It's all down to one word. Expectations.

All reviewers, whether from a big game site or a random member like Kantor, write up a review with certain expectations in mind. Usually, these expectations are pretty much the same, depending on the title and genre of the game.

What I'm getting at is there really aren't any "outstanding" games (or rather, there are very few. see below). It all depends on whether a reviewer's expectations were met or not. Let's look at some examples:

1.) Wii casual games aren't a hit with most hardcore reviewers. Not at all. IGN gave Wii Sports a 7.5, and that went on to be the most popular game ever made. The expectation of IGN is something with a story, with depth of gameplay, accuracy of motion, interesting characters, sharp graphics, etc. In other words, they're reviewing with an HD game in mind. Obviously, the millions of people who bought Wii Sports don't have those expectations in mind. The little kids and moms who enjoy the game were only looking for fun aspects and don't care about what hardcore gamers care about. So Wii Sports isn't a bad or good game. It's only good or bad depending on who is playing.

2.) Final Fantasy 13 was given a 39/40 from Famitsu, a Japanese Magazine. Reviews in the West have settled for around 80+. While not a bad score, the difference is quite staggering. This is because Japanese gamers expect a certain type of gameplay mechanic from their RPGs, while Western gamers expect something completely different. Linearity is not something the Japanese hate, because all their RPGs are constructed that way. On the other hand, Westerners create RPGs with freedom of choice in mind, with games such as Oblivion, Fallout, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age. So naturally, when a Westerner reviews the game, they're bound to feel constricted because the freedom of choice that they're used to isn't in the Japanese game. Likewise, when a Japanese plays a Western RPG, they will feel the same kind of confusion. So Final Fantasy 13 is not a bad game. It's actually very good, because it still managed to garner an 80+ score from Westerners despite the glaring difference.

3.) Metal Gear Solid 4 was given 10/10s across the board, but the reviewers, of course, have played the other 3 games in the series already. They aren't even aware that they're reviewing from a certain mindset of "a Metal Gear fan". Only the Eurogamer review pointed out that new fans of the series would be lost because of the sheer complexity of the story and the overwhelming length of the cutscenes. When my brother played this game, he couldn't stand it for more than 20 minutes. He hated it so much because of precisely what Eurogamer said. Obviously, Metal Gear is only good for a certain type of gamer, that being a person who already knows the story by heart. Now if Konami had decided to welcome new fans into the series, the old fans would complain about the game being "an improper sendoff to a legendary hero".

4.) Demon's Souls is a game I truly hated, but most people on these forums and other hardcore gamer sites loved. If I were to review the game myself, I would only give it a 6/10, though Gamespot awarded it Game of the Year. My complaints of course stem from the grinding nature of the game, because I've come to expect variety when I play RPGs. Of course, Gamespot loved the idea of having an unforgiving game. So this is another game engineered for only particular types of fans, and not for anyone else. Everyone else who is not a hardcore fan will absolutely hate the game.

Reviews need to be fair to all gamers, not just a specific part of the population. A game can't be pronounced "outstanding" unless all types of gamers will appreciate it. They can be good, since they cater to a specific audience, but they can't be outstanding.

So what is a truly "outstanding" game?

An "outstanding" game is something that everyone can pick up and enjoy, regardless of expectations. There are very few of these in the market today. The only game that I've observed that enjoys universal acclaim is LittleBigPlanet. Hardcore gaming sites love it. Casuals like my sister in law and niece love it. Moderate gamers like my brother love it. Nobody has ever given it a bad review.

Anyway, there. All I really want to say is that reviewers should do a couple of things when they review a particular game. They should:

1.) Keep their expectations in check.

2.) Think of other types of gamers apart from themselves.



Anyway, completely my opinion. Of course, I personally am guilty of having expectations and reviewing games based on them alone.

Follow ur own taste, we all been gaming enough to know the kind of games we appreciate and shouldn't need to rely on a review, number or Meta. Thats my thing ppl somehow put too much power in the hands of somebody else even when they possibly have the Xxperience previous installments or something similar themselves.... it is soo weird to me..almost sheepish in a way and the reviewers are the herders

good read

I strongly disagree. Something can be outstanding and still not accessible to those who don't feel like putting in the time to learn or understand the piece. There are plenty of outstanding games that a large portion of the population would hate because they're too difficult (SotC, for example).

The fact that some people don't want to stop and examine films like Apocalypse Now doesn't make the film any less magnificent. Some things aren't going to be easy to understand and they shouldn't have points taken away for it.

^ it's only a great movie based on your expectations. from my expectations too, it's a great movie. but from a random fan's point of view, the story is confusing.

so what are we, if we say that people need to put some effort into understanding something? aren't we just being elitist? aren't we like saying "eh, you don't understand because you're just a layman"?

so are we living in a world where there are two standards of greatness, one for the "real fan" and one for the "layman"? i don't think so. i believe that a random person's opinion is just as important as a senior editor's. after all, that senior editor will pay the exact same money as the layman to play a game or watch a movie.

i don't believe that we should turn elitist. and neither should reviewers.

It's not a matter of turning elitist, it's a matter of expecting the audience to give something to get something back. Not all pieces need to do this but some of the more complex pieces will require some audience effort and participation.

When I first walked into Apocalypse Now, I knew two things: it was a Vietnam movie and it was supposed to be good. I had few expectations going in and the movie blew my mind.

^ we might think we have few expectations coming into something, but our preconceived ideas and background in entertainment can't help but control our point of view.

the best example is mgs4. most reviewers have played the first 3 to death, and have no idea what a new player must feel when playing the game. it's very very unlikely for a new player to enjoy it at all because it's far too thick into it's own. but reviewers praised it to heaven because they were thinking in the mindset of a fan of the series.

just like us watching a movie like "lost in translation". i have very little knowledge about the plot (actually i have no idea what it was about). but before watching it, i knew it was about japan, a country that i love, and it has bill murray, an actor i admire, and that it's been nominated for an academy award. so in my mind "it has to be good". that in itself can influence me already as to whether or not i will enjoy the movie, even if i'm not aware of it. when i had my dad watch it, he fell asleep coz he didn't know anything that i knew.

what i'm saying is, preconceived expectations can really influence our decisions and most of the time we have no idea at all.

Expectations. Very true.

what's with the two and three word responses? :P

Then replace Apocalypse Now with Punch Drunk Love, a movie I knew nothing of, had no one in it of whom I am a fan, and yet still loved.

Expectations do factor into certain things but for others, they're irrelevant or contradictory. MGS4 was reviewed poorly because reviewers are, by and large, a group of sophomoric idiots, not because they had expectations coming in about the previous games. Using your basis of argument, it's unfair to reward Return of the King with any rewards because if people didn't see Fellowship or Two Towers, they'd be missing 75% of the story. After all, to fully appreciate the film, it's expected that the audience put in anywhere from 5-7 hours of "work" to see the first two films.