Complaining about your favorite game not "getting high enough"

[Blue Hero]

I don't complain about it. I just think to myself, "Hey, I thought this game was really good. I wonder why it was so poorly received." And then I go play some more video games while drinking a bottle of natural sprint water.

 

[spartandude]

anyone who thinks differently from me shall be subjected to being eaten alive

 

[spartandude]

. The numeric score skews people's perceptions and they forget that 5 does not mean bad. 5 means average, nothing ground breaking, but not a bad game.

Too often fanboys forget this and get all pissy.

id say the reviewers forgot that, every time you see them make a review with a 7.5 they only have bad things to say bout it, i agree it should be 5 means average but sadly they dont do that these days which is annoying

 

[Scrustle]

Fanboys don't understand that their fandom is subjective and other people can share a different view. That's pretty much what defines a fanboy.

This topic makes me think of this:

Modern Game Journalism: The Movie: The Trailer [http://www.gametrailers.com/video/modern-game-mega64/723924]

I love that video. I wish it was a real movie.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Actually, I don't give a shit. I fucking love AMY (not like that) but its getting thrashed by critics left and right. Ign gave it a 2.0 anf Jim Sterling flat out told people not to buy it. But I don't care.
I enjoy AMY and it just means that the rest of you are morons.

 

[Vault101]

You know what? I am sick of this ranting against so-called "fanboys". I am a rabid fanboy of many things and I am not afraid to admit it. Does that mean I am a drooling idiot who rants about whatever changes in the new game in the series or writes multi-page scathing rebuttals against reviewers who share a different opinion than mine? 100% no. And I am sick of people implying that I do just because I am a big fan of something. The people who do those things are insecure jerks. Why can't we just call them that without insulting all people who identify themselves as "fans" of something?

thats not what I was talking about, I would call myself a fan-girl of Mass effect series, I love it to peices..but I digress

anyway, to explain it again, this occured to me after reading the comments of yahtzee's top 5 games of 2011, and also hearing stories about games like Zelda and such. why do people get upset over a game NOT getting a higher score when it is already universally praised...its like thats not good enough, jesus himself has to come back and claim it bigger than himself[/B]

THAT ^ is when I realised why people hate "fanboys", that doesnt mean you cant be a fan of somthing

(also regard yahtzees top 5....for crying out loud, your lucky he isnt ripping your favoite game apart, saying nice things about it isnt good enough? THIS IS YAHTZEE nice things from him is a gift to be treasured)<not you personally..you get what i mean

Actually, I don't give a shit. I fucking love AMY (not like that) but its getting thrashed by critics left and right. Ign gave it a 2.0 anf Jim Sterling flat out told people not to buy it. But I don't care.
I enjoy AMY and it just means that the rest of you are morons.

aagghhh dammmit

I keep forgetting about this game, but its all over the forums...so I keep seeing my name pop-up and its psyching me out :/

 

[4RM3D]

I don't give a damn about critics and what they think of a game. It's pretty much a fact most (so called) game critics are heavily biased and are giving out A's way too easy. Most triple A games already get a perfect score, which they don't deserve.

Heck, even if I like the game, that is no reason to go worshiping it. I stay objective and look at the pros and cons of the game.

To answer your question, I don't complain about games getting lower scores. No, it is the exact opposite. I am complaining about games getting too high scores. Even those games that I like. Well, I would be complaining, if I would still care about review(er)s, which I don't.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

A big contributor to what you're talking about is what's called "Score Inflation". Basically, since critics have been giving high scores to EVERYTHING for so long it's devalued what the number actually represents.

What should a 5 on a scale of 10 mean? It should mean average. But now a 5 means the game is horseshit. A 7 these days is the new "average" and even THAT is unacceptable. I remember when the Metacritic score for Modern Warfare 3 was 7 and the Producer or whoever made a Twitter post telling people to go on the site and fluff the score so it would "get the score it deserves". Which is downright disgusting to me.

All in all, no one person can be blamed for it. It's a process that's been going on for a very long time. Probably started back with magazines like GameInformer and Nintendo Power who pad the scores for Developers who give the biggest Ad revenue.

There's only one thing that can fix this, and that's for these critics to take responsibility and actually bite the bullet on this one. They need to actually make the numbers mean something again.

 

[josemlopes]

I honestly understand why my favorite games are not rated higher the 9 (they are usually around 8) because they do have flaws but what they do well is what FOR ME matters the most and that is why they will be MY favorites.

What I dont understand sometimes is certain games that do what they are supposed to do incredibly well are still bashed by some people (I am looking at Gears 3, its not my favorite game but it sure as hell deserves a 9-ish due to the quality and polishement of the product)

 

[enzilewulf]

If we were to judge something based solely off of what critics think about something then no one would like anything. Hell that means I couldn't enjoy the prequels in starwars.

 

[Lilani]

Gamers usually think on two levels, i've noticed. Or hell, people in general.

"I agree with this"
or
"I don't, it can burn in hell"

This is the phenominom (I am so keeping that typo in) you are observing

Pretty much this, along with the fact that so many gamers emotionally attach themselves to the games. Meaning they cannot separate their own personal feelings and enjoyment from the criticisms of others. So when someone comes along and points out some legitimate complaint, like poor animation or a badly designed interface, they don't just take it as someone else's opinion about a game (which probably has some merit, as things like interface and animation are pretty easy to objectively critique). No, they take that as a personal insult. To them, "The graphics could use some work" directly translates to "The game totally sucks and you are a horrible person for thinking it doesn't."

So then it doesn't just become a battle of proving the game is good for the sake of getting others inspired to play the game, too. It's a battle of proving the game is good for the sake of proving they aren't wrong for believing it is.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I suppose it's mostly the fault of the fucking retardedly flawed score system. Anything under 8 is complete trash apparently.

As for my personal experience i once checked the IGN review of Persona 4(best game ever) it was... 8.9? Ish? Clarification anyone? Meh i was fine with it.

Huh the Gamespot review for Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney said it "almost feels like a fighting game" Weird

Spoiler

 

[CScuff]

I believe that 99% of critics are what we would call "correct". They point out game mechanics and facts and state what they add to and detract from the game as a whole. The scores that games receive tend to go toward how well-put-together these games are from a technical standpoint. What they don't typically account for is how much FUN you have playing them. And THAT is where the differences happen.