Though Double Toasted/Spill.com perfected that lack of number scoring.
A Game Journalist Breakdown - Rant
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Or consciously. Let's not forget the time that Jeff Gertsman (probably screwed up the spelling there) got fired from Gamespot because he scored Kane and Lynch too low, despite the fact that the magazine was advertising the game, and the publisher threatened to pull their ads over the score.
But "production value' also has merit. Graphics, technical performance, art quality as well as direction, voice acting and mo-cap, visuals, spectacle- this part of video games.
I know it's cool to declare how much we appreciate artistic intention and embrace jank for the greater gamr causes but that's you, some of us also want nice looking things that play well and deliver consistent entertainment sometimes, and that's what mainstream outlets serve- the rest of us.
Y'all want IGN to be like some hardcore weirdo gamr outlet and it's not ever going to be that, that's not what this is.
I know it's cool to declare how much we appreciate artistic intention and embrace jank for the greater gamr causes but that's you, some of us also want nice looking things that play well and deliver consistent entertainment sometimes, and that's what mainstream outlets serve- the rest of us.
Y'all want IGN to be like some hardcore weirdo gamr outlet and it's not ever going to be that, that's not what this is.
They lost that credibility back in 2006 with God Hand as far as I am concerned. Even before that point, they said or complained about some of the dumbest shit. Too much water in Wind Waker my ass.
FTR, YouTubers aren't perfect either and have defended dumb/bad shit too. Behold:
And he did. Max a near month later went on stream going on about how much Avengers sucked and is not a good game. Why wait that long? You're not on Square's payroll. The video is somewhat separate from this, but my point still stands.
Last edited:
Ok here's my idea for a game rating system- it should be based on if it delivers what it promises.
What did Star Wars Outlaws or Marvel's Avengers or Dragon Age Veilguard actually promise the player? Judge it by that, I say.
How do we know what a game promises, what does it mean? Well this is where good writers/reviewers would and do excel.
I'll try an example: Dragon Age Veilguard, the game I'm currently playing.
What did it promise? Well from what I saw in the marketing, it absolutely did NOT promise something "dark" like Origins or some crazy blow up the world maybe hijinks like Baldur's Gate 3. What I saw in the gameplay demos and trailers was an irreverent fantasy adventure with spectacle-driven action combat. So far, it's delivering that.
So my hypothetical review would be a bunch IFs:
IF you like this, IF you care more about this then that, IF you are into whatever, then the scale of if a game delivers is:
Yes, absolutely
Basically yes (if I can think of something contemporaneous and better at it). This would be my review of Veilguard.
No, because it kind of doesn't work (too many bugs, awkward gameplay, etc. Like if Veilguard had slow moving action or it the companion action wheel took forever to load or it onboarded you too slowly)
No, because it fundamentally delivers something else and therefore lied to you (like an RTS game with no serious strategy in it or something)
What did Star Wars Outlaws or Marvel's Avengers or Dragon Age Veilguard actually promise the player? Judge it by that, I say.
How do we know what a game promises, what does it mean? Well this is where good writers/reviewers would and do excel.
I'll try an example: Dragon Age Veilguard, the game I'm currently playing.
What did it promise? Well from what I saw in the marketing, it absolutely did NOT promise something "dark" like Origins or some crazy blow up the world maybe hijinks like Baldur's Gate 3. What I saw in the gameplay demos and trailers was an irreverent fantasy adventure with spectacle-driven action combat. So far, it's delivering that.
So my hypothetical review would be a bunch IFs:
IF you like this, IF you care more about this then that, IF you are into whatever, then the scale of if a game delivers is:
Yes, absolutely
Basically yes (if I can think of something contemporaneous and better at it). This would be my review of Veilguard.
No, because it kind of doesn't work (too many bugs, awkward gameplay, etc. Like if Veilguard had slow moving action or it the companion action wheel took forever to load or it onboarded you too slowly)
No, because it fundamentally delivers something else and therefore lied to you (like an RTS game with no serious strategy in it or something)
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,585
- 3,107
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
God Hand is a bad game with a cool and unique combat system.
It's a game that I enjoy, and actually own on multiple systems, but my enjoyment of it doesn't mean it isn't a bad game.
It's visually ugly, with poor level design and mostly terrible voice acting, characters, and writing. However, the combat system is interesting enough that it elevates the rest of the game to me. Having one exceptionally good element does not fix or excuse every other part of the game being sub-par.
Conversely though, every part of a game being brilliant except for the gameplay also doesn't make for a good game. Like Red Dead Redemption 2 is an amazing artistic and graphical achievement, but it fucking sucks to play and I never got past chapter 2.
I would rather play God Hand than Red Dead Redemption 2, but I also don't think that God Hand is the better game. As someone who likes character action games I enjoy its unique combat system, but without that combat system the game would have absolutely nothing to offer. Red Dead Redemption 2, while I don't like the gameplay, has a tons to offer, which is why it's a beloved game. Bad controls and gameplay are a deal breaker for me, but they aren't for a lot of people, and a good combat system is exciting for me, but it isn't for everyone.
To score a game as objectively as possible (which is what people keep nagging reviewers to do) you have to take all of the elements of the game and give them equal weight. In that sense I can absolutely see how someone would rate God Hand as a 4/10 and Red Dead Redemption 2 as a 9/10, regardless of the fact that I would rather interact with God Hand.
Correction. We've already had this conversation three time already.
The level design is not terrible, just decent and straight forward. You want actual bad level design in these type of games? Play Chaos Legion or DMC2. They're much worse and annoying with their design, than anything God Hand came up with. At least GH has stage variety and different level themes. Voice acting is fine and rightfully cheesy. There was much worse voice acting than that in the PS2 era, and I am tired of repeating myself on this.
I consider GH better than RDR2, and I have no problem saying that. GH don't waste my time with long walking segments nor forces me to play in a strict way. There are action games better than GH, like Devil May Cry 1 & 3-5, Bayonetta 1-2, Viewtiful Joe, Mad World, Anarchy Reigns, Transformers Devastation, Streets of Rage 4, etc., but it's still good.
They gave it a 3/10 BTW. They tried to "correct" they're mistake, with a "second opinion" but it was way too late by that point for IGN, and no was buying their bullshit.
These same IGN assholes also gave Double Dragon Neon a 3/10. Fuck them. God Hand is an 8/10 at best and a 7/10 at worst.Here's the first response to IGN's bullshit review 18 years ago. I still remember everything about it.
Quoting Saurian, the actual uploader and player.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,585
- 3,107
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
It absolutely does. There is literally only one way to play God Hand. It has a freeform combo system, but there's only one way to actually play God Hand, which is to punch and kick literally every enemy on every stage (you just get to pick which punches and kicks to use). You can't do a pacifist run, you can't just rush past all of the enemies, there is fundamentally only one way to play.
This isn't a criticism of the game, just pointing out how silly your observation is when Red Dead Redemption 2 has a lot more variety to approaching situations than God Hand does.
Most action games don't have a pacifist run, so GH is not unique and don't know why it's the outlier in this case. No one was asking for it, so no one bothered nor intended for it.
There are actually some sections you can skip or exploit the exit early without glitching. DMC and Bayonetta do the exact same thing. Enemies you can avoid in DMC, but not all the time. Almost no fights you can skip in damn "reboot".
RDR2 has more options, but you're put on a strict railroad nor can deviate from a main mission or scripted mission. Going off the beaten path for certain missions count as an automatic failure or game over. So yeah, fuck Red Dead 2, and it's much worse in this regard for it. With or without comparison.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,585
- 3,107
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Yes, Red Dead Redemption 2 has a problem of not enough freedom for an open world game. However, you compared it to God Hand and said that God Hand is less strict. This is absolutely 100% wrong. Even though RDR2 lacks freedom in the main missions it still has way more freedom than God Hand does. The gameplay in God Hand is much more strict, and much more linear, and to claim otherwise is silly.
Yeah, I strongly disagree and don't care for this conversation. I am not going back and forth on this, and got shit to do. My opinion, not yours.
All of this is subjective by necessity. "Bringing something new or innovative" is no more subjective than judging whether something is fun or rewarding. Whether points should be given or taken off depends on the individual, how much they value that particular aspect.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,585
- 3,107
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
What kind of freedom does God Hand give you? The freedom to choose what kind of punches and kicks you use. That's it. That's like saying that being able to choose your gun in a linear shooter gives you freedom and a "less strict" gameplay experience. It's a silly argument.
Once again, I find GH a better game than RDR2. Live with it. Oh, and freedom to awesome move combinations in any way choose is better than any "freedom" Red Dead 2 has to offer. I don't care. Plus, Tsushima is better than Red Dead for me as well. The Red Dead fans and Tsushima fans get along great, and I can live with that.
My main point being: IGN sucks and there's many a reasons why a big pivot point happened where gamers as a whole distrusts most outlets. So enough with the derailing bullshit, because it's turning into another back and forth that is getting us nowhere. My opinion. Live with it or don't. Most games in general I'll play over Red Dead 2, regardless of freedom/"freedom" or not.
My main point being: IGN sucks and there's many a reasons why a big pivot point happened where gamers as a whole distrusts most outlets. So enough with the derailing bullshit, because it's turning into another back and forth that is getting us nowhere. My opinion. Live with it or don't. Most games in general I'll play over Red Dead 2, regardless of freedom/"freedom" or not.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,585
- 3,107
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
This isn't derailing, this is literally my point in this thread. In order to be "objective" (which gamers keep demanding) reviewers have to score games based on the individual elements of each game and give each of those elements equal weight, because different elements have different importance to different players.
You and I place more importance on gameplay and game feel, which is why both of us would prefer to play God Hand over Red Dead Redemption 2.
Many other people place more importance on presentation. Graphics, music, art direction, animation quality. Others place a lot of importance on overall game structure, game length, amount of content.
Reviewers have to juggle these separate groups when writing a review meant to cater to the general gamer.
By every possible metric (even accounting for the generation in which each respective game came out) God Hand is sub-par in terms of everything other than its combat system, whereas Red Dead Redemption excels in everything other than its gameplay. If you give an individual point for each element of a game that succeeds Red Dead Redemption 2 blows God Hand out of the water objectively. Subjectively I would much rather play God Hand.
Even as a fan of the game I find IGN's score overall valid when presenting the game to a general audience. The vast majority of people would not like or appreciate God Hand. It's in a niche genre and it's a niche title even within that niche genre.
I can call any fucking game I want "bad". Like Doom Eternal, which is stuffed with terrible jaunts through Hell's gymnasium and had its predecessor's simple, elegant first-person shooter action ruined with far too many gadgets. 6/10 is the best I'd give it.
I wasn't asking for it nor ever wanted it. So it doesn't apply to me.
I most and most others don't. Not even the general gaming audience going by the responses and comments on the second opinion for GH. So there you go. God Hand is a better game for me. End of story.
Agreed, but more of a 5 for me. Shadow Warrior 3 is much better and fun
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,585
- 3,107
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
No one who knows of the existence of God Hand are part of the general gaming audience.
Depends on where you look. Most people didn't like that second opinion video and called out out for the shit it is. Some more than a few are aware of what GH is, even if they've never played it. Though once again, we're getting off topic, I am tired, and I am done for tonight. Believe whatever you want, I don't care.
Okay.
But bear in mind that even deeply mediocre AAA games that underperform often tend to shift maybe 10+ million copies: far more than all but a handful of indie titles ever have. Everyone can buy those much less well selling indie titles just as easily, they're hardly lacking word of mouth, and yet they'll often be an order of magnitude or more lower sales.
There's got to be a reason for this.
The reason is that what we can call AAA mediocrity is what a load of people want to play and it's good enough. Yes, a load of their gameplay is stale. Some mechanics or writing or UI is crocked. But people will go out and play it, and buy it in such quantities that it will probably still turn a profit. That commercial success is telling us that there is something good about it. It might be mediocre compared to equivalents of that type of game, or less revotionary and engaging than predecessor titles. But in the end, it does everything it needs to well enough. If any were genuinely bad games, they would bomb.
Yeah yeah, there are always the purists who want to weep and rage at every title that has $100M spent on it and not revolutionised gaming, demanding it get 3/10. But a gaming journalist at a major outlet needs to recognise everybody. And they can see that a AAA game is very ordinary, and know that even still, it's got enough merits that it will sell many millions of copies. Handing these games 7/10 as a baseline seems pretty fair.