Gaming critics...

@charizard1605:

I agree 100%.

It's not my game of the year but many scored it like it was.

The inconsistency from game to game by the same review houses or sometimes even the same reviewers makes it difficult to take them seriously.

One game will suck because it has little content (because mp only) and right around the corner an exact same game will be the one brought by the messiah ignoring it has no content either.

Just be consistent.

I wouldn't think too much of it. Uncharted 4 is a sequel to an established series, it is very well received critically and from what I read the Uncharted fans are overall happy with the game. In that sense, the critics and the players appear to be on the same page overall. I wouldn't think too much about the "10/10 scores means it has to be GOTY at the end", maybe they scored it as a 10 initially as an Uncharted game, as in it is an amazing 4th sequel and any Uncharted fan should get it. Taken out of that context, they felt like highlighting other games, perhaps stand alone games like OVerwatch were an easier pick for them to highlight for GOTY. I don't think it is a knock on UC4. Could be other reasons too but I just don't think it's a big deal overall.

Some answers are already in here, but it would be interesting to point out the timing of game releases versus these awards.

Much like Oscars season with film, when something is released could help it. Uncharted 4 released back in May. That's 7 months (now 8) with it to just sink in with people as they take in other experiences. What would have happened to UC4 if it released in November? Dishonored 2 won best PS4 game at IGN--would it have still won if it released in February?

The game industry is not the same as the film industry, and I'm not arguing for or against anything. I'm just wanting to posit the notion that timing might be a factor.

@freedomfreak said:

@charizard1605 said:

can we really trust critics in this case?

We forgive you though, as long you realize Assassins Creed 3 sucks :P

I think the answer is obvious. A game review is usually done by 1 reviewer while the GOTY award is usually decided by a consensus of the whole team so it's going to differ more often than not. I don't think there's anything weird here.

At that moment I can imagine them giving Uncharted a 10 with their fanboy eyes. But then they are one wee klater and they realise the game doesn't have any of worthwhile content. They realise their 60 bucks went straight to the drain. (Altough they get free copies anyway)

I'm sure most of em would change the score after 2 weeks if they could.

@aigis: Pfft, way ahead of you there :p

I think gamers in general are guilty of this (ex. games from Rockstar). Looking back I liked Skyward Sword but now I realize that it wasn't a good game (it did have amazing dungeons).

But I too was surprised by the lack of UC4 wins this award season since back when the game launched, critics praised it to the moon. I personally think that like me, the game came and went. I have zero desire of replaying it. Perhaps it's because UC4 is a much better game than UC3 but it did not bring anything new nor did it have that same impact TLOU did.

Why are we talking about Ass Creed? :P

@uninspiredcup: AC2 was great, and I'm not a young gamer.

This.

You can always tell the critics/reviewers that get paid by the companies. They care more about site clicks with their bait reviews than anything else.

@Seabas989: Charizard and GamingBolt's Pramath are the same person.

I knew that awhile back lol.

Gaming critics? since when "gaming critics" is a thing? LOL

An high score doesn't mean the game is fun... it is just very well executed. Like nice graphics, perfect sounds, good music, nice voice acting but ... it is boring !!!

You guys attach too much importance to these meaningless awards that don't carry any weight. At the end of the day it's nothing but someone else's opinion. I know this site is System Wars and for the sake of fanboy arguments GOTY awards matter but in the real world no one gives a shit and COD is still the best selling game of the year. Stop getting bent out of shape because of silly awards that amount to nothing but marketing ploys.

Idd, and black flag was awesome.

A franchise with a very interesting setting. Sadly... owned by Ubisoft.

@Coco_pierrot: No, a high score usually means a fun game.

@vfighter: Not to me. I've tried many high scored game and found them stupidly boring but they sure are pretty to look at, voice acting is good, controls respond well and all that but the product is boring to me.

And I also enjoyed games that scored low.

So yeah, the score have no baring on the fun factor of a game because it is all subjective.

People opinions changed? Honeymoon period was a term I (think I) coined to describe people's obsession with a game when it first comes out, many years ago, and it still lives on to this day.

It's a major reason why I gave up on using "critic" reviews to determine whether a game is worthy of a purchase probably over a decade ago now. They are human just like me, and completely susceptible to over-blown joy with something "new".

I respect and admire your opinion my thread, my own is a minority.

Would argue the reactionary "this game is incredible" is an attribute (and overblown) for Assassins Creed II, while the majority of people shat, and still do shit on Assassins Creed III, with hindsight, Assassins Creed III got the short end of the stick. It's story telling in particular is, sort of really good.

It's just one overhyped system fanboys review swayed by advertising investment.

The fact it's gated behind one system makes it a small base.

Exactly, it wasn't a disposable movie game and everyone whos beat it has long forgotten it outside of using it as a life raft in system wars forums.

Yes, it's not a dictatorship.

Games get positive bias when reviewed during the "Honeymoon" period.

Some good points here.

You guys did a good job of debunking that farce of a review score, the game will be long forgotten whilst real excellence in the industry such as Deus Ex, Doom, Quake, Age of Empires 2, Westwood Command and Conquer and Overwatch (and a hundred others) will be cherished, played, modded and improved for decades.

But Dues Ex is a bad game. In almost every respect.

It's a pioneer, certainly, but taken even taken for it's time, horrible controls, horrible shooting, horrible game balance, horrible voice acting, horrible graphics, terrible AI e.t.c....

Uncharted 4 isn't groundbreaking, but as a video game it is a clearly better product, objectively in definable concrete ways.

This is another problem, nostalgia goggles, elitism and buying into a legend rather than examining the reality.

Gaming can be really cool, I like it. It's pretty good. But this "this game is old and therefor automatically better" attitude is utter nonsense.

uncharted 4 is appearing on numerous GOTY lists. the reality is that overwatch was the most-talked about, most important game to release this year. uncharted 4, for all its greatness, is another uncharted game, whereas overwatch completely shook up the online FPS landscape. why would you give GOTY to anything else?

Deus Ex is still being purchased, modded and played today (because it's good), Doom and Quake are releasing map packs on a weekly basis, with single maps and mods coming out every day, Age of Empires 2 is still selling and releasing content, Command and Conquer games have gone open source and are being modded into a new improved engine, Uncharted 4 was quickly forgotten by anyone not needing a defence for their weak system because it was a weekend interactive movie.

That is not nostalgia goggles, so stop using it as a crutch defence without proof.

Uncharted 4 uses entirely old and boring mechanics that break no ground and do nothing new. The only new thing worth noticing is the story, so it might as well have been a movie.

@charizard1605 said:

@freedomfreak said:

@charizard1605 said:

can we really trust critics in this case?

We can't. Especially those writing for Gamingbolt. Hell, I've pulled the same shit, myself. I'm sure there are games I went mental over earlier last year, but forgot about nearing the end.

And I also loved AC3 at some point in my life. But I'm sure some sites get paid a bit of money or something. As if that doesn't happen.

You know, I am actually glad you bring this up, because Assassin's Creed 3 was the point when I realized my own tendency to do so myself. Like everyone else, I got carried away by the AC3 hype, gave it a super high score, and then later realized, 'yo what the f*ck, that shit is embarrassing.' Ever since then, I have made a concerted effort to moderate my own assessments of games somewhat, to ask myself, 'if I were to look back at this six months later, would I still feel this way?' That, and Skyward Sword the year before it, made me rethink how I get swept up by hype for games.

On the whole, I think I have succeeded with this- honestly, the fact that we have to dig back to a review that is approaching five years old to find an inconsistency in my opinion is heartening to me, because it does demonstrate that I've done a better job of keeping my opinions reined in in the so called 'honeymoon period' since.

But that inconsistency that I see in other critics' opinions is what troubles me- I have no issue with critics getting carried away with hype, they are, as someone else pointed out in this thread, only people, too, and I do it all the time myself. My question is- why not be consistent in your overhype, then? At least I've made an effort to do so since AC3. I'm just trying to figure out why we always get at least one game every year that gets super high scores, and then a cold shoulder when the time comes for awards (Mass Effect 3, Dark Souls 2, Fallout 4, Uncharted 4 and so on).

Lol, Don't feel too bad bro. I'm guilty of overrating a game in the past as well. I gave TLOU a 10, and a rarely give out 10's. Honestly, it's more of an 8-8.5. Still my favorite console game last gen on PS3. At the time, I was starving for a survival horror game that was good...., everything that came out was bad (Silent hill, etc).

I don't think they are inconsistent, rather they prefer to award that honor to games that offer something new over games that are very well made but there's nothing we/they have never seen before. An example is Gamespot gave UC2 9.5 in 2009 but it didn't win GOTY instead Demon's Souls won, so I'm not suprised UC4 didn't win last year.

@ghosts4ever said:

@acp_45 said:

@ghosts4ever said:

@freedomfreak said:

@charizard1605 said:

can we really trust critics in this case?

We can't. Especially those writing for Gamingbolt. Hell, I've pulled the same shit, myself. I'm sure there are games I went mental over earlier last year, but forgot about nearing the end.

And I also loved AC3 at some point in my life. But I'm sure some sites get paid a bit of money or something. As if that doesn't happen.

AC3 is much better than AC2. AC2 did suck and probably one of the most overrated game of last generation.

black flag is best.

Calling Black Flag a good Assassin's Creed game is ridiculous. Whatever legacy the first 3 games built disappeared after Revelations. Assassin's Creed 3 felt stale and the plot was a drag. The world was also very aware of the player and never had it's own novelty like the earlier games. Connor was boring af. Assassins's Creed 4 was just a pirate game...and it's extremely open nature constantly exposed how flawed the stealth mechanics were. A mechanic that should have been changed/improved right after the Ezio trilogy.

The best Assassin's Creed games were the first three.

Brotherhood being my favourite.

Black flag is only decent Assassins creed game.

FIrst 3 games absolutely suck. so are later games.

now ubisoft is taking 3 years to develop new AC game. unless its major change in series. i wont be interested in it.

I heard the 1st was terrible and repetitive and that #2 at least gave a ton more variety. I remember quite liking Assassin's Creed 2 back in it's time. I'm sure it's probably rubbish now. These games always tend to feel repetitive after awhile. Many open world games tend to do that, give you 10 hours of main story missions and 40 hours of fetch quests - and if you do all those side-missions you basically end up doing the same crap over and over again and get burned out with it. I tend to usually "complete" the games I play, so that is probably why I've only bothered with 2 of them. Assassin's Creed 2, and Assassin's Creed Syndicate. Syndicate was actually one of the first PS4 games I played.

I thought Syndicate was solid enough. But admittedly despite being in a new gen Syndicate seemed to very much follow the same old formula that I remembered from 2. I just wanted to check out how it worked in Victorian Era london and I thought they did a solid job there. I've been meaning to play Black Flag and 3, but at this point I'll probably never make time for them.

I have found the best reviewer to listen to is Angry centaur gaming on youtube.. He articulates his opinions extremely well in breaking the game down.. And he doesn't use dumbass number rating systems.. He merely rates it on a buy, wait for a sale, or never touch standard..

Mario Galaxy 2 and Bayonetta 2 didn't win it either, both 10's, both called the top of their genre at release

I saw the game for what it was and gave it an 8/10. I said right from the beginning that UC4 was not worth a 10 and was way overrated. The game will not be remembered as a classic and will be irrelevant when looking back at noteworthy games. The fact that it is getting passed up on for awards only reinforces what I said from the beginning. I don't do hype. I just tell it like it is. Feel free to check the user reviews on GameSpot to verify my claims. Mine is at the top of the list.

Quite simply, it comes down to one reviewer versus a collective of reviewers/staffers. One reviewer who gushes over a game doesn't mean it'll get game of the year which is decided by the collective staff opinion.

Maybe over rated but the series will defiantly be remembered. I mean come on even your 8 score for a 4th game in the series says top notch, plus it define those character more then any game on the series. The platform and the studio will be remember for it. Not too mention seems to win the votes of fans on most those sites communities and make the list of their top 10.

@ellos: The series as a whole will be held in high regard in the future and will be remembered as a classic franchise. However, UC4 on its own does not deserve that level of praise. The game is obviously good, but people need to put things into perspective. People got carried away with the hype and it is overrated. Awarding a game a 10 on GS is basically like saying this is one of the greatest games ever made and it will be an all time classic. I didn't get that feeling at all after playing UC4. I appreciated its strengths, but also recognized its flaws. An 8 is a fair score for the game.

@BassMan: That is true but it does enhance UC for what it is. Here are the praises its getting even at this stage. It locks down best story or narrative awards. It gets nominated and makes runner up or top 10 list for GOTY. Its a great closer for the series if they truly end it there. Your putting way too much in this it failed to add a second GOTY for UC so it cant stand on its own. All games are flawed. Some will say there scores of 9+ is fair because its strength against other games also count. The word great is used alot even during there GOTY selection deliberations.

Whether the game got a 10 or GOTY somewhere does not impact my opinion of it. I have played the game myself and formed my own opinion. It is purely based on the quality of the game. The quality does not hold up to justify a 10.

Of course some people will disagree with me, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine just happens to be right. hehe ;)

Well then when it comes to opinions everyone is entitled to theirs. Hey who doesn't think there opinion is right lol.

Indeed, but I have been known to change my opinion from time to time with compelling arguments by others. They have to be very strong arguments though. lol

I haven't played Overwatch and don't plan on playing it (no plans to resume MP). What is groundbreaking about Gamespot's 2016 GOTY?

Honeymoon phase and bribery.

Reviewers need to be keenly aware of the honeymoon phase when it comes to games. Games like UC4 are filled with a lot of graphical and set-piece spectacle that can distract you from a game's flaws on an initial play through. Reviews are worthless because of this but it's not the critics fault. It's their job to rifle through games.

The answer is very simple, I think. A review is written by a single person - that single person might score a single game a 10/10.

But GotY awards are site/publication wide. They usually involve a voting process across multiple people where rankings occur. This accounts for Uncharted 4 (or any other 10/10 game) not necessarily taking out GotY.

Fallacy 1: just because one reviewer loves the game, doesn't mean a collective will agree.

For instance on my podcast we gave Witcher 3 GOTY, but anyone that's read my posts on the game knows I think the game is good, but hardly great. In fact if I had "reviewed" the game, it would be like a 7, maybe an 8 if I like the ending enough and I'm feeling nice. And that's just me, we assume that gaming critics put more thought into this shit than us, and they really don't. They are still going to be people, and while it made an impression on Mike, it might not have made the same impressive on Mary Kish or Peter Brown or the rest of the crew. People think making a list of games in a group, or collectively coming together and talking is gonna create this single unified list that has some consistency, and it won't. Unless you do a stupid voting system, and that's a shitty way to do GOTY.

It's actually why I enjoy listening to Giantbomb's GOTY, whether or not they are critical enough for my liking is another thing (and they aren't critical enough), but it does shine a huge spot light on how no one should ever take an award that fucking seriously unless you are the ones being awarded.

Now do I think game critics have a tendency to gas something up, and then by the end of the year realize....eh maybe I was a bit too positive on a game? Sure, but I would argue people on this forum are no worse about it. I've been that way, only to think more about a game and go "you know what, this one part was actually really fucking stupid". Certain aspects of a game, you can't really review. You can't review how much the updates will help make Overwatch or Rainbow Six Siege even more enjoyable over the year, and certain genres need a bit of a specialist to play: Strategy games, fighting games, beat-em ups because, what works for the "accessible" crowd, doesn't necessarily work for the hardcore nerdier fanbase of those genres.

That and game sequels don't get punished enough for being sequels, because they fucking should. How many of them are basically trying to sell you the same game as last time, only this time the story is somewhat different. I find it odd we can all recognize how shameless madden n CoD can be, but just because it's the second Dishonored or the 4th Deus Ex (2nd under Eidos Montreal) that people take offense if you criticize both games for being the same shit, but prettier.

Would be more ideal for video games, but the problem with that is the math doesn't work out. Websites are driven by hits, and late reviews do not get the hits that they do during the initial wave of reviews. It's an advantage the YouTube cats have because ultimately you're doing stuff on your own terms, the only overhead is pay for yourself, and you're good. Gamespot in contrast has to pay a whole staff, an office n all that jazz. And the general gaming audience (beyond just the fact that gamers, worst fanbase of anything ever) is more or less trained to go look at those hot n spicy day 1 reviews.

@freedomfreak said:

Savage.

Yeah that honeymoon phase is probably a bitch for reviewers whether they realize it or not. Go back later without those rose tinted glasses and you start to see things very differently. Kinda like falling out of love, in that way.

My question about sequels is how much should things change? Isn't the reason I'm returning to a particular game franchise because it's doing something I know I will enjoy? I know you're not implying drastic change is needed but there is a fine line that would seem very difficult to straddle as to not alienate existing fans. What's an example of a proper sequel, IYO?

As for reviewers in general, I totally agree with you. Expecting a consensus or for one person's opinion to be consistent across reviews is a mistake. Reviewers shouldn't even score games or give a recommend/not recommend. As long as I know your thought process and your arguments are well presented, I can infer if I would be interested in game based on your review.

Gotta say when I started playing AC3 it did feel like a 9/10 :P

I think we've all been anxious to see more about a game, and more than just filtered content from the publisher, so that is why we look forward to a hands on preview or review so much.

The reason I like to watch video reviews most of all these days is because of the gameplay shown in the videos (unfiltered from bugs, mistakes, non-cinematic but fun stuff) not the score.

Especially multiplayer game reviews could use a bit of time in the oven. I mean which multiplayer game is even released COMPLETE these days ? ^^

Well I think a substantial improvement should be made or a significant one that can be quantified. I'm not asking for a franchise to pull a Resident Evil 4, since only Resident Evil 4 has gotten away with pulling a Resident Evil 4. Most other dramatic changes tend to be the worst entry in the franchise by a mile (Splinter Cell Conviction, Hitman Absolution, what have you). But to me refinement isn't special, like congrats, you tightened up a game that was already pretty strong at its core. Now in certain cases some of the "dramatic" improve3ments are usually a by product of the previous game being lousy: Uncharted 2 being a huge improvement over 1, says more about how bad 1 was than how great UC2 is imo.

But at the same time, and while it hasn't always been legendary outings every time. Mario 64 to Sunshine to Galaxy to 3D World are completely different games. Metal Gear has had dramatic changes to its formula, Final Fantasy has never really been the same game from sequel to sequel. Now does that mean you can't make a super tight bitchin sequel? Nah, I quite like Mario Galaxy 2 more than Galaxy 1, and I can go back and forth between the two Bayonetta games. But I do think a critic, should fucking nitpick along with more nuanced criticism. I don't think saying "hey you more or less got away with making a game that was a lot like the last one" is an unjustified criticism.

As much as I dug Dishonored 1, and part of this is because I bothered to do a ghost playthrough of 2 (knowing full well it sucked it in Dishonored 1), my reaction was "not really sure I wanted more Dishonored in my life now". It's still a good game, obviously, but very little about it felt like this significant improvement. It had some highlights like the Clockwork mansion, but I didn't think the first game was a slouch on level design, and I didn't think this was a dramatic improvement. Where as Uncharted 4's shooting engine being improved a lot shouldn't get too much credit (because again UC never had a good shooting engine), but encounter designs being developed the way are deserve a ton of praise. I would argue 2 has a lot of enjoyable sequences, and 4 has multilayered encounters that are even better than some of the best stretches of The Last of Us.

It's something that is quantifiable to me, the story makes more of an effort to add depth to its characters, and go for a more potent thematic punch versus any of its predecessors. Can't always say that about a lot of sequels.

I'm not saying start giving samey sequels like a 6 or something, but I am saying "too much of the same" is a valid criticism, and is something that can be used fairly universally. Shouldn't just be the yearly titles that get punished, because to me at least those games have an excuse. You had 4 years between releases, and you still came away with a game that plays exactly the same?

Otherwise I get the no score routine, but eh, better critics have done their thing while having a grading scale. Just because the audience is gonna be stupid about it, doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be dropped. To me Eurogamer dropping theirs was more a gimmick (especially since they half assed it), and doesn't offset that outside of Simon Parkin, I basically never want to read their shit outside of maybe one or two other people.

My take on this is the following:

The hate for cinematic games by rabbid fanboys have been so loud lately that I start to believe major critics are afraid to give awards to these type of games in fear that these will brand them "biased", "paid of", "having no taste in games", etc, etc...

I'll be branded a conspiracy theorist but its a fact that the "popular opinion" (or in this specific case "unpopular opinion") has an effect of how people view things.

Lets go with the notion that your theory is 100% correct. That says a lot about how pusscake tier the critics are, that they can get swung that way and can't just back their own opinion. Not exactly seeing a noble institution being defended here.

@charizard1605: It was the first major exclusive on the PS4. It had a lot of hype because Sony as far as quality didn't have much to offer. Now that Sony is clicking and starting to release some good games it got lost in the pack.

I don't own and have only played it a little. I don't see the thrill or the fuss. But I can totally see how people like it and give it good scores.