| coolbeans said: Definitely not. My intent was to further probe the Metacritic/VGC connection you made since I didn't have much context; plus, I've recently had other spats around MetaCritic & contrarian opinions so I anticipated the challenge you brought up going in a similar direction. I appreciate it and likewise in regards to commenting & challenging. I'll also say I didn't expect this line of reasoning. It is a valid consideration I hadn't thought of regarding potential or perceived site bias. My overarching response to this portion is going based on memory (I'll correct anything I ought to later on). [2] In regards to who gets picked for *x game*, it comes down to 1.) who's interested and 2.) where does it land on their hierarchy of wants for the month. Some PS exclusives I've covered here were the result of me being the only person to sign up -- or at least put it high up on my hierarchy. I'm not sure how confident any other writers were that they were getting their PS5 on launch. Since my package seemed secure, I figured I'd give Astro's Playroom a look. I remember Death Stranding being a similar case: I showed the most interest out of the crew and went from there. I was initially going to review Returnal, but the tea leaves warned me I'd not get to it for a long time. I can't remember the particular details, but it was between Paul and someone else to see if they could finish by the site's deadline. Miles Morales was my "first dibs" win: the losers of previous tiebreakers get first dibs in the event of the next tiebreaker. [3] I'm going to provide a bit of pushback against the Nintendo counter-example. There's more nuance to it since I've been here. Just look some of Paul's output to see what I mean: Monster Hunter Rise, Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, Xenoblade Chronicles: Definitive Edition. Hilariously enough, the most popular Age of Calamity comment was pointing out how it's lower than the lowest on MC! Obviously this doesn't cover the whole breadth of Nintendo exclusive reviews, but I thought it's worth inserting. Perhaps part of your suspicions stem back from less churn of potential Nintendo reviewers than of Playstation ones. Had I started a bit sooner, I would've likely been the one guy to cover all key 2019 PS exclusives (if I had the time): Days Gone, Death Stranding, Concrete Genie, and MediEvil remaster. It's like I'm in the middle of the intersection between available reviewers who stick around & those most interested in tackling this title. Since a few more writers have secured PS5s and have some more free time I don't see it staying that way. |
I'll do the numbering thing 'cause I think it just makes it clearer what I'm responding to at any given time.
[1] I'm just using MC as an arbitrary gauge simply to have a gauge. Ain't meaning to imply you gotta agree with the average critic. I know I disagree with the critical consensus fairly often. I mean the fact is that I do look at what a game's average review score is and consider that before I buy it. It's not the only thing I consider by any means, but it is something, and I suspect that's the case for most people. That I think does reveal that most of us do indeed tend to place at lease some credence on these things.
[2] Well that makes sense.
[3] I didn't even read those reviews because I wasn't interested in any of those games myself. Didn't realize that Paul had reviewed any Nintendo games since giving Luigi's Mansion 3 a score of 6! And yes, I've noticed that the two of you have a penchant for scoring first-party games in general, and indeed many video games in general, worse than most would, and conversely some other, typically more obscure titles, much higher than most people would. Just, like you say, contrarian views of things, I guess. Sometimes I feel like that too. Prolly why I prioritized getting a Series X before PS5 (and now kinda regret that decision). Or for example, whereas most people buy Nintendo systems primarily for Nintendo games, by contrast when the Switch initially launched in early 2017 to immense commercial success, I wasn't interested. I bought mine only after the announcement of Metroid Prime 4 at that year's E3, mainly for the promise of that game. To this day, I own but a handful of Nintendo games for it and use it almost exclusively to play indie games. (It's become my default indie machine, and it sure looks like it's gonna remain so, I might add.) Conversely, I like PlayStation systems these days for the first-party libraries and largely ignore mainstream third-party publishers altogether (simply no interest in the latest Assassin's Creeds and such). So yeah, in some respects, I think I understand and even share this strong sense of independence.
Anyway, getting back to the subject of VGC's official reviews, I was thinking of more high-profile Nintendo games like the cases of Paper Mario: The Origami King and Animal Crossing: New Horizons, falling within the same window of time, for example. Both of these titles were reviewed by others and scored an 8, which is higher than VGC has scored any Sony title to my knowledge in years now. In fact, as I recall, the former was the leading VGC staff pick for Game of the Year! I believe these facts by themselves serve as an adequate counterpoint. (Nothing against either, mind you. I've enjoyed them both (and Luigi's Mansion 3 
) plenty myself. Just pointing out a contrast.)
It would be funny if like I were to do an official game review, I think. I don't believe the world's ready for that. 
