Are Game Reviewers Too Kind to AAA Games?

[kuddles]

Bear with me here, but I was thinking of the ID podcast a couple weeks ago where they discussed the strange disconnect between two Eurogamer previews where one seemed to be lapping up what the PR for the game was, and the other seemed overly rude and dismissive of it.

It rang true to me because not that long before, almost two reviews went up on Eurogamer almost simultaneously; the one for Killzone 2 and the one for F.E.A.R. 2, and reading them side by side really rubbed me the wrong way. They both are pretty much identical in tone, and spend most of the time talking about how both games fail to do anything new and are merely competent at what they are, which makes it confusing that the conclusion on Killzone 2's review is claiming that in the end it's the fun experience that's important and that's why it's worthy of praise, whereas F.E.A.R. 2 concludes with the reviewer practically telling Monolith that they should be embarrassed with themselves for releasing it, despite the former game having vastly superior time and resources to work with.

Now I know this is two different reviews written by two completely different people, and I certainly am not trying to go down the road of “teh game reviewers are bias”. I’m not even accusing them of doing something deliberately. But I feel like this disparity occurs way too often. It seems like, at least on some level, if a game is AAA, then reviews are much less likely to criticize its faults. Conversely, it ends up implying that you either need to be Gears of War 2 or Geometry Wars 2 in sense of scale and budget and if you're a middle tier developer, you shouldn't even bother trying.

I’ve seen quite a few games be taken to task quite harshly for imperfections or signs of being generic. Fair enough, I don’t expect them to give average to above-average games a gold star for effort. But it just comes off as crass when they’re falling over themselves to apologize for even mentioning what's wrong with the game when it has the type of budget that should make those issues even more inexcusable. Sometimes even when we’re talking about the exact same problem. For example, GTA IV’s save point system which can lead to you repeating some rather long and tedious tasks due to a lack of checkpoints was commonly mentioned in reviews, if at all, as a “minor niggle” or a “nitpick”, or sometimes even described as if they are sticking to their “hardcore design decision”, while other games with similar systems get described as being “archaic”, “nearly broken” or “needlessly frustrating”.

This problem is probably exacerbated by the current environment the enthusiast press is forced to work under, where on a sub-conscious level there’s probably little reason to take the risk. Heap as much praise on the latest mega-blockbuster FPS as possible, and the worst negativity you’ll receive is a couple random posters accusing you of being a fanboy or a moneyhat. But admit that it hasn’t changed your life and is merely a decent game, and nobody wins. The PR people are angry at you for lowering their Metacritic score, and the publisher who provides you with the ad revenue and press that gives you your livelihood might start being less friendly, giving your co-workers the task of supporting your opinion while everyone suffers the consequences. In return, you aren’t appreciated by sticking to your guns, but are instead provided with extraordinary amounts of vitriol by your audience, your reputation dragged through the mud for years to come. (We’ve all seen the numerous online examples, like people proclaiming that they were glad Gerstmann got fired because over a year later they still felt giving an 8.5 to the latest Zelda was a grave injustice.) Criticising a game already marked for greatness seems like a fool's errand that isn't worth the hassle.

Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just imagining things to defend my own skewed perspective?

[blackboxme]

Jonah Lehrer on Fresh Air talking about his book "How We Decide".

Judging things and talking about why you like them is a really tricky thing to do. Then there's the fact that a lot of game d00dz don't know, or think about that. So yeah, they're unreliable.

[Chris]

You are completely correct. It's very frustrating. In particular, Steve and I noticed the exact same thing with FEAR 2 and Killzone 2 on Eurogamer.

And yes, triple-A games get an incredible free pass. The amount of leeway you get for areas that are purely related to production values and nothing else is just enormous. Infuriatingly (and oppositely to the other hypothetical claim of bias you raise in your post) you are then also accused of "bias" by gamers if you don't give those triple-A games high scores, but give another game of lower production values a high score.

The argument tends to go "Well, even if they're similar mechanically, if one has much better graphics and animation, doesn't that make it that much better?"

Well, fucking no, in my opinion. Great polish and sheen can make a great game even more spectacular and memorable, but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't do jack shit in making a mediocre game anything more than mediocre, or a merely good game anything better than good.

For example, I love marveling at Crysis' graphics, and I love the game itself, even if I didn't enjoy the game itself at all, they would still be extremely impressive graphics--they might even make the game worth experiencing for the spectacle itself, if you care about that kind of stuff (and some people do, which is fine). But in the end, when you're talking about the quality of the game, and comparing it to other shooters, it has to stand on its own.

[gdf]

I keep telling everyone on the internet almost this exactly. It's the scoring I think. As Remo pointed out in the podcast, Eurogamer bashed Killzone 2 quite a bit in the review, but still gave it a 9/10. I think Resident Evil 5 is getting similar treatment, standing at an 85-ish average right now, and getting 9s just because it's Resident Evil. 10/10 has also lost its meaning. I honestly think that only games that push the medium forward in some way are worth them. Yes Killzone was very polished and a little above average mechanically, but it was, what, a 7, yet scores 9-10 across the board. There should be no more than one 10/10 a year realistically, and I'm not saying that if you give one a ten then you shouldn't give another deserving game the same score when their release dates are quite close, but God-fucking-dammit at least hand them out when they're deserved.

There also appears to be a bit of a bent against innovation, with Mirror's Edge and Banjo-Kazooie, two of my favourite games of last year, getting a hard time from some critics.

Gears of War 2 was just a polished version of the (not incredibly impressive) original and it was plastered with tens all over the place. I'm now writing for Thunderbolt, so hopefully I can bring in some slightly harsher scoring as far as this goes. As for Crysis, I would say it was about a 6. It looked great and the physics were cool to play around with, but I didn't find it anything near compelling as a shooter. The press were just like OMGZ LOOKADAT TENZ!

Even World at War got a ten from something. That's bloody scandalous.

I could vent about this all day, but at least I know I'm not the only one.

[Never typed so "angrily" in all my life!]

[Chris]

Well, just to be clear on my own personal perspective so I'm not misrepresenting the use of Crysis in my example, I genuinely think Crysis was a great game. I don't really want to put a number on it (or any other game), but it's easily one of the best shooters I've played in the last several years.

[gdf]

Well, just to be clear on my own personal perspective so I'm not misrepresenting the use of Crysis in my example, I genuinely think Crysis was a great game. I don't really want to put a number on it (or any other game), but it's easily one of the best shooters I've played in the last several years.

I know you don't like scoring games, and that you really like Crysis. It's just personal really, but I do think it got a bit of a free ride from some, especially specialist PC outlets who were sick of no big exclusives. Shame assholes pirated the hell out of it and Crytek are now going to do console games too. At least Free Radical are safe.

Anyway, this shit bugs me hugely. Another example of something that, although I've not played it, was possibly underscored for doing new stuff, was Far Cry 2.

Halo 3 is another one that got a free ride.

Halo Wars is another one.

God dammit.

[blackboxme]

I feel like you guys are setting straw-men ablaze.

For instance, Killzone 2 had a little something extra to enjoy: a nice multiplayer setup. For a lot of people, that's the main game. Jesus, I played so much more Halo multi than single, and I beat the single player game like 10 times.

gdf, I think you're going overboard. Believe it or not, different people have different tastes. It sounds like you're a captain in the good-taste police force. With respect to 10 scores, sites that give 10's explicitly say what a 10 means for their site. Why are you caring about 10's so much?

I've always had the experience that games that score 7's and 8's are more likely to stick with me long term, while 9's and 10's tend to be more flash in the pan. So, I mean, I really do agree with Chris's point about an emphasis on polish.

[SignorSuperdouche]

From my perspective scores are largely irrelevant. The idea that you can assign a number, often a pointlessly precise number, to something so complex and subjective as how good a game is just seems nuts to me.

Getting wound up about it seems pretty nuts too. You just have to have faith that as we get older the industry will mature with us, which it almost certainly will.

[gdf]

It seems to be going the other way.

Anyway, I'm protective of ten scores because they're meant to be the games, the ones you get every few years that does something fucking amazing. They're the ones you see in a magazine, the ones with the gold star on them, you sit up and take notice. Now it's lost that sheen, that aura that stops you in your tracks, partly because of the cycles of hype from which we expect it to get a ten, and if it doesn't, there's obviously something wrong with the writer.

As much as I know they're arbitrary, horrible, nasty and the big boogeyman, I love scores and scoring. Always have, can't help myself. I know I came across like a bit of a wank up there, but there's not much I can do when I get so annoyed about something. I actually feel like the medium is more hollow now because perfect scores are so... by the by.

[Historical_Society]

GrouchoClub

""Move over, God. this game makes you look like a joke." (IGN.com)"

I feel certain games have fallen by the way side pretty much due to the hype machine/ review system that gaming media covers game. I am surprised how schizophrenic reviewers, and enthusiasts, and gamers in general become towards games a month after the game is released. Gamers especially act as if a game is Christ incarnated just based on IGN pull quotes and what Stu down at gamestop said as he was upselling his purchase to include a preorder.

It's somewhat tragic how many websites and magazine dedicate space to games Gears and Killzone coverage. Only to be followed up by "Games are art, really, though we only feature sequels and top ten video game babes. Games are art."

[kuddles]

I feel like you guys are setting straw-men ablaze.

I should clarify that I'm not saying they're intentionally trying to hide the "truth" or anything like that. I have no doubt that some people genuinely enjoyed Halo 3 or Killzone 2 enough to justify their score. But I think it's rather clear that there's a bit of a double standard going on, as if reviewers are saying "Boy, I really enjoyed playing this game but I sure can't give it the same score as Halo 3 so I better pick this one apart." Even the most acclaimed movie or novel has a wide array of dissenting opinions amongst critics, but it's games with higher than normal budgets/marketing behind them that we still do a double-take if any major publication dares to avoid unleashing hyperbole onto it.

It creates an inconsistency in the reviews, which was what I was getting at, where the flaws of some games are glossed over but are treated like huge missteps in others.

I guess that's why I find it ironic that Edge magazine gets accused of being pretentious with their reviews when to me it seems one of the few magazines that judges a game purely on the basis of whether they found it fun or not.

[Churchy]

And yes, triple-A games get an incredible free pass. The amount of leeway you get for areas that are purely related to production values and nothing else is just enormous. Infuriatingly (and oppositely to the other hypothetical claim of bias you raise in your post) you are then also accused of "bias" by gamers if you don't give those triple-A games high scores, but give another game of lower production values a high score.

I would take a bit of exception with this, I think as long as the production values are something worth note they should be addressed in the review, whether positively or negatively. Gears 2 is an interesting example to me, the campaign from a level design (LULZ DIS GAME HAZ LVL DESIGNZ!) or gameplay perspective is entirely inoffensive, and even great at times, but the crazy production values make everything seem entirely epic and actually do enhance the experience then I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be given some consideration. Now if we're talking how much consideration well... yeah sometimes it does seem to way more than it should, but hey maybe some reviewers are easily wow'd by shiny things.

[blackboxme]

I should clarify that I'm not saying they're intentionally trying to hide the "truth" or anything like that. I have no doubt that some people genuinely enjoyed Halo 3 or Killzone 2 enough to justify their score. But I think it's rather clear that there's a bit of a double standard going on, as if reviewers are saying "Boy, I really enjoyed playing this game but I sure can't give it the same score as Halo 3 so I better pick this one apart." Even the most acclaimed movie or novel has a wide array of dissenting opinions amongst critics, but it's games with higher than normal budgets/marketing behind them that we still do a double-take if any major publication dares to avoid unleashing hyperbole onto it.

It creates an inconsistency in the reviews, which was what I was getting at, where the flaws of some games are glossed over but are treated like huge missteps in others.

I guess that's why I find it ironic that Edge magazine gets accused of being pretentious with their reviews when to me it seems one of the few magazines that judges a game purely on the basis of whether they found it fun or not.

One thing: big budget games have the budget to develop 2 full games. Most judge based on value: hence why flower gets an A+, and so does Halo 3, COD4, Killzone 2, Gears of War, etc. They all have fully fleshed out multiplayer.

It's important to go back and question what's meant by "polish" here.

[MrChaz]

I've been finding Eurogamer's reviews of big name titles to be off for a little while. It's a shame really because I used to really respect their judgment.

[elmuerte]

This is the reason why I completely ignore scores, and just look over the listing of pros and cons. Often a con is "no multiplayer mode", so what, so this approach doesn't work well either, but it's much better than to take notice of the assigned number.

I was going to write some more in this reply, but I can't actually find the words to my thoughts. Or find things that need to be added to what already has been said. I just want reviews to be objective as possible, and next to those reviews have opinion pieces about what the person thinks about it personally (like the idle thumbs post casts). Because a subjective review by person X doesn't tell my much if I don't know how X thinks about various other things.

ps, The comment about the save system (see thread starter) is actually an interesting one. One of my all time favorite games (Little Big Adventure\Relentless) was often given a "con" about it's archaic save system. In that case you created a profile, and simply played the game. It would automatically save the game when entering a new "scene" or at certain key events. Back then it was labeled as "archaic", but today it's quite common. (I personally think that the save system is broken when I (as a gamer) have to fiddle around with it).

[OssK]

For example, I love marveling at Crysis' graphics, and I love the game itself, even if I didn't enjoy the game itself at all, they would still be extremely impressive graphics--they might even make the game worth experiencing for the spectacle itself, if you care about that kind of stuff (and some people do, which is fine). But in the end, when you're talking about the quality of the game, and comparing it to other shooters, it has to stand on its own.

I found it very interesting that you mention Crysis and not Killzone 2 because that is THE game where I had this impression: ok, super graphs, oh god it's a thrill to play such a beautiful game and then you analyze it and find it's in fact a guilty pleasure: the game leaks unoriginality by every pore of this so well textured skin as well as a lot of other faults that in the long term had me really mad at that game.

LULZ DIS GAME HAZ LVL DESIGNZ!

IGN.com

To go back on the scoring thing, fun cannot be in the score. I'm sorry for the "I want my funfunfun and funny fun" gamers that Chris mentioned a few pods ago but fun is an irrelevant value when it comes to scoring. If a game is nothing but fun then games are not art they are just a few bits of you escaping reallity for 2 hours by having a good time.

And that is the very exact reason I think why Eurogamer's FEAR2 and KZ2 reviews are so different: because one guy from the KZ2 review could not refrain himself from putting his excitement over the graphics and watching the trailer 200 times into consideration when he scored it. While in FEAR 2, either he had a zen motivation and could but his score down or he just hated to be so frightened by the game.

And I would not say any better, I literally hated RE1 because the game got me peeing on myself for 10 fucking hours straight but hey, I hate it, it's a greame (great+game) after all, no matter how much I hate it, it'll still be a genre starter and super balanced game.

And of course you can't go so far away from fun because it's what makes you play, the vector through which everything passes, but if you focus on the rest, appart from the fun, you're pointing out things in the game that are relevant. Spore being the example, some people underscored it for its DRM, some people overscored it for the fun of it, but I guess it deserved a 5 or 6 outa 10 or something like that because it did not follow the design decisions to the end putting to much of the easy access bullshit into consideration and wasting a lot of resources player's attention on thing that were not in any way related to your specie's evolution.

So yeah, going back to video games and scoring, I feel it's relevant to score because you CAN definitely put every game onto a common ground which is, what you take out of them, except for fun which is de-facto a personal judgmental shit.

[DanJW]

'Fun' is such a bullshit word. The more you think about it the less it means.

I prefer the word 'enjoyment'. It allows for other types of stimulation besides funglands. Intellectual stimulation, emotional stimulation, stimulation by challenge to your fine motor skills, even something relaxing and calming rather than stimulating. All these can be enjoyable without being 'fun'.

Frankly, most professional reviews are to me indistinguishable from fan reviews. There is no difference in quality, reliability or method, only in their audience and employer.

[Churchy]

'Fun' is such a bullshit word. The more you think about it the less it means.

I prefer the word 'enjoyment'. It allows for other types of stimulation besides funglands. Intellectual stimulation, emotional stimulation, stimulation by challenge to your fine motor skills, even something relaxing and calming rather than stimulating. All these can be enjoyable without being 'fun'.

Frankly, most professional reviews are to me indistinguishable from fan reviews. There is no difference in quality, reliability or method, only in their audience and employer.

I know we're splitting hairs at this point, but I would say an even better word for it is "motivation" as that can apply to lots of things. Like in a Bioshock you may be motivated to continue playing because you're enjoying the atmosphere and mystery. Or say Gears 2, the story blows but the minute to minute gameplay may motivate you to continue blowing dudes heads up.

But yeah "fun" is a silly word that limits the spectrum you can review something, Schindler's List is classic cinema but I've never heard of anyone describe that as "fun".

[Chris]

I found it very interesting that you mention Crysis and not Killzone 2 because that is THE game where I had this impression: ok, super graphs, oh god it's a thrill to play such a beautiful game and then you analyze it and find it's in fact a guilty pleasure: the game leaks unoriginality by every pore of this so well textured skin as well as a lot of other faults that in the long term had me really mad at that game.

Okay, here I have to take exception. Not liking a game, that's fine, totally subjective.

But Crysis being totally unoriginal?

What other games have that kind of gameplay? You're given a huge canvas of island to complete your tasks in an extremely open way for a shooter, and an on-the-fly weapon customization system and augmented abilities. I can't think of any other straight-up shooters (ie, no RPG elements, etc.) released in the last several years that are particularly similar to Crysis in both their structure and their dynamics.

It's also set on a lush island--sure, Far Cry did that, but how many other shooters do?

[OssK]

But Crysis being totally unoriginal?

Talking about KZ 2 the whole paragraph, just read my message again and though to myself "you have expressed the contrary of what you thought for the 100th time in your life, happy douche birthday"

No I really liked Crysis, I was talking about detaching myself from what I expect from a game in a review: same thing one valve, I felt the bragged the hell out of HL2 being THE game that'll kill them all and this assumption being so broad that I hated that game when I played the first few minutes of it and I now have played it somewhere around 20 times...

[toblix]

Just popping in to say that this thread is awesome. Just take a moment and scroll down from the top. Look at all the nice, thick posts.

[Chris]

Talking about KZ 2 the whole paragraph, just read my message again and though to myself "you have expressed the contrary of what you thought for the 100th time in your life, happy douche birthday"

No I really liked Crysis, I was talking about detaching myself from what I expect from a game in a review: same thing one valve, I felt the bragged the hell out of HL2 being THE game that'll kill them all and this assumption being so broad that I hated that game when I played the first few minutes of it and I now have played it somewhere around 20 times...

Oops. Hooray for games!

[OssK]

Oops. Hooray for games!

I was kind of expecting you to make a stand against game notations but I guess that'll do

[OssK]

'Fun' is such a bullshit word. The more you think about it the less it means.

I prefer the word 'enjoyment'. It allows for other types of stimulation besides funglands. Intellectual stimulation, emotional stimulation, stimulation by challenge to your fine motor skills, even something relaxing and calming rather than stimulating. All these can be enjoyable without being 'fun'.

Fun is just one manner to enjoy something, which is what leads some people to enjoy horror movies, people say it's fun but that is definitely not how you feel when you're scared to shit playing Eternal Darkness, you're just captivated or motivated to fight your own fear, but fun is straight out of the equation...

What you get when you play is enjoyment, entertainment, and in that can be a zillion things and amongst them, in the lower end of the spectrum there is fun.

Frankly, most professional reviews are to me indistinguishable from fan reviews. There is no difference in quality, reliability or method, only in their audience and employer.

My exact feelings.

[Ryan]

I think its kinda messed up that you can generally safely assume some games will get good scores, like a GTA or FF game, at least from the major sites like IGN. Meanwhile a thought like, of course Mirrors Edge will get a 9, never crossed my mind.

Although maybe the problem is since we assume AAA games will get scores higher than they deserve, we are extra critical of those games. So going in to playing Halo 3, the attitude is already 'yeah this is a pretty decent game, but its surely not a 9.5!!'. I mean, its pretty cool sometimes to be that guy who has the erudite criticisms of the games everybody else loves.