A Game Journalist Breakdown - Rant

[BrawlMan]

Handing these games 7/10 as a baseline seems pretty fair.

Because it won't effect their bottom line and they continue to get the freebies and advertising. Fuck them.

Yahtzee's review of Sonic x Shadow is shit and misses the point of the side game, and character of Shadow. Bringing up dumb old outdated mock memes of the game, thus he following the status quo of just saying the same thing other professionals say about the game or how they're indifferent or have an axe to grind about the franchise. Dude goes on about how this game "copied" Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury menu/title design. WTF are you going on about Yahtzee? That has nothing to do with anything, and you're just looking for shit to cry about.

He's out of touch too when it comes to certain games or franchises. The man has made it clear he really doesn't like Sonic, and especially Shadow, so he really shouldn't be reviewing these. The echo chamber in his comments also miss the point of the Shadow campaign in particular, and his well developed arc.

 

[Worgen]

Star Wars Outlaws
Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League
Foamstars
Skull and Bones
Concord
South Park Snow Day
Hellblade 2

No
maybe
Thats AAA?
no
not sure if bad or just came out without marketing
maybe
no.

 

[Worgen]

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.

If you are trying to be objective, then you cannot, but subjectively, your wrong opinion is your own.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

If you are trying to be objective, then you cannot, but subjectively, your wrong opinion is your own.

Your opinion is just as wrong as mine.

 

[Worgen]

Your opinion is just as wrong as mine.

That is objectively not true.

 

[BrawlMan]

BTW, on that IGN God Hand 3/10 review: the mother-fucker never completed the game. He didn't even make it past the first stage. The fucker even mentioned this in the original review.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

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.

The thing about RDR2 is it’s basically a tale of two games. There’s the story missions, which are specifically tailored the way the devs wanted to follow the narrative. Then there’s the free roam stuff, where the player is free to do whatever the hell they want. This dichotomy rarely overlaps, and it’s a surprise the few times it does. Most people wouldn’t even know because the game trains the player to not stray from the mission so much.

That said, regardless of the above differences there’s one part of the gameplay where Rockstar outdid themselves, and that’s with the horses.

 

[Agema]

Because it won't effect their bottom line and they continue to get the freebies and advertising. Fuck them.

No, I think they genuninely are worth 7/10.

I watch The Mighty Jingles YouTube channel, I've seen him play through Star Wars: Outlaws. It's obviously okay. Does nothing special, unoriginal, got a few bugs, some of the controls and mechanics aren't as good as they could be... but it's smooth enough, decent graphics, players can still wander across a huge gameplay area sneaking and shooting and upgrading and levelling and quest completing all in adequate or better fashion that many could happily enjoy.

* * *

Another way of looking at this is to consider what a full range means. 0/10 effectively means there is no game worth playing, so that is a start point for how damaged a game must be. 1/10 is next to unplayable. 2/10 is critically broken. 3-4/10 there might be something there, but it's overwhelmed by what's wrong with it. Realistically, everything up to about 5/10 is a game with flaws so massive and/or common that they will severely test a player's will to engage with it. (Most major publishers will likely not even release a big game that damaged, because of the hit to their reputation.)

So where does mere mediocrity actually sit, a game that's not broken, just merely "okay"? Again, we probably are talking about 7/10. We can discuss expectations all we like, and that a game developed for that much money should be so much better, but ultimately, to punish it for that is not reviewing it for what it is.

 

[Dreiko]

The thing about RDR2 is it’s basically a tale of two games. There’s the story missions, which are specifically tailored the way the devs wanted to follow the narrative. Then there’s the free roam stuff, where the player is free to do whatever the hell they want. This dichotomy rarely overlaps, and it’s a surprise the few times it does. Most people wouldn’t even know because the game trains the player to not stray from the mission so much.

That said, regardless of the above differences there’s one part of the gameplay where Rockstar outdid themselves, and that’s with the horses.

RDR2 for me was like a fun camping and hunting sim interrupted by story every now and then.

 

[Satinavian]

Hm, difficult topic.

But let me just evaluate it at the example of Veilguard, a game i have not yet played.


I did really like the old Dragon ages, particularly Origin, so i was interested and have read some reviews and seen some youTube takes. What are my impressions ?

- Well, a couple of them concentrate on culture war nonsense : That is not relevant information for me, those get disregarded

- Most put the combat into action RPG territory. One lauded it as best of all Dragon Age games, with each iteration becoming better, others lamented moving away from CRPG like combat of Origins, some were neutral : That is good information for me. I don't like action RPGs all that much and found Origins combat the best.

- Some said that the combat is uninspired, enemy variety is lacking and it gets boring and tedious when the game drags on. Several commented to reduce difficulty to make the fights go just faster. : That is also good information, and coming from way more sources than ones lauding combat, it makes me wary.

- Many sources call the writing poor or even the weakest part of the game, not the single one defends it. One source said that the last mission writing was good in contrast to the rest of the game : That is important and very concering.

- One source claimed that the companions were interesting without going into details. One claimed that one companion (Emmerich) was good, but noch the rest. Several claimed that all companions were weak, infantile and forgettable. Several sources provided interaction scenes that were extremely cringeworthy.

- Several sources complained about lore and continuity. None defended it. It looked like everyone who cared for this at all (which certainly is not everyone) didn't like it.

- Some early sources complained about the character creator. It honestly looks mediocre. I won't agree to the "can't make attractive characters" thing but it does look like something i could have ten years ago in other games. : Not a selling point but not a dealbreaker.

- There was hardly any mentioning of bugs. So it is probably pretty stable and bugfree.


So overall, i do feel somewhat informed and i do feel like only getting the game at a huge discount. I also do feel that only the combination of classic reporting and amateur YouTubers and bloggers got me a round picture.

 

[BrawlMan]

think they genuninely are worth 7/10.

Yeah, have fun with that or those. Most of them are not worth that number to me. You can't convince to me otherwise.

 

[Agema]

Yeah, have fun with that or those. Most of them are not worth that number to me. You can't convince to me otherwise.

That's fine, but reviewers aren't writing reviews for you. They're writing them for everyone. Any review of a game that is outside the scope of what an individual likes to play is irrelevant, because they are never going to play that game irrespective of the review, and the review isn't for those individuals.

We might consider that from one perspective, if the professional critic score comes close to the mean player score, arguably they got it about right. Although of course professional critics might also apply various criteria that could lead to difference from the average player score. Question is what those criteria are, and how well the reviewer justifies them.

My feeling is that a good review can very reasonably opine that a game should be better for the money spent on it. However at the same time penalising a game in its score for that same reason seems to me dubious, because it's not assessing the qualities of the game that contribute to the player experience.

 

[BrawlMan]

That's fine, but reviewers aren't writing reviews for you. They're writing them for everyone

I am not asking to write review for me nor one particular group. It still doesn't excuse shitty reviews methods, lying/underselling features or problems, rushing out reviews without spending much time on longer games/barely cracking the surface for the sake of getting there first for view counts (as pointed out by Dunkey), and not to mention a good amount of these professionals didn't finish games they gave dishonest low scores to games they didn't like, nor deserved such a low score, but weren't glitchy nor game breaking. All you're doing side stepping the issue and making up shitty excuses for their lack of ethics and their intellectual dishonesty.

All they are doing is "preaching to the choir/saying what everyone wants to hear!" with the least amount of risks, unless a game is really really shitty, or not tied to their web site advertising. There's a good reason everyone brings up the Jeff getting fired GameSpot disaster. Ironic, because he became the monster he hated and was fighting. Everyone on Giant Bomb, including the users on the forums, became GameSpot 2.0. Holding back on criticisms not to upset either his colleagues, the developers/publishers of a certain game, whatever, etc. When he was all piss and vinegar about never holding back and "telling it like it is".

I will hear nothing else otherwise.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

No, I think they genuninely are worth 7/10.

I watch The Mighty Jingles YouTube channel, I've seen him play through Star Wars: Outlaws. It's obviously okay. Does nothing special, unoriginal, got a few bugs, some of the controls and mechanics aren't as good as they could be... but it's smooth enough, decent graphics, players can still wander across a huge gameplay area sneaking and shooting and upgrading and levelling and quest completing all in adequate or better fashion that many could happily enjoy.

* * *

Another way of looking at this is to consider what a full range means. 0/10 effectively means there is no game worth playing, so that is a start point for how damaged a game must be. 1/10 is next to unplayable. 2/10 is critically broken. 3-4/10 there might be something there, but it's overwhelmed by what's wrong with it. Realistically, everything up to about 5/10 is a game with flaws so massive and/or common that they will severely test a player's will to engage with it. (Most major publishers will likely not even release a big game that damaged, because of the hit to their reputation.)

So where does mere mediocrity actually sit, a game that's not broken, just merely "okay"? Again, we probably are talking about 7/10. We can discuss expectations all we like, and that a game developed for that much money should be so much better, but ultimately, to punish it for that is not reviewing it for what it is.

A reasonable take, on the internet, in this day and age. Always happy to see it.

 

[Agema]

I am not asking to write review for me nor one particular group. It still doesn't excuse shitty reviews methods, lying/underselling features or problems, rushing out reviews without spending much time on longer games/barely cracking the surface for the sake of getting there first for view counts (as pointed out by Dunkey), and not to mention a good amount of these professionals didn't finish games they gave dishonest low scores to games they didn't like, nor deserved such a low score, but weren't glitchy nor game breaking. All you're doing side stepping the issue and making up shitty excuses for their lack of ethics and their intellectual dishonesty.

And how much is this actually occurring? Is this 50% of reviews? 20%? 10%? 5%? And which reviews are corrupted? It's easy to throw nebulous accusations, but where's the real evidence of this?

Do reviewers need to finish a game to review it? And for some games, what does this even mean? Ending the main quest? Ending the main quest and doing all the side quests? Do they need to max out their levels, and skills in every skill/tech tree so they know what they all do, and pick up and test every item with every mod? In practice, the idea they have to "finish" a game is potentially absurd and meaningless. Not least because of the economics of it: the effort required to fully delve into slower or complex games (think some strategy and RPG) is likely not worth it, because the article won't be worth the salary cost of so many hours sunk in. They need to play enough of a game to get a good enough of an idea to write a review, which may be substantially less than all of the game. And that is fine.

Nor can or should reviewers be robbed of their opinions. They should have some right to like or dislike a game in ways many of their audience might disagree with and say so, without being called dishonest and unethical. If they genuinely are dishonest and unethical, then let's see the evidence indicating they lied rather trial-by-media them and their entire profession into the dirt.

If they are pressed to get a review out to be amongst the first, presumably because page clicks equals ad revenue equals them getting paid, why are we slagging them off? Who's making this situation? The reviewers will be a very small part. The publishers could be blamed, likely they set deadlines and that deadline is probably bad enough for a reviewer, who might of course also want a work/life balance. But also consider, so could us as the public be blamed, because we're the ones happy to click on the shitty, as-fast-as reviews that makes such a business model work.

Here's the thing: if we want ethical, reasonable, fair and honest game journalism, then it behoves us to have those standards in criticism of game journalism. Otherwise, we are exactly what we criticise and we can go fuck ourselves just as much as the game journalists can.

 

[BrawlMan]

Yeah, I'm not reading all that nor do I care at this point. I got work to do. You don't like or disagree with what I have to say on this then it's not my problem. Your argument is making excuses for their shitty work ethics and behavior. We're done here as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

> Do reviewers need to finish a game to review it? And for some games, what does this even mean? Ending the main quest? Ending the main quest and doing all the side quests? Do they need to max out their levels, and skills in every skill/tech tree so they know what they all do, and pick up and test every item with every mod? In practice, the idea they have to "finish" a game is potentially absurd and meaningless. Not least because of the economics of it: the effort required to fully delve into slower or complex games (think some strategy and RPG) is likely not worth it, because the article won't be worth the salary cost of so many hours sunk in. They need to play enough of a game to get a good enough of an idea to write a review, which may be substantially less than all of the game. And that is fine.

I know this wasn't meant for me but it's an interesting question.
I used to think a good reviewer should finish a game, which mains critical path plus a significant amount of meaningful side content (which cannot be easily defined given how wildly different games are but I could confidently detail that for any game I have finished), and I still do think that for smaller games because I strongly believe that endings are the most underrated and underconsidered aspect of video games.

But now as games get so damn long... nah, insisting on finishing a game is crazy. I just think a review should outline what was played. "I was able to get through most of the campaign and a good amount of side content, putting in about 30 hours of play time" or something.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Everyone know game reviews and journalism is a joke.

Even Dunkey is making fun of the new Mario and Luigi game getting a 5/10.

"Five out of ten!!! That's lower than the scoring system even goes!"

 

[BrawlMan]

know this wasn't meant for me but it's an interesting question.
I used to think a good reviewer should finish a game, which mains critical path plus a significant amount of meaningful side content (which cannot be easily defined given how wildly different games are but I could confidently detail that for any game I have finished), and I still do think that for smaller games because I strongly believe that endings are the most underrated and underconsidered aspect of video games.

But now as games get so damn long... nah, insisting on finishing a game is crazy. I just think a review should outline what was played. "I was able to get through most of the campaign and a good amount of side content, putting in about 30 hours of play time" or something.

I'll make exceptions for certain multiplayer games, If a game is really buggy and prone to crashing, or if the game play loop is that bad. For long games, just do the main line quests, or take more time for your review if needed. It's not that hard. Have people on rotation that help out. For single and contract reviewers. This is more understandable, but for those that actually work at large publishing companies have no excuses.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

I'll make exceptions for certain multiplayer games, If a game is really buggy and prone to crashing, or if the game play loop is that bad. For long games, just do the main line quests, or take more time for your review if needed. It's not that hard. Have people on rotation that help out. For single and contract reviewers. This is more understandable, but for those that actually work at large publishing companies have no excuses.

Well... look, I'm not making "excuses" but...

Sometimes I'll be listening to a stream or podcast or something and I'll here an observation like "this game just came out a couple weeks ago and no one's talking about it!" The internet moves so damn fast that it's just incongruous with how long it takes to play some games and get a good sense of them.
Then there's also the fact that some games play better with different pacing, like how some TV shows go down better in weekly installments vs "binging." I believe for example this is primary disconnect between some of the big story based games like Veilguard, the Horizon games, and AssCreeds selling tons of copies while being critically panned or dismissed, and disregarded by a lot of gamers- these experiences are completely different if you just play a couple hours every few days than if you "have" to "get through" it (I would totally hate Veilguard if I tried to blow through it in a couple of days, but instead I'm enjoying banging through a couple quests every few days).

Big outlets are just as subject to THE ALGORITHM and attention as individual creators. Again- that's not an "excuse" but it's reality and why they are going to rush through reviews, and why what is sometimes criticized as "access journalism" is conflated with the very real concern about getting copies of the game so close to release.

It's probably no small factor that the two reviewers I listen to every week- Yahtzee and SkillUp- also have the luxury to review whatever they want when they want to, because they have earned the ability to drive their own decisions by providing other types of content than just pure game reviewers (Yahtzee with his humor and SkillUp with his weekly news update).

And of course I like reading what you guys say even I bust balls. We don't have deadlines and algorithms and all that crap.

I don't think you can honestly just say well IGN can review whatever they want, they have time. They actually don't.

"Game journalism is a joke" is the kind of declaration that feels good to yell but it is silly and meaningless actually. One of the most popular threads here is the one about Gaming News- it is a shrine to gaming journalism. It is like the constant complaints about all THE MEDIA but we gotta get our news from somewhere.