A digest for the TL:DR crowd: The first score in that video was due to the American editor living in a culture that focuses on instant-gratification and doesn't get that patience is needed to be effective at anything worth the bother. The second was from basic (and *PROVABLE*) lack of effort, but at least the reviewer got fired like he deserved. The third was most likely due to Gamespy sucking up to Nintendo (though I wouldn't be surprised if proof of corruption surfaced).
@@watcherofclassics Thank you, but you got the first one _opinionatedly wrong,_ as idiocy is a trait that doesn't discriminate race, creed or nationality. _Ironic,_ since I actually watched the whole video. Guess that's just my _instant-gratification and lack of patience to effectively form my own opinion_ talking, eh?
When you said the Gamespot Kane and Lynch saga was over a decade ago I felt old. Then I realised this video is 5 years old and now I think I need to lie down
@@Larry one of the many things I ♥ about you Larry is that you reply to comments no matter the age of the video. You really treat your fans. You are a genuinely wonderful person and you've done so much for the gaming community.
I think one of the problems with game review sites is they sometimes hand a game to be reviewed by the totally wrong person. For example, IGN gave Double Dragon: Neon, an excellent beat-em-up side scroller, to a guy who, in the review, states he does not like beat-em-ups. He then gave the game a 3/10. There are games that, if you gave them to me, I'd probably hate it. I might have a hard time judging if a game in a genre I really don't like is actually any good or not.
I remember one time Game Informer gave Sonic Generations to a reviewer who gave it 6.75/10 because it "reminded him of how far Sonic had fallen." Also, Game Informer gave Ni No Kuni to a guy who didn't like JRPGs.
Remember when IGN rated Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky a 4.9/10, calling it "Bad"? And they never bothered playing past Apple Woods? Ugh. Still salty.
That was the day I officially stopped paying attention to "official" critics. I still get infuriated thinking about it and all the people robbed of an incredible experience. Absolutely shameful!
I'm surprised that you didn't include IGN's infamous God Hand review since they were single handedly responsible for Clover studio being shut down after they gave it a 3/10 and later admitted that nobody at the office wanted to review it in the first place, only to now put it on their list of one of the top PS2 games of all time. Or the Tropical Freeze Gamespot review where it was blatantly obvious that the reviewer didn't want to play the game and didn't finish it either since all of his complaints were the opposite of the actual case and all of the footage captured in the review is only the early levels and him constantly getting hit or dying. They even show the game over screen in the footage. I remember the backlash at the time being pretty big and then they re reviewed it for the Switch just to pretty much get rid of the old score.
IGN just seems to have a pretty bad reputation for having terrible gameplay footage during their reviews. I can't recall what Sonic game it was (I believe it was Lost World?), but in the review they made of it, there's a segment where the player is shown running backwards *in a level you're not supposed to run backwards in* , and getting killed in the process. If only they had learned their lesson after the God Hand fiasco.
GameSpot's review of Skyward Sword was just as bad as the Tropical Freeze one. The reviewer said the controls didn't work when it what obvious he didn't take the time to learn them.
Yeah.... The ignorance of game "journalists" is why I simply go off personal tastes or buy a game if it looks interesting. I just say purchase with caution. I mean..... Skyrim got glowing reviews, but I found it the most boring of the Elder Scrolls game.
The average isn't the middle of all theoretical scores, it's the middle of all actual scores. Basically, the average score is a 7 because that's what the majority of games get.
It's like getting a C in school - A (90%) is good, C (70%) is average, and F (50%) is bad. A game that gets 7 out of every 10 things right about it, while not spectacular, is still enjoyable enough that you might want to buy it. But if your game only gets half of everything right about it... is it really worth playing? Basically, unless a game gets above a 6/10, it's not worth spending money on at all. 5/10 and on down is all, effectively, bad - the only question is *how* bad, and thus how much time you should devote to doing funny skits about it in the video review.
Ozgar Thunderhammer they gauge 7/10 as average because it looks better on a box and makes publisher's/advertisers happy while still pretending to have journalistic integrity
Ozgar Thunderhammer agree, 7 is above average, it's still mean it's on the "good game" side. anything above 5 is good, below 5 is bad and if a score rated exactly 5/10 this is what it should be called average. I still keep scratching my head about those Nintendo fan boys that rises hay forks and torches over jim sterling's breath of the wild review when he gave it 7 out of 10.
You know, I vaguely recall IGN ripping on FE: Radiant Dawn for--of all things--not using motion controls. I mean, the game had its problems, but it’s a *turn-based strategy game* for god’s sake. Why the fuck would you expect it to have motion controls?
MandaloreGaming I can name a few that come to mind, such as: any bioware game after their release of mass effect 1, Destiny, and add into that positive reviews for games like the call of duty franchise after modern warfare 2
Funny thing is a year after this video was published (2018) IGN was embroiled in a HUGE scandal with one of their employees stealing other people's reviews and publishing them on their site, under his name. It started off when Boomstick Gaming on TH-cam found out that the IGN editor Filip Miucin basically stole his review for Dead Cells and changed a word or two. Miucin was fired and then it was found out, by journalists and gamers looking into things, that he had been doing it for YEARS. Practically all his work for IGN was plagerised.
@@MASTEROFEVIL It probably wasn't worth the time and money. Plagiarism, in and of itself, isn't even a crime. If you obtained financial gain by copying someone else’s work you might be convicted of fraud - which can carry a jail term in extreme cases. However, a civil court action for breach of copyright is more likely, and that always ends with fines rather than jail. And even if they gave him a huge fine, he'd probably just get out of it by declaring bankruptcy... so if someone filed a lawsuit against him, they'd probably be left having to pay their own legal expenses, with nothing to show for it. Besides, his reputation had already been destroyed. Jason Schreier of Kotaku was even able to prove that most of Filip's résumé had been copied from a template! It _is_ possible to stage a comeback after being accused of plagiarism, but it's a long hard road.
When I was young, and going into my first year of college, I planned on double majoring in computer science and journalism, then getting a job as a video game reviewer, as I saw it as my dream job. I love journalism, and I love videogames, so why not mix the two? I have since decided against that course of action. I am far too proud of my journalistic integrity.
Hate to break it to you man, but the mainstream media has even less integrity. You either have to SHOW THEM what integrity looks like, found your own news site and force your standards of integrity, or just give up.
The whole "Average being 7 not 5" has to be my least favourite thing about a lot of this And kinda the reason why so many of the reviewers I actually trust, dont use review scores
Thats the real problem here. I've played plenty of Steam games that average 40-60% and enjoyed them quite a bit. People look at that and say "eww, it has a mixed score, must be terrible". It all comes back to those game reviews. Not to mention review bombing things for reasons outside of gameplay.
That's what happens when critics are rubbing shoulders with the creators. They're being incentivized to give higher scores, pushing the score for an "average game" up where it doesn't belong. Logically on a scale of 1 to 10, a 5 should be your average. It has gotten to the point where I need to know the critics doing the review, so I can adjust their ranking by 1 or 2 points.
Saber0003 50% is average. Sometimes, average is good. To me, if a game is at least 50% good, the game is passable. It's why I don't consider some beloved games good if only 1/3rd, 33.4% of it, is good. But if a game is average, it's half. I don't get how a 76% is a bad review score. That's not too shabby
One of the funniest bad reviews I've seen was IGN's review of Corpse Party Book of Shadows, a visual novel/adventure game. The reviewer slammed the novel for having too much reading.
Idk about you, but a media company accepting ad revenue from the game developers who make the games they critique sounds like a recipe for dishonest journalism to me.
That Soccer Manager review at the start, man. I don't even play sports games and I know the difference between a management sim and a regular sports game... - Lewis
Sadly, all major game ranking websites are shady when it comes to properly ranking video games that come from big publishers, it's the way it works these days, that's why personally I never form an opinion on a game based on a website's review
Hasn't GameSpot ever heard of unfair dismissal? That dude who got fired for Kane and Lynch could have sued.. his review was spot on and his job was to give viewers idea on what the game is like.
I'm not sure why the industry depends on some random person to rate their game and it all comes down to like 1 or 2 reviewers. Random guy with no expertise is cranky on tuesday and gives a bad review for the game they got that day, and it causes 20 people to lose their developer careers. Just does not seem to add up
And there's a good chance the reviewer isn't even in the target audience for that game, with that chance rising the more niche and low-brow the game is. This is why I only trust audience scores.
The funny thing is with Amiga Power scoring system, I actually want to check that 81/100 game out, since comparing it to other average scores it actually feels a lot better. Nowadays, the average score is about 8/10, so when the game gets 9 or 10/10 it doesn't even feel special since it looks like it's only slightly better than an average game. I blame the school systems for that, since it's teaching us that anything below 50% or 60% is considered failure.
Why is 7/10 the "average"? This is infuriating on so many levels! If you have a scoring system that goes from 1-10 (I don't know if any sites include 0 as part of their scoring), then the average should be 5! The whole "a game won't sell well unless it gets a score of 7 or more" is disgusting propaganda from developers, and the worst part is people seem to think that the scoring starts at 4 or 5! If a shitty game on steam is at least able to just boot, some people will automatically give the game 5 or 6 points right there, when a game being able to just function properly should be the BASELINE of review scoring, and a game simply working should merit no more than 1 point, IF even that!
TL;DR: People start out giving the benefit of the doubt and working downward. That's human nature, and it's why scores tend to skew toward higher numbers. The studies I've seen -- and it's been a long time since I saw them, so I don't have references to give you at the moment -- suggest that people tend to start from the highest score and start deducting, instead of starting from the bottom and going upward. They also don't tend to give a score below the halfway mark (3/5 or 5/10) unless they're *really* unhappy. Dedicated reviewers are going to be even harder on a game (or whatever) because they see almost every one that comes out, so they're a bit more jaded. They know what every other creator in that field is doing, and what it takes to really stand out from the pack. 7/10 is an okay review in that case; it means that the game, etc., has at least something to it that's not run-of-the-mill. (I didn't say "pro" reviewers because, in a paying, advertiser-supported venue, reviewing your main advertisers' product is obviously going to lead to inflated scores...) When it comes to customer reviews of anything, it's important to get close to 8/10 or more. Consumers are usually not as jaded as reviewers, and if enough of them are giving bad reviews that the average gets dragged down below an 8, there's good reason for the consumer to be cautious.
@@robhartzell603 That was very well crafted and serious reply. I find that unusual for youtube comments. Anyway it does put some perspective on the matter, so thank you very much!
I hear you. It is really unbelievable how the scoring system just became this messy. In early days a five didnt mean it is a completely bad game - it meant it is ok, and fans of this kind of game might even vote it higher, but it might not be for the masses. Today, a lot of games wont even tough a game with a 6-7 because they believe that that means it is just a shit game that makes no fun A lot of people miss ouf of great games because of this and a lot of series or systems, never have the chance to get a second chance. And the worst thing? A lot of these high reviewed games, arent even that great, there are a lot I would score in the "middle score level" (for fans and to take a look) but they are not the overwhelming best games that everyone needs - just because of media and advertising money (I know there is more behind it - but I think this wouldn´t fit here in the comments ^^) - it is really sad how this all evolved.
5 doesn't mean "Average" on a ten point scale. If games get a 7 on average, it just means that the average game is pretty good. There is no reason for 5 to mean "average".
@@GiordanDiodato I remember the insane death threats and nonsense he got for that. The game is good, but it has so many glaring issues. Fanboys are insane.
i think average is every review on the services most common scoring, so if they rate horrible games say 4/10 and rarely go below that but commonly only review games that seem good, the average would be around 7-8/10 leaving 10/10 for games they deem 'master pieces' but if they were to review mainly bad games the average would be closer to 4-5/10. 5/10 average would mean they've reviewed an equal number of bad and good games that are equally bad and equally good respectfully. 7/10 average isn't that crazy if its only games that have a lot of hype behind them, and reviewing mainly those games gets them more readers per issue.
That's why I think lots of places opt for the 5 star system better. 3/5 looks better to the client than 6/10, even when they're basically the same thing, lolz.
I really hate the "7 as average" crap. Most game reviewers do that to placate developers. Psychologically, we'll give more weight to a 7/10 than a 5/10 _even when we know the meaning is identical_ . The crazy thing is how reviewers always defend this cheap ploy with statements like "It makes sense because if you added the scores of all the games we've reviewed, they'd average out to around 7 or better". Yeah no shit, that's because *you use 7 as the average!* This renders the bottom half of your scale basically useless because a "below average" game can still get a 5 or 6 and everything else is crammed into the upper scores. Comparatively, there are few truly shit games released and those are the only ones that would score below 5 on this messed up scale. So how could the reviews _not_ average out to at least 7? There's nothing to bring the average down except a handful of kart racers and _Barbie_ games.
Gamespot gave tropical freeze a 6/10 on Wii U, but gave it a 9/10 on the switch release (which is the score it deserves because the game is awesome). The reason why I think this happened is because there were people in 2013-14 who were upset that retro's next big project was another dkc game and that's why I think the game was not fairly scored.
I remember one particular review on IGN. It was for Godhand. Game was given a 3/10 score. Why? The review was based off 5 minutes of gameplay while a game like Imagine party Babyz got a 7.5/10. Last year someone on the site finally gave it a better shake, but it took 13 years. www.ign.com/articles/2019/05/08/in-defense-of-god-hand
Honestly, a video game review magazine using 50% as the average instead of 70% sounds like a good idea, since 50 is obviously straight down the middle of the maximum 100. I’m guessing Amiga Power didn’t make it stupidly clear that it was the case, which is a shame.
@Pseudo Wounds The trouble is, user reviewers aren't held accountable by anyone, so their reviews are much more prone to including errors and even deliberate lies.
When you're young, you think being a video game journalist is a sweet job with no hassle. Then you find out it can be a very stressful profession, capable of making you burn out and fall out of love with gaming, become "corrupt" and other negative aspects (e.g. being limited to how long you can play the game before having to write the review) that we see spring up...and not just on a rare occurrence either.
I always felt like sonic unleashed was one of those games that got immediate backlash and bad reviews simply because people were still angry at sonic 06's colossal failure.
@@GraveUypo i personally didn't mind the werehog parts on the ps3/360 version because it felt rewarding to unlock the regular day stages, the wii version kinda over did it though
@@NeoSaturos123 it's not really difficult, it's more like the controls are awkward (especially if you just came off of something like say... Devil May Cry)
I don't understand how people consider 6/10 to be "below average" or a 7.5/10 "average" (not just you, Larry, lots of people do it). Average, on a 10 point scale, is by definition, a 5. Yet when people see a 5/10 score they think the game's shit, rather than okay.
If you ask people how they are today, on a scale of 1-10, the average answer will be 7, not 5. That's just a real general question you can ask anyone. The secret mean is 75%. That's also why the default answer to 'how are ya doin?' is 'good'. Not 'average' or '50%' cause then people wonder why you are feeling bad. edit: The scale is between 50% and 100% and 75% is the middle.
basically if IGN rates it, I ignore it. Same with "watchmojo's top 10" lists, huffingtonpost and Fox for news articles, and kotaku for... well everything.
Haha, I remember the intense marketing for that game leading up to its release. Probably spent more money on marketing than on actual development, and then it was forgotten by the entire gaming world a week after release.
Kotaku can easily be in a new version of this video since many of their reviews are usually suspicious. Let's never forget when they told a guy who is well known to HATE Xenoblade Chronicles.....to review both XC2 and later the remaster of 1.
I remember Game Informer's review of Sonic Generations. The reviewer gave it a 6.75/10 because "It reminded him of how far Sonic had fallen" Also they gave Ni No Kuni (PS3 original) to a guy who hated JRPGs. Then again, he gave it a 7/10
Another contender for #5, IGN called Alien Isolation mediocre because the alien was too aggressive. As he hides in a locker holding a large beeping and blinking object that lures the AI.
From the Markiplier playthrough (and he plays I think relatively well), how the alien works is mostly not told to the player if at all, but it basically is programmed to cut your common strategies, so you must always change them up or use makeshift traps. Especially nowadays "die to move forward" isn't considered good design, though A:I seems to be very forgiving with checkpoints, so it can do it.
I've watched almost every episode of Fact Hunt Larry but this is without a doubt the best episode I've seen. I mean that. As a freelance reviewer, seeing all this shows what is wrong with game reviews. #1: You're right. You can't spell ignorant without IGN. At least IGN UK got it, not the US. #2: l never played Darkfall but I can't blame the developers for being angry over a 2/10 score. #3: I always remember GameSpy as they held the servers for the original Borderlands. When GameSpy went down, the servers went with it. Thankfully 2K came in and saved the day. I remember GameSpy well Larry. Anyway, a review of Donkey Konga 2 was what got a freelancer fired? Dude. That's insane. It didn't help that Penny Arcade only made things painful. Can't blame GameSpy for trying to do damage control. #4: I remember it like it was yesterday... the whole Kane & Lynch incident really shook the gaming world. So much so that after Jeff Gerstmann was fired, four other reviewers left GameSpot in response: Alex Navarro, Ryan Davis (god rest his soul), Brad Shoemaker and Vinny Caravella. 2012 was where the truth about the incident was finally out and even the people behind Kane & Lynch knew the game wasn't that good. Can we blame Jeff? No. He did what he felt was right as a reviewer and shame on GameSpot for firing the guy. #5: Utter pettiness is what I see in this situation. Team 17 got balls alright and yeah they are going to publish Yooka Laylee so who am I to complain.
Official Nintendo Magazine (Published by Future, incidentally) gave a terrible score to My Pokémon Ranch (Basically Diamond and Pearl's equivalent of Pokémon Bank, download only for the Wii) because they reviewed it as a game, rather than what it is, a utility. They got MASSIVE backlash on their forums.
It doesn't take a genius to realize there is a conflict of interest going on when a website for reviewing games objectively, gets payed by certain publishers to promote their games. And then somehow, you end up with unreliable scores, who would have thought!? *surprisedpikachu.jpg* And the execs in these companies wonder why people can't trust them, and instead go looking for just random blokes' reviews on youtube for more genuine coverage of game's quality.
Speaking as someone who wrote for PC Zone for a while (back before Future's takeover and intentional starvation of the magazine finally killed it) gaming reviews always faced several fundamental problems: Firstly, all gaming journalists could be divided into two categories - those for whom gaming was an actual hobby and passion, and those who were there as a stepping stone. The enthusiasts could always be trusted to write proper reviews, and many of them ended up in the industry itself, as developers or writers. The others tended to end up in PR. Secondly, due to the advent of the internet, the need to "get there first" screwed with deadlines, with a lot of reviewers genuinely not being given more than a couple of hours to try a game before finishing the review, because reviewing a game after other publications wasn't viable. Thirdly, there was always a major collision between the inherently arbitrary nature of review scores... and the value both readers and the industry itself placed upon them. The scores meant nothing. As a reviewer, you'd play the game, write the review... then have to somehow convert that into a number. This number wasn't the careful product of some standardised marking criteria - it was a number plucked out of the air. But as it turns out, due to the rise of metacritic, it could destroy a development team - a score that was a few points too low could impact the average for that game... and suddenly the development team loses out on a bonus. I personally had the awkward experience of meeting a former fellow PC Zone writer, who had gone on to work on a game I reviewed, who told me that she'd received flak from her boss about the review score. I gave it... something like 80-85%, if memory serves; I thought this was a fair review. But evidently, it was not high enough. Despite the fact that, in the past, PC Zone was known for giving lower scores (with 90+ reserved for the absolute pinacle of games - the big classics like Half-Life or Deus Ex). Of course, this odd relationship between the journalists and the industry would eventually lead to a fair bit of corruption, with the big game publishers blacklisting publications who had proven to be overly critical. And since access and exclusivity had become so important to the survival of a given publication... things were never destined to end well. Last but not least, nobody really cared about average reviews. People reading magazines, or clicking on articles, would generally lean towards the things they might get excited about, and the things they wanted to laugh at. This, combined with all those other factors above, led to a journalistic environment where the the emphasis was not on accuracy or professionalism, but speed, popularity and click-bait.
Game Informer nabbed the exclusive review of Enter the Matrix while all other mags had to wait and review retail copies. Guess who was the only one to give it high scores and make no mention of it being an unfinished, glitchy mess?
For whatever reason video game review scores instead of going by the more logical understand of numbers of 50 being the medium and anything higher or lower being above or below average, instead it goes by the American school grading system. Where 75% is the average and anything below is underaverage
How about a suspicious review score that didn't really get any backlash? Gamesmaster Magazine gave Sonic 2 65% in its debut issue and if I remember correctly wasn't really called out for it. Then they had the absolute balls to praise it in a special Sonic themed issue about 20 years later.
Different staff. They weren't the only magazine to do that kind of thing either. Edge gave Gunstar Heroes 6/10 in its debut issue. IIRC they may have increased that rating later, probably after everyone else hailed it as a classic. Come to think of it, I think they also gave Zombies Ate My Neighbours a 6 in that same issue. It maybe a controversial view, but I never did like Edge much; I always thought that their reviews were crap, and some of their "in depth" articles back in the day read a lot like PR puff pieces.
Edge actually had a feature once going over past reviews that they now considered erroneous. I think Gunstar Heroes may have been included, but the most memorable example was the original Doom, which they rated 5/10 and complained that you couldn't negotiate with the monsters to stop them from attacking you. It seems like a similar case to the first example in the video in which the reviewer misunderstood the genre and expected the game to be more like Ultima Underworld.
Ohhh, yeah, that was BAD. They basically ripped into explorers of sky because they didn't like the gameplay. Sure, mystery dungeon games aren't for everyone, but they refused to give even partial credit to all of the good points (soundtrack, story, visuals). If you haven't played explorers of sky, pick it up and try it out, it's worth trying.
Larry, for April Fool's day you should do an episode without ANY references to Peter Molynuex. Like, you should keep creating set ups with an obvious Molynuex punchline and then bait-n-switching it to something else. It'll freak your fans out more than any real prank could. Then, in your next episode after April 1st you should just have EVERY joke be about Mr Moly so you can get out all the built up bile out of your system.
Learning about Amiga Power's "stinginess" with review scores makes me realise how much they loved the 1991 port of Rod Land (Steve Campbell gave it 88% in 1991 and 92% for the 1993 budget re-release). Also, Rod Land in 1991 costed 57 euros in today's money! Games are getting more expensive, sure, but inflation isn't joking either!
IGN, is such a bad website. A games website that for some reason mainly covers, wrestling, American television series, films and comic books. It makes zero sense!
Not to mention the fact that the average game journalist working for it knows as much, or possibly even less than anybody here who's played games for at least a decade. And you don't see me receiving a paycheck for writing superficial reviews
"You can't polish a turd" Actually, Mythbusters debunked that by rolling turds for so long that they condensed into tightly packed balls, and then used a cloth to polish them to a shine. Thank god for Adam and Jamie LOL
probably a month. I have a feeling he gave it that score because it deviated from the usual Zelda formula that had been on console Zelda games since A Link to the Past
I remember that games journalist who couldn't beat the tutorial of Cuphead because he couldn't figure out how to crouch jump and gave the game a bad review. I also remember seeing a response video of a 5 year old being handed the tutorial sight unseen and beating it. Larry could probably do a second top 5 for this eastily
@@planescaped - that was a manufactured outrage made by wannabe alt-right edgelords who read the headline of one game review and formed an opinion of the actual contents of said review without actually reading it. Not the internet's finest hour
This reminds me of the book, Handbook for Mortals. It got on top of the NYT best sellers list, yet not a single copy of the book could be found, and the only reviews it got were five star from newly-made accounts. It was eventually revealed the author bought her way to the top, and she was kicked off the list immediately.
The other 10 percent of the time, we're talking about when IGN favors Punchtime Explosion XL over God Hand, when they dock points from one of the best Pokemon games of all time for having too much water or when they plagiarize one of my favorite gamers when reviewing Dead Cells. Though at least in the latter case, they fired the man responsible for the plagiarism.
I find it odd that a reviewer should be afraid of being fired for having an opinion, especially when their boss defends that opinion. "Yeah, he totally played the game, and this is HIS opinion of the game. He is entitled to it. BTW, he's now fired for publishing it!"
The problem is more like the guy they put to review the game does not like the genere or does not know it. For a unbiased review you need someone who knows the genere and does not have stigma to give a good review. There is another example that is not in the video: For Xenoblade Chronicles X the reviewer that did the review did hate the previous game. They choose them just because his Japanese knowledge. He did trash the game just because was a not action RPG, similar to the previous game (Like was a bad thing) and called it pure boredom. You can not trust someone like that to give a unbiased review.
@@Gacel_ The guy had no clear opinion against the genre. His opinion was against the game itself. He called the engine dated (said it looked a decade old, the game had been in development for 8 years, makes sense), the controls clunky (they were) and the content lacking (it was rather barren at launch). It had nothing to do with the genre and everything to do with the game. Nothing someone should be fired over stating. Especially not when they're hired to do exactly that.
What about the fact he said he played it for 10 hours but they logged him online only 2 hours and most of that in character creation. Euro Gamer should have dropped their defense of his review at that point and apologized. I'm glad they had the decency to fire him after being caught in a lie. I want reviewers to at least log the hours they say they did. This is no different than any employee who punches in on a time clock then slips out a side door spending the day at the beach then slipping back in at quitting time to punch out.
@@MainerdLoyd Didn't he have another account, where he had logged a lot more time on? One mentioned in this video too? I swear, sometimes people comment on these videos without even watching them...
@@morphman86 I did. One account had 5:07 3 minutes on it the other had 2 hours. Euro Gamer claimed he played it for 10 hours but didn't provide the information for that account to back up the claim while firing the reviewer. What do you think really happened. I think they stood behind their reviewer but then acted on the information that he had actually played the game for 2 hours. Why else would he have been fired? I know anyplace where I have worked falsifying time spent on a job is grounds for dismissal.
The editors of Game Fan were literally tripping on LSD when they were reviewing Cybermorph for the Atari Jaguar, giving it a 10/10 and praised it, making it sound like the greatest game ever made. I suppose tripping on LSD will do that.
I still hate that games reviewers score average games at 70%, its a disgustingly misleading practice that tricks the less saavy readers into thinking the games are a lot better than they are and give very little room for differentiating average titles, good titles, excellent titles and perfect titles (which don't exist) meaning that often mediocre titles are expected to get a bloody 9/10!
Oh man, that first one reminds me of the absolute best review of Binding Of Isaac I ever saw: "It's a total garbage game! Everything is random! It's like a slot machine!" Like, yes, that is indeed what a roguelike is, thank you for your input, I look forward to you complaining about platformers for having platforms lol
I actually enjoyed the first Kane & Lynch game, right up until it's final third. For the first two thirds you're doing things like robbing banks, being involved in a car-chase shootout with cops, infiltrating a night club to kidnap a mobster's daughter, then in the final third you're suddenly in Cuba in what feels like a bad knock off of Call of Duty, but in 3rd person.
HA, I was in a games making competition in 2008 and the big show at the end was called proto-play, one of the judges was the guy who made football manager and he gave us shit for not having a working game, we had a lot of issues behind the scenes btw, he walked up to me and a programmer and sarcastically informed us the event was called proto "play" I was speechless and the person he was with pulled him aside and gave him a massive blocking, turns out that guy was a big shot in Sony, when he came back he apologised and wanted to see what we had, our artist and team leader took him through the stuff we had, my sound, our junior programers work, all the art etc but at every chance he would make comments like "well we tried to get the lighting system implemented but we didn't have the luxury of making a spreadsheet now did we" was hilarious
@@michealwilliams472 lol it was the Sony guy tearing him appart that surprised me, he really went out and defended us, what happened was we where given a phd programmer and loads of people vouched for him saying he was great etc, turns out he was basically plagiarising all his uni work and the pressure of 4 guys asking him why the mouse cursor wasn't working in week 2 got to him so he bailed. this left us with a 2nd year programmer who worked his ass off to get something together. but it wasn't a working game. what we did was set up our booth to show how games are made, from art, code, my audio. we had tones of kids looking to start making games talking our ears off about it all. when this chuckle brother came over he just shit on us for failing, the Sony guy who im sorry to say I can't remember the name of was amazing and spent an hour chatting with us about how he had the same thing happen basically and that he was so happy to see us at the show and holding our heads up :)
On an unrelated note, I don't understand how 3/5 - 5/10 - 50/100 is considered a "bad" score. Each of those numbers is literally halfway. It's neutral. Not awful, not amazing, neutral. Why is that considered "bad"?
It's because video game reviewers don't tend to give out 5/10 ratings for actual average games. A game that the reviewer considers average will usually receive around a 7/10 (or equivalent) as a way of helping the developer save face.
Cause fan boys can handle their fav game being rated anything lower than 9. I remember jim Serling got so much backlash for give botw less than a perfect score and I think he gave it like 8 or 9 ?
I guess it’s easier for people to think about why they don’t like something than why they do. Thus, variations in badness are more significant and memorable than variations in goodness, so the negative side gets a larger range.
Avi Burk reviews Fire Emblem Three Houses and scores it a 1/10: "There is no reason why I should have to wait for my opponents to attack me when I could just run up to them and bash them on the head with my handgun."
I'm surprised you didn't mention IGN's review of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire criticizing them for having "too much water" or the review comparing Cuphead to Dark Souls.
For the first review, I think that a 7.9 would be a better score than a 9.1. A 7.9 says "If you like these kinds of games, then you'll like this game." A 9.1 says "Even if you don't enjoy this type of game, you'll enjoy this one," and considering the score the US branch gave...
The number one factor that people miss when they refuse to accept that their 'opinions' are being attacked is when it's blatantly obvious they've missed the concept entirely. A recent example of this is the numerous idiots who criticise games like Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen for having a large amount of game time spent travelling -- "because duh dats boring should be more action" - these are NOT action shooters, they are space simulators. One would wonder if these people would review A-10 Warthog 1/10 because you spend too much time travelling and prepping for flight, and not enough time blowing stuff up. The CRUCIAL difference people miss is, yes of course, it's fine to hate the above aspects, but it is NOT ok to criticise these aspects as if they are bad game design, when it's clearly an absolutely intended and very important, and desirable element for the target audience. One can't want it to be Call of Duty in space and then review it badly because it isn't, and was never meant to be.
Sometimes, just something being "the point" can be a bad thing. An example is Undertale. Sure, it's trying to teach a moral, but if it makes the game purposefully shitty, why make a game? A video game should be fun, not a boring slog because MUH MORALS IT'S BAD TO SELF DEFEND YOURSELF! It implies all people like Vlad the Impailer of Adolf Hitler need is a hug and they won't be bad. And if you kill and go through Genocide, goodbye Undertale unless you mess with the files. If it's something that's doing its job without being intentionally awful, then that's good, but if your intention is to be shit... Why?
Goken I know this’s 2 years old, so forgive me for my intrusion, but the only route in Undertale that I’d consider a boring slog is the Genocide run, and that’s only because you *intentionally* go out of your way to kill every single monster in the game. Which I wouldn’t see why anyone would do besides to just get all the possible endings. That, and you can just do a middle-grounded Neutral run, which plays like any other RPG, or a Pacifist run, which’s basically a pure bullet hell game. Both of which I had loads of fun with due to how creative and varied the enemies and bullet hell combat was, especially the boss battles, which add unique mechanics that’re exclusive to them. Plus, you’re taking Undertale’s message way too much at face value, because it isn’t saying that all people aren’t bad, but that there’s ways to solve issues without always resorting to violence. Like sure, you could kill the most evil and heartless character in the game, Flowey, but then you’ll never learn why Flowey ended up the way he did or his tragic backstory. And none of the other characters are truly ‘evil’ either, but are simply either misguided, like Undyne and Asgore, or simply want to escape from the hellhole that humans have trapped them inside of for years. I doubt some rando from 2 years in the future will change your mind, but I just hope you can give Undertale a bit more credit, because while it didn’t execute its message *perfectly,* as the Genocide route is still shiet, I feel like it still did so relatively well. And if not, then that’s entirely fine, since lords know I won’t try to change your mind.
I loved Bubsy on Sega, so my dad got me Bubsy 3D on PS1 for Christmas once... He didn't even know how to play games and he was like the Angry Video Game Nerd watching me play it ahahaha, pissed off he spent $70. Have to say our family has never laughed so much so it was worth it. That is definitely something I miss, no internet meant no info/reviews so when you got a game for Christmas you had no idea what you were putting in lol.
According to NitroRad, that article is real. That EGM quote on the box, however; was from the preview of the game and should not be mentioned to any EGM alumnus. A few issues after the EGM preview, the average score for that game was 2.0-ish. (EGM had four different reviewers per game at this point, and 5.0 was the average score that they continued to reaffirm until they switched to a letter grade system in 2007 I think.) also PSXtreme (the magazine) isn't to be confused with PSX Extreme - which started three years after Bubsy 3D was released. the biggest irony is that Bubsy as a series outlived EGM (a magazine that started since like 1989) and nearly every other game magazine in the industry (with the exception of GameInformer, because it's a GameStop-owned magazine.)
@@radiantfalcongamevision1113 Nice try buddy, you put that quote on the box for a few $'s and karma bit you in the ass for lying for cash. For those wondering on Bubsy 3D there's an EGM quote - "Stunning, original, Bubsy 3D climbs back to the top". Nowhere does that mention a demo, you lied then and you lie now, a leopard doesn't change it's spots.
I feel one of the most suspicious reviews is IGN’s Explorers of Sky, it’s clear the reviewer never played to the point on even the main conflict, and was likely still in the “tutorial section” complaining about a “generic story” when that is far from the truth, and all of the pros and cons were about the new content so it’s like they didn’t even bother looking at the game itself and just googled “what is new in Explorers of Sky” then wrote a whiny review
You checked the review and then made a comment on this video referring to it hence leading more to search it out. You have advertised for IGN and done nothing for the game as your leading people to a damming review
I think it comes from school grading systems. That, or perhaps it’s because it’s fundamentally easier to think about and describe why you don’t like something than why you do; thus, there’s a greater range in the bad direction, giving it a larger chunk of the scale.
i've always thought that traditional games media reviewers (and often influencers in general) were a bunch of pompous, snobbish, bought, superfluous and consistently overrated knownothings who think that every game has to be for them. and if a game isnt for them it has to be "bad". i've never understood why their opinions should matter any more than anybody else's. but to each their own. i prefer to make up my own mind. at this point its undeniable that games journalism is at least in part "unethical".
One of the only magazines I used to trust was Sega Saturn Magazine. Official yeah but they often shat on bad games, even Sega made/published ones. But i remember seeing huge disparity in the scores from other magazines and you could pick out which writers were pro/anti systems and publishers. I never, ever ever use IGN or RT to see if I will like a game or film. It's the forums for me if I am on the fence. Seeing how publishers buy goodwill and censor reviews, have embargoes etc, really stinks to me. Look at what happened to Cyberpunk and Aliens CM. Two games I was super excited for.
I was kind of expecting one candidate to be the depression quest controversy, but I'm kinda glad it didn't appear. No need shining lights on fading stars.
Extra special thanks to The Amiga Rack for the scans of the Team 17 segment :) amr.abime.net/
A digest for the TL:DR crowd: The first score in that video was due to the American editor living in a culture that focuses on instant-gratification and doesn't get that patience is needed to be effective at anything worth the bother. The second was from basic (and *PROVABLE*) lack of effort, but at least the reviewer got fired like he deserved. The third was most likely due to Gamespy sucking up to Nintendo (though I wouldn't be surprised if proof of corruption surfaced).
@@watcherofclassics Thank you, but you got the first one _opinionatedly wrong,_ as idiocy is a trait that doesn't discriminate race, creed or nationality.
_Ironic,_ since I actually watched the whole video. Guess that's just my _instant-gratification and lack of patience to effectively form my own opinion_ talking, eh?
Hello, you.
Hello, what is the Segway audio tune?
@@glidershower Nice.
I loved the German IGN reviews from 10+ years ago. When they wrote stuff like: "Whoever made this game should break stones in Sibiria."
When you said the Gamespot Kane and Lynch saga was over a decade ago I felt old. Then I realised this video is 5 years old and now I think I need to lie down
Time does pass sop quickly!
@@Larry one of the many things I ♥ about you Larry is that you reply to comments no matter the age of the video. You really treat your fans. You are a genuinely wonderful person and you've done so much for the gaming community.
@@Larry sop quickly
@@FlareStorms got em
I think one of the problems with game review sites is they sometimes hand a game to be reviewed by the totally wrong person. For example, IGN gave Double Dragon: Neon, an excellent beat-em-up side scroller, to a guy who, in the review, states he does not like beat-em-ups. He then gave the game a 3/10.
There are games that, if you gave them to me, I'd probably hate it. I might have a hard time judging if a game in a genre I really don't like is actually any good or not.
[cries in explorers of sky]
I remember one time Game Informer gave Sonic Generations to a reviewer who gave it 6.75/10 because it "reminded him of how far Sonic had fallen."
Also, Game Informer gave Ni No Kuni to a guy who didn't like JRPGs.
Remember when IGN rated Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky a 4.9/10, calling it "Bad"? And they never bothered playing past Apple Woods? Ugh. Still salty.
Kaoru Fujimaki Yeah, I loved Explorers of Sky and when I saw IGN's rating I stopped believing in anything they said
And Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire's well known review. You know which one.
It wasn't just that it was also Pokepark 2. Main compliant was that the children's game was too childish. Which spoilers, they even got that wrong
@@ArceusBowser212 aka the "too much water" review
That was the day I officially stopped paying attention to "official" critics. I still get infuriated thinking about it and all the people robbed of an incredible experience. Absolutely shameful!
I'm surprised that you didn't include IGN's infamous God Hand review since they were single handedly responsible for Clover studio being shut down after they gave it a 3/10 and later admitted that nobody at the office wanted to review it in the first place, only to now put it on their list of one of the top PS2 games of all time.
Or the Tropical Freeze Gamespot review where it was blatantly obvious that the reviewer didn't want to play the game and didn't finish it either since all of his complaints were the opposite of the actual case and all of the footage captured in the review is only the early levels and him constantly getting hit or dying. They even show the game over screen in the footage. I remember the backlash at the time being pretty big and then they re reviewed it for the Switch just to pretty much get rid of the old score.
IGN just seems to have a pretty bad reputation for having terrible gameplay footage during their reviews. I can't recall what Sonic game it was (I believe it was Lost World?), but in the review they made of it, there's a segment where the player is shown running backwards *in a level you're not supposed to run backwards in* , and getting killed in the process.
If only they had learned their lesson after the God Hand fiasco.
@@ThunderTHR You think walking backwards is bad? Wait until you see the footage in the Sonic Unleashed Review (the review for the Xbox 360 version)
@@iverson64_ I don't recall that particular review as I've never sat through it, but I'm told their review was awful.
GameSpot's review of Skyward Sword was just as bad as the Tropical Freeze one. The reviewer said the controls didn't work when it what obvious he didn't take the time to learn them.
Yeah.... The ignorance of game "journalists" is why I simply go off personal tastes or buy a game if it looks interesting. I just say purchase with caution.
I mean..... Skyrim got glowing reviews, but I found it the most boring of the Elder Scrolls game.
I love the headline "IGN game journalist can't wait to play [the game] they just reviewed."
Wait a minute 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
I've always been confused by the whole, 7/10 is average, not 5/10.
Game scores are measured like cock size nowadays; if it's 7 or less (in the US system of inches) it ain't worth your time.
The average isn't the middle of all theoretical scores, it's the middle of all actual scores. Basically, the average score is a 7 because that's what the majority of games get.
It's like getting a C in school - A (90%) is good, C (70%) is average, and F (50%) is bad. A game that gets 7 out of every 10 things right about it, while not spectacular, is still enjoyable enough that you might want to buy it. But if your game only gets half of everything right about it... is it really worth playing? Basically, unless a game gets above a 6/10, it's not worth spending money on at all. 5/10 and on down is all, effectively, bad - the only question is *how* bad, and thus how much time you should devote to doing funny skits about it in the video review.
Ozgar Thunderhammer they gauge 7/10 as average because it looks better on a box and makes publisher's/advertisers happy while still pretending to have journalistic integrity
Ozgar Thunderhammer
agree, 7 is above average, it's still mean it's on the "good game" side.
anything above 5 is good, below 5 is bad and if a score rated exactly 5/10 this is what it should be called average.
I still keep scratching my head about those Nintendo fan boys that rises hay forks and torches over jim sterling's breath of the wild review when he gave it 7 out of 10.
You know, I vaguely recall IGN ripping on FE: Radiant Dawn for--of all things--not using motion controls. I mean, the game had its problems, but it’s a *turn-based strategy game* for god’s sake. Why the fuck would you expect it to have motion controls?
cause it's a Wii game?
Maybe they meant pointer controls.
I always think of Dragon Age 2 when I hear "suspicious reviews"
MandaloreGaming I can name a few that come to mind, such as: any bioware game after their release of mass effect 1, Destiny, and add into that positive reviews for games like the call of duty franchise after modern warfare 2
@@gryphonwilson7415 so in other words, just any game you didn't like? All three mass effect games were amazing, even with the botched ending.
@@MeTaLISaWeSoMe95 me 1&2 were amazing but the 3rd is just ok
6 words: seven point eight, too much water
You know, even with ll the cringe and derp and 'really?'--that's still my favorite dating simulator?
Funny thing is a year after this video was published (2018) IGN was embroiled in a HUGE scandal with one of their employees stealing other people's reviews and publishing them on their site, under his name. It started off when Boomstick Gaming on TH-cam found out that the IGN editor Filip Miucin basically stole his review for Dead Cells and changed a word or two. Miucin was fired and then it was found out, by journalists and gamers looking into things, that he had been doing it for YEARS. Practically all his work for IGN was plagerised.
I'm surprised nobody filed a lawsuit
@@MASTEROFEVIL It probably wasn't worth the time and money. Plagiarism, in and of itself, isn't even a crime. If you obtained financial gain by copying someone else’s work you might be convicted of fraud - which can carry a jail term in extreme cases. However, a civil court action for breach of copyright is more likely, and that always ends with fines rather than jail. And even if they gave him a huge fine, he'd probably just get out of it by declaring bankruptcy... so if someone filed a lawsuit against him, they'd probably be left having to pay their own legal expenses, with nothing to show for it. Besides, his reputation had already been destroyed. Jason Schreier of Kotaku was even able to prove that most of Filip's résumé had been copied from a template! It _is_ possible to stage a comeback after being accused of plagiarism, but it's a long hard road.
Philip Muicin, I covered it in my Fired for their Opinions Fact Huny video :)
Lol Fact Huny
I still get a chuckle out of the first one. This dude brought a football manager game, plays it and goes "lol why is this not like FIFA".
When I was young, and going into my first year of college, I planned on double majoring in computer science and journalism, then getting a job as a video game reviewer, as I saw it as my dream job. I love journalism, and I love videogames, so why not mix the two?
I have since decided against that course of action. I am far too proud of my journalistic integrity.
Hate to break it to you man, but the mainstream media has even less integrity. You either have to SHOW THEM what integrity looks like, found your own news site and force your standards of integrity, or just give up.
Start a new site and implement a policy of "Pull no punches" and make it clear to reviewers and publishers alike that average game = 5/10.
You could probably do something with a journalism degree, just maybe avoid becoming a professional reviewer.
Chances are this might all happen to you.
smart move
The whole "Average being 7 not 5" has to be my least favourite thing about a lot of this
And kinda the reason why so many of the reviewers I actually trust, dont use review scores
To paraphrase JelloApocalypse; “If it’s 50%, it’s average. This isn’t the American Education System.”
I love how video game review scores are so inflated a 6/10 is *BELOW AVERAGE*.
Thats the real problem here.
I've played plenty of Steam games that average 40-60% and enjoyed them quite a bit. People look at that and say "eww, it has a mixed score, must be terrible". It all comes back to those game reviews.
Not to mention review bombing things for reasons outside of gameplay.
That's what happens when critics are rubbing shoulders with the creators. They're being incentivized to give higher scores, pushing the score for an "average game" up where it doesn't belong. Logically on a scale of 1 to 10, a 5 should be your average. It has gotten to the point where I need to know the critics doing the review, so I can adjust their ranking by 1 or 2 points.
Saber0003 50% is average. Sometimes, average is good. To me, if a game is at least 50% good, the game is passable. It's why I don't consider some beloved games good if only 1/3rd, 33.4% of it, is good. But if a game is average, it's half. I don't get how a 76% is a bad review score. That's not too shabby
it all boils down to school grades
One of the funniest bad reviews I've seen was IGN's review of Corpse Party Book of Shadows, a visual novel/adventure game. The reviewer slammed the novel for having too much reading.
yeah that was retarded. its also the reason why i cant take those guys seriously
My books has too many words. 2/10
2.8/10
Too much reading.
10/10 great review.
Idk about you, but a media company accepting ad revenue from the game developers who make the games they critique sounds like a recipe for dishonest journalism to me.
Have you read any game magazines from the 80s-90s? There has never been a "good" gaming journalist.the best we can hope for is slightly below average
That Soccer Manager review at the start, man. I don't even play sports games and I know the difference between a management sim and a regular sports game...
- Lewis
Sadly, all major game ranking websites are shady when it comes to properly ranking video games that come from big publishers, it's the way it works these days, that's why personally I never form an opinion on a game based on a website's review
Hasn't GameSpot ever heard of unfair dismissal? That dude who got fired for Kane and Lynch could have sued.. his review was spot on and his job was to give viewers idea on what the game is like.
yeah but the game was like a tarantino movie loads of violence and swearing.
I'm not sure why the industry depends on some random person to rate their game and it all comes down to like 1 or 2 reviewers. Random guy with no expertise is cranky on tuesday and gives a bad review for the game they got that day, and it causes 20 people to lose their developer careers. Just does not seem to add up
And there's a good chance the reviewer isn't even in the target audience for that game, with that chance rising the more niche and low-brow the game is. This is why I only trust audience scores.
The funny thing is with Amiga Power scoring system, I actually want to check that 81/100 game out, since comparing it to other average scores it actually feels a lot better. Nowadays, the average score is about 8/10, so when the game gets 9 or 10/10 it doesn't even feel special since it looks like it's only slightly better than an average game. I blame the school systems for that, since it's teaching us that anything below 50% or 60% is considered failure.
Why is 7/10 the "average"? This is infuriating on so many levels! If you have a scoring system that goes from 1-10 (I don't know if any sites include 0 as part of their scoring), then the average should be 5! The whole "a game won't sell well unless it gets a score of 7 or more" is disgusting propaganda from developers, and the worst part is people seem to think that the scoring starts at 4 or 5! If a shitty game on steam is at least able to just boot, some people will automatically give the game 5 or 6 points right there, when a game being able to just function properly should be the BASELINE of review scoring, and a game simply working should merit no more than 1 point, IF even that!
TL;DR: People start out giving the benefit of the doubt and working downward. That's human nature, and it's why scores tend to skew toward higher numbers.
The studies I've seen -- and it's been a long time since I saw them, so I don't have references to give you at the moment -- suggest that people tend to start from the highest score and start deducting, instead of starting from the bottom and going upward. They also don't tend to give a score below the halfway mark (3/5 or 5/10) unless they're *really* unhappy.
Dedicated reviewers are going to be even harder on a game (or whatever) because they see almost every one that comes out, so they're a bit more jaded. They know what every other creator in that field is doing, and what it takes to really stand out from the pack. 7/10 is an okay review in that case; it means that the game, etc., has at least something to it that's not run-of-the-mill. (I didn't say "pro" reviewers because, in a paying, advertiser-supported venue, reviewing your main advertisers' product is obviously going to lead to inflated scores...)
When it comes to customer reviews of anything, it's important to get close to 8/10 or more. Consumers are usually not as jaded as reviewers, and if enough of them are giving bad reviews that the average gets dragged down below an 8, there's good reason for the consumer to be cautious.
@@robhartzell603 That was very well crafted and serious reply. I find that unusual for youtube comments.
Anyway it does put some perspective on the matter, so thank you very much!
I hear you. It is really unbelievable how the scoring system just became this messy. In early days a five didnt mean it is a completely bad game - it meant it is ok, and fans of this kind of game might even vote it higher, but it might not be for the masses. Today, a lot of games wont even tough a game with a 6-7 because they believe that that means it is just a shit game that makes no fun
A lot of people miss ouf of great games because of this and a lot of series or systems, never have the chance to get a second chance.
And the worst thing? A lot of these high reviewed games, arent even that great, there are a lot I would score in the "middle score level" (for fans and to take a look) but they are not the overwhelming best games that everyone needs - just because of media and advertising money (I know there is more behind it - but I think this wouldn´t fit here in the comments ^^) - it is really sad how this all evolved.
5 doesn't mean "Average" on a ten point scale. If games get a 7 on average, it just means that the average game is pretty good. There is no reason for 5 to mean "average".
tell that to the school system
"Give it a 7/10 and then everyone's happy"
Jim Sterling would like a word with you.
Jim Sterling deserves a 0/10 for hypocrisy.
invghost Hypocrisy? How so?
We know and of course no response.
apparently if you give any Zelda game below a 9, you're just a "hater"
@@GiordanDiodato I remember the insane death threats and nonsense he got for that. The game is good, but it has so many glaring issues. Fanboys are insane.
God Hand: 3/10
Party Babyz: 7.5/10
The concept of a 6/10 being "below average" is ridiculous considering average should mean the MIDDLE of the scale.
i think average is every review on the services most common scoring, so if they rate horrible games say 4/10 and rarely go below that but commonly only review games that seem good, the average would be around 7-8/10 leaving 10/10 for games they deem 'master pieces' but if they were to review mainly bad games the average would be closer to 4-5/10.
5/10 average would mean they've reviewed an equal number of bad and good games that are equally bad and equally good respectfully.
7/10 average isn't that crazy if its only games that have a lot of hype behind them, and reviewing mainly those games gets them more readers per issue.
That's why I think lots of places opt for the 5 star system better. 3/5 looks better to the client than 6/10, even when they're basically the same thing, lolz.
@@glidershower 4 star system is better. "3/5" is the cowards way out. Pick a side you fencesitter!
room temperature iq
I really hate the "7 as average" crap. Most game reviewers do that to placate developers. Psychologically, we'll give more weight to a 7/10 than a 5/10 _even when we know the meaning is identical_ .
The crazy thing is how reviewers always defend this cheap ploy with statements like "It makes sense because if you added the scores of all the games we've reviewed, they'd average out to around 7 or better".
Yeah no shit, that's because *you use 7 as the average!* This renders the bottom half of your scale basically useless because a "below average" game can still get a 5 or 6 and everything else is crammed into the upper scores. Comparatively, there are few truly shit games released and those are the only ones that would score below 5 on this messed up scale. So how could the reviews _not_ average out to at least 7? There's nothing to bring the average down except a handful of kart racers and _Barbie_ games.
Gamespot gave tropical freeze a 6/10 on Wii U, but gave it a 9/10 on the switch release (which is the score it deserves because the game is awesome). The reason why I think this happened is because there were people in 2013-14 who were upset that retro's next big project was another dkc game and that's why I think the game was not fairly scored.
The EDGE review of the original DOOM, giving it an average score because it wasn't an RPG game where you can talk to NPCs or something.
I remember one particular review on IGN. It was for Godhand. Game was given a 3/10 score. Why? The review was based off 5 minutes of gameplay while a game like Imagine party Babyz got a 7.5/10. Last year someone on the site finally gave it a better shake, but it took 13 years. www.ign.com/articles/2019/05/08/in-defense-of-god-hand
Can't polish a turd? Tell that to the Mythbusters team who actually did polish a turd.
And what about the 'Too much water' from... of course IGN's review of Pokemon Omega Ruby and Sapphire
You should update this and include IGN's review of Prey, where they gave it a 4/10 because the guy's save got corrupted.
I’d be pretty salty if my save got corrupted.
7.8/10, Too much water.
Honestly, a video game review magazine using 50% as the average instead of 70% sounds like a good idea, since 50 is obviously straight down the middle of the maximum 100. I’m guessing Amiga Power didn’t make it stupidly clear that it was the case, which is a shame.
This is why I mostly prefer user reviews over professional reviews at times.
@Pseudo Wounds The trouble is, user reviewers aren't held accountable by anyone, so their reviews are much more prone to including errors and even deliberate lies.
When you're young, you think being a video game journalist is a sweet job with no hassle. Then you find out it can be a very stressful profession, capable of making you burn out and fall out of love with gaming, become "corrupt" and other negative aspects (e.g. being limited to how long you can play the game before having to write the review) that we see spring up...and not just on a rare occurrence either.
I always felt like sonic unleashed was one of those games that got immediate backlash and bad reviews simply because people were still angry at sonic 06's colossal failure.
sonic unleashed would have gotten 9/10 outright everywhere if it was the exact same game minus all of the werewolf parts.
@@GraveUypo i personally didn't mind the werehog parts on the ps3/360 version because it felt rewarding to unlock the regular day stages, the wii version kinda over did it though
No mention of the IGN God Hand incident?
whats this?
@@Larry they gave god hand 3/10. And its regarded as one of the greatest ps2 games ever.
@@yabukiMMA It's also considered stupid hard (note: considered. Not is). It's the difficulty that made the reviewer give such a low score
I don't I'd give it a 3/10, but it just seemed like a generic beat 'em up with good writing to me.
maybe 7/10 for me. Not bad, not great.
@@NeoSaturos123 it's not really difficult, it's more like the controls are awkward (especially if you just came off of something like say... Devil May Cry)
In Football Manager, you're a football manager, managing a football team.
That's some serious fact hunting right there.
woah
I don't understand how people consider 6/10 to be "below average" or a 7.5/10 "average" (not just you, Larry, lots of people do it). Average, on a 10 point scale, is by definition, a 5. Yet when people see a 5/10 score they think the game's shit, rather than okay.
If you ask people how they are today, on a scale of 1-10, the average answer will be 7, not 5. That's just a real general question you can ask anyone. The secret mean is 75%. That's also why the default answer to 'how are ya doin?' is 'good'. Not 'average' or '50%' cause then people wonder why you are feeling bad.
edit: The scale is between 50% and 100% and 75% is the middle.
5/10 is 50%, a failing grade. Think of it like that.
@@naranciaisbestboi125 Yeah, same logic as my comment. 50% is the cut off for the lowest grade. 75% is the real 'halfway' point
@@taylorsmurphy Which is true considering anything between 70%-79% is a C.
I blame the schools grading system
It’s almost like game journalism has always been a massive joke.
Can we all agree that in 2022 we still have the Fact Hunt Playlist on because of the incredible replay ability these videos have 💯🔥
Larry Bundy is a treat to watch
I like Amiga's idea of 50% being average. It leaves more room for grading differences between better than average games.
School
USA school to be more precise. It's different in normal countries.
"The game has too many players". That reminded me of the "too much water" IGN meme. Something is always too much for them.
I actually bring that up in my follow up video! :)
@@Larry Will see it then!
Let's not forget Polygon reviewed Bayonetta 2, giving it a low score because boobs.
If only we could harness the power of Larry's hatred for Peter Molyneux, we'd have clean energy for decades to come.
2 year old vid getting recommended to everyone.
As relevant as ever, right?
Or, as of 2021, 4 years old.
basically if IGN rates it, I ignore it. Same with "watchmojo's top 10" lists, huffingtonpost and Fox for news articles, and kotaku for... well everything.
@mrgerminaro the kind that doesnt like "news sources" that cater to one side specifically instead of being as neutral as possible
@mrgerminaro why would you like either? They're both full of shit
The Sliver Lining on the Kane & Lynch debacle is it gave us Giant Bomb, which I absolutely adore.
Evolve got a freaking 9/10 from all main publications, still can't get over it
It was awesome to start with
Haha, I remember the intense marketing for that game leading up to its release. Probably spent more money on marketing than on actual development, and then it was forgotten by the entire gaming world a week after release.
I know I'm super behind the times here, but I loved the "i said edgy, not edge, tim" joke.
Kotaku can easily be in a new version of this video since many of their reviews are usually suspicious.
Let's never forget when they told a guy who is well known to HATE Xenoblade Chronicles.....to review both XC2 and later the remaster of 1.
I remember Game Informer's review of Sonic Generations. The reviewer gave it a 6.75/10 because "It reminded him of how far Sonic had fallen"
Also they gave Ni No Kuni (PS3 original) to a guy who hated JRPGs. Then again, he gave it a 7/10
"I said edgy not edge Tim!" I chuckled way too much at that!! Well done Sir!
Another contender for #5, IGN called Alien Isolation mediocre because the alien was too aggressive. As he hides in a locker holding a large beeping and blinking object that lures the AI.
From the Markiplier playthrough (and he plays I think relatively well), how the alien works is mostly not told to the player if at all, but it basically is programmed to cut your common strategies, so you must always change them up or use makeshift traps.
Especially nowadays "die to move forward" isn't considered good design, though A:I seems to be very forgiving with checkpoints, so it can do it.
Remember the IGN God Hand review? I'm surprised that one didn't make it on here.
i don't remember that one, what happened with that one again?
I've watched almost every episode of Fact Hunt Larry but this is without a doubt the best episode I've seen. I mean that. As a freelance reviewer, seeing all this shows what is wrong with game reviews.
#1: You're right. You can't spell ignorant without IGN. At least IGN UK got it, not the US.
#2: l never played Darkfall but I can't blame the developers for being angry over a 2/10 score.
#3: I always remember GameSpy as they held the servers for the original Borderlands. When GameSpy went down, the servers went with it. Thankfully 2K came in and saved the day. I remember GameSpy well Larry. Anyway, a review of Donkey Konga 2 was what got a freelancer fired? Dude. That's insane. It didn't help that Penny Arcade only made things painful. Can't blame GameSpy for trying to do damage control.
#4: I remember it like it was yesterday... the whole Kane & Lynch incident really shook the gaming world. So much so that after Jeff Gerstmann was fired, four other reviewers left GameSpot in response: Alex Navarro, Ryan Davis (god rest his soul), Brad Shoemaker and Vinny Caravella. 2012 was where the truth about the incident was finally out and even the people behind Kane & Lynch knew the game wasn't that good. Can we blame Jeff? No. He did what he felt was right as a reviewer and shame on GameSpot for firing the guy.
#5: Utter pettiness is what I see in this situation. Team 17 got balls alright and yeah they are going to publish Yooka Laylee so who am I to complain.
Going back and rewatching the Fact Hunt playlist in hopes that it will invoke a new video to be posted from a healthy and happy Guru Larry Jr.
😄👍
Official Nintendo Magazine (Published by Future, incidentally) gave a terrible score to My Pokémon Ranch (Basically Diamond and Pearl's equivalent of Pokémon Bank, download only for the Wii) because they reviewed it as a game, rather than what it is, a utility. They got MASSIVE backlash on their forums.
I give this video a 7.8 out of 10.0. It's GOOD, but suffers from these cons:
- too many bad scores
- too much backlash
It doesn't take a genius to realize there is a conflict of interest going on when a website for reviewing games objectively, gets payed by certain publishers to promote their games. And then somehow, you end up with unreliable scores, who would have thought!? *surprisedpikachu.jpg*
And the execs in these companies wonder why people can't trust them, and instead go looking for just random blokes' reviews on youtube for more genuine coverage of game's quality.
Donkey Konga 2 was not a 1/5 game, though. 3/5, sure.
Speaking as someone who wrote for PC Zone for a while (back before Future's takeover and intentional starvation of the magazine finally killed it) gaming reviews always faced several fundamental problems:
Firstly, all gaming journalists could be divided into two categories - those for whom gaming was an actual hobby and passion, and those who were there as a stepping stone. The enthusiasts could always be trusted to write proper reviews, and many of them ended up in the industry itself, as developers or writers. The others tended to end up in PR.
Secondly, due to the advent of the internet, the need to "get there first" screwed with deadlines, with a lot of reviewers genuinely not being given more than a couple of hours to try a game before finishing the review, because reviewing a game after other publications wasn't viable.
Thirdly, there was always a major collision between the inherently arbitrary nature of review scores... and the value both readers and the industry itself placed upon them. The scores meant nothing. As a reviewer, you'd play the game, write the review... then have to somehow convert that into a number. This number wasn't the careful product of some standardised marking criteria - it was a number plucked out of the air. But as it turns out, due to the rise of metacritic, it could destroy a development team - a score that was a few points too low could impact the average for that game... and suddenly the development team loses out on a bonus.
I personally had the awkward experience of meeting a former fellow PC Zone writer, who had gone on to work on a game I reviewed, who told me that she'd received flak from her boss about the review score. I gave it... something like 80-85%, if memory serves; I thought this was a fair review. But evidently, it was not high enough. Despite the fact that, in the past, PC Zone was known for giving lower scores (with 90+ reserved for the absolute pinacle of games - the big classics like Half-Life or Deus Ex).
Of course, this odd relationship between the journalists and the industry would eventually lead to a fair bit of corruption, with the big game publishers blacklisting publications who had proven to be overly critical. And since access and exclusivity had become so important to the survival of a given publication... things were never destined to end well.
Last but not least, nobody really cared about average reviews. People reading magazines, or clicking on articles, would generally lean towards the things they might get excited about, and the things they wanted to laugh at. This, combined with all those other factors above, led to a journalistic environment where the the emphasis was not on accuracy or professionalism, but speed, popularity and click-bait.
Game Informer nabbed the exclusive review of Enter the Matrix while all other mags had to wait and review retail copies. Guess who was the only one to give it high scores and make no mention of it being an unfinished, glitchy mess?
You should check out my Driv3rGate video, a very similar thing happened with that!
Wow! Who would have thought a sports management simulator wouldn't be crazy and action-packed?
IGNorant is a damn good description, here.
If Kane & Lynch was 6/10, doesn't that make it slightly above average, not slightly below average
In game review terms, 7/10 is average at best. Companys inflate scores a bit to keep publishers happy
@@skiy22567 That's odd.
For whatever reason video game review scores instead of going by the more logical understand of numbers of 50 being the medium and anything higher or lower being above or below average, instead it goes by the American school grading system. Where 75% is the average and anything below is underaverage
@@jameskowanko7574 Yea that's a pretty dumb system.
You remind me that once upon a time Penny Arcade wasn't complete shit and actually grilled the industry each and every single week.
How about a suspicious review score that didn't really get any backlash? Gamesmaster Magazine gave Sonic 2 65% in its debut issue and if I remember correctly wasn't really called out for it. Then they had the absolute balls to praise it in a special Sonic themed issue about 20 years later.
Different staff. They weren't the only magazine to do that kind of thing either.
Edge gave Gunstar Heroes 6/10 in its debut issue. IIRC they may have increased that rating later, probably after everyone else hailed it as a classic. Come to think of it, I think they also gave Zombies Ate My Neighbours a 6 in that same issue. It maybe a controversial view, but I never did like Edge much; I always thought that their reviews were crap, and some of their "in depth" articles back in the day read a lot like PR puff pieces.
I know one magazine that gave Shaq Fu an 82%
Edge actually had a feature once going over past reviews that they now considered erroneous. I think Gunstar Heroes may have been included, but the most memorable example was the original Doom, which they rated 5/10 and complained that you couldn't negotiate with the monsters to stop them from attacking you. It seems like a similar case to the first example in the video in which the reviewer misunderstood the genre and expected the game to be more like Ultima Underworld.
Surprised IGN's infamous '4.9/10' isn't on here. Us PMD fans were *_pissed_*
PMD?
@@RossMitchellsProfile Ethan is referring to IGN's score of 4.9 on a pokemon mystery dungeon game possibly
@@danielotano8677 likely due to the gameplay being stiff af, but that's a roguelike RPG for ya
Ohhh, yeah, that was BAD. They basically ripped into explorers of sky because they didn't like the gameplay. Sure, mystery dungeon games aren't for everyone, but they refused to give even partial credit to all of the good points (soundtrack, story, visuals). If you haven't played explorers of sky, pick it up and try it out, it's worth trying.
Larry, for April Fool's day you should do an episode without ANY references to Peter Molynuex. Like, you should keep creating set ups with an obvious Molynuex punchline and then bait-n-switching it to something else. It'll freak your fans out more than any real prank could. Then, in your next episode after April 1st you should just have EVERY joke be about Mr Moly so you can get out all the built up bile out of your system.
that's something to consider :D
+Larry Bundy Jr ... Maybe next year. ;_;
Learning about Amiga Power's "stinginess" with review scores makes me realise how much they loved the 1991 port of Rod Land (Steve Campbell gave it 88% in 1991 and 92% for the 1993 budget re-release).
Also, Rod Land in 1991 costed 57 euros in today's money! Games are getting more expensive, sure, but inflation isn't joking either!
IGN, is such a bad website. A games website that for some reason mainly covers, wrestling, American television series, films and comic books. It makes zero sense!
Just remember, you can't spell "ignorant" without IGN.
Not to mention the fact that the average game journalist working for it knows as much, or possibly even less than anybody here who's played games for at least a decade.
And you don't see me receiving a paycheck for writing superficial reviews
"You can't polish a turd"
Actually, Mythbusters debunked that by rolling turds for so long that they condensed into tightly packed balls, and then used a cloth to polish them to a shine. Thank god for Adam and Jamie LOL
Thanks for 5 minutes of fun watching on youtube and next 10 minutes reading comment section of that vid :D
Stanley Kubrick is reported to have replied with "Sure you can! You just have to freeze it first!"
"Give it a 7/10, everyone's happy with that!"
How long after this did Jim Sterling review Breath of the Wild?
probably a month.
I have a feeling he gave it that score because it deviated from the usual Zelda formula that had been on console Zelda games since A Link to the Past
For a game that has both day-one DLC in the form of Amiibo, AND weapon durability, the single worst mechanic in all of gaming, that's generous.
@@Megamean09 Too right. Game’s still good but nowhere close to perfect
7/10 is an accurate review
Breath of the wild is friggen amazing you people are insane
First one is priceless lol.
Why do IGN even need different reviewers for different regions?
I remember IGN giving Super Meat Boy a bad rating because it was “too hard”, nobody liked that
I remember that games journalist who couldn't beat the tutorial of Cuphead because he couldn't figure out how to crouch jump and gave the game a bad review.
I also remember seeing a response video of a 5 year old being handed the tutorial sight unseen and beating it.
Larry could probably do a second top 5 for this eastily
@@planescaped - that was a manufactured outrage made by wannabe alt-right edgelords who read the headline of one game review and formed an opinion of the actual contents of said review without actually reading it.
Not the internet's finest hour
@@5ynthesizerpatel The fuck are you on about dumbass.
@@planescaped I remember the video of him being crap, but I don't remember him reviewing it
@@5ynthesizerpatel that was a different thing about how Cuphead's influences were racist and people thought the headline was "Cuphead is Racist"
This reminds me of the book, Handbook for Mortals. It got on top of the NYT best sellers list, yet not a single copy of the book could be found, and the only reviews it got were five star from newly-made accounts. It was eventually revealed the author bought her way to the top, and she was kicked off the list immediately.
Just googled that. It's a 1.3 now. lol
The other 10 percent of the time, we're talking about when IGN favors Punchtime Explosion XL over God Hand, when they dock points from one of the best Pokemon games of all time for having too much water or when they plagiarize one of my favorite gamers when reviewing Dead Cells. Though at least in the latter case, they fired the man responsible for the plagiarism.
I find it odd that a reviewer should be afraid of being fired for having an opinion, especially when their boss defends that opinion.
"Yeah, he totally played the game, and this is HIS opinion of the game. He is entitled to it. BTW, he's now fired for publishing it!"
The problem is more like the guy they put to review the game does not like the genere or does not know it.
For a unbiased review you need someone who knows the genere and does not have stigma to give a good review.
There is another example that is not in the video:
For Xenoblade Chronicles X the reviewer that did the review did hate the previous game. They choose them just because his Japanese knowledge.
He did trash the game just because was a not action RPG, similar to the previous game (Like was a bad thing) and called it pure boredom.
You can not trust someone like that to give a unbiased review.
@@Gacel_ The guy had no clear opinion against the genre. His opinion was against the game itself. He called the engine dated (said it looked a decade old, the game had been in development for 8 years, makes sense), the controls clunky (they were) and the content lacking (it was rather barren at launch).
It had nothing to do with the genre and everything to do with the game. Nothing someone should be fired over stating. Especially not when they're hired to do exactly that.
What about the fact he said he played it for 10 hours but they logged him online only 2 hours and most of that in character creation. Euro Gamer should have dropped their defense of his review at that point and apologized. I'm glad they had the decency to fire him after being caught in a lie. I want reviewers to at least log the hours they say they did. This is no different than any employee who punches in on a time clock then slips out a side door spending the day at the beach then slipping back in at quitting time to punch out.
@@MainerdLoyd Didn't he have another account, where he had logged a lot more time on? One mentioned in this video too?
I swear, sometimes people comment on these videos without even watching them...
@@morphman86 I did. One account had 5:07 3 minutes on it the other had 2 hours. Euro Gamer claimed he played it for 10 hours but didn't provide the information for that account to back up the claim while firing the reviewer. What do you think really happened. I think they stood behind their reviewer but then acted on the information that he had actually played the game for 2 hours. Why else would he have been fired? I know anyplace where I have worked falsifying time spent on a job is grounds for dismissal.
The editors of Game Fan were literally tripping on LSD when they were reviewing Cybermorph for the Atari Jaguar, giving it a 10/10 and praised it, making it sound like the greatest game ever made. I suppose tripping on LSD will do that.
where did you learn to fly?
@@rodrigowolupeck1788 where you learn to be an asshole!?- Avgn
I still hate that games reviewers score average games at 70%, its a disgustingly misleading practice that tricks the less saavy readers into thinking the games are a lot better than they are and give very little room for differentiating average titles, good titles, excellent titles and perfect titles (which don't exist) meaning that often mediocre titles are expected to get a bloody 9/10!
I was a mod at GameSpot when the Kane and Lynch thing happened. It was, to say the very least, a clusterfuck.
Oh man, that first one reminds me of the absolute best review of Binding Of Isaac I ever saw: "It's a total garbage game! Everything is random! It's like a slot machine!" Like, yes, that is indeed what a roguelike is, thank you for your input, I look forward to you complaining about platformers for having platforms lol
plays a football management game, complains about having to manage a football team
when the profile picture fits to well.
Props to Amiga Power for making proper use of the range of available scores.
I actually enjoyed the first Kane & Lynch game, right up until it's final third.
For the first two thirds you're doing things like robbing banks, being involved in a car-chase shootout with cops, infiltrating a night club to kidnap a mobster's daughter, then in the final third you're suddenly in Cuba in what feels like a bad knock off of Call of Duty, but in 3rd person.
14:52 is a rare sight indeed... peter molyneux with hair!!! lol
HA, I was in a games making competition in 2008 and the big show at the end was called proto-play, one of the judges was the guy who made football manager and he gave us shit for not having a working game, we had a lot of issues behind the scenes btw, he walked up to me and a programmer and sarcastically informed us the event was called proto "play" I was speechless and the person he was with pulled him aside and gave him a massive blocking, turns out that guy was a big shot in Sony, when he came back he apologised and wanted to see what we had, our artist and team leader took him through the stuff we had, my sound, our junior programers work, all the art etc but at every chance he would make comments like "well we tried to get the lighting system implemented but we didn't have the luxury of making a spreadsheet now did we" was hilarious
What? A higher-up having his head so far up his ass that he can eat his lunch again? Color me surprised.
@@michealwilliams472 lol it was the Sony guy tearing him appart that surprised me, he really went out and defended us, what happened was we where given a phd programmer and loads of people vouched for him saying he was great etc, turns out he was basically plagiarising all his uni work and the pressure of 4 guys asking him why the mouse cursor wasn't working in week 2 got to him so he bailed. this left us with a 2nd year programmer who worked his ass off to get something together. but it wasn't a working game. what we did was set up our booth to show how games are made, from art, code, my audio. we had tones of kids looking to start making games talking our ears off about it all. when this chuckle brother came over he just shit on us for failing, the Sony guy who im sorry to say I can't remember the name of was amazing and spent an hour chatting with us about how he had the same thing happen basically and that he was so happy to see us at the show and holding our heads up :)
On an unrelated note, I don't understand how 3/5 - 5/10 - 50/100 is considered a "bad" score.
Each of those numbers is literally halfway.
It's neutral. Not awful, not amazing, neutral. Why is that considered "bad"?
QueenofSilence101 they use the logic that schools do like 50% is a F
It's because video game reviewers don't tend to give out 5/10 ratings for actual average games. A game that the reviewer considers average will usually receive around a 7/10 (or equivalent) as a way of helping the developer save face.
Cause fan boys can handle their fav game being rated anything lower than 9. I remember jim Serling got so much backlash for give botw less than a perfect score and I think he gave it like 8 or 9 ?
He gave it a 7/10 so average
I guess it’s easier for people to think about why they don’t like something than why they do. Thus, variations in badness are more significant and memorable than variations in goodness, so the negative side gets a larger range.
Avi Burk reviews Fire Emblem Three Houses and scores it a 1/10: "There is no reason why I should have to wait for my opponents to attack me when I could just run up to them and bash them on the head with my handgun."
Does he not know what "fantasy strategy RPG" means? As in a genre without HANDGUNS?!
Surprised Yakuza isn't Sega's biggest franchise at this point
Pert near, I'm sure. It cracks the top 5 I'd bet
I'm surprised you didn't mention IGN's review of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire criticizing them for having "too much water" or the review comparing Cuphead to Dark Souls.
I honestly didn't know about that at the time of writing, but It'll definetily be going in a follow up episode!
@@Larry Nice!! Enjoyed the video either way!
@@KitsuneYojimbo thank you :)
Wait, do you mean Omega Ruby, or did they do the same damn thing with the original games?
@@JacobMcBaggins Both.
And then T17 tried to make Worms NFTs and were also laughed at
For the first review, I think that a 7.9 would be a better score than a 9.1. A 7.9 says "If you like these kinds of games, then you'll like this game." A 9.1 says "Even if you don't enjoy this type of game, you'll enjoy this one," and considering the score the US branch gave...
10:12 "Now sit back, and enjoy my mouth noises," lmao. But to be honest, you could read the phone book in your accent and I'd listen
The number one factor that people miss when they refuse to accept that their 'opinions' are being attacked is when it's blatantly obvious they've missed the concept entirely.
A recent example of this is the numerous idiots who criticise games like Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen for having a large amount of game time spent travelling -- "because duh dats boring should be more action" - these are NOT action shooters, they are space simulators.
One would wonder if these people would review A-10 Warthog 1/10 because you spend too much time travelling and prepping for flight, and not enough time blowing stuff up.
The CRUCIAL difference people miss is, yes of course, it's fine to hate the above aspects, but it is NOT ok to criticise these aspects as if they are bad game design, when it's clearly an absolutely intended and very important, and desirable element for the target audience.
One can't want it to be Call of Duty in space and then review it badly because it isn't, and was never meant to be.
Should be top comment
Sometimes, just something being "the point" can be a bad thing. An example is Undertale. Sure, it's trying to teach a moral, but if it makes the game purposefully shitty, why make a game? A video game should be fun, not a boring slog because MUH MORALS IT'S BAD TO SELF DEFEND YOURSELF! It implies all people like Vlad the Impailer of Adolf Hitler need is a hug and they won't be bad. And if you kill and go through Genocide, goodbye Undertale unless you mess with the files.
If it's something that's doing its job without being intentionally awful, then that's good, but if your intention is to be shit... Why?
Goken I know this’s 2 years old, so forgive me for my intrusion, but the only route in Undertale that I’d consider a boring slog is the Genocide run, and that’s only because you *intentionally* go out of your way to kill every single monster in the game. Which I wouldn’t see why anyone would do besides to just get all the possible endings.
That, and you can just do a middle-grounded Neutral run, which plays like any other RPG, or a Pacifist run, which’s basically a pure bullet hell game. Both of which I had loads of fun with due to how creative and varied the enemies and bullet hell combat was, especially the boss battles, which add unique mechanics that’re exclusive to them.
Plus, you’re taking Undertale’s message way too much at face value, because it isn’t saying that all people aren’t bad, but that there’s ways to solve issues without always resorting to violence. Like sure, you could kill the most evil and heartless character in the game, Flowey, but then you’ll never learn why Flowey ended up the way he did or his tragic backstory. And none of the other characters are truly ‘evil’ either, but are simply either misguided, like Undyne and Asgore, or simply want to escape from the hellhole that humans have trapped them inside of for years.
I doubt some rando from 2 years in the future will change your mind, but I just hope you can give Undertale a bit more credit, because while it didn’t execute its message *perfectly,* as the Genocide route is still shiet, I feel like it still did so relatively well. And if not, then that’s entirely fine, since lords know I won’t try to change your mind.
Remember that Bubsy 3D was rated 95% in a game magazine and given the golden X award
Felipe Jaquez xd
Wasn't that an april 1st magazine?
I loved Bubsy on Sega, so my dad got me Bubsy 3D on PS1 for Christmas once... He didn't even know how to play games and he was like the Angry Video Game Nerd watching me play it ahahaha, pissed off he spent $70.
Have to say our family has never laughed so much so it was worth it. That is definitely something I miss, no internet meant no info/reviews so when you got a game for Christmas you had no idea what you were putting in lol.
According to NitroRad, that article is real. That EGM quote on the box, however; was from the preview of the game and should not be mentioned to any EGM alumnus. A few issues after the EGM preview, the average score for that game was 2.0-ish. (EGM had four different reviewers per game at this point, and 5.0 was the average score that they continued to reaffirm until they switched to a letter grade system in 2007 I think.)
also PSXtreme (the magazine) isn't to be confused with PSX Extreme - which started three years after Bubsy 3D was released. the biggest irony is that Bubsy as a series outlived EGM (a magazine that started since like 1989) and nearly every other game magazine in the industry (with the exception of GameInformer, because it's a GameStop-owned magazine.)
@@radiantfalcongamevision1113 Nice try buddy, you put that quote on the box for a few $'s and karma bit you in the ass for lying for cash.
For those wondering on Bubsy 3D there's an EGM quote - "Stunning, original, Bubsy 3D climbs back to the top". Nowhere does that mention a demo, you lied then and you lie now, a leopard doesn't change it's spots.
I feel one of the most suspicious reviews is IGN’s Explorers of Sky, it’s clear the reviewer never played to the point on even the main conflict, and was likely still in the “tutorial section” complaining about a “generic story” when that is far from the truth, and all of the pros and cons were about the new content so it’s like they didn’t even bother looking at the game itself and just googled “what is new in Explorers of Sky” then wrote a whiny review
You checked the review and then made a comment on this video referring to it hence leading more to search it out.
You have advertised for IGN and done nothing for the game as your leading people to a damming review
I've always hated how game review scores are so inflated. Amiga Power was right, 50% should be the average.
Yeah, and half of all students should automatically fail.
I think it comes from school grading systems. That, or perhaps it’s because it’s fundamentally easier to think about and describe why you don’t like something than why you do; thus, there’s a greater range in the bad direction, giving it a larger chunk of the scale.
it's school grading systems.
@@KnakuanaRka Yeah, but that's retarded.
i've always thought that traditional games media reviewers (and often influencers in general) were a bunch of pompous, snobbish, bought, superfluous and consistently overrated knownothings who think that every game has to be for them. and if a game isnt for them it has to be "bad". i've never understood why their opinions should matter any more than anybody else's. but to each their own. i prefer to make up my own mind. at this point its undeniable that games journalism is at least in part "unethical".
One of the only magazines I used to trust was Sega Saturn Magazine. Official yeah but they often shat on bad games, even Sega made/published ones. But i remember seeing huge disparity in the scores from other magazines and you could pick out which writers were pro/anti systems and publishers.
I never, ever ever use IGN or RT to see if I will like a game or film. It's the forums for me if I am on the fence.
Seeing how publishers buy goodwill and censor reviews, have embargoes etc, really stinks to me. Look at what happened to Cyberpunk and Aliens CM. Two games I was super excited for.
It's a refreshing change to see that games journalists aren't always wrong because they're corrupt; sometimes, they're just incompetent.
I was kind of expecting one candidate to be the depression quest controversy, but I'm kinda glad it didn't appear. No need shining lights on fading stars.