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

[Sensei Le Roof]

No game has no redeeming factors at all behind it.

Atari ET.

 

[Ebonrul]

Just my two bits, but I would say it's a combination of everything.

The poll and the varied responses to it make the point better than any individual point raised. For the consumer/hobbyist, the game is a personal experience, like reading a book. Sure, the game might be marketed (or played) like a movie but when you're Nathan Drake or Laura Croft, it isn't really their adventure, it's yours. When the consumer feels this experience has been misrepresented for any reason, valid (the publisher sent the reviewer a lie) or not (the publisher liquidated the reviewer's favorite studio from when they were eleven so this game sucks), they feel as if they've been lied to personally. Find enough people who feel the same way (hello internet) and you got yourself a game/reviewer/publisher/studio/website burnin'.

From the industry perspective, you have two more conflicting viewpoints. The actual developers who genuinely want feedback on the game so that it's awesome but have to make the everything pretty on a deadline to compete with everyone else doing the same thing, and the publishers who only see the reviews as one more marketing tool because that's exactly how they work. Also, we as consumers aren't really innocent in this because we need every screenshot to be ready for the PAX mainstage, demos to essentially be finished games, and multiplayer...or else.

I think if you look at the big picture, you'll see that the state of marketing games pretty accurately reflects the state of the industry itself which means that critics, indirectly or not, are doing their job well. There's a lot of honest confusion at what to do next, more than a little deliberate misdirection for profit's sake, and a lot of people lucky enough to make a living off of what is essentially a labor of love.

 

[solemnwar]

There's a disparity between critics and the general audience because the two are looking at different things.

I mean, a game/movie/etc can be a cliché-ridden, shallow pool of a story, but still fun, but critics will pick it apart and say it's terrible, simply that, as a critic, that is their JOB, and they see the same things over and over and after a while become less charitable towards such things.

Like, the recent Three Musketeers movie (the one with the vaguely steampunkish twist to it). It was received pretty poorly by critics, but my friends and I all thought it was fun.

Likewise, critics will praise story and say the game is good, while the rest of us go "UUUGH" because it's not fun.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

I might have had publisher "Publisher Intimidation" as my first pick, but "Critics being too close to the developers". Is definitely also one leading cause.

Just to point out the most glaring example: I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that their own Jessica Chobot having a role in Mass Effect 3 didn't in any way influence what score IGN gave it. And the message stuff like that sends is actually quite worrying: "Be our good buddy, and you too can have an immortal, digital alter-ego!"

 

[Abomination]

Because the scale isn't a straight line. 5/10 doesn't equal an 'acceptable' game that is just worth what you're paying for. Having a scale that has no actual definition given to it and the fact that nobody would adhere to it means it is nothing but nebulous.

How can reviewers be 'accurate' when the very scale they are using to measure a game's worth is nothing but inaccurate?

I prefer a 5 tier system of measurement rather than a numerical value.

1. A classic for the ages. (Skyrim)
2. A game that delivers well for what you pay. (Mass Effect III - if it had a better ending it would be a classic)
3. You get what you pay for. (Max Payne III)
4. Potentially niche game, or a game with some serious flaws: some may enjoy it but many will not. (Sim City - at least in my opinion)
5. A waste of a title, you are being ripped off if you pay its asking price. (War Z)

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

A combination of gamers being more polarised in their scoring, critics wanting to appease publishers (in most cases, not all), and the game's fans or victims being the only ones who bother to vote how good it is.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

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).

Yup I was going to say the same.

I know I shouldn't, but there have been a few times I actually gave games on Metacritic 10's, when I was originally going to give 8's or 9's. I do to try and at least a tiny bit balance user score average, cause I've know a few people that actually took the user score on metacritic seriously and didn't buy a game they were just about to buy.

I also would like to point out that on a normal level, people even when they are praising a game don't seem to get how to score a game or they just don't know how to give bad criticism and just use the score to reflect. What I'm getting at is recently I've seen a few user reviews on Metacritic where the user praises the game on every level and then they give it a 7 out of 10. I'm like, "What? A game that you don't find any flaws in and love greatly, you give a 7?"

I will end with a word on "innovation". Not long after I watched Jim Sterling's video on it and how people, developers, and publishers are to hyped up on "innovating" that it is hurting games, I saw user reviews that relate to the subject. I've seen a few user reviews on Metacritic lately where people praise a game, call it pretty much damn near perfect, but their only gripe is that it didn't change anything, it didn't "innovate anything", then similarly to the people I mentioned in the last paragraph, they give the game a 7, or an 8 if they are being generous.

How the hell does a great game that doesn't have flaws in someone's opinion get a minus 2 or 3 points? If a game is perfect, then it is a 10. If person doesn't state or can't find flaws in a game and they enjoy it so well, then they should give it a 10. Talking about innovation is fine, and if the game does innovate well then that should get praise, but when a game doesn't try to innovate, then it should come up in the reviewing. A game should only have to stand up on what it does, not on what it could have done if the developers felt like doing something new.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Because the scale isn't a straight line. 5/10 doesn't equal an 'acceptable' game that is just worth what you're paying for. Having a scale that has no actual definition given to it and the fact that nobody would adhere to it means it is nothing but nebulous.

The problem with game review scoring is that people turn a score into a percentage and that usually leads to people thinking about grading system in schools. That is why publishers and other people see a game that gets a 7 out of 10 as bad. Because by schooling standards, a 7 is a 70% which is a C-, thought while in schooling terms a C is by definition "satisfactory" that expectations were met and they were acceptable, the world deems that as not trying hard enough.

I for one think such a system is stupid. I've always been of the opinion that if you get the majority of something right then you should pass, meaning that even a smidgen above 50% and a person should pass. I guess I'm saying that I prefer a pass/fail system.

 

[rasputin0009]

*Sighs*

This poll is pretty stupid. First off, comparing numbers from Metacritic is really dumb because those numbers are as hard as an old mans's bones (you thought I was going to say penis - that's gross, you're gross).

Also, it doesn't matter if game critics are out of touch with the audience because they're reviewing a game on their opinions, not on the mass majority's. Food critics mostly think fast food is crap while millions of people fucking love McDonald's. The loud minority think CoD is shit, yet reviewers give it decent scores while the majority of gamers go and buy it. Yes, the industry most likely affects critics' reviews what with incentives and advertising revenue. Sony Entertainment was really bad for this a few years ago. I think they've toned down a little lately, or they could just be really good at it. So just find a reviewer you trust anx read their reviews.

Games that critics persuaded me into buying: Bioshock Infinite
Why: Apparently, it was really, really good and was constantly talked about.

Games that critics dissuade me from buying: SimCity
Why: Not because of DRM (I don't care, PC's always online anyways). But because of the traffic being broken late game and the inability to go back to previous saves of cities (I like messing around). Wouldn't have known that if it weren't for reviews.

Games that I bought despite critics' meh at best reviews: God of War Ascension
Why: I'm a God of War fan. Should have I listened to the reviewers? Probably. The game was pretty meh. The broken parrying was game-breaking for me. Camera was bullshit this time around (it was fixed in 3, why you change?). And they went fucking overboard on the quick time events (Santa Monica: "What?! You don't want QTE's in your QTE's?! Too late! Already in th... [Press R1 without any warning to continue this conversation ************! Oh you died! Start over by that pretty set piece we made for you! Here, we'll zoom out so you can see it better! Can't see what Kratos is doing? Here's some fucking enemies! Do you see the pretty set piece?! Do you? Fucking see it?! We made that for you! Look at it! Oh, you died!]").

 

[TheCommanders]

Ugh, Metacritc. Pretty much all of my complaints about it have been said so in short:

Critics have weighted scores, only know how to use the numbers above 6 (except for the token game now and then that all companies agree is fine to trash to try to maintain their integrity)

Users are petty and are only able to put a 1 or a 1 with a 0 after it. Few of them would even qualify as literate (you think I'm joking? read some of the user reviews... and you thought youtube comments were an intellectual wasteland...).

The real problem? Publishers actually take Metacritic seriously. I'm not making this up. The biggest things for them - of course - are sales and profits, but some companies actually have clauses in their contracts that affect the pay of their employees or developer subsidiaries based on Metacritic scores. Considering how ludicrously useless a number is as communicated a complicated opinion regarding a game, this seems like a horrible practice to me. Also considering that the studio behind a game seems to have a much larger influence on the score of a game than it's actual quality (except for the token indy game that all review sites agree to feature and praise every now and then to try to hang on to any semblance on indy cred they may have left (take a look at how the press handled Journey for an example))... that sentence probably doesn't work on any grammatical level any more by my point still stands. Metacritic is stupid, and fails to even serve it's basic purpose successfully, but - bafflingly - continues to be relevant.

PS - I may like parentheses a little too much (although nesting them is a fun and underused art (more people should do it D)))

 

[Rack]

Ultimately I think it boils down to that no-one is incentivised to offer fair and balanced criticism. A site that slaps a 9/10 fluff piece on the latest hype-bait will get more pageviews than one that properly deconstructs the game and posts legitimate criticisms. And that's even apart from the fact that properly analysing a game takes time. Not to mention game sites need to maintain a good relationship with publishers and being the one site that points out the Emperor isn't wearing clothes won't help them get ad revenue.

As for users? Well some will go to the trouble of providing valid criticism but most will just use whatever methods they can to fire off a quick burst of whatever emotion comes to them at the time. There's no need to do much else.

Even then the majority view is often woefully ill-informed, madeup of whatever grab bag of emotions comes out of the lowest common denominator giving the most cursory examination of a games strengths.

TLDR. No-one cares.

 

[IKWerewolf]

Because the scale isn't a straight line. 5/10 doesn't equal an 'acceptable' game that is just worth what you're paying for. Having a scale that has no actual definition given to it and the fact that nobody would adhere to it means it is nothing but nebulous.

How can reviewers be 'accurate' when the very scale they are using to measure a game's worth is nothing but inaccurate?

I prefer a 5 tier system of measurement rather than a numerical value.

1. A classic for the ages. (Skyrim)
2. A game that delivers well for what you pay. (Mass Effect III - if it had a better ending it would be a classic)
3. You get what you pay for. (Max Payne III)
4. Potentially niche game, or a game with some serious flaws: some may enjoy it but many will not. (Sim City - at least in my opinion)
5. A waste of a title, you are being ripped off if you pay its asking price. (War Z)

I prefer a non scoring review which states who its good for.

 

[Smeatza]

There's definitely a double standard in video game criticism.
Almost every review I read for the latest COD installment will say outright "it's essentially the same as the previous game" and get a 9/10.
Every review I read for the latest Dynasty Warriors installment will say "it's essentially the same as the previous game" and get a 5/10.

I personally think it's the same deal as the news media here in the UK.
If a reviewer does something the developers don't like then they will not give that reviewer exclusive information or games ahead of release date, in the future.

 

[putowtin]

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

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

the problem with the Mass Effect scores is, before the game was released people started giving it low scores because of the "Day 1 DLC" then fans started giving it high scores cause "Dude you can't rate a game before it comes out!"
Then the same fans started giving it low score because "you know"

For all its problems it was still my (and a lot of other gamers) game of 2012, yet its score (as given by gamers) is low, its score (as given by critics) is generally quite high, because the whole point of critics is to take a step back (if possible) from personal feelings.
A friend of mine used to write for a restaurant guide. One night she had to review a place where she knew (and personally) disliked the owner, she wanted to tell the world that it sucked and should be closed down, but she didn?t because the food was excellent.
A game may not be your thing, I don?t enjoy zombie games but because everyone raved about it I tried the Walking Dead, and though I thought the art style, gameplay, and story were brilliant I won?t be buying the second game, because I don?t enjoy zombie games! That?s how a critic has to look at things, see the bigger picture.

Gamers who review on sites like metacritic act as though every game should be made for them and their whims and give games bad scores when they aren?t.

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.

What if they only played it with combat settings? Doesn?t that remove most of the decision making cutscenes? (I?ve never played it on that setting I am there for the story!)

Skyrim is another example. How - out of ALL those reviews, reviewers and opinions - did not one reviewer pick up on the fact that the game was actually a bit dull? It was a veritable wankfest upon release, yet within a weekend of playing the penny had dropped with me that it was shallow and a bit boring.

You?re talking about personal choice; you don't like Skyrim, that doesn't mean everyone feels the same.
I love it
You don't
Neither of us is right neither of us is wrong because it's personal choice.

 

[veloper]

Ugh, Metacritc. Pretty much all of my complaints about it have been said so in short:

Critics have weighted scores, only know how to use the numbers above 6 (except for the token game now and then that all companies agree is fine to trash to try to maintain their integrity)

Users are petty and are only able to put a 1 or a 1 with a 0 after it. Few of them would even qualify as literate (you think I'm joking? read some of the user reviews... and you thought youtube comments were an intellectual wasteland...).

The real problem? Publishers actually take Metacritic seriously. I'm not making this up. The biggest things for them - of course - are sales and profits, but some companies actually have clauses in their contracts that affect the pay of their employees or developer subsidiaries based on Metacritic scores.

Crowd intelligence. When you let room full of people guess the weight of a big object, many guesses will be wildly off the mark, much too low or too high, but the aggregate value of all their guesses will be surprisingly accurate. The individuals themselves don't need to be all that smart and it still works.

Don't be so quick to dismiss metacritic based on the crude user comments or their exaggerated scoring. Personally I find the aggregate score to be more in line with what I would rate, than the scores in the big review mags.
The professional reviewers tend to hand out bigger numbers on average, which makes sense too, because you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

A game can sell poorly due to crappy marketing, unlucky timing, stiff competition and the game can ofcourse sell poorly because it's a bad game.
It may actually be fairer to judge a developer on just the quality of their work than on other, extraneous factors, that are out of their control. The problem then is who to ask. Destructoid still may occasionally bash a big bad game, but their reviewers may also overrate games and the final; verdict would be all be in the hands of one single reviewer. So aggregate scores.
Now I could think of many ways to improve the metacritic system, but it's still the best aggregate available right now and therefore that is what they use.

 

[briankoontz]

Game "journalists" are corrupted due to the control that publishers and their own companies exert on them and on their own material ambitions.

Corporations have most of the power, even wealthy gaming consumers (themselves ideologically in bed with corporations) relatively little, and the results are as we expect.

Those in the game media with ambitions toward wealth and power gravitate to wealth and power.

Truth doesn't pay nearly so well.