Are game critics even trustworthy anymore?

[Badman_]

It's true. People went nuts because Cyberpunk received a 7/10. 7/10...

[TheSantader25]

They can be "somewhat" reliable but only if you use these rules:

1. Never pay attention to them individually. They use different reviewers for every game so they are inconsistent. Use the final metacritic score.

2. 95-100= 9/10

3. 91-94= 8/10

4. 86-90= 7/10

5. 80-85= 6/10

6. 70-79= 5/10

below 70= absolute dogsh*t

Edited December 15, 2020 by TheSantader25

[Badman_]

27 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

They can be "somewhat" reliable but only if you use these rules:

1. Never pay attention to them individually. They use different reviewers for every game so they are inconsistent. Use the final metacritic score.

2. 95-100= 9/10

3. 91-94= 8/10

4. 86-90= 7/10

5. 80-85= 6/10

6. 70-79= 5/10

below 70= absolute dogsh*t

 

Below 70 = Rambo: The Videogame.

[Ryo256]

3 hours ago, GhettoJesus said:

Think there is one there that starts out as "Cyberpunk 2077 isn't perfect" and then the guy gave it a 100 out of 100.

Well by that logic, we can't really give a 10 out of 10 to any game because almost everyone agrees that no game is perfect.

 

2 hours ago, The Wolf Man said:

It's like they are afraid of giving it less than a 10/10 or they just don't care. 

 

"You know what? The game was extremely hyped and it probably costed tons of money. I'm just gonna give it a perfect score and avoid any complications with gamers or the company itself."

Well as fans of Rockstar Games, it shouldn't be surprising to us. 

 

3 hours ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

I know of the three platforms thus far the PC is the better platform. but I highly doubt if Cyberpunk 2077 was made by Bethesda for example even with less bugs, glitches than the console counterparts there’s no way way critics would be giving it perfect scores. Not a chance.

Well actually depends on which Bethesda game it would be because Skyrim was very buggy on launch (and still buggy to this day) but it has received perfect scores.

 

[Riqitch8]

More evidence that the gaming industry is rotten to the motherf*cking core - nothing and no one is genuine these days. Call me a sensationalist, but this bubble which consists of circle-jerking, shilling, fanboyism and other bias-related sh*t better burst soon, otherwise this industry will turn out exactly like modern Hollywood. Oh wait, I think it might be up to that level already.

f*ck critics for anything, be it books, games, film, technology (sometimes) - whatever. I can never see past their agenda (which are always present, you don't even have to read between the lines most of the time), so I don't tend to waste my time on that stuff. I consume what I want, because I f*cking can. The only "reviews" I actually recognise are the ones coming from the public, and those are the Google reviews (when you Google something and a rating comes up) or on Steam (maybe) - but even then I take those with a grain of salt.

 

I honestly think game demos need to come back. I don't know if it would help the reviewing bias, but if the gaming industry went back to the convention of game demos, people will be given the option to try before they buy so people can see what they're getting into. Imagine if there were demos for Cyberpunk 2077, the piss poor performance on XB1/PS4 would have been exposed well before release and probably fixed (depending on the timeline) before it hit the shelves. I don't see anything wrong with expanding the QA/Beta testing team by consulting the public. They do it for apps and software, why are games any different?

 

But I'm someone who thinks that Watch Dogs (2014) is a brilliant game and that Titanfall 2 is the best FPS since Halo 2, so what do I know?

[Jason]

The Cyberpunk situation has really just highlighted how easy it is for developers/publishers to manipulate the early reviews if they are so inclined.

 

No reviewer got their hands on the console version at all until launch day, CDPR made them all review the PC version which naturally they reviewed on high end PC hardware where many issues are alleviated but not outright gone. They were also explicitly told not to show their own footage of the game as well, only being able to use footage supplied by CDPR.

 

It's very easy to sit back and go "lol yea this is proof mainstream reviewers are all garbage" but you do have to take into account that CDPR very deliberately tried to avoid anyone playing the last-gen versions as much as possible. Even the leaked footage that looked rough was officially handwaived by CDPR as "the patch will fix it all".

 

The reviews and warnings we're now seeing of the console versions are only happening because reviewers now have the ability to actually review those versions of the game.

 

I think the thing everyone needs to take away from this is less "lol f*ck reviewers" and instead looking at how publishers construct their games review processes in future. If they're not showing console versions or allowing them to be reviewed, something is up. From a publishers point of view they need to allow all versions of a game to be reviewed no matter what going forward.

[Riqitch8]

56 minutes ago, Jason said:

The Cyberpunk situation has really just highlighted how easy it is for developers/publishers to manipulate the early reviews if they are so inclined.

 

No reviewer got their hands on the console version at all until launch day, CDPR made them all review the PC version which naturally they reviewed on high end PC hardware where many issues are alleviated but not outright gone. They were also explicitly told not to show their own footage of the game as well, only being able to use footage supplied by CDPR.

 

It's very easy to sit back and go "lol yea this is proof mainstream reviewers are all garbage" but you do have to take into account that CDPR very deliberately tried to avoid anyone playing the last-gen versions as much as possible. Even the leaked footage that looked rough was officially handwaived by CDPR as "the patch will fix it all".

 

The reviews and warnings we're now seeing of the console versions are only happening because reviewers now have the ability to actually review those versions of the game.

 

I think the thing everyone needs to take away from this is less "lol f*ck reviewers" and instead looking at how publishers construct their games review processes in future. If they're not showing console versions or allowing them to be reviewed, something is up. From a publishers point of view they need to allow all versions of a game to be reviewed no matter what going forward.

 

Wow, I had no idea that was the case. That's crazy and rather suspect, surely the secrecy around the last gen copies (or any non-PC copy for that matter) should have raised a couple of red flags? I guess there are several angles to this whole situation, one of them being paid reviewers/sponsorships/endorsements or whatever, and the other what you rightfully said; full on control by the developer of what people can see/share pre release. I think this may be the first time I've come across something like this. I guess this shows how little I really know. 

 

I just want to take the opportunity to clear the air a bit after my previous post, as it heads off topic a tad and also is rather hostile. It didn't help that I didn't have the greatest of days today, so the anger may have clouded my judgements. But I won't make excuses for not knowing everything about what I was talking about, I apologise. What I will say, though, is that the reason I name dropped Cyberpunk 2077 is because its the most recent AAA release, and I feel that the gist of what I was saying can apply to most AAA titles released in the past couple of years. I have this contempt for reviews, but I actually have no idea where it originates from. Apart from them generally giving high ratings to games that don't deserve it, most of these reviewers have bestowed critical acclaim upon my favourite games (including the games I really enjoy, but don't consider favourites) and, for the ones that don't receive critical acclaim, it just makes me love those games even more. So if I answer the question, "Are game critics even trustworthy anymore?" I would say no, not all of them. But as Jason has rightfully said, maybe we should question who's actually accountable for these inaccurate or misleading reviews. Is it the critics, the publisher, (or in Cyberpunk's case) the developer - or all three?

 

[Algonquin Assassin]

25 minutes ago, Riqitch8 said:

 

Wow, I had no idea that was the case. That's crazy and rather suspect, surely the secrecy around the last gen copies (or any non-PC copy for that matter) should have raised a couple of red flags?

 

It did for me. I nearly pre-ordered the PS4 version like the week before it was released, but then I backed out of it because of the lack of information surrounding the console versions.  Looks like it was a wise decision.

 

Personally I think it should be an industry rule that any game released on multiple platforms should be shown/reviewed on those all of those platforms in the lead up to release to give the consumer a good idea what they're in for. I'm sick of developers only showing what they want to show under controlled circumstances by being picky and choosy about it. The fact even with the PC reviews CDPR didn't allow reviewers to use their own footage only what they provided is bullsh*t.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Algonquin Assassin

[Badman_]

Truth be told, the review process indeed is very inconsistent. Cyberpunk 2077 is the most recent example, but the something similar also happened with The Last of Us 2. Critics weren't allowed to talk about certain aspects of the game (mostly the things after the first half). Wheter is the publisher or the developer, they have too much power over the press.

[Jason]

40 minutes ago, Riqitch8 said:

Wow, I had no idea that was the case. That's crazy and rather suspect, surely the secrecy around the last gen copies (or any non-PC copy for that matter) should have raised a couple of red flags?

 

It did raise red flags. There were even leaks earlier this year from someone who was proved legit around the time he gave them where he said the last gen versions were in an awful state. We also had leaks 1-2 weeks before launch of the console versions showing some awful stuff.

 

It was handwaved away by players - not reviewers - because the hype was through the roof.

 

One of the reasons why I do fully believe why I personally have been enjoying the game a lot is because for one I play on PC and despite my struggling and now dated GPU the rest of my hardware is high end, so I have had very few overall issues, but also the other reason was because I was extremely skeptical going in that they'd achieve everything players expected them to achieve. Or to put it another way, I didn't expect a Rockstar level open world from a studio less than a third of their size, pretty much. So my expectations weren't through the roof for the game and I've been having a ton of fun with it.

[GhettoJesus]

22 hours ago, Ryo256 said:

Well by that logic, we can't really give a 10 out of 10 to any game because almost everyone agrees that no game is perfect.

I don't see anything wrong with that. But truth to be told I prefer a 100 scale rating than a 10 scale rating because 99 better emphasizes "close to perfect" than a 9 in my view.

 

17 hours ago, Riqitch8 said:

I honestly think game demos need to come back. I don't know if it would help the reviewing bias, but if the gaming industry went back to the convention of game demos, people will be given the option to try before they buy so people can see what they're getting into.

A good idea, although Steam lets you refund a game if you only played it for an hour or so but some developers deliberately make the first hour look good and the rest of the game is garbage. I don't know how much would demos help but generally people have been citing the lack of demos as a reason for not buying games.

[Jason]

I don't think demos would help as much as people think, not for stuff like one of Cyberpunk's main criticisms which is technical issues.

 

Demos are basically vertical slices, slices of the game polished up to look good for shows and hands on previews, they are never indicative of the actual final game. They are very easily exploitable by publishers, if they were so inclined.

 

The answer and the solution is probably robust refund systems, which is a place where all the major platforms have their pros and cons.

[Badman_]

Gamers should be more critical also... stop the "fanboyism", stop advocating for free.

 

If gamers were more critical of CDPR maybe this entire mess could've been avoided (but only maybe, of course). 

 

The thing is... Ask questions: why there's no footage of consoles? Why delaying the game after it just went gold? Etc. Instead they chose to blindly support everything they do.

 

I'm not saying the gamer consumer is the one to blame, but they definitely need to be smarter.

[Dryspace]

On 12/15/2020 at 1:41 PM, Riqitch8 said:

But I'm someone who thinks that Watch Dogs (2014) is a brilliant game and that Titanfall 2 is the best FPS since Halo 2, so what do I know?

 

Apparently, not as much as I thought you did before I read your last sentence.

[JiaHengK]

On 12/15/2020 at 7:48 PM, GhettoJesus said:

Think there is one there that starts out as "Cyberpunk 2077 isn't perfect" and then the guy gave it a 100 out of 100.

Yeah, this is exactly why people ought to just try the product themselves, or watch a video on the gameplay. All reviews, including audiences and gamers, could butcher the total score due to their own personal issues and biases towards or against the game.

 

This especially applies to Steam, since users are able to write whatever they want and just leave a 'Recommended or Non-Recommended'. That's why you can see people giving reviews for games even though they only have 0.1 hours in the game, or when they give a bad review for the game, despite having thousands of hours put into it already.

[Jason]

"Perfect" review scores always cause a stir, whether it's a genuinely great game with little to no issues, or something like TLOU2 which polarised many people, or Cyberpunk which disappointed many people be it for technical  reasons or gameplay/story.

 

Personally when it comes the "Cyberpunk isn't perfect" review giving the game a 10/10 I don't think there's anything wrong with that statement - not in the sense that I believe Cyberpunk is a 10/10 title but I don't think a game should be perfect to get a 10/10 score, a perfect game is impossible and while I understand for some people that should mean a 10/10 is an ubotainable score I'm ehhhhh on that.

 

I have no issues with 10's being rolled out for games reviewers truly feel like is a must play title that is a step forward in design, even if said game has some noteworthy issues. This issue with 10's however is many places have been a bit nonchalant with them over the years but there are a couple of places who are tight with them still to the point that they've given a dozen or less games the score over their 10+ year history.

[Badman_]

Perfect 10/10 reviews have lost their weight a long time ago.

[Ducard]

On 6/24/2020 at 10:12 PM, Niobium said:

 

 

then there was GTA V. when this game first came out, nearly every game critic was treating this game like god's greatest gift to earth and giving this game near perfect scores. but a large portion of the GTA fanbase were disappointed and felt like the game did not live up to the previous games in the series such as GTA san andreas and GTA IV. (in fact, fans resentment of this game only grew as time went on, with sh*t like GTA online, forgetting about single player DLC, going after modders, and the announcement of the PS5 port)

 

I'm going to stop you there.

 

Firstly, I'm going to preface this by saying that GTA IV is my favorite GTA and I liked it better than V. That being said, I enjoyed V immensely, just like every other GTA. It gave me lots of hours of fun and while the story wasn't quite as strong, especially by Rockstar's usual standards, it still gave me the classic feel that every GTA game has given. I think IV is a little better for a few reasons but I'm not going to get into that right now.

 

Now you criticize game critics for giving GTA V near perfect scores and then go on to state that "most of the GTA fanbase didn't feel like the game lived up to expectations". The truth is, you're basing this forum which, in reality is a very small amount of people compared to the millions who bought the game. The numbers speak for themselves. The game is the second best selling game of all time. A game doesn't become the second best selling game of all time if it's terrible or just an 8 or 7/10 type of game. Whether you agree with it or not, the game brought fun and entertainment to millions of people around the globe. When it was made free on epic games recently, it still made servers crash. GTA V (and GTA has a whole) definitely made the open world genre "Rockstar's bitch". No game that has released since (with the exception of RDR2 which itself is a Rockstar title and in my opinion, the best game I've ever played, even better than any GTA game) made the same impact that GTA V has. 

 

I do agree, Rockstar has made some disappointing decisions. The lack of support for single player has been disappointing, the re-release of the game on PlayStation 5 has been disappointing. But like it or not, these things do not affect the base single player experience in 2013 when the game first came out. And to be honest, it still doesn't affect the base game. It isn't binary. One can acknowledge that Rockstar have made sh*tty decisions while still recognizing the fact that their games are of the absolute highest quality.

 

It is interesting that you say that "GTA V got near perfect scores but was viewed as a disappointment by the community" but you also ignore that GTA IV had a similar reputation on this community at launch. As a matter of fact, a lot more people hated GTA IV at the time than GTA V. It was viewed as extremely stripped down when compared to SA. In that case, I could argue that game critics aren't trustworthy for giving GTA IV high scores, can't I?

 

I do understand your sentiment and I agree that game critics aren't always the most trustworthy sources of information. That being said, you picked the worst example you could and the only reason you did it was because of your own personal feelings regarding GTA V. Like it or not, GTA V had a huge impact on the gaming industry and as such arguing that critics aren't trustworthy for giving it a high score is simply silly.

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Ducard

[Ryo256]

8 hours ago, Ducard said:

 

I'm going to stop you there.

 

Firstly, I'm going to preface this by saying that GTA IV is my favorite GTA and I liked it better than V. That being said, I enjoyed V immensely, just like every other GTA. It gave me lots of hours of fun and while the story wasn't quite as strong, especially by Rockstar's usual standards, it still gave me the classic feel that every GTA game has given. I think IV is a little better for a few reasons but I'm not going to get into that right now.

 

Now you criticize game critics for giving GTA V near perfect scores and then go on to state that "most of the GTA fanbase didn't feel like the game lived up to expectations". The truth is, you're basing this forum which, in reality is a very small amount of people compared to the millions who bought the game. The numbers speak for themselves. The game is the second best selling game of all time. A game doesn't become the second best selling game of all time if it's terrible or just an 8 or 7/10 type of game. Whether you agree with it or not, the game brought fun and entertainment to millions of people around the globe. When it was made free on epic games recently, it still made servers crash. GTA V (and GTA has a whole) definitely made the open world genre "Rockstar's bitch". No game that has released since (with the exception of RDR2 which itself is a Rockstar title and in my opinion, the best game I've ever played, even better than any GTA game) made the same impact that GTA V has. 

 

I do agree, Rockstar has made some disappointing decisions. The lack of support for single player has been disappointing, the re-release of the game on PlayStation 5 has been disappointing. But like it or not, these things do not affect the base single player experience in 2013 when the game first came out. And to be honest, it still doesn't affect the base game. It isn't binary. One can acknowledge that Rockstar have made sh*tty decisions while still recognizing the fact that their games are of the absolute highest quality.

 

It is interesting that you say that "GTA V got near perfect scores but was viewed as a disappointment by the community" but you also ignore that GTA IV had a similar reputation on this community at launch. As a matter of fact, a lot more people hated GTA IV at the time than GTA V. It was viewed as extremely stripped down when compared to SA. In that case, I could argue that game critics aren't trustworthy for giving GTA IV high scores, can't I?

 

I do understand your sentiment and I agree that game critics aren't always the most trustworthy sources of information. That being said, you picked the worst example you could and the only reason you did it was because of your own personal feelings regarding GTA V. Like it or not, GTA V had a huge impact on the gaming industry and as such arguing that critics aren't trustworthy for giving it a high score is simply silly.

 

Sadly your argument is so unoriginal that @Niobium has probably heard it at least a dozen times if not a hundred.

[Niobium]

so if something is popular that must mean it's good right? by that logic, that means that jake paul is one of the most high-quality, thoughtful, engaging content creators youtube has ever known.

 

ofc the free GTA V giveaways made the epic servers crash. GTA is a popular franchise and V appeals to a wide audience. but most GTA fans DID find GTA V disappointing, you cannot deny this. go look at crowbcat's IV vs V video. it has almost 16m views and nearly 300k likes, so that means that a lot of people outside this forum agree with him. i mean do you honestly think we are a small minority?

Edited December 23, 2020 by Niobium

[LittleJesus]

Hating on GTA V is just a popular trend right now mostly due to GTA ONLINE.

It might not be the best Grand Theft Auto but its still an amazing game worthy of those scores.

 

[TheSantader25]

4 hours ago, Ryo256 said:

Sadly your argument is so unoriginal that @Niobium has probably heard it at least a dozen times if not a hundred.

Arguments don't need to be original to be respected and valid. I mean we're talking about a guy that practically posts about how poorly Johnny was killed and how GTA V sucks in 90% of his posts so... 

Edited December 23, 2020 by TheSantader25

[Ryo256]

2 hours ago, TheSantader25 said:

Arguments don't need to be original to be respected and valid. I mean we're talking about a guy that practically posts about how poorly Johnny was killed and how GTA V sucks in 90% of his posts so... 

I didn't imply that it shouldn't be respected or valid, so strange assumption to make. Keywords for me would be, "outdated" or "unhelpful" to the discussion. But don't worry, I got a super-duper-fudge-covered argument for ya that will totally convince you and even get you laid. Here it is:

"Sadly your argument is so unoriginal that I have probably heard it at least a dozen times if not a hundred."

 

Spoiler

Now you may read that argument and realize I just repeated what you already read. Probably still to be respected and valid I suppose but you expected more right? As if me repeating the same argument would make you see the errors of your way, give you some sort of an enlightenment and realize what is the true meaning of love? Sadly that's not how things work.

You want me to take into consideration what you and I have already said and then make a counter-argument. Me repeating the original argument doesn't help the case. As critics of V, we have been introduced to the argument in question for 7 years now, heck it may as well be the first argument most people come up with when defending a critically acclaimed game. We have analyzed and argued against it already, simply repeating the status-quo argument doesn't help the discussion that is suppose to be questioning this very status quo.

As for Niobuim going on about Johnny and GTA V sucks. Those are just their stance. Someone who likes GTA V is likely to present argument in its favor, we don't expect them to change their stance, that would be unrealistic, we just need them to counter-argue the criticism and provide explanation for their praise of the game. Talking about Johnny and how GTA V are just their stance but you don't seem to highlight is that Niobium actually does respond to argument against their stance, they don't go back to same old arguments as day one. Similarly we tend to adjust and change to understand the argument's context at hand before actually doing a counter argument.

Now I also have a personal issue with these kind of reasoning. Because it is usually adopted by people who defend their thing, (usually a thing of poor quality that's probably why they getting the criticism to begin with I suppose) and they defend it by simplifying the opposing view and then presenting an unoriginal argument hoping to shut down criticism. It doesn't work well in my experience. I don't like that criticism is being misrepresented and that critics are undermining by being shown not to understand the original argument by simply repeating the said argument rather than providing a proper counterargument. As if we GTA V critics don't understand how reviews score works? How GTA V is a critically acclaimed and loved by many despite its shortcomings? Are you also gonna explain how 2+2=4 works?

No we understand the original argument just fine. We are arguing about it despite that. That's why the thread was made in the first place. To question it. Because most of us even played GTA V because game critics praised it so much. We came off disappointed so we come to question it and GTA V is more of an interesting example rather than a poor one because if Cyberpunk 2077, despite its glaring flaws, almost got away with high scores in its current state, imagine how much bias Rockstar games had gotten with their relatively polished games? To think that game critics weren't dishonest during GTA V and even GTA IV is to be naïve IMO. 

 

[TheSantader25]

30 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:

I didn't imply that it shouldn't be respected or valid, so strange assumption to make. Keywords for me would be, "outdated" or "unhelpful" to the discussion. But don't worry, I got a super-duper-fudge-covered argument for ya that will totally convince you and even get you laid. Here it is:

"Sadly your argument is so unoriginal that I have probably heard it at least a dozen times if not a hundred."

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Now you may read that argument and realize I just repeated what you already read. Probably still to be respected and valid I suppose but you expected more right? As if me repeating the same argument would make you see the errors of your way, give you some sort of an enlightenment and realize what is the true meaning of love? Sadly that's not how things work.

You want me to take into consideration what you and I have already said and then make a counter-argument. Me repeating the original argument doesn't help the case. As critics of V, we have been introduced to the argument in question for 7 years now, heck it may as well be the first argument most people come up with when defending a critically acclaimed game. We have analyzed and argued against it already, simply repeating the status-quo argument doesn't help the discussion that is suppose to be questioning this very status quo.

As for Niobuim going on about Johnny and GTA V sucks. Those are just their stance. Someone who likes GTA V is likely to present argument in its favor, we don't expect them to change their stance, that would be unrealistic, we just need them to counter-argue the criticism and provide explanation for their praise of the game. Talking about Johnny and how GTA V are just their stance but you don't seem to highlight is that Niobium actually does respond to argument against their stance, they don't go back to same old arguments as day one. Similarly we tend to adjust and change to understand the argument's context at hand before actually doing a counter argument.

Now I also have a personal issue with these kind of reasoning. Because it is usually adopted by people who defend their thing, (usually a thing of poor quality that's probably why they getting the criticism to begin with I suppose) and they defend it by simplifying the opposing view and then presenting an unoriginal argument hoping to shut down criticism. It doesn't work well in my experience. I don't like that criticism is being misrepresented and that critics are undermining by being shown not to understand the original argument by simply repeating the said argument rather than providing a proper counterargument. As if we GTA V critics don't understand how reviews score works? How GTA V is a critically acclaimed and loved by many despite its shortcomings? Are you also gonna explain how 2+2=4 works?

No we understand the original argument just fine. We are arguing about it despite that. That's why the thread was made in the first place. To question it. Because most of us even played GTA V because game critics praised it so much. We came off disappointed so we come to question it and GTA V is more of an interesting example rather than a poor one because if Cyberpunk 2077, despite its glaring flaws, almost got away with high scores in its current state, imagine how much bias Rockstar games had gotten with their relatively polished games? To think that game critics weren't dishonest during GTA V and even GTA IV is to be naïve IMO. 
 

 

Then I don't understand the use of the word "sadly" in your statement. Because to me, it implies that the argument is not to be valid and respected. If you used the word "sadly" for other purposes(such as unhelpful and outdated as you stated) now, then my bad.

 

But there's a reason people keep bringing up the same arguments over and over again. Since neither side will ever back out of their stance, we're likely to hear the same sh*t for many years to come and it doesn't really need to be "helpful". Because nothing "new" will be helpful in this case. We've argued for 7 years (perhaps 12 years if you consider the original IV backlash from 2008) about these games and not much has changed. We keep seeing the same people with the same arguments(more or less) so it's only natural to use the same "counter arguments" from the past again as well because in the end both sides have their reasons for liking or disliking these games. When both games are of high quality it comes down to "subjective opinions" to choose between them. 

 

To be more focused on the topic, both these games have been critically acclaimed for thousands of reasons with millions of fans worldwide. They are both masterpieces from an "objective" standpoint in the eyes of the majority of gamers.  There's a reason they are both universally loved. GTA V is a terrible example for this topic. You could not possibly find a worse example to prove the point of this topic because unlike many games that DO prove that the critics are out of their depth, GTA V DOES prove that critics have more or less similar opinions with the majority of the gaming community. So if I was to put my trust in the critics for purchasing GTA V, I would most likely not be disappointed. Because most people did not. 

 

A better example for this topic is a game that has high scores but is shunned by the bigger part of the gaming community. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by TheSantader25

[Ducard]

4 hours ago, Niobium said:

so if something is popular that must mean it's good right? by that logic, that means that jake paul is one of the most high-quality, thoughtful, engaging content creators youtube has ever known.

 

ofc the free GTA V giveaways made the epic servers crash. GTA is a popular franchise and V appeals to a wide audience. but most GTA fans DID find GTA V disappointing, you cannot deny this. go look at crowbcat's IV vs V video. it has almost 16m views and nearly 300k likes, so that means that a lot of people outside this forum agree with him. i mean do you honestly think we are a small minority?

 

I fail to see how one video makes you claim that most GTA fans found GTA V disappointing. Not to mention, just because someone liked the video doesn't mean they necessarily thought V wasn't good. On the contrary, it could also mean that they enjoyed GTA V but still preferred GTA IV for a few reasons. (I fall into this category myself and like I said, it is not binary). If you're going to use the claim based off one video, then I can just pull out metacritic user scores for both IV and V.  GTA V has a metacritic score of 8.4 on the PS4 (based on the users mind you, not critics) and 8.3 on the PS3. In contrast, GTA IV has a metacritic user score of 7.9. As a matter of fact, among the "mainstream GTA titles" (i.e. III, VC, SA, IV and V), IV has the lowest metacritic user score. Now, I don't actually care to look at metacritic at all and I find the user scores to rarely be a good indicator of the quality of a game, just like I find youtube likes to rarely be a good indicator of the quality of a game. But since you brought up the crowbcat video, I feel that it is only fair that I bring up metacritic user scores, at which GTA IV sits at the bottom.

 

As a matter of fact, the way you view the majority opinion is influenced by your bias. Of course, if you search up "Is GTA IV better than GTA V?" you are going to get such videos and many people agreeing with the sentiment. On the other hand, if you search a GTA V related video you'll see many comments saying how nostalgic the game is and how it's one of the best open world games out there. It all depends on the places you look at. Moreover, I know many people in real life who preferred V to IV.  So I do believe that yes, the people that believe IV is better than V to be a (relatively) small minority.

 

As for your Jake Paul example, it's a bad one because did not imply that GTA V is a good game because it is popular. I said it was good because of the impact it had on the industry and the open world genre. Objectively, has any other "GTA clone" been able to take a stronghold on the genre and compete with GTA? We all know what happened with Watch dogs a year later and even today, after the release of three iterations, the series is still largely viewed as something of a disappointment to what it was hyped up to be. Saints Row too has become very quiet in the aftermath of GTA's release. Sleeping dogs, while a good game, never got the support of the majority of the public and thus faded away too.  The reason Rockstar, unfortunately, are milking GTA V (and online) is that they know they have no competition. They don't need to be in any hurry. Rarely do you see one game dominate an entire genre. 

 

Secondly, if you take a look at the best selling games of all time list, you'll realize the top 20 games have done something spectacular in their own right. At the top of the pile, you have Minecraft which gave players unparalled freedom and fun with friends. Then you have GTA V. Then you have Tetris that was one of the games that laid foundation for the gaming industry. You have PUBG, which pretty much popularized the battle royale degree to an amazing extent. Then you have games like Mario kart, Pokemon, Red Dead 2, Skyrim.... all these games sold well because they were great games. And not only did V sell well, it absolutely destroyed sales charts. A game that is viewed as largely disappointment by the public doesn't sell more than 100 million copies. People literally bought the game twice or thrice. Would that really happen if most people found it to be a disappointment?

 

TL;Dr: Your sentiment that game critics and critics in general can be controversial is correct. You just picked the wrong game to show an example of.

[Ryo256]

3 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

Then I don't understand the use of the word "sadly" in your statement. Because to me, it implies that the argument is not to be valid and respected. If you used the word "sadly" for other purposes(such as unhelpful and outdated as you stated) now, then my bad.

 

Actually it was meant to imply that it's hopeless to convince a seasoned critic like @Niobium with that argument.  

 

6 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

But there's a reason people keep bringing up the same arguments over and over again. Since neither side will ever back out of their stance, we're likely to hear the same sh*t for many years to come and it doesn't really need to be "helpful". Because nothing "new" will be helpful in this case. We've argued for 7 years (perhaps 12 years if you consider the original IV backlash from 2008) about these games and not much has changed. We keep seeing the same people with the same arguments(more or less) so it's only natural to use the same "counter arguments" from the past again as well because in the end both sides have their reasons for liking or disliking these games. When both games are of high quality it comes down to "subjective opinions" to choose between them. 

Arguments may remain same but can we please stop treating each other like we don't understand where we are coming from? People still argue like we critics haven't seen the argument for GTA V. As if we were born yesterday. That's my issue, it has become more like this a cycle of someone criticizing GTA V about a point, people simply repeating said point and end up in a long debate which is more about not understanding each other point of view rather than actually providing counter-arguments.  No wonder arguments will not evolve BECAUSE the debating is still stuck in a loop of constantly misrepresenting critics' POV rather actually addressing it.
 

 

14 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

To be more focused on the topic

 

Now YOU are doing exactly what I am argued against and what this thread is questioning to begin with:

 

15 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

both these games have been critically acclaimed for thousands of reasons with millions of fans worldwide.

Which doesn't mean much because hype and bandwagoning is a factor. Point of thread is that opinion of game critics is in question and when professionals are doing a questionable job then what merit does the average joe fan has? You can't use the very argument that's in question.

 

18 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

They are both masterpieces from an "objective" standpoint.

What do you mean by "objective". I argued this before that until we don't clarify the standards we are using, it's not possible to claim this at all.
 

 

19 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

After all there's a reason they are both universally loved as well.

And there are reasons why they are not so loved as well.

 

20 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

GTA V is a terrible example for this topic. Because unlike many games that DO prove that the critics are out of their depth, GTA V DOES prove that critics have more or less similar opinions with the majority of the gaming community.

But game critics didn't do that with GTA V. My question to you is this: In the GTA V Complaint thread, are there ANY....I repeat any complaint that you find to be valid? If the answer is yes then I ask you that why hasn't a single critic. That's it just ONE critic to stand up to tell us how it is. I used Cyberpunk 2077 as an example for a reason, it's a game that almost got away with a high score too but it was bad that not even high score of critics saved it. The idea that GTA V's critics' view overlapped with fans only happened because by that time, we argue, that critics were automatically rating popular title with high scores. Right now, people have come to realize the flaws of GTA V and shown disappointment, fans have more different views now but game critics' score is still there stating that this game is too good, which doesn't reflect majority of the gaming community actually. So it doesn't matter if GTA V is actually good or not, the game critics system would have rated it good regardless. That's the argument we are pushing, we want people to argue around this, not ignore and go with the cookie-cutter argument.
 

[TheSantader25]

@Ryo256

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/10598-Grand-Theft-Auto-5-Review-People-Suck

 

Here's the one reviewer you asked for. If you asked for more than one I could actually be in trouble lol. They gave V a 7/10. Now Even when you consider GTA V's flaws I highly doubt it would be reasonable to have it lower than a 7 so yeah there's that one reviewer that could be a source for someone who is skeptical of GTA V.  As you can see no game still has dethroned GTA V after 7 years despite its flaws so maybe with all its flaws, it was indeed a 9 or a 10 at the time. We had 8s as well and they do talk about the flaws of the game. But a lot of the critics also gave it 9s and 10s. Because like many of the gamers, they thought the game was good enough for that score. 

 

Keep in mind, that this topic wants to prove that "critics as a whole" are absolutely out of their depth and not to be trusted. So I don't understand how an example so wrong like GTA V that actually proves the opposite should be used. Because "critics as a whole" were kind of right about the experience that the majority of people had with GTA V. We're not talking about "a critic". This topic is about "critics". 

Edited December 23, 2020 by TheSantader25

[Ryo256]

27 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

hey gave V a 7/10. Now Even when you consider GTA V's flaws I highly doubt it would be reasonable to have it lower than a 7 so yeah there's that one reviewer that could be a source for someone who is skeptical of GTA V.  As you can see bo game still has dethrone GTA V after 7 years despite its flaws. We had 8s as well abd they do talk about the flaws of the game. But a lot of the critics also gave it 9s and 10s. Because like a lot of the gamers, they though the game was good enough for that score. 

Right, I was looking at the PS3 reviews on metacritic (that only had above 8 critic reviews and nothing below) so I was betting on that. Yes it seems to be one 7/10 review for Xbox 360. It is also a very good one that talks about the weak narrative of GTA V. It doesn't however address some of the other main complaints, especially where V fell short compared to previous titles but it is a start.

 

27 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

Here's the one reviewer you asked for. If you asked for more than one I could actually be in trouble lol.

Well it sorta helps my argument that how game critics are mostly samey BUT I guess you fulfilled what I asked for lol. I won't ask for more and I will accept defeat. I will admit now that GTA V is not the best example of critics being dishonest but it's still a valid one (though probably a weak one as you argued).
 

Quote

So I don't understand how an example so wrong like GTA V that actually proves the opposite should be used. Because "critics as a whole" were kind of right about the experience that the majority of people had with GTA V. We're not talking about "a critic". This topic is about "critics".

It's because people do rely on game critics to avoid disappointment. GTA V is disappointing to a good number of fans, even at launch. It was kinda expected that critics would point out this so people might be more prepared. I don't think they did a good enough job or at least that's what the argument is generally about game critics, especially for V.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Ryo256

[Niobium]

i will gladly admit that GTA V is a game that lots of people enjoy playing. i will also gladly admit that it is not as strong of an example as say, TLOU2 or cyberpunk. but it is still a valid example of mainstream critics not being reliable and not really doing their job.

 

i struggle to find a review from a mainstream game critic that talks in depth about the dumbed-down physics, the overly aggressive AI, the annoying wanted level system, the lack of interiors, the mediocre melee combat, etc. most of them talk about how the game world is just so "big and open with lots to do" and how the writing and satire is so "brilliant".

 

@TheSantader25 nice ad hom.

 

@Ducard no one is arguing that IV wasn't disappointing to many fans too. your whataboutism is just bizarre. not once have i ever said that GTA V was disappointing to the PUBLIC. but V was still disappointing as sh*t to many long-time fans of the series who play GTA regularly. anecdotes about your friends and large sales numbers don't change that. 

 

[TheSantader25]

43 minutes ago, Niobium said:

 

 

@TheSantader25 nice ad hom.

 

@Ducard no one is arguing that IV wasn't disappointing to many fans too. your whataboutism is just bizarre. not once have i ever said that GTA V was disappointing to the PUBLIC. but V was still disappointing as sh*t to many long-time fans of the series who play GTA regularly. anecdotes about your friends and large sales numbers don't change that. 

 

Well guess what? EVEN if you are right and GTA V is disappointing to most of the fans of the series(which it absolutely is not lol), game critics are here to review games for the PUBLIC. Not just the hardcore "long-time" fans of the series. Thus once again proving what a horrible example it is for this topic. We're not even discussing V's quality at this point. We're just saying it's a horrible example for this topic regardless of its quality. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by TheSantader25