Game Developers Hate Game Reviewers.
Edit: I supose you'd all like a link to this artical. http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13224 There you go. Can someone link it?
Edit: I supose you'd all like a link to this artical. http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=13224 There you go. Can someone link it?
Linkified.
Just to name a few....
Oooooh. Then they're gonna hate me...
<<<<Aspiring Gaming journalist
I agree with reviewers that mark down games because they only appeal to a specific audience. I look at this way: a site like GameSpot writes reviews in an attempt to help readers judge which games they should and shouldn't buy. So when GameSpot gives a game a 9.6, shouldn't you expect that just about everybody will like that game? I think they would be neglecting their assumed responsibility if they gave games like MGS3 a 9.8 just because fans of the Metal Gear series will absolutely love it.
Sorry devs, but thats the reality of it.Â
I agree with reviewers that mark down games because they only appeal to a specific audience. I look at this way: a site like GameSpot writes reviews in an attempt to help readers judge which games they should and shouldn't buy. So when GameSpot gives a game a 9.6, shouldn't you expect that just about everybody will like that game? I think they would be neglecting their assumed responsibility if they gave games like MGS3 a 9.8 just because fans of the Metal Gear series will absolutely love it.
Sorry devs, but thats the reality of it.
Thats one side of it, but there is another side as well. No game, no matter what, will appeal to everyone. Thats the way it is? Does that mean no game should ever get a high score? A lot of people don't like RPGs or Extreme Sports games or Fighters or Adventure games, but one game from each of those genres and for the target audiance that likes those types of games has recived the highest score possible from this site. A game should be reviewed soley on its merit and in an apples-to-apples comparison between other games in its genre. The people outside of the target audiance won't give a damn weither the game gets a 1 or a 10, its not their type of game. Scores should resemble the rating of the game based on the game, not based on its audiance.
[QUOTE="CJL13"]I just hate it when a reviewer knocks a game for the dumbest reasons, KH2, Prey, MPH anyone?DerangalAgteed. I can't belive KH2 got knocked down! Yes, its easy, but oh well. Even bigger is The DMC3 Games...
It always sucks to hear bad things about something you've worked really hard on, but in the end critics and creators will always go hand in hand. I think they should just suck it up and stop being lazy and make better games.
Because when you think about, what stops game devs from making extraordinary games? They can make anything they want. Anything! Sure there's always the money problem, but other than that, what stops them from making the next Zelda or MGS or WoW or whatever?
Just like movie directors and visual artists hate the critics too.That was something brought up in the artical. We don't make games. Saying devs should work to make the games the next big thing is easy for us. What about the people that have to do it? Games cost a lot of money and they take a lot of time to make. Not every dev team has the luxury of the backing of a company like MS, Sony, Nin, EA, Capcom, or any of the other huge publishers. They don't always have unlimited time and money to make a game. When a dev uses up the funds their publisher allocated for them they have to get more and the publisher had to weigh if its financially fesible to give them more time and money or just to tell them to finish it up and ship it as-is. And even if a dev is given unlimited time that doesn't mean the game will still turn out good. Some games spend many years in development and turn out bad and lose the dev and publisher tons of money. Its something they have to weigh. Also there is marketing costs and getting your game well known. There are a lot of incredibly good games that are not popular due to poor marketing or presentation. Thats just the way it is. To quote the artical: "Reviewers what all games to be the next Zelda." Its impossible for every game to do something new or above the fold. Unless you go and watch the devs work and see what they are doing you (and anyone else) do not have the right to call them lazy. They have a right to be mad at reviewers if their game is looked at unfairly. Games are a work of art and the programmers are the artists that create it. How many artists or directors do you know that take kindly when their work is judged unfairly?
It always sucks to hear bad things about something you've worked really hard on, but in the end critics and creators will always go hand in hand. I think they should just suck it up and stop being lazy and make better games.
Because when you think about, what stops game devs from making extraordinary games? They can make anything they want. Anything! Sure there's always the money problem, but other than that, what stops them from making the next Zelda or MGS or WoW or whatever?vitrobliss
I agree with reviewers that mark down games because they only appeal to a specific audience. I look at this way: a site like GameSpot writes reviews in an attempt to help readers judge which games they should and shouldn't buy. So when GameSpot gives a game a 9.6, shouldn't you expect that just about everybody will like that game? I think they would be neglecting their assumed responsibility if they gave games like MGS3 a 9.8 just because fans of the Metal Gear series will absolutely love it.
Sorry devs, but thats the reality of it.
Thats one side of it, but there is another side as well. No game, no matter what, will appeal to everyone. Thats the way it is? Does that mean no game should ever get a high score? A lot of people don't like RPGs or Extreme Sports games or Fighters or Adventure games, but one game from each of those genres and for the target audiance that likes those types of games has recived the highest score possible from this site. A game should be reviewed soley on its merit and in an apples-to-apples comparison between other games in its genre. The people outside of the target audiance won't give a damn weither the game gets a 1 or a 10, its not their type of game. Scores should resemble the rating of the game based on the game, not based on its audiance.
Well of course no game appeals to everyone, but some games certainly have a much broader appeal than others. Look at the games that have gotten very high scores in recent times: Oblivion, RE4, God of War, WoW....all of those are games to you could pretty much recommend to anybody. Sure, not everyone will like RE4, (that just means there's something wrong with them), but its certainly a game that wouldn't just be enjoyed by fans of its genre.Â
No way you look at it, comparing games only to games in its genre isn't a very fair way of doing it. Let's say a game comes out in a relatively niche genre that very few people enjoy, like realistic flight combat simulation or something like that. And this game is the definitive realistic flight combat simulation game, I mean it puts Falcon 4.0 to shame. Now does this game now deserve 9.8? What happens when Joe sports, who's never played a realistic flight combat simulation game, reads this absolutely glowing review? Should he automatically assume he'll like it just because its rated so high?  The answer is "of course not", but can a game-reviewing site really expect that not to happen?Â
You've said that nobody cares about scores for games in a genre they don't like. Do really think that people who didn't like RPG's didn't notice when Oblivion got a 9.6? When GS gives a game a 9.6, they have to know that its going to draw the attention of people who aren't fans of the genre. And knowing that, I don't see how they could give a game such a high mark without judging its mass appeal.
I agree with reviewers that mark down games because they only appeal to a specific audience. I look at this way: a site like GameSpot writes reviews in an attempt to help readers judge which games they should and shouldn't buy. So when GameSpot gives a game a 9.6, shouldn't you expect that just about everybody will like that game? I think they would be neglecting their assumed responsibility if they gave games like MGS3 a 9.8 just because fans of the Metal Gear series will absolutely love it.
Sorry devs, but thats the reality of it.
Thats one side of it, but there is another side as well. No game, no matter what, will appeal to everyone. Thats the way it is? Does that mean no game should ever get a high score? A lot of people don't like RPGs or Extreme Sports games or Fighters or Adventure games, but one game from each of those genres and for the target audiance that likes those types of games has recived the highest score possible from this site. A game should be reviewed soley on its merit and in an apples-to-apples comparison between other games in its genre. The people outside of the target audiance won't give a damn weither the game gets a 1 or a 10, its not their type of game. Scores should resemble the rating of the game based on the game, not based on its audiance.
Well of course no game appeals to everyone, but some games certainly have a much broader appeal than others. Look at the games that have gotten very high scores in recent times: Oblivion, RE4, God of War, WoW....all of those are games to you could pretty much recommend to anybody. Sure, not everyone will like RE4, (that just means there's something wrong with them), but its certainly a game that wouldn't just be enjoyed by fans of its genre.
No way you look at it, comparing games only to games in its genre isn't a very fair way of doing it. Let's say a game comes out in a relatively niche genre that very few people enjoy, like realistic flight combat simulation or something like that. And this game is the definitive realistic flight combat simulation game, I mean it puts Falcon 4.0 to shame. Now does this game now deserve 9.8? What happens when Joe sports, who's never played a realistic flight combat simulation game, reads this absolutely glowing review? Should he automatically assume he'll like it just because its rated so high? The answer is "of course not", but can a game-reviewing site really expect that not to happen?
You've said that nobody cares about scores for games in a genre they don't like. Do really think that people who didn't like RPG's didn't notice when Oblivion got a 9.6? When GS gives a game a 9.6, they have to know that its going to draw the attention of people who aren't fans of the genre. And knowing that, I don't see how they could give a game such a high mark without judging its mass appeal.
That isn't entirly true. Vagrant Story got a 9.6 and no one even know what Im talking about when I mention it as the greatest RPG of all time.
And about Joe sports, your logic didn't make much sense on why this wouldn't work...
I agree with reviewers that mark down games because they only appeal to a specific audience. I look at this way: a site like GameSpot writes reviews in an attempt to help readers judge which games they should and shouldn't buy. So when GameSpot gives a game a 9.6, shouldn't you expect that just about everybody will like that game? I think they would be neglecting their assumed responsibility if they gave games like MGS3 a 9.8 just because fans of the Metal Gear series will absolutely love it.
Sorry devs, but thats the reality of it.
Thats one side of it, but there is another side as well. No game, no matter what, will appeal to everyone. Thats the way it is? Does that mean no game should ever get a high score? A lot of people don't like RPGs or Extreme Sports games or Fighters or Adventure games, but one game from each of those genres and for the target audiance that likes those types of games has recived the highest score possible from this site. A game should be reviewed soley on its merit and in an apples-to-apples comparison between other games in its genre. The people outside of the target audiance won't give a damn weither the game gets a 1 or a 10, its not their type of game. Scores should resemble the rating of the game based on the game, not based on its audiance.
Well of course no game appeals to everyone, but some games certainly have a much broader appeal than others. Look at the games that have gotten very high scores in recent times: Oblivion, RE4, God of War, WoW....all of those are games to you could pretty much recommend to anybody. Sure, not everyone will like RE4, (that just means there's something wrong with them), but its certainly a game that wouldn't just be enjoyed by fans of its genre.
No way you look at it, comparing games only to games in its genre isn't a very fair way of doing it. Let's say a game comes out in a relatively niche genre that very few people enjoy, like realistic flight combat simulation or something like that. And this game is the definitive realistic flight combat simulation game, I mean it puts Falcon 4.0 to shame. Now does this game now deserve 9.8? What happens when Joe sports, who's never played a realistic flight combat simulation game, reads this absolutely glowing review? Should he automatically assume he'll like it just because its rated so high? The answer is "of course not", but can a game-reviewing site really expect that not to happen?
You've said that nobody cares about scores for games in a genre they don't like. Do really think that people who didn't like RPG's didn't notice when Oblivion got a 9.6? When GS gives a game a 9.6, they have to know that its going to draw the attention of people who aren't fans of the genre. And knowing that, I don't see how they could give a game such a high mark without judging its mass appeal.
That isn't entirly true. Vagrant Story got a 9.6 and no one even know what Im talking about when I mention it as the greatest RPG of all time.
And about Joe sports, your logic didn't make much sense on why this wouldn't work...
Another example is Eternal Darkness. Got a 9.4 here and good socres other places and I get weird looks from some people that are fans of the survival horror genre if I reccomend it. They have no idea what the game is.
I agree with reviewers that mark down games because they only appeal to a specific audience. I look at this way: a site like GameSpot writes reviews in an attempt to help readers judge which games they should and shouldn't buy. So when GameSpot gives a game a 9.6, shouldn't you expect that just about everybody will like that game? I think they would be neglecting their assumed responsibility if they gave games like MGS3 a 9.8 just because fans of the Metal Gear series will absolutely love it.
Sorry devs, but thats the reality of it.
Thats one side of it, but there is another side as well. No game, no matter what, will appeal to everyone. Thats the way it is? Does that mean no game should ever get a high score? A lot of people don't like RPGs or Extreme Sports games or Fighters or Adventure games, but one game from each of those genres and for the target audiance that likes those types of games has recived the highest score possible from this site. A game should be reviewed soley on its merit and in an apples-to-apples comparison between other games in its genre. The people outside of the target audiance won't give a damn weither the game gets a 1 or a 10, its not their type of game. Scores should resemble the rating of the game based on the game, not based on its audiance.
Well of course no game appeals to everyone, but some games certainly have a much broader appeal than others. Look at the games that have gotten very high scores in recent times: Oblivion, RE4, God of War, WoW....all of those are games to you could pretty much recommend to anybody. Sure, not everyone will like RE4, (that just means there's something wrong with them), but its certainly a game that wouldn't just be enjoyed by fans of its genre.
No way you look at it, comparing games only to games in its genre isn't a very fair way of doing it. Let's say a game comes out in a relatively niche genre that very few people enjoy, like realistic flight combat simulation or something like that. And this game is the definitive realistic flight combat simulation game, I mean it puts Falcon 4.0 to shame. Now does this game now deserve 9.8? What happens when Joe sports, who's never played a realistic flight combat simulation game, reads this absolutely glowing review? Should he automatically assume he'll like it just because its rated so high? The answer is "of course not", but can a game-reviewing site really expect that not to happen?
You've said that nobody cares about scores for games in a genre they don't like. Do really think that people who didn't like RPG's didn't notice when Oblivion got a 9.6? When GS gives a game a 9.6, they have to know that its going to draw the attention of people who aren't fans of the genre. And knowing that, I don't see how they could give a game such a high mark without judging its mass appeal.
That isn't entirly true. Vagrant Story got a 9.6 and no one even know what Im talking about when I mention it as the greatest RPG of all time.
And about Joe sports, your logic didn't make much sense on why this wouldn't work...
Another example is Eternal Darkness. Got a 9.4 here and good socres other places and I get weird looks from some people that are fans of the survival horror genre if I reccomend it. They have no idea what the game is.
Stop poking holes in my theories! :P
Anyway I'd imagine that sites like GS try to operate somewhere between our two ideals for how game ratings should work. Sorry for going off on such a long tangent. :oops:
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment