The thing is though... how much do we let game review scores condition us into buying the games big corporations want to do well? Putting aside games that have obvious game-breaking bugs, if we let hype and review scores dictate how we buy games, then what about the less popular and less hyped games, particularly indie games? Would we be acclimatized into only buying games that million dollar publications bothered to talk about on their website, or even acclimatized into playing games everyone else likes if we're only going by user review scores?
I'm glad that Sean Murray didn't let the barrage of negative news coverage and review scores determine the kind of game he wanted to make for No Man's Sky. But it just goes to show how tough making and selling a game can be. You have to chase popular trends instead of creating the game you want. And you can't just make an "okay" game anymore or your game will receive a 6/10, not sell as well as other games, and therefore making it harder to continue making games with your limited budget. You can't just go, "I just want to give my gamers a good time," you have to "reinvent" or "improve upon" previous gameplay. It's tough.
Publications do certainly go through trends, but I don't think it is part of any wider conspiracy.
For example, while I am sure many great indies probably do end up slipping under the radar, I'd argue that right now indies are very much in vogue as people use their status of liking indie games as a way to show they reject the mainstream for bonus points.
Your other points though are lost on me. Murray lied about the game they were making, released something broken and then did the right thing in fixing it. They weren't victimised by the review cycle, it accurately reflected what a shambles that all was. Where Murray and the team do deserve credit is the continued work they did beyond just fixing it, without ever asking for a penny and that is reflected in what is now written about them.
In regards to the second point like... I guess? But what is your point? With games being very expensive and there being so many games fighting for your time, of course you can make a perfectly okay videogame but you can't expect any success if your game is just okay but going for the same prices as the masterpieces around it. Like of course not every game can be a masterpiece, but what point do you think you are even making here?
I do agree in that I often think the demand for constant evolution is folly, I love Far Cry games for example and people who always say "it is more Far Cry" like that is a bad thing just piss me off. If you don't like Far Cry games, don't play them, don't demand a game becomes something else entirely to suit your tastes, that isn't how things should work. The absolute worst parts of Far Cry 6 is where they have tried to invent on systems, none of it works, and it only betrays that pure Far Cry core which doesn't need to be touched, no matter what people say.
However, if someone else made a game called Cry Far and it was a perfectly fun time, but was just a straight riff of the Far Cry formula with nothing original brought by the team, then yeah, I don't see why that wouldn't lose some points. It is like the oversaturation of Soulslikes, FromSoft are basically making the same game over and over again, but they have their formula truly refined. Very few of those Soulslikes come close, because they are just trying to replicate the experience with a fraction of the budget rather than trying to offer their own truly unique elements to justify the games existence in the first place, because as it stands, it is just a poor man's FromSoft game. I'd rather eat KFC in the store, than try and make my own crappy imitation at home.
@Pizzamorg oh we just mentioned anti. But it was off topic so I’m fine it was taken down, tho I replied to two people, so I wished I would have edited it lol.
Edit: so you didn’t start anything that started a big hateful argument.
Publications do certainly go through trends, but I don't think it is part of any wider conspiracy.
I didn't mean it's part of a conspiracy. I just meant I don't generally trust faceless companies with agendas. Conspiracy or not, companies do have to please the shareholders and potential investors. This isn't a conspiracy; this is how companies are run.
For example, while I am sure many great indies probably do end up slipping under the radar, I'd argue that right now indies are very much in vogue as people use their status of liking indie games as a way to show they reject the mainstream for bonus points.
Yeah, people, not companies. Individuals. You and me. Individuals I feel more trust towards.
Your other points though are lost on me. Murray lied about the game they were making, released something broken and then did the right thing in fixing it. They weren't victimised by the review cycle, it accurately reflected what a shambles that all was. Where Murray and the team do deserve credit is the continued work they did beyond just fixing it, without ever asking for a penny and that is reflected in what is now written about them.
To be fair, I wasn't really connecting Murray's situation with what we were discussing by that point. My bad. Murray's situation was just something that popped into my head when we were talking about bad games that received negative reviews. Don't think much of it. I would often respond spontaneously without putting much thought into the logic of it because, as I've said before, I never write these posts trying to debate someone, and instead, I'm usually just trying to have a casual conversation. Spontaneous thoughts that don't have much relations to what's discussed tend to slip in during such conversations.
In regards to the second point like... I guess? But what is your point? With games being very expensive and there being so many games fighting for your time, of course you can make a perfectly okay videogame but you can't expect any success if your game is just okay but going for the same prices as the masterpieces around it. Like of course not every game can be a masterpiece, but what point do you think you are even making here?
I wasn't really making a argumentative point there, merely observing how tough it is to make games in an increasingly competitive landscape where reviews matter a lot in terms of how successful you can be as a developer. Not everything has to have an argumentative point in a conversation; this isn't debate club. Sometimes passing thoughts just inadvertently slip in among your observations.
Besides, whether a game is just "okay" or a masterpiece is subjective. If I did have a point, my point would be that games with an interesting story, for example, might slip under the radar or even get a 6/10 because its gameplay isn't as impressive or unique as other AAA games. The inverse can be be true too, when a game like The Last of Us 2 was praised as a masterpiece for its storytelling even though its gameplay is average. Reviews should be more fair about such inconsistent standards.
I do agree in that I often think the demand for constant evolution is folly, I love Far Cry games for example and people who always say "it is more Far Cry" like that is a bad thing just piss me off. If you don't like Far Cry games, don't play them, don't demand a game becomes something else entirely to suit your tastes, that isn't how things should work. The absolute worst parts of Far Cry 6 is where they have tried to invent on systems, none of it works, and it only betrays that pure Far Cry core which doesn't need to be touched, no matter what people say.
However, if someone else made a game called Cry Far and it was a perfectly fun time, but was just a straight riff of the Far Cry formula with nothing original brought by the team, then yeah, I don't see why that wouldn't lose some points. It is like the oversaturation of Soulslikes, FromSoft are basically making the same game over and over again, but they have their formula truly refined. Very few of those Soulslikes come close, because they are just trying to replicate the experience with a fraction of the budget rather than trying to offer their own truly unique elements to justify the games existence in the first place, because as it stands, it is just a poor man's FromSoft game. I'd rather eat KFC in the store, than try and make my own crappy imitation at home.
I actually agree with your point about games with generic features. I don't think they should be praised at all. But that wasn't what I was really trying to say. Refer to the paragraph above for what I was trying to say.
As an addendum, I will say that reviews and sales numbers can play a significant role in the kind of games we get from game companies. If a particular game genre gets oversaturated (and a more niched genre, or simply other game genres become overlooked), the fault might lie with people who pay for those kinds of games. Companies only exist to make as much money as possible, so if you vote with your wallet, expect more of what you pay for.
I didn't mean it's part of a conspiracy. I just meant I don't generally trust faceless companies with agendas. Conspiracy or not, companies do have to please the shareholders and potential investors. This isn't a conspiracy; this is how companies are run.
This is why training yourself to spot paid for reviews, be they publications or YouTubers, is so important.
Yeah, people, not companies. Individuals. You and me. Individuals I feel more trust towards.
Poor word choice on my behalf here, I meant people as in... the people who review the titles, not people as in... I stopped to have a chat with a lad at the bus stop to ask what their favourite indie title was this year.
To be fair, I wasn't really connecting Murray's situation with what we were discussing by that point. My bad. Murray's situation was just something that popped into my head when we were talking about bad games that received negative reviews. Don't think much of it.
Fair enough, you just lumped it all together in the post you responded to me, so it wasn't very clear.
Not everything has to have an argumentative point in a conversation; this isn't debate club. Sometimes passing thoughts just inadvertently slip in among your observations.
You responded to me, on a forum, included this stuff with no context and just what, expected me to read your mind?
Besides, whether a game is just "okay" or a masterpiece is subjective. If I did have a point, my point would be that games with an interesting story, for example, might slip under the radar or even get a 6/10 because its gameplay isn't as impressive or unique as other AAA games. The inverse can be be true too, when a game like The Last of Us 2 was praised as a masterpiece for its storytelling even though its gameplay is average. Reviews should be more fair about such inconsistent standards.
This is the point I was making further up, that review scores are harmful for this reason. Not enough people bother to read the actual review, they just look at the score and move on. A 6 for an RTS, is very different to a 6 for a Light Novel, or an ARPG or whatever else. A number with no context means very little, which is where a lot of the problems come from I find.
If you were interested in a game, saw it got a 6/10 and then decided not to purchase it and end up finding out you missed out on something you would have enjoyed, that is a you problem because you should have read the review and understood the context.
You responded to me, on a forum, included this stuff with no context and just what, expected me to read your mind?
No, that was my fault, but you didn't have to be so passive-aggressive about it, hammering "What is even your point?!!!" in your post repetitively. It's not a pleasant way to have a conversation, nitpicking each other's mistakes in writing. You might as well have been correcting my grammar.
Besides, whether a game is just "okay" or a masterpiece is subjective. If I did have a point, my point would be that games with an interesting story, for example, might slip under the radar or even get a 6/10 because its gameplay isn't as impressive or unique as other AAA games. The inverse can be be true too, when a game like The Last of Us 2 was praised as a masterpiece for its storytelling even though its gameplay is average. Reviews should be more fair about such inconsistent standards.
This is the point I was making further up, that review scores are harmful for this reason. Not enough people bother to read the actual review, they just look at the score and move on. A 6 for an RTS, is very different to a 6 for a Light Novel, or an ARPG or whatever else. A number with no context means very little, which is where a lot of the problems come from I find.
If you were interested in a game, saw it got a 6/10 and then decided not to purchase it and end up finding out you missed out on something you would have enjoyed, that is a you problem because you should have read the review and understood the context.
Again, you're right in saying it's "their fault." Technically speaking, the blame lies with them for not reading the full review in its entirety. But I'm not surprised many people don't in our busy lives these days, rushing from one game review to another. Not everyone has the time to "train" themselves in spotting paid for reviews. Sometimes people might not even able to spot "paid for reviews" even after reading dozens of reviews. And furthermore, many people don't make the distinction between a JRPG or a visual novel, especially with their similar anime artstyle; they just have a generalized standard of Japanese games as a whole and take review scores at face value. This includes the writers/reviewers as well, so their take, paid or not, might not be that reliable either.
All I'm just saying is... cut people some slack for not reading reviews properly.
All I am saying is @Maxenmus, is if you don't take the time to read the review, you can't then go onto the internet crying about how review publications mislead you. They aren't at fault here, you are. I have no issue with people who just quietly go about their business, using only the scores to inform their choices. It is the people who make a big, loud, dirty stink about a number they haven't taken any time to understand who can get in the sea.
@Pizzamorg You can't go to the Internet sharing your opinions, misinformed or not? That doesn't seem right. I mean, if someone is misinformed, just politely correct them.
I mean, I get the whole, "Someone on the Internet is wrong so I must correct them" attitude, which is what you're accusing these people of, but at the same time, you're also doing it yourself. I was that irritated and angry about misinformed opinions too, so I get it, but at the end of the day, people are gonna be people. They're not perfect.
Maxenmus
Switch Friend Code: SW-7926-2339-9775 | My Nintendo: Flare
@Pizzamorg You can't go to the Internet sharing your opinions, misinformed or not? That doesn't seem right. I mean, if someone is misinformed, just politely correct them.
I mean, I get the whole, "Someone on the Internet is wrong so I must correct them" attitude, which is what you're accusing these people of, but at the same time, you're also doing it yourself. I was that irritated and angry about misinformed opinions too, so I get it, but at the end of the day, people are gonna be people. They're not perfect.
But again, as said originally, this isn't about wrong or right.
If Jane Doe working at Gaming Publication gives a game a 6, and writes a justification for this score which is truthful to their experience, then this cannot be wrong, as a review cannot be truly objective, and is only a summary of their experience and processing of this experience.
You can disagree with their review, but that requires taking the time to actually read and understand the review. If you can't even do that, get out of the conversation and if you are here just to tell the reviewer they are somehow "wrong" because you saw a contextless number, get in the sea.
@Pizzamorg
I agree. I see it all the time, people commenting on a number without reading the review.
At the same time tons of people only seem to know the numbers 0 and 10 with nothing in between. And then there are those who somehow think a 7/10 is a bad score. Stuff like that. It's annoying, to say the least.
It's because of these reasons I value professional reviews much more than audience scores.
@Pizzamorg You can't go to the Internet sharing your opinions, misinformed or not? That doesn't seem right. I mean, if someone is misinformed, just politely correct them.
I mean, I get the whole, "Someone on the Internet is wrong so I must correct them" attitude, which is what you're accusing these people of, but at the same time, you're also doing it yourself. I was that irritated and angry about misinformed opinions too, so I get it, but at the end of the day, people are gonna be people. They're not perfect.
But again, as said originally, this isn't about wrong or right.
If Jane Doe working at Gaming Publication gives a game a 6, and writes a justification for this score which is truthful to their experience, then this cannot be wrong, as a review cannot be truly objective, and is only a summary of their experience and processing of this experience.
You can disagree with their review, but that requires taking the time to actually read and understand the review. If you can't even do that, get out of the conversation and if you are here just to tell the reviewer they are somehow "wrong" because you saw a contextless number, get in the sea.
It is frustrating to have a review you work hard on getting dismissed casually by some random strangers.
But I don't know what to tell you, because I've just been in a similar experience recently where people didn't bother to do research about how shady a certain company is and jumped forth to defend said company. And yet, I tried to be collected and civilized about it, because that's just how conversations go. I'll bet they didn't even read my lengthy response and merely skimmed through it before coming up with some meaningless platitude that didn't really mean anything, but what can you do? Even with someone as emotional as me, I read your posts in their entirety in spite of the conversation getting heated.
I will say that with reviewers, they have it tougher because they actually have to spend hours upon hours researching the game before writing them. As a reviewer myself, I could understand the effort needed. But I doubt any amount of griping from the reviewer (or us simple folks who aren't even related to said reviewers on a personal level) would change people. People will just be people, emotionally responding away on impulse without research or reading.
Something worth noting is that, I don't think most people even care about the reviewer and their view; they're just upset that the score is associated with their favorite IP or game franchise. Biasness sets in, and judgment gets skewed, which tends to cause the abovementioned "skimming of posts" before coming up with a self-righteous response. Some people will keep eating up simulation games, for example, regardless of the score other reviewers gave them. They enjoy the niche, and naturally, their first thought would be, "Most people don't like games like these, so they give it a poor score, but I like games like these regardless of what that stranger said." And sometimes that sentence I just typed out didn't stay in their head and is instead written in a reply that literally tells you they didn't even bother to read the review, at all. But it makes sense why people are like that.
@Pizzamorg
I agree. I see it all the time, people commenting on a number without reading the review.
At the same time tons of people only seem to know the numbers 0 and 10 with nothing in between. And then there are those who somehow think a 7/10 is a bad score. Stuff like that. It's annoying, to say the least.
It's because of these reasons I value professional reviews much more than audience scores.
100%. I can't stand how the internet seems to have lost all critical thought, everything has to be "best ever" or "worst ever" with no in between. And don't get me started on the like "PS Game got an 8, but Xbox game got a 7 so Xbox bad" nonsense.
It is also why I'd sooner take a trained media persons actually researched review and the general critical consensus, over a bunch of people flooding Metacritic with 1s or 10s, or over smaller YouTubers reviewing games provided to them by a publisher who have everything to lose by giving it a bad review.
@Maxenmus Just acknowledging I read your post, but don't have much else to add. I feel like we ultimately landed in the same place, even though you seemed to disagree with me along the way. Which is good, as this is the unpopular opinion thread.
Moving on:
Turn based > real time and while proper CRPG turn based with pause combat is excellent, as you get really granular options in how you can set up your party, I feel like the sort of hybrid models like in the Tales games or the Xenoblade games or say Ni No Kuni are no good. I wish they would have just picked one or the other, or done a full CRPG style system where you can customise every detail of the party, so when the AI takes over, they control them fully how you would have if you issued commands.
Just a reminder that this forum isn't the place to discuss which users you may like & dislike. Any comments of this nature will be removed. We have the ignore feature in place which we advise is used, alternatively, you can contact staff directly here: https://www.nintendolife.com/contact - Thanks
I don't like shooter games got hightlighted all the time than other genre games. (Looking at Splatoon games and other shooter games)
I mean, shooter games will not make you feel like a real gamer.
Games like The Sims, DDR, Youtubers Life 2, ARMS, etc are deserved for more highlight since they are really interesting games too.
I don't like dedicating shooter games all that much but I'll tell you what, in action games I love shooter elements (and by extension ranged combat). Like in Uncharted, which has a range of firearms at Drake's disposal. Plus things like stealth takedowns. Always so much fun.
There are very few FPS games that have made an impact with me, save for 2 exceptions.
Both the first Half Life and the first BioShock blew me away at the time because they were so immersive. None of their sequels managed to capture that same feeling though, in my opinion at least, and other games of the genre like Doom, Far Cry or Call of Duty don't seem to do anything for me.
Yeah I gotta be honest, if it isn't a looter, FPSs don't appeal to me much either. If just shooting stuff is the only loop, I find that pretty boring. Games like BioShock as already mentioned are the exception, and that is more because of Rapture itself. I would actually go so far as to say the actual shooting mechanics in the first BioShock are actually kinda bad.
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 10,381 to 10,400 of 12,984
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic