Reason why gaming has fell into being generic ripoffs or constant sequels.

[kupomogli]

My original post in the topic was more than just games, included a few paragraphs of what my opinion was on why games aren't selling and one of the reasons is the now core audience who only plays what's popular on the market, allowing underrated and overrated reviews to make their opinion for them.

Most journalists are to be blamed for the decline of gaming as well. Just about every large review site out there pushes that anything below an 8/10 isn't a very good game, while anything 6.9/10 or below shouldn't be played. Then for some reason or another, some of those cult classic games that get low scores but the people who have played them and enjoy them, happen to have one odd quality about them that is bashed but might later end up being praised by the gaming community in the future.

Urban Reign is actually one of the best examples. It's received a Metacritic score of 60, but if you go through all of the reviews that scored it poorly, one thing they have in common is the games difficulty. The story mode has 100 missions that are nothing but fights against one to five enemies in different areas and the game does get more difficult at around stage 20. So the first 1/5 of the game is easy enough, you get further the game is pushing you to get better.

Hard difficulty was a thing publishers frowned upon last gen, but this gen games get overrated because they have too hard of a difficulty. Super Meat Boy for example. Super Meat Boy is only a decent game, but is massively overrated. The cheap difficulty is at times rage inducing, especially if you're playing the game with a keyboard and not a controller. Most of this games praise comes from it's ridiculous difficulty, the game scoring a 90 on Metacrtic.

Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are great games, two more games that are praised for their difficulty. Dark Souls doesn't quite deserve the amount of praise because there's way too much cheap bs in the game in my opinion, but Demon's Souls while difficult is still fair. There's only stage 5 which is an annoyance, but not cheap like Dark Souls. Whether the games are good or not, they receive high praise for their difficulties.

God Hand is another game that was bashed for being too difficult, but now that it's okay for games to be difficult again, what kind of scores would the game be seeing if it was released now instead of back then?

So I haven't played Beyond Two Souls and maybe the good reviews are right, maybe the bad ones are. But "what if" there's one thing the game does that they don't like and they take it out on the entire game and just slam the game because of it. There's proof that journalists in the past rated games poorly for one reason and in the future, games that may not be as good are praised like they're second to none(Super Meat Boy.)

Something else though. Monster Hunter seems to be getting good scores now days. Freedom Unite scoring an 81, Monster Hunter Ultimate 3 scoring an 82. Those of us who have played any Monster Hunter knows that they're pretty much the exact same game with very minor changes. So back when the IP was new, how is it that they scored 69-72 for Monster Hunter, Monster Hunter Freedom, and Monster Hunter Freedom 2. If anything, this points to the fact that journalists are becoming biased with name brand recognition, and the more hype surrounding a game, the higher they'll rate it.

The amount of bias in gaming journalism is ridiculous and there's proof sitting in Metacrtic and Gamerankings. You just have to look.