How much should subject matter contribute in a score?

Hello. If a game's high concept, should it obligatorily get more critical praise for being perceived as directing gaming in a mature direction?

I ask this because I play Hellblade, and it's shit. But people are saying it's good, but it seems shit.

Tread is 6/10 so.....

It shouldn't at all, unless is done well. And Hellblade does it well, Imo. That's still one of the biggest challenges in gaming, to build a satisfying narrative, for any subject, serious or not.

Not if it sucks

None. It's all about execution. Like I appreciate what something like 13 reasons why wants to talk about, it certainly deserves some real evaluation. And on balance I'd say the mom is great, and the stuff that is specifically about the chick getting depressed is good, but the overall story is clunky, often silly, and more frustrating than neatly told. Having your heart in the right place is nice, but doesn't mean you can't make poor art just because your heart is in the right place.

Like I don't want to say mean things about That Dragon, Cancer, because it is a devastating experience. I full on had to pause the game and cry, but that says more about my ability to empathize with parents losing their kid (which I think you have to be pretty dead inside for it to not effect you someway) than the game's own execution of that story. Because outside of one sequence, I'd say the game really doesn't do a good job of conveying anything. It's not particularly a nuanced creation, and the story is more a blog post if you really thought about it.

The part where Ninja Theory gets a lot of praise isn't surprising. They haven't made a single good game, but their metascores have always been in the 80s.

I think a game should just be scored on weather its fun to play or not. If the best part of the game is not the game then why score it high? Hellblade looks like a bag of shite which is why I didnt buy it. One thing I have learned the past few years is to take review site scores with a bucket of salt, especially Gamespot.

"Reviews" should simply preface what the product is intended to be, and critique it on the intended experience. Love it or hate it, There's is much emphasis on storytelling in Uncharted. They are popular for this reason. Just as a game engine and direction can be sound or not, it is fair to judge the other aspects in terms of craft.

What a shit thread.

Depends on the subject matter. For a game like Deus Ex Human Revolution, the game was shit, but got a free pass by many, I think mostly because I think there is a desire to have a worthy cyberpunk game as there's not much really out there.

As for Hellblade, I'd say the aggregate score seem mostly positive, depending on what you find positive in a aggregate score, Halo 5 and Gears 4 did so much better critically and yet people act like they're colossal failures and shit games, so if you follow a same sentiment regarding those scores, Hellblade is doing worse, so if you want it to be perceived as bad you already have your justification right there.

Also, it's a PC only game, therefor likely to get a bonus score from PC gaming enthusiasts the same way a mediocre PS4 exclusive supposedly induces orgasm just to think about. And of course, gaming journalist who write reviews are just going to echo whatever the popular sentiment is on NeoGAF, because supposedly its all industry insiders and they want to look like they belong in the industry.

Subject matter should not play into a game whatsoever at all. However, the bias crap "say what everyone else says" reviews and sell outs seem to be here to stay. The score of a game in ANY category should start and end at the gameplay itself. Several other aspects should come into play to determine a final score, but far too often low budget games get way too high of a score while bigger budget games are judged on another tier and scores reflect things that should not play into the score at all. Judging said games on a more harsh scale has never made any sense to me. Sure, I get that the indie devs. dont have the bigger budgets, and perhaps "it's not fair"... but that's life. That is NOT the way it should work. If there is only one universal score rating for all genres, budgets, and eras, then you should have to take the gold standard as a starting point and go from there. I know it is often difficult to compare games since they are so different, but it isn't hard to compare gameplay, mechanics, features, fun factor, replayability, length, story, difficulty, etc. I think it's hilarious seeing high art indies scoring so high. There needs to be a disclaimer somewhere that not all scores for all genres are reached through the same methods. Then again, all reviews except for mine should be taken with a grain of salt anyways. So I have that going for me.. Heh.

I don't believe Hellblade got 8s and 9s soley based on its subject matter.

That's quite frankly a proposterous statement.

Not at all

I think a game should be reviewed as an experience, rather than broken down by it's parts. Sure making mention of flaws or strengths are important in describing and critiquing the game as a whole, but focusing too strongly on one aspect or another does not do the creation justice.

I do not think all games are meant to be "fun", in the sense that they provide amusement and pleasant feelings. When someone says fun, I think more of lighthearted enjoyment, although the word fun is very flexible.

I enjoy games that I do not consider fun. Usually games in the categories of stealth, horror, or survival, do not come off as fun, but engaging games that cause the player's emotions to swing and translate a memorable experience to the player. Some examples for me would include The Last of Us, Metal Gear Solid(series), Splinter Cell(series), Resident Evil(series), Dead Space. Even ARPG's like the Soulsborne series and it's "clones" are tense experiences that can cause frustration and impatience, but overcoming those and succeeding causes immense gratification.

I think a game should be engaging, whether with it's narrative or moment to moment gameplay, or even a combination of both. If the game can successfully cause a memorable experience that you enjoyed, then I believe it should be positively reviewed.

Also, since games are a product bought by your hard earned money, I believe that the price of the game upon release should be factored into the review quality. I expect much more out of a $60 big budget game than I would a $20 or $30 indie game. Based on those expectations, I would alter my review of that experience to match.

I feel this way about the Medieval setting that's prevalent in just about everything that's hot shit.

I typed that before I googled the game. Oh brother.

On a related note, that indie game To The Moon is completely fucking pathetic.

Anyone that thought it was deep and meaningful? Congratulations, you enjoyed autism as a plot twist, you muppet.

That's a weird one. I suppose subject matter is part of a game and as such can be criticized. But should it be? I don't think anybody would like it to be criticized negatively or even positively. Only perhaps in terms of originality and how light-hearted or extreme it is. If I were a reviewer I would never criticize a game's subject matter, and would only inform about it in such ways.

In the case of Hellblade (I haven't played it yet) I would expect reviewers to say it's quite original how they address it and maybe a little heavy (I don't know if it is) and leave it at that. I don't think any of us are excited or interested to read about the reviewer's political agenda in a game review.

I don't think maturity should have much to do with it. That is borderline politics.

... it "seems"? But I thought you played it?

In response to thread: None. If the game doesnt play good then the subject should be completely cast aside.

I completely agree.

Nay. And yes, Hellblade seems shit.

The most ridiculous logic leaps just to get to a sappy ending. Shit's manipulative as ****.

The way I see it the subject matter is a component of the story. So it's like you were asking how important a single aspect of the story is. I mean it can have a greater impact on you if it is well thought out and written, if it is tackling a subject matter not explored properly before. The premise can often be very important. For example I have a strong inclination towards Sci-Fi, so those games always grab my attention faster.

So once again it goes back to the discussion of reviewers being competent enough to review games within their genre. So when a reviewer gives 9/10 to a game like "What Happened to Edith Finch", we understand that this game is particularly good when compared to other games that are similar to it. We understand that the gameplay in that game cannot measure up to one found in other games such as Resident Evil 4 or Halo 5.

So it matters yes, but how much depends on the type of game I would say. Ultimately, however, I would say it matters very little because you can have a poor story even if the subject matter is very compelling. I mean the subject matter alone doesn't really have any say on the final quality of the game, but what I'm trying to say is that it can still be an important aspect of the game.