Support NeoGAF

[Chris1]

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.

I don't think reviewers in the past were more honest, informed or experienced, I just think reviewers (and gamers in general) need.. more to be mind blown, and aren't shy of giving a game maybe an 8/10 or a 9/10 whereas before it'd be 9 and 10s.

I think a good example of reviewers being more critical is GTA V, it's 1 point lower than GTA 4 but I think every single person who's played both would agree it should be higher. I know it's only one point so it's probably not the best example but it's the best I could think of

In the past a big AAA game would need to be a disaster to get like a 70 metacritic, now average but fully competent games get 70s. Sadly the mindset hasn't changed that much and 70s = disaster still, but yeah.

 

[Tecnniqe]

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

Its so sad and true.

Whole system is a wreck because this is how people see everything.

<79? Trash!
81? Meh
90+ Aight

 

[Jenenser]

there could be several valid reasons for this effect.
many are already stated like more reviewers that are more critical.

id also like to add to the points:
games became a blurred mess for about a while now, they kinda are jack of al trades but a master of none. (think about ubis open worldgames for example)

it feels like innovation in gaming generaly stagnated a little bit.

 

[HueyFreeman]

It's interesting data, but the conclusion that this is related to a decrease in game quality would I think be erroneous. There are several variables which could explain this trend, and this is exactly the kind of thing Metacritic (and aggregation sites in general) are so bad at: presenting context-free, unanalyzed data for people to jump to conclusions with.

 

[Foxtastical]

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.

Or we have a more varied set of opinions commenting on games nowadays?

 

[Birgitte2004]

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.

BS. This is your nostalgia filter talking. Tons of AAA games had glitches/bugs/crashes galore 15 years ago. Just nobody cared. Hell, stuff like AGDQ love the fact that older games had tons of glitches, a large percentage of speedrunning is based on finding the bugs and (ab)using them.

Madden today doesn't get 90 because "It's just more Madden". There is nothing functionally wrong with Madden now compared to Madden then other than time passing/criteria changing.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

70 and higher are great to me. Doesn't mean I won't play anything lower than that, I would just wait for a sale or if I can get it used to make my own judgement. Review scores only tell me the difference between that.

 

[AColdDay]

If you look at the biggest spikes, it correlates to titles that were absolutely groundbreaking.

Nothing hits as high nowadays because developers are stuck to sticking to formulas that work rather than taking creative risks. I'm not putting the blame on them, because its tough to get the people who control the money to get behind risky projects, so developer's hands are tied to a certain degree. Publishers have lost their way, and instead of having diverse portfolios of games they are banking more and more on having one big franchise they just iterate on year after year.

Then when you have this franchise that has had a hundred iterations, it is hard to look at the latest Uncharted or Halo and not see the flaws as greater than they are because the good points of those series are so well-worn at this point. This causes the fan expectations to get out of control, because if you are going to do the same FPS or cover shooter formula that has been done to death then your execution better be perfect.

I wish that an up-and-coming studio would figure out a business plan that didn't involve each game needing to be 10 million plus sellers in order to be a success.

 

[ghibli99]

Seriously, to hell with all the doom and gloom. Games are great, they always have been, and the releases over the past two years in particular make a good case for being the best of their respective genres.

 

[shira]

I wish that an up-and-coming studio would figure out a business plan that didn't involve each game needing to be 10 million plus sellers in order to be a success.

Most indie studios are like this.

Established studios have shareholders.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I'd wager there's far more reviewers now then there was twenty years ago, and they're more critical then in the past.

Not surprising.

 

[randomengine]

Easy solution more Nintendo game releases.

 

[randomengine]

I'd wager there's far more reviewers now then there was twenty years ago, and they're more critical then in the past.

Not surprising.

More reviewers dropping the average quality of reviews. You'll get fewer reviewers with general taste and more specialists who review games that are not their hobby horse much lower.

 

[w0s]

Didn't people want this? Sites used to toss out 9's and 10's like water.

 

[SprachBrooks]

Damn, Sega are having a really rough time lol.

 

[arts&crafts]

Why was every sports game in 2001 90+

NBA
NHL
Madden
Tennis
NCAA
Other NFL

wait..Madden isnt the only NFL game

and also SSX, but that was an awesome game, so I will allow it.

 

[digita1alchemy]

Its so sad and true.

Whole system is a wreck because this is how people see everything.

<79? Trash!
81? Meh
90+ Aight

I think is partly because the median quality of games keeps creeping up over time. There are many more "pretty good" titles and far less "total garbage" titles than there used to be. I have a laugh sometimes when I see the kinds of games people label as being terrible and wonder if they even remember (if they are old enough) what real bad games were like. And not talking shovelware either, but actual high-profile games by major publishers that were just awful.

When you only buy ~10 or so games a year and you have the high number of relatively polished releases we have now, suddenly a 79 rated game puts it in the bottom half of big releases for a given year. It's all relative.

 

[Galang]

Nintendo consoles being so low is blowing my mind. I'd understand if it was home consoles only but this includes handhelds too. The GBA, NDS and 3DS have massive libraries of amazing games. The fact that so few of the titles are getting 90+ makes no sense.

Doesn't this include third party games too though? If so then it makes sense why it's generally not as high.

 

[Snefer]

Its well known that scores are gradually going down on average. Which I think is a good thing, more of the spectrum is valid, instead of "everything below 8 is shit" which used to be how people were thinking.

 

[Fdkn]

The games are not worse, and what people call broken right now has nothing on what we had back then.

Imagine an action game releasing with a 20 fps cap that drops even lower during gameplay and the game getting GOAT status from the critics.

Imposible right? Well, that's how OoT was.

 

[Theslammer]

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.

A game's perception at the time? Sure, but it doesn't tell us the quality compared to now because the content of the reviews is what's worth more.

The games are not worse, and what people call broken right now has nothing on what we had back then.

Imagine an action game releasing with a 20 fps cap that drops even lower during gameplay and the game getting GOAT status from the critics.

Imposible right? Well, that's how OoT was.

That's been my main point, too. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark stand out BIG TIME as games with big technical issues, especially the low FPS in multiplayer, that received amazing review scores. Hell, there's an expectation nowadays, at least that I see, that an FPS should be 60fps. But those were 30fps, and in multiplayer with the wind blowing, you could get 20fps if you were lucky. =P

 

[low-G]

I think in general we've just about lost the absolute highest tier (cost to make) titles which also turn out incredibly well made. We still have games that are functionally perfect (Devil Daggers), but don't suit all tastes. We still have really good games that suit a large number of tastes.

Things probably couldn't be too much better, realistically. We'd have to live in a different world / time.

 

[purdobol]

Everybody's focusing on reviewers which is not the whole picture.

Come to think of it. Games back then did not take this long to come out like today. Also the teams producing AAA titles were a lot smaller. Put theese two together. And you've got a situation where many small companies (by todays standards) were actually capable of making AAA games. That means that there were a lot more AAA titles to choose from, that could get that higher score.

Another big factor I think is that back then the marketing budgets were a lot smaller. So games were not overhyped. Many classics felt like they came out of nowhere.

 

[Theslammer]

Everybody's focusing on reviewers which is not the whole picture.

Come to think of it. Games back then did not take this long to come out like today. Also the teams producing AAA titles were a lot smaller. Put theese two together. And you've got a situation where many small companies (by todays standards) were actually capable of making AAA games. That means that there were a lot more AAA titles to choose from, that could get that higher score.

Another big factor I think is that back then the marketing budgets were a lot smaller. So games were not overhyped. Many classics felt like they came out of nowhere.

Oh, in raw dollars, I'm sure they were smaller, but there was PLENTY of marketing for many of these games. Stuff like MGS2, FFX, GTA3, etc. weren't unknown quantities.

 

[arts&crafts]

woops wrong thread

 

[Timu]

What came out in 2001?

Ha, ha, seriously? A lot of great games!

 

[LordKasual]

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

fuuuuuuuuuckkk me

i forgot gaming used to be this good

This year was stacked as shit in retrospect

 

[The Dude]

Reviewers are just like, their opinion man

 

[purdobol]

Oh, in raw dollars, I'm sure they were smaller, but there was PLENTY of marketing for many of these games. Stuff like MGS2, FFX, GTA3, etc. weren't unknown quantities.

For well established franchises sure. For new IPs not so much.

 

[Theslammer]

For well established franchises sure. For new IPs not so much.

Unless there are actual numbers that new IPs were not advertised back then but now they are, this is likely not a true statement.

Games were marketed heavily then just as they are now. The reason we're not "discovering" as much is due to the amount of information at our fingertips as we know what's coming. Lord knows I discovered plenty on Sega Channel since I didn't have AOL yet and I didn't read gaming magazines.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

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

92	Advance Wars	9	2001

Sigh.

 

[staticneuron]

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.

Personally, to me it seems as if for the past two generations there are a handful of reviewers that score outside the general. At first I thought there were genuine but when looking at the scores and content of review I find most of them to be illogical. Then it hit me. Maybe that is the point. Snipe the core of a large popular game, then people will follow link to reviewers page to find out why.

I mean it is like the lowest score of Gravity Rush 2 is a 30 (1 and a half star) while most others are pretty high around 80 (4 stars).

The reviewer states this

It’s just one more in a long list of disconnected, broken, and un-fun elements, right there beside the collection of extraneous power-enhancing talismans and a series of replayable, bland mining zones that serve no purpose beyond allowing Kat to grind the crystal shards used to level up her abilities. Gravity Rush 2 doesn’t defy gravity so much as it just lifelessly hangs there.

I guess, it is fair to have all points of view there, but it is kinda of interesting after so many reviews and different complaints, this is the only one that portrays the game as lifeless and boring.

Imo, there has been a noticeable increase in reviews like these over the years and when looking back at older titles, you simply wouldn't see things like that. Even Ico, a title that has MANY things gamers can complain about on a technical level and doesn't really appeal to everyone design wise, the greatest difference in score between highest and lowest is 15 points. The greatest difference for Uncharted 4? 50 points. FH3? 50 points. Halo 5? 30 points. GoW4? 30 points.

I could go on but from what I noticed in metacritic scores, is more than just the average droping but the increase in range between highest and lowest scores.

 

[Atilac]

2001 was the best year of gaming, followed closely by 1998 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_in_video_gaming

 

[archangelmorph]

Is there a graph to compare these against the total number of releases across the said same platforms?

Or even better; plotting it directly as a ratio?

I mean otherwise this data is largely meaningless...

 

[zombieshavebrains]

Man 2005-2006 were some dark years it seems.

 

[Lothars]

Or games just got worse and less polished.

I don't think that's the case at all, I think it's partially critics have got more critical but also the hypecycle hurting more games than helping.

There's a steady increase of review sites giving low scores to gain hits through controversy.

I think that may have a part but not a big part in review scores changes.

 

[Dead End Irony]

2017 should be an interesting year though with Metascores. A lot of heavy hitting games coming up. I wonder how games like Zelda and Persona 5 will look on Metacritic with reviewers being tougher nowadays.

 

[Sanctuary]

2001 was the best year of gaming, followed closely by 1998 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_in_video_gaming

In order:

1998
1997
1996
2001
2004
2007
2011
-
-
-
-
-
2017?

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

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

It looks like a downtrend to me. Lower lows and lower highs.

 

[SirNinja]

To be expected. Critics are getting tougher and more numerous, standards are becoming higher across the board, the difficulty and cost of game development/testing is rising...all of that adds up.

2001 was lit

YoureGoddamnRight.gif

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

This graph makes some past threads about publisher/platform game quality really amusing.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Doesn't mean quality games aren't being churned out.. Maybe there isn't a whole lot of innovative games out there. I mean I have no doubt that we're getting more and more games with sequels that are sticking with their formula instead of creating something entirely different.

And a score in the 90s really shouldn't be the corner stone for great games. To me it almost implies false narrative that anything below isn't good.

 

[Rad-]

Not surprised. This gen has been pretty bad as far as "amazing" level games go. Worst gen (for big titles) that I have witnessed and I've been a gamer since NES.

 

[purdobol]

Unless there are actual numbers that new IPs were not advertised back then but now they are, this is likely not a true statement.

All i can give you is that as a kid back then with subscription to biggest gaming magazine in my country. I didn't knew anything about upcoming titles such as Deus Ex or Half Life other than what was written in a two sentence side notes next to proper article. And the only way to find out was to actually read a review.

And i got the feeling that reviewers had way less info about upcoming titles back then as well. And without high expectations and leaked features maybe it was easier to judge the game for what it was, not what it could/should be.

Sure the games were advertised. One page with some art (usually logo on some backroung) and a couple sentences from review outlets. Like quake 3 advertisment that stuck in my head to this day, with logo, toilet as a seat in front of pc in very messy room. Suttf like that. But there was no easy acces to trailers, gameplay videos and fake cgi crap.

Maybe the magazine was shitty though. I don't know

 

[DarkConfidant]

Nintendo and Sega platforms were tied last year?

Ouch.

 

[webrunner]

is there a graph of "number of reviews"?

More reviews would tend towards middle-of-the-road scores instead of being a swingy

 

[4Tran]

I'm not convinced that this is indicative of any kind of significant trend. However, if it does, then that trend is that game reviews are becoming more mature and that there's less hyperbole in the scores being awarded. Still, I don't think that the score values given to games are particularly useful. Instead, the value from game reviews lies in their contents, and what the reviewer says.

 

[collige]

Hold the fucking phone here. It looks like Sega's output is still being factored into the average despite the obvious fact that they're out of business. Look at 2016 for example: The average 90+ count is somewhere between 2 and 3 and closer to the latter. Taking Sega into consideration, the average is (6+4+3+0+0)/5 = 2.6 when it should actually be (6+4+3+0)/4 = 3.25 because Sega is actually out of business rather than just publishing a bunch of games that scored below 90. This fucks up the entire average after 2001.

 

[watdaeff4]

SO speaking of 2001, interestingly enough I"m currently playing Jak and Daxter (90+ on Metacritic) on the Vita as well as Max Payne (89 on Metacritic) via PS2 on PS4 and I can for one say that people who think games were more polished back then and had less issues have some serious nostalgia glasses on.

 

[Iksenpets]

In order:

1998
1997
1996
2001
2004
2007
2011
-
-
-
-
-
2017?

This is grave disrespect towards 2015.