New editorial about the review system and people who complain about it

[rocketpig]

Squilliam said:

rocketpig said:

So what if Portal challenged how gamers think about their medium? Fuck, it only received a 9.5. OBVIOUSLY, retreads like Halo 3 and GTA IV are BETTER because they copied their own formula and updated graphics. The same goes for Braid and other games that are truly outstanding. THERE IS NO SENSE OF ACHIEVEMENT WITHIN THIS SYSTEM.

Meh. People may complain about movie reviews but I'd rather see a critic have the balls to say "I didn't like Apocalypse Now and this is why" instead of blindly awarding the movie with a 9 or better because everyone else thinks it's great.

Yahtzee referred to game reviewers as "circus seals". I can't think of a better way to put it. They spend a lot of time doing tricks for free shit (fish or a totally sweet Rockstar North jockstrap which is mildly ironic considering the lack of testes found on the average reviewer), and they're naturally formed to have their head right around waist-height to a human for other, more obvious, reasons.

No trick, no treat.

If a game truely changes a medium then it ought to get scored highly because it would make it a great game to play. I still feel that a game ought to be reviewed on its merits and not given a free pass because it may do something differently. If a retread is still a really great game to play then it also ought to receive a high score. I don't see a problem here except that perhaps Halo/GTA IV and pretty much every other 90+ game got scored a little too highly, not that they didn't deserve to be rated as good games. Just because a game is like something else or even its own franchise isn't a particularly good reason to score it down because people buy them expecting a similar experience and they get disapointed if they franchise is unable to replicate that.

I don't mind that you don't like Halo for instance, I don't even mind if you get the Halo: Reach review and score it a 6. It means nothing to me that you would since our tastes are obviously different.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Some "re-treads" can be excellent games and deserve to be rated highly but SHOULD have an extremely hard time getting into the top 10% of all-time game rankings.

For example, let's look at a movie like Casino Royale. Yeah, it's a Bond flick. It's a remake (kinda). On the other hand, it's nearly flawless in its execution, flair, style, and substance. It's EXACTLY what it's supposed to be as a Bond flick. It deserves some pretty high fucking marks and reviews for doing that. Should it get into the top 10%? No, probably not. But it should be rewarded for its effort.

To put that in game terms, I'll bring up one of my favorite "example" games, The Darkness. It's nearly flawless in its execution (until you get the "I WIN!" power, which kinda breaks gameplay) and offers some truly engaging moments that 99% of games would kill for? You know what? In a movie system, I'd be "yeah, they got that about right" with its low 80-something Metacritic. Instead, it sits at 80-something while people bitch about FF-whateverthefucknumbertheyreatidontcare or the latest "let's do this again, kids" bullshit game that has enough of a PR budget to buy every reviewer in the land a hooker, some blow, a totally awesome sword-gun-thingie, and a pair of balls to bring back to the wife (or possibly just to roll around in their mouth while they review the next game to remind them who gives them shiny things that they like).