Proof that reviewers are biased towards HD games.

[Barozi]

Kenryoku_Maxis said:

irstupid said:

Zlejedi said:
This thread made me laughting.

Of course reviewers are biased towards HD graphics - that's because they look much better.

so then all movie remakes, and things like star wars 1-3 are of course WAY better than the ealier ones because they look better right?

 

all other forms of media critics/reviewers are fooled by the pretty colors (ha or lack of in video games).  How come just the video game industry is so swayed by pretty looking things

Well, we also need to disect it a little further than just graphics.  I mean, in America, graphics have always seemed to be a major selling point for games, even going back to the Atari and NES days.  While in Japan, graphics aren't as important as other selling points such as name brands.  So you can say that in America, gamers have always been obsessed with graphics, and reviewers just cater to that (especially since the HD systems were practically built towards pushing better graphics).

Obviously though, reviewers shouldn't just focus on graphics, they should report and review everything about a game.  And since they seemingly are upscoring games based on those graphics, its somewhat ruining their credibility.  I mean, last gen it was a lot harder to get higher scores, with even good games getting an avg score around 7.5-8.5.  And now its like most hyped or 'high quality' 360/PS3 games get some kind of score between 9.0-9.8.  And of course the whole GTAIV getting a 10 on a lot of sites.  Which is funny since it didn't even have the best graphics compared to many games, but many sites gave it a 10 for graphics anyway, like IGN.

I agree on GTA4, but this is just false.