![Canon DSLR Camera [EOS 90D] with 18-135 is USM Lens | Built-in Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, DIGIC 8…](https://techcratic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/71wFDlXt6L._AC_SL1500_-360x180.jpg)
![helloleiboo Car Windshield Sun Shade for Tesla Model 3/ Model Y/Model S [2024 Upgrade]…](https://techcratic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/71KKP0fGq2L._AC_SL1500_-360x180.jpg)
1966 Likes
Discussion around game reviews for any platform, whether it’s a Nintendo Switch, Xbox, PS5 or PC game, has always been a bit …
Source Link
1966 Likes
Discussion around game reviews for any platform, whether it’s a Nintendo Switch, Xbox, PS5 or PC game, has always been a bit …
Source Link
I did an experiment over the past two years where I only played games based on the best Metacritic scores (Metascore). There were 16 games which I played to the end. The average Metascore for these games was 93. The average score that I gave to these same games was a 70. So yeah, the critics are significantly misleading, overall. Average user score was an 80. Better but still overrating games.
Review scores are so flawed. I played countless games with bad review that were better than critically acclaimed titles
As someone who tends to love the more niche stuff out there, this is a sentiment I understand. Some of my favorite games usually hover around the 60's to low 70's as far as review scores go. To most people, this would indicate they are absolute trash; but to me, they are invaluable experiences I still think about fondly to this day. Games that have affected how I even view this medium.
I have a friend who half-jokingly, half-seriously calls some games "cooler than they are good". Some nitpicks of the wording aside, I feel it almost perfectly describes these sort of games. Yeah, they are jank and unpolished. Yeah, they have very notable flaws that can be frustrating. But when they do something right and you connect with it, they are an absolute joy. And I would play these over many games scoring 80's or 90's.
As a result, I've come to realize that I don't really take review scores seriously anymore. There is so much that goes into a game (controls, graphics, aesthetical design, atmosphere, sound design, VA work, OST, story, characters, so on and so on) that boiling it all down into a hard arbitrary number undermines almost everything about the experience. And that's assuming the reviewer is actually doing their job properly. A not insignificant amount unfortunately do end up coming off as highly opinionated views of someone who likely didn't even play much of said game in the first place. At that point, it just a complete mess sadly.
I agree. I remember when I was a kid, having played Snes or PS1 games that got a high rating often I didn't like them that much. Then there where games not rated that high but I loved them to death.
Nowadays you see games like Diablo 4 having a super high Critic score, but a very los User score. What I have to think about that is weird.
They aren't a necessary evil. Ignore games journalism. Just look at what users say, or better yet, wait for a while, then buy/rent it and decide for yourself.
What's the game at 7:38? Looks interesting.
I'm not against scores when reviewing films or books, but I can't realistically give a single number to something as complex as a video game. What if a game has a really clever story but horrible gameplay? What if it starts really good but ends dissapointingly? How do I choose what side of the coin I am on?
it's a double edged sword how saturated the game market is. I love the sheer amount of different games out there — there's truly something for everyone! But also it's so overwhelming how many games there are (especially indie titles, which are the games that are usually trying something new and taking risks) but also a lot of big studios keep hashing out repetitive shit too
Well about the outlier score… In statistics it is usually best to remove the outliers to have better sense of data. So in reality those outlier scores are not adding much of a value unfortunately.
What’s the game at 2:35?!
That's a blanket statement. Also, anyone who pre-orders games in todays climate is just not an intelligent person.
Individual reviews can be pretty far off at times but most of the time they're accurate. It all depends on who the reviewer is.
That's why Metacritic is almost always highly accurate. It's rarely ever off but sometimes it is. There's been instances where reviewers were paid off for good reviews or where people start being biased towards a game because of some personal reason.
These things are very rare, though. Like, I've never once played a game with a Metacritic score in the mid 90's (out of 100) and not had it end up being a masterpiece.
Likewise I've never once played a game with a Metacritic of 90 or higher and had it be a bad game.
Honestly, I think Metacritic scores are typically very accurate. When you have an overall average of hundreds (if not thousands) of reviews (from publications) and ratings (from players), globally, it's pretty much impossible for the majority of them to be completely off-base.
That being said, you are going to like whatever connects with you, personally. Just don't be afraid to admit that some of the games you like are, in fact, bad games. I'm not. There's a number of bad games out there that I have a lot of fun with. I'm just not insanely defensive and yelling at other people that they're wrong and I'm right because they're actually really great games (simply because I personally enjoy them). That's some extreme narcissism, right there. The same garbage you see from 95% of current day Reddit users.
Your personal enjoyment of a bad game does not warp space-time, and the very fabric of reality itself, and change what the definition of the word quality means. Just admit you like some less than good games sometimes and get over yourself. (Not you personally but modern gamers, as a whole.)
I mean, for every truly terrible game out there you are bound to find some people who will defend to the death that they're actually amazing games. That everyone is wrong, and they're right. But does that make them right and 99% of gamers wrong? No. It just means that they personally enjoy some questionable games but they're so narcissistic that they think them liking something changes the reality of what quality is.
"It's a great game now because I like it." No, sorry. That's not how reality works. Reality doesn't warp and change itself based on your personal feelings. This is why reviewers do their very best to remain unbiased and score games based on their build quality, design, execution, and many other technical criteria. They also have countless games under their belts (we call this experience) which gives them a better understanding of what makes or breaks a game. Quality encompasses a long list of technical aspects of any game including how well they run, how well designed they are, how well balanced the gameplay is, how responsive the controls are, how much replay value there is, the amount of content you get for your money, overall production values and level of polish, overall enjoyment factor (including progression and payoffs for achieving certain goals within a game), sound design (sound effects) and soundtrack music), artistic direction, game directing, originality, writing and voice acting (if it's the type of game that has these aspects), etc.
If all these aspects are great, you will get a great game. If many of them are poorly executed, you will not.
Again, if the overwhelming majority of gamers and reviewers, alike, say a game is absolutely terrible, it's going to be. Believing in your heart that it's going to be great, simply because you want want it to, and thinking global opinion means nothing compared to your "feelings", is downright insane. That's what psychology calls delusional. Believing that what you make up in your head (for no justifiable reason, whatsoever) to be 100% true when it goes completely against the rest of the world.
And if it's not, then someone should devote themselves to playing each month's lowest rated game, for 1 year (so the 12 lowest rated games that year) and afterwards talk about how many of those dumpster fires were in actuality great games you would've picked up anyway.
Heres a most recent case why prerelease reviews suck, lego 2k drive was sent to reviewers as a different game that didnt include microtransactions, so those who didnt know/didnt care to divulge that info, gave great reviews, until unpaid/ungifted copies were out there and everyone saw how bad it really was
Hey not to nitpick but you have a lot of footage from the new Zelda game that for me seems to spoil some things from the game. I assume it’s just from the trailers which is fine but I haven’t seen the trailers for that reason. Anyways good video regardless so keep up the go work!
Dunkey was ahead of his time when he made his "game critics" videos. Oooh people on Twitter came for his blood then, but slowly everyone is realizing he was 100% correct.
this is why i wait to judge games by the speedrun's quality
its still like 10% subjective, in regards of the genre being the one i enjoy playing, but all the technical criterias are there
movement, combat, economy w/e
I think @switchup has set a good standard for their reviews. 5 categories worth 20 points each to give a total out of 100.
Perfect video. I agree entirely
One of the most egregious examples of an unfair review was that of IGN's review of Kingdom Hearts III's Re:Mind DLC. This is where the subjectivity of game reviews can impact the review. In a game that is in a series, especially one where the plot of previous games will impact it, it should be assumed that the reviewer will have played every one of these games at least once. However, the reviewer admitted to only having played the numbered entries in the series (KH1, KH2, KH3) and none of the VERY important "spinoffs" or non numbered titles, such as 358/2 Days or Dream Drop Distance. As such, the plot of KH2 and especially KH3 heavily confused them, and even moreso with KH3's DLC. This would still be fine if not for the fact that their enjoyment and therefore the review of the DLC was heavily impacted by the plot, or how "convoluted" it was. The plot would not appear as convoluted to one who simply played all of the games. And I highly doubt there was nobody working at IGN that HAD played every KH game and could more accurately review the DLC with full context.
I prefer these type of videos than your iterative videos of you talking about rumors and consoles that weren't over and over. I'm like the 1% who actually tend to read the reviews. Numbers have to go away because they're doing a disservice to reviewers. Instead of inviting people to read, people are skipping the lecture to simply screenshot it and share the numbers on groups. You know what does a better job? A short description. You give the climax, a good take or a spicy hot take and then deliver on the review. Also, please reviewers, stop making long ass reviews of a game. No more than 15minutes. The excuse is "yeah if you play a 80 hour game then you can watch a 1 hour review" like, bro/sis 15min is enough for you to explain your thoughts. I don't want an essay. Unless your laser focused on a specific topic then yes but longer reviews tend to shy away a lot of people, and the people sticking I higly doubt they're finishing your reviewed games.
I’m glad you made this. I get so pissed and the idiots that jump to conclusions about the reviewer being paid off or if they react negatively towards them for their solo opinion. It doesn’t change what the reader feels. That’s what one other person felt.
It's better to play the game yourself and make your own mind up, than listen to everyone else for a comparison.
a good informative video!
There're better ways to indicate map layout as a con than "Too much water", they knew what they were doing when they published it.
Also, there're a lot of blacklisting in the industry, not always you can trust reviewers.
And 7 – 8 grades are for below average games. Most websites won't risk the relationship with the publishers that provided the code for early review.