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

Forums - Gaming - 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
Rogerioandrade on 04 October 2013

The scores increases as much as companies pay their lobbists inside gaming websites and magazines do order so.



Around the Network
Anfebious on 04 October 2013

I think Super Mario Galaxy deserves that score. The game was near perfect.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Wright on 04 October 2013
Anfebious said:
I think Super Mario Galaxy deserves that score. The game was near perfect.


But do you think the sequel - a game that largely did nothing else than put the same gameplay than its predecessor, added some new costumes and change the way the ship moved through galaxies - deserved such the same score?



Anfebious on 04 October 2013
Wright said:
Anfebious said:
I think Super Mario Galaxy deserves that score. The game was near perfect.


But do you think the sequel - a game that largely did nothing else than put the same gameplay than its predecessor, added some new costumes and change the way the ship moved through galaxies - deserved such the same score?

Well it was certainly weird. Super Mario Galaxy 2 was quite good but yeah 97 again was kind of pushing it xD. Maybe a 92 or a 91!



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

IsawYoshi on 04 October 2013

If people would stop the god damned death threats they might have gotten something else.



Around the Network
binary solo on 04 October 2013
Michael-5 said:
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.

I know you were trying to be balanced and name exclusive franchises across all platforms, but you can't really list TLOU among those other franchises in the OP and equate it to them as a brand name game when Mario has been around for 25 years and Forza and Halo span 2 console generations and several games including spin offs. I think you should have listed Uncharted at least that's a 3 (4 if you count Golden Abyss) game series. Though there's no way you can say UC2 got a free ride when UC:DF got very good but not stellar reviews and wasn't a GOTY darling. You're probably right that being a Naughty Dog game kind of gives a game an automatic 0.2-0.5 (out of ten) boost before many reviewers even take the disc out of the case.

Honestly though I think a lot of people would say that at least in the case of GTA IV, and also GTA V according to Yahtzee at least http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8193-Grand-Theft-Auto-5 would be good examples of games that get reviewers drooling before they receive it in the mail.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

ListerOfSmeg on 04 October 2013
think-man said:
ListerOfSmeg said:
Oh it happens. Just look at GTA4. I don't know how many but a few reviewers came back after the fact and said they regretted scoring it so high.
I am not sure how anyone can say Nintendo games though. They are judged harsher than any other company.
W101 for example. I read 3 different reviews that said the game would be AAA if it was on PS3 or 360 but because it was on Wii U it was docked points.

Where did you read that? Id like to read those reviews.


The Wonderful 101 had a lot of potential, but by being a Wii U exclusive and forcing the implementation of the GamePad and touchscreen that potential was squandered. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but the Wii U’s latest exclusive game is made worse by being exclusive. - See more at: http://stevivor.com/review/wonderful-101/#sthash.GUDA9wim.dpuf

Looking for the other review now where the reviewer says exactly "Had it been on any other platform it would have been a quality title", but it takes a while to go through them honestly. Took me about 30 minutes of backtracking to find that one.



AZWification on 04 October 2013

     Duh. GTAV is full of flaws, but yet it has 97 on metacritic.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Mythmaker1 on 04 October 2013
Michael-5 said:
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.

In my view, the ability to respawn is no excuse for arbitrary deaths. It's simply bad design; it's effective, but it's also cheap and lazy. And there were indeed arbitrary deaths that the player could not reasonably expect to avoid.

The same is true with quick-time events. There is a reason why people disparage "Press-X-to-not-die" quick-time events. They are a fundamentally lazy design element.

There's no denying the game is good, but it's also riddled with bad design choices. Back in the early 2000's, many of these elements were relatively new, and the "science" of game reviewing was still being developed. Today, while I think the game would definitely score highly, I think much of that design would be more easily recognized for what it is.



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

Michael-5 on 04 October 2013
binary solo said:
Michael-5 said:
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.

I know you were trying to be balanced and name exclusive franchises across all platforms, but you can't really list TLOU among those other franchises in the OP and equate it to them as a brand name game when Mario has been around for 25 years and Forza and Halo span 2 console generations and several games including spin offs. I think you should have listed Uncharted at least that's a 3 (4 if you count Golden Abyss) game series. Though there's no way you can say UC2 got a free ride when UC:DF got very good but not stellar reviews and wasn't a GOTY darling. You're probably right that being a Naughty Dog game kind of gives a game an automatic 0.2-0.5 (out of ten) boost before many reviewers even take the disc out of the case.

Honestly though I think a lot of people would say that at least in the case of GTA IV, and also GTA V according to Yahtzee at least http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8193-Grand-Theft-Auto-5 would be good examples of games that get reviewers drooling before they receive it in the mail.

Well obviously nothing is as big of a brand as Mario, but The Last of Us is looking to outsell Skyward Sword. The Age of the IP in this case has nothing to do with the brand image, a lot of people bought this game because it was Naughty Dog, and Naughy Dog is an infamous developer, which in itself is a brand. It's not a big as Nintendo, but Naughty Dog is as big as Bethesda/Bioware/Epic Games, etc.

I like Uncharted, I think it deserves high scores, but TLoU not so much. I feel that game got inflated scores because people looked at who developed it. It's still good, just not amazing.

Mythmaker1 said:

In my view, the ability to respawn is no excuse for arbitrary deaths. It's simply bad design; it's effective, but it's also cheap and lazy. And there were indeed arbitrary deaths that the player could not reasonably expect to avoid.

The same is true with quick-time events. There is a reason why people disparage "Press-X-to-not-die" quick-time events. They are a fundamentally lazy design element.

There's no denying the game is good, but it's also riddled with bad design choices. Back in the early 2000's, many of these elements were relatively new, and the "science" of game reviewing was still being developed. Today, while I think the game would definitely score highly, I think much of that design would be more easily recognized for what it is.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion I disagree with you, I loved the design of RE4, but to each their own.

I think in the mid 2000's quick time events were welcome, but now.... it depends on the game. I loved them in Vanquish for example, but they weren't sudden, you experienced one every time you had a near miss with a boss or are finishing him off.

P.S. Don't play Too Human. You die frequently (there is actually an achievement for dying 100 times), and the game forces you to watch a 15 second clip before respawning.



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