Debate: How Do Games Like Journey Outscore Watch Dogs?

The ongoing debate: Should we be using the same review standards when reviewing all video games, from tiny-budget indies to big-budget AAAs?

[Thatguy-310]

The amount of money spent on a game does not guarantee it quality. Journey was an amazing personal experience which set it apart from other games. In fact this just goes to show the time and effort indie studios pour into their beloved projects. At the end of the day the studio has a vision on what they want to accomplish. Whether they nail it or not it's on them.

[saladthieves]

Agreed.

It also depends on what the player personally enjoys. I have played every game from thatgamecompany and I've loved every single one of them. There is just something about their games and the unique experience they give the player.

That being said, I have a few friends who have played the games and ended up never liking a single one of them!

[Prime157]

I bet your friends well like them more once they get tired of playing the same type of game over and over again. Inn almost 30 and played so much fps in my life that I have trouble playing them for the thousands of hours that I used to play.

Indies definitely have price point. I've been playing Awesomenauts a lot, lately, so in terms of longevity, Indies can have everything a AAA game has going for them.

I get liking what you like... but it's the same idea as traveling; if you never leave the town you were born in, then how will you be able to accept and think of new ideas.

[deathtok]

@Prime157

Seconded. I'm 31 and over the past few years I've been seeking more unique gaming experiences.

[joab777]

We have come to a place in which its hard to wow us anymore with graphics and big worlds. We seen it...we have done it. It may be a continuation of sorts of the type of gameplay we enjoy, but it is very familiar.

Games like Journey are not. They are new and refreshing. Its why Dark Souls did so well....why Resogun is such a huge hit...why ppl find immense satisfaction in indies.

For example, many will say that Far Cry 3 and Infamous 2nd Son were high quality great games. They were. But for me...and many...they are old. Simply repeating the same actions over and over is simply boring. And breaks immersion. We want different...always different and changing...new perspectives.

I dunno. I just hope this gen isnt all about pretty things.

[cyguration]

Yep. Totally agreed.

I also enjoyed Blood Dragon more than anything that they showcased for Far Cry 3.

Mark IV Cyber Commando Mofo!

[user5669510]

According to fanboys on this site more does equal a better game. That's why they use AAA as ammo every chance they get. They even ignore a lot of indie games are better than AAA games, but get hyped when it comes to their favorite platform

[saladthieves]

http://i.reactionclips.com/...

[SoulSercher620]

Proof or your talking out your ass

[user5669510]

Proof is comments that say PC only have indie games or they Dont want to buy ps4 just to play indies but sing a different tune once they get ported. at work. Too much work to link articles

[MasterCornholio]

The only people that I've heard say that are some Xbox fans. PlayStation fans have been praising Indies ever since Sony put them on stage at E3.

"Too much work to link articles"

I'm glad that reporting people for trolling doesn't take much work. Just a simple click on the minus sign then select trolling is all thats needed.

[DigitalRaptor]

@ Consoleslateagain

Dude, you've been listening to misinformation from idiots. No-one in their sane mind thinks that PC gaming is only about indie games. Why do you need to justify that on here?

[csreynolds]

This man says it all. Journey was original, beautiful and moving - built with passion, not budget.

[iamnsuperman]

Interesting. For me it relates to how much you paid for the experience. I have yet to play watch dogs (stupid thing is taking hours to instal after the stadium bit) so I can't say much about that but I really enjoyed Journey and what they charge me for that experience was about right. If something cost $60 I expect to be getting more. If Journey cost $60 I would be pissed. There has to be a balance.

Also the general feeling after playing a game is an important factor. Journey was an experience that didn't drag on

[Thatguy-310]

I agree. After finishing Journey the whole experience is open to a personal interpretation which made the game a lot more memorable. Having it cost 15$ wasn't that bad either.

[admiralvic]

"I really enjoyed Journey and what they charge me for that experience was about right. If something cost $60 I expect to be getting more."

I certainly agree it helps, though that doesn't seem to be a big factor. One game that I like to use as an example is Tearaway, which is an experience game much like Journey and featured a $40 MSRP (this is the average price of a Vita game, so essentially $60 for PS3). Despite the game being fairly short (can be completed in a few hours if you tried), extremely simple, almost no replay value and basically a one and done title, the game still got an 87 average (beating WD) on Metacritic.

In a lot of ways I think people simply like these titles because they're different. Tearaway has a unique art style, there is a strong focus on creativity (creating elements that existed throughout the game was a nice touch) and it seemed like most people got more from the games brief play though than you would in the average 10+ hour FPS game. So while the content isn't there, a lot of people still felt fulfilled more than a game that has more flash than substance (not commenting on WD, just AAA games in general).

Now its hard to say where the reality is, but I like to believe that victory can't be bought and sometimes the simplest titles can be the best. In fact, despite playing over 400 games last-gen (you can check my PSNProfile account and see I have 300+ listed for the PS3), I would say my GOTG was a simple $9.99 digital title.

[Omegasyde]

Attributes of a perfect scoring system

Graphics 15% - (Does the design/style look good?)
Sound 15% -(is the soundtrack awesome?)
Fun 35% - (was game unique and fun?)
Re-playability 35% - (is this game worth your cash?)

----------------------------- ----------------
Put each of the attributes with its own 10 point system. Multiple that value by percentage. Add all 4 categories.

1.0-3.0 Game is horrible
3.0-4.0 Game needs works
4.0-5.0 Game is not for everyone.
5.0-6.0 Game is Average/ok
6.0-7.0 Game is good
7.0-8.0 Game is Great
8.0-9.0 Game is Awesome, Must Own
9.0-10.0 Masterpiece - Day 1 buy
(round if need be)

This system works, yet no site has the balls to use it and instead hand out 8 and 9s like it's candy, scared of advertisers leaving or not get review copies in advance.

[ginsunuva]

"This is my opinion on how to translate video game opinions into a number, and everyone must use it because it is the only correct opinion ever thought of."

[Omegasyde]

The scale I just gave was just and you are right...was my opinion.

But All these reviewers give pretty much everything a score of 7-10 and the rest of the scale is barely referred. You might as well go to a 5 point scale and only use 1-2 points for sh** games.

MY point is that despite a review being subjective, they should have some sort of system to back up their reviews. Instead we get different columns with different grades, but the final score is not "an" average.

I can't be the only person burned by buying a game based on "great" reviews only to find the game was meh or beyond too short or full of bugs.

[gamerfan0909]

Games like Journey should not out score games like Watchdogs. Content matters no matter how you look at it.

[Spotie]

And the content of Journey was such that it caused many reviewers to give it a very high score. For me, it is the single greatest interactive experience I've ever had... besides sex. No game, book, or film has ever come close. Neither taking part in nor watching any sporting event matches it surpasses it.

It's a unique and highly personal experience, and it's the game's content that allows for this.

Just because it doesn't haves bunch of stuff doesn't mean it can't be better. That's the type of narrow-minded view that people Wii condemn various types of music- or indie games, within this industry- use. And that's no solid reasoning.

[kneon]

The quality of the content is far more important than the quantity.

[JackOfAllBlades]

Wow, what a troll..

[Darkstares]

That's just dumb, sorry. We play games for the experiences they give us, not by how many people onscreen it has or how many pixels it has compared to another game. Are all 2 hour movies better than 90 minute movies? Certainly not. How about The Beatles that only had about 35 minutes of music on it compared to many CD's now that are 50 or more? Bigger is not always better and the price of Journey was much smaller so they also consider that when reviewing games.

[saladthieves]

Right...because prettier AAA graphics will always make any game better
/s

[JackOfAllBlades]

Journey was very pretty though, on top of being great!

[DigitalRaptor]

The philosophy of "design by subtraction" is just as valid as its polar opposite.

http://www.1up.com/features...

[Aussiebeachbabe]

Because they are fun games and show that fun games don't have to have the most realistic best graphics in the world to make them fun.

[Jyndal]

All you have to do is look at Telltale Games' The Walking Dead. It got multiple GOTY awards, and there was no cutting edge graphics, no open-world gameplay, and the price was quite reasonable.

A good game is a good game, and if the low budget indie title kicks the shit out of the so-called "AAA" big budget title in review scores, then as far as I'n concerned, all is right with the world.

[F4sterTh4nFTL]

Because the developers of Journey did not hype their game to Hell and back so reviewers were pleasantly surprised when it turned out great. In Watch Dogs the opposite is true, Watch Dogs was never going to live up to the hype it had created after that controlled E3 2012 Demo.

[Muzikguy]

I had that same response in my head lol

[DanielGearSolid]

Scores aren't that important in the first place...

Hell, in this day and age, reviews in general are useless. Gamers can learn all they need to know about a game without reviews...

I'll never understand why a random guy/girl playing a game is anymore important than some other random guy/girl playing a game

[fathoms]

Because the people reviewing them aren't "random" individuals. They're supposed to be professionals (even though not all of them are).

I know gamers love to think they can all be critics, that it takes no skill at all, etc, etc, etc. It's not only grossly inaccurate, it's insulting.

[DanielGearSolid]

Sorry but it does not take any professional skills to play a damn game...

The only ppl that should be insulted are the consumer...

Why? These guys don't even finish the games half the time. They rush through the games just so they can be the first to post their reviews, they don't have to pay for the games, so obviously they won't fully understand if the value is there, in terms of costs vs content AND they inconsistently praise one game for this, yet bash another for the same thing

In closing I never said all gamers think they can be critics, but all gamers can be well informed about a game without some random guy rushing through it and slapping a number on it

[fathoms]

More insulting, ignorant stuff. You have no idea what it takes to review a game. It's not about gaming "skills;" it's about a broad knowledge of the industry.

I can write you a review of anything, because I can have an opinion on anything. Doesn't mean I'm an expert. I can tell you what sort of flowers I like in a garden, what dish I like at a restaurant, or what my favorite painting in a museum is. Doesn't make me a qualified gardening, restaurant, or art critic.

Acting as if critics have no idea what value is because they're given review copies is ridiculous. Not all critics get those review copies, ALL of them are gamers outside of the job and of course, have to pay full price for their games just like you, and oh yeah, the vast majority of critics get paid very little or nothing at all.

I've been doing it for a long time. It's thankless and unrewarding...mostly because people think like you.

[DanielGearSolid]

So gamer A who plays a wide variety of different genres doesn't have broad knowledge of the industry, but gamer b does because he works at gamespot? Sorry but NO

You might know alittle more behind the scenes development info, but that has nothing to do with experience playing games

Once again I didn't say anything about all gamers being "critics". I said critics are just glorified everyday gamers.

I also never said reviewers don't buy games. I said they don't buy review copies, so at the time of writing the review, the perspective of cost vs content is distorted.

I think there is a good reason it's a thankless job. Gamers a learning more about games by watching let's plays on YouTube. Reviews are becoming more and more unnecessary.

You can't see it too, bad reviews have little to no negative effects on sales anymore. The average gamer just doesn't need you to tell them what's fun anymore

[fathoms]

"Once again I didn't say anything about all gamers being 'critics'. I said critics are just glorified everyday gamers."

Either you're about 16 years old or you really are this ignorant (or both). Either way, I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

"You can't see it too, bad reviews have little to no negative effects on sales anymore."

Also completely and entirely wrong. Every analyst in the industry would call that a foolish and untrue statement. But I'm sure analysts are just "glorified everyday gamers," too.

What's most depressing is that you have no idea just how insulting you're being. Well, doesn't matter; I'm done with you.

[DanielGearSolid]

You're putting yourself above gamers because you get a copy early...

And instead of make any points you call me a 16 yr old.

It's your profession so u desperately wanna defend it, but facts are facts... Reviews are useless

[BeatTheBullies]

Reviewing a game takes no skills but does require time and honestly the best reviews I've seen are from "Random People" while the "Professionals" take bribes and are extremely bias.

[ThichQuangDuck]

Because the game mechanics are better/appeal to different audiences. The scope of a game vs execution is huge on reviews as well as hype. Review scores themselves are meaningless. If you believe that there is a clear better game besides design due to resolution, framerate, hype, etc then that is your opinion

[whothedog]

Because, opinion.

[DevilishSix]

Because journey is a better game than WD.

[Perjoss]

Not everyone is attracted to the triple A thing. Most high budget games take very little risks when it comes to changing up the gameplay, thats why you mainly see car chases, cover systems and explosions.

[kevnb]

Does it matter really? I imagine critics get tired of playing similar games since they are playing games as a job instead of a past time.

[PixelKnot]

Have yet to play Journey, but Flower offered the most relaxing experience I've had for quite a while.

Beautiful game, too.

[SoulSercher620]

Because it was an experience like none other. The amount of content in a game or how many hours in a game does NOT always make a game better than the other.

TBH why are they even making this comparison anyway?

[uth11]

They score high because they do what they do extremely well, and aren't like everything else.

That said, I don't think using the review metascore to compare games gives valid results. Flower has an amazingly high score, and it's interesting and relaxing, but would I say it's better than the games with the lower scores? Not necessarily

[ginsunuva]

I made a penis sculpture purely out of platinum and diamonds.

It is obviously one of the best pieces of art in the world because it's so expensive.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

What i want see is a sales comparison between WATCH DOG's versus JOURNEY in ten weeks . Studios make video games for consumers to buy!!! Not for critics!!!!

[Spotie]

Given that Journey set records for number of downloads...

[ceballos77mx]

Id think its because were not expecting anything spectacular on an indie game, and its always a pleasant surprise to find that moment, on a "AAA" game we are always expecting something new or different, im guessing from those big budgets they have and finish the game and it leaves you feeling like you already played that just with a different skin and name.

[DeadManMMX]

I've been thinking about this since Resogun got a 9. It can't be judged on the same level as say Infamous Second Son or Assassins Creed. I don't care how much you love shooters the depth of the game doesn't compare to a AAA title.

[rxl209]

all 3 of those are great games, if you think they arent all on the same level, maybe youre just not a gamer, may i suggest calling yourself something else? casual?...yeah, i like that.....youre a casual

[DeadManMMX]

Yeah im a casual who just platinumed Bioshock infinite. Who owned every decent system of the last 18 years. Who has owned every major game of the last 7 years. I play games of all kinds. I love mega man 3 and games of that type to this day but if you say their on par with a AAA title that offers hours of variety and value. Buddy your just trying to hard to be hardcore. People are going to have different opinions that don't match yours. Some of you guys are hilarious the way you jump to Try and insult someone you know nothing about. Only a blind man can't see the difference between the game design of infamous and resogun.

[rainslacker]

I dunno, Resogun is the most fun I've had with a game in the new generation. What it did, it did extremely well, and there were no flaws. I think $15 for the non PS+ release is a bit high given it's length, so I may count off for that, but since I got it free I can easily see it as a 9. ISS and AC were big games, with lots going on. But they both had flaws. Whether it's story or bugs which frustrate the player. Those kinds of things have to be reviewed and graded, and it's up to the buyer to decide if those things would ruin the experience for them.

[DeadManMMX]

Resogun may be a perfect game of its type but it's also a game lacking in ambition compared to a game with a larger world deeper storyline etc, I'm fine with resogun getting a 9 but that 9 is for what it is. Not a 9 on par with say a game like MGS 3 or Zelda 64. I mean were probably going to disagree on this but that's my opinion. I don think resign is a bad game at all I. Fact it may be excellent but it's never going to give the kind of impression the very first Metal Gear Solid game me way back in 1997 or The Last Of Us did last year and for obvious reasons.

[rxl209]

"How Do Games Like Journey Outscore Watch Dogs:"..... because journey is a masterpiece you fucking idiots

[testerg35]

Scored by different standards. To me an indie type game is scored against other indie type games, ipad/android/tablet games against other games on same hardware platform.

Otherwise its like saying a simple iphone game that scores 10s is the same as Journey.

[Adrian_v01]

A pile of shit will still be a pile of shit, even if you invest millions into it. It's about the emotional value. And this one is important I believe if we want games to be treated as art. Call of duty for example will never be art to me, while Journey is a masterpiece.

It's not about the graphics. Heck the best games ever for me are games from the ps1/ps2 era.

There's no right pattern to review games. Every game should be viewed on it's own, as an individual.

[LAWSON72]

Games should not have to be artsy and have emotional stories to get good reviews, look at a game like goat simulator it is based off of being stupid and funny. It delivers and that alone should warrant the game to be checked out. I personally love in depth games with actual elements and factors/stats that effect the gameplay, especially when they think they warrant RPG as their genre. It is what makes a game good IMO.

[Adrian_v01]

That's why I said games should be viewed as individual pieces. The first part of my comment was directed towards the article and 'How games like Journey outscore Watch Dogs." Watch dogs is very entertaining to me, but it wasn't a jaw dropper as Journey. Goat Simulator has an emotional value too. It makes you laugh and rofl like hell. Emotions aren't just love/sadness, happiness is one as well.

Within art there are different directions and you can't compare one to the other. Goat Simulator is like the Salvador Dali of games, and Journey is like a Gustav Klimt. And Call of Duty is like a white canvas with a black dot which they try to sell as modern art.

[LAWSON72]

From what I have seen AAA games are held to different standards and expectations compared to indie titles. For example say Child of Light released with AAA hype and a higher pricetag, I seriously doubt it would have got such high review scores. IMO price tag should never be viewed as an excuse for length of a game or content lacking in it, let alone actually factored in a review just stating the game is short or lacking leaving it to the buyer to decide the right price themselves

[Picnic]

Why do other indie games such as The Unfinished Swan or Papo and Yo, which also got very high scores on some sites, not get talked about anywhere near as much?

I feel that, in a busy world, some people want minimalism to equal profundity. They even hinge on the quiet, emotional parts in The Last of Us, choosing to overlook the brutal killing parts as being somehow necessary for survival. In other words, as long as someone has a sensitive side, it doesn't matter that they have a murderous streak to them (more bonus points if that murderousness is for the good of protecting a girl). Yes, it makes a great game. But does it make for any greater meaning?

Yet The Unfinished Swan in particular could be minimalist. Journey must be fulfilling some want in people that they feel, for whatever reason, is way above other indie games. They feel like they've gone on an exotic holiday just by playing it? They feel that it reminds them of earlier, popular, games e.g. Zelda?

[carlingtat]

One word: Advertising.

Ubisoft advertised the bag out of Watch Dogs, lied about its graphical capabilities and built it up to be this big massive ope-world game. When players played it the game lost marks for visuals and gameplay content because they were expected so much.

Journey on the other hand was not advertised to be something it wasn't. It was also a great game impressing in visuals, music and the little gameplay it had. If they had advertised Journey showing it to be this massive open world game it wouldn't have got half the scores it did.

[Neonridr]

Easy, the person doing the reviewing prefers one game over the other. It's all subjective. My 9 could be your 8.

[King_of_Nothing]

Its the fault of the publishers. Watch dogs was advertised and talked up so much that, unless it was absolutely amazing, it was going to fall short of expectations. The devs of games like Journey allow the game to speak for itself. Its also a new and refreshing experience and not the same experience reskinned for the sake of playing it safe.

[Tzuno]

to put it simply it scores high in the category that the game take part. do not judge two different genres because it doesn't make sense.