By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do Brand name games get inflated scores based on hype?

Tagged games:

 

Do Brand name games get inflated scores?

Yes, all the time 65 50.00%
 
Yes, 1st party games in general 5 3.85%
 
Yes, exclusives in general 4 3.08%
 
Yes, Microsoft Exclusives in general 7 5.38%
 
Yes, Nintendo Exclusives in general 6 4.62%
 
Yes, Sony Exclusives in General 7 5.38%
 
Maybe, for some high volume games 20 15.38%
 
Not really, but it does happen 8 6.15%
 
No, every high rated game is just awesome 2 1.54%
 
See Results 5 3.85%
 
Total:129
binary solo said:
I don't know how TLOU is a brand name game, it's a totally new IP so the only brand name is Naughty Dog. I don't think reviewers see the sun shining out of Naughty Dog's arse. Though I personally have loved every single game that has come out of this studio. Ergo in the case of TLOU my personal opinion is that it is a bad example to citein the OP for 2 reasons: it's a bloody fantastic game AND it isn't a brand name game unlike all of the other well worn franchises cited in the OP.

I think some brand name games get higher reviews than they should. But in other cases sub-par brand name games definitely take a hit from reviewers, God of War: Ascension being a good example. I think it got the reviews is deserved, which is considerably lower scores than the GoW trilogy.

Naughty Dog is often refered to as the crown dev in Sony's first party dev studios. Uncharted was a great franchise, and it gave this studio a big name, and I feel Last of Us only got the 10/10 on IGN and a 95 metascore because it's the Naughty Dog brand name. Yes I consider devs a brand, just like many might say Nintendo, Rockstar, or Bungie are brand name studios.

I agree with you about scores in general though, it varies, depends largely on hype. God of War Ascension didn't have much hype so bad reviews were plenty, but something like Halo, no matter how bad it is, will always get good scores.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Around the Network
Michael-5 said:
Mythmaker1 said:
Michael-5 said:
Mythmaker1 said:
To a degree, yes.

96 - Resident Evil 4
94 - Gears of War

I fu**ing loved these two games. Resident Evil 4 is by far the best Resident Evil, and I don't think any survival horror will ever match it.

Gears of War 1 was pretty awesome too, so melancholy. That Mad World commercial was just amazing.

Maybe highly rated score are good, just haters gonna hate?

My problem with Resident Evil 4 has much to do with its punishing difficulty. Sign-posting is a major issue, long series of quick-time events are tedious to work through, and the game often decides to insta-kill you with no warning. A good game, certainly, but with significant issues.

Gears of War was fine, but nothing special. The gameplay was a bit too shallow for me to really appreciate it, and the plot was perhaps overly simplistic.

Not exactly sure what you mean by the last bit...

You thought Resident Evil 4 was difficult? Have you ever played something like Ninja Gaiden, Too Human, Devil May Cry, or even Vanquish's Challenge Mode? I thought RE4 was a bit on the easy side, but the quick time events were a bit tedious.

For the last bit, maybe highly reviewed games are awesome, and as individuals, we all might disagree with a game or two (you think RE4 is over-rated, I thing MGS4 is over-rated, etc).

Not simply difficult, punishing.

When you die in a game, there should be some indication that death was earned, like if you charged in recklessly and just died. In this game, however, it's common to encounter a situation where you will die because the game blind-sided you with something you couldn't possibly see coming. Instant-kill attacks or quick-time events you couldn't possibly see coming. Invincible enemies (or semi-invincible enemies) that you should run from, and not fight, but the game doesn't tell you that's the case. And quite a few times, I had rage-inducing glitches that forced me to restart from earlier saves to clear, but that might have just been a PS2 problem.

As far as the that sentiment, yes and no. RE4 is not the best example, since the game came out a while back, and standards were a bit less defined back then. I decided to put it on the list mostly because it was the last thing I personally played.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

Michael-5 said:
Mythmaker1 said:
To a degree, yes.

96 - Resident Evil 4
94 - Gears of War

I fu**ing loved these two games. Resident Evil 4 is by far the best Resident Evil, and I don't think any survival horror will ever match it.

Gears of War 1 was pretty awesome too, so melancholy. That Mad World commercial was just amazing.

Maybe highly rated score are good, just haters gonna hate?

You asked people to post games that they think are overrated and don't deserve the scores.

Resident Evil 4 isn't a survival horror.  It's a shooter, so saying no survival horror will match it really depends on what you're saying.  If you're saying no survival horror will match it as a shooter, then you're probably right, but if a survival horror game won't match it as a survival horror, then you're wrong. 

The thing is, Resident Evil 4 is only as highly praised as it is because it's a console shooter when the majority of console shooters were lackluster compared to PC shooters.  Last gen you weren't going to find a good shooter on consoles other than a few.  But I doubt the massive praise for Resident Evil 4 came from it being a poor mans shooter.  It came from being a good console shooter with some of the best graphics of last gen.  Graphics played a large role in this game being overhyped as much as it was.

Forget about graphics and think about just Resident Evil 4's shooting system.  Resident Evil 4 when aiming you were stuck to the ground.  No moving while you were aiming.  There was no straffing in the game regardless if you were aiming or not, the game was a shooter that used Resident Evil tank controls.  In order to switch weapons you had to open your menu.  All things that your average shooter would be slammed for if it had those problems.  The enemies in Resident Evil 4 also posed very little threat as they were slow brain dead morons.  You've got all this firepower and the enemies pretty much didn't even try. 

Let's compare it to another shooting game that got slammed.  Dirge of Cerberus had good graphics, but not quite as good as Resident Evil, included useless features, like the ability to jump, and being a Final Fantasy game, it wasn't an RPG.  All those played part in the game receiving low scores, while the actual gameplay was actually quite good.  In Dirge of Cerberus, it was an RPG shooter, but it still had all the makings of a good shooter.  Vincent could move, aim, and shoot all at the same time, he could switch weapons to one of three different custom set ups without opening a menu to make that change.  He wasn't limited on his movement by tank controls.  Additionally, the enemies fought back, shooting you, running up to you and attacking you, etc.  The game actually posed a challenge.

Now Resident Evil 4 was a decent shooter, and I'd probably rate it the same as I would Dirge of Cerberus, but not because Resident Evil 4 is the better game.  Dirge of Cerberus has better gameplay mechanics while Resident Evil 4 has better story and graphics.  Overall they'd probably come out the same when averaged together.  Not saying Dirge of Cerberus is on the level of a game like  Unreal Tournament or Uncharted when it comes to shooters, but it's better than Resident Evil 4, and again, gameplay only.

All the perfect 10s Resident Evil 4 got, it's like people that praise it just looked over the fact that it had massive flaws in its game design. 

Resident Evil 5 is a better game because you can play it with friends.  Same gameplay, a story that's just as crappy, and graphically it's better, but it's better with a friend.  Apparently it's not as good as Resident Evil 4, despite the fact that Resident Evil 5 fixes some of the problems that Resident Evil 4 has.  Not all the problems of course, but some.  Quick swapping weapons and ammo being more scarce were some welcome additions.  So yeah.  Very weird how Resident Evil 5 gets an 85 rating while Resident Evil 4 is over 10 points higher.  Although scores that neither deserve honestly.



In general i would say that any additional points a game gets from hype are usually countered by those using the low score to draw hits.
Happens a lot less for Mario titles though, the industry seems quite scared of the idea of speaking badly of a hyped mario title.



kupomogli said:
Michael-5 said:
Mythmaker1 said:
To a degree, yes.

96 - Resident Evil 4
94 - Gears of War

I fu**ing loved these two games. Resident Evil 4 is by far the best Resident Evil, and I don't think any survival horror will ever match it.

Gears of War 1 was pretty awesome too, so melancholy. That Mad World commercial was just amazing.

Maybe highly rated score are good, just haters gonna hate?

The thing is, Resident Evil 4 is only as highly praised as it is because it's a console shooter when the majority of console shooters were lackluster compared to PC shooters.  Last gen you weren't going to find a good shooter on consoles other than a few.  But I doubt the massive praise for Resident Evil 4 came from it being a poor mans shooter.  It came from being a good console shooter with some of the best graphics of last gen.  Graphics played a large role in this game being overhyped as much as it was.

The thing is I'm a PC gamer who typically dislikes console shooters and didn't play RE4 til last year, and I'm going to disagree, The survival mechanics and location based damage with takedowns dependent on the location of the shot as well as are far more interesting than anything uncharted does which just sends waves after waves of brainless enemies that you pop behind cover. IMO. The shooting from a different axis as you use the laser pointer and rotate from the body compared to a reticule feels different and interesting. RE has different rules with shooting than typical shooters that works imo. Shooting while moving isn't realistic or necessarily more fun because it gives you too much power. The inability to strafe isn't necessarily more fun, nor is it more realistic because you should be able to shoot while strafing however inaccurately. They both approach it from a different way.

RE5 has better in shooting mechanics, and with awesome co-op. But it has less atmosphere (not saying RE4 has a lot), is pretty unplayable in single player due to the horrid AI mechanics.



Around the Network
ishiki said:

The thing is I'm a PC gamer who typically dislikes console shooters, and I'm going to disagree, The survival mechanics and location based damage with takedowns dependent on the location of the shot as well as are far more interesting than anything uncharted does which just sends waves after waves of brainless enemies. IMO. And the shooting from a different axis as you use the laser pointer compared to a reticule feels different and interesting.

RE5 has better in shooting mechanics, and with awesome co-op. But it has less atmosphere (not saying RE4 has a lot), is pretty unplayable in single player due to the horrid AI mechanics.

Location based damage actually wasn't always consistent.  You could do the same amount of head shots or body shots to take down an enemy, or if the weapon had the critical hit ability, sometimes enemies would die in a single headshot.  So only the abilities made a difference in damage if you shot them in the head.

And unless it was Mercenary mode in Resident Evil 4, while special melee attacks looked cool, you had enough ammo that you didn't really have the need to shoot them in the shoulder or the leg in order to have to do a special melee.  In Resident Evil 5, it was actually really useful because it allowed you to conserve much needed ammo as it didn't grow on trees.     



kupomogli said:
ishiki said:

The thing is I'm a PC gamer who typically dislikes console shooters, and I'm going to disagree, The survival mechanics and location based damage with takedowns dependent on the location of the shot as well as are far more interesting than anything uncharted does which just sends waves after waves of brainless enemies. IMO. And the shooting from a different axis as you use the laser pointer compared to a reticule feels different and interesting.

RE5 has better in shooting mechanics, and with awesome co-op. But it has less atmosphere (not saying RE4 has a lot), is pretty unplayable in single player due to the horrid AI mechanics.

Location based damage actually wasn't always consistent.  You could do four headshots or four body shots to take down an enemy, or if the weapon had the critical hit ability, sometimes enemies would die in a single headshot.  So only the abilities made a difference in damage if you shot them in the head.

And unless it was Mercenary mode in Resident Evil 4, while special melee attacks looked cool, you had enough ammo that you didn't really have the need to shoot them in the shoulder or the leg in order to have to do a special melee.  In Resident Evil 5, it was actually really useful because it allowed you to conserve much needed ammo as it didn't grow on trees.     

Personally I needed to do melee or I ran out of ammo in the difficulty I played it in. Ofcourse there's ways to exploit the game if you know all the rules... And there's guns you can use that are less fun that are just as effective. I can break most older games like FF's by knowing the exact most optimal build. It should most definetely get dinged for that.



ishiki said:

Personally I needed to do melee or I ran out of ammo in the difficulty I played it in.

Unless you played it more than once, then it would have been normal, the same difficulty that I played it in.



Mythmaker1 said:
Michael-5 said:
Mythmaker1 said:

My problem with Resident Evil 4 has much to do with its punishing difficulty. Sign-posting is a major issue, long series of quick-time events are tedious to work through, and the game often decides to insta-kill you with no warning. A good game, certainly, but with significant issues.

Gears of War was fine, but nothing special. The gameplay was a bit too shallow for me to really appreciate it, and the plot was perhaps overly simplistic.

Not exactly sure what you mean by the last bit...

You thought Resident Evil 4 was difficult? Have you ever played something like Ninja Gaiden, Too Human, Devil May Cry, or even Vanquish's Challenge Mode? I thought RE4 was a bit on the easy side, but the quick time events were a bit tedious.

For the last bit, maybe highly reviewed games are awesome, and as individuals, we all might disagree with a game or two (you think RE4 is over-rated, I thing MGS4 is over-rated, etc).

Not simply difficult, punishing.

When you die in a game, there should be some indication that death was earned, like if you charged in recklessly and just died. In this game, however, it's common to encounter a situation where you will die because the game blind-sided you with something you couldn't possibly see coming. Instant-kill attacks or quick-time events you couldn't possibly see coming. Invincible enemies (or semi-invincible enemies) that you should run from, and not fight, but the game doesn't tell you that's the case. And quite a few times, I had rage-inducing glitches that forced me to restart from earlier saves to clear, but that might have just been a PS2 problem. PS2 Problem

As far as the that sentiment, yes and no. RE4 is not the best example, since the game came out a while back, and standards were a bit less defined back then. I decided to put it on the list mostly because it was the last thing I personally played.

I dunno about that. Resident Evil 4 did force you to play carefully, walk into buildings slowly, check your surroundings, make sure you have ammo, but it didn't kill you blindly. Yea there were instant death moments, especially with mutated alagators, or boss area, but when you died you returned to just before you were killed.

I know there were sudden quick time events, challenging ones too, and instances when you're just overcome with enemies, but that's why this is a survival horror game, and not an action game. If Resident Evil 4 didn't force you to watch for bear traps, creep through buildings, and always have an escape route, it would have failed as an action horror game.

Also as for it scoring so well because standards were so lower 9 years ago, I think an HD Resident Evil 4 would still be a highly rated game even today. It might loose points for not being able to run and shoot at the same time, but so many aspects of that game were just so well done. Sales might not be as strong if it released today, but I mean RE5 is still regarded as a good game today, and most RE fans will agree it doesn't hold a candle to RE4.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Yes and no. It goes both ways really

You'll have some reviewers giving high scores by default because they love the series and are caught up in the hype of it all, and you'll have others who are extra critical due to past success and the fact that they're expecting more.

It probably evens out