I mean if critics aren’t reviewing for users then what’s the point of them?
Pretend-Newspaper-86
weird how “games” get better in the eyes of critics and worse in the eyes of users
GamingRobioto
The disparity begins around the Gamespot, Kane & Lynch debacle. 2007/8 was when I stopped trusting so called professional reviews and I think it’s the same for many other gamers.
Cymdai
That’s because critics are bought and paid for directly (salary/contract) whereas influencers can hide behind the thin-veil or perceived neutrality (patreon, early access, off-the-table-one-time-payments)
Both are heavy shills. You have to look good and hard for reviewers who maintain their integrity, and sway away all the “perks” designed to catch them.
BetterAir7
What does it mean?
MyBigRed
I have no idea which line is which
harry_lostone
“game critics” and “movie critics” must be some of the most useless and scammy jobs in the entertainment industry, literally just getting paid to promote shit or best case just throw out a completely subjective opinion no one cares about.
abrahamlincoln20
Yes, review bombing. I generally trust critics more than users these days.
_24g
Critics
153Skyline
Man, I miss TotalBiscuit. He was always my goto.
PJBuzz
Client journalism takes over the gaming media, in picture form.
WeakDiaphragm
Because users review-bomb for fun these days. TLOU2 was a good example. Really fun game for casual players but the “epic elite gamers™” criticized it for 2 whole years.
colossusrageblack
It seems like it has become common for people to criticize things just to go against the grain, especially with the rise of social media. As a result, a lot of things get unfairly trashed. On the flip side, I think media outlets have gotten too lenient in their reviews, possibly because they feel pressured to maintain good relationships with developers. All this to say that the true ratings lie somewhere in the middle.
Karmotrine__
This graph is terrible.
Awesome97z
People are so much more filled with negativity these days. The internet ruined us.
Blenderhead36
This is directly tied to rising budgets. 20 years ago, video games were made by smaller teams over shorter time frames. That means that development got exponentially more expensive. As a result, publishers started to demand a corporate structure full of production managers that would make sure milestones were hit. They would corral auteurs to keep them from changing too much, too late in the process, and if a game was flat out not functional in early stages, to kill it in the cradle.
The result has been a lot more 7/10s. We see very few games like Fable III or Fallout New Vegas these days, where actually completing the campaign on version 1.0 can be difficult, if not outright impossible. By the same token, we also see fewer games like Demon’s Souls or, again, Fallout New Vegas, where individual creatives are empowered to go beyond the beaten path.
Review outlets typically have guidelines for reviews. We just don’t see the non-functional games that deserve scores in 4/10 range. TBH, I think the 0-10 system should probably be phased out in favor of a 0-3 system (recommend against, neutral, recommend, strongly recommend), because that’s what people really want to know.
Individual users are more likely to have more extreme reactions. Using myself as an example, *Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice* is a game that I would recommend against. I enjoyed most of it, but became hard stuck on a particular puzzle for several hours (the very time-constrained rune puzzle in the maze of fire), to the point that I wanted to attempt that sequence again less than I wanted to get to the end of the game. That feeling, that part of the game is actively blocking you from the parts of it you enjoy, feels unfair and generated a disproportionate sense of dislike. And that’s without bringing up the various and sundry reasons that people review bomb games, like Borderlands 2 getting review bombed on Steam because the sequel was a timed Epic exclusive.
TL;DR: Corporate realities have led to a lot of games that score ~7/10 on a measured review with guidelines, while user reviews tend to be emotional and more extreme.
Blenderhead36
This isn’t a conspiracy. Outlet reviewers submit reviews because it’s their job. Users submit reviews because they feel strongly. If a reviewer thinks a game is competent but unexciting, they’ll write a review that says because it’s their job. If a user thinks a game was fun enough to finish but theyre definitely not interested in playing more, most won’t leave a review at all. Users review games that they thought were excellent or terrible, with very few bothering with anything in between.
So the result is that outlets tend to give more measured responses, while users give more extreme ones.
Gadjjet
There’s a 50% chance a game will get review bombed nowadays so I’m not even surprised. Half of video game user reviews have nothing to do with the video game itself. A game could get review bombed because a studio exec said they liked pineapple on pizza.
cheeseblastinfinity
This is a meaningless chart. User Reviews for games during that period weren’t made when the games were released. Nostalgia is powerful.
RuckFeddit70
The decline of journalism has led to a rise of prominence of the bad actors in journalism. Over time, the ratio of those with high integrity compared to those who are willing to be paid schills starts to invert in the bad direction.
suppersell
this graph sucks
The_Duke28
Sometimes I wasn’t sure if I only got old and the critics were replaced with the younger generation (as they should), but it feels like gaming for me peaked a long time ago. Back when all those companies were led by creative minds with nothing to loose but all to gain.
Now it’s just suits, reviewing polls and deciding upon them what cashgrab is the most efficient.
I’ve said it time and time again – the industry needs a complete collapse to regrow from scratch. Otherwise we’ll be fed with shitty games for centuries to come. Maybe the indie-studios can soften the blow but ultimately, corporate has to step the fuck back.
lazy_commander
We need new critics!
creamcolouredDog
At the same time professional outlets are very generous with review scores, there are also people who go to the site to review bomb the games because they either feel entitled to a game or they’re part of a useless “culture war”
Hrmerder
‘Critics’ love ‘Sponsorships’. That’s what this graph tells me…
Darth_Murcielago
I’ve heard that many movie critics get paid by the companies that make movies… wouldn’t surprise me if it is the same for games
lumbridge6
I honestly don’t care at all about review scores, they’re so pointless for a few reasons. Reviewers live or die by how quickly they can get reviews out, which leads to a few things; rushed reviews, more favourable than deserved reviews due to not wanting to upset publishers and lose out on future review copies and specifically when it comes to the big media outlets there’s the risk of upsetting advertisers.
Then there’s the whole scoring system. Most places go with a 1-10 scale, but how many times do you see a review which pretty much calls a game average and then give 7/10. If it really was average it would be 5/10. Then a reviewer says a game is bad then gives 5 when bad should be 3 at maximum. Like just scrap the whole scoring system at that point or use it properly ffs.
All I’m interested in is will the game appeal to me and should I buy it, wait for a sale or avoid. Anything other than that is pointless nowadays.
mmmmmmiiiiii
global financial crisis did something to metacritics
BinaryJay
Users have become a LOT more whiny about sometimes the most minor shit in that time. Half the time their problems with games have nothing to do with the games themselves now. It wasn’t like this before.
RiftHunter4
This is because critics are playing with top-spec machines and often have more money to throw at gaming. But this is why it’s better to find reviewers with similar opinions as yours about gaming. Yes, it’s a bit of an echo chamber, but you’ll get more accurate reviews for yourself than listening to generic review scores.
There are some games out that have been GOTY winners that I simply hate but I knew I wouldn’t like them because the reviewers I follow were able to give a clear picture of what the game is like for people with my tastes.
30 Comments
I mean if critics aren’t reviewing for users then what’s the point of them?
weird how “games” get better in the eyes of critics and worse in the eyes of users
The disparity begins around the Gamespot, Kane & Lynch debacle. 2007/8 was when I stopped trusting so called professional reviews and I think it’s the same for many other gamers.
That’s because critics are bought and paid for directly (salary/contract) whereas influencers can hide behind the thin-veil or perceived neutrality (patreon, early access, off-the-table-one-time-payments)
Both are heavy shills. You have to look good and hard for reviewers who maintain their integrity, and sway away all the “perks” designed to catch them.
What does it mean?
I have no idea which line is which
“game critics” and “movie critics” must be some of the most useless and scammy jobs in the entertainment industry, literally just getting paid to promote shit or best case just throw out a completely subjective opinion no one cares about.
Yes, review bombing. I generally trust critics more than users these days.
Critics
Man, I miss TotalBiscuit. He was always my goto.
Client journalism takes over the gaming media, in picture form.
Because users review-bomb for fun these days. TLOU2 was a good example. Really fun game for casual players but the “epic elite gamers™” criticized it for 2 whole years.
It seems like it has become common for people to criticize things just to go against the grain, especially with the rise of social media. As a result, a lot of things get unfairly trashed. On the flip side, I think media outlets have gotten too lenient in their reviews, possibly because they feel pressured to maintain good relationships with developers. All this to say that the true ratings lie somewhere in the middle.
This graph is terrible.
People are so much more filled with negativity these days. The internet ruined us.
This is directly tied to rising budgets. 20 years ago, video games were made by smaller teams over shorter time frames. That means that development got exponentially more expensive. As a result, publishers started to demand a corporate structure full of production managers that would make sure milestones were hit. They would corral auteurs to keep them from changing too much, too late in the process, and if a game was flat out not functional in early stages, to kill it in the cradle.
The result has been a lot more 7/10s. We see very few games like Fable III or Fallout New Vegas these days, where actually completing the campaign on version 1.0 can be difficult, if not outright impossible. By the same token, we also see fewer games like Demon’s Souls or, again, Fallout New Vegas, where individual creatives are empowered to go beyond the beaten path.
Review outlets typically have guidelines for reviews. We just don’t see the non-functional games that deserve scores in 4/10 range. TBH, I think the 0-10 system should probably be phased out in favor of a 0-3 system (recommend against, neutral, recommend, strongly recommend), because that’s what people really want to know.
Individual users are more likely to have more extreme reactions. Using myself as an example, *Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice* is a game that I would recommend against. I enjoyed most of it, but became hard stuck on a particular puzzle for several hours (the very time-constrained rune puzzle in the maze of fire), to the point that I wanted to attempt that sequence again less than I wanted to get to the end of the game. That feeling, that part of the game is actively blocking you from the parts of it you enjoy, feels unfair and generated a disproportionate sense of dislike. And that’s without bringing up the various and sundry reasons that people review bomb games, like Borderlands 2 getting review bombed on Steam because the sequel was a timed Epic exclusive.
TL;DR: Corporate realities have led to a lot of games that score ~7/10 on a measured review with guidelines, while user reviews tend to be emotional and more extreme.
This isn’t a conspiracy. Outlet reviewers submit reviews because it’s their job. Users submit reviews because they feel strongly. If a reviewer thinks a game is competent but unexciting, they’ll write a review that says because it’s their job. If a user thinks a game was fun enough to finish but theyre definitely not interested in playing more, most won’t leave a review at all. Users review games that they thought were excellent or terrible, with very few bothering with anything in between.
So the result is that outlets tend to give more measured responses, while users give more extreme ones.
There’s a 50% chance a game will get review bombed nowadays so I’m not even surprised. Half of video game user reviews have nothing to do with the video game itself. A game could get review bombed because a studio exec said they liked pineapple on pizza.
This is a meaningless chart. User Reviews for games during that period weren’t made when the games were released. Nostalgia is powerful.
The decline of journalism has led to a rise of prominence of the bad actors in journalism. Over time, the ratio of those with high integrity compared to those who are willing to be paid schills starts to invert in the bad direction.
this graph sucks
Sometimes I wasn’t sure if I only got old and the critics were replaced with the younger generation (as they should), but it feels like gaming for me peaked a long time ago. Back when all those companies were led by creative minds with nothing to loose but all to gain.
Now it’s just suits, reviewing polls and deciding upon them what cashgrab is the most efficient.
I’ve said it time and time again – the industry needs a complete collapse to regrow from scratch. Otherwise we’ll be fed with shitty games for centuries to come. Maybe the indie-studios can soften the blow but ultimately, corporate has to step the fuck back.
We need new critics!
At the same time professional outlets are very generous with review scores, there are also people who go to the site to review bomb the games because they either feel entitled to a game or they’re part of a useless “culture war”
‘Critics’ love ‘Sponsorships’. That’s what this graph tells me…
I’ve heard that many movie critics get paid by the companies that make movies… wouldn’t surprise me if it is the same for games
I honestly don’t care at all about review scores, they’re so pointless for a few reasons. Reviewers live or die by how quickly they can get reviews out, which leads to a few things; rushed reviews, more favourable than deserved reviews due to not wanting to upset publishers and lose out on future review copies and specifically when it comes to the big media outlets there’s the risk of upsetting advertisers.
Then there’s the whole scoring system. Most places go with a 1-10 scale, but how many times do you see a review which pretty much calls a game average and then give 7/10. If it really was average it would be 5/10. Then a reviewer says a game is bad then gives 5 when bad should be 3 at maximum. Like just scrap the whole scoring system at that point or use it properly ffs.
All I’m interested in is will the game appeal to me and should I buy it, wait for a sale or avoid. Anything other than that is pointless nowadays.
global financial crisis did something to metacritics
Users have become a LOT more whiny about sometimes the most minor shit in that time. Half the time their problems with games have nothing to do with the games themselves now. It wasn’t like this before.
This is because critics are playing with top-spec machines and often have more money to throw at gaming. But this is why it’s better to find reviewers with similar opinions as yours about gaming. Yes, it’s a bit of an echo chamber, but you’ll get more accurate reviews for yourself than listening to generic review scores.
There are some games out that have been GOTY winners that I simply hate but I knew I wouldn’t like them because the reviewers I follow were able to give a clear picture of what the game is like for people with my tastes.