A review is by one person while Game of the Year awards are done by committee so I don't expect 10/10 games to automatically win these awards.
Gaming critics...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
"classic" - a book people praise and don't read
Mark Twain said that, about books, but why should should that sentiment be any different with games?
I always though the series was overrated. Not saying bad, just not anything more than the pretty graphics, excellent voice acting and character animations and motion capture, top notch production values overall... but man, always disappointed despite all that, I never found the gameplay got anywhere near the same levels of consideration for any of it. I don't know why everyone and their mothers goes to such great lengths to prop these games up as more than they really are, but I always noticed a disingenuous praise for these games and that never made sense to me, and now it makes too much sense that people are tired of pretentiously keeping up this charade. People are finally coming to terms that the emperor has been naked this entire time.
Naughty Dog still makes good games, and they're exceptonal in almost every respect but the most important one, mainly the gameplay, and they have the potential to be truly great but they're not going to get there in this disingenuous atmosphere that gives them a free pass.
Loading Video...
Another game that comes to mind was Deus Ex Human Revolution. Thought it was soooo overrated. I find it funny too as the broad consensus is that Mankind Divided was a massive improvement over the original but I never thought the original was anything more than barely passable in my most generous estimate. And here we have a game that's supposedly just as good if not better, and nobody gave a shit. Maybe people are tired of praising something and getting nothing out of it beyond that warm fuzzy feeling of touching that social grapevine by submitting/conforming to popular sentiment.
In many ways these patterns of praising something but ignoring its flaws, or bashing excellent games by being fixated on petty reasons, or bashing bad games for the wrong reasons, or even failing to point out the exceptional qualities of not so great games, it sends mixed signals through the entire industry, and the supposed consumer group that echoes these sentiments through mindless regurgitation just make it worse.
@uninspiredcup 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.
Assassins Creed 2 is simply Assassins Creed 1 expanded. Absolutely no issues fixed. Same block land city. Very poor gameplay. Counter = god mode/stealth = pointless
Assassins Creed 3 instead focuses more on being an adventure game trying to tell a very ambitious and mature story from multiple viewpoints. It doesn't remove the issues but instead distracts from them.
It's incredibly baffling why the younger users praised Assassins Creed 2, I guess you just need a mature mind to appreciate 3.
What the ****, just no.
If you want to commend AC3 for being ambitious, then it's akin to having sex with a girl who wants to wow you with all the tricks she learned over the course of binge-watching pornhub, only for her to vomit on your dick and fart in your face.
AC2 may have just been a casual blowjob but at least she made you blow your load.
@charizard1605 said:
I legitimately, honestly, genuinely don't get this. Uncharted 4: A Thief's End releases, and everybody trips over themselves to give the game a 10. That's fine- I personally don't think the game is worth a 10, but if someone were to tell me they thought it was, I wouldn't argue the point with them much, I'd just assume they got more out of the things the game did well than I did.
So far, so good then- but then the end of the year rolls around, and none of these critics who were gushing over themselves calling Uncharted 4 the next evolution of storytelling in videogames, and other equally hyperbolic crap, are willing to award the damn game with the Game of the Year award- a lot won't even nominate it. Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, The Game Awards, you name it- Uncharted 4 apparently doesn't deserve a Game of the Year from any of them.
I'm not here to argue that it does- personally, I won't award it the award myself either (it's not even the best console game I have played this year). I don't actually care if Uncharted 4 gets an award or not, I do care about consistency- if these guys were willing to award Uncharted 4 with the highest scores, to the extent that Uncharted 4 is currently the highest rated game of the generation (tied for it anyway), then why not follow through on that? They clearly thought Uncharted 4 was a game that was something special- why hesitate to give it top honors? Giving the game top scores, but not awarding it implies dishonesty- either critics are being dishonest with their awards now, or they were dishonest when they awarded the game a 10, hyping themselves up into a frenzy and ignoring all its faults.
Which is it? And in either case, can we really trust critics in this case?
The problem with gaming critics and the gaming community at large is that they don't even know what they should like in their own medium. What should be praised first? Gameplay, or story? Can you neglect one while excelling in the other? It's amazing how different the opinions are in what constitutes a good video game, and this isn't good.
Prior to the shitastic Star Wars and the emergence of asinine blockbusters, most audiences and critics generally agreed upon what would constitute a good film: this is why a film such as The Godfather was both the highest grossing film of 1972 and considered a stone-cold artistic classic upon release. But even when critical standards are lower for "popcorn films" today, you can't get away with bad acting, production values, dialogue etc just because you're focusing on special effects and movie star power, because the ideas for "the standard" have previously been entrenched in the minds of critics and audiences.
Critically assessing games is still generally up in the air. I fully believe that there are games out there from which you can derive what should be assessed in a great game (Overwatch and its critical and commercial, seemingly longtail success comes to mind. Hitman's critical long tail also comes to mind), but critics haven't yet done what music, film, and television critics have done and extrapolated from excellent examples of yesterday, just what makes a video game good.
Thus, when you don't have a list of standards from which you can refer to, you're easily swept away by glitz and glamour, such as a Playstation 4 exclusive, heavily marketed, with huge production values and cinema-like presentation i.e Uncharted 4.
It doesnt really matter.
Even i didnt give Uncharted 4 my vote to GOTY even if it was the game that had the most blast with this year. I liked everything since i really like cinematic games. Game was a fantastic experience as a whole. Yes you can debate all day if its a movie or if story isnt strong or if puzzles werent top notch or whatever the case but as i said numerous times , when the time comes to answer "who does all that better under same genre ?" suddenly nothing else coming in your mind to compete with UC series as we speak ..
X game excels in story but lacks 1-2-3-4-5 things that UC4 has. Z games excels in puzzles but lacks 1-2-3-4-5 things UC4 offers. And then you suddenly realize that is one of a kind for its genre , beatable only .. by its little brothers !! So thats where preference kicks in.
Aside all that , my vote went to experiences not necessarily better overall or more fun but deeper than an action "movie" unlike anything else out there , not only on consoles but on PCs as well..
I voted for Inside and The Last Guardian in various sites. Does that mean that i dont like UC4 ? Damn hell no , actually i might had overall better time with it than Inside for example but i need to vote based on other criteria other than my taste alone right ? Otherwise i would be a fanboy like the ones im getting debates with for years now.
Maybe thats the case with various critics. They praising something that does some great things in a solid way that really stands out but theres something different , innovating/revolutionary or just different enough than the usual that wins you/them over. Thats what happened to me even and thats why i couldnt vote for one of my fav games in 2016.
@FrozenLiquid said:
@charizard1605 said:
I legitimately, honestly, genuinely don't get this. Uncharted 4: A Thief's End releases, and everybody trips over themselves to give the game a 10. That's fine- I personally don't think the game is worth a 10, but if someone were to tell me they thought it was, I wouldn't argue the point with them much, I'd just assume they got more out of the things the game did well than I did.
So far, so good then- but then the end of the year rolls around, and none of these critics who were gushing over themselves calling Uncharted 4 the next evolution of storytelling in videogames, and other equally hyperbolic crap, are willing to award the damn game with the Game of the Year award- a lot won't even nominate it. Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, The Game Awards, you name it- Uncharted 4 apparently doesn't deserve a Game of the Year from any of them.
I'm not here to argue that it does- personally, I won't award it the award myself either (it's not even the best console game I have played this year). I don't actually care if Uncharted 4 gets an award or not, I do care about consistency- if these guys were willing to award Uncharted 4 with the highest scores, to the extent that Uncharted 4 is currently the highest rated game of the generation (tied for it anyway), then why not follow through on that? They clearly thought Uncharted 4 was a game that was something special- why hesitate to give it top honors? Giving the game top scores, but not awarding it implies dishonesty- either critics are being dishonest with their awards now, or they were dishonest when they awarded the game a 10, hyping themselves up into a frenzy and ignoring all its faults.
Which is it? And in either case, can we really trust critics in this case?
The problem with gaming critics and the gaming community at large is that they don't even know what they should like in their own medium. What should be praised first? Gameplay, or story? Can you neglect one while excelling in the other? It's amazing how different the opinions are in what constitutes a good video game, and this isn't good.
Prior to the shitastic Star Wars and the emergence of asinine blockbusters, most audiences and critics generally agreed upon what would constitute a good film: this is why a film such as The Godfather was both the highest grossing film of 1972 and considered a stone-cold artistic classic upon release. But even when critical standards are lower for "popcorn films" today, you can't get away with bad acting, production values, dialogue etc just because you're focusing on special effects and movie star power, because the ideas for "the standard" have previously been entrenched in the minds of critics and audiences.
Critically assessing games is still generally up in the air. I fully believe that there are games out there from which you can derive what should be assessed in a great game (Overwatch and its critical and commercial, seemingly longtail success comes to mind. Hitman's critical long tail also comes to mind), but critics haven't yet done what music, film, and television critics have done and extrapolated from excellent examples of yesterday, just what makes a video game good.
Thus, when you don't have a list of standards from which you can refer to, you're easily swept away by glitz and glamour, such as a Playstation 4 exclusive, heavily marketed, with huge production values and cinema-like presentation i.e Uncharted 4.
Gameplay, any rational thought put into it would tell you its gameplay. Every other mediums virtues go around the thing that make that medium inherently special, video games instead gotta be like comics all ashamed of being a game and shit. smh.
Do I trust critics? Not the ones that work for places like gamespot or ign as much as I respect one's on youtube and such. Then again I'm not one to overly trust a reviewer so there is that. I think the problem with reviewers is that all works of art no matter the medium is subject to what the person likes and not the audience as a whole. For instance one reviewer could love COD Infinite warfare yet another reviewer could trash the game for being a generic shooter in their eyes and wish it had more puzzle like elements. Hence why I take all if any reviewer's review with a grain of salt. If anything I use the reviews to get info on what is and isn't in the game I'm looking to buy.
if a game looks really good to you... play it... even if its 5/10, its probably still worth looking at. Scores shouldn't be all that convinces you. Many of my favourite games aren't 10/10 games, most of my favourite games got very mixed reviews.
Look at the words of other people just like you... people who liked the game you are interested in, not the smug so called game critics. These people get paid to do reviews and are not to be trusted and usually give out "safe" scores to please their readers with scores they expected to see. Its confusing as hell, so best to keep it as simple and read individual reviews and try to sift through the shit fanboy reviews and find the real genuine opinions.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment