Reviewers jumping on the hype train

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And how do you recognise an opinion that's not true? Is it's an opinion that is very different from yours?

What I'm gathering from your posts is that you want reviewers to have stronger opinions. Not just saying 'This is a bad game, you probably shouldn't buy it' but go all the way to 'this is a bad game, it is an insult to gaming and gamers!' Sure, it's fun to see people like Yahtzee verbally destroy games, but I don't think it should be the standard. Even bad game tend to have atleast some merits and we should acknowlegde those. If every starts tearing disappointing games a new one things will just seem much worse than they actually are. Not very helpful.

This seem to be a good moment to go back to Spec Ops for a bit. I personally didn't think the mechanics or gameplay as a whole were bad. Underwhelming would be a good word fot it, but aside from a few difficult patches the game wasn't frustrating to play. I'd say the gameplay was good enough for what it was trying to do: support the story. That's why most reviewers didn't have much of an issue with it. Heck, if I recall correctly atleast several reviewers called the gameplay a bit too fun and wondered if being punished for enjoying shooting enemies was harming or hurting the message the game was trying to send.

When you go to IGN see a 9.0 and immediately know GameSpot's review is going to be basically an 8.5 since GameSpot is generally 0.5 lower than IGN is when I know the numbers representing the reviewers' opinions aren't true opinions. People don't agree with each other on anything nearly as much as game reviewers agree with each other, like I said it has much more to do with human nature than math, I merely use math to represent how different games are scored compared to say movies. Just among friends as well as fellow Escapists here, opinions of games vary greatly. I know my friends are disliking/liking games for valid reasons, same with most Escapists. Basically, I'm not even recognizing those user reviews that are 0s, 1s, 10s on Metacritic so I'm not at all saying there's something wrong because there's quite a big difference between the Metacritic score and user score. Although I do feel there is quite a difference between gamers and game reviewers and how each do feel about a game. I bet you'd get quite a different average user score of a game here on the Escapist vs professional review average where no one here would be review bombing the user score. I do think that is an issue because I do feel gamers want more criticism and probably most gamers no longer even look at review scores because they know how messed up the whole thing is. I find great value in movie reviews whereas I find no value in professional game reviews (outside a very select few reviewers).

I don't know where you get that I wanna see games thrown under the bus with scathing reviews because I don't unless it is merited. Giving a game a 4/10 shouldn't seem like the game is horrible. Of course, a 4/10 review currently would make someone think the game is pure garbage and that's a problem reviewers have made themselves. Yahtzee mainly "destroys" games for humor purposes. When he actually does talk about gameplay, his criticism is usually valid. You have to kinda read between the lines of a Yahtzee review (because it's not really a review); if he hates on a game for everything other than gameplay, then the game is probably good. For example, his Uncharted 2 review is very negative but shows up as one of the better games of the year (in an Extra Punctuation column [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/7003-Best-of-2009.2]). I actually think Yahtzee would be a great reviewer if he did real reviews.

There's plenty of variance in a gameplay being "bad" as well. I only tried playing the demo of Spec Ops and found the shooting to be below average and not worth my time, not that the gameplay was unplayable or frustrating. Technically, then the shooting would be bad in my opinion. It wasn't bad to the degree it was horrible and needs to be torn apart, it was merely below average bad. Again, my opinion is that I can get the good parts of Spec Ops from other mediums minus the below average gamaplay, so why should I play Spec Ops then? Of course, that doesn't mean I think every review should be below 5 either; hell, I didn't even play the game. It depends on how much the story and gameplay are weighted by each reviewer. Is the story so good that it carries the "bad" gameplay and makes the game overall good? Every reviewer will have a different take on that.

That's strange. Most high profile titles I checked get atleast both positive and mixed reviews. And while you do find negative reviews among the ones written by users, most of those red scores seem to be 0s given out of spite. For example, 1/3 of the negative user reviews for Watch Dogs give a 0. There are also some 1s and 2s that seem to be written by otherwise perfectly reasonable people who wanted to adjust the overall score to something they would have given in the game outside of Metacritic.

Anyway, you should not forget what triple A actually means: a game with a high budget made by experienced people. The term came into use in the nineties to distinguish high profile titles from shovelware, cheaply made licensed game and other practices gamers and serious developers weren't proud or fond of. Games were triple A because they rated highly.

What changed was that developers, publishers, journalists and even gamers in general started calling games triple A based solely on expectations. Most games still managed to deliver, but you see duds here and there. Keep in mind that this is a fairly recent change. If I'd had to pinpoint a period, I'd say a little after the PS3 and Xbox 360 launched. Is it really that surprising to most triple A games are good games?

Like I said above, I'm not at all even recognizing those kind of user reviewers just hating the game or thinking the game is 10/10 perfect. I'm not comparing the user score with the Metacritic score. I'm mainly comparing professional game scores with professional review scores of other mediums to signify the huge difference.

I think AAA started as a marketing buzz term and just ended up becoming commonplace. Games are not AAA because they are rated highly, it's because they have big budgets. If say Destiny got even more panned and was reviewed as bad, it would still be a AAA game because of its budget. Some may even say Destiny was reviewed as bad due to how people feel about 6 and 7 review scores.

I don't have a problem with AAA games having more good games than say non-AAA games. The problem is that they are all rated as good (with a very very rare occasional exception). Even Duke Nukem Forever is above 50 overall score.

I think that's the divide we are starting to see now: many people still want games just to be fun. They may even get annoyed by or angry at games that aspire to be a little more than pure entertainment. On the other hand there seems to be a growing group of gamers and critics who want games to be more than fun. They appreciate games like Gone Home for trying something new and may even find the original price acceptable.

Entertainment should be enjoyable. With any other medium, there are the works that are "fun" and the works that aspire to be more than just fun. Film has plenty of fun, popcorn movies. It's not like fun games are going to go away, fun sells in games, movies, etc. Every medium should have works that aspire to be more than just fun, but that doesn't mean every work has to be "arty" and have a message. I appreciate both kinds equally I feel as sometimes you're in the mood for something just fun and other times you want more substance, something fun can have a good deal of substance as well, they aren't mutually exclusive.

I absolutely agree with you there. Back when Metacritic and Gamerankings were fairly new, I saw the sites as great services to consumers. Finding a varity of reviews of for a particular game had never been so easy! Sadly several groups started valuing the aggregate scores too. Consumers looking only at the score instead of the reviews, and publishers handing out bonuses to developers that achieved scores consumers liked.

I feel there was more review variance just from EGM's 3-person review system way back than there is now with over 50 reviews of a game.

But what if that one lowpoint isn't low enough to justify a lower score (from the reviewer's point of view)? I've seen it happen.

Actually, I've got an example. When Tetris appeared in the 3DS VC I wasn't thrilled. Old-school Gameboy Tetris is nice on it's own, but I grew up playing the multiplayer and they had left it out of the VC release. As a result the game felt very lacking; half of it was gone! Most of my fellow (who never played the multiplayer much) disagreed: the clever mechanics and legacy of the game were enough to hand out one of the highest score we could give.

Would you say the other reviewers' opinions weren't 'true'? They considered the value of the MP and came to the conclusion that its absence had no effect on the value of the game. Isn't the fact that they did take it into consideration enough?

I think comparing a new game with multiplayer with a re-release of a game missing its multiplayer is 2 different things. If it's part of the game, it has to factor into the score no matter how little or how big. Now with a re-release missing a feature is different territory. Of course, it should be mentioned in the review but whether it should affect the score is another thing since it isn't actually part of the game (even though it was before).

Asking for a below average review does not equal tearing apart the game, it just means below average. Below average is not the end of the world.

But many people do treat it as such. I can't blame reviewers for wanting to take a more moderate stance on things. Again, this has something to do with their frame of reference as well. When Superman 64 and those quick buck early access Steam disasters (very poorly put together and unplayable games that barely offer anything in terms of content) are 1s, it doesn't feel right to give something like Final Fantasy XIII or Watch Dogs a 4. While these games were (major) disappointments, they're still fully playable games with some good ideas that were decently executed. (Against tougher bosses Final Fantasy XIII's battlesystem is a thing of beauty, instead of micromanaging each individual character you guide the flow of battle with timing and insight. Too bad the system rarely gets a chance to shine during all those regular encounters...)

People would treat a below average review (below a 5) as tearing the game apart because of game reviewers themselves. Most people already feel any game below an 8 is not worth playing due to score inflation. Whereas people don't immediately write off a movie that gets a rotten rating on RottenTomatoes. That's why quite a few people thought Jim Sterling just gave negative reviews to get views and I believe even Metacritic didn't put his reviews up for a time. I still don't get why Watch Dogs was a disappointment (outside of graphics), it's basically 3rd-person FarCry, which is better than GTA IMO. I think there was more hate for FFXIII for story/characters and the fact the game takes so long to "get good". I haven't played it myself (I haven't liked a single FF game though) but I definitely read stuff saying it doesn't get good until 20 hours or so in. Just from watching my friend play it, the battle system seems better than most FF games as I hate standard FF turn-based combat.

 

[Sarge034]

... Of course, in reality it doesn't work quite like that, because:
- Magazines and websites focus on reviewing games most gamers are interested in. Gamers become interested in games because they look good. As a result we see more positive than negative scores. (They're cherry picking, you could say)
- Grading scales vary from site to site. I've seen sites that use an academic scale were 55% = F. As a result they have many reviews with a score of 70% or higher.

So even if you put all those numbers together you won't get a lovely logical bell curve. All those numbers are and will ever be are numbers that sort of mean words.

Ah, I think that's where many reviewers/publications and readers have a disconnect. I can't speak for everyone, but everyone I've personally spoken to doesn't want a bell curve. They want a "static system" of measurement and to just let games fall where they will. 1 being an unplayable and unredeemable pile of shit, 10 being the game is literally delivered to you by the hand of god, and 5 being in the middle. If we try to use the bell curve system then games will only continue to receive higher and higher scores because, let's face it, Ride To Hell was shit but it was nicer looking shit than the same quality shit produced two console gens ago.

I'm not against numbers, but I do feel many are using them wrong.

My issue with numbers is that it's gotten to the point they have no meaning. It's a personal review without context. I mean that's the only way I can justify games like Destiny and Titanfall receiving such high numeric reviews and then seeing so many issues brought up in the written article. I don't know, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to go back to grading the game in categories. IE; story, music, graphics, controls, and enjoyment. Because at least then those two games could have been better rated. Graphics and controls are 9/10 no doubt, but story... not so much.

That's what I aim for when I write a review. There's not enough room on a page (500-600 words in most magazines) to go into every detail, but I always try to provide examples of what does and doesn't work. And I try to explain why I did or didn't like the game. That could be something more abstract than how the game works. Monster Hunter for example. While controls are responsive, they're also quite complex and in some cases the controllers/handheld systems doesn't have enough buttons to allow for comfortable play (like having to hold your hand like a claw to control both camera and movement). They can also be insanely rewarding games to play. It feels great when you use perfectly aimed attacks to finally bring your a tough monster, craft your newely gained materials into a powerful weapon or piece of armour, and actually see the result on your character. If I can convey that sense of excitement to the reader, I think I did a pretty good job

From my experience these are also the reviewers most readers find most helpful. I review a lot of niche games in unusual genres. I know the subject matter will be new to many and I have to take that into account. Take the Etrian Odyssey series. Explaining that it's a dungeon crawler with various classes is just half the review. Many readers won't have the frame of referance needed to put that info to good use. They'll lose interest and go read about something else, forgetting about Etrian Odyssey. But if I can explain the thrill of exploring the labyrinth using maps you draw yourself, people will keep reading and maybe even say: "It's not something I'd normally play, but I want to try this sometime."

Those are some of the best review so thanks for doing what you can! I will say I usually watch Jim Sterling's reviews because he usually tries to give things a fair shake while also not being afraid to call out bullshit where it is. And ZP is great for knowing all the flaws a game has because if Yahtzee doesn't talk about it you can assume it was average or good.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. Insight is never a bad thing.

 

[NPC009]

When you go to IGN see a 9.0 and immediately know GameSpot's review is going to be basically an 8.5 since GameSpot is generally 0.5 lower than IGN is when I know the numbers representing the reviewers' opinions aren't true opinions. People don't agree with each other on anything nearly as much as game reviewers agree with each other, like I said it has much more to do with human nature than math, I merely use math to represent how different games are scored compared to say movies. Just among friends as well as fellow Escapists here, opinions of games vary greatly. I know my friends are disliking/liking games for valid reasons, same with most Escapists.

I feel there was more review variance just from EGM's 3-person review system way back than there is now with over 50 reviews of a game.

Reviewers are often only assigned games they have some affinity with. Readers like reading reviews from people who know what they're are talking about, so editors are reluctant to hand a FPS to JRPG Gal or an old-school point & click adventure to Action Dude. Reviewers end up focusing on readers with the same affinity, leaving gamers looking to leave their comfortzone underrepresented.

That's one of the reasons why I like magazines and sites that offer 'second opinions'. Sadly, there are tons of logistic and financial problems getting in the way of such set-up. For instance, in the olden days reviewers would play games at the office. It was easy to ask a coworker to plop down on the sofa and give the new piece of software a whirl. Nowadays many of us work from home and home may be hundreds of miles away from the office. Plus, mags/website often get only one review copy.

Now, could say: invest in extra copies then! Well, that's too expensive. And it's not just those extra copies that have to be paid for. Many reviewers are freelancers and we do want (and need!) to get paid for every bit of work we do. Websites simply don't have the cash to pay for all those extra reviews.

I think AAA started as a marketing buzz term and just ended up becoming commonplace. Games are not AAA because they are rated highly, it's because they have big budgets. If say Destiny got even more panned and was reviewed as bad, it would still be a AAA game because of its budget. Some may even say Destiny was reviewed as bad due to how people feel about 6 and 7 review scores.

I don't have a problem with AAA games having more good games than say non-AAA games. The problem is that they are all rated as good (with a very very rare occasional exception). Even Duke Nukem Forever is above 50 overall score.

If we only considered the most recent meaning of the term, you would be correct, but triple A did mean 'great game' once.

As for 50~ being good, again: grading scales and frame of reference. In/on the magazines and sites I write for anything under a 60 usually means "Better stay away from this one unless you're absolutely certain this is your kind of game."

I don't know where you get that I wanna see games thrown under the bus with scathing reviews because I don't unless it is merited. Giving a game a 4/10 shouldn't seem like the game is horrible. Of course, a 4/10 review currently would make someone think the game is pure garbage and that's a problem reviewers have made themselves.

While I asbotely agree everyone should use the full grading scale and not just the positive part, we should save part of it to grade the varying shades of bad.

I think it's reasonable to say anything under a 5 usually isn't worth your time and money. Not just now, but also in an ideal setting were the whole scale is being used.

There's plenty of variance in a gameplay being "bad" as well. I only tried playing the demo of Spec Ops and found the shooting to be below average and not worth my time, not that the gameplay was unplayable or frustrating. Technically, then the shooting would be bad in my opinion. It wasn't bad to the degree it was horrible and needs to be torn apart, it was merely below average bad. Again, my opinion is that I can get the good parts of Spec Ops from other mediums minus the below average gamaplay, so why should I play Spec Ops then? Of course, that doesn't mean I think every review should be below 5 either; hell, I didn't even play the game. It depends on how much the story and gameplay are weighted by each reviewer. Is the story so good that it carries the "bad" gameplay and makes the game overall good? Every reviewer will have a different take on that.

To each his own, but if you ever get an urge to fully play Spec Ops: The Line, it should be because gameplay, story and themes come together in a way that wouldn't be possible in any other medium

Entertainment should be enjoyable. With any other medium, there are the works that are "fun" and the works that aspire to be more than just fun. Film has plenty of fun, popcorn movies. It's not like fun games are going to go away, fun sells in games, movies, etc. Every medium should have works that aspire to be more than just fun, but that doesn't mean every work has to be "arty" and have a message. I appreciate both kinds equally I feel as sometimes you're in the mood for something just fun and other times you want more substance, something fun can have a good deal of substance as well, they aren't mutually exclusive.

I think we agree on this. Problem is, there isn't much of a balance yet between 'art' and 'fun' and how we, both regular gamers and professional reviewers, appreciate them. I'm sure this will sort itself out in the future, and it will be interesting to see exactly how that will happen.

I think comparing a new game with multiplayer with a re-release of a game missing its multiplayer is 2 different things. If it's part of the game, it has to factor into the score no matter how little or how big. Now with a re-release missing a feature is different territory. Of course, it should be mentioned in the review but whether it should affect the score is another thing since it isn't actually part of the game (even though it was before).

No, I think they're pretty similar. It's not uncommon for games to be rated not just based on what they are, but also one what the user thinks they should have been. "It would have been better if..." Sounds familiar, right? I try to avoid it as much as possible, but absence can be a flaw. Or atleast feel like one. At the same time, something present that doesn't distract or add from or to the game may be safely ignored. It all depends on the user.

People would treat a below average review (below a 5) as tearing the game apart because of game reviewers themselves. Most people already feel any game below an 8 is not worth playing due to score inflation. Whereas people don't immediately write off a movie that gets a rotten rating on RottenTomatoes. That's why quite a few people thought Jim Sterling just gave negative reviews to get views and I believe even Metacritic didn't put his reviews up for a time.

I think it's unfair to place the blame solely on reviewers. We're the ones getting flack from readers for giving games scores they feel are too low, even when they haven't played the game yet.

I also think comparing movies and games is often like comparing apples and oranges. Both require a different level of investment. For instance, a typical new game costs anywhere between $20-$60 and most are atleast five hours long. Cinema tickets are much cheaper and most movies are less than two hours in length. If you wait long enough and you won't have to worry about the price difference anymore, but the games will still ask you for those 5+ hours. And unlike movies, you can't passively wait until they're over.

I still don't get why Watch Dogs was a disappointment (outside of graphics), it's basically 3rd-person FarCry, which is better than GTA IMO. I think there was more hate for FFXIII for story/characters and the fact the game takes so long to "get good". I haven't played it myself (I haven't liked a single FF game though) but I definitely read stuff saying it doesn't get good until 20 hours or so in. Just from watching my friend play it, the battle system seems better than most FF games as I hate standard FF turn-based combat.

Watch Dogs: people were upset because the game didn't live up to ridicuously high expectations. They were hoping for something truly spectacular and got a regular good (or great even) game instead.

Final Fantasy XIII: Lots of jokes about the game playing itself when it came out. Criticisms of the story and characters were mostly valid, though. The game focuses a lot on making things look cool but its all quite superficial.

 

[NPC009]

Ah, I think that's where many reviewers/publications and readers have a disconnect. I can't speak for everyone, but everyone I've personally spoken to doesn't want a bell curve. They want a "static system" of measurement and to just let games fall where they will. 1 being an unplayable and unredeemable pile of shit, 10 being the game is literally delivered to you by the hand of god, and 5 being in the middle. If we try to use the bell curve system then games will only continue to receive higher and higher scores because, let's face it, Ride To Hell was shit but it was nicer looking shit than the same quality shit produced two console gens ago.

Maybe it's just my mathemathical tendencies, but when I imagine 'let them fall where they will' I imagine the bean machine/Galton board ^_^'

And hey, bell curves can be adjusted. For instance: the avarage IQ is being kept at 100 despite people getting smarter.

My issue with numbers is that it's gotten to the point they have no meaning. It's a personal review without context. I mean that's the only way I can justify games like Destiny and Titanfall receiving such high numeric reviews and then seeing so many issues brought up in the written article. I don't know, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to go back to grading the game in categories. IE; story, music, graphics, controls, and enjoyment. Because at least then those two games could have been better rated. Graphics and controls are 9/10 no doubt, but story... not so much.

Systems like that have their own weaknesses. They portray games as being the sum of several aspects instead of the whole product it is. Another problem is that not all aspects are equally important in every game (you don't play Tetris for its story or a visual novel for its gameplay), which may result in subscores that don't reflect the overall quality of the game. Lastly, there may not be a clear line between two aspects. For instance, in a rhythm game the music could be seen as part of the gameplay.

Those are some of the best review so thanks for doing what you can! I will say I usually watch Jim Sterling's reviews because he usually tries to give things a fair shake while also not being afraid to call out bullshit where it is. And ZP is great for knowing all the flaws a game has because if Yahtzee doesn't talk about it you can assume it was average or good.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. Insight is never a bad thing.

One 'thank you' for the compliment and another for keeping this discussion civil and interesting. I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Reviewers are often only assigned games they have some affinity with. Readers like reading reviews from people who know what they're are talking about, so editors are reluctant to hand a FPS to JRPG Gal or an old-school point & click adventure to Action Dude. Reviewers end up focusing on readers with the same affinity, leaving gamers looking to leave their comfortzone underrepresented.

That's one of the reasons why I like magazines and sites that offer 'second opinions'. Sadly, there are tons of logistic and financial problems getting in the way of such set-up. For instance, in the olden days reviewers would play games at the office. It was easy to ask a coworker to plop down on the sofa and give the new piece of software a whirl. Nowadays many of us work from home and home may be hundreds of miles away from the office. Plus, mags/website often get only one review copy.

Now, could say: invest in extra copies then! Well, that's too expensive. And it's not just those extra copies that have to be paid for. Many reviewers are freelancers and we do want (and need!) to get paid for every bit of work we do. Websites simply don't have the cash to pay for all those extra reviews.

I expect a review variance on a say FPS even if all the reviewers were hardcore FPS players. I think the hardcore players are even harder on "their" games than other players. The opening post of this thread was about Diablo 3. I very much doubt the hardcore Diablo player community would end up rating Diablo 3 at 88. Like I said, most of the time people disagree with each other.

As for 50~ being good, again: grading scales and frame of reference. In/on the magazines and sites I write for anything under a 60 usually means "Better stay away from this one unless you're absolutely certain this is your kind of game."

And, that's one of the problems. No other medium scores its art on that scale. Only schools use that system because students should know more than half the content to pass. A doctor only knowing half his studies would be a bad doctor, not an average doctor.

I think it's reasonable to say anything under a 5 usually isn't worth your time and money. Not just now, but also in an ideal setting were the whole scale is being used.

I agree. I'm not really asking for games to have a nice 50/50 split of good and bad scores either. A few reviewers may feel like a game isn't worth your time while most reviewers felt it was worth there time thus the average would be well over a 5. It's the complete absence negative reviews. I'm sure many reviewers felt FFXIII was probably not worth its time and below average RPG, yet only Jim Sterling's negative review exists. You even said FFXIII has plenty of flaws, an 83 doesn't really convey that at all.

To each his own, but if you ever get an urge to fully play Spec Ops: The Line, it should be because gameplay, story and themes come together in a way that wouldn't be possible in any other medium

I may, as I can play it for free (PS+) but my backlog has several more games that I want to play more, not to mention trying to keep up with new releases as well.

I think we agree on this. Problem is, there isn't much of a balance yet between 'art' and 'fun' and how we, both regular gamers and professional reviewers, appreciate them. I'm sure this will sort itself out in the future, and it will be interesting to see exactly how that will happen.

I think the medium mainly needs better writing for this to happen. There's no reason you can't have a gripping story in a shooter.

No, I think they're pretty similar. It's not uncommon for games to be rated not just based on what they are, but also one what the user thinks they should have been. "It would have been better if..." Sounds familiar, right? I try to avoid it as much as possible, but absence can be a flaw. Or atleast feel like one. At the same time, something present that doesn't distract or add from or to the game may be safely ignored. It all depends on the user.

I wasn't saying absence can't be a flaw. My one friend definitely would've found Dragon's Dogma a better game (same for me) with 4-player co-op even though it's not part of the game as it would've been awesome and fit into the game perfectly. I still feel if it's in the game, it should count towards the overall score even if you want to weigh it at 1% and basically ignore it. Uncharted does try to deliver a good multiplayer experience though, it's not just tacked on just to be there. Even the Uncharted 2 demo was a co-op demo. So I definitely feel Uncharted's overall score should have decent weight to the MP. I don't have an issue with the single player and MP being reviewed separately though as they can easily be seen as 2 different games because MP is a very different beast than single player most often.

I think it's unfair to place the blame solely on reviewers. We're the ones getting flack from readers for giving games scores they feel are too low, even when they haven't played the game yet.

I also think comparing movies and games is often like comparing apples and oranges. Both require a different level of investment. For instance, a typical new game costs anywhere between $20-$60 and most are atleast five hours long. Cinema tickets are much cheaper and most movies are less than two hours in length. If you wait long enough and you won't have to worry about the price difference anymore, but the games will still ask you for those 5+ hours. And unlike movies, you can't passively wait until they're over.

I do think it is mainly the reviewers' fault for scores becoming so inflated. I don't remember so much talk about scores when they were lower, I don't recall readers asking for higher scores then. Now, I definitely think the current problem is also due to gamers obsessing over scores, but I do think reviewers laid the foundation for this to happen.

I know movies and games are different beasts. People just don't agree nearly as often on anything as game reviewers agree with each other. No other medium has criticism anywhere close to games. A TV show can easily end up taking up more time than a game or a series of books as well.

Final Fantasy XIII: Lots of jokes about the game playing itself when it came out. Criticisms of the story and characters were mostly valid, though. The game focuses a lot on making things look cool but its all quite superficial.

My feeling on FF is that it always could play itself. Put the gambit system from FFXII into any previous FF game and it would play itself. To me, that means the turn-based combat isn't strategic enough to be good. If a few if-then-else statements (the gambits) is all it takes for the game to play itself, it was never strategic to begin with. Bad turn-based combat makes me feel like I'm using a computer program (constantly in menus) instead of playing a game. Yes, Lightning is below 25% health, I know she needs a heal; I don't see why automating that is so bad.

 

[NPC009]

I expect a review variance on a say FPS even if all the reviewers were hardcore FPS players. I think the hardcore players are even harder on "their" games than other players. The opening post of this thread was about Diablo 3. I very much doubt the hardcore Diablo player community would end up rating Diablo 3 at 88. Like I said, most of the time people disagree with each other.

I don't know. From my experience reviewers with similar tastes rate games in similar ways. Also, the hardcore games of certain games in particular are often the odd ducks. They'll spend hundreds of hours on a game and stumble on the smallest details most players won't notice.

And, that's one of the problems. No other medium scores its art on that scale. Only schools use that system because students should know more than half the content to pass. A doctor only knowing half his studies would be a bad doctor, not an average doctor.

Most mediums don't have fans that care about intricate rating systems, they'll just use simple systems like 1-5 stars, where 3 stars will still mean average.

As for you other example, that doesn't quite work. In school they are students. The ones who are good enough go on to be doctors, the bad ones who failed their exams do not.

I agree. I'm not really asking for games to have a nice 50/50 split of good and bad scores either. A few reviewers may feel like a game isn't worth your time while most reviewers felt it was worth there time thus the average would be well over a 5. It's the complete absence negative reviews. I'm sure many reviewers felt FFXIII was probably not worth its time and below average RPG, yet only Jim Sterling's negative review exists. You even said FFXIII has plenty of flaws, an 83 doesn't really convey that at all.

I too think people were a bit too easily impressed by that game, but in the case of Final Fantasy XIII it may have had a lot to do with the context. While there were other Japanese RPG available when Final Fantasy XIII was released, it was Final Fantasy XIII that showed that the genre could compete in the big league. The game felt very next-gen, which was something people had been waiting for for years.

On the other, while many critisms are valid, Final Fantasy XIII did do many things right and I'm not surprised most reviewers enjoyed the game as much as they did.

I may, as I can play it for free (PS+) but my backlog has several more games that I want to play more, not to mention trying to keep up with new releases as well.

For what it's worth: isn't very long (I completed it in 8 hours or so and I'm not all that great at shooters) and even if you end up disliking it, you'll have played an interesting example of storytelling in games.

I think the medium mainly needs better writing for this to happen. There's no reason you can't have a gripping story in a shooter.

Very true. Though developers of shooters have it rough (many publishers would love their title to usurp CoD's throne), I'm sure we'll see more examples of shooters with strong stories in the future. It's just a matter of time, especially now that the triple A industry is struggling.

I wasn't saying absence can't be a flaw. My one friend definitely would've found Dragon's Dogma a better game (same for me) with 4-player co-op even though it's not part of the game as it would've been awesome and fit into the game perfectly. I still feel if it's in the game, it should count towards the overall score even if you want to weigh it at 1% and basically ignore it. Uncharted does try to deliver a good multiplayer experience though, it's not just tacked on just to be there. Even the Uncharted 2 demo was a co-op demo. So I definitely feel Uncharted's overall score should have decent weight to the MP. I don't have an issue with the single player and MP being reviewed separately though as they can easily be seen as 2 different games because MP is a very different beast than single player most often.

That's a good point. The MP and SP can be extremely different, different to the point where gamers but it for either the one or the other. I guess that in the case of Uncharted reviewers were impressed regardless of the MP and that this shaped their reviews and scores, because I have seen reviews of other games in which the MP weighed more heavily. Spec Ops: The Line would be one of them.

I do think it is mainly the reviewers' fault for scores becoming so inflated. I don't remember so much talk about scores when they were lower, I don't recall readers asking for higher scores then. Now, I definitely think the current problem is also due to gamers obsessing over scores, but I do think reviewers laid the foundation for this to happen.

The discussions were much lighter back when the internet wasn't much of a thing, but even back then I saw letters in magazines written by gamers who disagreed with scores. I remember one magazine having a page for reader reviews. The advent of aggregator sites certainly escalated things, though.

I know movies and games are different beasts. People just don't agree nearly as often on anything as game reviewers agree with each other. No other medium has criticism anywhere close to games. A TV show can easily end up taking up more time than a game or a series of books as well.

I think this is partly because of how industries are structured. At the rate games come out, it's practically impossible to keep up with the major releases, let alone keep an eye on smaller and indie titles as well. So, for better or worse, reviewers specialise, meaning the same types of people will review the same games again and again. It's much easier for a film critic to view nearly every big release and even try some independent and foreign movies on the side.

As for tv shows, I think rating these is still fairly new. Sure, they've had little blurbs in tv guides since forever, but it's only been since the introduction of dvd boxsets that reviewing entire series became a thing. It seems to early to review those reviews.

I want to move this discussion further along by asking you: how would you improve gaming journalism while keeping in mind the (very) limited resources of websites and magazines?

 

[Evilsausage]

I expect a review variance on a say FPS even if all the reviewers were hardcore FPS players. I think the hardcore players are even harder on "their" games than other players. The opening post of this thread was about Diablo 3. I very much doubt the hardcore Diablo player community would end up rating Diablo 3 at 88. Like I said, most of the time people disagree with each other.

I don't know. From my experience reviewers with similar tastes rate games in similar ways. Also, the hardcore games of certain games in particular are often the odd ducks. They'll spend hundreds of hours on a game and stumble on the smallest details most players won't notice.

In the case of Diablo 3 it wheren't exacly small bugs.
Even if the reviewers didn't rate it on lots of hours played, Diablo 3 didn't exacly offer a great story either.
Usually ARPGs is based on the fun of looting, but that can't be it either...since D3 had a horrible loot system at start. Horrible Epic items and overall really bad chance to get decent loot.
So what was it based on? First of Diablo 3 wasn't all bad i have to admit, pretty fun at slaughtering mobs, most likey they guessed Diablo 3 would offer more in the end game(which they had not played yet). Sadly it didn't, all its flaws became very noticable.
My guess D3 had not been so highly praised if it had not been so hyped. Reviewers based the game on what they thought it would be (it was after all Blizzard) and ignored many warning signs.

This also become very noticable later on. Look at the console version, its usually seen as the better version.
Direct Control system which works nicely, no Online DRM, no auction house etc...Yet its rated lower then the PC version.
As if the reviewers at that Point already knows its not so fantastic, even if its technically better then the PC version.


Personally I Think a reviewer should atleast try to look a bit deeper when reviewing things. If Reviewers fail with having similar oppinions then what the buyers have. Then they are missleading and does their job poorly.
Note I don't blame single reviewers for giving D3 a good score, but it becomes weird when most of them does. Which highly goes against what many think.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't know. From my experience reviewers with similar tastes rate games in similar ways. Also, the hardcore games of certain games in particular are often the odd ducks. They'll spend hundreds of hours on a game and stumble on the smallest details most players won't notice.

As a hardcore TPS player, I would tear Uncharted apart with its unsound TPS mechanics whereas a casual shooter gamer probably wouldn't. Stuff like no camera sensitivity option (in all 3 Uncharteds) is a huge no-no for any shooter (thus you can't aim in the manner you would like, which is rather important) plus Uncharted's camera is so sluggish, circle for both roll and cover has never work (context sensitive controls never do), Uncharted does not have a proper shoulder swap (you can't aim initially off your left shoulder), etc. Now, I would still give Uncharted a positive review but an 8/10 is like the highest I'm going to go because of such simple mistakes. Those mechanical issues don't impact single player that much but they make MP nearly unplayable (playing against AI and humans are two very different things). That's pretty much what I mean about players that specialize in a genre being more critical. Seriously, the no camera sensitivity option in a shooter just shouldn't be done, that should be in Uncharted reviews but it's not.

Most mediums don't have fans that care about intricate rating systems, they'll just use simple systems like 1-5 stars, where 3 stars will still mean average.

As for you other example, that doesn't quite work. In school they are students. The ones who are good enough go on to be doctors, the bad ones who failed their exams do not.

3 stars is still better for average than 7/10.

I was saying if all you needed to pass and become a doctor was scoring 50% in classes and on tests, there'd be a lot of bad doctors.

I too think people were a bit too easily impressed by that game, but in the case of Final Fantasy XIII it may have had a lot to do with the context. While there were other Japanese RPG available when Final Fantasy XIII was released, it was Final Fantasy XIII that showed that the genre could compete in the big league. The game felt very next-gen, which was something people had been waiting for for years.

On the other, while many critisms are valid, Final Fantasy XIII did do many things right and I'm not surprised most reviewers enjoyed the game as much as they did.

FFXIII wasn't even the best JRPG that came out on its day of release. Resonance of Fate released the same day, great marketing decision Sega!!!

The discussions were much lighter back when the internet wasn't much of a thing, but even back then I saw letters in magazines written by gamers who disagreed with scores. I remember one magazine having a page for reader reviews. The advent of aggregator sites certainly escalated things, though.

You're always going to have readers complain about reviews regardless of what you are reviewing, you can't give in to "re-doing" a review or giving higher scores to other games.

I want to move this discussion further along by asking you: how would you improve gaming journalism while keeping in mind the (very) limited resources of websites and magazines?

I think there should be far more analysis of games vs the shooting is good so this shooter is a good game. We've come to the point that a developer competently making a shooter is a given most of the time. Naughty Dog made a decent shooter with the 1st Uncharted their first try, Bioware (an RPG dev) made a competent TPS with Mass Effect 2 and 3. Think back to how poor TPSs were before PS3/360, they were quite abysmal and usually were dependent on a lock-on mechanic instead of free-aim because the aiming sucked. A game like Syphon Filter on PS1 had bad aiming, even though it was good for its time, I still knew aiming could be much improved. I even played the original cover TPS, Winback, TPSs have come so far. It was actually RE4 that caused quite an improvement in 3rd-person shooting vs an actual TPS. I think a shooter just being good at shooting is no longer anything special, it's a given really. I think how good everything else from writing to level design should have far more importance than whether the gameplay is functional. I think aesthetics should take priority over graphical fidelity in regards to how good a game looks. I'm playing Shadow of Mordor now and it's pretty enjoyable but I kinda feel its combat is an exact copy of Batman and it doesn't feel like a fresh experience, I wouldn't mind seeing a reviewer spend a large chunk of the review analyzing that aspect. Batman has a good story going for it, boss fights, and better stealth; Shadow of Mordor really just has the combat which gets old due to it being not as fresh and being basically the only thing the game has to offer whereas combat in Batman is spaced out so it doesn't get old as fast. Stuff like how the Joker teeth were a guide for where the player was supposed to go in Arkham Asylum was great design choice instead of having an arrow point the player in the right direction. Greg Tito found the characters to be so bad in GTAV that he basically took off 3 points for that, which I love to see. Max Payne 3 is one of the worst games I've ever played because I hated the writing, the asthetics, and also the TPS mechanics (I'm stickler for TPS mechanics). Even if the shooting was better, I still would've had a bad experience. Max Payne 3's shooting did shine in close quarters combat but the level design had you in ranged combat so often. I think many of Jim Sterling's reviews were great from Batman Arkham Origins (tiny changes to a great system can "break" it for you) to Assassin's Creed 2 where he hated the change in structure (much like me) from the 1st game. How Yahtzee analyzes horror games is a good example as well.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Answer to BloatedGuppy

Dude, if you're going to respond to me, use the quote function. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to have a debate with someone who can't answer back.

Ohh so the reason can only be because of those damn people down voting things without a valid reason.

Because a tangible majority of metacritic scores are skewed to 10's or 1's, full of unsubstantiated bile or day one praise, there is very little to nothing of value in the final score. Anyone supporting it is simply doing so because it re-affirms an existing confirmation bias. Scores in general are a worthless metric of quality. User scores doubly so.

Blizzard has a very loyal fanbase and is a big name in the industry so ofc it will sell. But Diablo 3 sold 6.5 million copies the first week while Ros sold 2,7 million. Thats about 65% less.

Yep. Which is perfectly in keeping with normal sales drops for expansion packs.

Here's a list of the best selling games of all time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games

What a flop.

I never said the 3.9 user review was fair, just that it showed a different side that wasn't so fantastic about the game. Btw do you think 8.9 is a fair avrage rating?

In the universe of 7-10 rating scores for games? Eh, it's not far off. In an actual world where we use the entire 1-10? Maybe a 5 at launch if you take Error 37 into account? Game had a LOT of problems.

Seen many threads on the internet mentioning what a dissapointment it was. Even Forbes listed it as one of the most dissapointing games of 2012.

Confirmation bias. You view those threads as accurate sources, whilst hand-waving positive reviews as biased or incomplete. Everyone has their own personal disappointments. Go down that list of the top selling games of all time. I bet you could start a thread on what a trainwreck/disappointment ANY of them were, and have a chorus of people chiming in.

I have done a couple Heroics and no it isn't really hard. Nothing like BCs heroics before they nerfed it.

Yeah because Heroics aren't hard. They're CASUAL content. Most people were geared and through them in a week. So congratulations, you did casual content meant for casual players and then shit-talked the game on the internet for being too simplified and easy. Hey guys, I beat DOTA 2 easy bots. Game is for nubs.

Yeah im sure there is challange at Mythic but its will just be same area now a third time with more people. Its already kinda boring doing things doing over and over.

So because you don't find the challenging content interesting, it doesn't exist, right?

I never said I had solid facts behind it to begin with.

If you don't have solid facts to substantiate a claim, don't make the claim. Forum nattering is and has always been profoundly useless as a source of information. Idiots on forums have been foretelling the imminent death of the game SINCE VANILLA.

Here's a Penny Arcade rant about the forums from 2005:

Spoiler

There was some sort of roiling tempest on the WoW boards, something about GM abuse, or maybe a gamemaster was just a member of a guild when he was off work, or maybe it wasn?t a gamemaster at all but just a Blizzard employee, or some other scenario completely inextricable from the noise all forums generate. I could not reconstruct the trajectory of the complaint, though it has been suggested that a person did something bad, which (obviously!) I?m opposed to.

In any case, real gamemaster abuse looks like this. If you are cowering and afraid, prostrate and shoeless on the cobblestones in Stormwind, some kind of abuse has occurred. That is how you will know.

Those Goddamn forums are an unceasing wall of useless jungle sounds. While we?re on the topic.

Fuck only knows what?s going on in there. Every class specific board has its own cadre of misunderstood prophets, leading their /signatories to a statistically equitable promised land. Each profession crawls toward a unique doom which only they can perceive! That is why it is critical that their grim revelations be bumped at fifteen minute intervals, lest their potent visions lose rank to fresher jeremiads.

Perhaps it is true that outside my awareness, mathematical proofs of my deficiencies throb wetly. It would not surprise me. My official proclamation is as follows: they are allowed to fix each profession?s debilitating and potentially imaginary bugaboos after they get their server downtime and performance under control. I?ve never played a game where the servers were more stable when it was a beta, but eventually the novelty of that fact ceases being delightful. Whimsy recedes and the amount on the monthly bill seems to rise off the paper like braille, growing in stature.

Still think the fucking forums are a quality source of information?

Funny how you defend the professional reviewers as long they praise the game even though most of them haven't gotten near end game content. But im not allowed to criticize what I have seen so far.

Defend the reviewers? Show me a specific review, and I'll tell you whether I think it's worth anything or not. We're discussing your "review", which so far has been 50% "I did a heroic dungeon" and 50% "Some people on the forums are unhappy".

Mages are trash, probably the worst they have ever been in WoWs history. Really bad survivabilty and horrible damage. Let me guess im not allowed to say that, since I don't have the full arena set? Look up the mage forum and see how satisfied they are.

Ah yes. The MAGE FORUM.

I have nothing against hard Pvp content. But if the pvp in itself isn't that fun due to less skills, insane health pools and a bad class i see no reason to do it. I might later with some better gear. But right now its too little about skill and too much about what class you have.

Said unskilled people since the beginning of time. Do you know what other competitive PvP games have heard that same complaint? If you guessed "all of them" you win a prize. And I'm not shit talking you, I'm not particularly skilled either. Which is why I don't carp about how "it's not skill based" when I lose.

But your free to list any major new features i might have missed. Good luck with that btw

Why would I take the time to do that when A) you've already indicated you won't be receptive and B) I have absolutely no interest in whether or not you like WoD or any desire to change your mind about it. We're not debating the quality of the game. We're debating how many of your criticisms have been formed out of purest ass-pull.

But at that time there where at least alot that felt new.

So the game no longer feels new to you, therefore it "lacks content", "is lazy", has "sucky" new features, and is rapidly shedding players because some yahoo said so on the forums and you found it utterly convincing. This, in a nutshell, is why user reviews are hot garbage and cannot be relied on for anything. You are making my argument for me so much more eloquently than I could ever hope to make it myself.

Once again never said user reviews are better. But most games with a low user score usually is flawed in some way.

All games are flawed in some way.

Something the majority of professional reviews rarely bring up.

I don't think I've ever read a professional review that didn't touch on at least one flaw. Do a great many professional reviews fellate their subjects? Absolutely. Are their a mountain of issues with them, and the industry in general? Absolutely. But professional reviews don't say "I couldn't log in on the first day...0/10" and have that stand as their score for the game for the rest of time. How helpful is that review to someone buying a month later? A year later?

 

[Smigglebops]

I just wanna say that not all user reviews are garbage, but as for metacritic user reviews... Those are just plain bad. If anything, at least professional reviewers can write coherent sentences and usually expound upon their opinions rather than just "This game is shit, 1/10 would not play again"- dudebroguy99

 

[NPC009]

In the case of Diablo 3 it wheren't exacly small bugs.
Even if the reviewers didn't rate it on lots of hours played, Diablo 3 didn't exacly offer a great story either.
Usually ARPGs is based on the fun of looting, but that can't be it either...since D3 had a horrible loot system at start. Horrible Epic items and overall really bad chance to get decent loot.
So what was it based on? First of Diablo 3 wasn't all bad i have to admit, pretty fun at slaughtering mobs, most likey they guessed Diablo 3 would offer more in the end game(which they had not played yet). Sadly it didn't, all its flaws became very noticable.
My guess D3 had not been so highly praised if it had not been so hyped. Reviewers based the game on what they thought it would be (it was after all Blizzard) and ignored many warning signs.

No, I don't think it's hype exactly. Hype is something you shape through marketing, this may very well have been genuine excitement. You know how I said editors tend to put fans of series/genres on games? There's a very decent change most of the Diablo 3 reviewers were fans of the series and just really glad to have a new installment and enjoyed nearly every minute of it, flaws be damned. They were excited, just like many other people. Normally you'd see one of two who were heavily disappointed, but I guess Blizzard lucked out on the reviewer lottery. It happens.

I have to admit, though that I have no idea how D3 was reviewed. Blizzard may have provided a seperate server for beta players and reviewers, keeping tight control over the max amount of people logging in and playing. And then normal players get to the regular servers - all at once - and experience a something a lot less smooth. But this is just guessing on my part. Didn't work for a mag/site that covers PC games at the time it came out, so I can't check with coleagues.

Personally I Think a reviewer should atleast try to look a bit deeper when reviewing things. If Reviewers fail with having similar oppinions then what the buyers have. Then they are missleading and does their job poorly.
Note I don't blame single reviewers for giving D3 a good score, but it becomes weird when most of them does. Which highly goes against what many think.

Of course they should. But please remember many of us aren't paid nearly enough to do so. We have to make a living, too. Throw in strict deadlines and asshole publishers (in case of the largest franchises), and... yeah. It's not a good situation.

 

[NPC009]

As a hardcore TPS player, I would tear Uncharted apart with its unsound TPS mechanics whereas a casual shooter gamer probably wouldn't. Stuff like no camera sensitivity option (in all 3 Uncharteds) is a huge no-no for any shooter (thus you can't aim in the manner you would like, which is rather important) plus Uncharted's camera is so sluggish, circle for both roll and cover has never work (context sensitive controls never do), Uncharted does not have a proper shoulder swap (you can't aim initially off your left shoulder), etc. Now, I would still give Uncharted a positive review but an 8/10 is like the highest I'm going to go because of such simple mistakes. Those mechanical issues don't impact single player that much but they make MP nearly unplayable (playing against AI and humans are two very different things). That's pretty much what I mean about players that specialize in a genre being more critical. Seriously, the no camera sensitivity option in a shooter just shouldn't be done, that should be in Uncharted reviews but it's not.

Yes, we do tend to notice small things, but at the same time we're writing for a fairly broad audience: pretty much any gamer that's interested in it. Since the amount of space we get is limited, we have to ask ourselves which of those things are most relevant to our readers. Something like that camera may not make the cut, because the reviewer assumes readers are familiar with unmovable cameras and didn't find that the camera noticebly impacted the game.

But, hey, for all I know Sony played the asshole card and made reviewers come offer to the office, had them play the game there and didn't give them much time with the MP, forcing them to base most of the review on the singleplayer. That is something that happens. I honestly don't know if its the case here, but it could be.

(And I understand why websites/magazines would send their reviewers to something like that. Having a review up on releaseday is very important nowadays, because the reviews of triple A titles attract a lot of readers. Reviewing a retail copy and publishing the review a week after everyone else means sacrificing a lot of traffic.)

3 stars is still better for average than 7/10.

But can you prove 7 is the avarage? I mean, I know it looks that way, but I think that has a lot to do with the games being reviewed.

I was saying if all you needed to pass and become a doctor was scoring 50% in classes and on tests, there'd be a lot of bad doctors.

And that's why you have to score 55% or 60%. And these scores don't rate doctors, they rate students. Someone who scraped by in med school but did pass every test and evaluation is qualified to be a doctor. He's the worst of the best.

Actually, that is close to games. Scores rate games, but most people won't play anything under a 55 or 60. The games with the low scores fail. The game that do get 55-60s are also the worst of the best.

FFXIII wasn't even the best JRPG that came out on its day of release. Resonance of Fate released the same day, great marketing decision Sega!!!

Sega is one of those companies I'll never understand... (I liked RoF, too. It felt much more coherent than FFXIII.)

You're always going to have readers complain about reviews regardless of what you are reviewing, you can't give in to "re-doing" a review or giving higher scores to other games.

Yep, especially when many the complaints come from people who haven't even played the game. They see some quirky thing they've never heard of before see a higher score than some game they like and flip.

I do like the idea of second opinions, though, if only to get it through to some of those thick skulls that opinions are a thing and that they can vary from person to person.

I think there should be far more analysis of games vs the shooting is good so this shooter is a good game. We've come to the point that a developer competently making a shooter is a given most of the time. Naughty Dog made a decent shooter with the 1st Uncharted their first try, Bioware (an RPG dev) made a competent TPS with Mass Effect 2 and 3. Think back to how poor TPSs were before PS3/360, they were quite abysmal and usually were dependent on a lock-on mechanic instead of free-aim because the aiming sucked. A game like Syphon Filter on PS1 had bad aiming, even though it was good for its time, I still knew aiming could be much improved. I even played the original cover TPS, Winback, TPSs have come so far. It was actually RE4 that caused quite an improvement in 3rd-person shooting vs an actual TPS. I think a shooter just being good at shooting is no longer anything special, it's a given really.

That's true. Making a decent game is not much of an accomplishment anymore, meaning there's more room to appreciate the things that actually make a game good. I think it would be hard to rate a game by focusing so much on mechanics, though. It's incredibly hard for a developer to make something that's special everyway you look at it. Few have the resources, knowledge and skills to make something like that. So what developers do is they aim for 'adequate' in some departments while making sure the game truly shines in others.

The Elder Scrolls worlds would be good example: they don't look all that special. You may even call them ugly compared to other games, but the worlds are huge and before you know it you're paying more attention to the quest being given that the ugly textures on the quest giver's face.

I think how good everything else from writing to level design should have far more importance than whether the gameplay is functional. I think aesthetics should take priority over graphical fidelity in regards to how good a game looks. I'm playing Shadow of Mordor now and it's pretty enjoyable but I kinda feel its combat is an exact copy of Batman and it doesn't feel like a fresh experience, I wouldn't mind seeing a reviewer spend a large chunk of the review analyzing that aspect.

And that's a tricky part. When the amount of space is limited, what can you as a reviewers spend on comparisons, knowing that not all your readers will have played the game you're talking about? Plus, familiarity means different things to different people. To some it makes a game feel old, while others like that they'll quickly get a hang of the game.

But in the case of Shadow of Mordor it would be which to refer to other games. Examples can be very helpful when you're telling your readers to imagine a game they've only seen screenshots and trailers of.

Greg Tito found the characters to be so bad in GTAV that he basically took off 3 points for that, which I love to see. Max Payne 3 is one of the worst games I've ever played because I hated the writing, the asthetics, and also the TPS mechanics (I'm stickler for TPS mechanics). Even if the shooting was better, I still would've had a bad experience. Max Payne 3's shooting did shine in close quarters combat but the level design had you in ranged combat so often. I think many of Jim Sterling's reviews were great from Batman Arkham Origins (tiny changes to a great system can "break" it for you) to Assassin's Creed 2 where he hated the change in structure (much like me) from the 1st game. How Yahtzee analyzes horror games is a good example as well.

Those are the types of reviews I like as well. Reviewers that just sum up what they thought of parts of the game as if it's a paint by number thing are boring. I want to read about what a reviewer loved/hated about a game and why. I want to taste the disappointment, disgust, excitement and passion through the text! That's how I try to write my reviews as well.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

It's because reviews are subjective waffle to drive sales...they aren't really about giving an accurate representation of a game. I seem to recall in the early 90's there was a big thing about payed for reviews and even now things are much the same. The sad thing is that people require biased opinions from talentless nobodies to make their mind up for them because modern humans have been progressively brainwashed by advertising into believing that hyped things have more value (as opposed to the reality which is opposite).

 

[NPC009]

It's because reviews are subjective waffle to drive sales...they aren't really about giving an accurate representation of a game. I seem to recall in the early 90's there was a big thing about payed for reviews and even now things are much the same. The sad thing is that people require biased opinions from talentless nobodies to make their mind up for them because modern humans have been progressively brainwashed by advertising into believing that hyped things have more value (as opposed to the reality which is opposite).

You must a be popular at parties...

Frankly, if reviews were about boosting sales on behalf of the publisher I'd be eating a little more than potatoes and veggies tonight.

 

[Evilsausage]

Answer to BloatedGuppy

Dude, if you're going to respond to me, use the quote function. Otherwise it looks like you're trying to have a debate with someone who can't answer back.

Okay

1. Yup there is usually alot of 10s and 1s. But together you get a average score which can tell something about the games quality. Unlike many professional reviewes which in many cases are too nice with their rating.
There are plenty of games at Metacritic which has both high user and professional reviews. That is usually a sign the game is be good.

2. Yes im sure Blizzard made alot of money on D3. But you fail to get it, the reason I call it a flop is because its the first Blizzard game that I and many others concider a dissapointment.
Blizzard has been able to get a large loyal playerbase just because they have been know to deliver top notch stuff...
Also lets not forget Its first 10 million copies is more based on Diablo 2s success and how hyped its sequal was.
The real question is how excited how excited fans will be for future Diablo games...
Reaper of souls total sales seems to be about 1/3 of Diablo 3s sales, not exacly fantastic with such a massive marketing campaign.
Diablo 2s expansion sold more then 50% of Diablo 2s sales.

3. Good for you that you liked the game.

4. Why would it be more bias and less accurate then the professional reviewes you defend? Anyway it was just one example of many people being dissapointed with Diablo 3.
Okay gonna use the Phantom Menace referance again. You can find people complain about Lord of the Rings triology, but overall its well liked by most people. While Phantom Menace is seen as a dissapointment by alot larger ratio.
Your free to like Diablo 3 as much you want but your delusional if you think it wasn't conciderd a dissapointment to many others.

5. Thanks you, you just mentioned another reason WoD lacks end game content. Back in the day you usually needed to be atleast a bit careful even with normal instances. Now even "Heroics" are supposed to be casual and isn't even supposed to be a challange? How the fuck is that good game design? Thats just a massive snoozefest until you get to the supposed real endgame...yeah its a total mystery why im already bored.

6. Nope im sure it exist and that it can even be a bit fun. But two raids that you can go through over and over in different difficulties is hardly enough to blow my mind. Like many others im not a Hardcore raider so doubt i will spend much time with it. Its 2015 and people are fine with no more new end game content? We pay near 50 euro for a expansion + a subscription fee every month, with all the money they are making i think its fair to call them lazy.

7. My source of information was from my own experiance, me and many of my friends have already gotten bored of this expansion even though it is called "the best WoW expansion" by many Reviewers. Which I thought was odd, since to me it was: "meh...well atleast it wasn't about Pandas". As for the thread, yes its just a thread, never said it was truth...just my personal oppinon that I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
Its not like your claim about the Star Wars prequels losing substationaly more viewers in ratio to what RoS lost to D3 was based on any fact either.

8. Since when was this thread about me giving a review of a game? I only gave reasons to why I thought some games where overrated and by looking at the user reviewes many others where also not as impressed.
Funny how you expect a full scale review in a forum discussion while you at the same time don't even name any examples of new things WoD brought to WoW franchise. Yeah I told you it was hard....

Why should I show a specific review when then the whole thread is about the overall missleading reviews and review scores from the professional reviewers. Showing one random review would add nothing for anyone of us.

9 & 10
People has also since the beginning of time said: "L2P" to any complaints about classes they don't play themselves.
I remember back in Vanilla at one point when Hunters where hilariously OP. Insane dps and Rogues had no ways to get in stealth if they had hunters mark on them and it lasted like 60 secs and you could instantly refresh it.
I happend to be a hunter back then and I even managed to kill a level 60 rogue at level 44. Ofc all Hunters said L2P noob Rogues.
When frost bolts take ages to cast and deal 10k dmg vs targets with 250-500k HP well then its kinda silly, no deep freeze, poor burst dps, bad level 100 talents etc...Yeah I think its safe to say Mages suck in PvP.
But yeah sure you know better, afterall you seen a few do the Arena...Fantastic argument there.

11. I have listed reasons to why I don't like WoD(and Diablo 3). Does WoD offer alot of new content we haven't seen before? Nope don't think so and you haven't proved otherwise. Has WoD alot end game content? Like 2 raids right? in several difficulties, yup that sure is fantastic implement after 10 years of WoW with plenty of similar raids.
Btw I never said WoD was shit, but atm I think I have far more valid points why WoD is overrated then what you have to defend it.

12. Umm no, If a game don't bother to implement enough new stuff. Well then it just feels like your doing same shit over and over. Its like eating the same dish over and over just with a different sauce. This is why many criticize Call of Duty and Assassins Creed constant stream of games that many times lack enough new content.
Burning Crusade Introduced completly new stuff like better quests, Arena, Heroics, World PVP zones, flying mounts, two races and overall much more content(Instances and Raids as just as an example). So yes think its fair to call it Lazy to introduce so little new after so many years.
I also gave reasons as to why the Garrison system was "sucky" which is once again more then you have.

13. Yes all games have flaws. But some games have bigger flaws then others.
Like I have said earlier... there are plenty of games out there without low/mediocre user rating on metacritic. You just seem to be such a Blizzard fanboy that you can't accept that many don't share your vision of games like WoD and D3.

14.
Actually the online DRM and its issues was one of the main reasons Sim City 5 got a low score. Bashing EA for its online DRM seems to be easier for reviewers to do.
But yes I agree those user reviews suck, just like all those who gave it a 10 only for the reason to counter those negative reviews. But even if we ignore those for a moment. D3 got pretty mediocre user review score long after the launch aswell, so did the console version and RoS.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Why would it be more bias and less accurate then the professional reviewes you defend?

What professional review did I defend? Quote me.

Your free to like Diablo 3 as much you want but your delusional if you think it wasn't conciderd a dissapointment to many others.

I said I'd give a 5-6 out of 10. Clearly I'm over the moon about it.

Now even "Heroics" are supposed to be casual and isn't even supposed to be a challange? How the fuck is that good game design?

Character progression is faster than it was during Burning Crusade. If you outgear content, that content becomes easier. Shocking, I know.

Its 2015 and people are fine with no more new end game content? We pay near 50 euro for a expansion + a subscription fee every month, with all the money they are making i think its fair to call them lazy.

Eschewing progression raiding and PvP entirely, taking only first shot content into account, there is somewhere on the scale of 150-300 hours of content in WoD, which is typical for an MMO expansion. Clearly your argument is that 150-300 hours of content for a full price game is "lazy" and worthy of contempt.

7. My source of information was from my own experiance, me and many of my friends have already gotten bored of this expansion even though it is called "the best WoW expansion" by many Reviewers. Which I thought was odd, since to me it was: "meh...well atleast it wasn't about Pandas". As for the thread, yes its just a thread, never said it was truth...just my personal oppinon that I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

Its not like your claim about the Star Wars prequels losing substationaly more viewers in ratio to what RoS lost to D3 was based on any fact either.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

#1 Star Wars
#12 Empire Strikes Back
#15 Return of the Jedi
#17 Phantom Menace
#60 Revenge of the Sith
#87 Attack of the Clones

http://diablo.somepage.com/news/1946-over-20-million-sales-for-diablo-iii-and-reaper-of-souls

The Diablo III franchise has sold over 20 million copies worldwide, including sales across all platforms for the base Diablo III and the Reaper of Souls expansion. As detailed in the recent Blizzard Activision Q2 2014 earnings report, the expansion pack continues to be the best-selling PC game to date in 2014.

That was of mid-2014. We don't know current sales numbers, need Blizz to release another financials. It sold 2.7 million in its first week.

Just...stop. It's getting ridiculous.

Funny how you expect a full scale review in a forum discussion while you at the same time don't even name any examples of new things WoD brought to WoW franchise. Yeah I told you it was hard....

And I told you it was a waste of time. Hey dude, I HATE coconut. Absolutely loathe the shit. Quick, give me thirty reasons to like it. Good luck convincing me! Tee hee! It totally won't be a waste of your time!

People has also since the beginning of time said: "L2P" to any complaints about classes they don't play themselves.
I remember back in Vanilla at one point when Hunters where hilariously OP. Insane dps and Rogues had no ways to get in stealth if they had hunters mark on them and it lasted like 60 secs and you could instantly refresh it.
I happend to be a hunter back then and I even managed to kill a level 60 rogue at level 44. Ofc all Hunters said L2P noob Rogues.
When frost bolts take ages to cast and deal 10k dmg vs targets with 250-500k HP well then its kinda silly, no deep freeze, poor burst dps, bad level 100 talents etc...Yeah I think its safe to say Mages suck in PvP.

Yes, it's safe to say sucking in PvP is definitely the problem we've identified here.

But yeah sure you know better, afterall you seen a few do the Arena...Fantastic argument there.

Mid-tier class. Not a "few". Mid-tier.

Btw I never said WoD was shit, but atm I think I have far more valid points why WoD is overrated then what you have to defend it.

You have subjective opinions, which seem utterly convincing to you, as they are your opinions. That you find this to be a shattering revelation is, frankly, kind of distressing.

Burning Crusade Introduced completly new stuff like better quests

Better how? Still just quests dude.

Arena

PvP in a smaller battleground.

Heroics

Same dungeon, slightly higher difficulty. Already dismissed by you as not real content.

World PVP zones

World PvP was around since Tarren Mill vs Southshore.

two races

Races are not content.

Instances and Raids as just as an example

Easy instances, one raid at at launch.

See? See how fun this is? Now, should I bother to do the same thing with WoD so you can engage in similar hand-waving?

I also gave reasons as to why the Garrison system was "sucky" which is once again more then you have.

Why would I take the time? I'm not going to convince you of anything. I don't give a shit if you like the game or not. I don't need to convince others of it, as it's sold well and is thriving. What benefit is there to me? I'm criticizing your horribly substantiated arguments, not debating the merits of WoW with you.

You just seem to be such a Blizzard fanboy that you can't accept that many don't share your vision of games like WoD and D3.

There it is. Took you a while. I think you're talking out of your ass, so I'm a "fanboy". It's not your barely coherent world-salad argumentation that's the problem here. It's that I wurve Blizzard.

Actually the online DRM and its issues was one of the main reasons Sim City 5 got a low score.

One of. Did you play SimCity? If you did, you know the functional problems went bone deep. It was a lot more than just "hard to get online". "Hard to get online" comprises about 95% of metacritic user scores though, god bless them.

But yes I agree those user reviews suck, just like all those who gave it a 10 only for the reason to counter those negative reviews.

There you go. User reviews suck. Pass it on.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Yes, we do tend to notice small things, but at the same time we're writing for a fairly broad audience: pretty much any gamer that's interested in it. Since the amount of space we get is limited, we have to ask ourselves which of those things are most relevant to our readers. Something like that camera may not make the cut, because the reviewer assumes readers are familiar with unmovable cameras and didn't find that the camera noticebly impacted the game.

But, hey, for all I know Sony played the asshole card and made reviewers come offer to the office, had them play the game there and didn't give them much time with the MP, forcing them to base most of the review on the singleplayer. That is something that happens. I honestly don't know if its the case here, but it could be.

(And I understand why websites/magazines would send their reviewers to something like that. Having a review up on releaseday is very important nowadays, because the reviews of triple A titles attract a lot of readers. Reviewing a retail copy and publishing the review a week after everyone else means sacrificing a lot of traffic.)

The no camera sensitivity option isn't a small thing, it's a major thing in a shooter. You aim with the free look camera in a TPS, thus if you can't change its sensitivity, you can't adjust the camera to your aiming preference (aiming is really important in a shooter). I don't even recall another 3rd-person game that doesn't have a camera sensitivity option, shooter or not. The first thing I do in every game is invert y, up the camera sensitivity, and change the audio levels (as music and sound effects are mixed way too high).

Shoulder swapping is very important in a TPS as well. If there isn't a proper shoulder swap, someone moving to their left is at an automatic disadvantage vs an enemy player coming from the opposite direction. I shouldn't lose a gunfight because of the game. The shoulder swap is more of an MP issue but still an issue in single player.

The camera thing should be in every review regardless of the circumstances of how the reviewer played the game. Single player controls do dictate how good an MP can be. If the controls aren't there in single player, they aren't going to be there for MP either and controls are much more important in MP; small control issues become major headaches in MP. I can instantly tell from playing single player whether the MP will be garbage or not just based on the control scheme. I TPS that I LOVE that wouldn't work well in MP is Vanquish from controls to you can't alter time in MP, yet everyone was wanting the game to have MP.

But can you prove 7 is the avarage? I mean, I know it looks that way, but I think that has a lot to do with the games being reviewed.

I could probably prove it, that would take a lot of time. Even the under-the-radar games get well over 5 most of the time like say Atelier Rorona, which you mentioned before is at a 65; stuff like Nier and Resonance of Fate get well over a 5 as well. Basically, it's not just the AAA games. It really only seems like the bottom of the barrel shovel-ware, bad licensed games (The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is at a 49), and those not-done Steam games ever score below a 5 (I don't even know if they are on Metacritic).

That's true. Making a decent game is not much of an accomplishment anymore, meaning there's more room to appreciate the things that actually make a game good. I think it would be hard to rate a game by focusing so much on mechanics, though. It's incredibly hard for a developer to make something that's special everyway you look at it. Few have the resources, knowledge and skills to make something like that. So what developers do is they aim for 'adequate' in some departments while making sure the game truly shines in others.

The Elder Scrolls worlds would be good example: they don't look all that special. You may even call them ugly compared to other games, but the worlds are huge and before you know it you're paying more attention to the quest being given that the ugly textures on the quest giver's face.

It depends on the game I feel. A game like Bayonetta or DMC has the best hack and slash gameplay out there, the gameplay can carry those games to being good, even great, all by itself. Whereas say God of War has to nail everything IMO as its combat is nothing special (just basically gets the job done). I loved the 1st God of War because everything else was nailed from presentation to graphics to story (simple but well done). Whereas, in the sequels, the combat stayed of approximately the same quality (getting the job done) while the story and everything else went to shit (except graphics) so in my opinion, they are bad games because God of War's combat cannot carry the game.

I think how good everything else from writing to level design should have far more importance than whether the gameplay is functional. I think aesthetics should take priority over graphical fidelity in regards to how good a game looks. I'm playing Shadow of Mordor now and it's pretty enjoyable but I kinda feel its combat is an exact copy of Batman and it doesn't feel like a fresh experience, I wouldn't mind seeing a reviewer spend a large chunk of the review analyzing that aspect.

And that's a tricky part. When the amount of space is limited, what can you as a reviewers spend on comparisons, knowing that not all your readers will have played the game you're talking about? Plus, familiarity means different things to different people. To some it makes a game feel old, while others like that they'll quickly get a hang of the game.

But in the case of Shadow of Mordor it would be which to refer to other games. Examples can be very helpful when you're telling your readers to imagine a game they've only seen screenshots and trailers of.

You don't have to have a lengthy analysis to get your point across, I'm sure there's plenty of room for this in any review:

"Shadow of Mordor has basically the same combat system as the Batman Arkham games; you press square to attack, triangle to counter, X to vault enemies, and circle to stun. Certain types of enemies need to be stunned first so it's not just a button masher. You get special moves like being able to one-hit kill enemies if you build you combo high enough. The combat won't feel fresh to anyone that's played the Batman Arkham games as the combat is almost literally the same, even down to the upgrades and special attacks being the same. The combat can be very enjoyable but it also gets repetitive as it doesn't have the depth of a better hack and slash game like Bayonetta. The Batman games spaced out the combat sections much more by having dedicated stealth sections, better exploration, and a better story. SoM has really just the combat to offer the player so it becomes repetitive faster due to constant fighting while being a system you've probably already had a go at."

I want to read about what a reviewer loved/hated about a game and why. I want to taste the disappointment, disgust, excitement and passion through the text! That's how I try to write my reviews as well.

Pretty much this. The stuff the reviewer hates or loves should weight heavily into the score, which I don't think happens very often.

 

[Sarge034]

Maybe it's just my mathemathical tendencies, but when I imagine 'let them fall where they will' I imagine the bean machine/Galton board ^_^'

And hey, bell curves can be adjusted. For instance: the avarage IQ is being kept at 100 despite people getting smarter.

Lol, it's actually the analytical part of me that's so comfortable with the static scale and perhaps a Galton board isn't such a bad way to describe it. You would have the objective data acting as the first half of the pegs deciding on what general area the game will fall into, and the second half would be subjective opinions that would fine tune the placement.

And yeah, I know bell curves can be adjusted I just don't like how they warp data in general. I know why we have to use that type of system in reviews, as we don't have defined bounds (1 or 10... although ET The Extra Terrestrial is damn close to a 1 XD), and as such things need to be able to be relative to each other. It's just a really complicated situation.

Systems like that have their own weaknesses. They portray games as being the sum of several aspects instead of the whole product it is. Another problem is that not all aspects are equally important in every game (you don't play Tetris for its story or a visual novel for its gameplay), which may result in subscores that don't reflect the overall quality of the game. Lastly, there may not be a clear line between two aspects. For instance, in a rhythm game the music could be seen as part of the gameplay.

Oh, I agree completely that the system has it's own flaws. My thoughts were that if we had that system and a written review instead of just one number and a written review it could present a better picture of the game. Take Tetris for example, if we just used the single or multi-numeric system what do we know? It's a 9/10, a classic? It's story is 0/10, controls 9/10, music 8/10? The written review is there to add clarity, to define those numbers. Yeah, Tetris' story is 0/10, but only because Tetris has no story nor does it need one. Now take Destiny; controls 9/10, music 8/10, story 5-6/10. A low story score in Destiny would raise a few eyebrows because it was advertised as being story driven. That being said it certainly didn't deserve the 6/10 I'm seeing most places now, especially if CoD got a 9/10. I would say that a game is most certainly the sum of it's parts. I've played games where just one part be it music, voice acting, controls, ect have just ruined the experience for me. As for your example about the rhythm game. I personally would define the music as simply being music because I think gameplay is more the quality of execution of game mechanics. Or it could be a catch all overview of the reviewer's enjoyment of the gameplay if there is already a game mechanics/controls section. After all, the person playing the game becomes just as important of a factor as anything else because this is an interactive media.

Sorry if it sounds a bit scattered, I'm having trouble converting my thoughts into words. :/

One 'thank you' for the compliment and another for keeping this discussion civil and interesting. I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am

No problem! I absolutely love discussing different sides to stuff so long as there is civil and intelligent conversation. Can never learn or grow as a person if you close yourself to other points of view after all.

 

[Evilsausage]

What professional review did I defend? Quote me.

The whole debate has been about user and professional reviews. Since you mainly focused on talking how user reviews suck you come of as defening the other type of reviewes.

I said I'd give a 5-6 out of 10. Clearly I'm over the moon about it?

Did not read that, then how your choosing to not agree many users are dissapointed with it?

Character progression is faster than it was during Burning Crusade. If you outgear content, that content becomes easier. Shocking, I know.

Yup which means that alot of content will be completed faster. Leaving like 2 raids in different difficulties to be the endgame where you finally is supposed to get a challange i guess. Yeah thats clearly great game design and enough to make WoD deserve to be called "the best WoW expansion".

Eschewing progression raiding and PvP entirely, taking only first shot content into account, there is somewhere on the scale of 150-300 hours of content in WoD, which is typical for an MMO expansion. Clearly your argument is that 150-300 hours of content for a full price game is "lazy" and worthy of contempt.

Haven't ignored PvP entirely, doing BGs and might do some Arena.
Maybe you could get 150-300 hours of content, but is it good content? Doing two raids over and over can be fun for some i guess. But I don't Think its too much to ask that you get some more end game options after 5 WoW expansions.

#1 Star Wars
#12 Empire Strikes Back
#15 Return of the Jedi
#17 Phantom Menace
#60 Revenge of the Sith
#87 Attack of the Clones

That was of mid-2014. We don't know current sales numbers, need Blizz to release another financials. It sold 2.7 million in its first week.

Just...stop. It's getting ridiculous.

Attack of the Clones total box office earned about 40% less then Menace and Revenge of the Sith only less then 20%. Which isn't at all bigger drop then what D3-RoS have with its 70% drop to D3.

Yes you have mentioned it sold 2.7 in its first week. Diablo 3 and it expansion has sold about 20 million together impressive number. Not gonna argue with that, like I never said it flopped financially.
Still RoS sold less then 1/3 of D3 which isn't a great ratio even for an expansion. Especially not for a Blizzard expansion.
The reason why I called it a "flopp" in the first Place wasn't to talk about its sales. It was a dissapointment to many despite what the professional Reviews said. Blizzard has Three major franchises that up to that Point has pretty much been universally praised by fans and reviewers. So now today when Diablo 3 is seen as let down by many, Blizzard has lost some of it once spotless reputation. Thats why I compared it with the Star Wars prequels.
And even today long after Reaper of souls which did fix some things, the game is still fail to provide with enough content to keep (most)fans satisfied in the same way Diablo 2 did for more then 10 years.

Hey dude, I HATE coconut. Absolutely loathe the shit. Quick, give me thirty reasons to like it. Good luck convincing me! Tee hee! It totally won't be a waste of your time!

I Think its more like Hey this coconut is not at all as fantastic as people claim and i have tasted many Before that where tastier. Here are a few reasons.....
Then your like: Oh no you are wrong, this one is the boss. The End.

Yes, it's safe to say sucking in PvP is definitely the problem we've identified here.
Mid-tier class. Not a "few". Mid-tier.

This isn't like Counter Strike where the learning curve for PvP success is massive. Mages are just so shit especially in any 1v1 against most classes. They can be decent when in a big group as support but I see no fun when some class can roflstomp me without even trying.
I have played frost Death Knight on a friends acount btw and even though im a total noob with DK, its lightyears better(we both got about the same gear).
Good to hear there are some in the Arena, maybe there is hope once you get full Arena gear. Still don't buy into claims that mages are fine. You most likely haven't even played them.

You have subjective opinions, which seem utterly convincing to you, as they are your opinions. That you find this to be a shattering revelation is, frankly, kind of distressing.

Ofc its subjective its my personal oppinion just like all those reviewers that say WoD is the best shit evah.
Atleast I have listed reasons as to why I think its overrated.

A. Barely any real new additions to WoW that we haven't seen Before (except for garrison, which I have stated why I dislike it).

B. Limited endgame content, you said it yourself Heroics are causal and are done fast, same with getting the first BG gear. Whats left isn't exacly much, no real effort into comming up with new ideas that could increase its longevity.

C. Dull PvP, Less skills, Health pools are too high, remarkably badly balanced even though it technically shouldn't be.


I had a pretty nice levling experiance(even though it was over pretty fast) and the new continent looked quite good.
But I don't see anything special about WoD. What exacly makes this expansion so fantastic?

Better how? Still just quests dude.

I was talking about things BC introduced that was a improvement over Vanilla. Better quests being one of the things.
Less quests that are about finding 20 feathers and overall just more variation. Stuff that is standard now, but which was a really nice addition when it came.

PvP in a smaller battleground.

So your saying Arena was a "meh" addition to the game? Yeah clearly nothing compared to the awsome companion system they introduced in WoD. Thats some exciting shit!
Arena was and still is a big part of WoWs endgame. With a ladder system unlike BGs.

Same dungeon, slightly higher difficulty. Already dismissed by you as not real content.

Never said it was no real content. Burning crusade had plenty of instances and Heroics where actually really challanging.
So you had alot more endgame content compared to what you have in WoDs Heroics.

World PvP was around since Tarren Mill vs Southshore.

I can't recall any real bonuses or encouragement for doing World PVP there but I could be wrong. The only reason i rememeber there was so much fighting there was because both Towns where quite close.
Burning Crusade had zones that gave various bonuses that helped your faction when doing Instances for example. Therefore encouraging World PvP.

Races are not content..

Ohh It isn't? New starting areas, new captial cities, New races with lore connected with the main story isn't new content? ^^

Easy instances, one raid at at launch.

Easy Instances? Normal difficult Instances where far more challanging then WoDs, same with the Heroics.
You also had more instances to do and they where longer, which equals more content.
It was quite a long time since I played BC but if i recall there where atleast Gruul, Mags, Karazhan and Serpentshrine Cavern at launch. Besides that more raids got added, to a total of 7.
Do you Think WoD will ever get close to that many raids? I doubt it, today it seems to be far less content updates, instead they start working on the next expansion.

Usually Sequels mean go bigger and better, but in WoWs case its the opposite. The only thing that gets bigger is the cost of the expansion packs.

See? See how fun this is? Now, should I bother to do the same thing with WoD so you can engage in similar hand-waving?

Why would I take the time? I'm not going to convince you of anything. I don't give a shit if you like the game or not. I don't need to convince others of it, as it's sold well and is thriving. What benefit is there to me? I'm criticizing your horribly substantiated arguments, not debating the merits of WoW with you.

Well I atleast bother comming with some decent arguments.

Why are you debating here in the first Place? If your gonna citiicize my arguments you should atleast have some arguments as to why WoD is a great expansion.

There it is. Took you a while. I think you're talking out of your ass, so I'm a "fanboy". It's not your barely coherent world-salad argumentation that's the problem here. It's that I wurve Blizzard.

Well for someone preaching about how bias everyone is, you certainly seem to defend things Blizzard do no matter what.

One of. Did you play SimCity? If you did, you know the functional problems went bone deep. It was a lot more than just "hard to get online". "Hard to get online" comprises about 95% of metacritic user scores though, god bless them.

Ofc I didn't play it, there atleast reviewers and fans dislikes was enough warning. Im sure it was worse then D3s problems at launch, still funny though how constant online requirment for D3 got a minmimal amount of criticizm in comparison.

There you go. User reviews suck. Pass it on.

I would say both user and professional Reviews are flawed in different ways. Still doesn't mean it can't be of some use.

 

[NPC009]

The no camera sensitivity option isn't a small thing, it's a major thing in a shooter. You aim with the free look camera in a TPS, thus if you can't change its sensitivity, you can't adjust the camera to your aiming preference (aiming is really important in a shooter). I don't even recall another 3rd-person game that doesn't have a camera sensitivity option, shooter or not. The first thing I do in every game is invert y, up the camera sensitivity, and change the audio levels (as music and sound effects are mixed way too high).

But Uncharted isn't jut a shooter. Can say I have much experience with the multiplayer, but the camera didn't really bother me during the storymode. The game is essentially guiding you through area's and there's little need for adjustments. Whether this is good game design or not is up for discussion, but I don't think the camera harmed that experience. Though, I imagine it's somewhat different in multiplayer.

Shoulder swapping is very important in a TPS as well. If there isn't a proper shoulder swap, someone moving to their left is at an automatic disadvantage vs an enemy player coming from the opposite direction. I shouldn't lose a gunfight because of the game. The shoulder swap is more of an MP issue but still an issue in single player.

True, but how much is this an actual issue and not, I don't know, a minor inconvience at worst?

I honestly don't know much about the Uncharted MP, but I do know how most people review. Since we need the to keep the review at a decent length we have to pick and choose what we write about. If there are more noteworthy things to be discussed, details will be tossed in favour of those. If we don't, the review will either be too long to be published or too long to keep the reader interested.

The camera thing should be in every review regardless of the circumstances of how the reviewer played the game. Single player controls do dictate how good an MP can be.

I think this may be a more personal than you think. You mentioned always adjusting the camera movements and such. Many people don't. Maybe you've grown used to a luxery.

I could probably prove it, that would take a lot of time. Even the under-the-radar games get well over 5 most of the time like say Atelier Rorona, which you mentioned before is at a 65; stuff like Nier and Resonance of Fate get well over a 5 as well. Basically, it's not just the AAA games. It really only seems like the bottom of the barrel shovel-ware, bad licensed games (The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is at a 49), and those not-done Steam games ever score below a 5 (I don't even know if they are on Metacritic).

Personally I don't think it can be proven, because there are many games that are not/barely reviewed. You'd either have to assign those games yourself (not very objective) or do your calculations knowing you lack data.

As for the lower scores, if we think of 5.5-10 being varying degrees of good and 1-5.5 varying degrees of bad (like most sites do), you'll find many games that are rated as bad. Some might be absolutely terrible while others are more like a 'meh', but hey, there's room on the scale for that.

Last year I played several games that were (almost) bad. The With and the Hundred was a game that teetered on the edge of bad (53 on Metacritic). Mugen Souls Z (57) had very few redeeming qualities, but I guess that one was kinda fun in a mindnumbingly kind of way. There's probably others, but I kinda don't want to go digging through my memories (or computer folders).

It depends on the game I feel. A game like Bayonetta or DMC has the best hack and slash gameplay out there, the gameplay can carry those games to being good, even great, all by itself. Whereas say God of War has to nail everything IMO as its combat is nothing special (just basically gets the job done). I loved the 1st God of War because everything else was nailed from presentation to graphics to story (simple but well done). Whereas, in the sequels, the combat stayed of approximately the same quality (getting the job done) while the story and everything else went to shit (except graphics) so in my opinion, they are bad games because God of War's combat cannot carry the game.

That's why it's important to review games as they are and not compare them too much to other games or to some vague idea of what they could have been. If a game manages to make you forget its flaws, well, kudos.

You don't have to have a lengthy analysis to get your point across, I'm sure there's plenty of room for this in any review:

"Shadow of Mordor has basically the same combat system as the Batman Arkham games; you press square to attack, triangle to counter, X to vault enemies, and circle to stun. Certain types of enemies need to be stunned first so it's not just a button masher. You get special moves like being able to one-hit kill enemies if you build you combo high enough. The combat won't feel fresh to anyone that's played the Batman Arkham games as the combat is almost literally the same, even down to the upgrades and special attacks being the same. The combat can be very enjoyable but it also gets repetitive as it doesn't have the depth of a better hack and slash game like Bayonetta. The Batman games spaced out the combat sections much more by having dedicated stealth sections, better exploration, and a better story. SoM has really just the combat to offer the player so it becomes repetitive faster due to constant fighting while being a system you've probably already had a go at."

You'd be surprised. That right there is 173 words. Typical lengths for gamereviews are 500-1200 words, though a triple A title may get some extra space. So, in a worst case scenario, that's 1/3 of a review right there and all you've done is compare it to other games, while the reader probably wants to know what makes Shadow of Mordor Shadow of Mordor.

This is what makes writing good reviews so difficult: you need to be able to be informative and entertaining, describe the abstracts and give examples. Balancing everything can be real challenge

Pretty much this. The stuff the reviewer hates or loves should weight heavily into the score, which I don't think happens very often.

Maybe reviewers don't feel that strongly about games. When you've played hundreds of them is hard to hate a random bad one. They've seen better, they've seem worse - probably nothing to get worked up about. I often feel strongest about games that wasted their potential. For instance, I kinda really dig Ar Tonelico/Ar nosurge, because of the extensive world building, music and fun battle systems. The creators obviously worked hard on these games despite their budger restraints. But the games also have a knack for terribly annoying innuendo, incredibly boring dungeon design and badly written anime cliches. What could have been modern JRPG classics turn out to be pandering fanservice games again and again. Are these games bad? Well, no, they're pretty decent. I always have fun playing them and the scores reflect that, but all those missed opportunities... Compare that to random sucky licensed games where it's obvious nobody gave a *bleep*, and I just think 'well, if they don't care, I'm not going to spend any energy on caring either'.