https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3UO1j9TYpg
there is a guy who talks about people who just make a tantrum for negative comments about a game, and make poseitive reviews about a dogsheet game.
what you think?
There are two aspects to this point to address:
-
Are games “destroyed”?: There will always be people making cool games in the same way that people will always want to make art. If you look at the releases from the largest studios that get the most public attention, maybe you could chart a downward trajectory in quality with some exceptions. In general capitalism kinda ruins everything, including the arts. When profit incentives are prioritized over all else, it’s not great for the outcomes. As the games industry continues to mature, there will continue to be cyclical massive layoffs, less investments in innovation, and more reliable “safe” bets that often results in bland content. Again, even within such a system, independent and smaller developers will always be making good stuff. The more the community embraces and supports independent development, eschewing AAA titles, the better the health of the art from, IMO.
-
Are there lots of positive reviews for bad games?: Certainly. I think this is more a symptom of the games industry maturing as a capitalist enterprise than a cause of bad games. Many review sites have a business/engagement model that requires they release reviews as quickly as possible, and so depend on access to advance review copies. Big budget studios aren’t going to provide early review copies to sites that might give them bad reviews when there are plenty of sites who basically guarantee that they won’t.
Wanted to add an addendum to one point:
- Indy studios can be just as bad as major studios. I didn’t mean to suggest that a smaller studio is definitely better. Even small studios can be run by people trying to extract as much as possible with little regard for employees. Even small studios run by well-intentioned people can do crummy things just to stay profitable (again, capitalism ruins everything). Ultimately, I think people should look into the studios they support, how they are run, and their philosophies. Maybe that is asking too much, haha.
-
This is such a nebulous question that I’m not even sure where to begin, so I’m not even going. If you think that people having positive opinions about a game is a bad thing and negative opinions is a good thing, then hats off to you I guess, enjoy negative things.
As an aside, maybe don’t watch Asmon, since he’s a Nazi/Nazi apologizer.
The only negative opinions I care about for gaming usually come from Stephanie Sterling, because she’s pretty much right every time.
Agree, what a weird take that says more about this creator. If positive reviews make you angry, well that’s says a lot about you more than a game. Out of all the things to be angry about…
I don’t watch Asmon on principle.
Thanks for the heads up. Was almost tricked into being subjected to his voice.
No, because games haven’t been “destroyed”.
Yet. :)
wat
Honestly I haven’t seen the video but it looks like something I was wondering about recently so let me explain.
We’re more and more confused as to how mainstream games look like, as if gameplay was not a consideration at all. One could argue that this is due to lack of direction and trying to satisfy as many market needs as possible.
At the same time I also think that there could be an issue where there is no constructive feedback in the discussion because all of the reviews were either paid for (with a game copy and maybe some other goodies too) or have an interest in creating an outrage (culture wars or being negative all the time). There’s no middle ground so everyone works in the dark. Honest reviewers are rare and you need to find someone matching your taste which is beyond most people so it’s kind of irrelevant for how things look in general.
people defending a company with posetive reviews and argueing with any bad comments/reviews about a game thats not good
That’s just cherrypicking. Yes some people will review bomb. Others will make fake positive reviews to counteract people review bombing a game for being too “woke”.
In the end the only thing that even could matter is how people in aggregate work - and that’s easy to account for, you just readjust the distribution to be more spread out to get the “true” score of things.
This video seems more like clickbait than anything. I’m finding it hard to find anything worthwhile to engage with here even from a high level.
No.
people being nice online? god forbid!!!
Not about that
no, obviously not; is this a serious question? because i have no idea how you could possibly sustain it
What you mean? Have you seen all those articles publisher website just giving out 8-9 on every damn game they get early access to?
If they give worse, they proboly just lose theyre early access and ye, they get less income.
Same with negative reviews, Dragon age 2 isnt the perfect game, but an alright game, but since it has no binary person in it, millions just hate reviewed it. Proboly the same happening with favorite games company publish a game they just love, so they automatically review good about it.
Alot of people looking for a good game, and no one knows anymore who you can trust, and then its just comes down to marketing, who can just randomly takes customers without making a good game.
What you mean? Have you seen all those articles publisher website just giving out 8-9 on every damn game they get early access to?
this has been an issue people have complained about in gaming journalism for–and i cannot stress this sufficiently–longer than i’ve been alive, and i’ve been alive for 25 years. so if we’re going by this metric video gaming has been “ruined” since at least the days of GTA2, Pokemon Gold & Silver, and Silent Hill. obviously, i don’t find that a very compelling argument.
if anything, the median game has gotten better and that explains the majority of review score inflation–most “bad” gaming experiences at this point are just “i didn’t enjoy my time with this game” rather than “this game is outright technically incompetent, broken, or incapable of being played to completion”.
