The Video Game Critic

It seems that the reviewers are too hard on games lately so it seems. The graphics I understand on the next gen systems (PS4/Xbone) are not as far ahead of the last generation but it sure feels like people are always nitpicking how they aren't that good. I know gameplay is the most important part and fun factor but all I see online is how most of the newer games that are out the past year or so just aren't that good.

I swear games today that get 7 or 8's would get 8's or 9's years ago and that is just what I personally see. I think the bar has been set so high it just is not achievable.

This post was not approved.

Reason - Opinions stated regarding anything not Nintendo or not played by the user will be considered likely inflammatory by the majority of the forum members.

I realize this isn't necessarily what you're talking about, but review scores are inflated as they are. For a while now 8 has been considered average, 9 as very good, 10 as great (instead of being one of the handful of the best games for the generation), and anything below a 7 was no longer considered worth playing. Some of this is pressure from the game companies themselves, some of this is probably an attempt to appease rabid fanbases who will swamp your comments section unless you give the new Halo anything less than a 9, and some of this was simply the reviewers themselves losing perspective. A quick look over at Metacritic does show more games in the 6-7 range, although whether that is the scale starting to regulate itself (you can only give so many 9s and 10s before people start to distrust you) or a rash of below-average games is hard to say. Metacritic's 100 point scale is ridiculous
anyway - try to figure how much better a 93 is than a 91 without your brain oozing out your ears.

As for graphics being graded too harshly, consoles have gotten powerful enough that the visual upgrade between, say, the PS3 and PS4 is far more subtle than those of previous generations. Combine that with the fact that the people making these games haven't had the experience necessary to get the most out of the new hardware and that these first-gen games are being compared against newer last-gen games made after 8 years of experience with and optimization of hardware, it's no wonder that reviewers aren't all that impressed with the current graphics. Besides, the best graphics in the world won't save a bad game, and most of the launch games for the PS4 and XBox One haven't been anything special.

[QUOTE=velcrozombie]I realize this isn't necessarily what you're talking about, but review scores are inflated as they are.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree.

However TimPossible's point is interesting, and maybe there is some ambivalence from reviewers towards the new generation of consoles due to a lack of perceptible progress. Maybe they are also jaded, as per the other topic on this board.

It does seem like some reviewers love hating on games a little bit too much(I.E. IGN, Rock Paper Shotgun)

I think there's a real lack of creativity in console games, which may be contributing to the lack of enthusiasm with reviewers (including me).  

I've noticed they seem to be divided into:

1. Big epic games released on disc.  Typically first-person shooters, racing games, adventures.  Quality tends to be very high, but games really heavy time investment and are expensive.  

and

2. Small-scale games that are download only.  Very diverse but derivative and quality is all over the place.  Small time investment and fairly cheap.

Where is the middle ground?  Where are the arcade-style games like Contra and Hydro Thunder?  I think Nintendo is aiming for this with titles like Mario Kart 8, but I think other companies need to tap into this.  I would prefer these "medium" games to be on disc, but a $40-$50 price point might be more reasonable.

I disagree that there is a lack fo creativity on console games(Destiny looks pretty innovative). I can see why the price point would be an issue, though it's been ages since i've paid full price for a new release title, as I always have some older games to trade in for store credit at Gamestop towards a new game.

Reviewers aren't hard enough. Even if you think they are lowballing a game with a 7, they are still giving it a bonus for production values. None of the mainstream professional enthusiasts sites have the integrity to give a game like Assassin's Creed IV a D like Dave did. They are 1. scared of Ubisoft, who blacklisted the Ziff Davis Games group after EGM gave the original Assassin's Creed a 6/10, and 2. have no real ability as a critic, existing as marketing extensions of the publishers locked in a perpetual hype cycle of previews/reviews.

Game reviews really aren't that much different than they always were; game reviews, even back in the Atari 2600-era, always tend to favor technological achievements and presentation over game mechanics, which is especially true today.

I think a lot of reviewers have the mentality of grading with their brain and not their hearts.  They'll check off everything THEY think is important (graphics, game length, on-line modes) without taking into account if the game is FUN.  

It's hard to quantify fun, but I think the fun factor is the single most important element of any game.