Reviewers jumping on the hype train

[NiPah]

Spoiler

When you judge a game you have to factor in a lot of different aspects, almost no AAA game fails in all aspects.
When you judge a movie you pretty much have the story and acting, so scores can be quite extreme.

Why do so many game journalists like big name action shooters while seemingly universally hating JRPGs? I honestly don't know, back when I actually read reviews in print magazines it was a pretty small pool of reviewers and an even smaller pool of editors and management, maybe the bias spilled over? Humans are creatures of habit and imitation.

But yeah, most times when a game is playable and fun it scores high marks, everything else doesn't really matter (in a review).

A game doesn't have fail in something for you to dislike it. Jim Sterling didn't like Assassin's Creed 2 for its change in structure, I had the same complaint as well. It's not that the new structure failed, it was merely something that wasn't liked. I still to this day remember assassinations from Assassin's Creed 1 but I don't remember jack shit about AC2 because the assassinations were so poor. The thing I remember most from AC2 was that I had the most enjoyment from the glyph puzzles. Nobody but Jim called out the game for that. What about calling out GTA for having linear missions in a sandbox game, that doesn't have either. AAA games do actually fail at certain things and are never called out on them either. Uncharted has NEVER had a camera sensitivity option, which is huge mistake for a TPS because you aim with the free look camera in a TPS and not being able to change it means you can't change the camera to suit your aiming preferences (aiming is kinda a big deal in a shooter). It would be the exact same as an FPS not having a camera sensitivity option. Yet Uncharted 2, a very mechanically unsound TPS is sitting at a 96 for some reason. Yeah, the campaign was a ton of fun but the sluggish as hell camera that you can't change is very annoying and does indeed ruin multiplayer. Hell, Uncharted 2's MP is so unbalanced that male characters are literally better than female characters, no joke.

The gaming medium has completely abysmal writing and it's rarely if ever called out on it by professional reviewers. Shouldn't The Walking Dead have more variance in review score since the game is basically all story and characters? Same with Heavy Rain. Shouldn't FFXIII (and most RPGs) have good variance in review scores due to them being story and character heavy compared to other genres?

As for JRPGs, I think their lower scores since like the PS1 days are due to the genre holding onto mechanics for far too long like random battles.

Many WRPGs have poor combat like Elder Scrolls. I don't understand how a game that has you fight so much and doesn't do that thing well gets an overall average of 90+. I have the same issue with many JRPGs, you fight so much but the battle system isn't very good. The whole point of using a turn-based combat system (mainly with regards to JRPGs) is because combat is supposed to be so strategic that it can't be done in real-time, yet no Final Fantasy (besides Tactics) is actually strategic enough to merit a turn-based system. FFXII proved you can do standard FF combat in real-time, FFXII under-the-hood has the same battle system as FFX. Where are these type of criticisms in game criticism? Criticism is about criticizing, not saying how awesome everything is.

Honestly it just sounds like you care about a lot of stuff that hardly anyone else gave a shit about.
Reviews are often filled with complaints and compliments, I remember reading about bad combat in Elder Scrolls and linear missions in GTA (in past reviews), but in the end they still gave it a good review because they enjoyed it.

 

[runic knight]

Lets ignore the obvious influence of the incestuous relationship between various sites that give reviews and the game companies that play gatekeeper to the product they need to make the reviews, thus forcing their hands with either restrictive conditions for the reviews or by punishing those who don't play ball right. Too many examples of unprofessionally close relationships, be it physically or financially, between reviewers and the creators of the products they are suppose to review already reveal a big possible reason why so many become advertisement agents under the guise of professional reviewer. But lets shelf that particular complain here, at least for a moment anyways.

A reviewer, in the general sense of why the job even exists, is suppose to represent the audience's interest in possibly buying a product, examine it and report that to the potential buyers so they can make an informed decision. If that sounds a bit different then what many reviewers are now, that shows part of the problem. A lot of reviewers now don't actually seem to care much about the duty to the potential audience they should be informing, and the lack of care shows in the reviews. Be it simply fanboyism, personal politics or financial influence from above, many reviewers, especially in the gaming sites, don't make reviews for the audience, instead they are glorified personal blogs with all the lack of professional examination and honest criticism such biased personal blogs come with.

So why do a lot of reviewers jump on the hype train? Well because they are failing to actually be professional reviewers in the first place. In that regard, they are failing the responsibility that comes with being a professional product reviewer. The difference between the average user review and a published review is merely in name now, certainly not quality and yet the "professionals" have added weight because of the illusion of professionalism that comes from their position alone instead of them actually living up to the responsibility of the position.

With regards to user reviews, the value of them in comparison to a professional review comes from quantity versus quality. A professional reviewer is suppose to be someone trusted at doing the responsibility of the position well. It does take a certain skill set to break down, examine, and translate that to the audience and someone who can do it well and share the information most of the audience cares about in the product (thereby best informing them as much as possible) is something that deserves added weight compared to an average random user review. Sadly, such reviewers are rare and most current gaming news media publications do not live up to that and haven't in a while. The alternative is user reviews which are low quality from the start, but which through sheer bulk can reveal a trend that also gives a sufficient view of the product. This combination of things is why the metacritic scores can vary drastically between the two groups. The professional reviews are not acting as their profession would require in as best a way as they should, and the user reviews as a whole gives a better response of the average user reaction, for good or ill, but without the indepth knowledge a reviewer generally is suppose to give.

I suppose one could make a larger argument that the drastic disparity between professional reviewers and user review averages show how out of touch with the average audience the professional reviewers have become and that trend in particular most likely correlates with the declining respect and trust in reviewers as a whole, highlighted by commonly complained about occurrences such as the "never less then 8" for major publishers and the rise of the politicized review.

 

[NPC009]

Lets ignore the obvious influence of the incestuous relationship between various sites that give reviews and the game companies that play gatekeeper to the product they need to make the reviews, thus forcing their hands with either restrictive conditions for the reviews or by punishing those who don't play ball right. Too many examples of unprofessionally close relationships, be it physically or financially, between reviewers and the creators of the products they are suppose to review already reveal a big possible reason why so many become advertisement agents under the guise of professional reviewer. But lets shelf that particular complain here, at least for a moment anyways.

While that is a very valid concern, I would like to note that writers are usually shielded from publishers by their editors. They recieve a review copy, play it, send in their work and move on. In rare cases reviewers are invited to play games at a location arranged by the publishers, but this really only happens with very high profile games. Aside from the triple A companies publishers don't usually have any intention of playing gatekeeper. If they do set an embargo it's to ensure the first wave of reviews arrives around the release of the game.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

1. Okay sure many negative reviews came because of that error issue. Like I said before 3.9 is a tad extream, still Diablo 3 would still have gotten a lower user score even if there where no initial launch problems.

Look at Reaper of souls, it had no major launch issues and overall fixed or atleast tried to fix many of Diablo 3s issues. Overall its less disliked but its rating is still only 6.5 from the users.

Correct, on metacritic. Where user-scores are predominantly used for either score bombing or score plumping.

Yes it sold extreamly well, but so did Star Wars Phantom Menace when it came.
It sold well because it was one of the most hyped games ever and received sugercoated reviews.

There was a phenomenal drop off in viewership between Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith. PM's large audiences came in on the strength of the IP.

Diablo 3 sold well and continued to sell well straight through the release of the expansion.

Still Reaper sold far less then vanilla d3 did. Diablo 3 sure was not a flopp financially for them but Blizzard doesn't have a spottless rep anymore.

Why call it a flop, then? Only one P in flop, btw.

Also, expansion packs always sell less than their host game. Reaper of Souls sold 2.7 million copies in its FIRST WEEK. The combined sales of the game plus expansion pack hit over 20 million. That's more than SKYRIM sold. Tell me again how the fans hated it and it was "a flopp". Somewhat inconsistent with those 3.9 user reviews yeah?

3. The old skill tree gives atleast some options and you had somthing to look forward to every level. It wasn't perfect but instead of improving it they dumbed it down. Even with the few talents we got, many barely make any noticable differance.

No, it doesn't. Unless you were incapable of reading Elitist Jerks and copying the correct talent spec for your character, you had absolutely no "options" whatsoever, save for the option to be sub-optimal. They didn't "dumb" anything down. They changed the presentation.

Honestly, you've as much as indicated you don't raid. You barely played the game past 100. Please do some heroic/mythic raiding and tell me how "dumbed down" the game is. This is the equivalent of the guy who plays a dozen games of DOTA 2 and tries lecturing the community on balance.

4. I read it on the WoW forum, but like I said, can't confirm if its true or not.

Bahahahahahahahahaha...

You can spend years fishing in WoW and it might be enough content for you. I got level 100 quite recently, already abandoned normal dungeons. Done some heroics and they aren't that challanging. It just takes a little more time. Haven't tried raiding and don't feel excited enough to do it.

So you haven't actually progressed into challenging content, due to a lack of "excitement", yet feel you can speak authoritatively to both the game's complexity and difficulty level?

I would love to do some arena to get the better pvp set, but since im a Mage i can pretty much forget about that.

Frost is presently middle of the pack in terms of Arena representation. Why, exactly, do you have to "forget about that"? Plenty of Mages are making a go of it in Arenas.

So the only way i can get it is to grind BGs and hope my team win. Sadly the PvP is more boring then ever so im already tired.

Ah, that old "lack of excitement" again. Gotcha. Personally if I was too bored or apathetic to play a game's difficult content, I would probably refrain from making sweeping generalizations about the nature of said content. Probably just me, though.

Yes WoD is less impressive because it offers so little new.

Except for all the new things that it offers, which you hand wave as "sucky" or fail to bring up at all, whilst praising identical concepts in BC as "challanging" and "fantastic". In terms of raid design and complexity the game has grown leaps and bounds past where it was in BC. Alas, your "lack of excitement" has prevented you from experiencing them, if not from commenting on them.

Hehe nope. Never said it suck either.

You just called it "sucky". People can like or dislike games for whatever reason they want. WoW is 10 years old. If you've played since BC, maybe you're just BORED of it. Maybe the changes in the mechanics don't do it for you. Maybe the Arena/Raid content is too difficult for you now and you'd rather play casually, but LFR is faceroll. Maybe you've outgrown MMOs. Anything is possible, right? Your tastes are your tastes.

There's a wide difference, though, between "not liking something", and authoritatively talking shit about that thing, when you very, very evidently barely understand it. Between disliking something for personal reasons and claiming that "professional" reviews are misleading or corrupt because they do not match your vision of reality. And puffing up USER SCORES, which have never been anything but the punchline to a particularly depressing joke, as somehow preferable.

But I do think people are too eager to praise something that introduce very little new and has kinda limited end game content.

End game content that you haven't played. Do you also talk to this length about books you haven't read and films you haven't watched? You're aware how that comes across, yes?

9. Yes I do but whole point was to point out that user and professional reviews can tell two different stories. Your very critical on user reviews but i think its a nice contast to the professional reviewers, that rarely dares to really give a hyped game low or even mediocre score.

I'm critical of user reviews because the overwhelming majority of them are useless. In the length of this discussion, you have given your "user review" of WoD, and we've seen how valuable and substantiated it is. There are definitely problems with the professional review scene, we've all talked at length about them and I remarked upon them in my first post. User reviews are not "better". They're demonstrably worse. Poorly written, poorly argued, soaked in bias, agenda-pushing rubbish. I've never heard a single person support them unless they were reinforcing an existing confirmation bias.

Sigh..Well a Reviewer is supposed to give us a honest view on what makes the game good or/and bad. Good reviews can be an important factor for a games sales, especially smaller games that has no marketing.
Yet still there are alot of lazy reviews out there either bearly give some games a chance while others are the biggest fanboys in the universe.
As for Diablo 3 it clearly had flaws which made many dissapointed. Thats why I think its 8.9 score is misleading.

The 8.9 is a score aggregate. You know how aggregates work, yes? Do you actually READ the reviews? Or do you just look at the score aggregate and make purchasing decisions? Because I can see how the latter would get people into a lot of trouble.

There are several review outlets that game Diablo 3 middling scores, and one that gave it a 4.5. Maybe one of those reviewers would be to your liking? That's how reviews are supposed to work. You find one or several that match your individual tastes, and make use of them. Or hey, let's grab a user review at random.

Diablo III - 0/10

May 15, 2012

Diablo 3 is so boring you would have more fun at a bingo hall. Also the connection problems at launch are awful and show how incompetent Blizzard is. The graphics in game are also not close to what a Diablo game should look like.

Oooh, riveting stuff. So well written and well argued. So USEFUL. Praise the user scores!

 

[runic knight]

Lets ignore the obvious influence of the incestuous relationship between various sites that give reviews and the game companies that play gatekeeper to the product they need to make the reviews, thus forcing their hands with either restrictive conditions for the reviews or by punishing those who don't play ball right. Too many examples of unprofessionally close relationships, be it physically or financially, between reviewers and the creators of the products they are suppose to review already reveal a big possible reason why so many become advertisement agents under the guise of professional reviewer. But lets shelf that particular complain here, at least for a moment anyways.

While that is a very valid concern, I would like to note that writers are usually shielded from publishers by their editors. They recieve a review copy, play it, send in their work and move on. In rare cases reviewers are invited to play games at a location arranged by the publishers, but this really only happens with very high profile games. Aside from the triple A companies publishers don't usually have any intention of playing gatekeeper. If they do set an embargo it's to ensure the first wave of reviews arrives around the release of the game.

True, but even the editors have to maintain a balance between fair reviews that may anger the publishers and keeping those publishers happy, the result of this is a deluding of the purpose of reviewers and a decrease in their effectiveness. The more powerful the publisher, the more they have to make sure they don't upset them. The publications have to maintain a working relationship, and that can conflict with giving a fair and unbiased review, if the review is unflattering. The idea of soft scoring bad reviews with 8's instead of 6's as an editorial mandate. Or even simply humanizing the people who make the product to review simply by seeing them and interacting with them. And that isn't even getting into the idea of company swag, salesmen interference and out of work relationships and friendships.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

...and the user reviews as a whole gives a better response of the average user reaction...

It does not. The only site we have that gives aggregate results for user scores is Metacritic. Metacritic has, for some time now, been viewed as a portal through which one can vent their spleen or "punish" a game from anything any vocal portion of the user base dislikes. Or conversely, get viral marketing, either from fanboys or actual paid shills. We've seen, time and time again, a game get a panoply of 0/10 or 10/10 reviews before it even hits its release date. Never more than a few sentences or a single paragraph, never demonstrating an understanding of the game's systems or experience playing it. Just "this is shit because X" or "this is the best game ever buy now".

I'm TOTALLY on board with the criticisms of professional reviewers. From shit like the Kane and Lynch scandal to gaming websites putting out articles like "10 reasons to be excited about (unreleased game)", it's not hard to find reasons to criticize. But Metacritic USER REVIEWS? Please. PLEASE. They are not "better" for anything, except possibly causing cancer. If you spend HOURS you might be able to mine one or two non-shit reviews out of the rest of the dross, at which point you STILL have no idea if you're dealing with a hater or a shill. It might just be someone better at expressing themselves.

 

[runic knight]

...and the user reviews as a whole gives a better response of the average user reaction...

It does not. The only site we have that gives aggregate results for user scores is Metacritic. Metacritic has, for some time now, been viewed as a portal through which one can vent their spleen or "punish" a game from anything any vocal portion of the user base dislikes. Or conversely, get viral marketing, either from fanboys or actual paid shills. We've seen, time and time again, a game get a panoply of 0/10 or 10/10 reviews before it even hits its release date. Never more than a few sentences or a single paragraph, never demonstrating an understanding of the game's systems or experience playing it. Just "this is shit because X" or "this is the best game ever buy now".

I'm TOTALLY on board with the criticisms of professional reviewers. From shit like the Kane and Lynch scandal to gaming websites putting out articles like "10 reasons to be excited about (unreleased game)", it's not hard to find reasons to criticize. But Metacritic USER REVIEWS? Please. PLEASE. They are not "better" for anything, except possibly causing cancer. If you spend HOURS you might be able to mine one or two non-shit reviews out of the rest of the dross, at which point you STILL have no idea if you're dealing with a hater or a shill. It might just be someone better at expressing themselves.

Near as I can remember, steam has a quick method of thumbs up or down numbers, with reviews alongside to quantify both. But yeah, metacritic has a lot of flaws. Not saying the user review section is inherently better mind you, merely that between the two options, at least so far as the steam system I was thinking of when writing that section, they do what they are suppose to do better. The quantity still demonstrates the rough average of consumer response, and while it is certainly influence-able, it takes more to shape it then a professional reviewer being bought off or whatnot.

User reviews are suppose to be a dime a dozen, and it is the overall trend that shows anything relevant to the other consumers. And even if there are exceptions, it is reliable in doing that much the majority of the time. That is why you see a number of gaming sites have a user score rating for stuff as well as a site rating. Hell, I remember seeing that over at ign years ago.

Professional reviews are suppose to be a higher quality and they really just aren't. So to that effect they are failing to deliver what they are advertised as, so to speak. To say nothing of the paid shilling aspect involved there and the greater impact such shilling has with professional reviews.

But yeah, both are broken, I'll grant that no problem. User reviews generally just still manage to do what they are suppose to better then the alternative lately. Yes, even in spite of rating influences.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Well, there's your problem. Multiple, actually.

A 5 does - on most websites and in most magazines - not mean what you think it means. Most publications consider 6s and below games they do not recommend. Since they are many people out there who did enjoy Final Fantasy XIII I don't think a very low score is warranted.

Problem number two is that you're thinking that the avarage is constantly adjusted, making sure there is an equal amount of games on both sides of the middle line. It is not. This is not maths. This people putting numbers on things that more or less reflect how they felt about it.

Third problem is that AAA are not the only games out there. Why would it matter if most of them are above avarage or not? They are just one facet of the gaming industry. But don't forget these games have some stupidly huge budgets. It shouldn't be a surprise most of these games end up being atleast somewhat enjoyable.

Fourth problem is that what you are asking is not something that can be given. Some games generate a wide spectrum of opinions, others do not. You can't force people to think differently just to meet some imaginary quotum. If you want to make sure you read a wide array of opinions, use sites such as Metacritic wisely. Pick some reviews from the top, bottom and middle of the list and read them. The texts often say more than the scores as grading scales can vary from site to site.

(Caption reads: winning.

Thank you, caption )

I was literally going by IGN and GameSpot's own scoring system. A 5 means mediocre according to them, that is not my interpretation. IGN and GameSpot are probably the most known game reviews as well.

Average means average. Just because say the average FPS now is better than the average FPS 15 years ago doesn't mean that every FPS now is above average because the genre has gotten better. As stuff gets better, the average gets better as well. Are all special effect blockbuster movies above average now because special effects have gotten better over the years? No, they are judged according where they are now, not the past average.

I'm not saying AAA games are the only games, I'm using them as an example because they are all rated well above average when they are not all above average. More money does not inherently equate to a better game. Sometimes more money results in a worse game due to it being less focused as so many more people are working on it. Not to mention the more money it cost to make means more money must buy it to make money, thus the game must have wider appeal (which can result in a worse game too). With that logic that more money equals better quality, then all Hollywood blockbusters should be rated above average as well. Money does not equal quality.

Where are these games that you say generate a wide spectrum of opinions? Because critics almost universally like or dislike a game. The problem is that I don't see any games that generate a wide spectrum of opinions with regards to professional reviewers. I see that in every other medium but games. My whole point is that there isn't differing opinions on games but really just one. The lowest score for Uncharted 2 is an 89.

Honestly it just sounds like you care about a lot of stuff that hardly anyone else gave a shit about.
Reviews are often filled with complaints and compliments, I remember reading about bad combat in Elder Scrolls and linear missions in GTA (in past reviews), but in the end they still gave it a good review because they enjoyed it.

TotalBiscuit would've covered the fact Uncharted has no adjustable camera in the first minutes of a "WTF is..." video of Uncharted. Having an adjustable camera is one the very basic options of any shooter, TPS or FPS.

How does a game (Elder Scrolls) get rated so high when something you do the most (or at least a large portion of your time) isn't done very good? If I spend a majority of my time doing X in a game, X better be executed well. How does a game (GTA) that is open-ended but has linear missions not marked off more for that? I'm not saying everyone must dislike Elder Scrolls or GTA but you at least need to mark off decent points for such flaws. Basically, they shouldn't be getting scores of 9+. You can enjoy the shit out of something and still realize its flaws and score it accordingly. I fucking love Vanquish, but I'm taking points off its score for not having a shoulder swap.

Some things I mentioned, I may care a lot more about than others. But that is the same for everyone, everyone has their little things that largely impact their enjoyment. The thing is I see very few reviewers knocking off points when a games does do things that hit their own "buttons" because they feel the need to rate the game in an objective light. The whole point to finding a reviewer (in other mediums) you like is to find one that has the same "buttons" as you. I think Angry Joe and Jim Sterling review games properly but neither of them share the same game tastes as I do so they aren't the best reviewers for me.

Snip

Totally agree.

 

[NPC009]

True, but even the editors have to maintain a balance between fair reviews that may anger the publishers and keeping those publishers happy, the result of this is a deluding of the purpose of reviewers and a decrease in their effectiveness. The more powerful the publisher, the more they have to make sure they don't upset them. The publications have to maintain a working relationship, and that can conflict with giving a fair and unbiased review, if the review is unflattering. The idea of soft scoring bad reviews with 8's instead of 6's as an editorial mandate.

I have seen a publisher pull future ads after I gave their game a bad review (and by bad, I mean really bad, something like a 40%). Cost the magazine thousands of dollars in revenue. Editor-in-Chief told me not to worry about it. I did my job and integrity is what is most important. Can't say integrity saved the magazine, though. They had to throw in the towel a couple of years after that incident.

Or even simply humanizing the people who make the product to review simply by seeing them and interacting with them.

I don't quite agree. While it would be wrong for critics to become overly friendly with developers they're reviewing games of, I think it's important to always remember games are made by people. Plus, it's a good thing when critics have an understanding of how games are made. It helps keep expectations realistic.

And that isn't even getting into the idea of company swag, salesmen interference and out of work relationships and friendships.

I think independent reviewers such as the people on youtube are much more vulnerable to this. When you write for magazines/websites pretty much all communication goes through them. Publishers send their review copies and codes to the office and an editor sorts it out and sends the material to the reviewers. Reviewer contact info is usually not found in magazines or on websites. Well, I guess most would be easy enough to track down using social network sites, but that wouldn't be particularly helpful to the game publishers because they don't know who is going to review what title. Swag is usually send to the office. Reviewers may be send some (I've recieved a few trinkets in the past, all keychain/t-shirt level swag), but pretty much all magazines and websites I've worked for put the goodies in 'the closet' together with review copies that weren't needed. They hand these out to readers on special occassions or maybe sell the expensive stuff and donate the money to charity.

 

[laggyteabag]

First things first: Never look at the overall user reviews percentage on metacritic. Just don't. Anyone can post anything, and there is a very high likelihood of trolls just posting 1 star reviews for the hell of it. Just don't do it. It isn't a good statistic to show anything.

Secondly, reviewers have to work on a timescale as for many reviewers, this is their job. If they post their review too late, nobody cares, and they can't spend too long on one game because they have other games to look at. For this reason, many do have to skip a lot of content (especially sidemissions or non-essential quests) just so that they can focus on the important parts and so that they don't spend hundreds of hours on one game. Same goes for expansion content such as MoP or WoD; because they review this stuff near launch, they can't really speak for patches that come near the end of the expansion, so if an expansion does end up being disappointing by the end of it all, it is not reflected in the review as it only counts for the content at the beginning, and going back and re-reviewing a game once all of the updates have been released is just silly, because nobody would want to read a review for a game which is a good year or so old, especially when the next expansion is just around the corner.

 

[runic knight]

True, but even the editors have to maintain a balance between fair reviews that may anger the publishers and keeping those publishers happy, the result of this is a deluding of the purpose of reviewers and a decrease in their effectiveness. The more powerful the publisher, the more they have to make sure they don't upset them. The publications have to maintain a working relationship, and that can conflict with giving a fair and unbiased review, if the review is unflattering. The idea of soft scoring bad reviews with 8's instead of 6's as an editorial mandate.

I have seen a publisher pull future ads after I gave their game a bad review (and by bad, I mean really bad, something like a 40%). Cost the magazine thousands of dollars in revenue. Editor-in-Chief told me not to worry about it. I did my job and integrity is what is most important. Can't say integrity saved the magazine, though. They had to throw in the towel a couple of years after that incident.

But not all have the same discipline, as examples with some of the major game news publications have shown before, sadly. I suppose it is just another factor to keep an eye on.

Or even simply humanizing the people who make the product to review simply by seeing them and interacting with them.

I don't quite agree. While it would be wrong for critics to become overly friendly with developers they're reviewing games of, I think it's important to always remember games are made by people. Plus, it's a good thing when critics have an understanding of how games are made. It helps keep expectations realistic.

That is true, but what happens when a reviewer humanizes the publishers more then their audience? To me this seems a big factor in recent controversies, as so many journalists resorted to the worst stereotypes of their audience with total conviction, showing they lost touch with who they were suppose to be making reviews for and possibly explaining in part why the decline in review quality was occurring in the first place.

And that isn't even getting into the idea of company swag, salesmen interference and out of work relationships and friendships.

I think independent reviewers such as the people on youtube are much more vulnerable to this. When you write for magazines/websites pretty much all communication goes through them. Publishers send their review copies and codes to the office and an editor sorts it out and sends the material to the reviewers. Reviewer contact info is usually not found in magazines or on websites. Well, I guess most would be easy enough to track down using social network sites, but that wouldn't be particularly helpful to the game publishers because they don't know who is going to review what title. Swag is usually send to the office. Reviewers may be send some (I've recieved a few trinkets in the past, all keychain/t-shirt level swag), but pretty much all magazines and websites I've worked for put the goodies in 'the closet' together with review copies that weren't needed. They hand these out to readers on special occassions or maybe sell the expensive stuff and donate the money to charity.

To be fair, I was thinking the opposite was true. We've seen many large publications being caught with such conflict of interests already, and it makes sense why the publishers would target the larger, more influential publications for that sort of treatment. Journalists with unique flags or merchandise, selling replica guns and the like seem to pop up time and again. Compare that to youtubers who are smaller, and have to fight terms of early release copies ascribed to them.

But it does seem to depend on the place of the publication and how involved the publishers are with the press.

 

[NPC009]

I was literally going by IGN and GameSpot's own scoring system. A 5 means mediocre according to them, that is not my interpretation. IGN and GameSpot are probably the most known game reviews as well.

Those are just two sites. They may be large, but they are far from the only ones out there. If you don't like their reviews, go to one of the 50+ other sites out there.

Average means average. Just because say the average FPS now is better than the average FPS 15 years ago doesn't mean that every FPS now is above average because the genre has gotten better. As stuff gets better, the average gets better as well. Are all special effect blockbuster movies above average now because special effects have gotten better over the years? No, they are judged according where they are now, not the past average.

Avarage means different things in different context. A mathematical 'avarage' is different from the 'average' as used in colloquial language (where it can mean anything from 'mediocre' to 'unremarkable'). Please don't make a fool out of yourself by confusing the two.

And while even the colloquial avarage certainly shifts there are no means (or reasons!) to measure that shift, because these numbers have no actual value. The only thing they to is summarize the feelings of the reviewer.

I'm not saying AAA games are the only games, I'm using them as an example because they are all rated well above average when they are not all above average. More money does not inherently equate to a better game. Sometimes more money results in a worse game due to it being less focused as so many more people are working on it. Not to mention the more money it cost to make means more money must buy it to make money, thus the game must have wider appeal (which can result in a worse game too). With that logic that more money equals better quality, then all Hollywood blockbusters should be rated above average as well. Money does not equal quality.

What makes you say it's a fact these games are not above avarage? Is it not merely your own opinion?

I agree that more money does not equal higher quality, but having a higher budget does make it easier to get a game to a level where it's an enjoyable experience to most players. And that's what most games and thus reviewers look for in games: enjoyment.

Things like storytelling, character development, originality and many other things we would look for in other forms of art are often not thought to be important in games. Atleast not by the majority of games, it seems. (And in a way it's the same for movies: for most people a movie does not need to do more than entertain, which is why blockbuster fare so well even when movie critics have no high opinions of them.)

Where are these games that you say generate a wide spectrum of opinions? Because critics almost universally like or dislike a game. The problem is that I don't see any games that generate a wide spectrum of opinions with regards to professional reviewers. I see that in every other medium but games. My whole point is that there isn't differing opinions on games but really just one. The lowest score for Uncharted 2 is an 89.

They're everywhere. Some examples (from Metacritic):
Atelier Rorona (40-90)
Hatoful Boyfriend (30-85)
Crimson Shroud (25-92)

These are just three of the games I played recently and remembered recieving mixed reviews. There are probably much better examples out there.

Also, why does the lowest score for Uncharted 2 matter? Ever considered it may actually be a really good game? Of course, that doesn't mean you have to like it. Plenty of people out there who weren't into Ocarina of Time or GTA IV and those are some of the highest rated games of all time.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Look at the Metacritic entry for 'Dragon Age: Inquistion'; it's blindingly obvious that it's being red-bombed and it's almost impossible to tell which ones are legitimate and which are troll votes.

Is it? I'd say that - from reading thte reviews and my own experience of the game - that it's actually a case of pro-reviewers ignoring a lot of flaws which user reviews highlight.

The difference between what the pros say and what the users say is quite astounding. Don't think the critics are bias? Well remember this little beauty.......

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/8701-Dragon-Age-II-Review

Sorry, but "A pinnacle of role-playing games" for DA:2? Don't tell me that these critics are being genuine.

They're either being paid, or aren't critical enough.

 

[Maze1125]

Look at the Metacritic entry for 'Dragon Age: Inquistion'; it's blindingly obvious that it's being red-bombed and it's almost impossible to tell which ones are legitimate and which are troll votes.

Is it? I'd say that - from reading thte reviews and my own experience of the game - that it's actually a case of pro-reviewers ignoring a lot of flaws which user reviews highlight.

The difference between what the pros say and what the users say is quite astounding. Don't think the critics are bias? Well remember this little beauty.......

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/8701-Dragon-Age-II-Review

Sorry, but "A pinnacle of role-playing games" for DA:2? Don't tell me that these critics are being genuine.

They're either being paid, or aren't critical enough.

That's one review. Let's look at an average of reviews for DA:II
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii

82%, that means that, on average, professionals think DA:II was about four fifths good and one fifth bad. Which is pretty accurate. DA:II WAS a great game for the vast majority of it, with just a few major cock-ups.

Now lets look at the user average for it: 44%
That's total bullshit. There is absolutely no way that DA:II was more bad than good, anyone who says it was it either not a fan of that type of RPG or looked at the flaws first and refused to acknowledge the positives.
And that's an average which means there's a whole load of users putting up 0s and 1s just to bomb the rating.

 

[NPC009]

But not all have the same discipline, as examples with some of the major game news publications have shown before, sadly. I suppose it is just another factor to keep an eye on.

It is. Saddest thing is, the publications that do resort to this are probably doing so in order to survive. Though it's hard to forgive websites going as far as firing an employee to save their ass. Actually, it's impossible. It's a stupid move that only hurts the press in the long run.

That is true, but what happens when a reviewer humanizes the publishers more then their audience? To me this seems a big factor in recent controversies, as so many journalists resorted to the worst stereotypes of their audience with total conviction, showing they lost touch with who they were suppose to be making reviews for and possibly explaining in part why the decline in review quality was occurring in the first place.

A good reviewers respects both creators and readers, but only to the level they deserve respect. I think it's justified to call out the bad apples. A good reviewer should be smart enough to also throw some praise in the direction of those who deserve, and of course, not to get carried away with either reprimanding or praising.

I've seen many critics and journalists get carried away last year and it's no wonder gamers are upset. Those generalisations were terrible. On the other hand, gamers making sweeping generalisations and labeling all who are associated with the press the enemy hurts. I love my job, but seeing all that hate made me consider finally giving up. I mean, I don't earn much money (I can pay the bills and that's pretty much it) and the reason I love writing about games is because I love sharing the excitement that follows when I play a good one. If that love of sharing is no longer there, there is no meaning in continuing what I do.

To be fair, I was thinking the opposite was true. We've seen many large publications being caught with such conflict of interests already, and it makes sense why the publishers would target the larger, more influential publications for that sort of treatment. Journalists with unique flags or merchandise, selling replica guns and the like seem to pop up time and again. Compare that to youtubers who are smaller, and have to fight terms of early release copies ascribed to them.

But it does seem to depend on the place of the publication and how involved the publishers are with the press.

I'm sure some of the more visible ones are offered nice things at events and the like, where there is no editor to act as a filter. It's not unusual for big game publishers to run a VIP area at events, and while most gifts there come in the form of food and drinks, I don't doubt there are some extra exclusive goodies to be given away as well, such as extravagant press kits. Publishers also have plenty of opportunity to hand reviewers something when they're on location (which may be a luxury hotel).

(I honestly don't like events and reviews on location. Nothing beats playing a game at home, in your own comfy chair, with your own favourite drinks and snack nearby. Fortunately I play mostly low-mid profile titles and publishers are happy to send out regular review copies/codes for those.)

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Reviewers jumping on the hype train is shitty, but user reviews are far, far worse. Just look at IMDB, or just about any site that lets users post reviews. Even aside from the very often appalling structure, lack of understanding how a score scale is supposed to work and even basic grammar, and the occasional smug film school prick whose text just reeks of self-satisfaction, they're for the most part absolutely worthless. Just because you (not referring to you OP, just people in general) disagree with the review sorely, or because the game has technical issues that can be patched (cough Diablo III) does not mean the reviewer is biased and a ***** of the corporations. If I bothered to follow user review consensus on, say, Metacritic for example, I'm pretty sure I'd be puking my guts out on a regular basis at all the man-children screaming "IT SUKZ!!!! IT SHIT!!! WURST GAEM EVUR!!!!!" at the AAA release du jour.

I hardly even bother with individual reviews anymore. ZP is the only one I watch on a regular basis, plus the occasional big AAA release on Gametrailers. General reviewer consensus has almost always been reliable in helping to decide if a game might be worth money or not.

 

[NiPah]

snip

So find a reviewer that is annoyed by everything you're annoyed by and you should be set.

 

[RandV80]

Hey did you here about that doofus that gave Dragon Age 2 5/5? What a goof!

Seriously though, I can see how it works if professional reviewers tend to view stuff like graphics and sound and what not. You can't deny that all these AAA games have high production value and get a whole lot of things right on the grading scale. Take a much 'user' maligned game like Watch Dogs and give it to yourself 20 years ago, and you'd be blown away how amazing it is. I'm not saying gamers are spoiled, but we've become so used to/conditioned to this level of production value that it's easy to look past all the amazing things the game does and throw it on the trash heap, maybe go and play Shovel Knight instead.

Personally I like the Steam user rating system. Just a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, a blurb short or long by the user, and the part I really like their time logged on playing game. Takes away the extreme ends of the ratings system, which gamers can't be trusted with, and just gives you an impression whether a game is good or not and how much value you may get out of it.