Support NeoGAF

[mrmustard]

I've noticed that there is a lot of (harsh) criticism towards sequels like Forbidden West, God of War Ragnarok, Zelda TotK or TLOU II.

Yet Those games almost have the same high score as their predecessors.

Are reviewers too generous or maybe lazy when it comes to high budget/big names/eye-candy sequels or are gamers too critical?

What dou you guys think?

 

[feynoob]

Depends on the user who reviews those games.
Since each AAA has its own taste, it's hard to determine the ratings.

People who don't like certain mechanics will deduct points, while those who like them will add points.

Then there are the middle ground people who prefer certain games and will tank those scores.

At the end of the day, it depends on the reviewer skills.

 

[I Love Rock 'n' Roll]

Anything over 55 for a half done, half finished, rushed, broken AAA game is way to generous for a 100€ or even more title. It screams corruption all the way from reviewers.

For the same price, you can eat at a very good restaurant and drink champagne… i am not paying a happy meal at 100€ and there is no way, îm beta testing a AAA at 100€!

 

[Crayon]

Those games are as close to objectively good as you can get. Taking into account their incredibly broad appeal, if they don't deserve high marks on average then nothing does.

The higher functioning among us can square that with personally not liking the games, while the smooth brains have to overstate their opinion as fact as often as possible.

 

[Kilau]

Reviewers don’t want to piss off publishers and user reviews are full of warriors of all kinds. Gives you the landscape you see.

 

[T4keD0wN]

Too generous, they only use one half of the scale. In their defense theyre less likely to review a shit game than a good one, but how the hell are redfall and anthem 54 on metacritic? why are they so insanely overrated? Those are opinions anyway so ill give them a pass.

The real problem is how most reviewers completely ignore performance issues. There are no opinions when it comes to performance, only measurable facts. They even mention how game is in an unplayable state and still give it 9/10, there is no defending that as those aspects are measurable facts. Facts are objective and not opinions.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

As the games you are talking about are sequels of great games I would say that it is about having too much expectations maybe?
I loved GOW Ragnarok and I am loving Resident Evil 4 Remake. But I spent a lot of time regretting some of the choices of GOW, even if I think that Ragnarok is better in basically all ways compared to RE 4 remake( story, music, cinematics...) So for me I am happy to see Re 4 be this good, but for GOW I wanted just even more. Both games are fantasyic by the way. I am in the middle of Resident Evil 4 remake and it is really fun.

 

[Beer Baelly]

Were tired of the samey sequels for 10+ years now. The AAA scene is a joke.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Not towards AAA (though there's definitely a mindshare bias), but towards specific IPs and developers.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

What dou you guys think?

I think that there's a really weird culture around games, I'm not sure why, but it seems like people are constantly looking for problems and criticising things in a way that would be deemed completely insane in other areas of life.

Zelda is practically universally regarded as a brilliant game. If there's some things people don't like and choose to let define their experience of the game, big deal. They're robbing themselves of the experience.

I have been thinking about this a lot recently, you can spend your life hating or just choose to enjoy things a little more. If you're a fan of games, then you should be able to find enjoyment in them.

 

[mrmustard]

As the games you are talking about are sequels of great games I would say that it is about having too much expectations maybe?

Lol, my bad. I planned the headline 'Are reviews of AAA sequels too generous or are gamers too critical?' and messed up. Damn.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Generous and fake. Half of them dont even finish the games they review.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

When you go see a movie and it's shite, you don't feel a lot of remorse because films are cheap. Same goes for books in general, or music. Video games however are by far the most expensive of these mainstream entertainment medium. That's why they're examined much more critically I would assume.

 

[nemiroff]

Doesn't matter. In the end it's just subjective opinions, you're not really supposed to agree or disagree. Find your compatibility angle and use some of the reviews as an approx. bearing. What matters is context.

...Or simply use the best tool I can think of right now: Buy your games on Steam, try them out, and then refund the games you don't like. Simple AF.


Edit: I realize that in a way I'm stepping outside the topic, but just wanted to give my two pennies worth.

 

[Portugeezer]

Both.

10's used yo be a big deal on some sites, I remember GameSpot being stingy.

 

[captainpat]

All of those games you mentioned have massive amounts of gamers who enjoy the as well and would probably all agree with the reviewers.

The main problem is that people need to get this idea out of their heads that a game receiving a really high score means that every single person that plays it is going to feel the same way. That's not how opinions work.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Many reviews definitely don't take the technical issues seriously. In many cases they're skipped / briefly mentioned or they don't influence the overall score for the game. I think we all should be doubling down on the criticism, because more and more games are being released in horrible state and you can't have the pandemic as a universal excuse anymore.

Rating the actual content is more subjective. Some people love going back to the same worlds & mechanics over and over again, others expect every big new title to introduce some revolutionary changes. You can't satisfy both groups, although the second one has less titles to choose from so I can understand why they may be more upset.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Many reviews definitely don't take the technical issues seriously. In many cases they're skipped / briefly mentioned or they don't influence the overall score for the game

Why do you think that is?

I think it's because it isn't that important to most people's enjoyment of a game.

 

[Wildebeest]

If you look at it from the perspective of statistics, then a problem is that the group of reviewers does not represent the total population. American middle class people with a college education are overrepresented. Young people are overrepresented.

Then a wedge is pushed between them and other gamers because they go from playing games to be entertained to pushing some agenda like having an opinion on what sort of things "push the medium forward". Like advances in graphics or story telling that copies artistically respected movies. They are told to ignore day one technical problems and ignore cost. They get bored and write glowing reviews of things that remind them of games they loved before they became reviewers just to flex that muscle. And so on.

 

[fermcr]

I've noticed that there is a lot of (harsh) criticism towards sequels like Forbidden West, God of War Ragnarok, Zelda TotK or TLOU II.

Yet Those games almost have the same high score as their predecessors.

Are reviewers too generous or maybe lazy when it comes to high budget/big names/eye-candy sequels or are gamers too critical?

What dou you guys think?

Depends on the developers... normally reviewers are less severe and tend to overscore Sony and Nintendo AAA exclusives. Take a few points from those reviews and you'll likely get what those games are actually worth. Some 3rd party developers, like Rockstar, get the same treatment...

 

[Alan Wake]

Both, I feel. Some games suffer from peoples' nitpicking while others are just "GOAT" because it is THAT game. For me most games I play are 6 to 9/10. A few 5/10 and extremely few 10/10 (the first 10/10 in ten years was the recent RE4 remake).

 

[Rush2112]

Nintendo can take a dump in a plate and jornos lick their fingers.

 

[StueyDuck]

They are too generous. At the very least give games high scores but still mention or call out problems.

A 97 game shouldnt slow down to 12 fps in many scenarios

Being critical doesn't have to be negative. When there's a insane overwhelming amount of "reviewers" screaming that something is flawless when it really isn't just makes the discourse more toxic .

Reviews needa go altogether

 

[mrmustard]

Depends on the developers... normally reviewers are less severe and tend to overscore Sony and Nintendo AAA exclusives.

Do you think that all reviewers love Nintendo/Sony or don't want to piss them off? I think that's too easy, I mean there are (most likely) biased reviewers on metacritic with names like PlayStation LifeStyle, PlayStation Universe, LaPS4, PSX Extreme, Playstation Official Magazine UK, DualShockers, My Nintendo News, Nintendo Insider and so on and maybe even supersmall blogs/sites made by fanboys, but i don't think that affects the Metascore too much.

 

[ungalo]

Overall it can be both. They are too conformist that's for sure.

There is a double standards depending on the IP, the fanbase and all that. That's it, i take it as an irrefutable fact.

 

[DrFigs]

Look at the reviews for movies and music. Game scores are typically way inflated by comparison.

 

[MasterDerico]

I dunno, but when i saw 9's and 10's scores, i know for sure the game sux.

 

[poppabk]

Look at the reviews for movies and music. Game scores are typically way inflated by comparison.

Games are different though. There is still a component of value for money in games reviews - a sublime 2 hour game selling for $70 would get roasted.

 

[kevm3]

Game reviews from 'professional critics' and mainstream publications are essentially worthless because they are limited to putting an acceptable score on games from bigger publishers or they risk being cut off from media access and getting free review copies.

 

[Rayderism]

They are too generous. The review sites are afraid that if they give a bad (IE: honest) review score, then that publisher may not give them any more review copies.

EDIT: Heh, just noticed the previous reply. But, yeah.

 

[Fbh]

Most big sites have basically worked on a 7-10 scale for a long time
Anything under 7 is terrible
7-8 is ok
8-9 is good
9-10 is great

At this point I think more than any sort of fear of getting blacklisted (is there even any precedent for this that isn't like 15 years old?) "pro" reviewers have backed themselves into a corner because the scale I posted above has become the norm which is accepted by the audience. They can't suddenly swap to a proper 1-10 scale without their audience having a mental breakdown, if you are IGN you can't suddenly start giving above average games a 6,because you've trained your audience for decades to interpret 6 as "trash".

Everyone on here complains about reviews being too high but go to literally any EDGE review thread and look how people react to the latest AAA game in a beloved franchise not getting a guaranteed 8.5+ score.

 

[Phase]

The fact that reviewers don't even use numbers below 5 or 6 answers your question. They're wayyyy too generous, but then they have to be when they want to keep the ad revenue, promotional material, and early access coming.

 

[Danjin44]

Like I said this before, reviewers have their opinion and you have yours, just because a game gets good score its no guarantee you personally going to enjoy it, that was case for me with Horizon and TLOU 2.

 

[Azurro]

A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. Journalists definitely have favorite franchises, especially Nintendo ones, where they are less critical compared to others. At the same time, as a way to compensate, some fans can be overly harsh with the same games, which is a bit unfair given that they are still great games.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

I'm more critical of a €70 purchase than a 3.99 one.

 

[PianistaMacabro]

Reviews in games are almost useless

 

[Arsic]

Certain games are made examples of:

See RedFall and Babylons Fall

Others are given the keys to the kingdom when they have glaring issues that other titles get nuked for : See Jedi Survivor

Some are untouchable : see tears of the kingdom

Ultimately the nuance of determine where on a 10 point scale a game lands has been lost long ago. No one is read reviews, and most just fast forward videos to the score conclusion.

Just make your own decisions using multiple sources and your own tastes.

 

[Fredrik]

The main problem is that people need to get this idea out of their heads that a game receiving a really high score means that every single person that plays it is going to feel the same way. That's not how opinions work.

Yeah. Same for low scores. And it’s easy to forget that a game critic is really just a gamer like people here, I bet many are even less experienced than people here. Yet nobody pay much attention to someone here saying 10/10 in a post, even if it’s an old fart who has been gaming since the Atari days.

Personally I’m a big fan of Xbox Gamepass and PS+ Extra/Premium. Makes me try more games to make up my own mind on them and makes me playing games I actually enjoy since I can drop everything else without feeling bad about it.

 

[Crispy Gamer]

I'd rather have reviews with a set criteria because nowadays a game can get perfect scores or 9's with bad controls or a bad story and bad performance but another game with similar issues would get dumped on just because it's not their favorite franchise.

 

[MagnesD3]

Absolutely too generous, not critical enough

 

[NahaNago]

I'd say that often times reviewers can be too generous, but that could be for many reasons. They could be generous because the game is massive, ambitious, or popular. I do think that if a game is AAA it should be extremely polished but it tends to be the opposite these days.

 

[Nocturno999]

Most are bought at this point. The Last of Us PC was one of the biggest recent eye openers.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

If I'm being honest, gamers tend to be more critical of games than reviewers being too generous. Gamers make mountains out of mole hills, constantly trying to make big deals out of some personal issue that doesn't matter to most people. Reviewers do tend to over-praise bigger, well-known games, but at least they are usually good games. The games that players bitch about are also usually good games too.

 

[R6Rider]

Opposite issue of movie reviews. Far too generous.

Most recent example: See TotK

I'm enjoying it, but come on.

 

[BlackTron]

Reviews are definitely too generous because the whole industry is now a scammy joke and no one wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

Reviews basically start around 9 and shave off little bits of points for flaws. 10s are reserved for tentpole IP and disruptive games.

Sometimes the inverse is true, and a review will trash a game for the publicity. Either way, it's not about the game, it's about their business.

 

[Shifty1897]

There is a vocal minority of mouth-breather gamers who have never and will never accomplish anything worthwhile in life. These sad, pathetic individuals think every game is a war crime and a personal attack on the very fabric of their existence.

The rest of us are too busy having a good time with the games they hate.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

I've noticed that there is a lot of (harsh) criticism towards sequels like Forbidden West, God of War Ragnarok, Zelda TotK or TLOU II.

Yet Those games almost have the same high score as their predecessors.

Are reviewers too generous or maybe lazy when it comes to high budget/big names/eye-candy sequels or are gamers too critical?

What dou you guys think?

Give them a Game of Zelda and any brainless analyst would without thinking give it a 10 automatically.

 

[Pelao]

Reviews should be much more critical. The full scale of 1 to 10 should be used accordingly. Most of these digital products cost $70 now, and the user should be informed as accurately as possible of what they are getting for their money.

 

[Gamerguy84]

It's both of those and more. Scores seem to automatically start st 8(0) and adjust accordingly.

The most critical gamers are actually in a lot of cases, just console warring.

A minute of reading the post history tells you. Every game you mentioned and other big name PS games have gotten the same treatment SM is getting right now. Every. Single. One. That trend will continue.

And yes the actual gamers can be too critical. They want a game to be perfect and the minute it goes off what they were picturing they tend to panic.

 

[mrmustard]

The most critical gamers are actually in a lot of cases, just console warring.

I don't think it's so easy. GOW 2018, TLOU 2013, Spiderman 2018, BOTW or Forbidden West hadn't that much criticism and NeoGAF doesn't have enough Xbox warriors anymore to fill all those pages. Most got banned except maybe a handful.