Is mediocrity being far more accepted in this generation

  • 120 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by biggest_loser (24065 posts) -
Critics reviews tend to be more balanced because they find something good to say about the game. Most user reviews if they don't like the game play or its not their type of game, rip every aspect apart. Its like the payback they give for actually having to buy the game.
#52 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

Welcome to this week's episode of "I have a different opinion therefore these reviews are bad"

Teufelhuhn

Not really that. It is more 'I can't trust reviews since they don't tell me the difference between great and mediocrity. Only talks about production values.

#53 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

Don't assume that everybody has the same opinion as you about what is mediocre or not.IronBass
Wasn't the point. Games like super paper mario had huge disparity in terms of likability. It wasn't telling by reviews. Reviews have beenn inflated to the point where every moth a game gets at least a 85 metacric score. Imagine if movies had a review scale of 75-100. Shovelware is considered the worst but who honestly plays those games? It is like because Uwe Boll makes bad movies other movies can't get a mediocre review.

#54 Posted by IronBass (21208 posts) -

Wasn't the point. Games like super paper mario had huge disparity in terms of likability. It wasn't telling by reviews. Reviews have beenn inflated to the point where every moth a game gets at least a 85 metacric score. Imagine if movies had a review scale of 75-100. Shovelware is considered the worst but who honestly plays those games? It is like because Uwe Boll makes bad movies other movies can't get a mediocre review.

nhh18

The review of Super Paper Mario was meant to reflect the reviewer's opinion about it. if you disagree with it, well, it only means you disagree with it. Nothing else.

#55 Posted by eboyishere (12681 posts) -
1. those are your opinions 2. the longer the gen last the more unimpressed reviewers are with games if MGS4 and GTA4 released today no way in hell they would get the 10.
#56 Posted by Teuf_ (30805 posts) -

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Welcome to this week's episode of "I have a different opinion therefore these reviews are bad"

nhh18

Not really that. It is more 'I can't trust reviews since they don't tell me the difference between great and mediocrity. Only talks about production values.



You're talking about games that reviewers call "great" and saying that they're actually "mediocre". Sounds to me like you have a difference of opinion.

#57 Posted by jettpack (3192 posts) -

i kindof agree.

#58 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

Battlefield 3 isn't anything we haven't seen before, yet some people on this site see it as the second coming for FPS games.

Mediocrity IS more accepted this gen.

*takes off trollface and puts up flame shiled*

xYamatox

So now BF3 is mediocre?

What would call the COD series...

#59 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Welcome to this week's episode of "I have a different opinion therefore these reviews are bad"

Teufelhuhn

Not really that. It is more 'I can't trust reviews since they don't tell me the difference between great and mediocrity. Only talks about production values.



You're talking about games that reviewers call "great" and saying that they're actually "mediocre". Sounds to me like you have a difference of opinion.

So you are saying that all games with high production values should be glamourized by reviewers. This isn't meant out of disrepect of others opinions. This is just saying that every game is great 4 out of 5 stars quality. This just isn't the case.

#60 Posted by KungfuKitten (21143 posts) -

Yes I think we're seeing an increasing influence of budgets on reviews.

#61 Posted by IronBass (21208 posts) -
This just isn't the case.nhh18
That's your opinion. Which was our point.
#62 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

[QUOTE="nhh18"]This just isn't the case.IronBass
That's your opinion. Which was our point.

Except it is proven at this point.

#63 Posted by IronBass (21208 posts) -
Except it is proven at this point.nhh18
Not really, quality is subjective, and as such, you can't "prove" that the games reviewed aren't as good as the reviewer thinks. You can just disagree, and that's it. But, if you're so sure about it, you're welcome to show the "proof" of that :o
#64 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

[QUOTE="nhh18"]Except it is proven at this point.IronBass
Not really, quality is subjective, and as such, you can't "prove" that the games reviewed aren't as good as the reviewer thinks. You can just disagree, and that's it. But, if you're so sure about it, you're welcome to show the "proof" of that :o

Budget has a huge impact on gams. I don't understand why but mediocrity like I said is far more accepted than low budget games. In order to score AAA status it needs to be the most haughty independent game or have a huge budget.

#65 Posted by Bigboi500 (30113 posts) -

Now a days everything is a business machine where in the past it was more of a refreshing hobby. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors at gaming websites these days...

#66 Posted by Teuf_ (30805 posts) -

So you are saying that all games with high production values should be glamourized by reviewers. This isn't meant out of disrepect of others opinions. This is just saying that every game is great 4 out of 5 stars quality. This just isn't the case.

nhh18



What? Nobody is saying that. I'm saying that they give those games good reviews because they think the game is good.

#67 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

Now a days everything is a business machine where in the past it was more of a refreshing hobby. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors at gaming websites these days...

Bigboi500

movies are a business. Doesn't mean la times, new york times, among other newspapers give every movie a good review.

#68 Posted by IronBass (21208 posts) -
Budget has a huge impact on gams. I don't understand why but mediocrity like I said is far more accepted than low budget games. In order to score AAA status it needs to be the most haughty independent game or have a huge budget.nhh18
I don't want to be unfriendly, but we were talking about it being a proven fact, and nothing you just posted shows a proof of anything :question:
#69 Posted by LastRambo341 (8767 posts) -

At OP.

On Wii I think it most certainly is.

amaneuvering
Exactly, that's what you think
#70 Posted by Bigboi500 (30113 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Now a days everything is a business machine where in the past it was more of a refreshing hobby. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors at gaming websites these days...

nhh18

movies are a business. Doesn't mean la times, new york times, among other newspapers give every movie a good review.

I think lobbyists have wormed their way into the gaming industry more than ever now, and there is always big pressure to give favorable reviews to "big" games. We caught a glimpse of this with Jeff G. a few years back, and then the GTAIV review fiasco (9.5 pulled and mysteriously changed to a 10) and I think that's just the tip of the iceberg.

#71 Posted by LastRambo341 (8767 posts) -
If the majority or all reviewers agree that a game is great, like super paper Mario, then you need to re-evaluate your claim. It's one thing for a game to be really bad such as NinjaBreadMan but it's another if a game does not appeal to you.
#72 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

So you are saying that all games with high production values should be glamourized by reviewers. This isn't meant out of disrepect of others opinions. This is just saying that every game is great 4 out of 5 stars quality. This just isn't the case.

Teufelhuhn



What? Nobody is saying that. I'm saying that they give those games good reviews because they think the game is good.

It isn't the point I am making. Game production values doesn't equate to quality. A quality game with low budget will get descriminated while a game with a high production value won't. I can't comprehend why gears of war, mass effect, god of war, zelda, uncharrted among other games don't have varied reviews and if they are the person is fanboyish or trolling. It is remarkable that these games which are so different than each other will get 10s across the board. It is like every person forgets that these games have nothing in common in terms of art**** direction, presentaiton, sound, story. This is where mediocrity stands out. Not technical graphics (AA, etc), gameplay mechanics, and polygons on the screen; Those are just underlying components. I haven't read a review that has ever pointed out boring worlds, awful pacing, terrible sound design. I don't understand why reviewers intentions are to give the game to the 20 year old women to review a kinect game, or a 26 obessed sci-fi fanboy for a sci fi shooter. Like you said to me mediocrity is my opinion but how the hell does every game with a big budget or a big franchise score 90. I haven't bought more than 10 games the last 2 years and the reason is primarily because nothing stands out.

#73 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

If the majority or all reviewers agree that a game is great, like super paper Mario, then you need to re-evaluate your claim. It's one thing for a game to be really bad such as NinjaBreadMan but it's another if a game does not appeal to you.LastRambo341
Why should I care about ninja bread man when I am reviewing super paper mario. I can't give a movie like fright night a mediocre score because Uwe Ball makes movies? This is flawed logic.

#74 Posted by Zophar87 (4351 posts) -

Go play some of the trash that a lot of developers put out in the 8-Bit and the 16/32-Bit era of gaming and then come complain to me about mediocrity,

#75 Posted by hakanakumono (27455 posts) -

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Welcome to this week's episode of "I have a different opinion therefore these reviews are bad"

Teufelhuhn

Not really that. It is more 'I can't trust reviews since they don't tell me the difference between great and mediocrity. Only talks about production values.



You're talking about games that reviewers call "great" and saying that they're actually "mediocre". Sounds to me like you have a difference of opinion.

This whole forum is about differences of opinion.

#76 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="nhh18"]Not really that. It is more 'I can't trust reviews since they don't tell me the difference between great and mediocrity. Only talks about production values.

hakanakumono



You're talking about games that reviewers call "great" and saying that they're actually "mediocre". Sounds to me like you have a difference of opinion.

This whole forum is about differences of opinion.

Except reviewers don't

#77 Posted by Zophar87 (4351 posts) -

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

You're talking about games that reviewers call "great" and saying that they're actually "mediocre". Sounds to me like you have a difference of opinion.

nhh18

This whole forum is about differences of opinion.

Except reviewers don't

If you're playing games based on what reviewers say about it then you're doing it wrong anyway.

#78 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

This whole forum is about differences of opinion.

Zophar87

Except reviewers don't

If you're playing games based on what reviewers say about it then you're doing it wrong anyway.

I don't trust any game reviewer. It is like blind shooting for me

#79 Posted by hakanakumono (27455 posts) -

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

You're talking about games that reviewers call "great" and saying that they're actually "mediocre". Sounds to me like you have a difference of opinion.

nhh18

This whole forum is about differences of opinion.

Except reviewers don't

I'll bet you that Persona 2 scores higher on other websites.

#80 Posted by hakanakumono (27455 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zophar87"]

[QUOTE="nhh18"]Except reviewers don't

nhh18

If you're playing games based on what reviewers say about it then you're doing it wrong anyway.

I don't trust any game reviewer. It is like blind shooting for me

Reviews are useful, but you kind of have to get in the reviewer's head.

#81 Posted by Zophar87 (4351 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zophar87"]

[QUOTE="nhh18"]Except reviewers don't

nhh18

If you're playing games based on what reviewers say about it then you're doing it wrong anyway.

I don't trust any game reviewer. It is like blind shooting for me

Then why do you care exactly?

#82 Posted by nhh18 (6538 posts) -

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

[QUOTE="Zophar87"]

If you're playing games based on what reviewers say about it then you're doing it wrong anyway.

Zophar87

I don't trust any game reviewer. It is like blind shooting for me

Then why do you care exactly?

Because I don't want to blind shoot.

#83 Posted by TheLordHimself (3316 posts) -

As far as I'm concerned this generation is farsuperior to any other generation in gaming history. Only a select few games this gen have actually disappointed me (Far Cry 2, Fat Princess, Sonic 4, GT5, LocoRoco 2) while there have been tons of games that've been far better than I had anticipated.

This generation gets so much hate but I absolutely love it.

#85 Posted by LastRambo341 (8767 posts) -

[QUOTE="LastRambo341"]If the majority or all reviewers agree that a game is great, like super paper Mario, then you need to re-evaluate your claim. It's one thing for a game to be really bad such as NinjaBreadMan but it's another if a game does not appeal to you.nhh18

Why should I care about ninja bread man when I am reviewing super paper mario. I can't give a movie like fright night a mediocre score because Uwe Ball makes movies? This is flawed logic.

You didn't understand anything I just said
#86 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
It's not that mediocrity is being accepted, it's that the entire reviewing system is flawed due to critics inflating scores, dev costs and stakes rising for publishers to make ends meet, and gamers being able to vocalise their expectations more than ever over the web. What it has inevitably caused is a sort of backlash towards the critical opinion, where it's easy to point out the immaturity and of people screaming over metrics, when we should be concentrating on the actual writing and review content. Why else is the 'game reviewing metrics skewed at 70% at 'average' and gamers who bite and complain about scores actually genuine consider this as average as well? Now it's not that 'mediocre is accepted' it's that criticism isn't as highly regarded, or valued - rather either complaining or gushing. Those games are very competent games, as are many games. Are they above the mass of other competent games? well that where we debate.
#87 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -

Critics reviews tend to be more balanced because they find something good to say about the game. Most user reviews if they don't like the game play or its not their type of game, rip every aspect apart. Its like the payback they give for actually having to buy the game. biggest_loser
It's a matter of knowing who to listen to.

While critics are usually a solid source, there's so much horrible writing out there these days, and publishers pushing money into winning over the critical opinion in one way or another (just read about the 'review conditions' and swag reviewers are given sometimes, by publishers who allow them to write about the review code - let alone the whole embargo fiasco), it's a real mess.

Listening to X fans gush or whinge and complain isn't going to help either, rather sitting down and actually taking a look at well written reason; be it a sort of product review (as so many 'game reviews' are) or sheer opinion, and having a variety of sources to get perspective.

That's how I see it at least.

E.g. People scream and moan over Destructoid for instance - but I'm damn glad they are there - they offer an alternate perspective, even if I disagree and have made massive efforts to not bow before publishers, even if I might disagree with their writers.

Even GS is a good source to listen to - their writing standard is fairly good, and I'm still yet to read anything that's as impressively bad as what I have read in PC Gamer or IGN - some of their writers have devalued them as a source to me (not to say I entirely disregard them).

Gets people thinking and discussing, rather than surprising amount people who can't be bothered and concentrate on the 'score' and hold it up with some sort of worth.

**** the scores.

That's everything that's wrong about reviews today /rant.

Kudos to Ars Technica and Rock Paper Shotgun for not having them.

#88 Posted by exiledsnake (1906 posts) -
I was actually thinking of a new review scale that I think might be better than the old 1-10 scale in regards to this issue. Just to be clear I think the issue is that too many games are getting high scores and its hard to differentiate their quality, review-wise. Some would say reviews are just opinions and don't really matter when in actuality they do. Review scores can decrease and increase sales of a particular game depending on the score. So what if there is no maximum limit to a review score? Lets say game A is reviewed really well with a 9.5 but a year later game B comes out and makes game A feel outdated. With a no-max scale, game B would get a 10.5. And if game C comes out two years later and is just as good as game B with nothing new it would get around the same score as game B because two years later other games might be getting scores like 12s or 14s. With this kind of scale, revolutionary games will always stand out because it has the highest score at that point in time. Well, I haven't really thought it through that much and somebody could point out a bunch of flaws with this scale but it sounds practical to me.
#89 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
I was actually thinking of a new review scale that I think might be better than the old 1-10 scale in regards to this issue. Just to be clear I think the issue is that too many games are getting high scores and its hard to differentiate their quality, review-wise. Some would say reviews are just opinions and don't really matter when in actuality they do. Review scores can decrease and increase sales of a particular game depending on the score. So what if there is no maximum limit to a review score? Lets say game A is reviewed really well with a 9.5 but a year later game B comes out and makes game A feel outdated. With a no-max scale, game B would get a 10.5. And if game C comes out two years later and is just as good as game B with nothing new it would get around the same score as game B because two years later other games might be getting scores like 12s or 14s. With this kind of scale, revolutionary games will always stand out because it has the highest score at that point in time. Well, I haven't really thought it through that much and somebody could point out a bunch of flaws with this scale but it sounds practical to me.exiledsnake
It's hard to actually judge games when time passes as you're never going to be looking at the climate the game was released in, on but there should be something retrospective. But it's amazing that more websites ignore this completely, when games can last decades and continue to evolve over time. Otherwise 5 Star rating system, where *one* is 'bad' is about as good as any scoring system gets imho. Adding in halves begins to mud the values of games, game become more of a score comparison then easier categorisation into 'summary of critics and publications thoughts'. Which is why we have all those 8.5 > 8.0 etc. or even worse - percentages.
#90 Posted by ohthemanatee (8104 posts) -
Oh noes! reviewers give good scores to a game I don't like... teh BIAS!!! :cry:
#91 Posted by tomarlyn (20145 posts) -
I loved Fable 3, niggles aside its a great action adventure. Calling it broken is stupid.
#92 Posted by Malta_1980 (11404 posts) -

i honestly believe this gen we got many great games... also more are coming out :)

#93 Posted by siLVURcross (26106 posts) -
wut, Super Paper Mario was awesome.
#94 Posted by Wasdie (50003 posts) -

Games are the highest quality they've ever been and we are accepting mediocrity?

#95 Posted by Zassimick (6674 posts) -

Maybe the reason for all the 80+ scores is because games today are of an 80+ quality? We are seeing a lot less crap than we did in the past and developers are making better games, though some games may just be copy/paste or niche titles.

The quality of gaming today is fantastic.

#96 Posted by foxhound_fox (88802 posts) -
No... actually, I think it is "standards" have been raised far too high. When "8.5/10" is considered "bad" then one knows its time to reconsider why one is in the hobby in the first place.
#97 Posted by dovberg (3348 posts) -

The popularity of CoD still amazes me and yes I know 4 was good but then what?

#98 Posted by dovberg (3348 posts) -

I loved Fable 3, niggles aside its a great action adventure. Calling it broken is stupid.tomarlyn

Yeah it's even better on PC...and more importantly(like Fable 2) approached with an understanding that you should focus more on side quests than the main story.

#99 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6255 posts) -
Quite the opposite. Been gaming for more than 2 decades, the games just keep getting bigger and better. I'm playing AC2 now, and amazed at how epic and huge it feels. PS - WOOT gamefly just shipped Deus Ex *does a happy dance*
#100 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

People have different opinions on different games, that being said I absolutely hate GTAIV and I think it's a boring game without much going for it and it scored favourably. Obviously me and critics don't agree but to say on average that critics 'accept mediocrity' is wrong.

A review isn't meant to be a summary of the game but as a critique instead. Because of this, games have been critiqued in anunscrupulous manner. When will game sites ever change their direction in terms of reviews.nhh18

It should do both. The best reviews are the ones that tell you absolutely everything you need to know about the game as well as tell you what the game has to offer, DESPITE if the reviewer likes or dislikes it. For example, one of the most annoying things about most Pilotwings Resort reviews was being told that the game has little to no replay value when it actually does, but the reviewer fails to mention they don't personally care to attempt to do those things. At least mention it and say "this could extend playtime".