Poll: Critics, how can they get it so wrong (not on all occasions but)?

[PeterMerkin69]

I don't think reviewers are out of touch with their audiences. I think reviewing games is a business and they're very much in touch with their customers. Mainstream gamers, at least the ones I know, don't take the hobby very seriously; it's all about the good times. Making everything look awesome, and rad to the max, appeals to that mindset. Appealing to your consumers is a winning business strategy. Pissing them off, and pissing your advertisers off, is not. Pissing off the people whose resources you rely on for publishing articles probably makes your job ten different kinds of difficult, too. If you don't get fired for it, that is.

People generally respond poorly to negativity. Have you ever heard someone say they don't read the news because it's too depressing? Or complain about someone for being a downer? I imagine it's a lot like that. If you're going to make legitimate complaints about games, or say you don't like them, or wreck the expectations of people who've become invested in the marketing campaigns of games they want to play, people are going to come away with disappointment. They don't do anything related to video games to be disappointed.* No one does. Not the mainstream gamers, not the indie "art fans" who want whatever it is they want, no one except for maybe me, because I enjoy bitching about stuff. People like me are a much smaller base than people who want to be entertained and to have fun. We spend less money on games, we spend less money on stuff their advertisers are peddling. Game journalism isn't for us.

*Escapism is, after all, the name of the game, right Escapists? Life's full of disappointment and suffering already; that's exactly what people are escaping from when they look to entertainment.

There was a reviewer whose site I found, and I can't remember whose it was now, but he had a ton of negative reviews on it. He also had a lively comments section with people who showed up solely to antagonize him for the very serious crime of disliking the things they like. If you're a good enough muckraker then surely that's a sound strategy, too, but I'm not sure how well you'd get along with the developers and publishers, who are a very important part of game journalism.

Artistic and journalistic integrity, fuck no. But do I blame them? Eh, not really. It's just entertainment so it's not terribly important anyway, and besides, a man's gotta eat. They're still useless shills though.

 

[votemarvel]

With Mass Effect 3, even putting aside the ending, it is easy to see a huge disconnect from gamers to critics.

I don't recall a single review that mentioned the comedy animations or the increase in 'cinematic' dialogue which cut down on player interaction in the conversations. I could mention other issues but they've been gone over many times before.

Where were the reviews mentioning those issues? Why were they apparent to gamers from the off but seemingly invisible to the people reviewing the game.

Of course everyone has their own opinion. I don't like the first person view in games, so would review anything that used it less than someone who does like it.

But as I said, every reviewer not mentioning the issues with ME3? That seems to me to be far more than coincidence.

 

[uchytjes]

If you are going by metacritic scores then you should know that metacritic user scores are a good way to judge how much bad press it got or how bad the launch went. Your examples of ME3 and Sim City reflect that. ME3 got a bad user score because users decided to carpet bomb their score into the ground due to the ending. Sim City has a bad user score because people don't like waiting for the game that SHOULD BE SINGLE... I'm not gonna get mad here, but just know that the reason metacritic user and reviewer scores are so different isn't because of corporate influence (although that may have an effect sometimes, its not always there) or misguidedness on the behalf of the consumer. It is instead that a critic gives a score that the game deserves because they need to have credibility and trust from their user base while users do not require such trust and can give whatever score reflects their feelings at the time.

 

[Scrustle]

Publisher influence is definitely there, but I don't think it's as strong as some people make it out to be. Reviews are not bought and paid for, unlike how many people like to believe that they are. Instead it's a more subtle coercion, but that's not something I want to discuss right now.

I think there's another aspect that influences reviews that come out being so far separated from public opinion. I think it's because they just don't really have enough to time to look in to a game on a deeper level. They're on tight deadlines and have to get through an entire game and write a whole review in what may even be less than a fortnight. Because of this they sometimes don't really get enough time spent with the game to really delve in to things that can actually make a significant difference, but would not be spotted without extended time with the game. Reviewers are under pressure to get things done fast, and they often have to review games that they're not particularly interested in either, so it all adds up to a review that can tell you a basic overview of the game's general quality, but not really a very good critical analysis.

There's another part to this that affects this issue. The fact that reviewers are under embargo means they can't really discuss games. So not only do they not have the time to delve in to deeper criticism, but they don't have the opportunity to have a dialogue about it. There's no critical conversation for them to bring up points of contention and discuss what they actually mean. As it is now, that can only happen a while after the game has come out, and people aren't interested in "is this worth my money?" any more, and an environment has emerged where a lot of people have played the game and they all have access to it at any time to scrutinise any tiny aspect of it.

But I think I should express something about this discussion. While it's true that sometimes reviewers/critics can be "wrong" about something, while the fanbase gives it the credit it deserves, often it's the reviewer/critic that's "right", while the general public is not. People make the mistake of thinking that just because there are more of us that our views are somehow "correct" if it differs from the "wrong" views of the reviewer/critic. But it's simply not true. There are loads of games that have actually been good and received well critically, but fans despise them because there's something superficially different about it compared to previous entries in the series. Or maybe a critically panned game becomes popular because of stupid reason.

While I reiterate that I don't mean to say that when reviews differ from the public opinion that means that the reviewer is always right, it's equally incorrect to assume the opposite either.

 

[Rickin10]

Some light reading on exactly why gaming journos/critics are completely compromised at every turn:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/21/gaming-the-system-how-a-gaming-journalist-lost-his-job-over-a-negative-review/

http://bf3blog.com/2011/10/ea-tries-to-manipulate-battlefield-3-scores-in-norway/

http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/23/2896935/is-the-gaming-media-broken

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/03/26/games-journalism-part-2-why-most-websites-are-built-to-please-the-industry/

 

[Pseudonym2]

I think biases tend to be a lot more subtle. Video game critics like video games so anything technically solid but bland tends to get a good review for some critics (Moviebob does this for movies) or they just like the genre so much it ends up being like a masochist review getting kicked in the balls. Alternatively, they get jaded at praise innovation even if it doesn't lead to a good game or bash a game for being too much like another game that the audience might not have played.

 

[veloper]

Poll lacks this option:
+ Critics not having to actually buy the games and their advertisement money coming from the game publishers.

 

[Zhukov]

Uh... they don't?

SImcity and Colonial Marines both received terrible reviews. 64 might sound good, but bear in mind that in game reviews anything below 70 is pureed turd.

I question your assumption that user scores somehow represent The Truth that reviewers should measure up to. Actually, no, I don't just question it, I think it's utter bullshit.

User reviews of high profile games are posted by a few different kinds of people:
- Those who played the game, hated it, and set out to try and damage it by posting 0s on Metacritic or Amazon.
- People who had something against the game before it even came out, never bothered to actually play it, and set out to try to damage it by posting 0s on Metacritic or Amazon.
- People who liked the game, saw that it was getting shitty user reviews, and then set out to "correct" this by posting 10s/5-stars on Metacritic or Amazon.

I have an exercise for you. FInd a game that got terrible user reviews. Check how many of those users posted reviews for the game on multiple platforms. That is to say, how many of them are lying, since there is no way they played a game they hate on multiple platforms.

Here's another one. When a game such as this is newly released, check out how many user reviews pop up as soon Metacritic opens the function, but before the people posting could possibly have actually played the game.

User reviews are worth about as much as pre-loved toilet paper.

 

[CityofTreez]

Because gamers are morons who don't know how to judge for shit.

- ME3, even despite its all problems is not a 0/10.
- SimCity, despite its all problems is not a 0/10.

Basically, the audience overreacts. Since the reviewbombing is a thing now and people tend to bomb games for the most stupid reasons (oh no, Portal 2 had some minor cosmetics at launch, it clearly deserved to be reviewbombed! I should not have listened to the critics when I bought it but to the morons who wrote metacritic user reviews) and they are not capable of putting the bad things in relation to the good bits and judge based on that.

In the end, I would take even the Dorito guys 'opinion' of a game more serious than the sum of 1000 metacritic users (or gamers).

This.

It's amazing how much flak reviewers (people who are in the industry) get yet most of the time we don't look at ourselves. How many reviewers are there where people rate a game 0/10 because they didn't like it? Almost no game deserves a 0/10, yet most negative reviews can be summed up as "overrated garbage!!!!1!" and not an actual critic of the game.

I'd take the overall judge of 100 reviews from people who work in the industry than that of 100 reviews from gamers any day.

 

[s0p0g]

now if we talk about critics as in: the score they somehow produce at the end of their reviews, i can certainly agree that there are points i do not agree with

so what i look for in (e-)magazines are reviews that contain information - i do not so much care what the critic thinks about this or that, but what there is - because i know what i like, so i can make an educated guess whether i'll like game xyz or not

scores... i don't really care for them, for reasons given often enough in posts above

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Because gamers are morons who don't know how to judge for shit.

- ME3, even despite its all problems is not a 0/10.
- SimCity, despite its all problems is not a 0/10.

Basically, the audience overreacts.

This, quite frankly. Professionals, who may get it wrong from time to time, in general have a method and further, are able to look at a game objectively. Gamers OTOH are highly subjective, usually betrayed, disappointed, upset or (on the flip-side) far too easily impressed.

The fact that CoD is still the most dominant title, despite being the most bland, boring example of most things wrong with games today, as well as being the same game re-released annually means the overwhelming majority of gamers have no taste, no discernment and will pay money for any PoS they're offered. I might look at gamer's reviews, but only the objective and hoenst ones are worth noting. The bulk aren't worth the database entry they occupy.

 

[C14N]

It's because gamers are generally overly emotional, overly entitled idiots who like to latch on to liking or hating a thing whereas critics are usually a bit more level headed and approach things objectively. I've never paid the slightest bit of attention to the user score on Metacritc and I won't until we learn to grow up as a group (note: I do look at stuff like IMDB scores sometimes because they're less awful).

There's also the fact that huge numbers of gamers are just kids. Plenty of people who read this are still in the 12-17 bracket that makes up a sizeable proportion of the gaming population, especially online. I don't care what a 15 year old that I don't know thinks about a game. I didn't care when I was 15 and I don't care now. I generally care a little more about a n opinion from a 35 year old who has been involved in video game journalism since the 90s.

I just want to point out that I don't always agree with the critics. Some of the highest rated games of the generation, I found to be fairly average (GTA4 and the easy target of Call of Duty being two examples I can think of quickly).

 

[Bad Jim]

Because gamers are morons who don't know how to judge for shit.

- ME3, even despite its all problems is not a 0/10.
- SimCity, despite its all problems is not a 0/10.

It's probably more accurate to say that the gamers who actually write reviews are not representative. They're the ones who love it or hate it. Fanboys write glowing praise because they want everyone to experience it. Haters review bomb because they want the company that produced it to be forced to declare bankruptcy just because they didn't like the ending. The majority, that have no strong feelings either way, usually cannot be bothered to write reviews. If every gamer submitted a review, there would be a lot more reviews in the 4/10 - 7/10 range and a reasonably balanced average score.

Maybe Steam should give you a few cents off your next purchase if you review a game you previously bought and played.

 

[Dollabillyall]

It's because the critic sees the game as a piece of work that should be judged and, in your example of SimCity, they would judge the service issues as a side-track. The game is fine, the service is not. This is a fair judgment for somebody who makes a living reviewing the CONTENT of a game.

An average gamer however will judge SimCity as "completely unplayable, paid sixty bucks and can't even log in to play. Score: 0/10. This is ALSO a fair judgment because no matter how good the game, if you can't play it your experience as a customer is fecal.

Roughly, you know.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

It's because reviews are written by A PERSON, not popular opinion. Any one person can have any given opinion on any given game. Just because most people disagree with it does not mean it somehow isn't the reviewer's actual opinion. I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not ready yet to say that most reviewers are being payed by developers to give out certain falsified opinions.

Now, there are reviews that are clearly written by someone who did not pay attention to the game they were playing. I recall the Game Informer review of Soul Calibur V, and though GI usually does decent reviews, this one left out some major points about the game that led to a misrepresentation of the experience. That was just a lazy review, for whatever reason, but most reviews are not flawed in this fundamental way. Most "bad" reviews are just because the reviewer has an unpopular opinion.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Don't pay attention to the score they give. Instead, just read the review. You'll find that there's actually a fairly large amount of good criticism and praise. Sure sometimes they get it "wrong" but it really just comes down to opinion.