Support NeoGAF

[Chubzdoomer]

Most scores are 6,7 or 8. How is this a flop?

The average is currently a mustard-yellow 67% on Metacritic. Considering the critical acclaim Rare's old 3D platformers received and how highly anticipated this game was (over $2 million raised on Kickstarter) ... trust me, it's a flop.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

Many people don't read reviews, so when an aggregate gets pulled down because some dumbass who doesn't like fighting games is given Tekken to review, people will be put off and won't give the game a chance.

Well, then you get a negative review & the Metacritic average maybe goes down slightly. Just like sometimes you get the opposite and you get somebody who absolutely loves the things that your game does and gives it a rave review. Life moves on. I've gotten reviews of our games from people who don't like the genre and it's annoying but you can't please everybody. Unless you're the developer or publisher of a game, this stuff shouldn't bother you.

 

[TheVoidDragon]

Bolded is the fundamental problem and precisely why his reviews are useless.

His criteria are not aligned with consensus of what constitutes a 2/10. That's the issue here. I disagree with his criteria and thus will never visit his site, and he's free to keep doing what he's doing. Simple as that!

What would you say counts as a 2/10 game, then? This is what a 2/10 game is to Jim:

2 (Bad): A 2 represents a straight-up bad game. A thorough disaster, there is no hope of a positive experience ever shining through all the broken features and atrocious ideas. Only the truly desperate will be able to dig through the mire and find something passable.

His time with the game matches up with what that says. His reviews aren't suddenly "useless" because he uses the full scale rather than sticking with the usual "6 - 10 and anything below that is an arbitrary number". It's what he says about the game that matters more than the number assigned to it.

 

[Synth]

So, do you consider bunny-hopping an objective flaw also, and should every review be marking Quake's score down as a result?

Again, you have no idea what objectivity is. A weapon having a delay is objective, what that means to the game itself is subjective (the weapon balance could be utter garbage with that delay removed).

 

[joecanada]

Best post. I'm sick of this "BUT IT'S THE REVIEWERS OPINION" nonsense. Shit like that is why Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 an unfair review (a 7 I think?)

The reviewer needs to consider the tastes of the consumer, that's the difference between an opinion piece and a professional review.

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

Many people don't read reviews, so when an aggregate gets pulled down because some dumbass who doesn't like fighting games is given Tekken to review, people will be put off and won't give the game a chance.

You can't trust "opinions", an opinion doesn't speak for the quality of a game. In my "opinion" cinematic western games are barely games and aren't worth my time, but I know that a review by me would not be fair for that type of game if I brought that mindset in while reviewing.

your post describes this thread perfectly... as in everything that is wrong with this thread.

 

[Aaron D.]

Review threads here are toxic as fuck my Lord

It's almost like there isn't enough popcorn in the world.

I find 'em pretty entertaining, tbh. In a Jerry Seinfeld kind of way.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Stop caring about review scores. 💁

Read the review, that's the important part.

 

[JayWood2010]

Again, you have no idea what objectivity is.

I would say the same of you.

 

[Cloukyo]

You have it backwards. The consumer needs to consider the taste of the reviewer. Don't listen to reviewers who have different tastes than you.

Of course a review is an opinion piece, otherwise every review would a digital foundry analysis and a list of features.

How can you say that there's no such thing as a professional opinion piece? For centuries people have been making money off their opinion, which is the very definition of a professional.

In a world where metacritic exists, this can't be the case.

And I never said there was no such thing as a professional opinion piece, they do absolutely exist, but they're a separate thing completely.

In the end, a review is "should YOU buy it" not a "Would I buy it".

Like I said, shit like "Opinions" is what led to Nier getting a misrepresented review because some guy didn't like playing games all the way through, or Polygon misrepresenting Bayonetta 2 because the fact that the camera was lewd was more important than the incredible gameplay, music and level design of the game.

 

[plagiarize]

So all reviews should only be targeted at the reviewer's (potentially mistaken) viewpoint of what the 'average consumer' wants? What about everyone else? Is Jim Sterling really the only person on the planet who would really hate Yooka Laylee?

Exactly the point I tried to make too.

So every review should attempt to do the same exact thing (and presumably produce scores all inline with every other review) so as not to 'harm' the metacritic average of the game?

Why bother aggregating reviews if they're all the same?

This is dumb.

If someone can't read this:

Yooka-Laylee is a game out of time, clinging so desperately to past glories it doesn’t seem to understand the Earth kept spinning after the N64 was discontinued. It’s everything wrong about the formative years of 3D platforming and it somehow retained none of what made the genre’s highlights endure.

And understand that if *they* don't think 90s platformers like Banjo Kazooie have aged terribly, and thus that they may very well not come to the same conclusion as Jim does... then that's on those people.

Not Jim. He explains clearly why he doesn't like it.

If you think Banjo Kazooie has held up just fine, because Jim explained why he didn't like the game, you can read his review and know that you wouldn't rate it the same way he does.

There is no subjective fact here on whether or not Banjo Kazooie has dated so much that it's unplayable. For some people that's true. For others it's not.

Why shouldn't someone who thinks the former get to share their opinion? Why shouldn't people looking for a review from someone who thinks Banjo Kazooie is now dated unplayable junk be able to find a reviewer catering to that viewpoint?

If you get upset about a game getting a specific metacritic... get over it. Game reviewers aren't there to give metacritic datapoints to work from. They are there to share their opinions of games. Some people read reviews as a buyers guide, some people read reviews to see what other people think of a title.

Reviews should cater to both.

And they do!

They shouldn't cater to someone upset about a metacritic score.

 

[Synth]

I would say the same of you.

I've described why I disagree with your usage of objectivity. Explain to me why my usage is incorrect.

Weapon X fires 1 second after player pulls trigger = Objective
1 second weapon delay is a bad thing = Subjective

Go on.. educate me.

In a world where metacritic exists, this can't be the case.

And I never said there was no such thing as a professional opinion piece, they do absolutely exist, but they're a separate thing completely.

In the end, a review is "should YOU buy it" not a "Would I buy it".

Like I said, shit like "Opinions" is what led to Nier getting a misrepresented review because some guy didn't like playing games all the way through, or Polygon misrepresenting Bayonetta 2 because the fact that the camera was lewd was more important than the incredible gameplay, music and level design of the game.

Reviews existed before metacritic, and they will continue to exist after.

Reviews shouldn't have to adhere to a strict formula simply because metacritic now exists and rustles people's jimmies. They don't even have a consistently workable solution of their own... "hmm, wait for sale... that's a 5/10 I guess!".

 

[Glass Shark]

In a world where metacritic exists, this can't be the case.

And I never said there was no such thing as a professional opinion piece, they do absolutely exist, but they're a separate thing completely.

In the end, a review is "should YOU buy it" not a "Would I buy it".

Like I said, shit like "Opinions" is what led to Nier getting a misrepresented review because some guy didn't like playing games all the way through, or Polygon misrepresenting Bayonetta 2 because the fact that the camera was lewd was more important than the incredible gameplay, music and level design of the game.

Not everyone is going to think games are good that you think are good, it would be beneficial for your sanity if you would recognize that fact and get over weird grudges about someone "misrepresenting" games you like.

 

[Ansatz]

What would you say counts as a 2/10 game, then? This is what a 2/10 game is to Jim:

This is his critera for a 2/10 game:



His time with the game matches up with what that says. His reviews aren't suddenly "useless" because he uses the full scale rather than sticking with the usual "6 - 10 and anything below that is an arbitrary number". It's what he says about the game that matters more than the number assigned to it.

I don't have the time or interest to learn what a 2/10 means for Jim, if he wants my attention he should follow the unwritten guidelines of what scores mean in the context of video games. I know what a 7.8 is on IGN and exactly how the review text will read after I saw the score and know which game we're talking about, no matter who reviews it.

To be fair, this is much harder nowadays with online focused games, $40 tier indie titles, $1 mobile games, etc. Free DLC 6 months later that expands on the game; how does that affect the overall score? These are tough questions to ask, that's why you see more and more reviewers abandoning this system and score based on fun factor -- which drives me nuts because I don't gain any useful info.

 

[Gravy Boat]

In a world where metacritic exists, this can't be the case.

And I never said there was no such thing as a professional opinion piece, they do absolutely exist, but they're a separate thing completely.

In the end, a review is "should YOU buy it" not a "Would I buy it".

Like I said, shit like "Opinions" is what led to Nier getting a misrepresented review because some guy didn't like playing games all the way through, or Polygon misrepresenting Bayonetta 2 because the fact that the camera was lewd was more important than the incredible gameplay, music and level design of the game.

Nope. A reviewer can say whatever they want. . If you don't like someone's opinion or style or reviewing then don't read their reviews. If they have an audience, then good for them, but you don't get to decide how reviews should be written. You get to decide which ones you give attention to.

 

[me0wish]

Stop caring about review scores. 💁

Read the review, that's the important part.

Was gonna post something like that yesterday, but I doubt people would listen.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

or Polygon misrepresenting Bayonetta 2 because the fact that the camera was lewd was more important than the incredible gameplay, music and level design of the game.

Everyone values different aspects differently. For me, the mature content (sexual content, gore, language) in the game is the reason why I have no intention of playing Bayonetta 2 despite really enjoying the kind of gameplay that it features. So for you, the gameplay is more important, for me, the mature content is enough of a turn off that I don't care how good the rest of the game is.

 

[plagiarize]

In a world where metacritic exists, this can't be the case.

It is the case whether you like it or not. Reviewers do not suddenly have to change how they review games because a third party website decided it wanted to use some secret formula to calculate an aggregate score for things.

And I never said there was no such thing as a professional opinion piece, they do absolutely exist, but they're a separate thing completely.

In the end, a review is "should YOU buy it" not a "Would I buy it".

Nope. That's what you want from a review. There are reviews that provide that. That isn't what I want from a review.

Like I said, shit like "Opinions" is what led to Nier getting a misrepresented review because some guy didn't like playing games all the way through, or Polygon misrepresenting Bayonetta 2 because the fact that the camera was lewd was more important than the incredible gameplay, music and level design of the game.

Polygon explained why they didn't like Bayonetta 2. Jim explained why he didn't like Yooka Laylee. They didn't misrepresent anything. I read both those reviews and could easily comprehend whether or not those things would be issues for me.

(The Nier review if I remember right, pretended that they'd played more of the game than they had, or that a certain part was impassible because they'd misread the instructions on a fishing mini game and so was objectively misleading or wrong).

Metacritic is there to aggregate all the differing opinions into one score.

That isn't justification to say that all games should basically have the same score. If all game reviews reached the same score, Metacritic wouldn't have any utility in the first place.

 

[Synth]

he should follow the unwritten guidelines of what scores mean in the context of video games

omfg...

 

[plagiarize]

I don't have the time or interest to learn what a 2/10 means for Jim, if he wants my attention he should follow the unwritten guidelines of what scores mean in the context of video games. I know what a 7.8 is on IGN and exactly how the review text will read after I saw the score and know which game we're talking about, no matter who reviews it.

To be fair, this is much harder nowadays with online focused games, $40 tier indie titles, $1 mobile games, etc. Free DLC 6 months later that expands on the game; how does that affect the overall score? These are tough questions to ask, that's why you see more and more reviewers abandoning this system and score based on fun factor -- which drives me nuts because I don't gain any useful info.

If you don't care why Jim Sterling doesn't like a game, just look at the metacritic average and stop getting upset that some games have a wide range of reactions.

I don't expect these nostalgia led games to get uniform scores. Nor should they.

What Thimbleweed Park or Yooka Laylee is to someone who played Maniac Mansion or Banjo Kazooie is a very different thing to someone who didn't. I WANT them to look and play 'like they used to' whether that's subjectively good game design or not. This is precisely the example of a game explaining why you can't just look at scores or aggregates.

If you purposefully make a throwback game, it's appeal and value is drastically different based on whether you were exposed to that old school game design in the day. Someone who never was, may still be interested in knowing if this game will appeal to them, so we need reviews from different viewpoints to let people like that know if it's going to be fun for someone who has zero experience with the original.

 

[Pilgrimzero]

All I can say about this reviews shouldn't have opinions nonsense is: WOW.

I just... wow.

 

[Glass Shark]

Ironically, review threads are what convince me that people can have bad opinions. And I'm not talking about game critics.

 

[Skittles]

I don't have the time or interest to learn what a 2/10 means for Jim, if he wants my attention he should follow the unwritten guidelines of what scores mean in the context of video games. I know what a 7.8 is on IGN and exactly how the review text will read after I saw the score and know which game we're talking about, no matter who reviews it.

To be fair, this is much harder nowadays with online focused games, $40 tier indie titles, $1 mobile games, etc. Free DLC 6 months later that expands on the game; how does that affect the overall score? These are tough questions to ask, that's why you see more and more reviewers abandoning this system and score based on fun factor -- which drives me nuts because I don't gain any useful info.

so you won't take the time to learn what a 2/10 means to jim yet you care about his score?

 

[Altairre]

Best post. I'm sick of this "BUT IT'S THE REVIEWERS OPINION" nonsense. Shit like that is why Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 an unfair review (a 7 I think?)

The reviewer needs to consider the tastes of the consumer, that's the difference between an opinion piece and a professional review.

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

Many people don't read reviews, so when an aggregate gets pulled down because some dumbass who doesn't like fighting games is given Tekken to review, people will be put off and won't give the game a chance.

You can't trust "opinions", an opinion doesn't speak for the quality of a game. In my "opinion" cinematic western games are barely games and aren't worth my time, but I know that a review by me would not be fair for that type of game if I brought that mindset in while reviewing.

Good Lord.

 

[Ansatz]

If you don't care why Jim Sterling doesn't like a game, just look at the metacritic average and stop getting upset that some games have a wide range of reactions.

Nothing about this upsets me, we're talking about the topic "objective vs subjective" reviews and I believe there is a middle ground between "I like the taste of strawberry" and "the color of this strawberry is red", whereas some people don't. That's all

so you won't take the time to learn what a 2/10 means to jim yet you care about his score?

I don't care about his score, it doesn't bother me. And that other guy with the skeleton avatar quoted me out of context, I said "if he wants my attention, he should..." and nothing else.

 

[Perfect Blue]

Best post. I'm sick of this "BUT IT'S THE REVIEWERS OPINION" nonsense. Shit like that is why Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 an unfair review (a 7 I think?)

The reviewer needs to consider the tastes of the consumer, that's the difference between an opinion piece and a professional review.

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

Many people don't read reviews, so when an aggregate gets pulled down because some dumbass who doesn't like fighting games is given Tekken to review, people will be put off and won't give the game a chance.

You can't trust "opinions", an opinion doesn't speak for the quality of a game. In my "opinion" cinematic western games are barely games and aren't worth my time, but I know that a review by me would not be fair for that type of game if I brought that mindset in while reviewing.

I love this forum

 

[themagicalkitsune]

so you won't take the time to learn what a 2/10 means to jim yet you care about his score?

Apparently he can also tell how the review will read by looking at the score and not actually reading it.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

From this thread, I've learned that somebody should make a site that doesn't actually play any games but just writes up reviews of how they think each game should be reviewed. Make reviewers' lives easier by giving them a nice template to work off of.

 

[DieNgamers]

Ironically, review threads are what convince me that people can have bad opinions. And I'm not talking about game critics.

The whole discussion is a neverending circle. Will every review thread become a Jim Sterling thread from now on?

I think the guys over at Playtonic are happy about everyone who enjoys the game and I'm sure they aren't blind to some of the criticisms.. It's not only reviewers who play the game. It will be fun, can't wait for the release and the dialogue with the developers.

It's not normal a game like this even has the chance to be made in today's industry. We'll even get Psychonauts 2 soon, think about it. I support the movement. Wholeheartedly.

 

[Stop It]

Best post. I'm sick of this "BUT IT'S THE REVIEWERS OPINION" nonsense. Shit like that is why Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 an unfair review (a 7 I think?)

The reviewer needs to consider the tastes of the consumer, that's the difference between an opinion piece and a professional review.

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

Many people don't read reviews, so when an aggregate gets pulled down because some dumbass who doesn't like fighting games is given Tekken to review, people will be put off and won't give the game a chance.

You can't trust "opinions", an opinion doesn't speak for the quality of a game. In my "opinion" cinematic western games are barely games and aren't worth my time, but I know that a review by me would not be fair for that type of game if I brought that mindset in while reviewing.

Holy Fuck.

This is why gamers are seen as entitled, whiny children who constantly need to be coddled.

You are aware every review is an opinion piece, surely you can't be that dense.

Reviews are exactly meant to be what the reviewer thought of the game, not what they think this random "consumer" is meant to think. As a consumer you take reviews into consideration like any other opinion of the games provided by gamers impressions etc.

If a reviewer found a game bad, they should say so, not think "but what would others think of it" others can give their own opinion otherwise you'll just get people chasing for the most generic review possible because God forbid their views don't tally with others.

And to think group-think is considered a bad thing in any other circle of society.

 

[grap3fruitman]

So how come reviewers are getting this game and backers aren't? I find that kind of offensive as someone that technically helped make this possible but to then get treated like the anybody else. :/

Anyway, the mixed impressions make the game more intriguing to me, if anything. It shows a variety of the tastes in different reviewers and only the only consistent gripe I'm seeing is the camera (which I guess is still a staple of 90s platformers anyway?). But the people that didn't like it did so because it was more of the same - which is kind of what people wanted so I don't see the issue. As long as the platforming and levels are solid and come together well I'll be a happy camper.

Edit: Apparently they updated their blog yesterday to announce that items are shipping. http://www.playtonicgames.com/a-thank-you/

 

[GolazoDan]

I don't have the time or interest to learn what a 2/10 means for Jim, if he wants my attention he should follow the unwritten guidelines of what scores mean in the context of video games. I know what a 7.8 is on IGN and exactly how the review text will read after I saw the score and know which game we're talking about, no matter who reviews it.

Isn't it a little bit depressing that the writers of IGN (to use your example) have so little to actually say about the specific pros and cons of a game that their exact view can be reduced to a simple number with no further explanation required or individual commentary. Just going by how you've described it these sites need not bother with actual text, a number will do. It's a bit of extra work from the reader's POV to read a review but it'll give you a clearer picture.

The idea that reviewers have some obligation to Metacritic is completely absurd and shouldn't be a factor in the slightest. You have one job as a reviewer: give your opinion, communicating what you liked and disliked and allowing the reader to make their own judgements based on that. How another website aggregates that or user smokedawg420 on a forum interprets it, not actually your concern. As a reader it's surely more constructive to read varied opinion than something that simply validates your own.

 

[Synth]

And that other guy with the skeleton avatar quoted me out of context, I said "if he wants my attention, he should..." and nothing else.

The context wasn't necessary. Regardless of if he wants your attention or not, telling people to follow the "unwritten guidelines" on what scores should be is dumb... especially as each publication tends to have written guidelines that make it clear that their scores are not all equal, and many don't even use compatible scales to each other.

 

[tkscz]

The average is currently a mustard-yellow 67% on Metacritic. Considering the critical acclaim Rare's old 3D platformers received and how highly anticipated this game was (over $2 million raised on Kickstarter) ... trust me, it's a flop.

It's not. The problem with things like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes is they only accumulate the scores, not the reviews. Things like Jim's 2/10 and the 3.5/10 throw it way off. Even then, reading the reviews give you a better idea, as scores are more or less pointless. A score can't tell you exactly what about the game you'll like or dislike. For me, it's not a flop and I'm still excited for the game.

 

[plagiarize]

Nothing about this upsets me, we're talking about the topic "objective vs subjective" reviews and I believe there is a middle ground between "I like the taste of strawberry" and "the color of this strawberry is red", whereas some people don't. That's all



I don't care about his score, it doesn't bother me. And that other guy with the skeleton avatar quoted me out of context, I said "if he wants my attention, he should..." and nothing else.

I don't think that anyone is denying that you can write a review that takes into account your own personal preferences and biases, to produce something that's more like a buyers guide ("this type of thing annoys me, but it doesn't annoy many people, so I'm not going to dock the game points for doing it").

You certainly can't avoid them though, and there is absolutely still value in a review like Jim's that makes no attempt to guess how someone with a different life experience to him might react to the title.

 

[Skittles]

The whole discussion is a neverending circle. Will every review thread become a Jim Sterling thread from now on?

I think the guys over at Playtonic are happy about everyone who enjoys the game and I'm sure they aren't blind to some of the criticisms.. It's not only reviewers who play the game. It will be fun, can't wait for the release and the dialogue with the developers.

It's not normal a game like this even has the chance to be made in today's industry. We'll even get Psychonauts 2 soon, think about it. I support the movement. Wholeheartedly.

the nice thing about these reviews is that they could patch most of the issues that people have (framerate, camera, controls).

 

[JayWood2010]

I've described why I disagree with your usage of objectivity. Explain to me why my usage is incorrect.

Have I not already? I've already commented so much in this thread, and plainly described why I feel the way I feel.

You are debating on the meaning of being objective. I am not.

Tis the reason I usually avoid review threads. Im not even trying to defense Yooka-Laylee which is the sad part of all this.

For the record. Host had no delay in shots. Everybody else had 3 second delay. There was no dedicated servers back then which was the problem. It had network issues. It was well known in the community on what needed to be fixed.

 

[Jawbreaker]

Best post. I'm sick of this "BUT IT'S THE REVIEWERS OPINION" nonsense. Shit like that is why Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 an unfair review (a 7 I think?)

The reviewer needs to consider the tastes of the consumer, that's the difference between an opinion piece and a professional review.

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

Many people don't read reviews, so when an aggregate gets pulled down because some dumbass who doesn't like fighting games is given Tekken to review, people will be put off and won't give the game a chance.

You can't trust "opinions", an opinion doesn't speak for the quality of a game. In my "opinion" cinematic western games are barely games and aren't worth my time, but I know that a review by me would not be fair for that type of game if I brought that mindset in while reviewing.

A 7 is pretty fair for Bayonetta 2. It's worse than the first game, the fluctuating frame rate aggravates the garish effects that eat up the screen (which causes a lack of focus on the central action), and almost everything outside of the actual combat and some character designs is either average or plain bad.

The rest of your post is ridiculous for reasons already outlined.

 

[Petrae]

Best post. I'm sick of this "BUT IT'S THE REVIEWERS OPINION" nonsense. Shit like that is why Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 an unfair review (a 7 I think?)

The reviewer needs to consider the tastes of the consumer, that's the difference between an opinion piece and a professional review.

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

Many people don't read reviews, so when an aggregate gets pulled down because some dumbass who doesn't like fighting games is given Tekken to review, people will be put off and won't give the game a chance.

You can't trust "opinions", an opinion doesn't speak for the quality of a game. In my "opinion" cinematic western games are barely games and aren't worth my time, but I know that a review by me would not be fair for that type of game if I brought that mindset in while reviewing.

So then read some fucking fact sheets that PR releases prior to launch. Read the back of the game box. There's your lack of opinion. All facts. Nothing negative or relating to tastes. Positivity galore-- exactly what you want to read.

Me? I prefer to read the the top few and bottom few reviews, to get a sample of what was found to be positive and negative in the experience of the people who actually played the game. Watching gameplay video and looking at pretty pictures doesn't tell me a damned thing. How does it play? How do the play controls handle? Were there certain parts of the game that detracted from the overall experience? Money may be an infinite resource for some people around here, but it sure as hell isn't that way for me. Before I blow $20, $40, $60 of my hard-earned cash, I like to know that I'm not potentially wasting it on a game that I might not wind up liking too much.

Criticism and varied viewpoints are important. How much a game sells (or doesn't) doesn't drive me. I don't work for a video game company, and my living isn't affected if a game sells more or less. I want to know if a game is worth parting with my money for. That's it. Metascores, GOTY honors, corporate earnings... that shit is fun to talk about but matters little to me in the long run.

If we're gonna ditch criticism and opinion in reviews, then get rid of the goddamned things. Let PR circulate fact sheets to tell us all we apparently really need to know about the games we're buying. I'd be sad to see that happen, but hey.

 

[BravesCountry]

A 7 is pretty fair for Bayonetta 2. It's worse than the first game, the fluctuating frame rate aggravates the garish effects that eat up the screen (which causes a lack of focus on the central action), and almost everything outside of the actual combat and some character designs is either average or plain bad.

The rest of your post is ridiculous for reasons already outlined.

But most people loved it so a reviewer not liking it and expressing that opinion to their readers is manifestly unfair...they should keep their thoughts to themselves lest they drag down the metacritic score that gamers stroke themselves to.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Like seriously, what's the cause of this outrage? Are people's sense of self-worth so fragile and tied up in video games that they're willing to get angry at someone expressing their negative opinion on a game that they didn't work on and haven't even played? Like you've already made up your mind on something despite having no personal experience with it and you absolutely won't accept the idea that somebody else has a different opinion, even when that person has had hands-on experience and you haven't? What is wrong with people?

 

[joecanada]

But most people loved it so a reviewer not liking it and expressing that opinion to their readers is manifestly unfair...they should keep their thoughts to themselves lest they drag down the metacritic score that gamers stroke themselves to.

lol oh lordy....

you know what? someone should write a scathing review of that 10/10 score because that is obviously written by some fanboy who clearly doesn't understand what most people look for in a game, and they haven't taken into consideration that most of us won't like it that much, and that score is bullshit and is artificially dragging the metascore way above what it should be!

 

[Ansatz]

From this thread, I've learned that somebody should make a site that doesn't actually play any games but just writes up reviews of how they think each game should be reviewed. Make reviewers' lives easier by giving them a nice template to work off of.

It's either a general template I understand, or your personal one, the latter requires me to learn how you think in order to get anything of value out of it.

Twilight Princess (2006)
Metascore: 95
IGN: 95
GameTrailers 97

Red Dead Redemption (2010)
Metascore: 95
IGN: 97
GT: 95

Do you see the wonderful consistency here? These are not cherry picked, they are literally the first two games that came to my mind. I remember from the time I was really into reviews that IGN and GT were extremely reliable and consistent when it comes to informing their readers.

 

[Synth]

Have I not already? I've already commented so much in this thread, and plainly described why I feel the way I feel.

You are debating on the meaning of being objective. I am not.

Tis the reason I usually avoid review threads.

No, you have not.

You've stated repeatedly that you feel subjectivity vs objectivity should be balanced in a review, but what you've been describing is your personal subjectivity vs the subjectivity you predict of others. The Gears examples you gave were the first concrete examples I've had to go off on how you feel this would actually apply to a real review... and I've pointed out how these things aren't objective at all.

If you're not debating the meaning of objective, then post such as..

Reviews should be grounded and objective. I dont like God of War, but i recognize it is a good game so I wouldnt give it a 1/5 stars.

..make no sense. God of War isn't objectively a good game, and everything you'd put in a review to argue it is, would actually be subjective. You not liking it is subjective, something else liking it is subjective. The whole basis for your arguments in this thread have been flawed because you've been throwing the word "objective" around where it doesn't apply.

EDIT: Just saw your edit with added stuff about Gears.

This is why I specified that "host powers" was the closest thing in your post to being an objective flaw. It's still not actually objective, because despite there being a consensus regarding it, it's not something that factually makes the game worse. It's just something that pretty much everyone agrees make the game worse (like tripping in Smash... but someone somewhere decided to put that in manually). Somewhere out there is probably a 7yr old, that only enjoys Gears because he can host and fuck you up, lol.

 

[Gravy Boat]

It's either a general template I understand, or your personal one, the latter requires me to learn how you think in order to get anything of value out of it.

Twilight Princess (2006)
Metascore: 95
IGN: 95
GameTrailers 97

Red Dead Redemption (2010)
Metascore: 95
IGN: 97
GT: 95

Do you see the wonderful consistency here? These are not cherry picked, they are literally the first two games that came to my mind. I remember from the time I was really into reviews that IGN and GT were extremely reliable and consistent when it comes to informing their readers.

Consistent at scoring games highly or consistent at liking games you also liked?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Best post. I'm sick of this "BUT IT'S THE REVIEWERS OPINION" nonsense. Shit like that is why Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 an unfair review (a 7 I think?)

Hahahaha

The reviewer needs to consider the tastes of the consumer, that's the difference between an opinion piece and a professional review.

Letting reviewers just give their opinion is ridiculous because what if someone who only cares about graphics ended up reviewing Nier Automata (or that idiot who didn't bother playing the game past ending A)? What if someone who only liked traditional Zelda games and couldn't handle change reviewed Zelda? (kek) What if someone who didn't "get" japanese sillyness ended up reviewing Yakuza 0?

So what?

If you read the review and love "Japanese silliness", and read a negative review of Yakuza 0 that criticizes its "Japanese silliness", then you'll know, "oh, this bothers the reviewer but I love this stuff! it won't detract from my enjoyment! maybe I should get this game even if the reviewer didn't like it". So congrats, you used your brain like an adult to process the information presented and can now make an informed decision.

Or you could go "this review is stupid what about ME I love Japanese silliness, this reviewer sucks, and has no credibility! I'm gonna complain on a message board about a review of a game I haven't played because I'm an entitled child! The reviewer should consider MY taste when reviewing because reasons!"

I mean, it's your call, I guess.

Many people don't read reviews, so when an aggregate gets pulled down because some dumbass who doesn't like fighting games is given Tekken to review, people will be put off and won't give the game a chance.

Holy shit.... you say this like this is a good thing. This is the fault of the reviewers, how, exactly?

In a world where metacritic exists, this can't be the case.

wut

Like I said, shit like "Opinions" is what led to Nier getting a misrepresented review because some guy didn't like playing games all the way through, or Polygon misrepresenting Bayonetta 2 because the fact that the camera was lewd was more important than the incredible gameplay, music and level design of the game.

That's not misrepresenting. That's having an opinion. If the Polygon reviewer cared more about the camera than the combat, and their review reflects that, that is their prerogative. And you can think "well I don't care about the camera, I care about the gameplay, I disagree with this review" and then you can move on with your life.

Like seriously, what's the cause of this outrage? Are people's sense of self-worth so fragile and tied up in video games that they're willing to get angry at someone expressing their negative opinion on a game that they didn't work on and haven't even played? Like you've already made up your mind on something despite having no personal experience with it and you absolutely won't accept the idea that somebody else has a different opinion, even when that person has had hands-on experience and you haven't? What is wrong with people?

It's seriously mind-boggling.

 

[Skittles]

It's either a general template I understand, or your personal one, the latter requires me to learn how you think in order to get anything of value out of it.

Twilight Princess (2006)
Metascore: 95
IGN: 95
GameTrailers 97

Red Dead Redemption (2010)
Metascore: 95
IGN: 97
GT: 95

Do you see the wonderful consistency here? These are not cherry picked, they are literally the first two games that came to my mind. I remember from the time I was really into reviews that IGN and GT were extremely reliable and consistent when it comes to informing their readers.

so basically you're incredibly lazy and want to be fed non-dissenting information lest your world view be shattered, thus requiring you to actually read?

 

[JayWood2010]

If you're not debating the meaning of objective, then post such as..

.

When did I ever say I was? I always said I feel you can do both, and i continued to say that. You can love something and see its flaws (Gears), just as you can despise something and see its good qualities(God of War). If you disagree with that, so be it. Im not trying to force you into thinking any differently than you already do.

 

[Synth]

When did I ever say I was? I always said I feel you can do both, and i continued to say that. You can love something and see its flaws, just as you can despise something and see its good qualities. If you disagree with that, so be it. Im not trying to force you into thinking any differently than you already do.

No, I agree that you can love something and see its flaws. The disagreement was describing this as being more "objective". The flaws aren't objective, they're subjective as well, as I was just describing to you with your Gears examples.

 

[Gravy Boat]

When did I ever say I was? I always said I feel you can do both, and i continued to say that. You can love something and see its flaws, just as you can despise something and see its good qualities. If you disagree with that, so be it. Im not trying to force you into thinking any differently than you already do.

No one has disagreed with that. But your posts were asserting that being diplomatic is the same as being objective. Saying 'I don't like it but others probably will' isn't being objective, it's just be polite. I can think a game is complete trash and that it brings me no joy and score it 1/10, but still understand that others will probably like the game. That's not being objective with my opinion, like you've tried to say. That's understanding that not everyone shares my opinion. I don't need to tailor my reviews to those people. I can write my review however I want, and the readers can decide if they value my opinion or not.

Acknowledging flaws but saying you enjoy the game regardless is not being objective with your opinion. Being objective with your opinion is a meaningless phrase. You're talking about something else entirely.

 

[Ansatz]

Isn't it a little bit depressing that the writers of IGN (to use your example) have so little to actually say about the specific pros and cons of a game that their exact view can be reduced to a simple number with no further explanation required or individual commentary. Just going by how you've described it these sites need not bother with actual text, a number will do. It's a bit of extra work from the reader's POV to read a review but it'll give you a clearer picture.

The idea that reviewers have some obligation to Metacritic is completely absurd and shouldn't be a factor in the slightest. You have one job as a reviewer: give your opinion, communicating what you liked and disliked and allowing the reader to make their own judgements based on that. How another website aggregates that or user smokedawg420 on a forum interprets it, not actually your concern. As a reader it's surely more constructive to read varied opinion than something that simply validates your own.

There are many details the score doesn't cover, so yes the text is absolutely important.

For example in Okami Wii the dodge ability is mapped to the nunchuck motion sensor, and it led to inconsistencies in that you cannot predict which direction the character will dodge in. She will dodge, you just don't know where. This is a massive disaster if you're a speed runner, whereas most people won't find it a big deal in practice. This nuance is not represented in the score, hence why text matters alot.

What I don't want is "I am a speedrunner, hence Okami is a 2/10" I don't care about your personal perspective, just state the fact that the dodge move is inconsistent and let me decide for myself. This is what journalism is about isn't it?

so basically you're incredibly lazy

Well it's either lazy or efficient, you decide. It's up for interpretation!