How is a broken game being rated as one of the best next gen titles?

[MeachTheMonster]

This goes back to what I was saying about reviewers getting caught up in the hype.

BF4 is a broken game on all platforms. How in the hell is it being rated as better than other games that at least do what the devs said they would do?

Other games lost a lot of points for technical shortcomings, but BF4 gets a pass, it isn't even talked about in the reviews. Same goes for 2k, micro transactions, less content, broken gameplay, but it's still being rated as one of the best launch titles.

One of the biggest features in GTAV is still broken yet it will probably win GOTY

Its like the scores for these games are already set before they come out, and reviewers are just rating them based on hype and expectations.

at review scores. I like the sites that give a simple yes or no recommendation. Then you can read the review and decide on your own wether the game is something you might like.

 

[Kodie]

I agree with fukk scores. We don't need review scores.

GTAV comment isn't fair - all the reviews acknowledged that the review was based solely on GTAV SP and nothing to do with GTA:O (if nothing else, because it was impossible to review at the time).

You can't continue to look at isolated things that supposedly bring down points in a vacuum also. Reviewers are reviewing the experience as a whole not just a sum of parts. I sometimes enjoy broken games and sometimes hate them. Depends on context, depends on the quality of everything else, depends on what exactly is broken.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I agree with fukk scores. We don't need review scores.

GTAV comment isn't fair - all the reviews acknowledged that the review was based solely on GTAV SP and nothing to do with GTA:O (if nothing else, because it was impossible to review at the time).

You can't continue to look at isolated things that supposedly bring down points in a vacuum also. Reviewers are reviewing the experience as a whole not just a sum of parts. I sometimes enjoy broken games and sometimes hate them. Depends on context, depends on the quality of everything else, depends on what exactly is broken.

For gta I'm talking about the single player.

There's mission crashing bugs, and they still have not fixed the disapearing car issues.

It's not about looking at things in a vacuum. I'm talking about differing standards for different games. I've read reviews that say a game is fun but they have to take away for technical shortcomings. For the darling franchises of the industry they don't even talk about the shortcomings. If games were reviewed just on fun, metacritic would look a lot different. They aren't just reviewed on fun, they are reviewed on this unwritten set of standards that changes from game to game.

 

[AquaCityBoy]

at review scores. I like the sites that give a simple yes or no recommendation. Then you can read the review and decide on your own wether the game is something you might like.

That's not what you were saying in the Gran Turismo thread.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

That's not what you were saying in the Gran Turismo thread.

Not once did I talk about scores in that thread

 

[Kodie]

For gta I'm talking about the single player.

There's mission crashing bugs, and they still have not fixed the disapearing car issues.

It's not about looking at things in a vacuum. I'm talking about differing standards for different games. I've read reviews that say a game is fun but they have to take away for technical shortcomings. For the darling franchises of the industry they don't even talk about the shortcomings. If games were reviewed just on fun, metacritic would look a lot different. They aren't just reviewed on fun, they are reviewed on this unwritten set of standards that changes from game to game.

Probably also changes from site to site and reviewer to reviewer and even month to month not because the reviewer is shady but because that's just how the brain works. I think they are judging, to the best of their abilities, how fun a game is but that's not an exact science and you shouldn't expect it to be. You shouldn't be looking at scores and comparing them across sites and different reviewers in different years on different platforms (which some people clearly do). That's going to get you nowhere. The purpose of the review is to inform the reader of things the reader may or may not enjoy based on what type of gamer they are. The purpose is not to maintain some sort of metacritic standard. Most of the reviews I read (granted, I look at a small subset of reviews like Eurogamer, Giant Bomb and Polygon) are well written enough that I can take enough away from them to judge for myself if the game is something I would enjoy.

 

[AquaCityBoy]

Not once did I talk about scores in that thread

Even if that's true, this thread still contradicts everything you have said about anything Playstation-related.

 

[daze23]

that's why I give props to dudes like Angry Joe that review games after release, and mention if their score is pending something else

I think a lot of it has to do with all the pressure to have these reviews done before release. I imagine the reviewers often assume things will be fixed at release or shortly after, and would like their review to represent the overall game, and not just it's state at launch

there's also a lot of recent talk about if reviews should take things like microtransactions into account. I've also seen some reviews factoring the price of the game

overall I think there's the question of what exact purpose the review serves. it seems at some point all the consumer advocacy might be at odds with an objective judgement of the game itself

to be clear, I'm not claiming to have any ultimate answer(s) to all this

 

[daze23]

Even if that's true, this thread still contradicts everything you have said about anything Playstation-related.

well there's a broad statement

 

[Pimp]

I like 2k and battlefield. Battlefield crashes but the game is still fun. I don't think I ever had a crash playing the small maps .

 

[MeachTheMonster]

And another thing.

With the way modern games are changing, review practices should change as well.

A lot of games these days change or improve over time, but reviewers are so concerned with slapping a score on and getting some clicks, that they don't take the time to properly play the games under normal unscripted/unrushed conditions.

How the hell can a review for an online community based game come out before the community is even playing the game?

If a game is getting content after release, shouldn't that be part of the review? Everybody doesn't buy the game at launch, what if I want a game 6 months into its life, then I go read a review that doesn't detail how the game is better/worse than when it was released. I'm being misinformed by the supposed gaming media.

 

[daze23]

Probably also changes from site to site and reviewer to reviewer and even month to month not because the reviewer is shady but because that's just how the brain works. I think they are judging, to the best of their abilities, how fun a game is but that's not an exact science and you shouldn't expect it to be. You shouldn't be looking at scores and comparing them across sites and different reviewers in different years on different platforms (which some people clearly do). That's going to get you nowhere. The purpose of the review is to inform the reader of things the reader may or may not enjoy based on what type of gamer they are. The purpose is not to maintain some sort of metacritic standard. Most of the reviews I read (granted, I look at a small subset of reviews like Eurogamer, Giant Bomb and Polygon) are well written enough that I can take enough away from them to judge for myself if the game is something I would enjoy.

when I was reading the GT6 thread on neogaf late lastnight (dangerous, I know), everyone there was beating up on that one Venture Beat reviewer because she admitted to not being a fan of racing games. but so what, she's a gamer and she gave her opinion on the game. a few people brought that up, and of course the response was "b-b-but metacritic is serious business"

IMO I think it's backwards for reviewers to even think about how their scores might affect something like metacritic

 

[lutha]

I've been on 'fukk a review score', but I don't think we should get rid of them...as I said in another thread: when I was younger and spending my mom's money to get video games, they helped...and I think they still serve that purpose today...

as for your question: I think the scores reflect society and the times...we are a superficial society and the most important thing to a lot of people is looks...as long as these games look pretty and run decently, think the other shyt gets overlooked and people figure eventually it'll get fixed/patched....it tends to be ignored until it starts to affect the money....

on a side note: that's why gaming online has been a pro/con when it comes to gaming...it's a pro cause devs cause add content to games, make fixs when needed, etc....it's a con though cause more devs are putting out broken games instead of taking the time to make sure they aren't broken; they're gimping gamers on content in games cause they want to add it for a price later; etc....

 

[KevCo]

Wetent u saying that BF 4 was innovative and groundbreaking in the mario world thread?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Probably also changes from site to site and reviewer to reviewer and even month to month not because the reviewer is shady but because that's just how the brain works. I think they are judging, to the best of their abilities, how fun a game is but that's not an exact science and you shouldn't expect it to be. You shouldn't be looking at scores and comparing them across sites and different reviewers in different years on different platforms (which some people clearly do). That's going to get you nowhere. The purpose of the review is to inform the reader of things the reader may or may not enjoy based on what type of gamer they are. The purpose is not to maintain some sort of metacritic standard. Most of the reviews I read (granted, I look at a small subset of reviews like Eurogamer, Giant Bomb and Polygon) are well written enough that I can take enough away from them to judge for myself if the game is something I would enjoy.

I agree this is the way it SHOULD be, but we all know its not that way. Devs make design decisions based soley off metacritic and reviewers make score decisions based off metacritic.

I don't think reviewers are being shady, I think they are being human as you said, and the human brain is very subject to hype, emotions, and expectations. I just think it sucks that those things can effect the success of a game/franchise so much