The Video Game Critic

I read with interest this Forbes article "Video games are broken, reviews are broken, and things have to change"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevange ... b7298058d2

At first I was somewhat dismissive but after reading the article I tend to agree with it.

Most game reviewers are so quick to forgive publishers and give them a free pass on everything from bugs to lack of content to unreliable online play. They never even MENTION stuff like installation headaches and load times. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a bizarro review world.

I'm somewhat immune from the issues the author raises. First, I do not post reviews the day of release. Heck, you'll be lucky to get a review in the MONTH of release for me (because I have to buy the games, for one thing). Second, I'm not a big online player. I will try it if it's available, but the bulk of my reviews are focused on offline play - what you actually got on the disc. Online play is a moving target that's impossible review with much precision.

Now there IS one aspect that's remained the same since I started this site in 1999. Reviewers are still giving scores that are way too high. It seems like even critically-panned games typically get a 7.5 or better. Apparently every game made the last 17 years has been above average! What are the chances?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this...

If I had to guess, most reviewers are in someones pocket. Hell, game companies have publicly blacklisted reviewers for giving bad reviews.

Rookie1 wrote:If I had to guess, most reviewers are in someones pocket. Hell, game companies have publicly blacklisted reviewers for giving bad reviews.

Exactly. What was it Eidos v Gamespot all those years ago? I figured game reviewers were bought and paid for by the time I was 15. Big titles, no matter how bad, will not be panned. They just get a 7 or 8. I can't imagine why anyone listens to the big reviewers in this day and age. Independent sites like this, and some of those youtube guys are the only way to go.

Videogame "journalism" needs to die, and be completely rebuilt. Movie reviewers may be a bit out of touch, but at least they generally mean what they say.

Shapur wrote:Movie reviewers may be a bit out of touch, but at least they generally mean what they say.

I was looking in a 1983 magazine where a reviewer compared similar games. Firefighter looks better but Towering Inferno plays better, etc. Kinda reminded me of Dave, where games compete for grades. This isn't Lake Wobegon, where all the games are above average.

One thing on movie reviews is that they are fully mainstream. Successful movie critics can build widely known brands, and give out a diversity of grades. Siskel and Ebert rose to fame for contrary opinions. They in turn brought in viewers to hear the competing views.

Is there a game reviewer that has enough clout to be like that?

Do you really get terrible console games these days though ? I mean bad games ?
I don't think I've played an awful game for the last 2 generations at least. At worst they are mediocre or unremarkable, but outright bad or F territory ? I can't recall I have. Most games seem to have enough about them to say 'yeah it's OK'.

Otherwise I do agree.

Sut wrote:Do you really get terrible console games these days though ? I mean bad games ?
I don't think I've played an awful game for the last 2 generations at least. At worst they are mediocre or unremarkable, but outright bad or F territory ? I can't recall I have. Most games seem to have enough about them to say 'yeah it's OK'.

Otherwise I do agree.

I think Arkham Origins is the worst game I have played in a long time. That game was a total mess of glitches and game breaking nonsense. The story sucked, and was a total cash in to get another game in the series. Besides being more of the same, it was super rushed.

I think the point is that these reviewers dont point at stuff like that for the most part. Just look at Fallout 4 and jeff gerstmann. He got slammed for giving that game a realistic grade.