Yooka-Laylee reviews are coming out and thoughts are ...mixed

TrulyBritish

New member
Jan 23, 2013
473
0
0
Callate said:
Anyone who wants to argue that review scores don't matter might want to take up that question with the folks at Obsidian.
At no point should reviewers or consumers feel like they should have to give higher reviews to help developers get their bonus. It is an absolutely shitty business practice and is wholly the fault of the publisher.
At no point should reviewers feel like they should give higher scores to satisfy publishers demands.
 

Buffoon1980

New member
Mar 9, 2013
136
0
0
Winnosh said:
I'll say this about reviews. You go to a review to see if the critic liked it and why. You don't go to a review to see if You like it.
This is the most important post here.

For example, I almost never agree with Angry Joe and in fact he irritates me quite a lot, but after I watch one of his reviews I have a very good idea whether I'll like the game in question or not.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,231
239
68
Joccaren said:
CaitSeith said:
Sorry, but from where did you get that professional reviewer guideline? What authority is in charge of establishing how professional reviews should or shouldn't be? Who is your qualified and properly certified source for accurately "professional review" standards?
Professional review; Creates reviews to be useful to others.
Otherwise, you're not different from a Metacritic user review. If we have any distinction between professional and hobbyist at all, that's the minimum it really can be. Put effort into it, take pride in your work, and make it to help others.
1. Again, citation from a professional source needed.
2. Who says Jim's reviews aren't useful others (besides people who think like you)? They are useful for his audience and people with the same biases as him.
Joccaren said:
Its like asking who creates the distinction between professional game devs and hobbyist game devs. Technically, every single person who sells a game for money is a professional game dev, even Digital Homicide. I think we all agree there is a world of difference between them, and those who are at least somewhat trained in the profession, who create very different types of work.

I ain't putting out a full set of guidelines of "Thy review must contain thus", I'm just saying that if you want to be professional, you should be taking it seriously as your job - taking pride in your work, and creating it to be as useful to others as it can be.
A reviewer trying to write reviews useful for everyone is like a niche game developer trying to appeal a wider audience. Most often than not, the games end up generic and losing whatever distinct appeal that made them desirable for the niche audience in the first place.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
That's just a really shitty business practice. Bonuses should be given based on sales as how much something sells is really the only true metric for how successful it was. I'm sure a publisher would be far happier with a game selling millions of units with whatever score vs a game that sold under a million but had literally a 100 Metacritic score. I don't think a bonus given to creators based on critic score has ever been done in any other medium because of how backwards stupid it is.
Oh, I'd be surprised if there hadn't been something similar in another medium, somewhere along the line. Studios invest in movies that are more likely to get critical acclaim than huge box office numbers, for example, because it's likely to bring acclaim to the studio, to the people associated, and by association to future projects. "From the studio that brought you x" or "the producers of y" is not at all an uncommon phrase. In some cases it may be trying to make lemons into lemonade- trying to recoup some sort of benefit from a "sleeper hit" that was a critical darling but a financial failure- but not always.

And similarly, one doesn't necessarily want to be permanently associated with financially successful but critically panned Michael-Bay style blockbusters, either- if perhaps only because one might eventually want to do something else and creative people tend to burn out if they're constantly set to work on "popular" work that they hate.

TrulyBritish said:
At no point should reviewers or consumers feel like they should have to give higher reviews to help developers get their bonus. It is an absolutely shitty business practice and is wholly the fault of the publisher. At no point should reviewers feel like they should give higher scores to satisfy publishers demands.
Saying that something shouldn't happen doesn't eliminate a chain of consequence. If only it were so.

I wouldn't argue that a critic should necessarily change their score if they truly felt it was a fair and accurate representation of the product they were reviewing, any more than I would suggest an artist should change their work into something they didn't feel represented their vision.

But I would argue strenuously against the misguided "virtue" of presuming that a review is a thing without weight or consequence, any more than any other piece of art or writing. And in some cases- probably many cases- it might be well considered to sit on a review for a day, especially if it's especially high or low, and reflect on whether it is a fair reflection of the work it examines. Or if, perhaps, other environmental factors in one's life caused one to project something more extreme than was warranted.

And if after that reflection, the view is still that it's an accurate summation, pull the trigger.

But considering the amount of time, money, and effort that goes into most creative work- versus the time it takes for a review to be written and impact its fortunes- it's not in the least bit unreasonable to suggest that such reflection take place.

And it's unfortunate that Internet-based media in particular tends to prioritize speed over consideration in such matters.

CaitSeith said:
And I add, to remember that it's an exception, and it's not a reviewer's or consumer's issue. It's an issue between the developer and the publisher, with the later to blame.
Actually, we don't know that it's an exception. We just know that it's an instance where it actually came to light.

It does, however, seem to me one more argument against regarding reviews as merely opinions without weight or consequence for their creators to consider.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
1,867
987
118
Country
United States
Callate said:
Phoenixmgs said:
That's just a really shitty business practice. Bonuses should be given based on sales as how much something sells is really the only true metric for how successful it was. I'm sure a publisher would be far happier with a game selling millions of units with whatever score vs a game that sold under a million but had literally a 100 Metacritic score. I don't think a bonus given to creators based on critic score has ever been done in any other medium because of how backwards stupid it is.
Oh, I'd be surprised if there hadn't been something similar in another medium, somewhere along the line. Studios invest in movies that are more likely to get critical acclaim than huge box office numbers, for example, because it's likely to bring acclaim to the studio, to the people associated, and by association to future projects. "From the studio that brought you x" or "the producers of y" is not at all an uncommon phrase. In some cases it may be trying to make lemons into lemonade- trying to recoup some sort of benefit from a "sleeper hit" that was a critical darling but a financial failure- but not always.

And similarly, one doesn't necessarily want to be permanently associated with financially successful but critically panned Michael-Bay style blockbusters, either- if perhaps only because one might eventually want to do something else and creative people tend to burn out if they're constantly set to work on "popular" work that they hate.

TrulyBritish said:
At no point should reviewers or consumers feel like they should have to give higher reviews to help developers get their bonus. It is an absolutely shitty business practice and is wholly the fault of the publisher. At no point should reviewers feel like they should give higher scores to satisfy publishers demands.
Saying that something shouldn't happen doesn't eliminate a chain of consequence. If only it were so.

I wouldn't argue that a critic should necessarily change their score if they truly felt it was a fair and accurate representation of the product they were reviewing, any more than I would suggest an artist should change their work into something they didn't feel represented their vision.

But I would argue strenuously against the misguided "virtue" of presuming that a review is a thing without weight or consequence, any more than any other piece of art or writing. And in some cases- probably many cases- it might be well considered to sit on a review for a day, especially if it's especially high or low, and reflect on whether it is a fair reflection of the work it examines. Or if, perhaps, other environmental factors in one's life caused one to project something more extreme than was warranted.

And if after that reflection, the view is still that it's an accurate summation, pull the trigger.

But considering the amount of time, money, and effort that goes into most creative work- versus the time it takes for a review to be written and impact its fortunes- it's not in the least bit unreasonable to suggest that such reflection take place.

And it's unfortunate that Internet-based media in particular tends to prioritize speed over consideration in such matters.

CaitSeith said:
And I add, to remember that it's an exception, and it's not a reviewer's or consumer's issue. It's an issue between the developer and the publisher, with the later to blame.
Actually, we don't know that it's an exception. We just know that it's an instance where it actually came to light.

It does, however, seem to me one more argument against regarding reviews as merely opinions without weight or consequence for their creators to consider.
Might as well mandate 10/10 across the boards then for all metacritic sites, and go back to "journalistic outlets" being wholly owned by the publishers. Here's Battlefront 2's 10/10 review brought to you by "EA Power!"
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Callate said:
CaitSeith said:
And I add, to remember that it's an exception, and it's not a reviewer's or consumer's issue. It's an issue between the developer and the publisher, with the later to blame.
Actually, we don't know that it's an exception. We just know that it's an instance where it actually came to light.

It does, however, seem to me one more argument against regarding reviews as merely opinions without weight or consequence for their creators to consider.
None of this makes it any less the publishers fault, because while you keep dancing around the issue by framing it as "reflection", or consideration, none of that changes that the practical effect of what your suggesting is still for reviewers to make their scores with the Publisher linked bonuses in mind, so some factor outside the game itself, and adjusting them unless they meet some arbitrary level of reflection that of course can't be defined or quantified in any sort of realistic manner. It comes off as little more than an emotional excuse to justify people bitching about scores they don't agree with, just draping it in a flimsy intellectual excuse to hide the fact that there is zero way to meaningfully decide whether or not a reviewer has given their score proper reflection.

Jim spent quite a bit of time explaining and expanding both his Zelda and Yooka-Laylee reviews in followup podcasts, to the point that it would be very hard to argue that he didn't give them proper "reflection" by any reasonable measure in his initial reviews.

So they have weight and consequence? So what? The practical effect you are proposing would destroy much of their weight in favor of either some kind of nebulous score homogenization to protect an entirely outside system controlled by the publishers, or if unenforced by the public, an arbitrary level of justification to satisfy some imaginary gatekeepers to prove they gave their review the proper level of reflection. Meaningless either way, either reviewers are kowtowing scores to forces outside the game, or they change nothing and merely meet some arbitrary standard of effort that the public will never agree on a unified meaning of.
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
CaitSeith said:
1. Again, citation from a professional source needed.
Go check the definition of "Professional". It isn't just "Does this for money", but refers to a specific type of conduct related to appearing 'professional'. I'm saying the minimum that code of conduct really can be. Unless you have another way to differentiate professional reviewers from general metacritic reviews via code of conduct - the context of which I am using 'professional' in rather than just 'does this for money', as has been made clear many times.
Rather than just 'citation needed', how's about we actually bring something to the discussion?

2. Who says Jim's reviews aren't useful others (besides people who think like you)? They are useful for his audience and people with the same biases as him.
Who say's they're useful to anyone? I'm going to need citation from a professional source thanks. /s

Useful to people with the same biases as him; not really. If you have the same bias, you already know how you're going to feel. Useful for his audience? Arguable, depends on the game. Some of his reviews have been informative. His most recent one, not so much. Hence where we got into this whole argument.
And, again, the entirety of the usefulness in the review is "Its a 90s platformer, I don't like them", which he says in the opening 20 words. The rest of it is trying to pass off his personal opinion as objective fact, and restating that opening line in a slightly different way each paragraph.
It could have been much shorter and had the exact same amount of content, and would have appeared ironically less biased as it would have been quite obviously an opinion review rather than one that tries and fails to be somewhat objective in talking about how badly designed things are, but that has little idea what they're talking about while talking to the appeals of a genre they dislike.
Or, it could have been just as long, and tried to give objective useful information - and made that objective, useful information actually objective and useful. Doing the in between is just pointless and stupid.

A reviewer trying to write reviews useful for everyone is like a niche game developer trying to appeal a wider audience. Most often than not, the games end up generic and losing whatever distinct appeal that made them desirable for the niche audience in the first place.
Not really. A reviewer trying to create a review that is liked by everyone maybe, but a review doesn't need to be liked to be useful. You can do a million different styles of review still, and have a million different final judgements on the game. Unless the defining feature of your review is that it has no relevant information for the readers - in which case I'd question what your niche is and why you even write reviews - it is perfectly possible to include more accurate or more relevant information in your review, and make it more useful to everyone, whilst keeping your style and opinions.
Again, I ain't saying you've got to write your review in a university essay format. You've just got to include some actual info in there. I'm not saying you can't have your own personal opinion there, or have it overshadow everything. I'm just saying make it informative as well. Hell, I'm not even saying that. I'm saying that if you want to be professional and pretend to have any level of objective output to say about games, have the decency to make it actually somewhat objective and informative. If you're just giving your opinion, just give your opinion, make it clear its your opinion, and don't bother repeating it for 3 pages unless you actually have something new to say each time.
And, preferably, don't do the stupid reviews where you grab a game you know you're going to dislike and review it for the sake of it, people probably go to you for reviews on the things you do like as they like them to and are more informed about them. Nothing stopping you from writing such a review, but there's also nothing stopping me, or a lot of other people, from calling you stupid for doing so.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,240
2,832
118
Country
United Kingdom
Joccaren said:
Useful to people with the same biases as him; not really. If you have the same bias, you already know how you're going to feel.
What? No you don't, if you haven't yet played the game.

If you generally value the same things as him, and he plays a game before you can and tells you about his experience, that could quite clearly be useful in letting you know if you're going to enjoy it.

Joccaren said:
Useful for his audience? Arguable, depends on the game. Some of his reviews have been informative. His most recent one, not so much. Hence where we got into this whole argument.
And, again, the entirety of the usefulness in the review is "Its a 90s platformer, I don't like them", which he says in the opening 20 words. The rest of it is trying to pass off his personal opinion as objective fact, and restating that opening line in a slightly different way each paragraph.
Nowhere does it claim objectivity.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,231
239
68
Joccaren said:
Go check the definition of "Professional". It isn't just "Does this for money", but refers to a specific type of conduct related to appearing 'professional'. I'm saying the minimum that code of conduct really can be. Unless you have another way to differentiate professional reviewers from general metacritic reviews via code of conduct - the context of which I am using 'professional' in rather than just 'does this for money', as has been made clear many times.
Rather than just 'citation needed', how's about we actually bring something to the discussion?
Code of conduct? Where can I find that code of conduct? That's what I'm trying to find. You seem to insist being professional is to follow a code of conduct. But you haven't provided an official one (being that in several professions such codes are created by official organizations), and getting you to point me to anything close to it is like pulling teeth.

Joccaren said:
Useful to people with the same biases as him; not really. If you have the same bias, you already know how you're going to feel.
No, I wouldn't. Why? Because I didn't play the game before reading the review. And during his gameplay video of the demo, there was no indication that he was even disliking it. That's the funny thing about criticisms on Jim's review when it was written: pretty much no one had played the game at the time (the game wasn't even released), so all criticism was under the assumption that he doesn't even like the genre (which was hastily deduced only from the review itself).

Joccaren said:
And, again, the entirety of the usefulness in the review is "Its a 90s platformer, I don't like them", which he says in the opening 20 words. The rest of it is trying to pass off his personal opinion as objective fact, and restating that opening line in a slightly different way each paragraph.
Maybe he is restating that opening line over and over so the reader doesn't confuse his opinion as objective facts? No other logical reason to hammering the equivalent of IMO in every paragraph.

Joccaren said:
And, preferably, don't do the stupid reviews where you grab a game you know you're going to dislike and review it for the sake of it, people probably go to you for reviews on the things you do like as they like them to and are more informed about them.
The funny thing is that reviewing games that you know you're going to dislike is more objective than reviewing only games that you like. For example, lots of Breath of the Wild reviews were 9s and 10s with lots of praise and some nitpicks; but very few gave details about the negatives that lots of people found too bothersome to qualify as a mere nitpick (ex. framerate drops, limited initial inventory space, initial stamina restricting running, no weapon durability indicator other than critical state, etc).
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
Silvanus said:
What? No you don't, if you haven't yet played the game.
In the case of Jim's reviews, yeah, you kind of can. Sure, if its a game series he loves like Dynasty Warriors, he's going to give a bunch of info. Take the Yooka Laylee review, and of course he's going to score it badly if he doesn't like 90s platformers. MAYBE if it the exact opposite of a 90s platformer, it might contain something interesting. If you know that you hate 90s platformers though, and you know Jim hates 90s platformers, and he's reviewing a 90s platformer... There's not a lot more to know. As shown by his review that contained little substance outside "90s platformers suck, this is one".

If you generally value the same things as him, and he plays a game before you can and tells you about his experience, that could quite clearly be useful in letting you know if you're going to enjoy it.
The problem is that quite often the news of these things is out there LOOONG before the review. Details of what the game is, whether it has microtransactions, and who its made by are out there long before Jim writes his reviews, and you better believe the reviews are rather predictable based on that information.

Were there new information in the reviews, sure, however there tends not to be, because a lot of reviewers, like Jim, aren't literate in games to a degree where they can write informative stuff.
Sure, if a game advertises itself as one thing, and is something else entirely - you'll learn something from a review like Jim's, but you'd learn that from Metacritic user reviews. Forgive me for expecting a little more from someone who tries to present themself as professional.

Nowhere does it claim objectivity.
You don't need to 'claim' objectivity to imply it. Wording such as "this is a game that assaults the psyche on all possible levels", "I don?t know why creating games that actually looked and felt like retro games was too big an ask for Playtonic, but it?s jarring (and creatively barren) to feature a bunch of ?arcade? games that look just like the regular game", "Many of the puzzles are tricky not because they?ve been designed to be, but because the game is so terrible at visual communication", and so on. Now, saying "It felt jarring to feature a bunch of arcade games - ect" would be fair enough - you've implied that its your experience. Saying it IS jarring and creatively barren implies objective fact, which his statements are not. The same goes for the language throughout the review. Its very much a "This IS bad" than "I didn't like it".

CaitSeith said:
Code of conduct? Where can I find that code of conduct? That's what I'm trying to find. You seem to insist being professional is to follow a code of conduct. But you haven't provided an official one (being that in several professions such codes are created by official organizations), and getting you to point me to anything close to it is like pulling teeth.
Don't ask me. In fact, it never specifies that there has to be a legal code of conduct made. Just that they follow conduct that would be expected of a professional. So what is that behaviour? Almost nowhere has that defined. Doesn't stop you from judging someone as professional or not.

You're arguing ridiculous levels of semantics that don't exactly apply, in an obtuse attempt to just dodge the point, because you don't really have any valid response. Rather than dodging around the argument, try and actually address it.

No, I wouldn't. Why? Because I didn't play the game before reading the review. And during his gameplay video of the demo, there was no indication that he was even disliking it. That's the funny thing about criticisms on Jim's review when it was written: pretty much no one had played the game at the time (the game wasn't even released), so all criticism was under the assumption that he doesn't even like the genre (which was hastily deduced only from the review itself).
During the gameplay demo the very things he complained about in the final game existed, just worse. He didn't complain then.
As fpr the assumption that he doesn't like the genre itself... It is outright stated in his review. If you want to ignore the man himself's own words, sure. Be my guest.

Maybe he is restating that opening line over and over so the reader doesn't confuse his opinion as objective facts? No other logical reason to hammering the equivalent of IMO in every paragraph.
Sure, were it to reinforce opinion, but it never is.
However, I powered through to at least see all the worlds on offer, a task rendered difficult only by the horrendous hub world design that makes the simple act of finding levels difficult due to obscure, sometimes bizarre placement.
Sounds like a fairly objective statement to me, but is complaining that the hub world is designed like a 90s platformer; with levels hidden and exploration required to find them.
Combat is brainless, consisting of tapping a single button while enemies walk thoughtlessly into your attacks.
Again, not much "My opinion", more "Objective fact, this is bad" when its literally just saying "This is a 90s platformer"
And on and on for every aspect of the game, rarely if ever saying "I enjoy it", more often saying "The game abuses the player and is bad because its a 90s platformer". No new information is given. It literally just repeats that its a 90s platformer over and over again, but with a negative connotation on it.

Much like he complains about having to trudge through the worlds, I had to trudge through his review as there was nothing relevant there beyond him repeating himself over and over. He criticises it, I think its fair for me to as well.
There's never an equivalent of IMO, he just hammers the fact that 90s platformers are terrible over and over, and words it as if all players should agree with him, that the player is assulted - not him, any player. Its trying to be objective and informative, but is so far from the mark that it becomes unbearably trite whining about not liking something.

The funny thing is that reviewing games that you know you're going to dislike is more objective than reviewing only games that you like. For example, lots of Breath of the Wild reviews were 9s and 10s with lots of praise and some nitpicks; but very few gave details about the negatives that lots of people found too bothersome to qualify as a mere nitpick (ex. framerate drops, limited initial inventory space, initial stamina restricting running, no weapon durability indicator other than critical state, etc).
Hardly. Jim's review is the farthest thing from objective I've seen in a long time, as are most reviews about products that the reviewer knows they're going to hate for relatively arbitrary reasons. Again, funnily enough, IGNs review was more objective than Jim's, and that's just sad.

Not harping on the points that you dislike more also doesn't make a review less objective. I will agree that more emphasis could have been put on the negatives in Zelda, but you know why it wasn't?
Not because it was reviewed well, and people liked it. Because reviewers went purely by their enjoyment of the game, rather than trying to have a review that was actually informative to people. Funnily enough, the exact thing I'm complaining about. It isn't just about negative reviews, but reviews in general, and those reviewers talking about how markers for weapon durability were needed and such wouldn't have at all made their review less helpful for anyone who likes Zelda - however it would have made it more helpful to you. Approach it from the angle of helping people, rather than venting your opinion, and we get better reviews. What I've been saying this whole time.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,240
2,832
118
Country
United Kingdom
Joccaren said:
In the case of Jim's reviews, yeah, you kind of can. Sure, if its a game series he loves like Dynasty Warriors, he's going to give a bunch of info. Take the Yooka Laylee review, and of course he's going to score it badly if he doesn't like 90s platformers. MAYBE if it the exact opposite of a 90s platformer, it might contain something interesting. If you know that you hate 90s platformers though, and you know Jim hates 90s platformers, and he's reviewing a 90s platformer... There's not a lot more to know. As shown by his review that contained little substance outside "90s platformers suck, this is one".
No, that wasn't the core of the argument; the core of the argument was that it had not modernised. I might have enjoyed Metal Gear Solid back in the day, and I might enjoy the stealth genre. But if a company released something mechanically identical today it would be entirely reasonable to say it had not modernised, and mark it down. That would not somehow indicate that I disliked the original, or the genre.

You don't need to 'claim' objectivity to imply it. Wording such as "this is a game that assaults the psyche on all possible levels", "I don?t know why creating games that actually looked and felt like retro games was too big an ask for Playtonic, but it?s jarring (and creatively barren) to feature a bunch of ?arcade? games that look just like the regular game", "Many of the puzzles are tricky not because they?ve been designed to be, but because the game is so terrible at visual communication", and so on. Now, saying "It felt jarring to feature a bunch of arcade games - ect" would be fair enough - you've implied that its your experience. Saying it IS jarring and creatively barren implies objective fact, which his statements are not. The same goes for the language throughout the review. Its very much a "This IS bad" than "I didn't like it"
None of those statements "imply objectivity". They are value judgements. One does not need to specifically state that a statement is an opinion if it is blindingly obvious.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,231
239
68
Joccaren said:
Because reviewers went purely by their enjoyment of the game, rather than trying to have a review that was actually informative to people.
Isn't the purpose of the game to be enjoyable for the player? That's the kind of information I'd rather get from a review before buying a game, as opposite to using just my biases as a guideline and read afterwards if the reviews were right.

Sounds like you're confusing objective with informative and useful.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Ezekiel said:
Silvanus said:
Joccaren said:
In the case of Jim's reviews, yeah, you kind of can. Sure, if its a game series he loves like Dynasty Warriors, he's going to give a bunch of info. Take the Yooka Laylee review, and of course he's going to score it badly if he doesn't like 90s platformers. MAYBE if it the exact opposite of a 90s platformer, it might contain something interesting. If you know that you hate 90s platformers though, and you know Jim hates 90s platformers, and he's reviewing a 90s platformer... There's not a lot more to know. As shown by his review that contained little substance outside "90s platformers suck, this is one".
No, that wasn't the core of the argument; the core of the argument was that it had not modernised. I might have enjoyed Metal Gear Solid back in the day, and I might enjoy the stealth genre. But if a company released something mechanically identical today it would be entirely reasonable to say it had not modernised, and mark it down. That would not somehow indicate that I disliked the original, or the genre.
That's a weak argument. Games don't age. Banjo-Kazooie's gameplay is still enjoyable today, and the problems that are perceivable now were perceivable two decades ago. I've played YL for maybe an hour and a half and I don't even like it very much, but his score honestly seems absurd. Between this and his gushing 9/10 for NieR: Automata (A good game, but come on.), I can't take his judgements seriously.
Da hell are you talking about? Of course games age, games age in all kinds of ways, what was possible and good 20 years ago is different from today, whether its the culture, the technology, or merely building off what came before, games age and things change, what was once acceptable or even good is no longer considered so.

Like graphics, PS1 early polygon models were considered good once, now if you released a new game with the resolution and low poly models of a game like FF7 you would rightly draw far more criticism and the graphics that once influenced scores and garnered praise as cutting edge and revolutionary would either be ignored as an indie throw back or even hurt scores with the fuzzy textures and atrocious resolutions that look even worse on the HD TVs of today. The graphics in games age, what was once considered good looking or at least acceptable, can now seem mediocre or downright ugly.

Or story, contemporary stories can be very popular, but they quickly lose that popularity the older they become, the jokes become dated, the once topical political points become dated or even embarrassing depending on how those debates turned out. A game in the early 90's could have a saxophone playing president, with a save the rainforest message, and jokes about rewinding VHS tapes and that would have been fine and even funny. You release a game like that today, your references and jokes are going to fly over a lot of peoples head or just not appeal to as wide an audience.

Presentation is another aspect that ages, replacing voices with repetitive sounds was just a fact of life in the era where you couldn't fit a fully voice acted cast on to your cartridge, but nowadays you can't get away with that in any sort of AAA release without being remarked on by reviewers, indies with limited budgets can get away with it, but if Ubisoft put out its next Assassin's creed title with no voice acting, they would rightfully catch some shit for it.

Even controls, games like Mario 64 and Banjo-kazooie had wonky cameras and imprecise controls in part because they were on a system with single analog stick controllers, it was acceptable then, but those games aged and we no longer have systems with weird single stick trident controllers. We cut those games slack because they came first, we had nothing to compare them to, no idea how 3d controls and cameras could be done differently, but they aged, and other games came along that showed that those camera and control issues could be done differently or even improved. In 20 years, the games of the 90's absolutely have aged, some things aged very well: sprite art, handheld games, RPGs, etc. and some have aged exceptionally poorly: early polygon art, single analog sticks, fuzzy resolutions that look awful on HD TVs, etc.

Games age, the problems with Banjo-Kazooie are still present today, but critics, and audiences perceptions and patience for these problems has changed greatly as we know have 20 years of games to compare them too.
 

marioandsonic

New member
Nov 28, 2009
657
0
0
I've been playing this game for a couple hours now.

I really do feel like this game is being overly hated. I don't think a masterpiece, and it's a step below the original Banjo-Kazooie games IMO, but it's no Mighty No.9-level failure like some people are saying it is., and it DEFINITELY does not deserve a 2/10.

Heck, the game currently has an 86% user rating on Steam. Now, that's the version I'm playing, and from what I've heard, the PC version is the best version out right now. Maybe the PS4 and XB1 versions are having problems I'm not aware of, but even those versions have a respectable 73 on Metacritic. And I think a mid-70s score is a pretty accurate rating for it.
 

Pseudonym

Regular Member
Legacy
Nov 4, 2020
802
8
13
Country
Nederland
Joccaren said:
Pseudonym said:
Oh no. A huge level of inconsistency in videogame review scores? You know what that means? Nothing. Nothing of any importance at all.

At worst it means we can't accurately gauge whether we'll like a game by some number some guy put on it somewhere. Next we'll have to read the actual review, or read about the game in different places or watch a lets play. That would take less time than it probably cost you to put up that wall of text you got there. I honestly don't get what you think the problem is.
It means that a bunch of reviews are utterly useless. Sure, the world ain't ending, however someone, say Jim, giving a game a 7 means shit all, and reading his reviews give minimal information on the game itself. Essentially, his reviews are useless, and you may as well skip over them and just watch the lets play, or read another review that'll give you exactly the same info his does, but more of it.
This doesn't follow. The written text might be quite useful or just interesting or enjoyable to read. It is only really the score which is useless. And, as far as I'm concerned the score was nearly useless anyway. It is, at best, a way to summarise how good the reviewer thought the game was. If you want to know anything insightful about the game you'll need to read the attached review.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
7,240
2,832
118
Country
United Kingdom
Ezekiel said:
That's a weak argument. Games don't age. Banjo-Kazooie's gameplay is still enjoyable today, and the problems that are perceivable now were perceivable two decades ago. I've played YL for maybe an hour and a half and I don't even like it very much, but his score honestly seems absurd. Between this and his gushing 9/10 for NieR: Automata (A good game, but come on.), I can't take his judgements seriously.
Games don't age? They certainly do. I love Banjo Kazooie (and Tooie) to bits, and enjoyed them a great deal when I replayed them a couple of years ago, long after they came out. But mechanics and graphics have made huge advances since 1998.

Some elements don't age (most importantly design), but others necessarily do as technology has improved and allowed for tighter controls, more complex mechanics, and higher graphical fidelity. Nowadays, we make allowances for these when we replay old games.

NB: I've only just started Yooka-Laylee, and it seems fun to me. This is a general argument, and I'm not necessarily saying Yooka Laylee actually exhibits these problems.