the state of the press.
Why? Advertising your a publication is expensive and not something most websites and magazines can afford. Metacritic can be a useful way to increase your visibility, and users benefit from having more sourches easily available to them as well. Again, just because Metacritic is sometimes used for evil does not mean the service itself is evil or everyone who uses it is.
It makes it seem, well, desperate as a field and that leads to unfortunate implications, especially whenever we get to sponsored content.
Sponsored content is a very different problem. With Metacritic I'd sooner worry about clickbaity scores (extremely high or low scores that attract attention), users abusing user reviews (metabombing games they have strong feeling about), and/or publishers attaching punishing developers for not attaining certain scores.
The doom of Eurogamer might serve as an example with which to discourage getting rid of scores, but considering how many people have made careers out of not giving scores, I frankly don't buy that. I don't know, maybe it's a new media vs. old media type of thing and that's what needs to change. Readers can say that they prefer scores, but a lot of readers probably watch Let's Plays and TB's influence looms large over PC gaming at this moment, so either they're hypocrites, or the issue resides elsewhere on how to evaluate a game with or without scores.
I think most people just view LPs and reviews differently. To them, a LP is just a fellow fan talking about a game. However, a review is this big deal where a professional critic passes judgment on a game. And then that judgment ends up on Metacritic for all to see, and *gasp* influence the definitive judgment (as in: the metacritic score)! A bad score could forever taint the game - no, not the game, the thing they care about!
My guess is that if youtube critics started handing out scores and those score ended up on sites like Metacritic, they'd be swiftly moved to the 'critical scum - do not trust!' bucket by many gamers.
