I wouldn't say JRPGs are reviewed to harshly. I would say that they have been less prone to the rampant ratings inflation that other genres have suffered.

I think any enjoyable game should get a 6 or 7. Games that are among the best of the year's crop of games should get an 8. 9's should be reserved for games that will be remembered for years to come. 10's should be reserved for games that will never be forgotten.


Anyway, the question is, why don't JRPGs see as much ratings inflation? I suspect it's because having a more niche fanbase results in less pressure on reviewers to produce higher scores, both from the fans themselves and from the publishers themselves.

I really think reviewers are biased towards genres, which is a shame. This gen it's pretty much anti-JRPG for some reason (I guess linearity is all of a sudden a big no) while every other shooter gets big scores. That's ridiculous really. Genres should be treated more or less equally.

Lost Odyssey has a metacritic ranking of only 78, that's the 158th game on the 360 list.

I'm sorry to do this but how in the world did Persona 4, Valkyria Chronicles, and Tales of Vesperia get great scores?

And topic creator, just because someone doesn't think SO 4 is amazing and you think so (without even playing it) doesn't mean game reviewers are wrong.

This is what I was trying to say you stealer.

It seems to be much less about JRPGs getting shafted and simply about someone nitpicking about one or two RPGs they personally like not getting a bonkers score. It seems to me the more universally liked an RPG is, the better it's Meta is also.

This is true but there are exceptions to every rule. FF 12 comes to mind. (even though I love it, it's pretty even on the hate/love side)

I think a lot of the FF XII hate comes from it being a Final Fantasy. It's a double edged sword. On one hand, it's got an advantage with reviewers because of name value. On the other hand, it gets judged against other Final Fantasies and gets a backlash because of how different it was. Problems with the story and gameplay usually come down to "This is not what I'm used to".  In a nutshell, if this game was called Legends of Ivalice it would be more loved.

My oh my. I think I have found someone who shares the exact same opinion as me. I think if the game was called Shin Megami Tensei: Journey to Ivalice, it would be loved by the same people who hate it.

Valkyria does have good scores. However the 81 for Vesperia (#102) is nothing special in a time where games like The Darkness, Marvel: UA, NFS: Most Wanted etc rank above it. It's clearly much harder for JRPGs to get good review scores. I'm not saying the OP is right about Star Ocean, it's just an observation that reviewers don't objectively score this genre. The IGN article about JRPGs comes to mind where they literally state that JRPG should evolve to WRPGs, while it's not the same genre at all. It's like saying that survival horror should evolve to 3rd person shooters (oh wait...).

Er...no.

So reviewers give a high score to a game you hated, and one reviewer gives an average score to a game you like without ever having played it, and you are going to boycott all reviews?

Let's see. I hated Ninja Gaiden Sigma, it has an 87 on Metacritic, I quite enjoyed The Force Unleashed, which has a 70 on Metacritic, and I think Uncharted (with its 88 on Metacritic) is the second best PS3 exclusive.

Honestly, if you want a game enough, ignore the reviews (unless they're all under 5 or something), and go buy it. Reviews don't exist to give fan service (at least they shouldn't), but it's because of things like this that so many games get the scores people want them to get, that they don't deserve. Read: GTA4.