One of my favorite moments of reviewers outing themselves was when someone (in ign iirc) said Devil May Cry 5's music was almost nonexistant. The game has a dynamic soundtrack, so depending on how good you are in combat, depends on how much of the actual track you will hear
@Stylish DY.D. Ah, my mistake then. It's been a while since I read about that review tbh and I haven't (yet) played DMC5 so I can't personally vouch. But wdym the soundtrack is highly disliked by many fans? From what I've heard on spotify It's fucking great
Hahahahaha remember my mate telling me this and watching him play considering he loves fighting games He is insane at it I wouldnt review it or some from software games Cause I can admit I'm not good at them Doom spiderman sonic .... that's my jam I was fuming watching that one guy play cup head and doom ... I didnt know people could be that bad at gaming I'm trying sekiro and it is hella tough but even i know I'm probably further then what most of these reviewers would try
I remember the Game Informer magazines back in the day would list the genres of games the reviewer specializes in. I think that would be a good change of pace. Also, there shouldn't be this rush to finish the review as soon as possible. That seems to be the biggest quality killer.
This problem goes both ways. Reviewing something you personally like or don't like is a very slippery slope and generally a bad idea. Mitigating the former can be done by playing it to death (losing your likeness for it) or learning to hate everything equally. The end goal is to smash your bias down into the ground as much as possible. The primary reason as to why we have such a despicable state of game journalism is due to the standardization and normalization of bribes, game review copy exclusivity and critic blacklists. The singular instances any actual critic is given access to games is because the marketing teams and PR personnel of game/publisher companies have done a cost & benefit analysis of them, AKA "any good publicity is good publicity" once their audience gets big enough. The whole "get review out quick" is a secondary factor primarily done to divert the initial huge way of website traffic (and the accompanied ad revenue) that comes whenever something new comes out.
I also hate the way that numbers in reviews have been ruined. A 6/10 to me means: "this is a slightly above average game that has issues but I overall still had a positive experience". But a 6 from a game journalist is basically "I didn't like it"
It's like the reviewers score it based off of a five star system, then add 5 points to whatever the score is and then say it was rated out of ten. I don't get it.
I mean, people get bent out of shape when reviewers give a game a seven, they think they hated it. It's been this way for years ago. Most stuff you like is probably a six or seven at best, But a lot of stuff we like is probably a five as well. To me, five means "a good time no alcohol required"
@@Achonas I don't know about the remakes but that's an extremely fair criticism of the originals. The water is why I stopped playing Emerald near the end over a year ago & can't find a reason to go back to it. And I enjoy The Great Maze in Brawl so it's not like I have super high standards about that kind of thing. IGN is still atrocious though. They said We Love Katamari was just Katamari Damacy but more polished & with more content but they gave it a lower score. They gave LBP2 a lower score than LBP1 for no discernible reason.
Yeah I remember he said the AI was broken because the alien found him when he was staying still in a locker... But didn't mention that he had his motion sensor up the entire time which makes noise.. Something the game literally tells you
As a child, one of the things I loved about EGM magazine was that they had 4 reviewers review every game and they made it very clear not only what games they were currently enjoying, but also what genres of games they enjoy the most. It was very helpful in determining which reviewer weighed the features of said game more closely to the reader. I'm not sure if such a system is sustainable in today's saturated and time-devoid landscape, but I do think that review sites need to be more open in regards to what the reviewers preferences are.
Watching someone who plays similar games to you is basically the only method nowadays, which means spoiling yourself. That said, a truly good game won't really be ruined by this, so like, just don't watch 100% guides and you should be fine, and like only 3 videos, that leads to about mid game for most TH-camrs. Yes I have it down to a science, if reviewers are going to be trash, I might as well get a degree in bullshit.
If I remember right, there was a journalist review of Fire Emblem: Three Houses that complained that the game was too easy after saying that they did only one play through on the easiest possible difficulty…
Difficulty options should be banned for watering down interesting mechanics built into the game. Play Witcher 3 on anything easier than Blood and Bone difficulty, and you'll be ignoring how crucial alchemy and reading the bestiary actually is in both lore and gameplay. It's isn't a silly hack n slash and shouldn't be seen as such.
@@ChunkSchuldingaas someone who regularly plays video games on easy, no. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm spending $60 or more on a game that I know I'm not going to be able to play. However, unlike game journalists, I recognize that makes me not the best person to speak on a games difficulty and that's fine with me.
@@ChunkSchuldingaI put the difficulty in the Witcher down after playing for a while. Exploring the world, going through all the different story lines was way more enjoyable to me than trying to min max the combat and all adjacent systems. Especially after a day of work, getting freely through all the fights and enjoy all the rest the game offered was just right for me. I do understand what you're coming from. There can be much joy in failing a boss fight, gearing up, improving your tactics for the fight. And try again and again until you beat it. But not every game has to be like that. Im now playing V rising on regular difficulty. And even when the same boss defeats me 5 times in a row, I won't turn the difficulty down. To finally overcome that boss is the fun of it.
@@evertonflores8670 it's really impossible to fix this problem. Because you could ask a reviewer do you like this type of genre and they can lie so they can get the job It's the fault of the people in charge of these journalists of why a lot of great games are being downvoted by journalists.
I really hate this. I mostly play Bullet Hell and Fighting games, all I ever see is reviewers complaining about how there isn't an elaborate story or the games are too hard. You never get a review on game mechanics or how the games actually play, or how they compared to genre standards.
It's been happening forever. During the 90s and 00s, a time when reviews were mostly published media, Megaman games got consistently crapped on just because they were Megaman games. Reviewers complained about them being 2D platformers and not transitioning to 3D, which means that those idiots shouldn't have been playing a Megaman game in the first place.
@@MechanicalRabbits I definitely believe that. Anything that wasn't 3d "was awful" even though some of the best games were 2d. Most of the 3d games from the era were garbage, or at least they didn't age well.
"Am I implying that reviewers are bought off by large corporations? No, at least not directly." Don't forget Jeff Gerstmann was literally fired because he didn't give Kane & Lynch a high enough score. The soft reasons you describe are insightful, but you can't ignore the harder reasons that affect the industry as well. I think a few years ago I would have really appreciated your attempt to humanize journos and reviewers, but these days I just have so much contempt for the rotten parts of the industry that I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. All that said, however, your reasons are much more thorough than any other explanation or potential analysis of these trends. I'm glad you made the video; what new information it contained was more than worth the effort you expended. Thanks.
@@MortabluntI mean, if Gamergate had actually focused on jurnos as a whole and not started purely because of one guy inciting the internet to doxx and attack his ex girlfriend (leading to its main driving force being sexism, homophobia and racism, resulting in assault threats of all kinds targetting these groups in particular) it could've had a point or something, I guess?
@@conspiracypanda1200 That's a bunch of stupid bullcrap that never actually happened. What actually happened was that the internet found out she had been cucking her boyfriend with 5 other people inside the industry who were using her as a sex object, but she did so willingly so she could advance in a company and investigations sprung from there. Mailing lists of people who shouldn't be conspiring on stories by US law, secret government grants were uncovered that were actually illegal by the US's own standards and loads of work was done that completely broke the US public's trust in media. What you're saying is propaganda slung by said media in a time of massive disinformation.
i started ignoring critics when they started bashing alice madness returns and rules of rose. man i wish games like that were still around. as a young teen girl i related a lot to both. they were dark and edgy but still had female protagonists going thru trauma
And they were both made by a DUDE who was straight-up abused by his hippy, p0thead mother. American McGee is an actual legend in game design. He helped make Doom for the boys and Alice for the girls.
I'm a dude but like. I still love Alice Madness Returns. It's not perfect, but yeah, you really don't get stuff like that often these days. And the sequel American Mcgee wanted to do, was turned down after he got a bunch of people to help him make a game dev bible for it. I will always be pissed at EA for that. I read through the whole damn thing and oh my god I would have loved it if it was made. Sadly, for the forseeable future... we'll just have to be satisfied with reading the game we wish was made. I played through it a bit ago, on the hardest difficulty and I had bought the DLC for it so I could also experience the first game. On Xbox, though; When I tried it on PC through Gamepass/EA's thing... the game was a slideshow. Which I blame on EA for being such a shitty service and probably not keeping the game up to date. ...The ending still hits like a truck. Or well. A Train. Realizing just how much was right under Alice's nose the whole time.
Actions games as a genre almost died completely till the God of War 3 Remaster and DMC5 but luckily they are coming back and hopefully Alice has her chance for a sequel too cuz the combat was amazing
The problem is that these "games" journalists don't actually play games all that much. My trust in those died when IGN which is suppose to be the premier reviewer uploaded their doom playthrough, cuphead tutorial moment, and the most recent Redfall gameplay. They aren't gamers, they're writers. These are the people who will give the latest NBA, fifa, or call of duty a 9 out of 10 then turn around and give a hat in time or transistor a 6 maybe 7.
The guy who struggled on the Cuphead tutorial gave the game an amazing review by the way- and eventually beat it. I'm not really crazy about the idea that because someone is bad at a game they don't have the right to review it. You can critically analyze something's flaws and strengths regardless of your personal skill in utilizing the mechanics that create those flaws and strengths.
@@georgegeorge25812g tbh a 6 IS a bad score, we tend to think that 5 is the not good not bad score, the "meh" score, but most people wouldn't even touch a 5/10 game, the real meh score is by the 7/10. The reason for that is most people won't rate a game that they don't like, they'll just go play something else, while the people who liked it are more likely to rate it, and rate it with a high score, so scores will tend towards higher numbers.
@@allesarfint Personally I think of 5/10 as the true midpoint, anything below is worse than average anything above is better than average although 6 and 4 aren't far off from said average.
To me it died many years ago when i've seen sonic unleashed review and they trashed the game like it was 06 2.0, and than a friend who didn't even liked sonic games came to me saying he got it on his xbox and he had a blast. Went to play it, liked it a lot at the time and yesteryear i got to play it again and absolutely adored it lmao. After that i noticed more and more how they favoured specific types of games and even gave excelent review to games that i later got to play and were mid at best.
@@Dabajaws yeah it was pretty interesting. I’ve played a crap ton of god hand myself and it was an experience to say the least. Like it was such a fun time that when I beat the final bosses I was like FUCK YEAH!
It's such irony that all the names journalists called gamers fits themselves. Gatekeeping, check Elitism, check Entitled, check Coerse game devs to cater to their specific tastes, check Fragile ego, check Narcissistic, check And they wonder why sites are dying like flies in a fire.
Imagine being this bent out of shape over someone’s opinion. Also, considering the adjectives you’ve used above. They’re all actually correct considering you’re throw a hissy fit when a game you like doesn’t get a favorable score.
I used to be very involved in online gaming communities and forums in the late 2000s and early 2010s. When you are actively reading numerous gaming reviews as well as even communicating with game reviewers, you begin to realize that many game reviewers do not actually finish games. They might play a portion of the game to get the basic handle on things, but the rest of the experience is something they will glean from players who write their own thoughts on forums, or from watching TH-cam video playthroughs. You can also tell that many review scores are impacted by the reviewer's belief of how other reviewers are going to review the same game. I would personally go as far to say that some reviews out there, even on mainstream websites, are nothing but a "plagiarism" of reviews from other places, and once that hits you, you'll stop caring about any review.
Oh they absolutely copy each other's homework lol. Gamergate articles are still circulating, full of 'facts' that were made up and disproved ages ago 😅
Yeah well said, but still we have tendency to being to fast with judgment or review bombing or just expecting too much to fast but well after all we are the ones that buying game and we want good thing
@@nyx3988 we review bomb because it's the only way to show the gaming industry that we don't like the slop they're making and we expect barely anything at this point, a videogame working on launch day at all is more of a surprise than an expectation at this point to the majority of us
@@Scornfull yeah i understand but what about review bombing because one developer was just a moron and said dumb shit, that kind ofvreview bombing is just bad but overall yeah i agree review bombing is a good tool
@@corsim5997 true, there's more incentive for gamers to be honest with their feelings on it because they actually had to invest their money to get the game
@@LimeLoaf forget the clip, the entire video is a worthwhile watch. though not the kind where you take popcorn and laugh at, its more like the kind of video where you sit with your hands intently gripping your head as you sit through the rising headache.
@@thatoneguy7345 Yeah, it was a gameplay demonstration, not a review. The unprofessional part was that he knew it was a terrible demonstration but uploaded it anyway because he thought it was funny. Edit: Then again, it was a huge nail in the coffin of gaming journalism so maybe he did the right thing.
Fun fact : the reviewer for sonic superstars mentioned that when playing the game they didn’t really get a sense of sonics trademark speed till a second playthrough. They noted this as confused as to this That’s the entire point of the game playing levels multiple times to get better and get faster…..
Even as a speedrunner, I wouldn’t just rush through a game as fast as possible just to beat it and ruin my experience lol. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason unskippable cutscenes were made was so game reviewers didn’t drop bad reviews on their games after they literally skipped all the story to beat the game in world record time.
@@BadBrad119 yeah this is why I hate unskippable cutscenes lol. They are good for a first-time experience given that the player wants to see the story, but any time after that, unless you forget the story, cutscenes are now worthless. So there really wouldn’t be any real reason NOT to add the ability to skip cutscenes, which seems incredibly simple to add. And this problem is multiplied when you speedrun a game, because you are forced to watch the same cutscenes over and over again to the point where you’d be annoyed. Sometimes people even make mods just to have the option to skip cutscenes lol.
In a nutshell: Video Game critics ARE NOT gamers, they are just a bunch of out-of-touch young adults that just finished their mediocre journalism degree and spend 90% of their free time on Twitter and/or Reddit.
It’s better to say they are “bad”gamers. Otherwise you attract arguments over what actually constitutes a gamer. When in reality it doesn’t matter if they are gamers or not, because ultimately they still suck at games.
The most important part of steam’s review system is that it shows playtime in my opinion. I never purchase a triple A game without going to one of the most experienced positive and negative reviews and reading them in their entirety. The important thing is to not just look at the numbers
@@CoralCopperHead But what if you find out that the game won't be for you only after you spend 2 hours in it? Now you have a game that you don't like and can't refund it. For a big game that could well be around 40 dollars completely wasted. Of course user reviews are full of almost completely useless trash reviews that are basically just "good game" or "game is shit", but don't pretend that there aren't any good reviews that can help you decide whether a game is for you.
"Are devs paying off reviewers? Well no, at least not directly." proceeds to explain how they are absolutely 100% paid off, indirectly. Glad we got that figured out.
They're absolutely paid off. In money, in early reviewer copies, in exclusive access to media events and even romantically/sexually. The corruption is present in many forms.
It's also worth noting that this trend of video games journalists not really being able to reliably do their jobs has directly led to the success of alternative, non-mainstream video game reviewers who only review what they actually want to, and are willing to review niche titles, think Mandalore, Sseth, Max0r and Jimothy Ross.
So, a guy with a cult of personality, two entertainers who aren't reviewers and are only there to make funny ha-ha jokes, and... whoever JR is, I guess? Let me guess, you think Civvie is a 'reviewer' too, don't you?
@@CoralCopperHead They're all reviewers. They might not review like the mainstream reviewers as shown in this video, but they are still reviewers, as far as I care. I can list more grassroots game reviewers, Whitelight, Noah Caldwell-Gervais, Raycevick, ThunderPsyker and many more. All have their niches, some are long-form essays, some are short form comedy, but crucially, they all convey the content of the games they play to their audience. You really haven't pointed out any flaws in my overall argument.
@@CoralCopperHead Literally anyone who reviews a thing is a reviewer. You picked the stupidest possible thing to be an elitist about and I'm glad this guy owned you.
@@CoralCopperHead they talk about the good and bad things in the game they are covering. That's basically what a review is. Some of them stray further from the standard review formula, but they're still reviewing the game. And yes, Civvie sometimes does videos where he reviews games, so he is a reviewer.
i do think what most of these creators do is slightly different. They usually release videos about games that released months years or even decades ago. Instead i would mention actual youtube reviewers like skillup or ACG, who do actually release their video at release or very close to it @@LtPulsar
I also hate how the big review sites don't pay for their games, or can write it off as a business expense. It taints their reviews to a degree imo. They will gush at how amazing a game is and ignore that it's $70 for a 2 hour game with zero replay value. Or ignore that the game's grind is insane unless you pay for Xp boosters or Gold boosters (that they get for free). Because money is off the table reviewers are often far more generous to mediocre even bad games because they have no stake in it.
Exactly. It’s why on Steam they have tags on reviews to say “product received for free.” It’s just basic transparency to be upfront about things like this.
@@elhazthorn918 It helps, but even that isn't perfect. Those are the official free copies sent out, there are work a rounds to it as well. Like the reviews pay for the game, even at a reduced price. But get in game currency and boosters for free.
Absolute nonsense, plenty of reviewers, even ones that get review copes, talk about how a game might be too short and not replayable. Do you also think that all movie reviewers are biased because they don't pay for their pre-release press screenings?
@@philipkelly7369 Lol I said it taints the review "to a degree" not that they instantly shill for the company 100%. It is never "all reviewers" but it still can be most, or a large portion of them are that way. Movie reviews are often very biased one way or the other. And people who's job it is to watch movies that they don't pay for can often be far more forgiving for what amounts to a waste of time. There is a massive difference to paying upwards of $100 for a family of four to see a movie than a reviewer that got in for free in terms of expectations. You just don't expect much out of something you got for free.
Exactly, the best Example for this the GoT-Odyssey controversy. Both games have the same critic score but overwhelmingly different user scores. The critics just glossed over the fact of how HUGE odyssey was because they skipped most of its content and they didn't go through enough combat to realize how repetitive it was. If you start a NG+ on odyssey and just play the main story, you'll be shocked at how similar it feels to the full GoT experience. And that probably how the critics really did feel about it.
There's a very simple solution to this problem that journalists refuse to accept. Have people review the types of games that actually interest them. Having a team of people, each focused on different types of games means that all games will be given a fair review, because the reviewer will actually want to play it. But they won't accept this because it means that they get less work since someone else gets that game instead of them. So they grit their teeth, say they'll give it a fair review and then ignore most of the game and say it was bad or boring.
As much as seeing know-nothing journalists make me cringe when they talk about something they don’t know about… it’s still important they write a review from their own perspective than for an audience. Maybe reading a review about a visual novel from someone who doesn’t play visual novels could be useful, if they highlight their background and be upfront about it. Because non-visual novel fans might want to see the opinions from someone who doesn’t normally play visual novels. It’s an important part, even if they’re not an expert at something. The same way reading a book review coming from an average Joe would be useful, not just reviews from professors of literature.
According to Marty Silva on Slightly Something Else [about six months to a year ago]; IGN do just this. They'll have someone who likes fighting games review them, someone who likes football games review those, and so on. This is what leads to the stereotype of IGN reviewers always giving games 9/10s - because they're inherently biased towards that sort of game, and are likely to enjoy it no matter the quality. So long as it ticks the boxes that they like.
@@elhazthorn918right but if they're gonna have a predestined stupid bias and justify a low ass review because of a literal skill issue it's another issue entirely ☠️ These aren't average joes they're annoying weirdos that want a soap opera for a video game.
Tbh I'm not sure if this would be valid or a actually good solution. Think about it, if a game is so good it makes even people that generally dislike that type of game like it or enjoy it, i think it makes it even more impressive. For example, i was never into fighting games AT ALL when i was young, but when Dragon ball fighterz came out i tested it and actually enjoyed it, i still play it to this day and though it has issues that could be fixed, it's a nice experience, and it introduced me to the competitive scene of A LOT of fighting games that otherwise i would have not delved into. Another solution would be that the reviewers ACTUALLY have some sort of gaming background or experience, not only with the genre of the game they are reviewing, but a lot of other different games and genres. If you select the ones that are only interested in the genre they're reviewing they might inflate the score.
Yep. I never go to any major review websites when buying a game. I go straight to the user review section on Steam, or if it's not on Steam, I'll go straight to youtube.
@@christophersamueldearlysih262 i forgot to mention that, same !! first 10 mins, first hour of the game normally, if it interests me i look in further!! did this with rain world ❤️
Interestingly enough, there is a Christian game review site (Christ Centered Gamer) that manages to be the perfect example of how to separate your personal biases from simply reviewing the games as games. They use two separate categories, game score and morality score, the former reviewing the game solely on its own merits as a video game and the latter being the section where they review the game based on how well a Christian would enjoy it. I'm not very religious myself, but I really respect these guys for being able to stay professional and acknowledge and separate their personal biases like this in a field where that seems like a lost art nowadays. Funnily enough, the typical Californian video game journalist would probably consider a site like this "close minded" or even "bigoted" for being religion focused, but in many ways they manage to be way more open minded and tolerant than them.
@@fartass8299 I went to check and they actually have reviewed both. Got pretty good game scores, but predictably pretty low morality scores. Also, the reason I originally heard about the site was a Doom review, if I remember correctly.
Sounds interesting. I'll take a look. I mean, GTA and RDR are definitely going to lack in the morality. I think even non-Christians would agree. I bet they don't even bother with hentai games ;)
I'm much more in favor of Ross's Game Dungeon's scoring system than the percentile that's so popular. Instead of giving a score based on how much you personally liked it in reference to other similar media you've consumed, you list the most unique elements of the game and whether they're positive or negative is based on individual preference.
Problem is he doesn’t exactly quantitate uniqueness. Limbo of the Lost is a 1/10 game but is so unique it deserves a play through just by its sheer insanity. If he gave two scores, one for how “good” it is and one for how “unique” it is, I’d agree.
I honestly don't even know what you need in terms of qualifications to become a games journalist. But when it comes to expirence i guess people who grew up with doom and stuff are more expirenced with games at this point. Sometimes i wonder what these Journalists played growing up since they aren't particularly good in most genres.
@@brotbrotsen1100 the problem is the big companies look for writers not players. I don't watch Garand thumb cause he's a master orator, I watch him because he knows his shit. Game reviewers don't know nor care to learn fuck all. But they write pretty.
Big sites really need to assign specific people to specific types of games. Yahtzee works for a journal, but he has his own show and seems to be rather consistent, so one can know what to expect from him. Same cannot be said for those faceless names in IGN or PCgamer.
Yahtzee also explains the reasons he holds his opinions about a game thoroughly and makes his personal tastes very public so even if he isn't someone with your same preferences his reviews are still helpful to figuring out if you'll like a game
I've always chosen to be my own game critic, doing my own research about a game that interests me instead of trusting a popular reviewer. It almost never leads to buyer's regret.
@@iwantagoodnameplease That's how I do it. I mostly watch people playing it, and only look for specifications like mechanics, modes and time sink in a review if I didn't find that on my own. Even then, I won't take the review too personally.
if game devs want to instill confidence for people to buy their products... give free demos so we can have an early taste of it... its crazy that only Capcom of all AAA publishers are doing this
@@iwantagoodnamepleaseIn my case no. Because all of the games I ended up playing had barely any info on them to start with. (Meecheenme, Voxel Turf, Snowbreak: Containment Zone, etc.) Sometimes ya just gotta yolo and see how it goes.
Same, I wait for others to buy it...MOST of the time all the DLC's were released before I even bought them. NEVER EVER trust ANY kind of media has always been my #1 rule.
Word of advice: Stop putting so much trust in critics. Anyone can call themself a critic now these days even if they know little to nothing. Play the game to enjoy it, don't pick out details you hate and hang onto them with a passion.
Better yet, learn to be more objective. Look at games you love and understand why you love them, what makes them fun, what makes them memorable, what makes them standout to you, and be willing to criticize things you don't like, even if it's just that one sewer level you absolutely hate for example. Equally so, look at the worst games you've ever played, the ones you hate and understand why you hate them. What makes them unbearable, how could they improve, what about the game just doesn't work, but also take a moment to recognize something you do like in the game. Maybe it has one really enjoyable level/mission, maybe the soundtrack is killer, or perhaps there's a mechanic you like. As horrible as Anthem is, flying around the world in your Javelin feels freaking great, I wanna see that flight system replicated in a much better game that is actually superb.
Man this was eye opening. There should be more discussion and awareness about such biases - this is a great first step. For pro reviewers, I think they should always display the time spent playing the game in addition to their verdict. That would clear up a lot of biased reviews I think.
The problem with the stance is that reviews weren't supposed to be buyers guide a man dosent 8 hours with something to decide its his cup of tea or not and thats all a review is rather that person liked a thing
I really like the proposal @randomprotag9329. It might be impossible to remove bias from reviews, but acknowledging biases can be extremely helpful to those who are looking for them, and we can hope that people will learn to take reported biases into account. I know I would find it very useful. To @addex1236, your point makes complete sense. However, reporting biases will help a lot - review stuff however you want to, but let me know what kind of assumptions you're working on.
@@adisava its striaght up impossible to remove bias entirely. even for a reviewer that tries to be least bias as possible there will be the bias of not being that expierenced with the games genre or something as simple as reviewing a game is different from playing it on the weekends to relax.
@@addex1236 If a review isn't a buyer's guide then there is no point at all for reviews to even exist in the first place. Just fire all of the games journalists, they're useless.
Solutions: -Shutdown IGN -Make Steam review score system universal -Shutdown IGN -Blacklist all IGN employees from present and future gaming industry perks and events. -Shutdown IGN
“IGN no more”, with the Spider-Man comic book cover of him walking im away in the rain and the IGN logo in the background in the bin would actually go hard.
Bias is 100% fine in a review. No matter how critical anyone is bias will always creep in. So leaning into the bias and explaining to your audience is important. But big time reviewers just can do itm making a company see a game a certain way but actually being several people is tricky. It's why small time single reviewers are better. As long as they actually explain their points instead of just saying it's bad or it's good. They need to explain why it's bad or good
@@guffingtonreal true. Problem with that for big time reviewers is that they need to be seen as a collective who can praise a game that likes every genre if done well. Or in donkey's case, get hated on by kids or teenagers if he doesn't like an rpg. This point isn't his fault. If he likes an rpg, then you know it's gonna be good
What I think would be interesting is to explore how much people outside of America actually care about metacritic. I can't say I know of anyone unironically following metacritic scores here in eastern-ish Europe.
@@AbystomaMexicanium Those are exactly what people mean when they say "eastern European". I thought you were referring to all the non-slavic countries east of Germany.
The older ive gotten I've found just hearing the voice of the reviewer is often enough to realise where their bias lies, this is perfectly demonstrated in the opening of this video... 😅
This is why I kinda miss total biscuit. He actually takes the time to play the game for hours and hours, until he can come up with a conclusion for it. Sure he has biases against games with puzzles for example but he’s honest about his biases.
Remember that IGN gave Super Mario 3D World + Bowser’s Fury a lower score than the original SM3DW despite the fact it’s the same game with gameplay improvements and even an extra game. And the worst part, it was a different person who reviewed it. Not the person who reviewed the original.
What's wrong with getting a different person to review it? I'm not sure about the lower score thing myself. If you release the exact same game then in one school of thought it should get the exact same score, but in another school of thought it should get a zero because it brings nothing new to the table. The true answer is really just that review scores are not that important.
As a British person I love that you not only used Dennis the Menace to represent us but also that the game you chose was Football Manager. Hats off to you for all the hard work that clearly went to making this vid and thanks for making me laugh out loud for the first time today.
Another thing I'll add is that I think a lot of reviewers try to view video games as art, but most consumers are only interested in games as entertainment. I love creative and unique experiences but often I also just want a couple hour of fun after a long day.
I also see video games as art. I love stylized games and enjoy seeing different art styles in games. I'm not a fan of realism in games though, it ruins the feeling of fun and escapism for me.
I've always felt the same way about movie critics, though. Just because someone is a critic does not mean they are the target audience for a movie, and you can expect to see plenty of beloved movies with terrible critic scores like Happy Gilmore
WHY this has so little views? ffs, I was discussing how games are no longer being made to be played with my bro. And you actually built a date to back this up. Great job, thanks
Personally I hated the controls but that’s because I have no nostalgia for the PS2 era and it’s game design so it just didn’t feel right ti actually play But that’s just me I also hate the feel of crash 4 but enjoyed the N. Sane trilogy because I’m fsurjt certain they are running with different physics or engines
@@jefftakesdscakes30 Listen if you think it’s not fun, fine. I enjoyed it and would give it a 8/10. Pretty fun to me. We all have our opinions, but to say “my opinion is right and yours is wrong cos I’m right” doesn’t make you right. It makes you childish, and close minded to trying anything new.
This reminds me of a highlight video I watched of a racing game fan viewing the top 100 racing games, and one of the best racing games of all time wasn't even on the list, while mobile games no one's heard of were in the top ten. It was obvious that the scores were based on some sort of sample that wasn't primarily racing game fans. What sucks most is realizing that for people trying a new genre, this means they will not actually get to experience what the best to offer is.
When you think about it, yeah, it’s one of the reasons AVGN is so trusted for game reviews. His life is video games, he loves them, every video he’s surrounded by them on his shelves, and while he’s his reviews focus on bashing old badly made games, the point is, he represents what the ideal game journalist should be: someone who enjoys video games and is passionate about their quality, someone who has a sizable library of games and knows them like the back of their hand
@@RainOn2SunnyDay If you haven't heard of them, the Angry Video Game Nerd is a trusted source of unfiltered criticism for video games. He (James Rolfe) sits us down purely to talk about how bad a particular game he found is. He uses a lot of profanity so if that's not your thing don't watch him, but its a pretty good series. It's actually one of the oldest running series' on TH-cam, dating back to the late 2000s If you like bad games, swearing, and goofy skits, AVGN is a great watch
@@wieldylattice3015 Funny enough he got me to seek out Earthbound when he reviewed it because of how much he loved the game. Don't regret that decision since.
"AVGN is so trusted for game reviews." Uhm... No? Literally no? The exact opposite of yes. Negative. Incorrect. He himself has gone on-record saying that he intentionally over-exaggerates the negative aspects of everything he plays in order to make a joke. He's literally CinemaSins for video games. He's not a critic, he's a funny jackhole, and that's the whole joke. Unless you meant to talk about when James is reviewing something honestly and not as the AVGN, in which case yeah, he tends to be honest. The AVGN though, nope.
@@CoralCopperHead I have to disagree. Even though his reactions are exaggerated, his complaints and points are completely justified. The other thing is that as a funny jack hole, he still is a more competent video game critic the most game journalists, and this sort of ties into topics covered in the video. Game journalists are sent review copies that they have to play as quickly as possible due to tight schedules, whereas James has always had a much more forgiving timeframe. And he is hardly cinenmasins for video games, if that were the case, he would cover more games that were considered good, but he's barely ever done that, and when he did, he still managed to criticize real flaws that some people wouldn't enjoy in a game. Sorry about writing a whole paragraph on this, have a good one!
Sonic Unleashed was a Victim of an Incompetent Journalist with a Huge Bias against Sonic because it was cool to hate him, especially around that time. If they actually played the game they would recognize it has Great Level design, stunning Graphics, beautiful Music, and a Compelling Story.
@@nestormelendez9005 Oh yeah definitely. The Whole Werehog Gameplay is a Hack & Slash, it was 2008 and God of War was very popular and Sonic Team Saw that haha. The other gameplay is Modern Sonic which is basically a Racecar running through Well designed Obstacle Courses, it’s hard your first time but the more you play the more you learn and the more fun it becomes
I remember you from the Star Control II review and it’s astonishing that your channel hasn’t gained much traction yet. Your writing, editing, sound quality, and narrating have vastly improved (which is a HUGE compliment since your SC2 review was already good and actually got me to experience and fall in love with that game). I seriously hope the algorithm blesses you soon because content that sounds this professional definitely doesn’t deserve to go underlooked.
Thanks. It really is nice to know that i'm not the only one that thinks the video quality has improved a lot. I know that my issue is that I don't upload enough, but without getting into it to much yet that will change in august.
@@darkdwarf007 I think any person is funny in the end if they can just be themselves, but this abrupt meme humour in between commentary feels often forced. Perhaps some truly find it funny and I'm not arguing it cannot be done so that a larger majority would find it funny. The jokes aside, the content of this video was great.
That frame of the "-Too much water" con in the review reminded me of a video I watched a while ago about Crisis Core: Reunion, where the critic gave a con of the game not having a photo mode. Now while I understand how nice it would be to have a photo mode in a game... not every game needs a photo mode, especially if said game is just an updated version of an old PSP game almost no one has access to anymore due to the PSP being discontinued. (Still have mine and the original Crisis Core disk, the PSP has a broken screen and no battery/charger tho... sad)
@@brotbrotsen1100i use them sometimes, mostly to admire the 3d models. But they are by no means a necessity, and considering half of them work like garbage i wouldn't mind excluding them
Fortunately, the legitimacy of game reviews is being questioned worldwide. How I decide personally if a game is worth buying? Social media, content creators, seeing someone play it. And I'm sure this goes for most gamers these days. There's no way some of these indie games would have blown up the way they did before this internet era. It's putting gaming into the hands of the masses and it's kind of great.
Me? I just pirate it and decide for myself. No need to buy it and rush through it in case I've played too long for a refund, not buyer's remorse or sunk cost clouding my judgement. It's great, to be honest. I've pirated 99.99% of the games I've played before I've even considered buying them.
@eneco3965 so did you buy the games that you thought were good enough to buy? Just being genuine here since I've seen people who say the same thing but don't actually go through with it.
I see this in the cinema industry too. Certain reviewers will praise a movie for lets say fan-service then tell another movie that fan-service in movies are bad. It depends on the scale of the movie franchise too, like Marvel. Im not detailing this but its crazy to see
Critics do something similar with music, where they praise an album for taking inspiration from previous works, and they slam another for the same reason. 💀
Who knew that videogame "journalists" would hate actual video games, they are failed college students that wanted to work for "real journalism" but got stuck in failing gaming sites.
What’s sad is that it doesn’t matter if they are videogame, music, book, or movie reviews. There’s always the toxic side of it, be it from those producing the work and their need to get a 10/10, and the ones reviewing, professionals or not, fans or haters, who frequently will give a low or high score for no valid reasons. It’s like everyone wants to impose something, instead of letting the work speak for itself.
Absolutely agreed. I've seen a music review where the critic slated the band just because they sounded too much like their influences. There's a difference between unlawful copying and making original compositions heavily inspired by previous works. I also have 3 albums from the 1980's that were rated 2 stars on AllMusic, and 1 that was rated 3 stars, but all of them are some of my favorites from the era. From my short-lived experience of reading music reviews, the critics are either the nice neighbor next door, or they'll be nitpicky and give your work a bad score because it didn't fit their expectations. While everyone does have their own opinion, it's annoying as hell when the artists are pressured to appease these high expectations. If the critics' expectations aren't met, too bad for them. They're not in charge. After having seen so much of this nitpicky behavior, I'm currently trying to work on ignoring these professional reviews, whether it be music, video games or movies. I need to get myself out of this doomscrolling shit and just focus on my own thoughts.
What is the worst case scenario in your opinion? A toxic big reviewer or toxic fanbase with a voice? an example a little off topic but I'm watching the hobbit trilogy (I've seen one film so far) and considering its positive/negative points it's a good film, maybe I'm not a big fan of the LOTR trilogy but in my eyes this isn't the "Garbage that disrespects the Books" that I hear a lot of people say, and just to make it clear, I don't read the hobbit books and I know that the films won't be 100% faithful to them but I'm analyzing the film without any connection with the books, just doing small comparisons to the previous trilogy sometimes.
This is exactly the case with PC hardware. reviewers are being bribed/held hostage with those early (& free) review samples. & hence cowarding themselves into saying nothing the corporations don't approve of and/or being very soft in their criticism.
I actually, un-ironically face palmed at that reviewer struggling with the SpongeBob "puzzle". He should be tested for an intellectual disability or early onset dementia.
Steam reviews are usually much more useful because people can mark it as helpful or not. Sometimes what people say they didn't like sounds like something you'd like. IGN reviews and the like generally feel.. generic.. which makes sense after watching your video.
Yeah. I even rate reviews that are only "wow, so much fun" down. They are useful for their score, but reading them tells you nothing new. A review that compares the game the genre stables helps me much more.
@@tristanwegner This is why I only read the negative steam reviews. They tend to be much more honest and forthright with their reviews. Outdated graphics, bad story, but awesome gameplay? That sounds like a win to me, even if it wasn't what that one reviewer was looking for.
i wouldn't encourage people to hate them but i think they're just outdated, like he said i think in order to give a fair review on a game i think a critic should be given at least a week to finish a single game, but execs probably have no idea how video games work, so they think they're like movies and they can finish the game and write a review in 4 days but even then, the critics are way too like-minded and culturally similar to really try to give everyone the final opinion on a game
Nah, I'm sorry but they ought to be hated, ridiculed and driven out of the industry. For far too long these 'critics' have contributed nothing of value to gaming, and are now in fact actively harming it by pushing the medium to become more and more sanitized, politicized (as long as it's THEIR politics though) and just overall bland and uninspired. This is at a time when gaming 'reviews' have little to offer: if you're curious about a game you can easily find some gameplay on youtube to decide if you'll like it and check the USER reviews on Steam or other platforms to become aware of any other aspect about the game that might influence your purchase decision. Gaming journos are obsolete, and they know it. And I wish there was a middle ground or a compromise, but no, there isn't. THEY won't compromise, and so we shouldn't either. It's either us or them. Remember: Gatekeeping is GOOD.
In general, I'm not a huge fan of critics, and I'm trying to get myself out of the habit of reading reviews from them. Critics can either be the nice neighbors next door, or people to be truly feared. I've seen an Allmusic review for "Yes No Yes No Yes No" by The Girls, and the reviewer pretty much destroys the band by saying that they should retire just because they sound like their influences. Also, most of my all time favorite albums turn out to have mixed or negative reviews. I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion just as much as I am entitled to my own, but I want to enjoy music and games by myself. With that said, needledrop is pretty cool, though, from what I've seen of him.
If any fan of the medium wants a fair opinion, not based around making business witht he games companies, look around youtube. they may not be "professional" but most game reviwers there have a genuine opinion. Wether or not you agree is something else, what matters is that once you find a good group with a set of fixed tastes, you know who to look for when looking for an FPS, or for an strategy game. Review sites died once social media became massive.
Maybe these game critics should stream The game somewhere and give their thoughts live, that way, people Will see Just How fucking stupid and bad at games they are
While writting for a magazine, I've been pushing for the Hat in Time full review, but managed only to get it a third of a page with no rating, while I thought it could be the best 3D platfomer of the year.
Dude, what the hell? Why? Nothing compares to the feeling of smacking a bird so hard it explodes, or the collective suicide of some major characters just so you become temporarily immortal! (Now that I think about it it's kinda dark)
Just want to shout major props to you that you actually went and databased the critic and user reviews to find your information AND YOU ACTUALLY SHOWED IT (even for just two seconds). That's something I do on other things both macro and micro to check my hypotheses but I've never had a reason to show it in anything I've made.
@@Snt1_ If you play a game just for the soundtrack,you always have spotify and other apps if you dont like spotify. Kinda stupid playing a game you dont like just for the music
The other issue is the low standards to be a video game critic. As has come out to hilarious effect many times critics are bad at playing games. Some can't even pass a tutorial level of a game. Instead they fake reviews for games they never play, or get others to do it for them.
But film critics tend to be way more knowledgeable on film. Also much of the time critics are way more similar to audience opinions, they just don’t have it higher because they found the movie amusing.
@@SchemingGoldberg you actually believe morons like Mauler understand film? That is even more hilarious, his reviews aren’t even well written as far a writing is concerned
It's easy. Go to college and get a useless gender studies degree. Then try to become a "real" journalist but fail. Then become a games journalist because that's the only job that will accept you.
You live in San Francisco and can get in direct contact with people in the business. If you ever want to know how you get into the media industry, "live in certain place and nepotism" is nearly universally the answer.
Yeah we all know the “critic” score is literally just which company paid the most. You can even fake a lot of user reviews. Thats why I believe the only way to know if your gonna like a game is to watch footage of it
I can tell you that, for me, Noita is by far one my most liked games. You might even call it my favorite. Sadly, Noita is one of the hardest roguelike that i have found. Its slow paced, runs can go for hours at a time when you get the hang of it. But, by far its biggest thing is wand tinkering, its amazing what you do with the different spells but aside from the small description each soell gives you, its hard to know what happens for each spell. The best example i can give is about the spell "chainsaw", its a close range spell, meaning doesn't fire the spell, more it just appears on the tip of the wand. Its description has a section that says "and it as some magical property's", wtf that means you wont know with out playing around with it Edit: I just lost a 6 to 7 hour run from a stupid mistake again trying to duplicate my perks
Haven't finished the video but in my opinion the biggest problem with game awards and video game critics is that too often they try to act bougie and pretend they are refined, in addition to many of them being outsiders who saw money and an opportunity which is why they came into the business. They also try to mimic the film industry, Them being outsiders really shows once you realize that critics have gotten significantly more detached in recent years once the gaming industry became huge, those guys would have probably looked down on games and gamers if it hadn't gotten so big.
The Art and Cynicism of Gatekeeping. The critique has to constantly justify why they put themselves in between the industry and the consumer. And the only way to do this is by completely oversaturating your public position on a product. But nobody foresaw that this effect will seep straight into fandom through social media. So now everyone, always, is a critique.
It's kinda like "welp, the only critics we have suck and aren't reliable at telling me what I have, might as well speak me own piece to warn others with similar tastes to mine", and since TH-camrs are usually folks with similar mindsets, who are part of the main audiences rather than entitled critics, they end up being a lot more reliable.
@@Mike14264 Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Stop acting like 'independent' reviewers have opinions that are worth a damn, the only opinion that could ever possibly matter about any given game is *_yours._*
@@CoralCopperHead I don't see why theirs wouldn't be worth at least a listen. After all, it's not like going fully blind into the commitment of buying a game is a good thing either.
Yep but juournalista are rlitosts pricks that ar elnown to defame anyone who tries to ignore them or call them out so their latxh onto power aslong as possible
@@anshitgupta1294 game journalists in 2014 were cought out sleeping with a female dev to give her good reviews , many games journalists do not care if a game is good only if it suits their biases game journos have never beenstrustable much less trustable than usser reviews
This was a very good video! I'm glad TH-cam randomly recommended it. I could tell you put a LOT of work into this! I hope that you are able to make that comprehensive video!!!
Interesting discussion. I'm also out of step with reviewers generally. But I think it remains to be demonstrated that user scores are more representative of what the average player thinks, since I would guess many people don't engage with that at all. If we think of a car analogy, you're probably going to see way more enthusiasm for sports cars than Camrys or crossovers but that doesn't mean that's what people actually buy.
There’s also the issue of brigading. If a game is doing something controversial it may end up getting a ton of low scores from people who never played it, regardless of how appropriate the backlash should be.
@@Scatmanseth excpt if only people that bought it can review it, like in steam as usually people that don't like a game are not likely to buy it simply to put a bad review
In reality, more experienced enthusiasts can even pick apart grocery getters and say "this one is made like trash, the interior trim is horrible even for it's class, the IIHS score is low and it feels like it wants to fall apart", or "fun little car, good on fuel and spacious trunk".
@@satsumagt5284 I didn't say that enthusiasts can't compare two commuter cars. What I said is that if I went online and looked at how much hype different cars were getting I'd get a distorted idea of which are the most popular.
@@Scatmanseth And honestly the other way around too, it's amazing how many times I've seen people say "this game supposedly does X, we should mass positive/negative review it even if you haven't bought it join us", I agree with Wiki Piiimp that reviews should show who bought the product (and perhaps how much they played it so you can see someone who bought and didn't start the game vs someone who played it 20+ hours)
There is something weird with the top Nintendo games and game journalists. Many many sites don't ever rate them below 90%. To be fair IGN rated Scarlet and Violet at 6 which is one of their most realistic rating. I also like some of the big Nintendo Games especially the last two Zelda games but it's almost like both many fans and journalists turn a blind eye to all their flaws and shortcomings. Tears of the Kingdom is a freaking masterpiece but it's not freaking perfect. Far from it.
@@valentinvas6454 hell I feel like the only reason why IGN gave Scarlet and Violet a 6 was only because of the backlash they received for Sword and Shield. I bet you they were planning on giving it a 10 originally
@@kishiberohan7955On the other hand, IGN gave Pokemon Mystery Dungeon DX a 6 just becaude they didn't like its gameplay. In my opinion it deserves a better score
@@valentinvas6454I already see this from the beginning considering it’s Nintendo that we’re talking about. Breath of The Wild itself is a very great experience and I want to recommend everyone to play it but something feels lack and empty during my playthrough. It turns out it was true because BoTW and TotK were originally planned as one game. Eiji Aonuma himself stated there used to be more features in BoTW but were cut due to Wii U’s hardware limitations. Then fast forward upon BoTW’s success, he planned that BoTW was going to have a third DLC (presumably adding those scrapped features and gameplay), until it became Tears of the Kingdom that we love today. Yes, even if Nintendo releases an incomplete games that comparable to Cyberpunk 2077 or No Man’s Sky, both fans and journalists will turn a blind eye for it and immediately calling it 10/10.
Glad you mentioned the FGC. Simply put there is a divide between journalist-like mentality and hardcore crowds vs what's considered casual friendly and what's not. Trying to make it so people are motivated by extrinsic factors rather than giting gud
This is very insightful. I feel like part of the problem for youtube game reviews is due to the big names in the industry like gameranx or ign. I watch their reviews and think, 'these are just bland and uninformed representations of the game'. Then I watch other reviews that come our months later, like mine, where I try to deep dive in the game, and they just don't get any attention any more. Its definitely a tough situation. Good to see how reviewers feel about it though.
Great analysis! I have to mention I don't demand a reviewer to finish a game to review it. I can accept this fact if the game was so tedious or otherwise bad to him that he simply is not willing to finish it. This has to be mentioned in the review of course. Steam reviews are also good because you can see the playtime. Unfortunately, even though user reviews are valuable, fun to read and have interesting takes, they have to be, and I emphasize, have to be read individually, since the overall score or summary can be just as misleading as official critics are. Review bombing is a thing which happens, but thanks to Valve, Steam already has a timeline where you can see when the negative reviews spurred. Though, much more misleading than the negative ones, I see so many games getting extremely positive feedback no matter how incomplete (early access), tedious or casual the game is. To counter these overly positive reviews you simply have to read the negative ones first, but infact they can be spiteful and mislead too! Who to trust? In the end, the best way to judge a game is to take a look at it yourself, maybe even try it if possible. Internet gives straight access to opinions of others, which now teaches us in turn that it is more important to create your own opinion, no matter how many people yell something. Do not let any majority direct you, just say what you think and let opinions of others be only amusing takes to have. You might agree or not, it is not that serious in the end, just don't take any word you read as the truth.
The growing disconnect between critics' understanding and presentation of what a video game experience should be and the reality gamers experience is the reason TH-camrs like Dunkey are so popular. They _play_ the game to a fuller extent, and _show_ you the justifications they have for either praising or criticizing the game while being a more digestible watchable experience instead of some written grating self-inflated ego trip.
Too bad Dunkey is so bad at comedy he decided to fall back on the generic running gag of spoiling random things that have nothing to do with what he's reviewing.
As someone who very briefly did game reviews back in the GameSpy Era (which Quake 2 was new), there is a big reason why major franchises get glowing reviews... they almost always go to a well-established critic who really wants to play it. So even though Quake 2 was widely considered by fans (eventually) as disappointing, it was like Episode 1 disappointment that took a little while for fans to admit. So no surprise that the resident Rockstar or Last Of Us fan who was fighting with other fans to review those games were so damn positive. If any of them doubted the game pre-release they'd probably let someone else do it, because why fight if you think you're going to be disappointed. On the flip side, fans are more disposed to mediocrity because they wanted to plop down $70 for Redfall or whatever and they want to like it... while a critic who had this pushed on him by an editor is more likely to compare it unfavorably to a mediocrity like Dyling Light because they don't actually have a bias in that situation. And, let's face it, those User Scores are filled with huge truckloads of bias. Not only do you have corporate shill ccounts paid to drop 10/10s,but you got folks who loudly announce that their 1/10 has nothing to do with the gameplay or having played the game at all. Ultimately, you have to learn how to spot reviews that line up with your tastes. Aggregate scores are functionally meaningless. Personally, what i do is look for people who passionately love something, even if they're a minority. If someone isn't saying, "wow, Redfall is an amazing game", then, at best, it's going to be "not bad" and "not bad" isn't "good". If enough people love it, that's something I'm willing to take a chance on.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
Surprising, games that mimic movies excel in a rating system mimicking that of the movie ratings
Hey, rate this cookie I baked! *Gives 1,5 seconds to review it*
*Yeah... thats why gaming so populer ever do that these...*
Not all games that mimic movies excel though. This statement is pretty much saying black is black.
So you're saying the problem is that games use the 1 to 10 rating system usually
My brain hurts and I’m scared
One of my favorite moments of reviewers outing themselves was when someone (in ign iirc) said Devil May Cry 5's music was almost nonexistant. The game has a dynamic soundtrack, so depending on how good you are in combat, depends on how much of the actual track you will hear
@Stylish DY.D. Ah, my mistake then. It's been a while since I read about that review tbh and I haven't (yet) played DMC5 so I can't personally vouch. But wdym the soundtrack is highly disliked by many fans? From what I've heard on spotify It's fucking great
Hahahahaha remember my mate telling me this and watching him play considering he loves fighting games
He is insane at it
I wouldnt review it or some from software games
Cause I can admit I'm not good at them
Doom spiderman sonic .... that's my jam
I was fuming watching that one guy play cup head and doom ... I didnt know people could be that bad at gaming
I'm trying sekiro and it is hella tough but even i know I'm probably further then what most of these reviewers would try
Actually, the default audio balancing is horrible regardless of whether or not you get consistent S-ranks. At least on my Xbox.
@@sparrowfox6943 I have never seen a single human being who dislikes the DMC5 soundtrack. Vergil's theme has like 100 Million views on YT lmao.
Well like or dislike the music, I would not call it nonexistent when Bury the Light starts blaring.
To be fair, if you're calling a spongebob game punishing, then it's literally a skill issue.
Sponge Souls
Imagine them trying to play something like Metroid.
I hope he won't try crypt of the necrodancer
no duh, who are you telling?
Elden Sponge
I remember the Game Informer magazines back in the day would list the genres of games the reviewer specializes in. I think that would be a good change of pace. Also, there shouldn't be this rush to finish the review as soon as possible. That seems to be the biggest quality killer.
Yeah, when a reviewer says they don't like a certain genre, the review could be useful to other people who don't or to people who factor in that bias.
Reviews were still a pile of dogshit backthen, people just didn't were as terminally online to straight up call out bullshit.
As stated, they need to rush reviews for it to be seen.
I ASKED + YOUR CONTENT IS BETTER THAN MINE + LOVE YOURSELF
This problem goes both ways. Reviewing something you personally like or don't like is a very slippery slope and generally a bad idea. Mitigating the former can be done by playing it to death (losing your likeness for it) or learning to hate everything equally. The end goal is to smash your bias down into the ground as much as possible.
The primary reason as to why we have such a despicable state of game journalism is due to the standardization and normalization of bribes, game review copy exclusivity and critic blacklists. The singular instances any actual critic is given access to games is because the marketing teams and PR personnel of game/publisher companies have done a cost & benefit analysis of them, AKA "any good publicity is good publicity" once their audience gets big enough.
The whole "get review out quick" is a secondary factor primarily done to divert the initial huge way of website traffic (and the accompanied ad revenue) that comes whenever something new comes out.
I also hate the way that numbers in reviews have been ruined. A 6/10 to me means: "this is a slightly above average game that has issues but I overall still had a positive experience". But a 6 from a game journalist is basically "I didn't like it"
yea the scoring system is skewed to hell now
It's like the reviewers score it based off of a five star system, then add 5 points to whatever the score is and then say it was rated out of ten. I don't get it.
@@lankymaccrazyhair264that is true
I prefer a scoring system that forces you to take a stand humans tend to pick 7/10 or 6/10 in almost every part of their life.
I mean, people get bent out of shape when reviewers give a game a seven, they think they hated it. It's been this way for years ago. Most stuff you like is probably a six or seven at best, But a lot of stuff we like is probably a five as well. To me, five means "a good time no alcohol required"
I remember IGN giving Alien Isolation a bad score because, wait for it, the Xenomorph A.I was too good and made the game too hard...
Bruh 💀💀💀💀
Theres also pokemon omega ruby and sapphire. "too much water"
@@Achonas Like I get it was a joke about Hoenn but the joke was long dead when those games came out.
@@Achonas I don't know about the remakes but that's an extremely fair criticism of the originals. The water is why I stopped playing Emerald near the end over a year ago & can't find a reason to go back to it. And I enjoy The Great Maze in Brawl so it's not like I have super high standards about that kind of thing.
IGN is still atrocious though. They said We Love Katamari was just Katamari Damacy but more polished & with more content but they gave it a lower score. They gave LBP2 a lower score than LBP1 for no discernible reason.
Yeah I remember he said the AI was broken because the alien found him when he was staying still in a locker... But didn't mention that he had his motion sensor up the entire time which makes noise.. Something the game literally tells you
As a child, one of the things I loved about EGM magazine was that they had 4 reviewers review every game and they made it very clear not only what games they were currently enjoying, but also what genres of games they enjoy the most. It was very helpful in determining which reviewer weighed the features of said game more closely to the reader. I'm not sure if such a system is sustainable in today's saturated and time-devoid landscape, but I do think that review sites need to be more open in regards to what the reviewers preferences are.
I agree with you there. EGM was one of my go to magazines for reviews. It also helped that they added sme humor in their reviews as well.
I remember EGM. I had my letter published in their magazine years ago. Great magazine that also had a sense of humor
i hate humor@@watcherman222
Watching someone who plays similar games to you is basically the only method nowadays, which means spoiling yourself. That said, a truly good game won't really be ruined by this, so like, just don't watch 100% guides and you should be fine, and like only 3 videos, that leads to about mid game for most TH-camrs. Yes I have it down to a science, if reviewers are going to be trash, I might as well get a degree in bullshit.
A couple of reviewers from EGM back in the 90s were very biased towards Playstation and anti Sega, one of them being Shawn Smith
If I remember right, there was a journalist review of Fire Emblem: Three Houses that complained that the game was too easy after saying that they did only one play through on the easiest possible difficulty…
Please be joking, i have no respect for video game journalists anymore
Difficulty options should be banned for watering down interesting mechanics built into the game. Play Witcher 3 on anything easier than Blood and Bone difficulty, and you'll be ignoring how crucial alchemy and reading the bestiary actually is in both lore and gameplay. It's isn't a silly hack n slash and shouldn't be seen as such.
@@ChunkSchuldingaThat's silly, all that gets you is Pokémon. Games should have difficulty settings.
@@ChunkSchuldingaas someone who regularly plays video games on easy, no. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm spending $60 or more on a game that I know I'm not going to be able to play. However, unlike game journalists, I recognize that makes me not the best person to speak on a games difficulty and that's fine with me.
@@ChunkSchuldingaI put the difficulty in the Witcher down after playing for a while.
Exploring the world, going through all the different story lines was way more enjoyable to me than trying to min max the combat and all adjacent systems.
Especially after a day of work, getting freely through all the fights and enjoy all the rest the game offered was just right for me.
I do understand what you're coming from. There can be much joy in failing a boss fight, gearing up, improving your tactics for the fight. And try again and again until you beat it. But not every game has to be like that.
Im now playing V rising on regular difficulty. And even when the same boss defeats me 5 times in a row, I won't turn the difficulty down. To finally overcome that boss is the fun of it.
What's really stupid is when you actually get a journalist to actually review a Video game in a genre they don't like or don't understand.
Yeah I don't understand this, they usually are a big team and then leave a game for someone how hates the genre, of course they won't like it
@@evertonflores8670 it's really impossible to fix this problem. Because you could ask a reviewer do you like this type of genre and they can lie so they can get the job It's the fault of the people in charge of these journalists of why a lot of great games are being downvoted by journalists.
I really hate this. I mostly play Bullet Hell and Fighting games, all I ever see is reviewers complaining about how there isn't an elaborate story or the games are too hard.
You never get a review on game mechanics or how the games actually play, or how they compared to genre standards.
It's been happening forever. During the 90s and 00s, a time when reviews were mostly published media, Megaman games got consistently crapped on just because they were Megaman games. Reviewers complained about them being 2D platformers and not transitioning to 3D, which means that those idiots shouldn't have been playing a Megaman game in the first place.
@@MechanicalRabbits I definitely believe that. Anything that wasn't 3d "was awful" even though some of the best games were 2d. Most of the 3d games from the era were garbage, or at least they didn't age well.
"Am I implying that reviewers are bought off by large corporations? No, at least not directly."
Don't forget Jeff Gerstmann was literally fired because he didn't give Kane & Lynch a high enough score. The soft reasons you describe are insightful, but you can't ignore the harder reasons that affect the industry as well. I think a few years ago I would have really appreciated your attempt to humanize journos and reviewers, but these days I just have so much contempt for the rotten parts of the industry that I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
All that said, however, your reasons are much more thorough than any other explanation or potential analysis of these trends. I'm glad you made the video; what new information it contained was more than worth the effort you expended. Thanks.
Based and spitting facts.
It's a variety of reasons, all soft and hard, all completely fucked up. The whole industry is corrupt from the skin to the core.
Some say, gamer gate was too much. I say gamer gate wasn’t enough..
@@MortabluntI mean, if Gamergate had actually focused on jurnos as a whole and not started purely because of one guy inciting the internet to doxx and attack his ex girlfriend (leading to its main driving force being sexism, homophobia and racism, resulting in assault threats of all kinds targetting these groups in particular) it could've had a point or something, I guess?
@@conspiracypanda1200 That's a bunch of stupid bullcrap that never actually happened. What actually happened was that the internet found out she had been cucking her boyfriend with 5 other people inside the industry who were using her as a sex object, but she did so willingly so she could advance in a company and investigations sprung from there. Mailing lists of people who shouldn't be conspiring on stories by US law, secret government grants were uncovered that were actually illegal by the US's own standards and loads of work was done that completely broke the US public's trust in media. What you're saying is propaganda slung by said media in a time of massive disinformation.
I like the fact that you actually took the time to compile data to show a trend instead of just using specific examples👍
That sarcasm
Statistics matter more than individual examples if you're trying to get an accurate picture.
@@jefftakesdscakes30tell me you didn’t watch the video without telling me you didn’t watch the video
@@sabereaseera1384 Doesn't necessarily mean they didn't watch it.
@@caldercockatoo2234 the vid literally shows compiled data, so if they watched it, they did not watch it well
i started ignoring critics when they started bashing alice madness returns and rules of rose. man i wish games like that were still around. as a young teen girl i related a lot to both. they were dark and edgy but still had female protagonists going thru trauma
And they were both made by a DUDE who was straight-up abused by his hippy, p0thead mother.
American McGee is an actual legend in game design. He helped make Doom for the boys and Alice for the girls.
I'm a dude but like. I still love Alice Madness Returns. It's not perfect, but yeah, you really don't get stuff like that often these days.
And the sequel American Mcgee wanted to do, was turned down after he got a bunch of people to help him make a game dev bible for it.
I will always be pissed at EA for that. I read through the whole damn thing and oh my god I would have loved it if it was made.
Sadly, for the forseeable future... we'll just have to be satisfied with reading the game we wish was made.
I played through it a bit ago, on the hardest difficulty and I had bought the DLC for it so I could also experience the first game. On Xbox, though; When I tried it on PC through Gamepass/EA's thing... the game was a slideshow. Which I blame on EA for being such a shitty service and probably not keeping the game up to date.
...The ending still hits like a truck.
Or well.
A Train.
Realizing just how much was right under Alice's nose the whole time.
@DeathAngel-ft8oz I literally CRIED when EA turned down the Alice sequel. in an alternate universe I am enjoying Alice asylum....
I didnt played them, but even i miss them, as i looked to them as a very unique piece of art in videogame format.
Actions games as a genre almost died completely till the God of War 3 Remaster and DMC5 but luckily they are coming back and hopefully Alice has her chance for a sequel too cuz the combat was amazing
The problem is that these "games" journalists don't actually play games all that much. My trust in those died when IGN which is suppose to be the premier reviewer uploaded their doom playthrough, cuphead tutorial moment, and the most recent Redfall gameplay. They aren't gamers, they're writers. These are the people who will give the latest NBA, fifa, or call of duty a 9 out of 10 then turn around and give a hat in time or transistor a 6 maybe 7.
whats the most fucked up part about it is that ign have come to a point where a "6" is a "bad" score.
The guy who struggled on the Cuphead tutorial gave the game an amazing review by the way- and eventually beat it.
I'm not really crazy about the idea that because someone is bad at a game they don't have the right to review it. You can critically analyze something's flaws and strengths regardless of your personal skill in utilizing the mechanics that create those flaws and strengths.
@@georgegeorge25812g tbh a 6 IS a bad score, we tend to think that 5 is the not good not bad score, the "meh" score, but most people wouldn't even touch a 5/10 game, the real meh score is by the 7/10. The reason for that is most people won't rate a game that they don't like, they'll just go play something else, while the people who liked it are more likely to rate it, and rate it with a high score, so scores will tend towards higher numbers.
@@allesarfint Personally I think of 5/10 as the true midpoint, anything below is worse than average anything above is better than average although 6 and 4 aren't far off from said average.
To me it died many years ago when i've seen sonic unleashed review and they trashed the game like it was 06 2.0, and than a friend who didn't even liked sonic games came to me saying he got it on his xbox and he had a blast. Went to play it, liked it a lot at the time and yesteryear i got to play it again and absolutely adored it lmao. After that i noticed more and more how they favoured specific types of games and even gave excelent review to games that i later got to play and were mid at best.
IGN gave one of the best combat games of all time God hand a 3 out of 10
and the response gameplay video was stellar so at least one good thing came out of that pathetic review
@@Dabajaws yeah it was pretty interesting. I’ve played a crap ton of god hand myself and it was an experience to say the least. Like it was such a fun time that when I beat the final bosses I was like FUCK YEAH!
I'd rather work for the austrian painter than to work with IGN, at least Kanye cared about the people
And they gave imagine party babyz a 7, better than many many games on IGN. -but not Titanfall 2 YEAH BABY-
@@HarmonicVector oh yeah that was pretty cringe too…
It's such irony that all the names journalists called gamers fits themselves.
Gatekeeping, check
Elitism, check
Entitled, check
Coerse game devs to cater to their specific tastes, check
Fragile ego, check
Narcissistic, check
And they wonder why sites are dying like flies in a fire.
Gotta make the cult of society happy or the fascists will shut you down.
Imagine being this bent out of shape over someone’s opinion. Also, considering the adjectives you’ve used above. They’re all actually correct considering you’re throw a hissy fit when a game you like doesn’t get a favorable score.
@@SoyboyPeter Word?
They'd die off even faster if people stopped giving them clicks, but they just can't help themselves 😑
U can't be a true gamer if u are not racist and sexist
I used to be very involved in online gaming communities and forums in the late 2000s and early 2010s. When you are actively reading numerous gaming reviews as well as even communicating with game reviewers, you begin to realize that many game reviewers do not actually finish games. They might play a portion of the game to get the basic handle on things, but the rest of the experience is something they will glean from players who write their own thoughts on forums, or from watching TH-cam video playthroughs. You can also tell that many review scores are impacted by the reviewer's belief of how other reviewers are going to review the same game.
I would personally go as far to say that some reviews out there, even on mainstream websites, are nothing but a "plagiarism" of reviews from other places, and once that hits you, you'll stop caring about any review.
Oh they absolutely copy each other's homework lol.
Gamergate articles are still circulating, full of 'facts' that were made up and disproved ages ago 😅
The most meaningful difference between gaming journalists and gamers is that gamers actually care about videogames
Yeah well said, but still we have tendency to being to fast with judgment or review bombing or just expecting too much to fast but well after all we are the ones that buying game and we want good thing
@@nyx3988 we review bomb because it's the only way to show the gaming industry that we don't like the slop they're making and we expect barely anything at this point, a videogame working on launch day at all is more of a surprise than an expectation at this point to the majority of us
@@Scornfull yeah i understand but what about review bombing because one developer was just a moron and said dumb shit, that kind ofvreview bombing is just bad but overall yeah i agree review bombing is a good tool
plus, gamers pay to play, while journalists are paid to play.
@@corsim5997 true, there's more incentive for gamers to be honest with their feelings on it because they actually had to invest their money to get the game
that Spongebob clip is legit painful
I agree! I am terrible at games and I thought SpongeBob was easy as hell.
@@maddie690ifyJust when you think YOU are bad at video games, game journalists prove they’re even worse.
@@Mojojojo9001Insert that cuphead clip
@@LimeLoaf insert polygon doom 2016 gameplay
@@LimeLoaf forget the clip, the entire video is a worthwhile watch. though not the kind where you take popcorn and laugh at, its more like the kind of video where you sit with your hands intently gripping your head as you sit through the rising headache.
I remember that critic who couldn't even pass the tutorial of Cuphead and gave the game a horrible note
th-cam.com/video/_-P9_oUV9Gw/w-d-xo.html
Or that one that didn't understand Metroid Dread.
The same critic got stuck on the first level because they wouldn't progress and didn't think the enemies were infinite
Actually, he liked the game and said he just sucked at it.
@@thatoneguy7345 Yeah, it was a gameplay demonstration, not a review. The unprofessional part was that he knew it was a terrible demonstration but uploaded it anyway because he thought it was funny.
Edit: Then again, it was a huge nail in the coffin of gaming journalism so maybe he did the right thing.
Fun fact : the reviewer for sonic superstars mentioned that when playing the game they didn’t really get a sense of sonics trademark speed till a second playthrough. They noted this as confused as to this
That’s the entire point of the game playing levels multiple times to get better and get faster…..
I’m pretty sure sonic superstars had other problems
Even as a speedrunner, I wouldn’t just rush through a game as fast as possible just to beat it and ruin my experience lol. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason unskippable cutscenes were made was so game reviewers didn’t drop bad reviews on their games after they literally skipped all the story to beat the game in world record time.
"1/10, unskippable cutscenes, I missed my deadline by an hour."
This makes replaying games annoying.. sometimes you love the game but don't need to see the cut screen or all the dialogue
@@BadBrad119 yeah this is why I hate unskippable cutscenes lol. They are good for a first-time experience given that the player wants to see the story, but any time after that, unless you forget the story, cutscenes are now worthless. So there really wouldn’t be any real reason NOT to add the ability to skip cutscenes, which seems incredibly simple to add.
And this problem is multiplied when you speedrun a game, because you are forced to watch the same cutscenes over and over again to the point where you’d be annoyed. Sometimes people even make mods just to have the option to skip cutscenes lol.
@@Mojojojo9001 exactly, it should be no problem at all to just add a check to see if the game has been opened before to make it unskippable
@@Helperbot-2000 games like gow do do this
In a nutshell: Video Game critics ARE NOT gamers, they are just a bunch of out-of-touch young adults that just finished their mediocre journalism degree and spend 90% of their free time on Twitter and/or Reddit.
It’s better to say they are “bad”gamers.
Otherwise you attract arguments over what actually constitutes a gamer.
When in reality it doesn’t matter if they are gamers or not, because ultimately they still suck at games.
@@wayatvideos2142 well spoken 🗿
Fake gamers.......... famers.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombatreminds me of betar(beater whatever it was) from SAO
Not even free time--they use Reddit as the basis for writing articles
The most important part of steam’s review system is that it shows playtime in my opinion. I never purchase a triple A game without going to one of the most experienced positive and negative reviews and reading them in their entirety. The important thing is to not just look at the numbers
Or, y'know... play it yourself because reviews are literally worthless regardless of who or where they come from.
@@CoralCopperHead But what if you find out that the game won't be for you only after you spend 2 hours in it? Now you have a game that you don't like and can't refund it. For a big game that could well be around 40 dollars completely wasted.
Of course user reviews are full of almost completely useless trash reviews that are basically just "good game" or "game is shit", but don't pretend that there aren't any good reviews that can help you decide whether a game is for you.
@coralcopperhead685 Sure, if you like wasting money
@@CoralCopperHead ah yes, because i want to know whether i will play the game or not after spending 50$ on it
"Well, I guess it's okay"
[12904 hours playtime]
"Are devs paying off reviewers? Well no, at least not directly."
proceeds to explain how they are absolutely 100% paid off, indirectly. Glad we got that figured out.
They're absolutely paid off. In money, in early reviewer copies, in exclusive access to media events and even romantically/sexually. The corruption is present in many forms.
It's also worth noting that this trend of video games journalists not really being able to reliably do their jobs has directly led to the success of alternative, non-mainstream video game reviewers who only review what they actually want to, and are willing to review niche titles, think Mandalore, Sseth, Max0r and Jimothy Ross.
So, a guy with a cult of personality, two entertainers who aren't reviewers and are only there to make funny ha-ha jokes, and... whoever JR is, I guess? Let me guess, you think Civvie is a 'reviewer' too, don't you?
@@CoralCopperHead They're all reviewers. They might not review like the mainstream reviewers as shown in this video, but they are still reviewers, as far as I care. I can list more grassroots game reviewers, Whitelight, Noah Caldwell-Gervais, Raycevick, ThunderPsyker and many more. All have their niches, some are long-form essays, some are short form comedy, but crucially, they all convey the content of the games they play to their audience.
You really haven't pointed out any flaws in my overall argument.
@@CoralCopperHead Literally anyone who reviews a thing is a reviewer. You picked the stupidest possible thing to be an elitist about and I'm glad this guy owned you.
@@CoralCopperHead they talk about the good and bad things in the game they are covering. That's basically what a review is. Some of them stray further from the standard review formula, but they're still reviewing the game.
And yes, Civvie sometimes does videos where he reviews games, so he is a reviewer.
i do think what most of these creators do is slightly different. They usually release videos about games that released months years or even decades ago. Instead i would mention actual youtube reviewers like skillup or ACG, who do actually release their video at release or very close to it @@LtPulsar
I also hate how the big review sites don't pay for their games, or can write it off as a business expense. It taints their reviews to a degree imo. They will gush at how amazing a game is and ignore that it's $70 for a 2 hour game with zero replay value. Or ignore that the game's grind is insane unless you pay for Xp boosters or Gold boosters (that they get for free). Because money is off the table reviewers are often far more generous to mediocre even bad games because they have no stake in it.
Exactly. It’s why on Steam they have tags on reviews to say “product received for free.” It’s just basic transparency to be upfront about things like this.
@@elhazthorn918 It helps, but even that isn't perfect. Those are the official free copies sent out, there are work a rounds to it as well. Like the reviews pay for the game, even at a reduced price. But get in game currency and boosters for free.
Absolute nonsense, plenty of reviewers, even ones that get review copes, talk about how a game might be too short and not replayable. Do you also think that all movie reviewers are biased because they don't pay for their pre-release press screenings?
@@philipkelly7369 Lol I said it taints the review "to a degree" not that they instantly shill for the company 100%. It is never "all reviewers" but it still can be most, or a large portion of them are that way.
Movie reviews are often very biased one way or the other. And people who's job it is to watch movies that they don't pay for can often be far more forgiving for what amounts to a waste of time. There is a massive difference to paying upwards of $100 for a family of four to see a movie than a reviewer that got in for free in terms of expectations.
You just don't expect much out of something you got for free.
Exactly, the best Example for this the GoT-Odyssey controversy. Both games have the same critic score but overwhelmingly different user scores. The critics just glossed over the fact of how HUGE odyssey was because they skipped most of its content and they didn't go through enough combat to realize how repetitive it was. If you start a NG+ on odyssey and just play the main story, you'll be shocked at how similar it feels to the full GoT experience. And that probably how the critics really did feel about it.
There's a very simple solution to this problem that journalists refuse to accept. Have people review the types of games that actually interest them. Having a team of people, each focused on different types of games means that all games will be given a fair review, because the reviewer will actually want to play it. But they won't accept this because it means that they get less work since someone else gets that game instead of them. So they grit their teeth, say they'll give it a fair review and then ignore most of the game and say it was bad or boring.
As much as seeing know-nothing journalists make me cringe when they talk about something they don’t know about… it’s still important they write a review from their own perspective than for an audience. Maybe reading a review about a visual novel from someone who doesn’t play visual novels could be useful, if they highlight their background and be upfront about it. Because non-visual novel fans might want to see the opinions from someone who doesn’t normally play visual novels. It’s an important part, even if they’re not an expert at something. The same way reading a book review coming from an average Joe would be useful, not just reviews from professors of literature.
Sure, but that assumes that they have enough manpower for it.
According to Marty Silva on Slightly Something Else [about six months to a year ago]; IGN do just this. They'll have someone who likes fighting games review them, someone who likes football games review those, and so on. This is what leads to the stereotype of IGN reviewers always giving games 9/10s - because they're inherently biased towards that sort of game, and are likely to enjoy it no matter the quality. So long as it ticks the boxes that they like.
@@elhazthorn918right but if they're gonna have a predestined stupid bias and justify a low ass review because of a literal skill issue it's another issue entirely ☠️
These aren't average joes they're annoying weirdos that want a soap opera for a video game.
Tbh I'm not sure if this would be valid or a actually good solution.
Think about it, if a game is so good it makes even people that generally dislike that type of game like it or enjoy it, i think it makes it even more impressive.
For example, i was never into fighting games AT ALL when i was young, but when Dragon ball fighterz came out i tested it and actually enjoyed it, i still play it to this day and though it has issues that could be fixed, it's a nice experience, and it introduced me to the competitive scene of A LOT of fighting games that otherwise i would have not delved into.
Another solution would be that the reviewers ACTUALLY have some sort of gaming background or experience, not only with the genre of the game they are reviewing, but a lot of other different games and genres. If you select the ones that are only interested in the genre they're reviewing they might inflate the score.
Yep. I never go to any major review websites when buying a game. I go straight to the user review section on Steam, or if it's not on Steam, I'll go straight to youtube.
same, i never wouldve played my favorite game (hollow knight) without being introduced to it by youtube comments haha
@@twotruckslyrics For me, I just watch a youtube first episode of the game to see if its worth buying or not
@@christophersamueldearlysih262 i forgot to mention that, same !! first 10 mins, first hour of the game normally, if it interests me i look in further!! did this with rain world ❤️
Yk what ill try it bc of ur comment @twotruckslyrics
@@Nikzmat oh :o have fun if you do play it!! ❤️
Interestingly enough, there is a Christian game review site (Christ Centered Gamer) that manages to be the perfect example of how to separate your personal biases from simply reviewing the games as games. They use two separate categories, game score and morality score, the former reviewing the game solely on its own merits as a video game and the latter being the section where they review the game based on how well a Christian would enjoy it. I'm not very religious myself, but I really respect these guys for being able to stay professional and acknowledge and separate their personal biases like this in a field where that seems like a lost art nowadays. Funnily enough, the typical Californian video game journalist would probably consider a site like this "close minded" or even "bigoted" for being religion focused, but in many ways they manage to be way more open minded and tolerant than them.
Thanks for showing me a new channel to sub to. I like the concept.
Better not review GTA or RDR then...
@@fartass8299 I went to check and they actually have reviewed both. Got pretty good game scores, but predictably pretty low morality scores. Also, the reason I originally heard about the site was a Doom review, if I remember correctly.
Sounds interesting. I'll take a look.
I mean, GTA and RDR are definitely going to lack in the morality. I think even non-Christians would agree.
I bet they don't even bother with hentai games ;)
@@James_Bee shit that stuff actually exists?
I'm much more in favor of Ross's Game Dungeon's scoring system than the percentile that's so popular. Instead of giving a score based on how much you personally liked it in reference to other similar media you've consumed, you list the most unique elements of the game and whether they're positive or negative is based on individual preference.
a mix of this and steam would be perfection
Ross's system is awesome, his whole channel is a gem.
One day scientists need to plug Ross's brain into an AI and see what happens.
Problem is he doesn’t exactly quantitate uniqueness. Limbo of the Lost is a 1/10 game but is so unique it deserves a play through just by its sheer insanity. If he gave two scores, one for how “good” it is and one for how “unique” it is, I’d agree.
He also makes freeman’s mind which is one of the best web series of all time
I feel like gaming is getting to the point where the average old school gamer would be more qualified than the actual game journalist
I honestly don't even know what you need in terms of qualifications to become a games journalist. But when it comes to expirence i guess people who grew up with doom and stuff are more expirenced with games at this point. Sometimes i wonder what these Journalists played growing up since they aren't particularly good in most genres.
@Brot brotsen
Mud.
@@brotbrotsen1100 you don’t need shit. you need to know people and play games
@@brotbrotsen1100 the problem is the big companies look for writers not players. I don't watch Garand thumb cause he's a master orator, I watch him because he knows his shit. Game reviewers don't know nor care to learn fuck all. But they write pretty.
Why are microtransactions a thing then if the gamers are qualified.
Bro this is from _FOUR YEARS AGO???_ Man, you should see what the landscape looks like now... Access journalism baby!
Big sites really need to assign specific people to specific types of games.
Yahtzee works for a journal, but he has his own show and seems to be rather consistent, so one can know what to expect from him. Same cannot be said for those faceless names in IGN or PCgamer.
Yahtzee also explains the reasons he holds his opinions about a game thoroughly and makes his personal tastes very public so even if he isn't someone with your same preferences his reviews are still helpful to figuring out if you'll like a game
This aged great
@@trainman5675 well he still does the same things just under a different company. for his audience, the change is minimal.
@@bottomlefto I still miss the intro ad outro themes :(
I've always chosen to be my own game critic, doing my own research about a game that interests me instead of trusting a popular reviewer.
It almost never leads to buyer's regret.
How do you research a game without reading reviews?
I guess in the modern age you can simply watch steams of people playing it?
@@iwantagoodnameplease
That's how I do it. I mostly watch people playing it, and only look for specifications like mechanics, modes and time sink in a review if I didn't find that on my own.
Even then, I won't take the review too personally.
if game devs want to instill confidence for people to buy their products... give free demos so we can have an early taste of it... its crazy that only Capcom of all AAA publishers are doing this
@@iwantagoodnamepleaseIn my case no. Because all of the games I ended up playing had barely any info on them to start with.
(Meecheenme, Voxel Turf, Snowbreak: Containment Zone, etc.)
Sometimes ya just gotta yolo and see how it goes.
Same, I wait for others to buy it...MOST of the time all the DLC's were released before I even bought them.
NEVER EVER trust ANY kind of media has always been my #1 rule.
Back on the day I used to judge games based on the box art and my gut... apparently that was the way to go
YEAH DUDE
I remember back in the day I would also look at the back of the box, because thats where they actually show the gameplay
Hell yeah, that's why I played The World Ends With You way back in the day on DS.
i literally don't care about critics scores anymore. i don't even bother looking at them.
Word of advice:
Stop putting so much trust in critics. Anyone can call themself a critic now these days even if they know little to nothing.
Play the game to enjoy it, don't pick out details you hate and hang onto them with a passion.
The singlehandedly made me want to play a game again also why no replies?
Well said 👏
speaking facts
Yes, just don’t listen to other people’s superfluous opinions. And stop citing Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.
Better yet, learn to be more objective. Look at games you love and understand why you love them, what makes them fun, what makes them memorable, what makes them standout to you, and be willing to criticize things you don't like, even if it's just that one sewer level you absolutely hate for example.
Equally so, look at the worst games you've ever played, the ones you hate and understand why you hate them. What makes them unbearable, how could they improve, what about the game just doesn't work, but also take a moment to recognize something you do like in the game. Maybe it has one really enjoyable level/mission, maybe the soundtrack is killer, or perhaps there's a mechanic you like. As horrible as Anthem is, flying around the world in your Javelin feels freaking great, I wanna see that flight system replicated in a much better game that is actually superb.
That's one reason they tried to remove the dislike button, cause they could see how many people actually disagreed with it.
Man this was eye opening. There should be more discussion and awareness about such biases - this is a great first step. For pro reviewers, I think they should always display the time spent playing the game in addition to their verdict. That would clear up a lot of biased reviews I think.
a pre review bias section would give the proper context for the review. the bias would still exist but it can be accounted for
The problem with the stance is that reviews weren't supposed to be buyers guide a man dosent 8 hours with something to decide its his cup of tea or not and thats all a review is rather that person liked a thing
I really like the proposal @randomprotag9329. It might be impossible to remove bias from reviews, but acknowledging biases can be extremely helpful to those who are looking for them, and we can hope that people will learn to take reported biases into account. I know I would find it very useful.
To @addex1236, your point makes complete sense. However, reporting biases will help a lot - review stuff however you want to, but let me know what kind of assumptions you're working on.
@@adisava its striaght up impossible to remove bias entirely. even for a reviewer that tries to be least bias as possible there will be the bias of not being that expierenced with the games genre or something as simple as reviewing a game is different from playing it on the weekends to relax.
@@addex1236 If a review isn't a buyer's guide then there is no point at all for reviews to even exist in the first place. Just fire all of the games journalists, they're useless.
Solutions:
-Shutdown IGN
-Make Steam review score system universal
-Shutdown IGN
-Blacklist all IGN employees from present and future gaming industry perks and events.
-Shutdown IGN
“IGN no more”, with the Spider-Man comic book cover of him walking im away in the rain and the IGN logo in the background in the bin would actually go hard.
Bias is 100% fine in a review. No matter how critical anyone is bias will always creep in. So leaning into the bias and explaining to your audience is important. But big time reviewers just can do itm making a company see a game a certain way but actually being several people is tricky.
It's why small time single reviewers are better. As long as they actually explain their points instead of just saying it's bad or it's good. They need to explain why it's bad or good
Yeah, bias is important, it just matters from where it originated.
Bias is going to be part of your review. You're going to like a certain genre more than others.
@@guffingtonreal true. Problem with that for big time reviewers is that they need to be seen as a collective who can praise a game that likes every genre if done well.
Or in donkey's case, get hated on by kids or teenagers if he doesn't like an rpg. This point isn't his fault. If he likes an rpg, then you know it's gonna be good
What I think would be interesting is to explore how much people outside of America actually care about metacritic. I can't say I know of anyone unironically following metacritic scores here in eastern-ish Europe.
What is "eastet-nish" Europe?
@@thedarkknight9021 Slavic countries, basically.
I bet nobody in the Netherlands would know what Metacritic even IS.
@@AbystomaMexicanium Those are exactly what people mean when they say "eastern European". I thought you were referring to all the non-slavic countries east of Germany.
@@Oujouj426 I mean, Hungarians for example aren't slavic, but they are a honorary slavic country.
The older ive gotten I've found just hearing the voice of the reviewer is often enough to realise where their bias lies, this is perfectly demonstrated in the opening of this video... 😅
Phony, soylent infused, bald, glasses wearing 30 year olds. 😂
Was just thinking this. If their voice isn’t that deep, I’m going to assume they prefer cinematic “hold forward” type games.
@@STOPPEDINCOLORADOIt's the soy voice
@@ama9385-w2gor jew voice
Just like how most modern games are set in USA for reviewers, the IGN reviewers make you FEEL like 20 to early 30s Californian.
This is why I kinda miss total biscuit. He actually takes the time to play the game for hours and hours, until he can come up with a conclusion for it. Sure he has biases against games with puzzles for example but he’s honest about his biases.
Friendly reccomendation for mortismal gaming, posts a review after achieving 100% completion
Can recommend Fleekazoid, he has some beautiful reviews.
these 2 previous comments represent the duality of man.
Renns reviews is the GOAT
AVGN is also good (even though he only really reviews bad games)
Remember that IGN gave Super Mario 3D World + Bowser’s Fury a lower score than the original SM3DW despite the fact it’s the same game with gameplay improvements and even an extra game.
And the worst part, it was a different person who reviewed it. Not the person who reviewed the original.
That tends to be a common denominator with games that are re-released with extra content and such on later systems.
Ign said xenoblade chronicles definitive was the best version of the game then gave it a lower score then the original
Remember that they gave Alien: Isolation a 5.9
Remember, they said Sonic couldn't have a sword
What's wrong with getting a different person to review it?
I'm not sure about the lower score thing myself. If you release the exact same game then in one school of thought it should get the exact same score, but in another school of thought it should get a zero because it brings nothing new to the table.
The true answer is really just that review scores are not that important.
As a British person I love that you not only used Dennis the Menace to represent us but also that the game you chose was Football Manager. Hats off to you for all the hard work that clearly went to making this vid and thanks for making me laugh out loud for the first time today.
Another thing I'll add is that I think a lot of reviewers try to view video games as art, but most consumers are only interested in games as entertainment.
I love creative and unique experiences but often I also just want a couple hour of fun after a long day.
More like game journalists only view a very specific kind of video games as art, games that try to replicate movies.
I also see video games as art. I love stylized games and enjoy seeing different art styles in games. I'm not a fan of realism in games though, it ruins the feeling of fun and escapism for me.
I've always felt the same way about movie critics, though. Just because someone is a critic does not mean they are the target audience for a movie, and you can expect to see plenty of beloved movies with terrible critic scores like Happy Gilmore
@Edge Valmond same thing goes for Inside (2023). Critics gave it only a decent score (low 60s on RT), but I thought it was great.
Yeah, there's definitely a lot of bias in movie reviews as well. Just hop on to Rotten Tomatoes and ye'll see.
@Edge Valmond pretty much, yeah.
@Edge Valmond really? Huh, I wasn't even aware that was something they had done... Can ya give me an example where that seemed to have happened?
WHY this has so little views? ffs, I was discussing how games are no longer being made to be played with my bro. And you actually built a date to back this up. Great job, thanks
Battle for Bikini Bottom made my childhood and defined my expectations of quality in videogames, I wonder why people even hate on it
Cos it's not fun
Personally I hated the controls but that’s because I have no nostalgia for the PS2 era and it’s game design so it just didn’t feel right ti actually play
But that’s just me I also hate the feel of crash 4 but enjoyed the N. Sane trilogy because I’m fsurjt certain they are running with different physics or engines
"Too Much Water"
-IGN
also, some people probably hated it because they suck at platformers
@@TheCapitalWanderer or not fun
@@jefftakesdscakes30
Listen if you think it’s not fun, fine. I enjoyed it and would give it a 8/10. Pretty fun to me. We all have our opinions, but to say “my opinion is right and yours is wrong cos I’m right” doesn’t make you right. It makes you childish, and close minded to trying anything new.
This reminds me of a highlight video I watched of a racing game fan viewing the top 100 racing games, and one of the best racing games of all time wasn't even on the list, while mobile games no one's heard of were in the top ten. It was obvious that the scores were based on some sort of sample that wasn't primarily racing game fans. What sucks most is realizing that for people trying a new genre, this means they will not actually get to experience what the best to offer is.
When you think about it, yeah, it’s one of the reasons AVGN is so trusted for game reviews. His life is video games, he loves them, every video he’s surrounded by them on his shelves, and while he’s his reviews focus on bashing old badly made games, the point is, he represents what the ideal game journalist should be: someone who enjoys video games and is passionate about their quality, someone who has a sizable library of games and knows them like the back of their hand
who is avgn? is it a youtube channel?
@@RainOn2SunnyDay If you haven't heard of them, the Angry Video Game Nerd is a trusted source of unfiltered criticism for video games. He (James Rolfe) sits us down purely to talk about how bad a particular game he found is. He uses a lot of profanity so if that's not your thing don't watch him, but its a pretty good series. It's actually one of the oldest running series' on TH-cam, dating back to the late 2000s
If you like bad games, swearing, and goofy skits, AVGN is a great watch
@@wieldylattice3015 Funny enough he got me to seek out Earthbound when he reviewed it because of how much he loved the game. Don't regret that decision since.
"AVGN is so trusted for game reviews."
Uhm... No? Literally no? The exact opposite of yes. Negative. Incorrect. He himself has gone on-record saying that he intentionally over-exaggerates the negative aspects of everything he plays in order to make a joke. He's literally CinemaSins for video games. He's not a critic, he's a funny jackhole, and that's the whole joke.
Unless you meant to talk about when James is reviewing something honestly and not as the AVGN, in which case yeah, he tends to be honest. The AVGN though, nope.
@@CoralCopperHead I have to disagree. Even though his reactions are exaggerated, his complaints and points are completely justified. The other thing is that as a funny jack hole, he still is a more competent video game critic the most game journalists, and this sort of ties into topics covered in the video. Game journalists are sent review copies that they have to play as quickly as possible due to tight schedules, whereas James has always had a much more forgiving timeframe. And he is hardly cinenmasins for video games, if that were the case, he would cover more games that were considered good, but he's barely ever done that, and when he did, he still managed to criticize real flaws that some people wouldn't enjoy in a game.
Sorry about writing a whole paragraph on this, have a good one!
Sonic Unleashed was a Victim of an Incompetent Journalist with a Huge Bias against Sonic because it was cool to hate him, especially around that time. If they actually played the game they would recognize it has Great Level design, stunning Graphics, beautiful Music, and a Compelling Story.
Facts! Lowkey a flawed masterpiece, those graphics legit hold up even today
You guys recommend it then?
@@Terminal_Apotos ah so it has some hack/slash elements? I would definitely give the game a look then thank you !
@@nestormelendez9005 Oh yeah definitely. The Whole Werehog Gameplay is a Hack & Slash, it was 2008 and God of War was very popular and Sonic Team Saw that haha. The other gameplay is Modern Sonic which is basically a Racecar running through Well designed Obstacle Courses, it’s hard your first time but the more you play the more you learn and the more fun it becomes
@@Terminal_Apotos all right then that sounds pretty good for me always liked hack and slash and speed running sounds worth a try thanks again
I remember you from the Star Control II review and it’s astonishing that your channel hasn’t gained much traction yet. Your writing, editing, sound quality, and narrating have vastly improved (which is a HUGE compliment since your SC2 review was already good and actually got me to experience and fall in love with that game). I seriously hope the algorithm blesses you soon because content that sounds this professional definitely doesn’t deserve to go underlooked.
Thanks. It really is nice to know that i'm not the only one that thinks the video quality has improved a lot. I know that my issue is that I don't upload enough, but without getting into it to much yet that will change in august.
@@welfarewalrus597 Your issue is more likely all the weird memes and other unnecessary "humour".
@@welfarewalrus597 Pls reupload the data - it's gone now
@@TheSupremeSkill if you found the memes in the video to be weird, maybe you better stick with ign
@@darkdwarf007 I think any person is funny in the end if they can just be themselves, but this abrupt meme humour in between commentary feels often forced. Perhaps some truly find it funny and I'm not arguing it cannot be done so that a larger majority would find it funny. The jokes aside, the content of this video was great.
Thank you. This is a worthwhile endeavor.
That frame of the "-Too much water" con in the review reminded me of a video I watched a while ago about Crisis Core: Reunion, where the critic gave a con of the game not having a photo mode. Now while I understand how nice it would be to have a photo mode in a game... not every game needs a photo mode, especially if said game is just an updated version of an old PSP game almost no one has access to anymore due to the PSP being discontinued. (Still have mine and the original Crisis Core disk, the PSP has a broken screen and no battery/charger tho... sad)
To be fair the "too much water" meant that it was very annoying to deal with not that it was bad
The hell, i don't get why games need a photo mode at all. I never used them.
@@brotbrotsen1100i use them sometimes, mostly to admire the 3d models. But they are by no means a necessity, and considering half of them work like garbage i wouldn't mind excluding them
Fortunately, the legitimacy of game reviews is being questioned worldwide. How I decide personally if a game is worth buying? Social media, content creators, seeing someone play it. And I'm sure this goes for most gamers these days. There's no way some of these indie games would have blown up the way they did before this internet era. It's putting gaming into the hands of the masses and it's kind of great.
Me? I just pirate it and decide for myself. No need to buy it and rush through it in case I've played too long for a refund, not buyer's remorse or sunk cost clouding my judgement. It's great, to be honest. I've pirated 99.99% of the games I've played before I've even considered buying them.
I played Subnautica twice and then still bought it
what is that one form of government's motto? it was power to the something something
@eneco3965 so did you buy the games that you thought were good enough to buy? Just being genuine here since I've seen people who say the same thing but don't actually go through with it.
@@zednopercent8994 Yeah
I see this in the cinema industry too. Certain reviewers will praise a movie for lets say fan-service then tell another movie that fan-service in movies are bad. It depends on the scale of the movie franchise too, like Marvel. Im not detailing this but its crazy to see
It’s almost like critics are people with different taste and fan-service is not inherently bad or good.
@@thomasffrench3639 Bayonetta 2
Critics do something similar with music, where they praise an album for taking inspiration from previous works, and they slam another for the same reason. 💀
Fantastic video and analysis! Can't wait to see more
Who knew that videogame "journalists" would hate actual video games, they are failed college students that wanted to work for "real journalism" but got stuck in failing gaming sites.
What’s sad is that it doesn’t matter if they are videogame, music, book, or movie reviews. There’s always the toxic side of it, be it from those producing the work and their need to get a 10/10, and the ones reviewing, professionals or not, fans or haters, who frequently will give a low or high score for no valid reasons. It’s like everyone wants to impose something, instead of letting the work speak for itself.
Absolutely agreed. I've seen a music review where the critic slated the band just because they sounded too much like their influences. There's a difference between unlawful copying and making original compositions heavily inspired by previous works. I also have 3 albums from the 1980's that were rated 2 stars on AllMusic, and 1 that was rated 3 stars, but all of them are some of my favorites from the era. From my short-lived experience of reading music reviews, the critics are either the nice neighbor next door, or they'll be nitpicky and give your work a bad score because it didn't fit their expectations. While everyone does have their own opinion, it's annoying as hell when the artists are pressured to appease these high expectations. If the critics' expectations aren't met, too bad for them. They're not in charge. After having seen so much of this nitpicky behavior, I'm currently trying to work on ignoring these professional reviews, whether it be music, video games or movies. I need to get myself out of this doomscrolling shit and just focus on my own thoughts.
What is the worst case scenario in your opinion? A toxic big reviewer or toxic fanbase with a voice? an example a little off topic but I'm watching the hobbit trilogy (I've seen one film so far) and considering its positive/negative points it's a good film, maybe I'm not a big fan of the LOTR trilogy but in my eyes this isn't the "Garbage that disrespects the Books" that I hear a lot of people say, and just to make it clear, I don't read the hobbit books and I know that the films won't be 100% faithful to them but I'm analyzing the film without any connection with the books, just doing small comparisons to the previous trilogy sometimes.
Can someone explain like I'm 5?
I’ll say it again, IMO, Game Journalism is dead. It’s too corporatized and they cater to a certain bias
The only game journalist is Avgn becuase he’s actually funny…. And the games he reviews are really bad most of the time.
I’ll say it again, IMO, Journalism is dead. It’s too corporatized and they cater to a certain bias
@@theking5116 🤣🤣
@@theking5116 But Independent ones do survive.
Honestly you could remove "Game" from that sentence and it would still be true.
This is exactly the case with PC hardware. reviewers are being bribed/held hostage with those early (& free) review samples.
& hence cowarding themselves into saying nothing the corporations don't approve of and/or being very soft in their criticism.
I actually, un-ironically face palmed at that reviewer struggling with the SpongeBob "puzzle". He should be tested for an intellectual disability or early onset dementia.
Seriously. Either release it earlier or start of further back
to be fair ... i struggled there too a lot - but I know that it has to be due to my controls
@@lokis_dad Even then, you would realize to just start further back.
Steam reviews are usually much more useful because people can mark it as helpful or not. Sometimes what people say they didn't like sounds like something you'd like.
IGN reviews and the like generally feel.. generic.. which makes sense after watching your video.
Yeah. I even rate reviews that are only "wow, so much fun" down. They are useful for their score, but reading them tells you nothing new. A review that compares the game the genre stables helps me much more.
Except when people say the game runs bad while playing on a terrible pc
Many Steam reviews are a lot more insightful than these "professionals" could ever hope to be.
@@tristanwegner This is why I only read the negative steam reviews. They tend to be much more honest and forthright with their reviews. Outdated graphics, bad story, but awesome gameplay? That sounds like a win to me, even if it wasn't what that one reviewer was looking for.
@@0ptera Calling Steam reviews 'insightful' is like calling grass 'edible.' They'll both give you something, but it's literally worthless.
More people need to hear this. I've hated video game critics for a while now, and everyone should too.
i wouldn't encourage people to hate them but i think they're just outdated, like he said
i think in order to give a fair review on a game i think a critic should be given at least a week to finish a single game, but execs probably have no idea how video games work, so they think they're like movies and they can finish the game and write a review in 4 days
but even then, the critics are way too like-minded and culturally similar to really try to give everyone the final opinion on a game
Nah, I'm sorry but they ought to be hated, ridiculed and driven out of the industry. For far too long these 'critics' have contributed nothing of value to gaming, and are now in fact actively harming it by pushing the medium to become more and more sanitized, politicized (as long as it's THEIR politics though) and just overall bland and uninspired. This is at a time when gaming 'reviews' have little to offer: if you're curious about a game you can easily find some gameplay on youtube to decide if you'll like it and check the USER reviews on Steam or other platforms to become aware of any other aspect about the game that might influence your purchase decision. Gaming journos are obsolete, and they know it.
And I wish there was a middle ground or a compromise, but no, there isn't. THEY won't compromise, and so we shouldn't either. It's either us or them.
Remember: Gatekeeping is GOOD.
In general, I'm not a huge fan of critics, and I'm trying to get myself out of the habit of reading reviews from them. Critics can either be the nice neighbors next door, or people to be truly feared. I've seen an Allmusic review for "Yes No Yes No Yes No" by The Girls, and the reviewer pretty much destroys the band by saying that they should retire just because they sound like their influences. Also, most of my all time favorite albums turn out to have mixed or negative reviews. I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion just as much as I am entitled to my own, but I want to enjoy music and games by myself. With that said, needledrop is pretty cool, though, from what I've seen of him.
If any fan of the medium wants a fair opinion, not based around making business witht he games companies, look around youtube. they may not be "professional" but most game reviwers there have a genuine opinion. Wether or not you agree is something else, what matters is that once you find a good group with a set of fixed tastes, you know who to look for when looking for an FPS, or for an strategy game.
Review sites died once social media became massive.
Maybe these game critics should stream The game somewhere and give their thoughts live, that way, people Will see Just How fucking stupid and bad at games they are
Not mentioned here in the video, but yall remember the Sonic Unleashed IGN review? My god what a chaotic video.
While writting for a magazine, I've been pushing for the Hat in Time full review, but managed only to get it a third of a page with no rating, while I thought it could be the best 3D platfomer of the year.
Dude, what the hell? Why? Nothing compares to the feeling of smacking a bird so hard it explodes, or the collective suicide of some major characters just so you become temporarily immortal! (Now that I think about it it's kinda dark)
@@fleshdadbot6852 no advertiser / big publisher behind it.
If you actually write in a magazine or I understood badly , search for the game big catch, it's an upcoming 3d platformer that I think will be amazing
Honestly
A hat in time is an amazing game that was fun enough to pnstinum during the actual play through rather than doing stuff at the end
This video is ahead of its time, and notice how most games that are effected by this are PlayStation first party or exclusive games
Still holds true 2 years later
That SpongeBob puzzle clip killing me on the inside, how can that person so bad at it? LOL
Stellar video man, I hope this blows up (even further)
The problem with the modern videogame industry is that many of both developers and journalists wished they were working at the movie industry instead.
Just want to shout major props to you that you actually went and databased the critic and user reviews to find your information AND YOU ACTUALLY SHOWED IT (even for just two seconds). That's something I do on other things both macro and micro to check my hypotheses but I've never had a reason to show it in anything I've made.
Its amazing how good graphics, voice acting, and soundtrack can convince people flaming dog crap is a 10/10.
I get your point, but soundtrack CAN make or break a game (aslong as it pairs well with gameplay)
Hey, flaming dog crap can be really fun to certain people.
@@Snt1_ If you play a game just for the soundtrack,you always have spotify and other apps if you dont like spotify. Kinda stupid playing a game you dont like just for the music
dude for real, like just go watch a movie at that point
they should just watch movies
I'm 3 years late but this is a great video. The whole situation seems to just be kinda unfortunate for everyone.
The other issue is the low standards to be a video game critic. As has come out to hilarious effect many times critics are bad at playing games. Some can't even pass a tutorial level of a game. Instead they fake reviews for games they never play, or get others to do it for them.
I feel like video game journalists and movie critics have something in common, after all.
they sit around, watch something, and then review it?
Useless in modern society?
But film critics tend to be way more knowledgeable on film. Also much of the time critics are way more similar to audience opinions, they just don’t have it higher because they found the movie amusing.
@@thomasffrench3639 Hahahahahaha, wow you actually believe that. Hahahahahahahaha.
@@SchemingGoldberg you actually believe morons like Mauler understand film? That is even more hilarious, his reviews aren’t even well written as far a writing is concerned
I always wonder who the hell even are these gaming critics? How do you become one? What are the requirements to be one?
It's easy. Go to college and get a useless gender studies degree. Then try to become a "real" journalist but fail. Then become a games journalist because that's the only job that will accept you.
I guess a journalism degree, you should also have experience in the types of games you review
There are no requirements, which is why their reviews are always so fucking dogshit, lmao
They pick a slip of paper from a box for who to hire
You live in San Francisco and can get in direct contact with people in the business. If you ever want to know how you get into the media industry, "live in certain place and nepotism" is nearly universally the answer.
Yeah we all know the “critic” score is literally just which company paid the most. You can even fake a lot of user reviews. Thats why I believe the only way to know if your gonna like a game is to watch footage of it
I can tell you that, for me, Noita is by far one my most liked games. You might even call it my favorite. Sadly, Noita is one of the hardest roguelike that i have found. Its slow paced, runs can go for hours at a time when you get the hang of it. But, by far its biggest thing is wand tinkering, its amazing what you do with the different spells but aside from the small description each soell gives you, its hard to know what happens for each spell.
The best example i can give is about the spell "chainsaw", its a close range spell, meaning doesn't fire the spell, more it just appears on the tip of the wand.
Its description has a section that says "and it as some magical property's", wtf that means you wont know with out playing around with it
Edit: I just lost a 6 to 7 hour run from a stupid mistake again trying to duplicate my perks
Haven't finished the video but in my opinion the biggest problem with game awards and video game critics is that too often they try to act bougie and pretend they are refined, in addition to many of them being outsiders who saw money and an opportunity which is why they came into the business. They also try to mimic the film industry, Them being outsiders really shows once you realize that critics have gotten significantly more detached in recent years once the gaming industry became huge, those guys would have probably looked down on games and gamers if it hadn't gotten so big.
The Art and Cynicism of Gatekeeping. The critique has to constantly justify why they put themselves in between the industry and the consumer. And the only way to do this is by completely oversaturating your public position on a product. But nobody foresaw that this effect will seep straight into fandom through social media. So now everyone, always, is a critique.
It's kinda like "welp, the only critics we have suck and aren't reliable at telling me what I have, might as well speak me own piece to warn others with similar tastes to mine", and since TH-camrs are usually folks with similar mindsets, who are part of the main audiences rather than entitled critics, they end up being a lot more reliable.
@@Mike14264 Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Stop acting like 'independent' reviewers have opinions that are worth a damn, the only opinion that could ever possibly matter about any given game is *_yours._*
@@CoralCopperHead I don't see why theirs wouldn't be worth at least a listen. After all, it's not like going fully blind into the commitment of buying a game is a good thing either.
yeah, and it feels like three years later it got worse
especially with older games with high ratings becoming lower somehow
lets not forget journalists use their positions in the media to basically secure themselves jobs at game studios
Not helping in that regard is that games journos and game devs are extremely incestuous too.
@@charmingpeasant9834 bro elaborate??
@@charmingpeasant9834INCEST WHAT
@@charmingpeasant9834elaborate
@@charmingpeasant9834What
we don't need critics anymore, because we have each other, we have the internet
Yep but juournalista are rlitosts pricks that ar elnown to defame anyone who tries to ignore them or call them out so their latxh onto power aslong as possible
Good thing right next to the "Buy" button is the user reviews when trying to get a game in Steam.
yeah cuz thats trustable lmao
@@anshitgupta1294 game journalists in 2014 were cought out sleeping with a female dev to give her good reviews , many games journalists do not care if a game is good only if it suits their biases game journos have never beenstrustable much less trustable than usser reviews
another problem is big ones like ign have different reviewers on different games so you CANT compare their review takes with each other
IGN said Spiderman 2 was the best Spiderman game, before giving it an 8. Spiderman PS4 was given a 9 by them
Like if it was just different reviewers review a very specific genre then I would buy it
4 years later and nothing's changed
Yeah, gamers get mad at anything perceived as woke
@@dennisbowen452tlou2 was hot ass
This was a very good video! I'm glad TH-cam randomly recommended it. I could tell you put a LOT of work into this! I hope that you are able to make that comprehensive video!!!
Love the video! So glad to see another posting from you. The clip at 3:52 absolutely got me 😂
Interesting discussion. I'm also out of step with reviewers generally. But I think it remains to be demonstrated that user scores are more representative of what the average player thinks, since I would guess many people don't engage with that at all. If we think of a car analogy, you're probably going to see way more enthusiasm for sports cars than Camrys or crossovers but that doesn't mean that's what people actually buy.
There’s also the issue of brigading. If a game is doing something controversial it may end up getting a ton of low scores from people who never played it, regardless of how appropriate the backlash should be.
@@Scatmanseth excpt if only people that bought it can review it, like in steam
as usually people that don't like a game are not likely to buy it simply to put a bad review
In reality, more experienced enthusiasts can even pick apart grocery getters and say "this one is made like trash, the interior trim is horrible even for it's class, the IIHS score is low and it feels like it wants to fall apart", or "fun little car, good on fuel and spacious trunk".
@@satsumagt5284 I didn't say that enthusiasts can't compare two commuter cars. What I said is that if I went online and looked at how much hype different cars were getting I'd get a distorted idea of which are the most popular.
@@Scatmanseth And honestly the other way around too, it's amazing how many times I've seen people say "this game supposedly does X, we should mass positive/negative review it even if you haven't bought it join us", I agree with Wiki Piiimp that reviews should show who bought the product (and perhaps how much they played it so you can see someone who bought and didn't start the game vs someone who played it 20+ hours)
12:55 "hey kid you want a bad time?"
Nothing says “biased” more than IGN’s review of Pokémon Sword and Shield..
There is something weird with the top Nintendo games and game journalists. Many many sites don't ever rate them below 90%. To be fair IGN rated Scarlet and Violet at 6 which is one of their most realistic rating. I also like some of the big Nintendo Games especially the last two Zelda games but it's almost like both many fans and journalists turn a blind eye to all their flaws and shortcomings. Tears of the Kingdom is a freaking masterpiece but it's not freaking perfect. Far from it.
@@valentinvas6454 hell I feel like the only reason why IGN gave Scarlet and Violet a 6 was only because of the backlash they received for Sword and Shield. I bet you they were planning on giving it a 10 originally
@@kishiberohan7955On the other hand, IGN gave Pokemon Mystery Dungeon DX a 6 just becaude they didn't like its gameplay. In my opinion it deserves a better score
@@valentinvas6454I already see this from the beginning considering it’s Nintendo that we’re talking about. Breath of The Wild itself is a very great experience and I want to recommend everyone to play it but something feels lack and empty during my playthrough. It turns out it was true because BoTW and TotK were originally planned as one game. Eiji Aonuma himself stated there used to be more features in BoTW but were cut due to Wii U’s hardware limitations. Then fast forward upon BoTW’s success, he planned that BoTW was going to have a third DLC (presumably adding those scrapped features and gameplay), until it became Tears of the Kingdom that we love today.
Yes, even if Nintendo releases an incomplete games that comparable to Cyberpunk 2077 or No Man’s Sky, both fans and journalists will turn a blind eye for it and immediately calling it 10/10.
Crap games honestly
Glad you mentioned the FGC. Simply put there is a divide between journalist-like mentality and hardcore crowds vs what's considered casual friendly and what's not. Trying to make it so people are motivated by extrinsic factors rather than giting gud
This is very insightful. I feel like part of the problem for youtube game reviews is due to the big names in the industry like gameranx or ign. I watch their reviews and think, 'these are just bland and uninformed representations of the game'. Then I watch other reviews that come our months later, like mine, where I try to deep dive in the game, and they just don't get any attention any more. Its definitely a tough situation. Good to see how reviewers feel about it though.
This makes me want to make a extremely hard game disguised as an easy walking sim for the sole purpose of frustrating reviewers.
Great analysis!
I have to mention I don't demand a reviewer to finish a game to review it. I can accept this fact if the game was so tedious or otherwise bad to him that he simply is not willing to finish it. This has to be mentioned in the review of course. Steam reviews are also good because you can see the playtime.
Unfortunately, even though user reviews are valuable, fun to read and have interesting takes, they have to be, and I emphasize, have to be read individually, since the overall score or summary can be just as misleading as official critics are. Review bombing is a thing which happens, but thanks to Valve, Steam already has a timeline where you can see when the negative reviews spurred. Though, much more misleading than the negative ones, I see so many games getting extremely positive feedback no matter how incomplete (early access), tedious or casual the game is. To counter these overly positive reviews you simply have to read the negative ones first, but infact they can be spiteful and mislead too! Who to trust?
In the end, the best way to judge a game is to take a look at it yourself, maybe even try it if possible. Internet gives straight access to opinions of others, which now teaches us in turn that it is more important to create your own opinion, no matter how many people yell something. Do not let any majority direct you, just say what you think and let opinions of others be only amusing takes to have. You might agree or not, it is not that serious in the end, just don't take any word you read as the truth.
The growing disconnect between critics' understanding and presentation of what a video game experience should be and the reality gamers experience is the reason TH-camrs like Dunkey are so popular.
They _play_ the game to a fuller extent, and _show_ you the justifications they have for either praising or criticizing the game while being a more digestible watchable experience instead of some written grating self-inflated ego trip.
Too bad Dunkey is so bad at comedy he decided to fall back on the generic running gag of spoiling random things that have nothing to do with what he's reviewing.
filtered@@D_YellowMadness
As someone who very briefly did game reviews back in the GameSpy Era (which Quake 2 was new), there is a big reason why major franchises get glowing reviews... they almost always go to a well-established critic who really wants to play it. So even though Quake 2 was widely considered by fans (eventually) as disappointing, it was like Episode 1 disappointment that took a little while for fans to admit.
So no surprise that the resident Rockstar or Last Of Us fan who was fighting with other fans to review those games were so damn positive. If any of them doubted the game pre-release they'd probably let someone else do it, because why fight if you think you're going to be disappointed.
On the flip side, fans are more disposed to mediocrity because they wanted to plop down $70 for Redfall or whatever and they want to like it... while a critic who had this pushed on him by an editor is more likely to compare it unfavorably to a mediocrity like Dyling Light because they don't actually have a bias in that situation.
And, let's face it, those User Scores are filled with huge truckloads of bias. Not only do you have corporate shill ccounts paid to drop 10/10s,but you got folks who loudly announce that their 1/10 has nothing to do with the gameplay or having played the game at all.
Ultimately, you have to learn how to spot reviews that line up with your tastes. Aggregate scores are functionally meaningless. Personally, what i do is look for people who passionately love something, even if they're a minority. If someone isn't saying, "wow, Redfall is an amazing game", then, at best, it's going to be "not bad" and "not bad" isn't "good". If enough people love it, that's something I'm willing to take a chance on.
I’m so happy Dragon Ball Sparking Zero has an 82 on metacritic
Which is just 5 points lower then FighterZ