There are still more Positive ME3 user reviews than there are negative ones.
The divergence of reviews and public perception
- Thread starter Margalis
- Start date
There are still more Positive ME3 user reviews than there are negative ones.
PrinceOfApathy
Banned
There in lies the crux of the matter, your enjoyable, may not be my enjoyable and may not be someone elses enjoyable. You could find fondling a ducks genitals enjoyable and it means absolutely nothing! I enjoyed the ever living fuck out of Drakengard 1, because the story was insane and I loved that, but when it comes to gameplay, design, combat mechanics, structure...c'mon you have to see that it isn't the epitome of excellence in ANY regard, and I'd be damned to say Drakengard was a magnificent momentousness gaming achievement because then I'd be a liar.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Said this in another thread but another big problem with reviewers is that they exist in a feedback loop where, on top of any shenanigans tilting their reviews, they are primed to be impressed by the current product the industry most wants to push.
And never forget the machinations that editors get up to in all this. They're a big player who manipulate things from behind the scenes.
Editors will frequently, INTENTIONALLY, put a guy on a game that he KNOWS the guy will disdain in principle, telling themselves that this is "hard journalism". "We'll show them we're not soft. We're critics. We're pro. We're not just fanboys."
Likewise, when faced with the review of that big AAAA game that their primary sponsor has stamped with "CANNOT FAIL", the editor will put give both impressions, interviews, and final critique to people who "compliment" the subject matter. Here, the self-told lie is covering up that they're putting a drooling fanboy or a person who doesn't know anything (but is easily impressed) right into the clutches of the publisher.
Something I've become aware of is that the people who organize like this frequently don't really give a crap about games, though they may cultivate an image of being hardcore. (They publish about games after all.) They don't care that they're ruthlessly sending random games out to be shot behind the shed by idiotic, vindictive trollviewers who despise the genre and hold people who play those games in contempt. They don't care that their inflation of the AAAA game of the yearly quarter will cause a hundred thousand people who run out and buy it only to get burned, when many of those people may have really liked a "non critical" title that was downplayed or even skipped. This isn't even about "games journalism is immature". It's about "games journalism is fraudulent."
But this truth is hidden behind a screen of plausible deniablity; you'll see games journalism "get it right" just enough to not lose all credibility and completely shatter the illusion. "Maybe the gaming press DOES get it... they celebrated Demon's Souls!" It's more that such a game is occasionally allowed to make it through. I suspect Demon's Souls, as our example here, could have easily been descended upon as "more of that last gen janky Japanese fail" by the press had circumstances been a little different. Had a few more editors randomly decided to single that game out and give to their "I HATE EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T UNCHARTED" writer.
All according to keikaku.
And never forget the machinations that editors get up to in all this. They're a big player who manipulate things from behind the scenes.
Editors will frequently, INTENTIONALLY, put a guy on a game that he KNOWS the guy will disdain in principle, telling themselves that this is "hard journalism". "We'll show them we're not soft. We're critics. We're pro. We're not just fanboys."
Likewise, when faced with the review of that big AAAA game that their primary sponsor has stamped with "CANNOT FAIL", the editor will put give both impressions, interviews, and final critique to people who "compliment" the subject matter. Here, the self-told lie is covering up that they're putting a drooling fanboy or a person who doesn't know anything (but is easily impressed) right into the clutches of the publisher.
Something I've become aware of is that the people who organize like this frequently don't really give a crap about games, though they may cultivate an image of being hardcore. (They publish about games after all.) They don't care that they're ruthlessly sending random games out to be shot behind the shed by idiotic, vindictive trollviewers who despise the genre and hold people who play those games in contempt. They don't care that their inflation of the AAAA game of the yearly quarter will cause a hundred thousand people who run out and buy it only to get burned, when many of those people may have really liked a "non critical" title that was downplayed or even skipped. This isn't even about "games journalism is immature". It's about "games journalism is fraudulent."
But this truth is hidden behind a screen of plausible deniablity; you'll see games journalism "get it right" just enough to not lose all credibility and completely shatter the illusion. "Maybe the gaming press DOES get it... they celebrated Demon's Souls!" It's more that such a game is occasionally allowed to make it through. I suspect Demon's Souls, as our example here, could have easily been descended upon as "more of that last gen janky Japanese fail" by the press had circumstances been a little different. Had a few more editors randomly decided to single that game out and give to their "I HATE EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T UNCHARTED" writer.
All according to keikaku.
The internet likes to blow a games flaws way out of proportion. I'm not saying reviews shouldn't pick up on them better, but the average AAA game is of a way better quality today than the average blockbuster film. This makes judging reviews harder, because as a whole most big budget games are pretty well designed and most importantly deliver some entertainment. ME3 detractors are being ridiculous in suggesting they didn't enjoy 95% of the game because the ending was awful (which it is, and more reviews should have noted that).
Yep, this is true of a number of podcasts I really like such as 8-4 and even Giant Bomb and others that do this. I know they're probably only talking about an annoying and overbearing minority, but too often it sounds like they're dismissing a lot of legitimate complaints with derogatory language like "oh it's just the internet being the internet", "outrage" etc because SOME of the critics of a particular game are being obnoxious idiots. It feels like they take an "us against them" stance, with "us" being the games industry including journalists, and "them" being us forum readers/podcast listeners.
PrinceOfApathy
Banned
Good God. I'd never see the day when editors and journalists deem a game. "Too big to fail"....
FieryBalrog
Member
The interesting thing is, someone like the NY Times videogame reviewer (Seth something) is absolutely gushing in his reviews, about as much as anyone from the hobbyist press. Which is fine, I have nothing against that since in his case it seems to stem from genuine enthusiasm, but it is funny to compare him to A.O. Scott or Manohla Dargis.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Margalis said:
Well, "false objectivity" is probably better described as "fairness" or at least the illusion of it.
As to homogenity, you're absolutely right, but I think it needs to be viewed as a by-product of game reviews being historically score driven, which encourages conformity to a consensus opinion.
Back in the 8-bit days, it made sense to break stuff down into categories like graphics, sound, gameplay, etc because the product then was sufficiently simplistic in nature to warrant that kind of granularity, but as things have progressed its gotten irrelevant.
The model from day one in games reviewing has been the most simplistic and reductive method possible, no other form of art/entertainment is so heavily predicated on production value or the perceived worth of elements of its presentation.
I hate to use the word, but judging complex works like this is retarded.
The maddening thing is that PR has latched onto this as a sales tool and its now being used to feed back into the actual creative/production process. So we have the insane situation where the worst, most reductive (and incidentally corruption prone) method of evaluation now has the highest level of influence on the actual work across all art/entertainment spectra!
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Some of these ME3 reviews read as parodies:
What the fuck?
This is something that I am quite bothered by in reviews, the use of unnecessary verbal diarrhea in hopes of making the review sound more sophisticated and legitimate.
What the fuck?
This is something that I am quite bothered by in reviews, the use of unnecessary verbal diarrhea in hopes of making the review sound more sophisticated and legitimate.
Both of whom aren't very well respected film critics, to put things into perspective. It's also worth noting that Seth Schiesel's games coverage is allowed a fraction's fraction of the space the film writing covers.
I hope it didn't seem like I was proposing to ignore flaws. I'm certainly not. My point is that how enjoyable a game is can and should be a major factor when evaluating it.
Also, I have some thoughts on the topic of "faults" and reviews, particularly on how they influence scoring. It seems like some publications seem to think of scoring a game as some kind of math test. There is a set total amount of "points" and for each "fault" a set amount should be subtracted. The problem with this is that it greatly favours extremely safe, simplistic and streamlined game design. The general body of knowledge regarding how to build a linear corridor shooter with chest-high walls is so large at this point that it's hard to mess up in any major way. On the other hand, if you try to build a game with a main story that actually reacts to your actions (say, AP) as opposed to simply pretending to do so (say, ME) then there's obviously more that can (and will) go wrong. I don't believe these should be judged the same, otherwise this will just lead to only ultra-safe games being made with any kind of large budget. We are getting closer and closer to that point already.
Mass Effect 3 user scores (and many other metacritic user scores) are not even useful at this point. It is just a big sandbagging contest. If you read through the actual reviews, you get a lot of "Loved the game until the last 10 minutes ruined everything - 0/10" type reviews. You also get a lot of "This is the best game ever. Screw the haters - 10/10" type reviews.
Call of Duty is probably the best example of how internet user reviews are not really representative of public perception. Meta critic scores for Modern Warfare 3 are averaging around a 3 for the console versions and a 2 for the PC version. The fact that COD titles fare so badly with users of Metacritic (Black Ops had user reviews in the 5/10 range), yet completely dominate the Xbox Live Gameplay Charts for months/years after release shows that the user perception you see on Metacritic (and on places like GAF) are not really representative of the general public perception. Surely if the games were so awful, people wouldn't still be playing them in force 6-12 months after release.
I actually think it's the opposite. Last year we have seen a lot of layoffs from gaming sites and they're hiring freelancers instead. You also have stories now and then that details the shitty job that is freelancing. Everyone thinks they can review games and since the standard is so low they are probably right which amounts to the gaming sites having all the cards. And frankly, the gaming community doesn't care about well written reviews so gaming sites can just pay freelancers peanuts and there is no reason for them to pay more for better writers.
Absolutely. I've taken this view for quite some time. The publishers have clearly broken the system, but it wasn't through money hats. It was more through some clever behavior modification tactics that were rooted in the reviewers desire to be liked/loved.
im a bit scared to post this here out of general anxiety/backlash fear and cause im relatively new as a poster but what the hey. I run an experimental academic school in Brooklyn called The Brooklyn Institute for Social Research.
One of the research areas I am interested in is video games AND THIS EXACT TOPIC (i.e. the lack of a real critical discourse on games. (I tried to get my colleagues to discuss Shadow of the Colossus in a podcast we did to mixed results.) Particularly, the 'missing' world of sustained, serious, scholarly critical discourse on games as an art form (as opposed to, say, on design, on technology, on psychology, etc.) I am proposing a course for the fall on Video Games Criticism. I'll copy paste some of the general description I have so far:
Video Games as Literature: Towards a New Criticism
Despite being one of the most popular, creative, diverse, and commercially successful media of our time, video games have received scant attention in academic critical literature beyond technical and design-oriented discussion or sociological and psychological research about the “effects” of gaming on different segments of the population. Within existing “games journalism”, criticism is dominated by a strong emphasis on the game as a consumer artifact and a marked tendency towards 'consumer reports' style articles and reviews. Although a few have gestured at doing so, the video game has yet to receive the sustained, scholarly, and critical engagement that have addressed and, sometimes productively benefited, previous media forms (the play, the novel, the movie, the tv show, the comic book, etc.) In this course, we will attempt to lay the foundations for a new video game specific form of scholarly criticism. We will address a series of games (including Zork, Portal, Flower, Super Mario Brothers, Mass Effect, Shadow of the Colussus, Metal Gear Solid, the Legend of Zelda, Tetris, Civilization, Sim City, Half-Life, Resident Evil, Dragon Quest, Scribblenauts and/or others) in conjunction with excerpts from key texts in existing literary, film, and art criticism (including from Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, Wagner, Nietzsche, Freud, Lukács, Vertov, Adorno, Benjamin, Greenberg, Barthes, Jameson, Derrida, Sontag, Said, Buck-Morss, Crary, Schechner, Haraway, and/or others.) The goal of the course will be - in reading these game texts alongside these theoretical texts on previous media forms – to begin to understand what a scholarly critical discourse addressing games might look like.
Prerequisite: Having played or having the current ability to play some or all of the games listed above – and others like them. Sadly, the Institute does not have the resources to buy or lend out game consoles or gaming-capable computers.
just so you guys understand: 1.) Yes, I intend this to be full-on academic style study. If you do not believe in the value of such study I respect that but just understand that that's where I'm coming from.
2.) I'm thinking of doing a particular theme for each session to pair a particular game with a text that may be pertinent from a previous school of literary/art criticism/aesthetic philosophy.
Thoughts?
edit: also, all that is draft text, i know!
One of the research areas I am interested in is video games AND THIS EXACT TOPIC (i.e. the lack of a real critical discourse on games. (I tried to get my colleagues to discuss Shadow of the Colossus in a podcast we did to mixed results.) Particularly, the 'missing' world of sustained, serious, scholarly critical discourse on games as an art form (as opposed to, say, on design, on technology, on psychology, etc.) I am proposing a course for the fall on Video Games Criticism. I'll copy paste some of the general description I have so far:
Video Games as Literature: Towards a New Criticism
Despite being one of the most popular, creative, diverse, and commercially successful media of our time, video games have received scant attention in academic critical literature beyond technical and design-oriented discussion or sociological and psychological research about the “effects” of gaming on different segments of the population. Within existing “games journalism”, criticism is dominated by a strong emphasis on the game as a consumer artifact and a marked tendency towards 'consumer reports' style articles and reviews. Although a few have gestured at doing so, the video game has yet to receive the sustained, scholarly, and critical engagement that have addressed and, sometimes productively benefited, previous media forms (the play, the novel, the movie, the tv show, the comic book, etc.) In this course, we will attempt to lay the foundations for a new video game specific form of scholarly criticism. We will address a series of games (including Zork, Portal, Flower, Super Mario Brothers, Mass Effect, Shadow of the Colussus, Metal Gear Solid, the Legend of Zelda, Tetris, Civilization, Sim City, Half-Life, Resident Evil, Dragon Quest, Scribblenauts and/or others) in conjunction with excerpts from key texts in existing literary, film, and art criticism (including from Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, Wagner, Nietzsche, Freud, Lukács, Vertov, Adorno, Benjamin, Greenberg, Barthes, Jameson, Derrida, Sontag, Said, Buck-Morss, Crary, Schechner, Haraway, and/or others.) The goal of the course will be - in reading these game texts alongside these theoretical texts on previous media forms – to begin to understand what a scholarly critical discourse addressing games might look like.
Prerequisite: Having played or having the current ability to play some or all of the games listed above – and others like them. Sadly, the Institute does not have the resources to buy or lend out game consoles or gaming-capable computers.
just so you guys understand: 1.) Yes, I intend this to be full-on academic style study. If you do not believe in the value of such study I respect that but just understand that that's where I'm coming from.
2.) I'm thinking of doing a particular theme for each session to pair a particular game with a text that may be pertinent from a previous school of literary/art criticism/aesthetic philosophy.
Thoughts?
edit: also, all that is draft text, i know!
Civ 5 is not universally disliked. There is a large portion of the traditional Civ fan base that does prefer Civ 4, but Civ 5 has consistantly been one of the top selling games on Steam. I've played every Civ, and Civ 5 is currently my favorite. It may have it's flaws, but it has many strengths as well.
ChoklitReign
Member
Every video game review should mention how long they played. It would explain their impressions a lot and give slightly/very different scores depending how long they played. Metacritic already has histograms for good/fair/poor scores so it would only end the press dickwaving for the single average score.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Y2Kev said:
So true.
Most people seem to miss the point that criticism is inherently elitist in nature. Its purpose is to exhort the "worthy" over and above the common chaff.
When it becomes about serving the mass interest (which is the opposite of an elite) you're getting into the realm of PR and advertising.
For example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzKcSjfbTvM
Driver SF. I bought the game just because of that review and I didn't regret it.
I don't see any evidence of that. At least, not over the past half-decade or so.
My perception is the enthusiast press had a wealth of talent in terms of writers and critical thinkers, who ultimately decided they'd rather be doing something else (like making games or managing communities), and skipped town.
I hate people who do this. They're the worst reviewers and shouldn't be getting paid.
I agree with this. Just as a side note, gamecritics.com has this, as well as stating how they obtained the game, in all their reviews.
An example from their Journey review:
PC version:
If you add up all 3 versions:
Positive = 1057
Mixed = 209
Negative = 1495
So no, not really. (Like it really matters anyway)
They only played Journey in singleplayer when they reviewed the game? That review should be discounted altogether.
King of the Potato People
Member
Reviews were generally favourable for FF XIII, but hardly anything is mentioned favourably about it on sites now. Its ok to like or not like it but reviewers generally dont like to admit when theyve changed their opinion, even after a backlash.
Also I dont understand why XIII scored better than XIII-2, which brought back the towns, exploration, non-linear structure, the mini-games, has much less hand-holding, a bit more interaction in the battles and much more variety. It's still not a great game but I didnt get why XIII scored better.
Not that I take their opinions seriously but this is just one example of where they baffle me.
Also I dont understand why XIII scored better than XIII-2, which brought back the towns, exploration, non-linear structure, the mini-games, has much less hand-holding, a bit more interaction in the battles and much more variety. It's still not a great game but I didnt get why XIII scored better.
Not that I take their opinions seriously but this is just one example of where they baffle me.
Best joke post of the thread. Bravo!
But it's true. For example, the review at the top of the list of user reviews voted "most helpful" has the following comment
It's as if the makers of this game simply decided to go, "DING DONG WE WANT CALL OF DUTY'S AUDIENCE", and thus alienated their entire original fanbase.
and gives the game 1/10.
After that, the user scores are as follows:
4
0
2
10
1
10
10
0
10
10
0
4
10
0
4
1
etc. Most negative reviews give the game a 0. Most positive ones give it a 10. Surely these reviews must be fair and balanced?
You're referring specifically to the asshole-ish user reviews on Metacritic? Mea culpa, then...
Generally speaking, I trust and am influenced by you lot more than any reviewer these days.
Then I agree completely.
I just see everyone exclaiming MONEYHAT every time you see a bad review or a tortured piece of praise for something obviously unworthy. If ONLY these people were paid shills. They're not.
Some of them are holding out for jobs, some of them are incapable, others are just enthusiasts in it because they like playing games, and others are just uncomfortable with being critical.
We keep missing the forest for the trees. There is foul play, but we've projected a tiny amount of it onto a large swath of the press for no reason. The reality is that they're just bad.
Look what happened with Colin Moriarity at IGN. A Forbes contributor used his own piece to show how he was being logically inconsistent and he immediately stormed to twitter to proclaim his butthurt. These are not people engaged in conveying artistic catharsis. These are children.
I can't claim to be good at it or even like doing it. I'm far too much of an enthusiast.
Am I dreaming?
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
Dude, no lie - that actually sounds pretty boss. I wonder if something equivalent of that is available to look at online?
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Y2Kev said:
And there's no impetus for the situation to improve because these bad critics serve the vested interests within the industry (uncritical, easy-to-please, amenable to shilling for the current in- thing even when the emperor's new clothes effect is in full swing), while the audience laps it up because they want their opinions and prejudices validated, not challenged.
If major sites used "real criticism", a good percentage of the people in this forum would cry with every major review.
Press is doing what the base readership is asking, no more, no less. Most people reading about videogames are not interested in real criticism, so they don't get catered. The few publications that try are a minority or get closed by lack of interest.
Press is doing what the base readership is asking, no more, no less. Most people reading about videogames are not interested in real criticism, so they don't get catered. The few publications that try are a minority or get closed by lack of interest.
The gaming press pretends it has an adversarial relationship with us, though. Look at this Mass Effect stuff. They can't have one, I think, but they pretend they do.
Ventilaator
Banned
Completely correct
If they started now, yes, but not if it was that way from the start.
Look at movie reviews. If a blockbuster film gets a 60-70 on Metacritic (or a 70+ on Rottentomatoes), I would take that to mean that the film was generally well received by critics. 3/5 is a pretty good movie review score, especially for a film whose genre you enjoy. Bad films get aggregate scores in the 10-40 range.
For videogame reviews, unless the game is an indie or niche title, anything under 75% is considered to be trash.
Of course the above is referring to scores. I assume that most of the people who cry over review scores don't actually read the accompanying text.
Ventilaator
Banned
Dear lord. I just burst out laughing.
You're talking about a scale that assigned roughly the same score to Dark Souls and Modern Warfare 3. I shouldn't need to tell you why those numbers don't mean jack monkey squat.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
This was perfect.
This is part of it, and even within this, there's the additional layer of selection bias, in that most review sites have designated reviewers for certain genres or franchises. These reviewers are usually selected because they're predisposed to liking those genres and franchises, so they're unlikely to be critical of big releases within their genre of choice.
Movie reviewers tend to review a much broader selection of releases.
Ventilaator
Banned
I would think it's the opposite of that. You'd be way more critical of Dante's Inferno if you've played God of War than if you haven't.
"Pretend" it´s a good word, yes.
People reviewing games they don't understand has produced some of the worst reviews we can find.
And reviewing a game it´s not the same that reviewing a movie (and to be honest, I think it´s much more difficult getting "right" a review of a game than one of a movie).
Similar threads
- Poll