Normal newspapers usually pride themselves to be independent. Even though they may lean towards a certain ideology, you usually KNOW where they lean to. So when they review something, like a book or a movie, you know where it comes from. And then they can praise of condemn it.
One of the issues is how closely game reviewers are personally connected with game developers. They see them too much a "friends". A cooking tester would NEVER befriend a restaurant chef. In fact they feel towards each other usually as enemies. As it should be. The cooking tester tries to be as harsh as possible and the chef tries to do his best as a result. That's how I want game reviewers to work: as harsh and stern as possible without being unfair! I want them to exploit and highlight EVERY weakness of a game and thus forcing companies to improve and not in the convenient, lazy downward spiral gaming is in for the last years!
It seems as if the games get worse and worse, but the ratings get better and better! New game ratings made from the "Prawda". In Sovjet Russia game companies make ratings... Or somesuch. When I see a game have 9 of 10, I want it to be NEAR perfect, I want a "one of a lifetime" or at least "once of a decade" game! Like Ultima VII or like Morrowind or Baldurs Gate. Epic games to be remembered for years! There is just an inflation of high ratings, which, like all inflations, lead to a value loss of the ratings itself. If everything is somewhere between 7 and 10, ratings lose their meaning.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
It seems as if the games get worse and worse, but the ratings get better and better! New game ratings made from the "Prawda". In Sovjet Russia game companies make ratings... Or somesuch. When I see a game have 9 of 10, I want it to be NEAR perfect, I want a "one of a lifetime" or at least "once of a decade" game! Like Ultima VII or like Morrowind or Baldurs Gate. Epic games to be remembered for years! There is just an inflation of high ratings, which, like all inflations, lead to a value loss of the ratings itself. If everything is somewhere between 7 and 10, ratings lose their meaning.
Reminds me of something I've thought, about a lot of game reviews lately. Often games get decent reviews, even though I personally consider them pretty weak. They might be ok; they do what they're supposed to do, but they don't strive to be anything special. They just barely reach the bar set by other games in the same genre or predecessors in the series.
They get these good reviews based on the forgiving idea that they aren't bad games, per se. but they aren't memorable games, either. They won't ever have much of a following, or win any hearts. No one will be talking about them in a few months, nevermind years. They're just forgettable games to pass the time with, but reviews don't reflect that distinction at all. To reviewers these days, games only need to be good enough, rather than actually good.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
My suggestion is that it's a combination of fear and sympathy.
Fear that if you piss of a company they won't give you early access to their next big game or their reps won't be nice to you at the next expo or any number of other ways you could shoot yourself in the foot in such a small, incestuous, buddy-buddy world as is the gaming industry.
Sympathy that we all know we put our heart and souls into these games, especially developers and that engenders respect. We all know that there are easier jobs out there than game developer and that most people who choose that path do so because they have a passion for gaming (at least initially). So, with that in mind, it can feel cruel to completely shit on the product of their sweat and tears ergo the tendancy to put a nice spin on a game you find out isn't as good as the review that made you buy it.
In that light, I find with games reviews, the clues are in what they don't say that tells you it's not gonna be a winner.
Comments
Normal newspapers usually pride themselves to be independent. Even though they may lean towards a certain ideology, you usually KNOW where they lean to. So when they review something, like a book or a movie, you know where it comes from. And then they can praise of condemn it.
One of the issues is how closely game reviewers are personally connected with game developers. They see them too much a "friends". A cooking tester would NEVER befriend a restaurant chef. In fact they feel towards each other usually as enemies. As it should be. The cooking tester tries to be as harsh as possible and the chef tries to do his best as a result. That's how I want game reviewers to work: as harsh and stern as possible without being unfair! I want them to exploit and highlight EVERY weakness of a game and thus forcing companies to improve and not in the convenient, lazy downward spiral gaming is in for the last years!
It seems as if the games get worse and worse, but the ratings get better and better! New game ratings made from the "Prawda". In Sovjet Russia game companies make ratings... Or somesuch. When I see a game have 9 of 10, I want it to be NEAR perfect, I want a "one of a lifetime" or at least "once of a decade" game! Like Ultima VII or like Morrowind or Baldurs Gate. Epic games to be remembered for years! There is just an inflation of high ratings, which, like all inflations, lead to a value loss of the ratings itself. If everything is somewhere between 7 and 10, ratings lose their meaning.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Reminds me of something I've thought, about a lot of game reviews lately. Often games get decent reviews, even though I personally consider them pretty weak. They might be ok; they do what they're supposed to do, but they don't strive to be anything special. They just barely reach the bar set by other games in the same genre or predecessors in the series.
They get these good reviews based on the forgiving idea that they aren't bad games, per se. but they aren't memorable games, either. They won't ever have much of a following, or win any hearts. No one will be talking about them in a few months, nevermind years. They're just forgettable games to pass the time with, but reviews don't reflect that distinction at all. To reviewers these days, games only need to be good enough, rather than actually good.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
My suggestion is that it's a combination of fear and sympathy.
Fear that if you piss of a company they won't give you early access to their next big game or their reps won't be nice to you at the next expo or any number of other ways you could shoot yourself in the foot in such a small, incestuous, buddy-buddy world as is the gaming industry.
Sympathy that we all know we put our heart and souls into these games, especially developers and that engenders respect. We all know that there are easier jobs out there than game developer and that most people who choose that path do so because they have a passion for gaming (at least initially). So, with that in mind, it can feel cruel to completely shit on the product of their sweat and tears ergo the tendancy to put a nice spin on a game you find out isn't as good as the review that made you buy it.
In that light, I find with games reviews, the clues are in what they don't say that tells you it's not gonna be a winner.