Are Reviewers Still Afraid To Bomb Big Games?

[bogey_j]

if Fallout 4 was instead a game called 'Wastelander' and wasn't made by bethesda it would've gotten a 6/10 across the board from every major outlet

franchise/developer recognition helps a lot. nintendo's been coasting by on their reputation for years. same shyt is happening with SFV right now. if it wasn't street fighter it would've gotten torn to shreds for its lack of content.

 

[b_low_brown]

Fallout 4 was not no fukkin D-

Terrible example

 

[bogey_j]

Fallout 4 was not no fukkin D-

Terrible example

you're right it was a C-

 

[basketball reasons]

Yes, big time publishers have more power than reviewers and sites are afraid of stepping on their toes.

 

[Ciggavelli]

Fallout 4 is a mid 80s game on metacritic. That's almost a tragedy for a Bethesada WRPG. I was expecting straight 9 and 9.5, but no. The reviewers were right about Fallout. It's an 8.5/10 for me too

SFV is getting low 80s scores. That sounds about right for the bare bones game we got.

I'm one of the few people that doesn't think reviewers are on the take. Sure, there's probably some, but I think the majority are honest.

Look at Destiny too. If reviewers were on the take do you think it woulda got mid 70s review scores? Nah brehs, nah

Too many tin-foil hats around here

 

[basketball reasons]

Fallout 4 is a mid 80s game on metacritic. That's almost a tragedy for a Bethesada WRPG. I was expecting straight 9 and 9.5, but no. The reviewers were right about Fallout. It's an 8.5/10 for me too

SFV is getting low 80s scores. That sounds about right for the bare bones game we got.

I'm one of the few people that doesn't think reviewers are on the take. Sure, there's probably some, but I think the majority are honest.

Look at Destiny too. If reviewers were on the take do you think it woulda got mid 70s review scores? Nah brehs, nah

Too many tin-foil hats around here

trust a corrupt industry breh

like youre acting as if reviews in the 70s are bad. That's well above average for a album or movie. But videogames are based on a scale of 7 = average. Thats not how numbers work

 

[Ciggavelli]

trust a corrupt industry breh

like youre acting as if reviews in the 70s are bad. That's well above average for a album or movie. But videogames are based on a scale of 7 = average. Thats not how numbers work

Video games are judged differently than music and TV/Film. Above 85 is considered good for a video game, but considered excellent for a movie or TV show. You rarely see 90+ tv shows, movies or music. But you do see 90+ video games.

My rule of thumb:

85+ is good for video games
75+ is good for music
70+ is good for TV and film.

Each industry has different ways of judging things

 

[Kingshango]

Gotta get that ad revenue.

 

[TruStyle]

Call of duty gets perfect 10s damn near every year and each one is called the best one yet.

What do you think?

 

[basketball reasons]

Video games are judged differently than music and TV/Film. Above 85 is considered good for a video game, but considered excellent for a movie or TV show. You rarely see 90+ tv shows, movies or music. But you do see 90+ video games.

My rule of thumb:

85+ is good for video games
75+ is good for music
70+ is good for TV and film.

Each industry has different ways of judging things

which is a result of the industry artificially inflating their scores to gain accessibility. If videogames are weighted differently why is there nothing distinguishing that difference on metacritic? all other industry are weighted more or less the same, an album in the 50s is average, a film in the 50s is average, a show in the 50s is average, the videogame industry is the only one where a game in the 70s is considered average. The only industry where there are ten or more games in the 90s every year. You can probably get more games in the 90s than every other industry combined for a single year. It aint a coincidence. The game industry relies more on ads and page clicks than any other industry by a mile, hype is king and getting big numbers out there is the way to go about it.

 

[chemicalsword]

Fallout 4 is a damn good game...

 

[Ciggavelli]

which is a result of the industry artificially inflating their scores to gain accessibility. If videogames are weighted differently why is there nothing distinguishing that difference on metacritic? all other industry are weighted more or less the same, an album in the 50s is average, a film in the 50s is average, a show in the 50s is average, the videogame industry is the only one where a game in the 70s is considered average. The only industry where there are ten or more games in the 90s every year. You can probably get more games in the 90s than every other industry combined for a single year. It aint a coincidence. The game industry relies more on ads and page clicks than any other industry by a mile, hype is king and getting big numbers out there is the way to go about it.

It's just the way it is. 70s is average in the video game world. It's considered bad for some people even (me included). I've been reading reviews and using metacritic forever. You gotta judge each section differently. At least I do.

50s is not average in any category though. That shyt is bad across the board. This isn't a Likert scale, where the middle equals average. This is more like a report card, where a C (75%) is considered average. 50 is failing breh, no way around it

 

[Ciggavelli]

Call of duty gets perfect 10s damn near every year and each one is called the best one yet.

What do you think?

This is an outright lie. COD gets 70s and low 80s scores

 

[CrimsonTider]

Video games are judged differently than music and TV/Film. Above 85 is considered good for a video game, but considered excellent for a movie or TV show. You rarely see 90+ tv shows, movies or music. But you do see 90+ video games.

My rule of thumb:

85+ is good for video games
75+ is good for music
70+ is good for TV and film.

Each industry has different ways of judging things

Caring about music reviews

 

[ORDER_66]