Politeia said:
I think these things are a result of professional critics giving glowing reviews to what is, essentially, the same game every year.
While I understand that scores are relative (You can't know good unless you've seen bad, and playing "Good" makes "bad" recognizable), but...
... Why should a game be panned for being consistant with other games in a series. Not everyone buys every single installment of a game in a franchise. Just because, say, Call of Duty 4 provides the FPS experience you enjoy, and don't feel you need another for what you feel is a "glorified balance/content patch"... well, what about those who are new to the series, or want to see what happens next in the story (No matter how cliche or ridiculous. Some people love that stuff)?
AAA games are given good scores because they
are good games. They may not be innovative, but as far as scoring goes:
Graphical fidelity: They have the most detailed and on-model graphics, as well as above-average Art Direction (Though said art direction tends to be subjective), with the "little things" attention to detail. Some people think we shouldn't have moved beyond 8-bit. Others enjoy seeing the tiny bugs crawling across a surface, or the way things like branches, fur, or hair shift from sudden movement (or wind), without having to rely on cheesy symbolism.
Audio Fidelity: You may not even be aware of all the 'little sounds' made in a game, but they subconsciously draw you into a game. The lack of sound can likewise break it. Of course, it's not fun of being accused of cheating in an FPS because you heard the sound of a door opening and change in sound of the footsteps of your enemy letting you know they entered the building you were in and you turned around and shot them.
Stability: They have been extensively bug-tested to ensure the pretty graphics load properly and sounds play at the right time at the right volume, as well as not crash or glitch out in stupid ways, and when the testers DO miss a bug the community finds, it's usually fixed swiftly. At least not easily. There are exceptions to this, but generally not from EA, Activision, or other Big Names (That aren't Bethesda) in the industry.
Solid Gameplay: They have been extensively playtested to ensure their mechanics and controls work intuitively, are responsive, interact well with each other, and properly exploit their potential. (This is probably the big tripping block that dooms most games to the graveyard between the Indie scene and AAA releases). Unfortunately for a lot of games, a
slight edge that a true AAA game has in this department dooms the game for not equallying it.
Of course, precedent is also important. That's probably the biggest advantage long-standing IPs have over new IPs. The difference between a "Ripoff" and "Game done right" is a matter of perspective, but I feel far too many people are too eager to slap the "Ripoff" label on games that attempt to offer a slightly different flavor on a more publicized game.
Warfighter got panned because it failed to live up to those last to requirements for a AAA game.
