NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
I don't understand why some people are pretending to be so dense in this discussion.
The whole point of the argument is that a video game that barely requires inputs or interactivity, and that (by what I could get from other people's opinions) barely needs to be in video game format to tell its story, got a slew of perfect scores from a good number of main review outlets.
No matter what each one of us believes about review scores, review scores matter. A lot.
They absolutely influence people's decisions, and developers' decisions, and the market.
Publishers wouldn't pay to inflate scores, and they wouldn't jump through hoops to avoid leaks and spoilers, if that weren't the case. The press's opinion matters, even if I and several others stopped caring a long time ago.
It's true that this medium is so varied, a score given to a certain game doesn't equal the same score given to another game.
But a 10 should be handled with care.
Think of how many people don't think Breath of the Wild deserved a 10. And then consider that Mixtape got several 10s. What does this tell about the credibility of scores? What does this tell about the meaning of a 10/10?
It's pretty clear that the point of the argument here is this.
It could be argued that a game like BOTW isn't a 10. It's a matter of personal taste, and it's also very much a matter of personal bias and console warring. In the end though, BOTW is clearly a big production with tons of content, gameplay and interactivity, with few objective flaws, that can keep people entertained for years. If it's not for you, that's OK.
But when you give a 10 to something like Mixtape, there is no objectivity, no care for the peculiarities of the video game medium, no interest towards what makes video games video games. You can enjoy Mixtape a lot, of course. Nothing bad about that. But if you represent, and contribute to, one of the most public aspects of a medium - in this case, reviews and scores - your opinion isn't just any opinion. And if you give a 10 to a game that barely requires interactivity, you're openly stating that you don't believe in the meaning of your scores yourself, and that you're just there to bask in the importance people give to your glorified personal opinion (assuming, of course, that it's really your opinion, and not an opinion you were simply rewarded for giving).
And this is why the Heavy Rain comparison is misplaced here. Regardless of the fact that Heavy Rain didn't really play itself, and that even when it kinda did, it had different outcomes. Regardless of the fact that Heavy Rain was criticized for having relatively poor interactivity. People aren't complaining because Mixtape is, apparently, barely a video game. It's because outlets already well known for pushing and praising certain games and contents - and not in the most objective of ways, to say the least - are giving Mixtape perfect scores, while detracting points from other games for very minor things or because of fabricated controversies. "Bu-bu-but it didn't only get 10s!" is a deflection and you know it.
The whole point of the argument is that a video game that barely requires inputs or interactivity, and that (by what I could get from other people's opinions) barely needs to be in video game format to tell its story, got a slew of perfect scores from a good number of main review outlets.
No matter what each one of us believes about review scores, review scores matter. A lot.
They absolutely influence people's decisions, and developers' decisions, and the market.
Publishers wouldn't pay to inflate scores, and they wouldn't jump through hoops to avoid leaks and spoilers, if that weren't the case. The press's opinion matters, even if I and several others stopped caring a long time ago.
It's true that this medium is so varied, a score given to a certain game doesn't equal the same score given to another game.
But a 10 should be handled with care.
Think of how many people don't think Breath of the Wild deserved a 10. And then consider that Mixtape got several 10s. What does this tell about the credibility of scores? What does this tell about the meaning of a 10/10?
It's pretty clear that the point of the argument here is this.
It could be argued that a game like BOTW isn't a 10. It's a matter of personal taste, and it's also very much a matter of personal bias and console warring. In the end though, BOTW is clearly a big production with tons of content, gameplay and interactivity, with few objective flaws, that can keep people entertained for years. If it's not for you, that's OK.
But when you give a 10 to something like Mixtape, there is no objectivity, no care for the peculiarities of the video game medium, no interest towards what makes video games video games. You can enjoy Mixtape a lot, of course. Nothing bad about that. But if you represent, and contribute to, one of the most public aspects of a medium - in this case, reviews and scores - your opinion isn't just any opinion. And if you give a 10 to a game that barely requires interactivity, you're openly stating that you don't believe in the meaning of your scores yourself, and that you're just there to bask in the importance people give to your glorified personal opinion (assuming, of course, that it's really your opinion, and not an opinion you were simply rewarded for giving).
And this is why the Heavy Rain comparison is misplaced here. Regardless of the fact that Heavy Rain didn't really play itself, and that even when it kinda did, it had different outcomes. Regardless of the fact that Heavy Rain was criticized for having relatively poor interactivity. People aren't complaining because Mixtape is, apparently, barely a video game. It's because outlets already well known for pushing and praising certain games and contents - and not in the most objective of ways, to say the least - are giving Mixtape perfect scores, while detracting points from other games for very minor things or because of fabricated controversies. "Bu-bu-but it didn't only get 10s!" is a deflection and you know it.
