Neodegenerate said:
Fair enough. I find that these days there is an expectation in reviews that doesn't actually work to help the gaming industry. If the game is an annual franchise, it gets an 80-90ish score (for the most part) and is largely hailed for giving you the "same experience, with a few upgrades this time around" whereas a game that is not in an annual franchise gets a 70-80 for being "too much like game X" or "not different enough from it's predecessor to truly break away" or some other nonsense like that. Also, reviewers get caught up in hype (Destiny) just like we do, and that can sway a score in a direction that it wouldn't have gone in if they went in fresh.
I prefer to make my purchases based on my own gaming preferences (RPGs, Nintendo platformers, Survival Horror, TPS with good story) and research. And of course, demos. |
It angers me especially the fact reviewers contantly compare games that came before and at the same time downplay the original stuff devs introduce. It's like they want the game to be different but at the same time being too different is also bad. Also the budget of a game and the price point of it, should start to be taken in consideration as well imo. Reviewers can't always use the same measures to review games and should clearly say these things in their reviews.
