Unpopular Gaming Opinions

johnny_ultimate · 16-04-2014 1:49pm

Yes, I would disagree with some of the game specific points Tevis Thompson makes (which is the whole point of his argument :pac:) but it's a broadly well argued and written piece that sharply identifies many issues related to gaming criticism and the player responses to them.

One point he makes that I completely agree with: dismissing the common train of thought that a writer must be an expert or proven fan of the genre (however limited that word is) or franchise they're reviewing in other for the review. I find that absolutely crazy. He's right that it creates a barrier frustrating the potential for lively, diverse discussions and even creates a barrier insulating 'fans' from deeper criticism, and potentially even creating a rut where recurrent tropes, standards and mechanics become critic proof. There's no problem whatsoever determining purchases and the like from people perceived as experts in the field or ones that broadly align with your own tastes - that's reasonable, especially since there's more games out there than any of us will ever get to play. But that's a small part of the discussion, and after all your tastes are unlikely to be identical to anyone elses. Any generally knowledgeable writer should be able to play any game and articulate an honest response to it - if anything, fresh eyes offer the potential for even more robust, balanced criticism than someone who is a self-avowed enthusiast.

Retr0gamer · 16-04-2014 2:32pm

I have to agree that getting a fan of a franchise to review a game in the franchise is a big mistake. Usually you get a review from someone so caught up in the hype that they gloss over or ignore any negativity. It's much better to get someone knowledgeable rather than a biased review from fanboy.

The whole scoring thing really annoys me because a lot of the games I've enjoyed the most this generation have been ones that would score around 6-7 in reviews. Stuff like Fragile Dreams and Nier have some serious flaws but were hugely enjoyable nonetheless because of how experimental they are. These games just get dismissed as rubbish by the audience.

In the film and literature you don't see experimental/enjoyable but flawed works get immediately dismissed as rubbish by the audience. Terry Gillam and Terence Malick would have been out of a job long ago.

kunst nugget · 16-04-2014 2:43pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I have to agree that getting a fan of a franchise to review a game in the franchise is a big mistake. Usually you get a review from someone so caught up in the hype that they gloss over or ignore any negativity. It's much better to get someone knowledgeable rather than a biased review from fanboy.

The whole scoring thing really annoys me because a lot of the games I've enjoyed the most this generation have been ones that would score around 6-7 in reviews. Stuff like Fragile Dreams and Nier have some serious flaws but were hugely enjoyable nonetheless because of how experimental they are. These games just get dismissed as rubbish by the audience.

In the film and literature you don't see experimental/enjoyable but flawed works get immediately dismissed as rubbish by the audience. Terry Gillam and Terence Malick would have been out of a job long ago.

Could the relative youth of gaming criticism (as opposed to the critical analysis of film, music or literature) be a factor in this problem? The fact that it didn't have a chance to develop its voice properly before marketing really started to ramp up the hype machine and the bottom half of the net started baying for blood at any review that doesn't conform to the consensus or trolling because the particular game that's being reviewed doesn't appear on their console of choice.

gaynorvader · 16-04-2014 2:47pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

Could the relative youth of gaming criticism (as opposed to the critical analysis of film, music or literature) be a factor in this problem? The fact that it didn't have a chance to develop its voice properly before marketing really started to ramp up the hype machine and the bottom half of the net started baying for blood at any review that doesn't conform to the consensus or trolling because the particular game that's being reviewed doesn't appear on their console of choice.

I think reviews of movies have pretty much the same issues on the internet. (Just without the whole console thing)

tok9 · 16-04-2014 2:49pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I have to agree that getting a fan of a franchise to review a game in the franchise is a big mistake. Usually you get a review from someone so caught up in the hype that they gloss over or ignore any negativity. It's much better to get someone knowledgeable rather than a biased review from fanboy.

I think we had a small chat about this before. I absolutely agree with what you have said but I don't think anyone would disagree that getting a review from someone knowledgeable is better than from a fanboy.

But its the same as saying I'd prefer to get a knowledgeable opinion over a person who is negatively biased towards the game.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The whole scoring thing really annoys me because a lot of the games I've enjoyed the most this generation have been ones that would score around 6-7 in reviews. Stuff like Fragile Dreams and Nier have some serious flaws but were hugely enjoyable nonetheless because of how experimental they are. These games just get dismissed as rubbish by the audience.

In the film and literature you don't see experimental/enjoyable but flawed works get immediately dismissed as rubbish by the audience. Terry Gillam and Terence Malick would have been out of a job long ago.

So is the issue more so with the gaming community then the reviewer?

kunst nugget · 16-04-2014 2:54pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think reviews of movies have pretty much the same issues on the internet. (Just without the whole console thing)

For blockbusters, sure but there definitely seems to be room for more esoteric discussion of film, both in print and online, and acceptance of films made outside of the mainstream and which play with convention.

Genghiz Cohen · 16-04-2014 2:55pm

I always thought slapping a value on a game rather than a x/5 or x/10 star rating would be more informative.
Examples, Hotline Miami is worth about €20 to me. ArmA 3 is more, €40 or €50. Titanfall would be less, €15 maybe €12. That kind of thing.

tok9 · 16-04-2014 2:57pm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I always thought slapping a value on a game rather than a x/5 or x/10 star rating would be more informative.
Examples, Hotline Miami is worth about €20 to me. ArmA 3 is more, €40 or €50. Titanfall would be less, €15 maybe €12. That kind of thing.

To say that is subjective would be a massive understatement.

kunst nugget · 16-04-2014 2:58pm

tok9 wrote: »

To say that is subjective would be a massive understatement.

Is that not the whole point?

Retr0gamer · 16-04-2014 2:58pm

tok9 wrote: »

So is the issue more so with the gaming community then the reviewer?

Pretty much although there's a few reviewers out there as bad as the worst of the gaming community.

It's a strange one because there's not a lot of interesting but flawed games. Most games that get 6-7 are terribly contrived and dull unoriginal works from big publishers so someone seeing a flawed diamond in the rough getting the same score is probably going to equate it with the more common perception of a 6-7 game.

gizmo · 16-04-2014 3:04pm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I always thought slapping a value on a game rather than a x/5 or x/10 star rating would be more informative.
Examples, Hotline Miami is worth about €20 to me. ArmA 3 is more, €40 or €50. Titanfall would be less, €15 maybe €12. That kind of thing.

In a world where someone on this forum asked if Max Payne 3 was "worth" a fiver, I think that would be one of the most god awful things to happen to gaming since... well pretty much ever.

Stone Deaf 4evr · 16-04-2014 3:10pm

gizmo wrote: »

In a world where someone on this forum asked if Max Payne 3 was "worth" a fiver, I think that would be one of the most god awful things to happen to gaming since... well pretty much ever.

Its people like that who probably only give the bare minimum in humble bundle sales.

gaynorvader · 16-04-2014 3:11pm

tok9 wrote: »

To say that is subjective would be a massive understatement.

As opposed to giving it a mark out of ten?

Stone Deaf 4evr · 16-04-2014 3:14pm

More On Topic

1. I dont see what was so hard about ninja gaiden
2. Black Ops 2 is the best call of duty
3. Nintendos first party games are polished but massively overrated.
4. EA aren't all that bad really.

C14N · 16-04-2014 3:17pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The majority are excitable early 20 year olds that let the hype get to them. The games industry knows this and exploits it and why wouldn't they when reviews are so important for sales unlike most other media.

I'm kind of hoping this will fade away over time. The majority of games media is internet-based and I feel like during the dawn of the internet we just had too many people who saw others playing games and getting paid for it and thought "me too!" so there was really no barrier for entry to becoming a game critic and a lot of the ones who did are still quite young and excitable. Given time though when this batch get a bit older, more experienced and more cynical I think it will gradually change.

tok9 wrote: »

Bioshock Infinite is the worst game he's played last generation. He needs to play more games.. not even taking into account that I loved Infinite.

Honestly I've just become numb to the whole contrarian "BI was actually just the worst, guys" point of view. Fine if you didn't like it, but it's clearly not Ride To Hell Retribution.

If scores had to be kept (and they really aren't going) I would kind of prefer if gaming followed the Rotten Tomatoes model of score-tallying. When your basis is just "how many people liked this" it feels like the whole thing is far less clinical to begin with and suddenly the difference between 80% and 90% isn't really that big a deal. The 90% might have gotten a lot of mildly positive reviews while the 80% got rave reviews so the number doesn't count for much anymore besides a general indicator of whether it's worth looking in to.

C14N · 16-04-2014 3:18pm

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

4. EA aren't all that bad really.

Seconded. They're really no worse than their competitors imo.

johnny_ultimate · 16-04-2014 3:19pm

Titanfall's getting picked on a lot here - is it unpopular for me to say it's the most ****ing fun I've had playing a video game in years? :pac:

Maximus Alexander · 16-04-2014 3:24pm

Another aspect to consider is that, due to the relative youth of gaming as mainstream entertainment, the rapid jumps in the graphical fidelity, audio quality and complexity that technology have allowed has probably added to the 'excitability' of critics and detracted from the ability to judge games on their actual substance.

As technology gradually becomes less of a factor in defining each new generation of games, we should hopefully see better critical analysis of the experience the offer. I wonder if the rise of indie gaming, where technology takes a back seat to novel ideas, experimentation and game design is a sign that this is starting to happen?

ShadowHearth · 16-04-2014 3:32pm

In my opinion the whole "how much of an value game is at certain price point" is a good way to "value" games. That's is if you have a healthy way of looking at it.

For example game like Rust, I got it for 18eu and I got already 200h of entertainment out of it. Is it worth 18eu? Hell yeah, it's a bargain of a century for me. Game is still alpha.
Other example: I payed 60eu for dark souls 2 and already had a lot fun with it. 60h played already. Was it worth 60eu? Damn right. I am already planing on paying another 25eu for a pc version to play it again.
Mafia 2 - payed full price ( can't remember now 50eu?) when it was launched. Played 13h and completed it once. Was it good value for money? Yup. I loved it and it was great value for money for me, even if I did not played it as much as other games.
Then something like titanfall comes in. I don't see it as good value for money right now, even on pc. I am not even talking about derp xbox one version for 60-70eu. For basic multilayer only game i won't pay such money. I don't care even if it is best thing since blowjob to some journalist. I will buy it at some stage for 10-15eu just to have a few matches now and then, but my **** of I will pay the full price for that.
I still think I over payed that 5eu for Brothers sorry of 2 sons game. Worst 5 ever spent and if I would have payed full 10 or 15 for it, I would be raging as I could have gotten a lot better game for that.

And yeah, unpopular opinion. That game was **** and way over rated.

Retr0gamer · 16-04-2014 3:36pm

I really enjoy eurogamers retrospectives especially when they look back on a game they reviewed ecstatically and then write about how wrong they got it. It's quite refreshing.

Stone Deaf 4evr · 16-04-2014 3:41pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

In my opinion the whole "how much of an value game is at certain price point" is a good way to "value" games. That's is if you have a healthy way of looking at it.

For example game like Rust, I got it for 18eu and I got already 200h of entertainment out of it. Is it worth 18eu? Hell yeah, it's a bargain of a century for me. Game is still alpha.
Other example: I payed 60eu for dark souls 2 and already had a lot fun with it. 60h played already. Was it worth 60eu? Damn right. I am already planing on paying another 25eu for a pc version to play it again.
Mafia 2 - payed full price ( can't remember now 50eu?) when it was launched. Played 13h and completed it once. Was it good value for money? Yup. I loved it and it was great value for money for me, even if I did not played it as much as other games.
Then something like titanfall comes in. I don't see it as good value for money right now, even on pc. I am not even talking about derp xbox one version for 60-70eu. For basic multilayer only game i won't pay such money. I don't care even if it is best thing since blowjob to some journalist. I will buy it at some stage for 10-15eu just to have a few matches now and then, but my **** of I will pay the full price for that.
I still think I over payed that 5eu for Brothers sorry of 2 sons game. Worst 5 ever spent and if I would have payed full 10 or 15 for it, I would be raging as I could have gotten a lot better game for that.

And yeah, unpopular opinion. That game was **** and way over rated.

you cant judge something purely by how long it is, (apart from in the trouser department :pac:)

I got brothers for a fiver as well in the sale, and I have to say that I enjoyed every minute of the 5 or six odd hours it took to complete.

now, the game has zero replayability from a 'gaming' point of view, in fact its more like an interactive story. But I went in with my eyes open to that from reading reviews. I'm glad i didnt pay any more than what I did for it 5-7 euros is the perfect price point for that game.

Stone Deaf 4evr · 16-04-2014 3:43pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I really enjoy eurogamers retrospectives especially when they look back on a game they reviewed ecstatically and then write about how wrong they got it. It's quite refreshing.

I like that a lot of sites are starting to hold off on reviewing games that rely heavily on the online aspect of it. Battlefield 4 certainly wouldn't have gotten the same review scores if they had tested extensively with the general public.

ShadowHearth · 16-04-2014 4:09pm

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

you cant judge something purely by how long it is, (apart from in the trouser department :pac:)

I got brothers for a fiver as well in the sale, and I have to say that I enjoyed every minute of the 5 or six odd hours it took to complete.

now, the game has zero replayability from a 'gaming' point of view, in fact its more like an interactive story. But I went in with my eyes open to that from reading reviews. I'm glad i didnt pay any more than what I did for it 5-7 euros is the perfect price point for that game.

I am pretty sure that I showed that in my examples that game does not need to be long to be good value or good...

Stone Deaf 4evr · 16-04-2014 4:13pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I am pretty sure that I showed that in my examples that game does not need to be long to be good value or good...

and I'm sure that if you read my post again, you'll realise that I was agreeing with you....

value means different things to different people, one persons classic car is another persons overpriced banger.

tok9 · 16-04-2014 4:38pm

kunst nugget wrote: »

Is that not the whole point?

gaynorvader wrote: »

As opposed to giving it a mark out of ten?

Writing an opinion piece and slapping a score on it is a bit different to judging how much a game is worth.

I mean the gaming community is far too diverse for someone to give a price for a game.

And we all know it wouldn't come down to how good a game is but the features it checks.

Also I'm not a fan of scores either. Give me your opinion and if you think the game is worth playing. No need for a score, I'll be able to tell from the review how much you rate it.

gaynorvader · 16-04-2014 4:41pm

tok9 wrote: »

Writing an opinion piece and slapping a score on it is a bit different to judging how much a game is worth.

I mean the gaming community is far too diverse for someone to give a price for a game.

And we all know it wouldn't come down to how good a game is but the features it checks.

Also I'm not a fan of scores either. Give me your opinion and if you think the game is worth playing. No need for a score, I'll be able to tell from the review how much you rate it.

I'd agree with this, I'm not a fan of the scores either and prefer when reviews just have people's opinion. I just don't see giving a price as being worse than a score out of an arbitrary number (3/5/10/100/whatever). In fact I think it would be better as it would at least give some context as to what the numbers might mean.

_Redzer_ · 16-04-2014 4:44pm

I like game remakes and remasters, it gives me the option to replay games I like with upgraded graphics and support.
If you don't like them nobody is forcing you to buy them.

16-04-2014 4:50pm

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I like game remakes and remasters, it gives me the option to replay games I like with upgraded graphics and support.
If you don't like them nobody is forcing you to buy them.

On the other hand it's another way a publisher can fill a gap in the market with game developers who are void of relevant ideas for new gaming experiences and would rather repackage old content with a HD tag on it.

nesf · 16-04-2014 4:55pm

gizmo wrote: »

In a world where someone on this forum asked if Max Payne 3 was "worth" a fiver, I think that would be one of the most god awful things to happen to gaming since... well pretty much ever.

Well it's a valid question if you give more context. Is Europa Universalis III + all the expansions worth the €5 it's going for on Bundlestars right now? If you're into strategy games like me it's worth a large multiple of that (and I paid a large multiple of that for what's in it without any regrets), if you're a mostly action orientated gamer like many of my friends perhaps not. There's enough content here to keep a fan of Grand Strategy games going for a few years but it could easily be an hour of frustration then an uninstall for other people. I can't think of any games that would, even for a few Euro, would be a great buy for any gamer, I've been "burned" myself quite a few times being encouraged by friends to try a new genre when a game is on sale just to end up with another reason why I don't play that genre.

The deal for any interested: http://www.bundlestars.com/all-bundles/europa-universalis-III-bundle/

C14N · 16-04-2014 4:56pm

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'd agree with this, I'm not a fan of the scores either and prefer when reviews just have people's opinion. I just don't see giving a price as being worse than a score out of an arbitrary number (3/5/10/100/whatever). In fact I think it would be better as it would at least give some context as to what the numbers might mean.

I don't really like the idea of a price tbh. There are many games I wouldn't play even if they were free. At the same time there are some games I would, if it was the only way to play them, pay absurdly high prices for.

I think the idea of a price should be mentioned in the review itself if you think it's relevant (e.g. "this game is pretty good but it's so small I wouldn't buy it at full price") but that's about it. As far as scores go, we really need to do away with anything that scores it out of 100. That's just an unnecessary level of accuracy that really only makes a difference at the top of the scale (who cares about the difference between 35% or 37%?). A score should just be there to sum up general opinions imo, not to say "this game is 4% better than that game"

Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Comments