Is mediocrity being far more accepted in this generation

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

Teufelhuhn

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.

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.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

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

nhh18

i kindof agree.

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...

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

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

Teufelhuhn

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

This just isn't the case.nhh18

[QUOTE="nhh18"]This just isn't the case.IronBass

Except it is proven at this point.nhh18

[QUOTE="nhh18"]Except it is proven at this point.IronBass

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...

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

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

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

At OP.

On Wii I think it most certainly is.

amaneuvering

[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

[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

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

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,

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

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

Teufelhuhn

This whole forum is about differences of opinion.

[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

This whole forum is about differences of opinion.

[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.

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

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

This whole forum is about differences of opinion.

Zophar87

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

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

Then why do you care exactly?

[QUOTE="nhh18"]

[QUOTE="Zophar87"]

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

Zophar87

Then why do you care exactly?

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.

[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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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".