@TroyTrojanGamer SWTOR had "legitimate story" and still does. Age of Conan also has "legitimate story". Personal story in GW2 was also quite good (pity it was the only story in GW2). There are more examples and your logic is flawed. As @diehardtactics wrote, it is the principle regardless the amount. This is pure greed on behalf of Bethesda/Zenimax.
Good show yet I wonder what is it then that fuels such feel among readers?
Why some reviews of similar games get negative score even though they are both good and deserve similar mark?
I was shocked with few particular reviews regarding Caesar IV and Imperium Romanum
http://www.gamespot.com/caesar-iv/
http://www.gamespot.com/imperium-romanum/
I played both games and enjoyed both games. No game is perfect yet both of these games were quite enjoyable for me. Yet, even though similar game Imperium romanum get's really bad mark. Caesar is the game of a big publisher and Imperium a small beginner publisher. What is even bigger paradox, same reviewer from Imperium Romanum reviews another game from same developer with same engine like Imperium Romanum with a bit different theme gets nice score - Tropico 3.
http://www.gamespot.com/tropico-3/
In case of Caesar and Imperium we have dirrect rivalry and when such review appears it is normal to get idea that review is being paid to give low mark or it is simple bias of the reviewer. Scroll down and we can see that players gave 7,8 average mark to Caesar and 7,1 to Imperium here on Gamespot - so apparently I am not the only one who enjoyed these two titles. Brett who gave 3,5 to Imperium gave 8 to Tropico that has basically same features as Imperium and players gave 7,9.
I don't know Cam, are reviewers bribed or biased but such change in Brett is astonishing! Why not Gamespot make game review by several Gamespot reviewers? Link to one new game for review but several viewpoints (articles/videos) and separate marks. Not everyone loves the same game genre and might receive the same way.
Familiarity - oh yes. Many sequels carry motif from main theme to the sequels. I personally think this is done very good in The Elder Scrolls series (3-4-5) and Europa Universalis (3-4). Probably there are more similar series carrying this same motif but different song. It really gives sense of continuation to the series.
Being second voted franchise doesn't mean it is bad. Way too many would like to be that second place. It is the current opinion of the audience that they prefer medieval fantasy a bit more. A bit - not much more. Even though my last GTA game was Vice city, I have great respect for the franchise. TES series and GTA series promote open world I am overjoyed that two most popular open world franchises ended up as top 2 franchises of all time. I prefer open world games, but this is not a must. We will have Witcher 3 and DA Inquisition migrating to semi open world and I would like them to do it right. Making open world game for the sake of open world means nothing if there is not enough content in those games to encourage player to explore and make adventure on their own.
PS: Danny I love your videos. Good work and I like them regularly on YT!
For me, scariest game was Silent Hill. At the time I could play it only at SPS of my friend. A specific mixture of sounds and technical limitations gave good impression of horror and incoming danger from the fog. Game had everything what Cam was talking about. Sounds that announce incoming danger (radio), sublime atmosphere, monster noises, alarm/syren and feel of inferiority in the fog. I remember I was running to the wall to get at least my back covered when radio announce incoming monster. My friend didn't want to play it, he just watched. It gave him nightmares.
Finally someone said good things about open world games. I never understood why some (even game reviewers) spit on open world games. I understand if someone don't like particular game, but to say game is pointless and don't have direction is simply wrong. I too like to explore and find open world games perfect spot to be.
@GrahamZ @InkOnTube Then why nothing good is said about it?
This way while some player want to be noticed and others a like spend money, they help others who can't afford to play with them by founding the developers to work more on the game.
While players do play LoL a lot, they don't have to play it every day and still their account will be maintained. In other words, all you have to do is to play one game per year and Riot will keep your account with all unlocked heroes and masteries. Why that is not mentioned? They can save their server capacity by simply deleting all player history if player don't play often - but no. All they ask is one played game per year.
Why it is not mentioned that game can be tried by anyone in full without spending a dime and if players don't like it - can leave the game without any obligation. Or they can continue playing the game again without any obligation. In contrast to subscription games where player usually has to purchase the game and then to spend money on subscription.
F2P model that is presented in LoL and many other MOBA games is quite in favor of players. Yet such model demand "game of big numbers" to be profitable which LoL and DOTA2 have.
Cam in video didn't said anything bad directly and of course he won't. The message is sublime as if the entire game is evil and tease players for money with tricks but represent itself as pretty princess just because there are items to spent real money on.
Gotta feeling as this is meant to be present f2p model as something really bad. Almost as if LoL's success is real pain for those who don't like f2p model. And nobody talks about percentage of people who pay something in the game vs those who never pay. This video is made that if somebody start playing some f2p game or LoL - it will ultimately twist your brain and make you spend money on it without control. Why never talk about people who never pay in f2p and their % in the player base of that game? What is the percentage of players that payed only once some small amount?
InkOnTube's comments