Game journalism and criticism

mewso

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I thought it was a fantastic piece of actual journalism for a change. He really pushed Molyneux like a real interviewer should do and didn't let the interview turn into a PR piece. He also pushed when he was getting the 'politician' answers where he tried to avoid answering the question asked. In fairness to Molyneux though he could have ended that interview at any time but stuck it out and handled himself well, I agreed with a lot of what he was saying and it's true, all his games have suffered huge delays.

I support what Walker wanted to do but the opening gambit for me is ridiculous and unnecessary and taints the whole thing. Yes ask hard questions but don't get emotional and don't be borderline offensive.

gizmo

C14N wrote: »

I know I'm resurrecting my own thread here but recently, I've really noticed a huge shift in the state of game criticism lately. It seems the press has generally become a lot more critical of the massively hyped games in the last year or so. In 2014 and early 2015 have been a slew of games with big marketing pushes and a lot of pre-release buzz that still end up with much lower than expected review scores. The examples that come to mind would be The Evil Within, Destiny, Assassin's Creed 5, Evolve, Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel and most recently The Order 1886, none of which cracked an average score of 80 which, on gaming's longstanding 7-10 point scale would have once been considered a game to ignore. Once upon a time it seemed a sub-80 score was the kind of thing you'd expect a quick movie tie-in or something with too many bugs to get.

Even ones that do well now like Watch Dogs, Titanfall, Dragon Age Inquisition and Battlefield 4 are rarely ever breaking the 90-score Metacritic mark and many also seem to get large backlashes from fans. In fact, the only games to get over 90 on PS4 or Xbox One so far are re-releases of games from the previous gen like The Last of Us and GTA 5. The only original AAA games to break 90 at all in 2014 were Smash Bros Wii U, Bayonetta 2 and Dark Souls 2 and even then they max out at 92. If you include non-mobile indie games then that only expands to include Shovel Knight on 3DS and Kentucky Route Zero on PC.

It's hard to pinpoint a time when this started happening but I'd say it seemed to be at around late 2013 following the overwhelmingly positive GTA 5 reviews. 2013 in comparison had twice that number with 10: GTA 5 (97), Bioshock Infinite (94), The Last of Us (95), Mario 3D World (94), Rayman Legends, Fez, Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Spelunky, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons and Dota 2 (2012 had 13, lest people think 2013 was just a particularly high-scoring year).

What was the cause of this sudden increase in criticism for games? Why have so many more reviewers started using the lower numbers on the scale? Not to mention things like the recent Eurogamer decision to remove scores entirely. I was kind of thinking that maybe they took a step back and realised that they probably were being a bit too nice too GTA 5 but then they went and did the same again on the re-release so that got me thinking that wasn't the reason.

I personally find this a very good swing, not just because I like that devs aren't getting so stoked about every game with a cool trailer, nice graphics and fully-functioning mechanics, but also because we might finally be moving away from the point where maybe 7/10 is considered a pretty good score to get and actually indicates a recommendation. Maybe we'll even start seeing more criticism based upon things like original mechanics and engaging story instead of what essentially amounted to product reviews to help make sure it works properly. Anyone else think the same?

To be honest, I think this is based on a bit of a flawed premise, C14N. Cynicism aside, neither a big marketing push nor large amounts of pre-release buzz are reasonable indicators that a game is going to get positive reviews at launch. Surely the reason the more recent games you listed received sub-90 scores is because they were, to be blunt, not worth it? I mean compare them with the ones you list in the third paragraph. Are they are as good?

General quality aside, you also have the fact that quite a few of the games you've listed that received lower than expected scores were rather objectively broken on launch. It's rather hard to explain away those faults when you're awarding a game a 90+ score.

As for this change happening all of a sudden, again there have been plenty of other examples of this type of thing happening prior to GTA5. Aliens Colonial Marines, Duke Nukem Forever, Syndicate, Fable 3, Resident Evil 6, Medal of Honor, Rage to name but a few.

On the subject of the move away from review scores, reviewers themselves have been lamenting this arbitrary system for as long as I remember. The fact that we're finally seeing some change is because there's a growing acceptance of it from the readership so it's probably seen as a less risky move by the owners of the various publications. That being said, ultimately I don't really care why they're doing it as I see it as a positive and very welcome move all round. As an aside, there's a decent write up on it over at Ars, here.

nesf wrote: »

Who you should watch is a very, very personal thing and genre specific.

nesf wrote: »

I think we'll see a shift from omni-sites like IGN towards more personality driven stuff like Rock Paper Shotgun. More people will be aware of who is writing the article, their likes and dislikes and such and will be going to sites specifically to read material by certain people they like. Kotaku seems to be heading in more of this direction of late. I think we'll also see more opinion based stuff and less preview/marketing blurb slightly rewritten stuff.

The first comment is a very good point and, as you said, one which I wish people would apply to written reviews as well. I'll never understand why folk can't separate the reviewer from the website when it comes to reviews or even make an attempt to acknowledge the reviewer as part of the process. The Bayonetta 2 one is perhaps the best example recently. Polygon didn't give it 8/10, Arthur Gies did. Why then, would I write off any of their other reviewers, or indeed the rest of the content on the website, because of a review from one particularly guy? Similarly, over on Eurogamer, I'd always look for reviews from the likes of Kieron Gillen, Oli Welsh and previously, Ellie Gibson whereas Simon Parkin may write well but I find his actual reviews can be quite hit or miss.

mewso wrote: »

Along these lines did anyone read John Walker's interview with Peter Molyneux? I thought it was unprofessional and embarrassing myself. It was some achievement getting me to feel sorry for Molyneux.

While I felt it was great someone finally held Molyneux to account for some of the nonsense he comes out, you really can't open an interview with a line like that. I mean, I winced when I read it so god knows how Molyneux reacted and how it would have affected the rest of his answers.

That being said, his continued conflation between over-promising and actually talking continues to make me both smile and fear that he's learned absolutely **** all from what's happened.

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

The first comment is a very good point and, as you said, one which I wish people would apply to written reviews as well. I'll never understand why folk can't separate the reviewer from the website when it comes to reviews or even make an attempt to acknowledge the reviewer as part of the process.

Because for a very long time we were sold "this is a Polygon review" not "This is an Arthur Gies review on Polygon." This is still the norm. It's almost like reading the Economist so little sense of the author we get. If you did a spot check of Polygon readers here I wouldn't be surprised if most didn't recognise the name I just mentioned.

gizmo

nesf wrote: »

Because for a very long time we were sold "this is a Polygon review" not "This is an Arthur Gies review on Polygon." This is still the norm. It's almost like reading the Economist so little sense of the author we get. If you did a spot check of Polygon readers here I wouldn't be surprised if most didn't recognise the name I just mentioned.

But is it not more about common sense? You read a review you like or that you at least appreciate and you make a mental note of the reviewer. Over time you get a feel for that reviewer and know whether or not you're interested in reading their material. The website, regardless of how much they may attempt to sear your retinas with background images and neon text, should take a back seat to this, no?

I guess I just don't see the sites as some sort of hivemind when it comes to opinions on games. Maybe it's because I started reading reviews back with PC Zone where the varied personalities were front and center for years and I got used to looking out for specific folk. But yea, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if a lot of folk didn't recognise the name but then again, if they did (or had) they probably wouldn't have been surprised with his Bayonetta 2 review after what he said about the first game or about other similarly-paced action games such as Vanquish in the past.

Grumpypants

mewso wrote: »

Along these lines did anyone read John Walker's interview with Peter Molyneux? I thought it was unprofessional and embarrassing myself. It was some achievement getting me to feel sorry for Molyneux.

I thought the questions he asked were valid based on Peters track record of making promises and falling short, but I thought the way he asked them was pretty mean, and showed a complete lack of basic common decency.

This is a guy who tried to make video games and during the development cycle for one reason or another (budget and technical restraints) they didn't include all the features he had said he wanted to include. He didn't rob pensions from old ladies and lie about it.

Retr0gamer

I think Molyneuxs only crime is getting too excited about his projects and opening his big mouth about ideas he has for it. He's very passionate about what he does which is a good thing but the real problem is people mistaking that passion and interpreting it as promises. Every game has ideas cut during development because of constraints, the only thing different in a Molyneux game is he openly talks about it when really he needs a PR guy there to manage him.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think Molyneuxs only crime is getting too excited about his projects and opening his big mouth about ideas he has for it. He's very passionate about what he does which is a good thing but the real problem is people mistaking that passion and interpreting it as promises. Every game has ideas cut during development because of constraints, the only thing different in a Molyneux game is he openly talks about it when really he needs a PR guy there to manage him.

There are two issues with this. Firstly, his comments on Bryan Henderson and his full prize have been cagey to say the least. The RPS interview references this interview with PocketGamer from back in August. In it, he says Bryan's money has been accruing since they started making money. He's also said he'll start earning money when the God of Gods functionality (namely combat and multiplayer) are implemented. So, which is it? After all, even if we're talking about a small percentage, it's still a figure out of "tens of millions of dollars".

Secondly, some of the things he talks about are done so at a period when he knows they won't make it in. We're not talking early stages of development here, we're talking late on with finalized design documents, schedules in place and release dates at least lightly etched in stone. I admire his passion and his openness when it comes to talking about his ideas but at the same time he has to temper them with the realities of the development process he is all too familiar with at this stage.

As I said above, he conflates over-promising with talking to the press a few times later in the interview. He's essentially going from one extreme to the other whereas a middle ground would be an incredibly refreshing approach for a senior figure in the industry to take.

Grumpypants

To be honest I would rather developers reach for the stars and fall short than settle for mediocrity and achieve it. Might be a bit over the top but you get the idea

Varik

Grumpypants wrote: »

To be honest I would rather developers reach for the stars and fall short than settle for mediocrity and achieve it. Might be a bit over the top but you get the idea

I play destiny and enjoy it, lot of pvp during the weekend there. But that's a game that reached, fell short, and then had to be made in to a ship-able game.

Fail early, fail cheap. It shouldn't get to the point where they've spent the lion's share of time on features that won't ship.

nesf

gizmo wrote: »

But is it not more about common sense? You read a review you like or that you at least appreciate and you make a mental note of the reviewer. Over time you get a feel for that reviewer and know whether or not you're interested in reading their material. The website, regardless of how much they may attempt to sear your retinas with background images and neon text, should take a back seat to this, no?

I guess I just don't see the sites as some sort of hivemind when it comes to opinions on games. Maybe it's because I started reading reviews back with PC Zone where the varied personalities were front and center for years and I got used to looking out for specific folk. But yea, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if a lot of folk didn't recognise the name but then again, if they did (or had) they probably wouldn't have been surprised with his Bayonetta 2 review after what he said about the first game or about other similarly-paced action games such as Vanquish in the past.

I think it can be seen the amount of times people say "Polygon said this in a review" rather than "Author X said this in a review." Definitely there are people who'd say the latter but they're a minority in my experience. You see something similar but less pronounced in the broadsheets and something extremely similar with the tabloids.

Genghiz Cohen

I know a guy who worked with Molyneux from very early on. He has always been full of ****. He was in a meeting with Bullfrog's publishers and they were saying the have nothing to launch in the next couple of months. So Pete says he has a game nearly done and it will fit nicely.

He goes back to the team at Bullfrog and drops this news on them, they have less than 6 months to make a full game that he just made up to keep EA happy. The game was Magic Carpet.

Retr0gamer

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

He goes back to the team at Bullfrog and drops this news on them, they have less than 6 months to make a full game that he just made up to keep EA happy. The game was Magic Carpet.

Didn't turn out so bad in the end though! To be honest I'd say this was pretty common practice back in the 80's and 90's.

I'm getting kind of sick of the clickbait articles that games websites are putting out. A recent example there was the Destiny article on eurogamer yesterday that is currently the headline article. It's utter rubbish about how some kid had his Destiny characters delete. Big fecking deal. I had my PS1 memory card die on the final level of Tomb Raider 3 because it was a poor quality one free with a magazine. Where is my justice and article! The sad fact is that it worked and is the most popular article there just by going on the comments.

Websites have really moved away from covering anything niche which is a shame. Hardly anyone is covering any NISA games going by the lack of reviews on Metacritic. Eurogamer was one of the best sites for covering the weirder left field stuff abd I've taken a chance on a few games because of them (and I'm eternally grateful for them making me spend the last few euro of my PhD grant on taking a chance on Demon's Souls).They've gone really downhill lately and are really only covering the big games and big indie games. It's all about the clicks and these days, the people interested in games are onyl interested in triple A.

Generic Dreadhead

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm getting kind of sick of the clickbait articles that games websites are putting out. A recent example there was the Destiny article on eurogamer yesterday that is currently the headline article. It's utter rubbish about how some kid had his Destiny characters delete. Big fecking deal. I had my PS1 memory card die on the final level of Tomb Raider 3 because it was a poor quality one free with a magazine. Where is my justice and article! The sad fact is that it worked and is the most popular article there just by going on the comments.

As an avid Destiny player, the thing about that article was that another player deleted his character on purpose just to troll/teach-him-not-to-cheat depending on how you look at it. This wasn't just "oh there was a server bug and you data is gone" this was "a friend of a friend came over to your house, took the memory card out of your PS1, cracked it in half and dropped it in a bucket of bleach".

I'd imagine you'd have been pretty annoyed about that. Not just the fact you lost your saves, but that someone else was directly to blame as they did it on purpose.

Also, what was cool about that story was how the Destiny community rallied behind the kid with one of the biggest clans (Dads of Destiny) offering to help him power level (in so much as you can) some of his characters back up to higher levels and even some other players sending (or perhaps maybe just offering to send) him token PSN codes/gifts (not that he probably needed them)

I know it's not life and death losing a game character (and to be fair he hadn't exactly clocked up the kind of hours most of the players in the boards clan have clocked up) but that article is popular as it's a piece about gaming communities, showing both the worst and best of people in a world were we can all be connected seamlessly with people online (be they good or bad). It was also an eye opener into how "Share Play" can be extremely bad if not monitored carefully.

I'm not here to defend that kid or get into a poo-slinging match about ERSB ratings and parenting and pro/anti cheating...... but summarising that article as being "Kid gets some characters deleted - big deal" is narrow minded. Also the kids reaction to that happening has been nothing short of mature (for an 11yo) and applaudable. My heart actually broke for him in the last 90 seconds of that video (but I know for every person like me there'll be another "lol he got rekt" person).

I'm sure journalists are looking for stuff to write about outside of the normal "Evolve DLC was confusing" and "who's excited for Bloodbourne, cause you know, DARK SOULS!" pieces

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm getting kind of sick of the clickbait articles that games websites are putting out. A recent example there was the Destiny article on eurogamer yesterday that is currently the headline article. It's utter rubbish about how some kid had his Destiny characters delete. Big fecking deal. I had my PS1 memory card die on the final level of Tomb Raider 3 because it was a poor quality one free with a magazine. Where is my justice and article! The sad fact is that it worked and is the most popular article there just by going on the comments.

I would say Eurogamer is making a conscious move towards more longer-form 'story' based writing as opposed to clickbait. Stories about the people who are playing games, and I'd say the Destiny story fits into that mould. The kid who finished Curiosity was another (and a fascinating piece of writing). They're also putting more weight on columnists, and have a rotating selection of weekend ones, which is great (reminiscent of what has always been the best thing about Edge). Honestly I personally generally prefer more content criticism than 'community' stories, but Eurogamer is doing a pretty good job balancing them, and more stories like the Curiosity one would be very welcome.

Also important to differentiate between mere clickbait and an intriguing headline

Websites have really moved away from covering anything niche which is a shame. Hardly anyone is covering any NISA games going by the lack of reviews on Metacritic. Eurogamer was one of the best sites for covering the weirder left field stuff abd I've taken a chance on a few games because of them (and I'm eternally grateful for them making me spend the last few euro of my PhD grant on taking a chance on Demon's Souls).They've gone really downhill lately and are really only covering the big games and big indie games. It's all about the clicks and these days, the people interested in games are onyl interested in triple A.

I think your argument here is that they're not covering your niche, not that they aren't covering niche titles.

Take a look at their new 'recommended' games section: http://www.eurogamer.net/recommended-games

That to me is not the produce of a publication solely focused on AAA. They have gone out of their way to flag the likes of Grow Home, Guilty Gear, Persona Q, Apotehon, The Escapists... And they've also gone out of their way to strongly recommend Sunless Sea, Monster Hunter, Never Alone. (and certainly from what I've played Sunless Sea and Grow Home are excellent titles worthy of that attention). If anything, their new recommended / essential laurels help make these sort of games stand out more on the homepage than they did before (many readers likely to scroll past if they didn't recognise the name).

Just because they aren't covering the most obscure Japanese titles - and let's be honest, NIS America are guilty of pedaling a lot of stuff that doesn't deserve much attention these days - doesn't mean they've turned into a wholly populist site. I think that's an unfair accusation to level at a site that continues to go out of its way to flag a selection of underdogs.

gizmo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I would say Eurogamer is making a conscious move towards more longer-form 'story' based writing as opposed to clickbait. Stories about the people who are playing games, and I'd say the Destiny story fits into that mould. The kid who finished Curiosity was another (and a fascinating piece of writing). They're also putting more weight on columnists, and have a rotating selection of weekend ones, which is great (reminiscent of what has always been the best thing about Edge). Honestly I personally generally prefer more content criticism than 'community' stories, but Eurogamer is doing a pretty good job balancing them, and more stories like the Curiosity one would be very welcome.

Nice to see someone mention their weekend articles. For instance, anyone who has the slightest bit of interest in making their own games should check out last weekends piece by Rob Fearon.

On a more general point, maybe if people stopped clicking on the stupidly titled articles and, even more importantly, stopped commenting on them, game sites wouldn't be so inclined to run them? I've never understood the logic here, people are basically calling for websites to run demonstrably less popular content in an industry which is almost entirely reliant on ad revenue. Even then, I'd wager a large chunk of them are running the likes of Adblock as they do it.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things I'd like to see change in terms of the kind of things being covered by the press but until we see user traffic directed at the better style of content, I can't see things changing anytime soon.

johnny_ultimate

gizmo wrote: »

Nice to see someone mention their weekend articles. For instance, anyone who has the slightest bit of interest in making their own games should check out last weekends piece by Rob Fearon.

Yeah, they're a very welcome inclusion. Their weekend coverage in general tends to be quite good too, with an in-depth article or two alongside maybe a digital foundry feature and a column. I noticed they've been doing more retrospectives too, which is great.

If anything, to me Eurogamer is a site that's visibly maturing as opposed to one going downhill, so I have to say I'm a little surprised that others believe the opposite is the case!

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things I'd like to see change in terms of the kind of things being covered by the press but until we see user traffic directed at the better style of content, I can't see things changing anytime soon.

Just to elaborate on a point I made above, I do feel a distinction needs to be drawn between empty, hollow clickbait and an intriguing, curious headline that draws readers in (to click, yes, but often rewarded with something substantial). A headline that makes you want to click is not inherently bad - how else would sites direct readers to content? It's the way they go about it that matters.

To me an article that deserves the 'clickbait' description is something like 'This kid handed his Destiny character to a friend. What happened next was shocking'. Or 'You won't believe what happened to this boy's Destiny character...'. Or '10 reasons why Destiny is ruining gaming' They are substance free, cheap tactics.

To take the Eurogamer article as an example... 'Troll deletes 11-year-old's Destiny characters'. Everything you need to know about the article's subject matter is in there in a couple of words. You can choose to click, or not, the substantive fact of the story right there, which the article then elaborates on. Sure, Destiny articles are a populist choice by their very nature, but they're also popular, and people are interested. As gizmo says, most publications simply do not have the luxury of completely abandoning the games people are interested in. As long as a decent balance in maintained between mainstream and more niche content, then there's no problem as far I'd be concerned.

I mentioned it in another thread recently, but http://killscreendaily.com/ is an excellent site if anybody's looking for much more adventurous, niche and in-depth games writing. They also regularly run engaged features about genuinely obscure titles. Good article they published today on Symphony of the Night's architecture, for an example of their more unique take.

Grumpypants

Clickbait and grabbing headlines are different alright. The whole point of a headline is to grab your attention and draw you in.

The Destiny story is actually an interesting one, not the story itself but to highlight what is wrong with the way stories are sourced, verified and written.

The only "news" in there is that the Share Play option gives someone else control over your account. The account was not "hacked" into, or he didn't give out passwords like we normally see. This is a new feature on the PS4 and some might not be aware of the risks.

So on that front I can give it a pass on being "news".

But that is kind of irrelevant, the bit that matters is how sites report it. All sites do now is take a story from another site, rewrite it and put a link in the article. Polygon went with the headline "A horrible person deleted a fifth graders Destiny character". There was no further investigation into the story other than reading the Eurogamer and Gameinformer articles.

Credit to GameInformer they did investigate further and update, and the whole thing is pretty sad.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2015/02/19/young-destiny-player-gets-a-harsh-lesson-in-using-ps4-share-play.aspx

kunst nugget

Grumpypants wrote: »

Credit to GameInformer they did investigate further and update, and the whole thing is pretty sad.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2015/02/19/young-destiny-player-gets-a-harsh-lesson-in-using-ps4-share-play.aspx

If my kid told me that they used the Share Play option with someone they didn't know and that person had deleted their profile, I'd shrug my shoulders and say that's what happens when you act like a fúcking idiot, teach him to have some perspective, not to trust people online that he doesn't know and tell him to get on with his life. I wouldn't be posting up videos or appealing to the Developers to help out my son, who technically really shouldn't be playing the game. Some parents are soft in the head. All the kerfuffle around the story is extraordinarily idiotic.

Retr0gamer

Maybe I came across way too negative about Eurogamer, they still do produce some of the best articles in the gaming press and yes the weekend coverage is always something to look forward to but I do find them relying a lot more on clickbait articles. In a way it's like they are there to support the much better work they do which doesn't get as much hits.

Also with regards to ignoring niche japanese games I was using eurogamer as an example there but it's wide spread across the gaming media. Yes there's more indie game coverage but I feel indie games are kind of crossing into the mainstream now and are definitely more popular than the niche japanese games. Yes, I realise that's a bit of an oxymoron but maybe we are entering a phase in videogames like the 70's were low budget films dominated and big studio productions floundered but that's a different story. And yes NISA might be localising some questionable stuff but ti's still worth covering and they are releasing some great stuff as well, stuff like the Atelier games get ignored. It won't bring in the clicks like a throwaway article about Destiny but places like eurogamer would cover this stuff and now it goes ignored.

Perhaps it's just a symptom of all the problems videogame news sites are going through at the moment.

nesf

I think niche column inches has been replaced to quite an extent by indie column inches. Given limited resources and the great rise of Indie from being a really niche thing 6/7 years ago to being very mainstream today it's not surprising, especially given the metric crapton of indie titles that come out under the radar each month.

I also kinda feel you're doing it wrong if you're going to generalist gaming sites for your niche coverage. If I was going to only Eurogamer for strategy game coverage I'd be rather annoyed.

Retr0gamer

Well on the one hand I could go to RPGAMER for that stuff. On the other their writers are terrible and their reviews really quite poor. I want eurogamer levels of writing. I want my cake and to eat it.

nesf

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well on the one hand I could go to RPGAMER for that stuff. On the other their writers are terrible and their reviews really quite poor. I want eurogamer levels of writing. I want my cake and to eat it.

We're stuck with what we get on the fringes.

C14N

Links234 wrote: »

I think there's people who just look at scores, who'll take a 9 or 10 as a given and ignore the bulk of a review. For those folks, 7/10 is never going to be considered a good score, why buy a game that's a 7 when you could get a 10?

Because buying 10s is not longer an option. If you play on PS4 or XBO, even after more than a year there still hasn't been a title to get those scores but the games aren't all gathering dust on the shelves. People have to get more willing to buy the 7s because they still want to play something.

Agricola wrote: »

Can anyone link to some good amateur game reviewers on youtube who are able to deliver a thoughtful and reasoned analysis of a game in the english language with the absolute minimum of shrieking, shouting and flashy quick cut editing?
Obviously when you look at the "Gaming" section of Youtube, the people with the biggest hits percolate to the top and they are always the ones catering for the young teen demographic. If that's the future of game journalism in the wake of professional publishing houses going down the swanny, then god help us all.

Matthewmatosis does good reviews, but they're infrequent and never on games that have just been released. I do find his analysis quite interesting though and it's certainly devoid of screaming or quick cuts.

gizmo wrote: »

To be honest, I think this is based on a bit of a flawed premise, C14N. Cynicism aside, neither a big marketing push nor large amounts of pre-release buzz are reasonable indicators that a game is going to get positive reviews at launch. Surely the reason the more recent games you listed received sub-90 scores is because they were, to be blunt, not worth it? I mean compare them with the ones you list in the third paragraph. Are they are as good?

Honestly, I haven't played them, not out of disinterest, just that a hefty backlog has kept me from buying new games. However, statistically, I'm still inclined to believe that a similar spectrum of games will exist from year to year generally. Perhaps 2013 was a bad example as The Last of Us and Bioshock Infinite were really two of my favourites from the whole generation. Looking back to 2012 though I'm seeing stuff like Mass Effect 3, The Walking Dead, Dishonored, Borderlands 2 and Far Cry 3. All of those seem like games that, while well-made and enjoyable, if released in 2014 would have failed to reach those scores.

From when I started reading reviews in early 2006, after just a few months it was generally very easy to predict which AAA games would be getting the best scores. That's just no longer the case really, at least for me. I wouldn't have guessed Bayonetta 2 or Dark Souls 2 would get their 90s and I also wouldn't have ever guessed that Destiny would get its 76.

gizmo wrote: »

As for this change happening all of a sudden, again there have been plenty of other examples of this type of thing happening prior to GTA5. Aliens Colonial Marines, Duke Nukem Forever, Syndicate, Fable 3, Resident Evil 6, Medal of Honor, Rage to name but a few.

That's true I suppose but from what I saw of many of those games, what was delivered was so shockingly bad that there's no way they could have gotten good reviews. Not even just buggy on launch but generally very poorly executed games. That's compared to something like The Order which, from what I've heard has plenty of polish and production and plays well, but still gets criticised for its lack of originality. Two of the ones you mentioned (Fable and Rage) still got 80+ average scores. Call of Duty Ghosts was probably the biggest surprise before that though.

gizmo wrote: »

I'll never understand why folk can't separate the reviewer from the website when it comes to reviews or even make an attempt to acknowledge the reviewer as part of the process.

If, as an editor, you hire someone to write for you and then approve the review to go up on your site, that is an implicit endorsement of their opinion. In general, the websites are much better known than their staff members and most websites tend to have overall reputations for liking or disliking certain things. It's not at all unreasonable that someone would attribute a review to the site rather than the individual. If Bayonetta was criticised for misogyny on the site, it was probably something that most of the people there could agree was a problem with the game rather than one rogue writer acting alone.

gizmo wrote: »

On a more general point, maybe if people stopped clicking on the stupidly titled articles and, even more importantly, stopped commenting on them, game sites wouldn't be so inclined to run them?

Well the thing is that things we call "clickbait" do generally get pageviews but they do it in ways that use hollow manipulation rather than quality content. Good practice would be to have a headline give you the gist of a story and expect the story is important or interesting enough to entice you to read more. A clickbait headline would usually just entice the viewer with vague sensationalism or the ever present list where a list is not needed. It gets people to click it because it activates a little dopamine rush. It works, especially because there are a lot of dumb people who fall for it every time or who just fail to notice that there is almost no content inside, but, much like selling cigarettes to children (to be hyperbolic here), what is profitable isn't always admirable. We generally depend on professionals to rise somewhat above the rabble and curate good content for us.

It is a bit of a prisoner's though and it's probably hard for sites (especially new or smaller ones) to be principled and not do it, since they probably get a lot of revenue that they do need from doing it.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Also with regards to ignoring niche japanese games I was using eurogamer as an example there but it's wide spread across the gaming media. Yes there's more indie game coverage but I feel indie games are kind of crossing into the mainstream now and are definitely more popular than the niche japanese games.

It's not just indie games crossing into the mainstream - it's also that, to be frank, indie games are also doing a lot more interesting things than niche Japanese games in general. Obviously there are exceptions and there are still a few Japanese titles well worth playing and worthy of more attention, but really even some of the really good ones remain limited by clunky storytelling, age-old mechanics (remixed and updated, perhaps, but still grounded in the past) and almost universal lack of aesthetic ambition (if anything the likes of Dark Souls have been so welcomed precisely for their fresh visual styles and atmosphere). I'd have a far above average interest in Japanese RPGs and the like, and yet I have found myself drifting far more towards independent titles to give me the fresh, offbeat types of titles I'm interested in. Not surprised that game writers in general are gravitating that direction either.

I'd also say that, with a handful of exceptions, that when niche titles really and truly do something exemplary and are worthy of more attention than from mere genre fans, they do find their vocal fans and supporters - not on every site, but certainly enough to raise a few flags. There's a good reason the likes of Dark Souls or the recent Persona titles have won such plaudits, and also a good reason why indie titles like Sunless Sea are earning their front page space.

Kirby

Fable 3 is a good game and has no place on that list Gizmo....

I'm sticking to my guns on this if anybody wants to throw down about it!

K.O.Kiki

Everyone keeps harping on about these "brave, new & innovative indie games".

Please link me the ones which aren't retreads of 90s/indie Japanese games.

crybaby

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Everyone keeps harping on about these "brave, new & innovative indie games".

Please link me the ones which aren't retreads of 90s/indie Japanese games.

I haven't bought into the concept much myself, all I can see are fairly terrible graphics and people attaching over inflated romantic notions to a lot of them.

I'm always willing to try something new though

COYVB

crybaby wrote: »

all I can see are fairly terrible graphics and people attaching over inflated romantic notions to a lot of them

Then you either misunderstand the term indie, or you're not looking properly. It irritates me for no good reason that people think "indie" is a genre. Or that it's an aesthetic. It's neither.

johnny_ultimate

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Everyone keeps harping on about these "brave, new & innovative indie games".

Please link me the ones which aren't retreads of 90s/indie Japanese games.

Fract OST, Papers Please, Device 6, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, The Swapper, Year Walk, The Sailor's Dream, Jazzpunk, FTL, 80 Days, Gone Home, Amnesia, Threes, The Banner Saga, Ridiculous Fishing, 30 Flights of Loving, Hohokum, Murasaki Baby, Always Sometimes Monsters, Journey, Transistor, Sportsfriends, Nidhogg, Spacechem, Spider, Waking Mars, Blackbar, Gunpoint, Papa & Yo, Minecraft (not independent anymore, but still), Proteus, Dear Esther, Shelter, Thomas Was Alone, The Stanley Parable, Don't Starve, Kentucky Route Zero, This War of Mine, Analogue: A Hate Story, The Path, Outlast, Sunless Sea, to name but a few...

I too find this assumption that there is but one type of independent game pretty baffling.

Genghiz Cohen

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Fract OST, Papers Please, Device 6, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, The Swapper, Year Walk, The Sailor's Dream, Jazzpunk, FTL, 80 Days, Gone Home, Amnesia, Threes, The Banner Saga, Ridiculous Fishing, 30 Flights of Loving, Hohokum, Murasaki Baby, Always Sometimes Monsters, Journey, Transistor, Sportsfriends, Nidhogg, Spacechem, Spider, Waking Mars, Blackbar, Gunpoint, Papa & Yo, Minecraft (not independent anymore, but still), Proteus, Dear Esther, Shelter, Thomas Was Alone, The Stanley Parable, Don't Starve, Kentucky Route Zero, This War of Mine, Analogue: A Hate Story, The Path, Outlast, Sunless Sea, to name but a few...

I too find this assumption that there is but one type of independent game pretty baffling.

And my current favourite indie, Besiege.

Arma III and DayZ fit into indie as well, I think.
Any Valve game too.