Would you still play a game if you knew it had a low review score?

[sama_lton]

I just play games that look fun to me, scores be damned. The City of Lost Children game on PS1, I enjoyed that a lot (granted I needed a guide for some of the obscure stuff), and that game has a pretty low review score.

But I'm also a big fan of the film and the world of that film, so that kept me engrossed a lot. Meanwhile there are tons of modern games with super-high scores I couldn't care less with being bothered to play, because they just look very pedestrian to me in terms of art or gameplay. Very by-the-numbers and safe.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

That's when I play them THE MOST.

Movies, TV shows, videogames... I can't let someone else's opinion define my own.

I LOVE Daikatana, for instance, but the general consensus seems to be that it's hot, radioactive garbage. If I had let those review scores stop me, I wouldn't have found out about its hellish development and the gold gleaming within DESPITE all its flaws.

 

[What's His Face]

I can understand someone just not getting this type of game, though his criticism about the ruby is bad faith (yes, you're supposed to explore the dungeon - maybe if you didn't dismiss them as "filler" you would have found the ruby by yourself). But what's really wild to me is comparing Ys unfavorably to Recettear.

Giving a game a lower score than most media doesn't mean your review is stupid or invalid though. People can be wrong together and someone can be right alone. If you're going to pay any attention to the review, then you need to read it and not just look at the score.

That's the point. The review is full of inaccuracies - from stating "Ys" is pronounced "Ys" (serious, wtf? At least write "ease" you bloody nitwit reviewer) to showing in the way the reviewed the game that they played up to the first boss while not paying attention to jack and/or shit so they complain about mechanics they didn't bother to read about in-game before giving-up like a chump, all the way to claiming poor grammar when they got hit with a negative/mocking achievement (a good chunk of people say "FAQ" by each letter rather than as "fact", meaning, "Check an FAQ" is grammatically correct).

As for Expedition 33 - everyone is allowed an opinion. But when the opinion is vastly different than the majority, then one must view that opinion with great suspicion - like an asshole, or someone desperate for clicks on their dying website.

 

[Den MDM Den MDM]

All reviewers are biased, and I've always been confident about my own judgement when it comes to media, so I always play something I'm interested in no matter the reviews! Most of the time I find highly-acclaimed games to be just MEH, too.

 

[valosagutas]

I think it's interesting to talk about how Steam recommendations works but I don't think they hold any value on their own.

Yeah. New generation kids grew up in internet culture therefore it reinforced a blindness towards how "fake" internet is. They don't notice how fake it's because they don't have real life experience. They don't get to learn from real people to comprehend how some reviews are obviously fake. But I don't mean "hater" comments at all.

People don't know how reviews are manipulated. Official reviewers getting paid for high score by the developer and the video game console companies but rivals also pay for negative reviews. Often when reviewers themselves asks developers for money and they threaten for bad reviews and when they are refused they write a nonsense negative review. It can be also another personal thing like "I just hate their games", "they banned me from their Discord server" and whatnot lol.

In that context it's a thing that companies offers "fake accounts" to their employees and their families just for positive reviews. Another aspect of it is they order Metacritic to delete negative reviews. For example CyberJunk 2077 initially had 5/10 score on Metacritic. They had to fake it a lot and then they released anime BS to boost sales.

Steam is no different. In the name of "preventing review bombing" they also block genuine negative reviews. It doesn't make sense. Their definition for "useless negative reviews" doesn't mean anything. When a company, after the game was sold years ago; enforce 3rd party launcher, necessary online login system or block you from playing it of course they deserve to be review bombed, not for negativity but just to warn people.

Another aspect of it is again tied to social media. For example Reddit and whatnot fascist internet communities teaches kids that "you either should go with the majority or your whole existence is ignored.". In video game context for example you get banned when you say you dislike FF7. This created a cancel culture internet suffers from. And then they invented "you complain" BS. In the end new generation kids became a mindless masses who believe they necessarily have to like what is popular, otherwise they believe their existence is trivial enough to "ban them". This is very different from how trends work for example. When something was a trend people used it, it became part of their life but when someone didn't care about it it was okay. Now everything is fake, everything is a show, everything is "black and white", everything is a BS philosophy just to justify BS lol.

So when I see a video game selling well just because of its popularity all I see is kids believe the driver of the so obviously suspicious van that state "free candy" with lots of colourful lights around it is a trustworthy guy who wouldn't kidnap them for their organs. Fundamentally, since city life offers protection, the type of people who would be easily killed on their own are prevented to be killed by natural selection, so these people are easily scammed thanks to the internet. This is all I see lol.

 

[UnDubious]

That's the point. The review is full of inaccuracies - from stating "Ys" is pronounced "Ys" (serious, wtf? At least write "ease" you bloody nitwit reviewer) to showing in the way the reviewed the game that they played up to the first boss while not paying attention to jack and/or shit so they complain about mechanics they didn't bother to read about in-game before giving-up like a chump, all the way to claiming poor grammar when they got hit with a negative/mocking achievement (a good chunk of people say "FAQ" by each letter rather than as "fact", meaning, "Check an FAQ" is grammatically correct).

As for Expedition 33 - everyone is allowed an opinion. But when the opinion is vastly different than the majority, then one must view that opinion with great suspicion - like an asshole, or someone desperate for clicks on their dying website.

No. There's a solid minority of people who like RPGs, who've played Clair Obscur, and think it's a bit overrated. 7 isn't a terrible score. I know people in real life who don't think Elden Ring is any good, for example. The same applies to any beloved game. I want the Internet to represent what people really think, not to have "official truths" about subjective matters to where anyone who doesn't fall in line has to diminish their own opinion by calling it a "hot take" so people don't come after them.

Metacritic is a garbage invention because it pretends numbers mean anything in something as unscientific as some reviewers' appreciation of a game. A 80% score from one publication doesn't mean the same as 4 stars from another. Some people think 6 out of 10 means it's unplayable and 9 just means "good", some people give 1/10 to anything they get a little annoyed with and 10 to anything they like, etc. And that's before talking about how all those sites are both corrupt and how a lot of them talk to each other in group chats and agree on shit before they write their own reviews. A review is only useful if 1)it's in good faith, 2)it's knowledgeable, and 3)you read it. The score is an approximative bs summation of some guy's feelings. The real meat is in the text. If it's well-written, and you're not dumb, then you'll understand where they're coming from and be able to decide what those criticisms and praises mean for your own tastes.

 

[Theriise]

I'm a big believer of just waiting till things go on sale and forming your own opinion. It just feels like game Journalists these days don't actually like or care about playing games.

 

[valosagutas]

I'm a big believer of just waiting till things go on sale and forming your own opinion. It just feels like game Journalists these days don't actually like or care about playing games.

I don't think they ever did. Never trust a person who does whatever they do for money, rather don't trust them because they earn money by whatever they do lol. Also never trust a bartender who have bad grammar too lolol. Also also never trust yourself who doesn't trust yourself for not trusting you ayy lmao.

 

[iamthemilkman]

I'll play any game that interests me. Just because a game gets a high review score doesn't mean I'lll automatically be interested in it if the art direction, characters, gameplay, genre, etc., doesn't interest me. Likewise with games that review poorly. I preferred Alpha Protocol, for example, over games that reviewed a lot higher because it's something that hasn't really been done. Are there any other espionage RPG's? I don't know.

 

[What's His Face]

No. There's a solid minority of people who like RPGs, who've played Clair Obscur, and think it's a bit overrated. 7 isn't a terrible score. I know people in real life who don't think Elden Ring is any good, for example. The same applies to any beloved game. I want the Internet to represent what people really think, not to have "official truths" about subjective matters to where anyone who doesn't fall in line has to diminish their own opinion by calling it a "hot take" so people don't come after them.

Metacritic is a garbage invention because it pretends numbers mean anything in something as unscientific as some reviewers' appreciation of a game. A 80% score from one publication doesn't mean the same as 4 stars from another. Some people think 6 out of 10 means it's unplayable and 9 just means "good", some people give 1/10 to anything they get a little annoyed with and 10 to anything they like, etc. And that's before talking about how all those sites are both corrupt and how a lot of them talk to each other in group chats and agree on shit before they write their own reviews. A review is only useful if 1)it's in good faith, 2)it's knowledgeable, and 3)you read it. The score is an approximative bs summation of some guy's feelings. The real meat is in the text. If it's well-written, and you're not dumb, then you'll understand where they're coming from and be able to decide what those criticisms and praises mean for your own tastes.

Is Metacritic garbage? Yes. Does reading between the lines of the Expedition 33 review on PC Gamer reveal that the reviewer thought that the game was too difficult because 'parry hard'? Also yes. One of the most celebrated mechanics in the game gets downvoted due to the lack of ability in the reviewer. This is a common theme with "professional reviewers" who would rather watch a Let's Play or have the game play itself while they watch their wife have relations with her boyfriends.

 

[Theriise]

I don't think they ever did. Never trust a person who does whatever they do for money, rather don't trust them because they earn money by whatever they do lol. Also never trust a bartender who have bad grammar too lolol. Also also never trust yourself who doesn't trust yourself for not trusting you ayy lmao.

View attachment 75077

I always have war flashbacks to one IGN "game journalist" that kept failing the tutorial of cuphead. Or the fact that metacritic still rates Gone Home higher than video games with much more effort and love poured into them.

 

[UnDubious]

Is Metacritic garbage? Yes. Does reading between the lines of the Expedition 33 review on PC Gamer reveal that the reviewer thought that the game was too difficult because 'parry hard'? Also yes. One of the most celebrated mechanics in the game gets downvoted due to the lack of ability in the reviewer. This is a common theme with "professional reviewers" who would rather watch a Let's Play or have the game play itself while they watch their wife have relations with her boyfriends.

I suspect that's also why some of the hardline "turn-based only" crowd doesn't like the battle system as much. Personally I like when games add action elements to turn-based - Super Mario RPG, Legend of Dragoon, whatever, it's nothing new. But I can see why that would bother some people if they're just helpless at that kind of stuff, and why shouldn't they say so? There's a ton of old interviews with Japanese game developers on shmuplations.com where they acknowledge that the popularity of RPGs is due in part to some people being bad at action games and not enjoying them. It's nothing new either. Some people want pure turn-based.

 

[valosagutas]

There's a ton of old interviews with Japanese game developers on shmuplations.com where they acknowledge that the popularity of RPGs is due in part to some people being bad at action games and not enjoying them. It's nothing new either. Some people want pure turn-based.

But ummm, for example I prefer to play RPGs but I avoid turn-based combat games unless the game itself is very interesting. otherwise I wouldn't have fun because I wouldn't "play it". It's best for me if a game is an action RPG, I tend to avoid simple action games unless gameplay is very fun. More complex action the better.

So, if the video game industry think RPGs has to have turn-based combat then it's where they are mistaken. In this time and age I would want them to add turn-based combat as an optional combat mode alongside with real time action, it also satisfy people who are bad at action games. Just because people who are bad at action games making a game hindered by turn-based combat is a bad decision. I understand turn-based combat is taste thing but for me that combat style is so ancient.

 

[UnDubious]

But ummm, for example I prefer to play RPGs but I avoid turn-based combat games unless the game itself is very interesting. otherwise I wouldn't have fun because I wouldn't "play it". It's best for me if a game is an action RPG, I tend to avoid simple action games unless gameplay is very fun. More complex action the better.

So, if the video game industry think RPGs has to have turn-based combat then it's where they are mistaken. In this time and age I would want them to add turn-based combat as an optional combat mode alongside with real time action, it also satisfy people who are bad at action games. Just because people who are bad at action games making a game hindered by turn-based combat is a bad decision. I understand turn-based combat is taste thing but for me that combat style is so ancient.

I said "old interviews". This doesn't represent the current state of the industry. Shmuplations.com specializes in translating interviews from classic Japanese magazines of the '90s and early '00s. Turn-based RPGs peaked in popularity from about the late '80s to the end of the '90s in Japan, and gradually became more niche after that. The mentality that turn-based was good for people who aren't good at action applied to that time period. There may be fewer people like that now because action games are easier on the whole then they were in that era. But there are still a few die hard turn-based fans who don't want to have anything to do with action for that reason. Some people just like both - I think turn-based can be fine even if I like action.

 

[valosagutas]

I said "old interviews". This doesn't represent the current state of the industry. Shmuplations.com specializes in translating interviews from classic Japanese magazines of the '90s and early '00s. Turn-based RPGs peaked in popularity from about the late '80s to the end of the '90s in Japan, and gradually became more niche after that. The mentality that turn-based was good for people who aren't good at action applied to that time period. There may be fewer people like that now because action games are easier on the whole then they were in that era. But there are still a few die hard turn-based fans who don't want to have anything to do with action for that reason. Some people just like both - I think turn-based can be fine even if I like action.

Oh good it was "that" old lol.