By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pokoko on 11 February 2017
Edit Thread
Veknoid_Outcast said:
pokoko said:

I think it happens less with connected, story-driven games because they have to top one another.  Uncharted 3 had to live up to Uncharted 2, for example.  When you have games like GTA and Zelda, which are many years apart and aren't direct sequels, then I think there is less of a compulsion to compare them as closely to the previous entry.  Direct sequels have to walk a fine line where they get criticized for changing too much and for not changing enough.  Story-driven franchises generally outrun their initial premise, as well, so later entries have a very difficult task in making people care again.

However, I would include Uncharted in with that "fear" factor I talked about, and probably TLoU 2.  When there is overwhelming love for a franchise, I think some of the big, high-traffic websites can be reluctant to rock the boat.  What will happen if the Meta for BotW is 95 and IGN gives it an 85?  Threads will pop up all over the internet bashing IGN for being haters and demanding that people never go there again.  It would absolutely happen at VGC.  I'll never forget that utterly pathetic display by some fans over a Pokemon score, which honestly embarrassed me as gamer.

GTA4 will always be a perfect example of that for me.  It was just not as good as reviewers scored it.  The hype was so massive, though, that I think it influenced the scores it was given.  

So maybe score inflation is related more to hype than anything else? I suppose I could see that, critics getting carried away with expectations. But surely that could cut the other way? Remember how Killzone was hyped as a Halo killer? Those lofty expectations set it up for negative reviews. Watch Dogs and Destiny suffered similar fates.

I guess the bigger question is do we trust video game publications at all? Are all review scores influenced by unreasonable expectations of fans on one side and publishers on the other? Are critics given the freedom to express their true feelings on a game? Are they even trained adequately to do so?

When we start down this rabbit hole it gets pretty depressing...

Most media is tied to the need to generate money.  As long as that is the case, other motivations have the potential to come into play.  People go missing all the time but my news portal only seems to post these stories when it's a beautiful woman.  Why?  Because more people will click.

You can't even really blame the media for this, as the ones that refuse to pander are more likely to die off.

Gaming information websites want traffic.  Writers might not feel that pressure as much but editors are generally held responsible and they sometimes manipulate content in a way that they think is best for the health of the publication.  

I think we really see this the most with two extremes: small publications that are desperate to increase traffic and large publications (especially those that have to justify themselves to parent corporations) that are desperate to retain traffic.  My theory is that the former will use "clickbait" more often while the latter tend to avoid controversial scores.