Support NeoGAF

[13ruce]

By today's standards I think maybe the top 4 and smash bros, Mario Kart might get 90+, not sure many of the rest would

And Zelda.
If Skyward Sword gets 93 i am sure breath of the wild will atleast get a 95.

 

[Caipirinha]

I definitely think that critics are more critical these days. In 2009, a game like FF XV would be an easy 90-92.

 

[Absoludacrous]

The review scale changing is a direct result of AA games dying off. Back then every AAA release was judged against the sea of lower budget/profile release and was granted higher scores just based on that. If you need the 7-8 range for things like Dead to Rights and Project: Snowblind, where else do you put AAA games like Halo and Metal Gear besides 9+?

Now those games are gone and the AAA market only gets judged against itself, allowing more room for criticism and opening up those spots further down the scale.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I have a theory that games not being made for "all people" and the weakening pressure upon outlets to bump up scores or face restricted access is doing some of this too. Just a theory, mind.

Go to the article and they have a table of every 90+ game. Sort by release year.

97	Grand Theft Auto III	8.5	2001
97	Halo: Combat Evolved	8.6	2001
96	Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty	8.7	2001
95	Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec	8.4	2001
94	Devil May Cry	8.5	2001
94	Madden NFL 2002	7.9	2001
93	Mario Kart Super Circuit	8.3	2001
93	Paper Mario	9.2	2001
93	NBA 2K2	7.7	2001
92	SSX Tricky	8.9	2001
92	NHL 2002	8.5	2001
92	Advance Wars	9	2001
92	Super Smash Bros. Melee	9.1	2001
92	Final Fantasy X	8.7	2001
92	Conker's Bad Fur Day	9.2	2001
91	Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil	9.1	2001
91	IL-2 Sturmovik	8.8	2001
91	Twisted Metal: Black	8.4	2001
91	Golden Sun	9.3	2001
91	Castlevania: Circle of the Moon	8.5	2001
90	ICO	8.8	2001
90	Tennis 2K2	8	2001
90	Black & White	7.7	2001
90	Dance Dance Revolution	8.8	2001
90	Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy	8.7	2001
90	Star Wars Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron II	8.6	2001
90	NCAA Football 2002	8.7	2001
90	Unreal Tournament	8.6	2001
90	Sid Meier's Civilization III	8.4	2001
90	NFL 2K2	8	2001
90	Flight Simulator 2002	8.4	2001

BEAR WITNESS

I mean, it wasnt 1998, but coh-rist-a-mighty my wallet hurt that year.

 

[Version 3.0]

Nothing but a sign of the times. Gushing reviews used to get the clicks. That's shifted; now a bashing review gets them.

And I don't mean that in a cynical, "what do we need to write to get click?" sort of way. It's just how the collective conversation has gone.

 

[jholmes]

I think this list alone demonstrates that it's not just about game quality.

There is zero chance that many sports titles would get 90+ today, and I highly doubt several of the other titles would get to that lofty milestone either.

There is zero chance that many sports titles would get 90-plus today because we're lucky if they're functional at launch, to say nothing about polished. So many so-called triple-A titles come out in a much worse state today than they would have 15 years ago, and this list reflects that.

 

[Toth]

Take a release like FFXV. Why a game serie which used to score to the likes of 90 and beyond is now sitting at 82 ? Because it's less polished and less good.

Honestly, would all those high scoring games of FF past still do well today? FFVIII would get killed. IX is at 84 after the PC and iOS release and the game was actually improved from its PS version.

 

[Teletraan1]

It is probably a culmination of a bunch of different factors. Number of reviews, hype backlash putting reviewers in check, clickbait contrarian reviews, games releasing in a poor state with inevitable patches that fix things after the review was done, less community manager positions to fill, sequel fatigue, genre fatigue, console generation fatigue. Some of those later PS3 and 360 games would have fared a lot better on newer hardware since performance and IQ was horrendous. It all adds up and the graph doesn't seem like a steady decline.

 

[NoFoX]

What came out in 2001?

MGS2
Silent Hill 2
GT3 (i think)
and many more good games!

 

[Peltz]

I am not seeing a visual depiction of a steady decline.

This

 

[QuantumSquid]

Steadily increasing standards.

 

[Bsigg12]

I'm curious to how much that is based on games journalism getting better at scoring games on the 6 through 10 scale and not lumping everything into 90 or higher if it's a good game.

 

[DragonKnight]

Or games just got worse and less polished.

Honestly this is what I think too. Only publisher I trust in day one at this point is nintendo.

Wanted to get a ps4pro (even had it pre-ordered) but why spend money on a machine when there is a good chance the games I want wont be that great?

 

[Zemm]

AAA games, which are by far the most reviewed games, have declined in number, have become more homogeneous and dare I say boring? There's some great games but I feel like most of the games I'd rate as a 9/10 are on the smaller indie side where they're lucky to get 10 reviews on MC.

 

[Alebelly]

unreliable narrators?

 

[Kremzeek]

OMG the game releases in 2001 are legendary! a truly great year

also, i think the reason why there is a downward review trend is there is about 800% more games released per year than back then, and many more "indie" titles, which just by the volume alone would drag the odds of high review scores down.

 

[joshcam19]

Or games just got worse and less polished.

I think it's the exact opposite. Games are better now than ever before and there's so many of them, coming in all different forms. I think it is getting harder and harder to differentiate between "great" games and that next level.

 

[sixteen-bit]

No wonder we see so many "is this gen the worst only for me?" threads.

did games get worse or did games press get more critical?

 

[Theslammer]

Honestly this is what I think too. Only publisher I trust in day one at this point is nintendo.

Wanted to get a ps4pro (even had it pre-ordered) but why spend money on a machine when there is a good chance the games I want wont be that great?

I think it needs to be repeated: many games that were released at that point to great reviews weren't necessarily polished, or many contained things that would get docked big time nowadays. Twisted Metal 2 scored great reviews despite its mega clipping issues which would get docked like crazy now. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark had massive multiplayer slowdown (frames per second would go down to below 10 in PD's case) and reviewed at crazy high levels; no doubt that wouldn't fly nowadays. The first Metal Gear Solid had atrocious first-person aiming (the Sniper Wolf fight controlled terribly, and I love the game). Star Fox 64 was super short, yet what was the major controversy pre-release for The Order: 1886? The short length revealed from a Youtube playthrough.

Does anybody think if a full retail game the length of Sonic the Hedgehog was released now that, "Charging $60 for this is insane," wouldn't be a large theme in reviews?

 

[kunonabi]

Considering I can only think of 3 games(The Wonderful 101, Xenoblade X, MGSV:TPP) worthy of 90+ scores I cant say this trend would surprise me.

 

[Omega Kirby]

Standard have changed. Wonder if they'd be rated the same if they released today for the first time but with this gen's graphics

 

[Anth0ny]

What came out in 2001?

Everything?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

It's useful to note that standards have changed, but the problem with these comparisons is that we inevitably see people trying to make equivalencies between score. "Well an 8 is worth more now, so it's basically equal to a 9.5 then."

Stop that. That doesn't help discussions about the merits of a game.

 

[jonezer4]

It's a culmination of two things.

1. Video game critics have become more discerning.
2. Video game developers (or perhaps publishers would be more apt) are more likely to release a broken game and patch it post release, which means reviews will slant poorer even if the game is ultimately made better. In 1998, if you released a game that was broken day one, it was broken forever. Not the case anymore, for better or worse.

 

[Red Blaster]

standards are much higher these days. lawl at the jokers trying to pull that 'games are worse breh' when there was literally a list of 90+ games from 2001 that included klonoa 2, dance dance revolution and an arcade tennis game.

 

[Theslammer]

It's useful to note that standards have changed, but the problem with these comparisons is that we inevitably see people trying to make equivalencies between score. "Well an 8 is worth more now, so it's basically equal to a 9.5 then."

Stop that. That doesn't help discussions about the merits of a game.

tbh, looking solely at scores tells us nothing if we don't read the content of the reviews. I'm not sure the original article gives us much discussion.

 

[tearsintherain]

Just give me two 10/10 games a year devs and I will be happy. Its been way more than that, as far as my personal tastes go, for the past decade so I'm happy as a pig in shit.

Scores are definitely more all over the map nowadays, whereas before critics would be fairly uniform in their love or hate of a game nowadays you get much, much wider opinions. Which is great, I tend to find reviewers I align my ratings with and view Meta/RT/etc ratings less useful now. Plus you know, twitch streams.

 

[tokkun]

My GOTY 2016 VA11 Hall-A has metacritic rating of 77 (based on 17 critics):
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/va-11-hall-a-cyberpunk-bartender-action
Yet it has 98% on Steam reviews (based on 2270 game owner reviews):
http://store.steampowered.com/app/447530/

I think the industry is moving past Metacritic being relevant.

Hmm, I actually think that example proves the opposite point. Those reviews come from two different populations. VA-11 Hall-A is quite clearly a niche game with very specific aesthetic choices that some people will love and some people will hate. I expect that most people who buy it for themselves on Steam are people who think a PC-98-esque cyberpunk bartender visual novel is an awesome idea. On the other hand, reviewers who are playing the game because it is their job to do so may represent a sample of people more similar to the general gaming public.

 

[Sanctuary]

Or games just got worse and less polished.

It's probably a bit of both, with more emphasis on one over the other however.

Games are infinitely more polished than ever before. When you have a broken game in today's landscape (Aliens Colonial Marine or Afro Samurai 2 come to mind), it's a big controversy, even if it's a niche release.

Not every game in the rose coloured rearview mirror was an OoT or Chrono Trigger. There were more shovels full of crap in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s.

It's not just polish alone. I'd actually agree that we do technically have more games than ever before that are mostly polished compared to the past, (counting huge day one patches too) but the biggest factor IMO is a huge lack of innovation outside of the "indie" scene, the almost complete absence of the "AA" game (which is what a great many of the best games of the past were), a homogenization of genres all in the name of mass appeal and just generally bland, annual sequels of the highest selling games.

Yep, the previous generations sure did have a lot of shovelware (although can anything top the Wii in that regard?), but they also had a lot more innovation and the creation of new genres in general. You practially don't see that anymore. The 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit eras aren't simply some of the best because of nostalgia.

Isn't this largely because there's so many more games released each year these days than ever before.

Only if you're viewing it as the average score for all games across a year. That's not what that chart is. In fact, if you're doing it the way the chart implies, we should be seeing even more games in the 90s.

 

[Lucifon]

Isn't this largely because there's so many more games released each year these days than ever before.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

did games get worse or did games press get more critical?

the quantity of pretty good games has gone up drastically, but the amount of games that really reach amazing heights does feel like its slipping. Looking at 2001, those fucking games deserved those scores. Even the sports games. I played NHL 2002 and Madden 2002 a lot. They were fantastic games. Its hard to imagine the newest versions in either series being even playable at launch now, and are constantly missing great features their predecessors had.

 

[benny_a]

Nothing but a sign of the times. Gushing reviews used to get the clicks. That's shifted; now a bashing review gets them.

And I don't mean that in a cynical, "what do we need to write to get click?" sort of way. It's just how the collective conversation has gone.

That's an interesting thought.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

Go to the article and they have a table of every 90+ game. Sort by release year.

97	Grand Theft Auto III	8.5	2001
97	Halo: Combat Evolved	8.6	2001
96	Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty	8.7	2001
95	Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec	8.4	2001
94	Devil May Cry	8.5	2001
94	Madden NFL 2002	7.9	2001
93	Mario Kart Super Circuit	8.3	2001
93	Paper Mario	9.2	2001
93	NBA 2K2	7.7	2001
92	SSX Tricky	8.9	2001
92	NHL 2002	8.5	2001
92	Advance Wars	9	2001
92	Super Smash Bros. Melee	9.1	2001
92	Final Fantasy X	8.7	2001
92	Conker's Bad Fur Day	9.2	2001
91	Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil	9.1	2001
91	IL-2 Sturmovik	8.8	2001
91	Twisted Metal: Black	8.4	2001
91	Golden Sun	9.3	2001
91	Castlevania: Circle of the Moon	8.5	2001
90	ICO	8.8	2001
90	Tennis 2K2	8	2001
90	Black & White	7.7	2001
90	Dance Dance Revolution	8.8	2001
90	Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy	8.7	2001
90	Star Wars Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron II	8.6	2001
90	NCAA Football 2002	8.7	2001
90	Unreal Tournament	8.6	2001
90	Sid Meier's Civilization III	8.4	2001
90	NFL 2K2	8	2001
90	Flight Simulator 2002	8.4	2001

Damn. What a year. Those days are long gone.

 

[Stallion Dan]

To be fair, if Metacritic used more reviews from 20 years ago the average would probably drop. OoT's score sure would have if they used all reviews.

 

[inky]

*looks at chart* what happened to 2006?

New console generation.

 

[Elios83]

As others have pointed out this cannot be attributed just to the quality of games.
Many things have changed in the review system as well.

1)First of all we have way more reviews than in the past made by smallers websites and blogs and many of these reviews are writted by people who do not a working relationship with publishers, that means they don't care about giving a low score to something they have not liked.

2) Some "professional" magazines have stopped being a simple marketing tool of publishers like they were in the past. See IGN.

3) There is a trend of making clickbait articles by handing out surprisingly and undeserved low scores. Websites like N4G are then used to give visibility to these articles and get the hits from outraged people falling into the trap.


This is not to say that there has been no change in quality at all because it's clear that AAA games this gen have been fewer with more disappointing games than expected, but there are clearly other factors as well.

 

[ethomaz]

maybe ps2 or dreamcast version

It is the DC version because the PS2 got 77.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/dreamcast/unreal-tournament

 

[Peter Ian Staker]

The game where a lot of the hyped releases got an 9/10 by default are long gone.

97	Grand Theft Auto III	8.5	2001
97	Halo: Combat Evolved	8.6	2001
96	Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty	8.7	2001
95	Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec	8.4	2001
94	Devil May Cry	8.5	2001
94	Madden NFL 2002	7.9	2001
93	Mario Kart Super Circuit	8.3	2001
93	Paper Mario	9.2	2001
93	NBA 2K2	7.7	2001
92	SSX Tricky	8.9	2001
92	NHL 2002	8.5	2001
92	Advance Wars	9	2001
92	Super Smash Bros. Melee	9.1	2001
92	Final Fantasy X	8.7	2001
92	Conker's Bad Fur Day	9.2	2001
91	Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil	9.1	2001
91	IL-2 Sturmovik	8.8	2001
91	Twisted Metal: Black	8.4	2001
91	Golden Sun	9.3	2001
91	Castlevania: Circle of the Moon	8.5	2001
90	ICO	8.8	2001
90	Tennis 2K2	8	2001
90	Black & White	7.7	2001
90	Dance Dance Revolution	8.8	2001
90	Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy	8.7	2001
90	Star Wars Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron II	8.6	2001
90	NCAA Football 2002	8.7	2001
90	Unreal Tournament	8.6	2001
90	Sid Meier's Civilization III	8.4	2001
90	NFL 2K2	8	2001
90	Flight Simulator 2002	8.4	2001

The crazy thing is if you expand that list you get a lot of classics rated as low as the high 70s(Zone of the Enders)

 

[falconxcrunner09]

Nevermind, I mis-read the post

 

[Chris1]

The standards are higher which definitely has an effect on it but I also think games are worse

 

[jayu26]

Good. Critics needed to become more sever and they have.

 

[Sanctuary]

The standards are higher which definitely has an effect on it but I also think games are worse

Is this actually true? If so, what "standards" are we talking about here, graphics, bugs? Because it's certainly not necessarily gameplay.

Also, having more reviews now doesn't actually mean much of anything depending on what crowd you fall under. During the 90s - 00s there might have been "less" overall reviews, but can you honestly argue against there actually being more honest, or informed and experienced reviewers? Sure, you had shit like Gamepro and then later IGN, but prior to the second mainstream explosion of 2005 - 2006 a lot of these magazines and initial sites were started by those who generally enjoyed playing games during a period where it was still particularly niche or "for nerds".

Now you have a lot more sources for reviews, but there are so many different people playing games now, and for different reasons that you essentially have to find what "group" your current tastes or habits align with and essentially ignore everything else.

 

[Seronei]

Isn't a large part of this due to the amount of reviews metacritic has of games? The amount of reviews per game has increased a lot. I don't think you can make any conclusions of this because the amount of reviews are considerable more the later it gets and it's bound to skew the results in some way.

For example ocarina of time has 22 reviews and Skyward Sword has over 80.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

Good. Critics have moved beyond handing out a 9/10 to every game that had pretty graphics and wasn't blatantly broken. It was pretty bad in the past.

 

[Gai Murakumo]

I feel that with more and more individuals growing up while gaming have become much more critical of games that are coming out today then they were when they were younger. That is the case for me at least.

 

[PeskyToaster]

The gaming press is maturing so eventually it will reach a state like the best movie and book critics. Actual intellectuals with education and credentials instead of just enthusiasts. We've kind of regressed with the flood of blog reviews but everyone has had to deal with that. It was more difficult in video games to parse the difference between critic and blogger because a difference hasn't really developed yet but I think it's getting there. Time to get academic, gaming needs it's own prestigious journal for reviews.

 

[purdobol]

1998 to 2004 (sixth generation) was golden age of video games. On all platforms. At least when it comes to 3D titles. Although this gen really starts to look like contender. Time will tell.

 

[Hobbes211]

I think a lot of this can be attributed to the recycling of content, particularly of plots and stories in gaming. New IPs are far and few between and it's still a toss up between the good and the bad when they do appear. Critics and fans alike (I especially speak for mysefl here) are probably getting tired of rehashed, recycled stories.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

tbh, looking solely at scores tells us nothing if we don't read the content of the reviews. I'm not sure the original article gives us much discussion.

Sure, an individual score doesn't tell us much, but I do think that an aggregate score tells us something about a game's perception at a specific time.

 

[Reset]

The damage is done, anything below an 8 is trash and 8 itself is average.