There, I said it. The no-name little reviewers that people only hear about when they give big games bad scores are much more credible than the big review sites out there. I'm sure many of you are reading that title and that first sentence and you must be thinking I am insane, or a crazy fan boy that has an agenda against so called "Triple A Exclusives". But in light of the recent Halo 4 review "fiasco", I'm starting to get annoyed by the idiotic things I've seen being said (or written in this case) on various sites, including N4g, in defense of everyone's favorite exclusive titles. I myself am a reviewer. Not of video games but of music. I listen to an album several times and then attempt to review it in the most unbiased way I can. Integrity is something that to me is of the utmost importance, and if my views are biased, I make sure to express this very clearly and concisely. But many video game reviewers have lost that integrity. This has been an issue that has plagued the video game industry and "video game journalism" (let's be honest here, video game journalism is laughable at best) since the very introduction of the modern generation.
Concerning the big name reviewers such as IGN, Destructoid, Gametrailers, Game Informer and the rest of the cast, I believe their opinions and reviews towards the titles that have been released lately are less valid than the no-name sites. Of these most recently include Quarter To Three and Tom Chick's infamous Halo 4 review and BigPond's review.
Why would I think that reviewers like IGN, handing out 8's, 9's, and 10's like candy; aren't a trust-worthy review source? Well let's start at that point. Reviews have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes. Review scores especially, have become a joke. From both the fan's views of games to the actual reviewer's views, that little 9 out of 10 given to the most recent release means nothing to me anymore. It shouldn't mean anything to you either. The problem is that high scores are given out for everything and anything. This, in my eyes has greatly damaged if not completely destroyed the integrity of any of these reviews. Many times scores don't match up with their actual review content. With the review being harsh and full of critique (Something I don't see often) and the score given being an 8 or 9 out of 10.
But not only does it affect the credibility of the review, it messes with the mentality of those people who read the reviews (or just glance at the score, which is done by the majority of you). The Review System normally works on a certain set of numbers. 1 through 10, or 1 through 5. Obviously the latter translating directly to the previous one. Also there are occasionally given letter grades similar to how high school grading works. In this case I am focusing on the first number system used. The problem that review scores have caused in the minds of the reader is that no one understands how they work anymore. Everyone believes that there are only five numbers, 5 through 10, and nothing else exists. I've read comments describing a 5 out of 10 as a bug filled, borderline unplayable game. I can tell you for certain that that's not the case at all. A 5/10 is supposed to directly translate to 'average'. In my view, an average title is something that can be played, can be enjoyed, but doesn't excel or do anything well enough to warrant a higher score. It's not a bad game per se, and it certainly isn't unplayable. It seems to me that people and reviewers especially are forgetting the other numbers 1 - 4 on the scale. Thus creating an expectation of games to never reach below that threshold of 7 through 10, or else they are terrible.
But the inane reviews and review scores that don't match up are only a part of the reasons why the big name reviewers have less credibility. Take this into consideration: Sites like IGN, Gametrailers, etc have a staff. That staff is employed, so that means they're paid just like anyone else's job does. Ask yourself, who pays their salaries? Well depending on the specific site, some of them are paid by the publishers of the video game industry themselves. So they have an incentive to give out good review scores, their job might rely on them avoiding flaws and giving good scores.
There is one major reason as to why reviewers would be more inclined to give out primarily good review scores to major titles. The fanbases. Advertisements are another way these websites make their money. Whether it be the amount of hits, or the ads clicked on, their revenue is generated this way. What happens when an amazing review score is given to a game? It generates hits and people visit the site. Since they agree with the amazing score, they will visit site more often. What happens with a negative primarily bad score though? While the initial backlash will generate them more hits, people will most likely boycott that website since they do not agree with that single review. Ultimately costing the website hits and advertising money.
All this criticism towards the 'big players' in the media however doesn't mean that the smaller ones don't have their own share of faults. It's true that because many of them aren't on the payroll of many industry giants they don't have an agenda to meet, but they still may use underhanded tactics to gain attention. Sites such as Quarter To Three with Tom Chick's review will write a harsh critique of the game, but then score it too low. In this case a 1 star out of 5 review. This tactic obviously used to generate hits on the site from the fan boys and girls who cannot handle any form of negative critique. This also damages the integrity of their reviews, in the same way that countless high scores do.
Ultimately, what I hope people will understand after reading this blog post is that there should be a demand for change on this side of the industry. Games shouldn't be given 9's and 10's due to having that Halo name, or that Call of Duty, God of War, Gran Turismo name. Reviews shouldn't be a summary of the game with a high score slapped on. But at the same time, they shouldn't be underhanded tactics meant to garner a sudden surge of hits to make money or to get their website's name out. So please look at all the points I've given, realize that there is a full range of numbers towards the grading system of games and other media too. And then use that knowledge to understand if a review has been written to actually review a title or to just please a group of people.
The leak has emerged from the official site's datamined info, suggesting an expected release date of October 1, 2024.
2K Games will take the stage at Summer Game Fest, and it is about time we got some good news about the state of Mafia 4's development.
I hope it's Mafia 4. And I really hope it's set during the 70s or 80s, and not a prequel of the first game as was rumoured.
If the PS5 Pro leaks are accurate, the eventual PS6 is slated to be one powerful console. But if modern GPUs still lag behind true photorealism, can the PS6 get there?
I hate to be "that guy", but we have go ask ourselves do the industry need photorealistic graphics at this point or actually good games, good content, less anti-consumer practices?
This graphical obsession has brought nothing but years upon years of waiting for a game to launch with huge detailed empty worlds, bad stories and predictable gameplay and (micro)transactions everywhere. Sorry for the rant.
Same. I really don't want to be in an interactive film and, to me photorealism is not needed for immersion.
If anything, the massive layoffs in the industry right now are showing that investors are pulling out and not wanting to invest as much as they are right now into AAAs. Much less push for even higher detail, unless many parts of it are automated by AI for a cheaper price. Not saying I support people's jobs being replaced by AI, just stating a reality of what the money people want.
Photorealism should be reserved for games like Gran Turismo. It costs far too much to incorporate that level of detail.
Even then, if it comes at the cost of physics calculations or frame rate given the shared resources of consoles, I'd scale it back in favor of a smoother experience.
Nintendo was quite smart to never pigeonhole themselves into that. Great foresight on their part, I'd say.
But they've gotten very lazy on their games. I still like their approach don't just make game play your biggest innovation.
8bitAssassin,
I assume you're talking about Nintendo.
I think it works for them. I'm honestly glad that it's nothing like PlayStation or Xbox. It's a great reason to own one.
I think we need both. Why lower the standard? A photorealistic Bloodborne or Elden Ring game would be insane.
Personally for me, graphics have already gotten to the point where I don't really feel the need to see having it to make anymore realistic or better.
At this point, I rather game developers focus on quality/engaging stories, gameplay, & contents. Also not every every single game needs to opened world just for the sake of it.
I'd rather they focus on both. It's a trillion dollar industry. They should be able to do both.
Zenzuu
Believe it or not when it comes to consoles and games graphics are still the biggest factor. Why do you think we still see CHI trailers or in engine footage. The first impression is very important. Not for us core gamers but for millions of casuals who are quite easily impressed with wow factor graphics
Honestly with UC4 I thought we were close but things don't really seem to have improved much in 8 years. Hellblade 2 seems to have raised the bar a bit though
I don't think publishers have the money to make that happen. They can barely sustain the current level of fidelity.
Simply, no! Graphics wise there is barely any difference between the PS4 and PS5 just a little more particle effects and very minimal use of ray tracing. I expect even less diffence between PS5 and PS6. Just better implementation of Ray Tracing.
I'm pretty much done with reviews (having done them myself on an amateur website a couple of years ago). Reviews are paid advertisements that are several paragraphs instead of just a few bombastic catch-phrases.
The change I want to see is this: any new game needs to have a demo released 1 week prior to release. It's really that simple, folks. Players can play your game and see for themselves. And before anyone says "but sometimes the demo doesn't do the game justice", here's the deal: if you can't make a competent demo, then I question your ability to make a worthwhile full-sized game. Plus, if 1-week-early demos became the industry standard, I'm sure devs would quickly adapt to the new demand for demos.
But of course, everything these days is propped up by massive hype and advertisement, so my idea will never come to pass, because that would require devs to be honest about their product prior to selling it.
Great Blog, Great Read.
It's been a long time since i last bought a game Based on Reviews or it's Metacritic Score.
There's only 2 reason that validate a purchase for me, 'My Friends Are buying it or I myself am Interested In It' and that's how it should be for everyone.
--------------------------
But if i had to choose between the Reviews of 'IGN, GameSpot, DTOID, Kotaku etc' or some Review on a 'Blogspot's - No Name Blog', i will definitely go with the 'No Name Blog' because he's a Gamer & not a Journalist who (Most Likely) wouldn't even review that Game if it wasn't for his Job.
That's why i believe that Video Games 'Average Score' on N4G holds more weight than the MetaCritic's 'Average Score'.
--------------------------
Other than that i have nothing to add, as i agree with everything 'ZNP' has mentioned in his blog.
In my case i read multiple user reviews and read what the features of the game are and regardless of the score i choose the game based on the features i recognize i would like.
For that end i read reviews with scores like 8 or 7, so far it has worked wonders.
I never had buyed a game based on bigsite reviews. Good BLOG.
I trust only reviewers that don't directly benefit/lose from humping/killing a game.
Example:
Ben of Zero Punctuation. He makes lots of jokes, but despite that, manages to make some of the most insightful reviews on the internet when it comes to the gameplay.
I'll be honest, I depend on reviews- but not the score, rather its content (what the reviewer actually says about the game). As you said, sometimes big name review sites will criticise the hell out of a game and still give it a pass mark. We all know now that reviews require a bit of translating, but I find they're accurate often enough, except with big name franchises.