The games are worse.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Finder: 20 years of Metacritic scores shows a steady decline in 90 and above titles
- Thread starter DarkLordMalik
- Start date
The games are worse.
Theslammer
Member
Humorously enough, back in the day I didn't read a lot of reviews and I'd play anything, even games that were scoring 6s, and even enjoyed them because I didn't have this perception of what the game should be. I may have never tried Dynasty Warriors 2 if I had read reviews. Same with Sega Channel: I played everything and just made my own opinions.
People pay so much attention to numbers and not the content of reviews. I'm all for Tomatometer Watch threads for movies and Metacritic threads for games, but read the actual reviews past the scores. Rise of the Tomb Raider got 88 on average, and I couldn't even finish the game as opposed to many which scored lower.
People pay so much attention to numbers and not the content of reviews. I'm all for Tomatometer Watch threads for movies and Metacritic threads for games, but read the actual reviews past the scores. Rise of the Tomb Raider got 88 on average, and I couldn't even finish the game as opposed to many which scored lower.
It's not typical of modern gaming for a game to ship unfinished and promise contents and/or bug fixes in future patches?! Where have you been this past few years?!
JesseEwiak
Member
Not really.
It's a lot harder to convince 100 people that something is specifically great than 10 people. To make an apples to apples comparison, only 8 movies are above 90 in Metacritic this year for movies. That's not because there aren't only 8 great movies out there. It's because there were only 8 movies in varied genres that hundreds of critics could agree were great.
Are you saying the growth of the media industry is creating an overall downward trend on review scores?
I don't really think the data says anything interesting without a comparison with how many games actually was released each year.
The number of games each year need to be kinda consistent for this to be accurate, and I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Is there any reliable source for amount of games released each year? Wikipedia?
EDIT: The comments above about number of reviews I think is a really interesting point that also should be considered.
The number of games each year need to be kinda consistent for this to be accurate, and I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Is there any reliable source for amount of games released each year? Wikipedia?
EDIT: The comments above about number of reviews I think is a really interesting point that also should be considered.
blame space
Banned
what's the general consensus on this methodology
Randomizer123454444
Member
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.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yes, there are exceptions of course when something is so awesome that nobody can deny it. But, just to pick a game at random from Metacritic, Helldivers for PS4 got an 81 from Metacritic with scores ranging from 95 to all the way down to 60. That likely would not have happened in a world w here the only opinions were from 5 or 6 gaming magazines who are staffed by frankly, people from largely the same background and taste.
Um, not to push back on this, but you're missing the difference between a Steam review and a Metacritic score.
A Steam review is closer to a Rotten Tomatoes score - basically, is it a good game or not. I have no doubt that the RT number for VA11 Hall-A would be in the high 80's/low 90's because most people liked it, even if they didn't think it was a great game.
Also, Steam Reviews are quite open to frankly, vandalism from gamers if a publisher or developer does something they don't like that shouldn't affect a score of a game
Humdinger
Member
Yeah, there is a fairly steady decline since 2009, but it's up & down before that.
I agree that critics are getting more critical, but one other factor lowering scores might be the click-bait nature of the internet, which seems to have increased over the past decade. I believe some review sites give unusually low scores just to get attention. That might pull the averages down, too. I don't think this is the major factor, but it might be one of the factors.
p.s. Another factor is that much fewer big-budget games are coming out now than were last gen.. Assuming big budget correlates with better scores -- or at least with the likelihood of the game getting reviewed -- then that might be a factor pulling down the numbers as well.
MrCunningham
Member
The Xbox, Gamecube and Game Boy Advance.
PshycoNinja
Member
Come on guys...take it somewhere else.
Theslammer
Member
I have a hard time believing Goldeneye would get 90+ review scores nowadays as opposed to being docked for constant multiplayer slowdown (same with Perfect Dark, even moreso).
how does a 7.7 count as 90+?
JesseEwiak
Member
I think the 2nd number is the user score.
ok, that makes sense.
texasairhead101
Member
This is my first thought. I couldn't name even half of the sites for any major games review.
360 came out in late 2005 and PS3 and Wii were out in 2006 so they were all still getting early launch games which don't tend to be that great. I'm kind of surprised 2007 isn't better, so many good games that year.
PshycoNinja
Member
And that's good. Scores mean something again and 7s and 8s are considered good scores (as it should). And people are now paying more attention to the actual content of the reviews to understand what makes a game good or bad. This is all a good thing.
BlackRainbowFT
Member
it's adjusted for inflation
autumnleaf
Member
It makes sense, aside from gaming media itself becoming more professional the older the industry gets the higher standards become, the rarer innovation becomes, and more games you have to compare each with.
Marko_Baomoro
Member
Instead 4k res, hdr and other useless stuff, they have to aim to gameplay
DangerMouse
Member
Yeah.
Turin Turambar
Member
Some graphs
The first thing I thought is how Metacritic doesn't reflect quality that well. 1998 and 2007 were great years, for example, and it doesn't show in this graph.
It isn't really that large of a difference tho, if you compare the number of critics counted in the score ,some random pick from 2001 and 2016 90+ games:
2001
GTA 3 - 56
Jak and Daxter - 35
Advance Wars - 28
FFX - 53
2016
INSIDE - 86
Overwatch - 62
Uncharted 4 - 113
Maybe doubled in number over the years, I would argue that is not that much of a significant difference.
I think that's a good thing.
This was one of my major problems with the reviewers last generation where reviewers would lavishly hand out 9s to openly flawed games with obvious faults both technically and artistically. I'm glad the things have matured but I'm also glad that critical-minded people and critical thinking have prevailed and fought for a better collective approach .
Double the number is indeed a big deal, 113 reviews for U4, a bigger chance to have more reviewers who would give it a low score.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
90+ scores were handed out like candy in the wild west era of games journalism, now there's a race to be the edgiest, harshest critic.
Not generalizing the entirety of reviewers, just the trends followed by the extremes.
Not generalizing the entirety of reviewers, just the trends followed by the extremes.
SomedayTheFire
Member
Sonic really fucked up 2016 for all of us.
But really I'd be more interested to see the amount of low scoring games. I feel like review scores have become a lot more homogenised since then.
But really I'd be more interested to see the amount of low scoring games. I feel like review scores have become a lot more homogenised since then.
Interficium
Banned
Yes. That's definitely what happened.
Critics have gotten harsher on average, not really that surprising.
Sorry to burst your nostalgia bubble but graphics were just as important then as they are now.
Sorry to burst your nostalgia bubble but graphics were just as important then as they are now.
According to the graph we have in 2016:
PlayStation: 6 games
Xbox: 4 games
PC: 3 games
Nintendo: 0 games
But if you look at metacritic we have in 2016:
PlayStation: 4 PS4 + 0 PS3 + 0 PSV
Xbox: 4 Xbox One
PC: 5
Nintendo: 0 WiiU + 0 3DS
and if you include games with few reviews:
PlayStation: 4 PS4 + 1 PS3 + 2 PSV
Xbox: 6 Xbox One
PC: 9
Nintendo: 1 WiiU + 0 3DS
So, what have I done wrong?
You're counting expansions as games. Kentucky Route Zero and Witcher 3 for instance don't count as 2016 games, which drops PC back down to 3. And yes they're ignoring games with few reviews. And no I don't know where they got 6 on PS4 from.
Psychoward
Banned
Nah, game journalists are finally easing up on hyperbole.
I'm glad 9's and 10's aren't being thrown around as easily as before personally, and that mediocre AAA games get called out.
It was a great time to be a young, single and working adult where I could piss money away on games without a care in the world.
Eh, metacritic is shit and should never be taken as a actual qualifier of quality. Not to mention that reviewing sites have become more critical and less blinded by hype than before (it still happens a lot, mind you). Things like GTA IV getting the metacritic score it got is frankly ridiculous.
There's also a lot of great games in the indie scene these days that go almost uncovered by gaming media, sometimes achieving great success with gamers before it even gets a review by a major publication. Those are largely unrepresented in metacritic despite their quality.
There's also a lot of great games in the indie scene these days that go almost uncovered by gaming media, sometimes achieving great success with gamers before it even gets a review by a major publication. Those are largely unrepresented in metacritic despite their quality.
More like gaming journalism decreased worthless hyperbole.
Conciliator
Banned
Reviewers have edged a little more toward being actual critics and not just hypemen.
One thing I've noticed is it seems like indie games that are not super hyped have 'realer' review averages. Like a small indie game that gets a 70 is usually actually good and not a disaster such as when AAA games get a metacritic score like that.
Mobile games is the opposite, it's even more inflated and hype-ier than AAA. Everything gets above a 90.
Which, coincidentally or not, seems to correlate with the degree of aggressive marketing and PR work in each sector.
One thing I've noticed is it seems like indie games that are not super hyped have 'realer' review averages. Like a small indie game that gets a 70 is usually actually good and not a disaster such as when AAA games get a metacritic score like that.
Mobile games is the opposite, it's even more inflated and hype-ier than AAA. Everything gets above a 90.
Which, coincidentally or not, seems to correlate with the degree of aggressive marketing and PR work in each sector.
WaterAstro
Member
There's a steady increase of review sites giving low scores to gain hits through controversy.
Randomizer
Member
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.
There are a few which engage in that, sure, but I think the majority of reviewers have simply become more critical.