Game News 2.0

BlitzKrieg

Mr Crispy wrote: »

EA Motive are reviving a favourite IP of theirs, with Dead Space being heavily touted.

I know thats the one everyone has pegged, but a small part of me is still thinking Command & Conquer, or at least another attempt by EA to push C&C into a new genre that is more accessible then RTS.

gizmo

BloodBath wrote: »

The whole movie is ****e. Most over rated sci-fi/horror at the time that's only got worse with age.

Reported.

Retr0gamer

It's another example of Paul W.S. Anderson's inability to make anything approaching a decent film.

johnny_ultimate

I actually decided to watch Monster Hunter out of curiosity after pouring lots of time into Rise. Bad idea.

There's a fairly substantial proportion of people who seem very fond of his filmmaking - including Resi - and more power to them. All of them I've seen have been ****e, although perhaps I'd elevate '****e' to 'meh' for Event Horizon.

Also, not a chance Event Horizon was overrated at the time. Got a critical mauling.

gizmo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I actually decided to watch Monster Hunter out of curiosity after pouring lots of time into Rise. Bad idea.

There's a fairly substantial proportion of people who seem very fond of his filmmaking - including Resi - and more power to them. All of them I've seen have been ****e, although perhaps I'd elevate '****e' to 'meh' for Event Horizon.

Also, not a chance Event Horizon was overrated at the time. Got a critical mauling.

I've not played any of the games yet so I've held off on watching it till I've at least gotten around to World but the RT summary did amuse me.

... is mostly a mindless blur of action, held together by the slenderest threads of dialogue and plot -- and exactly what many viewers will be looking for.

Retr0gamer

True but it got very good word of mouth especially the home release. A lot of my friends told me it was great and as a young whippersnapper gore fiend I did enjoy the gore at the time.

It's kind of proof that were the general public disagree with the critics, the critics are usually right imo. Like Eurogamer famously giving Dead Space the 7/10 the game deserved yet it still being a major bone of contention with some people.

gimli2112

Retr0gamer wrote: »

True but it got very good word of mouth especially the home release. A lot of my friends told me it was great and as a young whippersnapper gore fiend I did enjoy the gore at the time.

It's kind of proof that were the general public disagree with the critics, the critics are usually right imo. Like Eurogamer famously giving Dead Space the 7/10 the game deserved yet it still being a major bone of contention with some people.

I do get the sense there's been greater divergence in recent years in relation to what critics think and what the general public think. Maybe it's always been the way or maybe I only noticed it after the mauling Days Gone received, certainly the internet has given the unwashed hoardes a voice that they have eagerly embraced.
Games are very subjective, one man's poison and all that.

Markitron

I remember when Jim Sterling gave BotW a 7/10 and got death threats. It was extra funny as that is exactly what I would have given it as I had the exact same problems with it that Jim had.

The internet is a weird and scary place.

Retr0gamer

I don't agree with Jim Sterling's review but he set out his criticisms well in his review. And reviews are subjective.

There's a lot of people out there that feel you can't enjoy a game if it's a 7/10 on metacritic.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a lot of people out there that feel you can't enjoy a game if it's a 7/10 on metacritic.

I feel that's all changing with game pass. A 7/10 game is well worth trying out and there is no expectation that it must match its price tag. But to be honest I don't even look at ratings. I watch the game pass trailer and decide whether I want to try it out based on that. Whether I like a game and want to continue playing it is totally down to my own personal enjoyment level. A haven't paid 60 euro and there's no pressure or expectations. If I don't like it, no big deal. Its not even worth my while bitching about it.on boards:-D

johnny_ultimate

The problem is there's been some sort of consensus formed in the video game community that anything sub 8/10 is a disaster. Days Gone got 71% on Metacritic - that'd be considered a pretty good score for any film, album or TV show. In gaming, for some reason it's not. A 7/10 is a good score! Not everything needs to be a 9/10 or bust.

While an over-generous game press / hyper score-obsessed gaming community are certainly to blame, Metacritic itself has also fed into this farcical situation. They mark games that score in the mid to low 70s in 'disappointing yellow', whereas a film with the same score would get 'triumphant green'.

No score reviews FTW.

gimli2112

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No score reviews FTW.

maybe we could simplify the process, a control group so to speak. This game is a) better than Ace Combat 7 or b) worse than Ace Combat 7.

I'd agree with the poster in that I'll often look at a game on youtube to see how it plays and then decide.

pixelburp

It's also hilariously absurd that 70% is considered a fail state in the eyes of some, aside from the obvious brittleness of being upset your precious hobby isn't liked as much as you. If I got 70% in my college tests I'd have celebrated overachieving.

Zero-Cool

So true, i look up imdb and of a film for 6 or over, I'll watch it, would be a good sign to see it got a 7 or 8. I think years back, might still happen, but didn't certain devs only get a bonus of metacritic was 8 or over meaning if it got a 7.9, that means it's a piece of **** and they don't deserve any extras. Awful inventive but yeah, game scoring sucks.

pixelburp

Zero-Cool wrote: »

Do true, i look up imdb and of a film for 6 or over, I'll watch it, would be a good sign to see it got a 7 or 8. I think years back, might still happen, but didn't certain devs only get a bonus of metacritic was 8 or over meaning if it got a 7.9, that means it's a piece of **** and they don't deserve any extras. Awful inventive but yeah, game scoring sucks.

Yeah it was / is a practice where bonuses are tied to the aggregator scores. It got a serious amount of bad press so it might have been stopped at the studios it occurred in.

Scores for art-entertainment are áss: and were it the right forum, I'd go on a long segue about why aggregator sites "scoring" movies, and used as some source of Absolute Truth, is the biggest pox on film discussion going.

Markitron

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The problem is there's been some sort of consensus formed in the video game community that anything sub 8/10 is a disaster. Days Gone got 71% on Metacritic - that'd be considered a pretty good score for any film, album or TV show. In gaming, for some reason it's not. A 7/10 is a good score! Not everything needs to be a 9/10 or bust.

While an over-generous game press / hyper score-obsessed gaming community are certainly to blame, Metacritic itself has also fed into this farcical situation. They mark games that score in the mid to low 70s in 'disappointing yellow', whereas a film with the same score would get 'triumphant green'.

No score reviews FTW.

Game reviewers don’t use the full scale because they are dangerously close to publishers to the point where they are reliant on them, they are basically an extension of a publishers PR operation.

Film, tv, music and book review outlets aren’t a exactly a bastion of impartiality, but they are when you compare them to games. And yea, Metacritic exacerbated a problem that was already present since the early 90s. YouTube made it even worse again.

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah it was / is a practice where bonuses are tied to the aggregator scores. It got a serious amount of bad press so it might have been stopped at the studios it occurred in.

As recently as Cyberpunk 2077 CDPR tied staff bonuses to review scores AFAIK. To their credit, they actually did away with the policy when it became clear Cyberpunk wasn't going to be universally acclaimed like the Witcher 3, so the staff got their bonuses.

There's obviously the infamous story of Obsidian missing out on their Fallout New Vegas bonus because the game hit 84 instead of the contracted 85 target on MC. One bloody point. You would seriously hope such policies have long since been discontinued.

CastorTroy

gimli2112 wrote: »

maybe we could simplify the process, a control group so to speak. This game is a) better than Ace Combat 7 or b) worse than Ace Combat 7.

Sure then every review would be "a"

BlitzKrieg

Review sites have tried to get rid of review scores a few times, it never sticks.


Also I kinda get why the 7/10 score tends to be more frowned on in games then films, it's because a 7/10 movie is only 2 hours of your life and the price of a cinema ticket or subscription (or nothing at all if you are willing to wait)

a 7/10 game is 60 euros often. With live services it's also a silly amount of dedication. So I can understand people being more picky, being little sh*ts and sending death threats on the other hand...

Markitron

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Review sites have tried to get rid of review scores a few times, it never sticks.

Eurogamer got rid of them and it is the best thing the site ever did. Their system is as good as there is at the moment.

BloodBath

They need to stop counting the obvious review bombs in the averages.

Have a look at FF7R on metacritic for example. The vast majority of genuine review give it a 9 or 10 out of 10 but the average score is like 8.4 because of a large number of dopes giving it a 0.

Retr0gamer

I've played plenty of good 7/10 games. A lot more aren't worth the time, and I'd rank a lot of big modern open world games a 7/10 unlike the critics on metacritic.

BloodBath

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I actually decided to watch Monster Hunter out of curiosity after pouring lots of time into Rise. Bad idea.

There's a fairly substantial proportion of people who seem very fond of his filmmaking - including Resi - and more power to them. All of them I've seen have been ****e, although perhaps I'd elevate '****e' to 'meh' for Event Horizon.

Also, not a chance Event Horizon was overrated at the time. Got a critical mauling.

Critically yes and rightfully so. I meant your average Joe recommending it. Think it has a 30% average critic score on metacritic but 70% public review scores. Says it all.

I have friends who liked the RE movies too. They are up there with the fmv cut scenes from the first game.

Retr0gamer

You gamers don't know what you want. That's why you are still gamers, cos you're stupid.

pixelburp

There's also the unquantifiable aspect that aggregators can only count people who are moved enough to actually leave a score in the first place. Which in cases of media with an outsized level of ... well, shall we call it "fan passion"? Is going to result in much more skewed, see-saw differences between the critics and public. Leaving this big unknowable gap of "everyone in-between". Last of Us 2 was a shítshow, but if you played the game and meh, thought it was OK, you're unlikely to seek aggregators to contribute that shoulder-shrug.

There's no true way to garner a score as an absolute because equally, there's no way to count those who don't contribute to the site's averages in the first place. I'd consider myself fairly discerning, and often try to articulate my thoughts on any piece of entertainment - but I've never once left a score on an aggregator; I can't imagine I'm the only one either. All that's left then are those who care, or care too much.

Retr0gamer

On the other hand I find steam user reviews to be pretty great. Lot of really detailed informative reviews there that tell you everything from if there are technical issues or if the game is for you.

And then there's the Hentai game reviews which are great for a laugh.

Varik

Think I've seen more deranged stream reviews than useful ones.

People bitching about the game, it not being worthwhile/good/whatever but somehow they've thousands of hours in it and are probably overly invested and just pissed about some random change they don't like.

Same going the other way, games written off but we can see the person only played for no time at all.

Retr0gamer

Varik wrote: »

Think I've seen more deranged stream reviews than useful ones.

People bitching about the game, it not being worthwhile/good/whatever but somehow they've thousands of hours in it and are probably overly invested and just pissed about some random change they don't like.

Same going the other way, games written off but we can see the person only played for no time at all.

I stay away from those forever games so I don't see the rants when someone's favourite gun gets nerfed.

Dr. Bre

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You gamers don't know what you want. That's why you are still gamers, cos you're stupid.

All gamers lives matter