Are Big Games Underachieving Or Are Reviewers Too Harsh?

[bogey_j]

its rare when a big AAA gets above a 9 nowadays

at some next-level shyt like RE7 getting a 7.7.

it's crazy, reviewers aren't afraid to flop big games anymore. seems like just yesterday they were giving out 10's like candy. I mean, even above average tripe like GTA4 was hailed as "the godfather of gaming 10/10" by reviewers when it first came out

since then they've become really cynical and jaded

 

[Kamikaze Revy]

I've put less emphasis on numbered systems over the years. I used to think a game had to be an 8.5 and up to be good. Played quite a few 7's and really enjoyed them. Numbers are mainly used for stannery now more than anything else. I get more out of a pros and cons list with a well written article to support it than I do from numbers.

 

[Fatboi1]

Numbers are mainly used for stannery now more than anything else.

I can't wait to make the review thread for HORIZON 0 DAWN to let people know Sony RuL3z!

 

[daze23]

above 90 should be rare

 

[Thanos]

IMO, the more games that come out, the more comparisons that are going to be made between those games and the games of the past (especially in the same genre). Everything comparison is made to the previous success. (Example)If the Pinnacle was 100, the next game might not have exactly what the other game had, however the game still good. Let's give it 99.9 or some number that symbolize that this game fell a bit short of their expectations. In short, the new 100 is 90.

As for the reviewing process, I rather have full dissection than some numerical score. It does more for people who want to know about the quality of the game.

 

[StatUS]

If it's a 7 and up it's probably an enjoyable game. Stop worrying about it, just play games.

 

[NOYEMI.M2]

Little bit of A, little bit of B. From a technical standpoint, big games are bringing optimizations and pushing the beef of hardware as far as that shyt can go. From a gameplay and style perspective, you could say things on the AAA end are stagnating. But it's always been like that—they only venture out to try new things when it makes financial sense.

And I guess reviewers are trying to move back away from the 7 to 10 scale to actually use the full range of their arbitrary little 10 point scale but I agree with some of the other posters who said lists of pros and cons are better.

 

[Concerning VIolence]

Gamers don't understand what it mean to play a truly terrible game. Games that had gotten 6's or 5's or 3's even 10 years ago meant it was bordering on unplayability. That it was mechanically bad. That you couldn't function any enjoyability.


But nowadays a game like Mafia 3 with trivial cons in it gets a 6, and people insinuating it's simply flat out terrible.


In this current paradigm, games have to be either absolutey trash or the greatest games of all time. There's no inbetween anymore. And the bias/stannery is even more prominent and exaggerrated.

A game can't just be good.

 

[Rekkapryde]

It's clickbait.

shytting on popular games gets more clicks than praising them

 

[firemanBk]

5 is an average game if the scoring scale is being used correctly, so anything above that should be at least above average/solid. Anything above 7 is good though, that's for sure

 

[obarth]

It's another case of people who see their usefulness steadily decreasing trying to justify their existence. You can rent video games nowadays to see if you like them. The average consumer has easier access and knowledge of available demos and betas (though the average consumer doesn't really care about those things). People are gonna play what their friends are playing regardless. Word of mouth sells video games. Every single AAA title that drops has its own community of bloggers to keep you up with news and opinions. You like the Battlefield series? Cool, here's 50 dudes with Youtube channels to keep you up to date with developments. The market for info is huge. So the only way for people to stand out is to say something provocative very loudly. If everyone's hype for something, you wont get as much attention by confirming their hype. You have to say something that goes against expectation. Worst case scenario, a game is as good as advertised. Then you find some fringe shyt to complain about. Yeah the game is great, but the servers couldn't handle the initial rush of gamers, the patch took too long to download, etc. Negativity/cynicism and gaming "journalism" go hand in hand