Maybe if you think there's a videogame bible that says so, but I personally enjoy the game still, as do others.
Was it rated too highly? Yeah. Is it a really bad game? No.
-
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.
Influenced? IGN + Game Informer = EVERY major multiplatform release 8.5 or higher
- Thread starter TheNatural
- Start date
Maybe if you think there's a videogame bible that says so, but I personally enjoy the game still, as do others.
Was it rated too highly? Yeah. Is it a really bad game? No.
I don't know if the reviews of the games listed are deserved, but I do know that most gamers would buy any of those games without ever reading a review.
Crysis 2? It's longer and more open than most other current-gen console FPS.
Crysis 2? It's longer and more open than most other current-gen console FPS.
Ravensmash
Member
All of those games are considered pretty damn good.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Hitman: Absolution is not a 9.0
Granted, once you understand how OP the invisibility is(how long you can be invisible, taking cover behind stuff to regain invisibility) the game can be beaten in a few hours.
First playthrough is probably around 7 hours.
Because you played them all or because the critics said so?
This. While some aren't nearly as good as the review says, most are good.
Palette Swap
Member
Compare the scores of games from the 2 groups major/non-major releases for the 2 publications to how they fare on metacritic, measure variance and that will tell you whether these 2 specific publications on these specific kind of games are outliers compared to the rest of the press and games.
Right now, it's a pretty weak argument to prove a point I actually believe (that these guys are paid off one way or another).
Right now, it's a pretty weak argument to prove a point I actually believe (that these guys are paid off one way or another).
Ravensmash
Member
Because of impressions on here, impressions from critics and through playing a lot of them, yes.
OP's data is flawed anyway, as he's only using one score from each site for each title - and neglecting widespread praise from elsewhere.
If the problem is that 9/10 is a near perfect score and the scale is faulty, then that's a wider issue and not cause for shouts about collusion or corruption.
We all know that a lot of sides abuse the scale, so therefore the more sensible option to gauge influence/corruption would be to look at the actual review text in comparison to other sources. Shouting about an arbitrary number tagged onto the end of a lengthy piece of writing seems disingenuous and misleading.
Sure but that's a choice the player makes. On a harder difficulty and a balanced playstyle it's easily 10-12h long.
JordanLMiller
Member
This is why I don't read reviews anymore - every score is inflated and most written reviews are too over the top with praise that you can't get anything from them. I love the defense that "but every game is good!" No they aren't.
Ravensmash
Member
There are numerous reviews out there from all the major publications that focus on negatives and explore problems. I'd say that your criticism of them is also somewhat inflated.
The wider issue is giving a score at all. Every person has different tastes. You can't say a game is good because lots of people (including you) liked it. You can only say you find the game to be good.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Maybe linear is the wrong word but compared to Crysis, maybe it isn't.
I'd have to write a wall of text for why I think C2 is very average but just the gunplay on console. It just feels wrong and it's not satisfying, perhaps due to 20 fps in certain sections.
And the multiplayer was terrible. Beaten hands down by Killzone 3 released at the same time.
Ravensmash
Member
Then the problem is that people are going into reviews expecting them to be a tell all recommendation rather than an entertaining piece of writing which conveys a critics opinion, from which the reader can extrapolate their own thoughts.
People focus too much on a score, and often skip the text entirely - thus why sites continue to use them/abuse them. I know I'm guilty of it, and I'm sure many others here are.
I don't just read a review to find out if I should buy a game, I read reviews because they can be well structured pieces which accurately convey someone's experience with the game.
I do agree that scores need to be sorted out in some cases, because they do feel tacked on - but look at the recent debacle over Uncharted 3 recieving an 8 on Eurogamer, and the vitriol aimed towards the site/author in the comments section, because people were directly comparing the score alone to other games (a big no no I'd guess) and appalled that it 'only' got an 8, while failing to look over the text/justifications from the individual author at all, or dismissing them blindly. They exist at present because the readership wants them unfortunately.
Saying that, a number of sites don't have the typical scores - Kotaku for example, which does place more emphasis on the writing.
Yeah I see. But that's another problems with reviews in general, how should games be judged objectively? Should the PS3 version of Crysis 2 be compared to Crysis 1 PC (or C2 PC), or simply be judged among it's peers (CoD, Killzone 2/3, Resitance). In the first case I could understand a 5 or 6, but otherwise it's easily an 8.
Let's not forget not every gamer owns every available plattform and can choose the best version / best games in their genre.
Ravensmash
Member
It shouldn't be judged directly to the PC version, nor should it be judged amongst its peers solely either - a reader doesn't want to hear about Killzone 3 or how poor their version looks compared to a high end custom built rig, they want to hear about the game itself and the experience provided by it as an individual product.
Of course sometimes it's necessary to bring in comparisons, and often helpful to the overall text, but it should never be judged just on how it fares to another game (well, unless it's an obvious clone I guess like BrickCraft or something similarly unsubtle lol)
just my thoughts though.
Games shouldn't be judged objectively. Yesterday on another thread I was talking about things the film industry does better - one other area I like are the old Siskel and Ebert review's, where they would give either a thumbs up or thumbs down - no pretending to quantify it. In the end, it came down to whether the reviewer liked the movie or not.
Also, LOL at people saying "of course AAA games are good, big budgets!" Yeah, and every summer blockbuster is right up there with Citizen Kane.
Yeah, I'm not seeing a Driv3r case here. Most of this games warrant at least a B-/8.0.
RE6 is one of the games in the OP that is actually a pretty bad game, yet GI gave it such a high score compared to the overwhelming majority who disliked it and found a lot of flaws with the game.
Though, I do not think this is the proper way to try and prove that their reviews are influenced by the publisher and/or others.
Though, I do not think this is the proper way to try and prove that their reviews are influenced by the publisher and/or others.
DecoyOctopus
Member
Yes, good games (well, some of them...) but not 9+ games.
Dead Space 3: 9.75 (GI)? 9.75?! Give me a break...
archnemesis
Member
AuthenticM
Member
9.75 for Dead Space 3 ? What the hell, GameInformer.
Where have you guys been with game informer? I've gotten their magazine monthly for like 5 years now. You rarely see anything get lower than a 7 and it's only shovelware that does.
Yeah even if you pretend it's a completely new IP it's far too broken as a stealth game to get a 9. But hey it's a big AAA game.
Yeah even if you pretend it's a completely new IP it's far too broken as a stealth game to get a 9. But hey it's a big AAA game.
Let's not be naive, some publishers and any number of other pseudo-powerful interests would give good money to get their grubby-hands on manipulating review numbers. Especially in these Metacritic days.
You don't need a tinfoil cap to suspect that Public-Relations goons out there are trying to do their job...
Like others have mentioned those are some great titles (some I have not played beyond the demo) but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if game journalists aren't sometimes approached. All we can hope for is that those journalists will be outspoken against it as they change jobs.
You don't need a tinfoil cap to suspect that Public-Relations goons out there are trying to do their job...
Like others have mentioned those are some great titles (some I have not played beyond the demo) but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if game journalists aren't sometimes approached. All we can hope for is that those journalists will be outspoken against it as they change jobs.
Can't speak for OP's theory, but 85+ seems to be the magic Metacritic score publishers aim for (one infamous example)
I do not believe money changes hands for review scores, the industry isn't that simple, but it's obvious as day that certain publications and EiC's know what it takes to get preferential treatment from publishers/marketers and stay in their good books.
I do not believe money changes hands for review scores, the industry isn't that simple, but it's obvious as day that certain publications and EiC's know what it takes to get preferential treatment from publishers/marketers and stay in their good books.
just at a quick glance, Madden, WWE 13 are rated way too high
i liked WWE 13, but it doesn't even deserve a 4. MP barely worked and when it did, the game has so many exploits the matches are boring as shit. it also feels like it has less content than previous games (last one i played was SvR 2006) and somehow graphics got worse
Really stopped reading reviews along time ago. It was mainly down to inconsistency. All to often I would find games with similar faults but some games got a pass while others got hammered.
It also gets my goat that a game that seems to have individual scores that dont make sense. How is it that a game with a totally brain dead story, which even the reviewer highlights, still manages to pull a high score in that sub category. It just seems like they have a score to hit and they just pull the figures out of their backside
It also gets my goat that a game that seems to have individual scores that dont make sense. How is it that a game with a totally brain dead story, which even the reviewer highlights, still manages to pull a high score in that sub category. It just seems like they have a score to hit and they just pull the figures out of their backside
pants
Member
Dan Hsu's review of Gears of War? Apparently the full review is a bit more balanced.
Thats the one, still as relevant as ever
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
That logic is horrible! First of all maybe Assassin Creed games or Madden games are consistently good anyway. And to be honest most of those games in your list are good. The fight that most have is, is it 8.0 good, 8.5 good, 9.0 great, or 9.5 awesome. It's a bunch of splitting hairs.
But reviews still matter if you actually "READ THE WORDS" and not put most of the importance on the numbered score.
Who in their right mind would give Sleeping Dogs a 7.75?
OldAsUrSock
Banned
I'll add in FFXIII scoring 9.25/10 and 8.9/10 at GI and IGN respectively.
FF13 deserves at least an 8.5 rating.
BL2 is a fun game (for how long, is debatable), but it is no 9.75.
20 hours.
After 20 hours the game feels so empty and dead inside that depression sets in.
Quick looks are the future. More so than a written review with a score attached to it, I can learn, and build self-hype-interest in a game 100 times more by visually seeing it in action and hearing a reviewer talk about it. Those Giant Bomb quick looks for games like Hitman and Far Cry 3 showed me exactly what I needed to see to make a decision on where I want to spend my money.
The problem with taking reviews seriously from outlets like IGN and GI (and I would throw Gametrailers in there too) is that they have no real identity. I mean, maybe they do and I just don't pay close enough attention, but outside of McNamara at GI, and I guess, Miller at IGN (whos about as professional as a squirrel with a tie on), I don't know any of their staffand more importantly, what their taste in games are.
Is the reviewer reviewing this game for themselves or on behalf of the entire outlet? If its the latter, how much influence do those who are in on that conversation have on what is projected in the actual review? And is that even fair to the reader and game that youre getting a mixed bag of opinions? It's a problem.
In the case of Gametrailers, I dont believe they publicly acknowledge who the reviewer even is. Its just implied, I guess, that the site as an entity supports the bullet points and numbers that are attached. While I think GT does a good job putting their reviews together, I really dont like their scoring system or that I dont know who reviewed the game. Its all very off putting to me, as more times than not, the numbers do not correlate with what has been mentioned verbally in the review.
In the end it doesn't help that the majority of the audiencewhose eyes they're battling each other foris prone to attach themselves to numbers or grades rather than the context of the content. That helps absolutely no one, yet, will never go away. Ever.
The problem with taking reviews seriously from outlets like IGN and GI (and I would throw Gametrailers in there too) is that they have no real identity. I mean, maybe they do and I just don't pay close enough attention, but outside of McNamara at GI, and I guess, Miller at IGN (whos about as professional as a squirrel with a tie on), I don't know any of their staffand more importantly, what their taste in games are.
Is the reviewer reviewing this game for themselves or on behalf of the entire outlet? If its the latter, how much influence do those who are in on that conversation have on what is projected in the actual review? And is that even fair to the reader and game that youre getting a mixed bag of opinions? It's a problem.
In the case of Gametrailers, I dont believe they publicly acknowledge who the reviewer even is. Its just implied, I guess, that the site as an entity supports the bullet points and numbers that are attached. While I think GT does a good job putting their reviews together, I really dont like their scoring system or that I dont know who reviewed the game. Its all very off putting to me, as more times than not, the numbers do not correlate with what has been mentioned verbally in the review.
In the end it doesn't help that the majority of the audiencewhose eyes they're battling each other foris prone to attach themselves to numbers or grades rather than the context of the content. That helps absolutely no one, yet, will never go away. Ever.
Yeah, but besides those yearly sports titles nothing seems out of the ordinary. They probably are rated a little bit too high over all, but I don't think it is some sort of grand conspiracy.
If anything it is the games not on the list that are suspect, the forgotten average to bad games that still managed to get decent-to-good reviews. Although I do believe that Game Informer does boost reviews of games that are heavily advertise, regardless of quality, I don't think they are the worst when it comes to reviews by far. Play Magazine gave Army of Two: 40th Day a 95/100. Let that sink in before you dive into their archives and see what else did live up to the Army of Two 2 quality standard.
madden? lol no
What you'd really need to do is break those review averages down by game type. For example, do we see a disproportionately positive correlation between marketing budget and IGN review score? Between production cost and Game Informer review score?
I'm hardly interested enough to do the math myself, but that's what you would really need. It's entirely plausible that Game Informer is, for example, harsher on smaller and indie titles, while simultaneously more lenient to big games released by EA/Take 2/Ubisoft/ActivisionBlizzard.
Given that I have such low esteem for gaming journalism in general, I would hardly care whether IGN is worse than average or not; they're all bad.
Corrolary: big production budgets lead to proportionally big marketing budgets; big marketing budgets make anything appear better, more relevant than it is.
Reread what you quoted. I said a lot. Not all. Or even most.
Sleeplessnights
Banned
I don't visit GI but how do they rate Borderlands 2 9.75? The score out of 10 is a little too much at this point.