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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Proof that reviewers are biased towards HD games.

hsrob on 17 November 2009
Procrastinato said:
hsrob said:

You talk about story and so on but surely that hasn't changed since the first release and was incorporated into the original score. Besides a resolution boost, far and away superior how?

p.s. Most people buy HDTV's because they look nice, take up less space than CRT TV's and these days there's no other option. There were CRT HDTV's around before LCD's that had superior picture quality to pretty much any LCD/plasma released prior to this year, yet they were superceded.

edit: I should say I actually really don't care about the reviews per se.  I have Prime Trilogy and will get to play GOW HD.

Wow man.  Just wow.  People were forced into buying HDTVs, even though CRTs looked better?

That one put a smile on my face.  You made me laugh, and I appreciate that.

No need to be facetious my friend but do some reading before you dis CRTs

HD CRT's had easily better picture quality than the LCD's/plasmas of 2003/4, i.e. a better representation of HD which you claim is so important.  Yet they were outsold, why?  Because the form factor of LCD's/plasmas is much better; they are much more stylish looking, they take up a lost less space and yet you can get screen sizes significantly above 90cm, which was pretty much the limit of CRTs.

My point is not that people would now choose HD CRT TVs, it's that at a time when the option existed, people choose plasma and LCDs but picture quality obviously wasn't the deciding factor.

 



Around the Network
Zlejedi on 18 November 2009

This thread made me laughting.

Of course reviewers are biased towards HD graphics - that's because they look much better.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

jarrod on 18 November 2009
outlawauron said:
jarrod said:
almcchesney said:
and graphics is objective, either its better or not,

Not true, visuals are also subjective (Okami PS2 vs Wii for example).  Even when supposedly "improved" (SMB1/2/3 vs All-Stars for example).  Someone could legitimately prefer the visuals in GOW1/2 PS2 vs the Collection, and can't be faulted for that (though they can be argued against with another subjective view, similar to analog vs pointer controls).

Objective measure in graphics is limited solely to technical aspects (and this can apply to controls too, pointer is technically faster and more accurate than analog), and game reviews tend not to measure that but the sum visual result (which is again, inherently subjective).

Art style is subjective, but things like technical graphics, frame rate, screen tearing, etc. are completely objective.

That's... uh, pretty much what I said.  But game reviews tend not to be technical dissections (at least not the good ones), they're really reviewing the end result.  From an art perspective, it's also possible to prefer the PS2 originals over the Collection.  Just as it's possible to prefer the slower, less accurate, less direct controls in the GameCube Primes to the Trilogy versions.



irstupid on 18 November 2009
Zlejedi said:
This thread made me laughting.

Of course reviewers are biased towards HD graphics - that's because they look much better.

so then all movie remakes, and things like star wars 1-3 are of course WAY better than the ealier ones because they look better right?

 

all other forms of media critics/reviewers are fooled by the pretty colors (ha or lack of in video games).  How come just the video game industry is so swayed by pretty looking things



dobby985 on 18 November 2009

This thread is fail! What is a couple of points anyway?



Around the Network
Kenryoku_Maxis on 18 November 2009
irstupid said:
Zlejedi said:
This thread made me laughting.

Of course reviewers are biased towards HD graphics - that's because they look much better.

so then all movie remakes, and things like star wars 1-3 are of course WAY better than the ealier ones because they look better right?

 

all other forms of media critics/reviewers are fooled by the pretty colors (ha or lack of in video games).  How come just the video game industry is so swayed by pretty looking things

Well, we also need to disect it a little further than just graphics.  I mean, in America, graphics have always seemed to be a major selling point for games, even going back to the Atari and NES days.  While in Japan, graphics aren't as important as other selling points such as name brands.  So you can say that in America, gamers have always been obsessed with graphics, and reviewers just cater to that (especially since the HD systems were practically built towards pushing better graphics).

Obviously though, reviewers shouldn't just focus on graphics, they should report and review everything about a game.  And since they seemingly are upscoring games based on those graphics, its somewhat ruining their credibility.  I mean, last gen it was a lot harder to get higher scores, with even good games getting an avg score around 7.5-8.5.  And now its like most hyped or 'high quality' 360/PS3 games get some kind of score between 9.0-9.8.  And of course the whole GTAIV getting a 10 on a lot of sites.  Which is funny since it didn't even have the best graphics compared to many games, but many sites gave it a 10 for graphics anyway, like IGN.



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Barozi on 18 November 2009
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
irstupid said:
Zlejedi said:
This thread made me laughting.

Of course reviewers are biased towards HD graphics - that's because they look much better.

so then all movie remakes, and things like star wars 1-3 are of course WAY better than the ealier ones because they look better right?

 

all other forms of media critics/reviewers are fooled by the pretty colors (ha or lack of in video games).  How come just the video game industry is so swayed by pretty looking things

Well, we also need to disect it a little further than just graphics.  I mean, in America, graphics have always seemed to be a major selling point for games, even going back to the Atari and NES days.  While in Japan, graphics aren't as important as other selling points such as name brands.  So you can say that in America, gamers have always been obsessed with graphics, and reviewers just cater to that (especially since the HD systems were practically built towards pushing better graphics).

Obviously though, reviewers shouldn't just focus on graphics, they should report and review everything about a game.  And since they seemingly are upscoring games based on those graphics, its somewhat ruining their credibility.  I mean, last gen it was a lot harder to get higher scores, with even good games getting an avg score around 7.5-8.5.  And now its like most hyped or 'high quality' 360/PS3 games get some kind of score between 9.0-9.8.  And of course the whole GTAIV getting a 10 on a lot of sites.  Which is funny since it didn't even have the best graphics compared to many games, but many sites gave it a 10 for graphics anyway, like IGN.

I agree on GTA4, but this is just false.



Kenryoku_Maxis on 18 November 2009
Barozi said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
irstupid said:
Zlejedi said:
This thread made me laughting.

Of course reviewers are biased towards HD graphics - that's because they look much better.

so then all movie remakes, and things like star wars 1-3 are of course WAY better than the ealier ones because they look better right?

 

all other forms of media critics/reviewers are fooled by the pretty colors (ha or lack of in video games).  How come just the video game industry is so swayed by pretty looking things

Well, we also need to disect it a little further than just graphics.  I mean, in America, graphics have always seemed to be a major selling point for games, even going back to the Atari and NES days.  While in Japan, graphics aren't as important as other selling points such as name brands.  So you can say that in America, gamers have always been obsessed with graphics, and reviewers just cater to that (especially since the HD systems were practically built towards pushing better graphics).

Obviously though, reviewers shouldn't just focus on graphics, they should report and review everything about a game.  And since they seemingly are upscoring games based on those graphics, its somewhat ruining their credibility.  I mean, last gen it was a lot harder to get higher scores, with even good games getting an avg score around 7.5-8.5.  And now its like most hyped or 'high quality' 360/PS3 games get some kind of score between 9.0-9.8.  And of course the whole GTAIV getting a 10 on a lot of sites.  Which is funny since it didn't even have the best graphics compared to many games, but many sites gave it a 10 for graphics anyway, like IGN.

I agree on GTA4, but this is just false.

Well, just looking at IGN alone, and just looking at their PS3 section, you have GTAIV, MGSIV, World at War and Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, Little Big Planet, Uncharted and Uncharted 2, Assassins Creed II, Resistance 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Street Fighter IV, Tekken 6, Prince of Persia, Infamous, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, both Rachet and Clank....the list goes on.  All major hyped games above 9.0.  Sure, some of them probably deserve the title.  But it also probably shows a degree of upscoring towards the PS3 due to hype and graphics when so many games are appearing above 9.0.  I mean come on, is 9.0 the new 8.0?  Or better yet, is the ratings system the new masure for 'popularity'?



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Barozi on 18 November 2009
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
Barozi said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
irstupid said:
Zlejedi said:
This thread made me laughting.

Of course reviewers are biased towards HD graphics - that's because they look much better.

so then all movie remakes, and things like star wars 1-3 are of course WAY better than the ealier ones because they look better right?

 

all other forms of media critics/reviewers are fooled by the pretty colors (ha or lack of in video games).  How come just the video game industry is so swayed by pretty looking things

Well, we also need to disect it a little further than just graphics.  I mean, in America, graphics have always seemed to be a major selling point for games, even going back to the Atari and NES days.  While in Japan, graphics aren't as important as other selling points such as name brands.  So you can say that in America, gamers have always been obsessed with graphics, and reviewers just cater to that (especially since the HD systems were practically built towards pushing better graphics).

Obviously though, reviewers shouldn't just focus on graphics, they should report and review everything about a game.  And since they seemingly are upscoring games based on those graphics, its somewhat ruining their credibility.  I mean, last gen it was a lot harder to get higher scores, with even good games getting an avg score around 7.5-8.5.  And now its like most hyped or 'high quality' 360/PS3 games get some kind of score between 9.0-9.8.  And of course the whole GTAIV getting a 10 on a lot of sites.  Which is funny since it didn't even have the best graphics compared to many games, but many sites gave it a 10 for graphics anyway, like IGN.

I agree on GTA4, but this is just false.

Well, just looking at IGN alone, and just looking at their PS3 section, you have GTAIV, MGSIV, World at War and Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, Little Big Planet, Uncharted and Uncharted 2, Assassins Creed II, Resistance 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Street Fighter IV, Tekken 6, Prince of Persia, Infamous, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, both Rachet and Clank....the list goes on.  All major hyped games above 9.0.  Sure, some of them probably deserve the title.  But it also probably shows a degree of upscoring towards the PS3 due to hype and graphics when so many games are appearing above 9.0.  I mean come on, is 9.0 the new 8.0?  Or better yet, is the ratings system the new masure for 'popularity'?

While IGN is a bit generous with their scores in the last time, I was talking about all reviewers. Take a look at Metacritic and you'll see that just as many games (often of course hyped games) got 90+ scores last gen.

It's no surprise that the majority of hyped games have the best scores, I mean afterall they were hyped for a reason.

And yet there are still hyped games like Assassins Creed, Ninja Gaiden 2, Halo 3 ODST, Mirror's Edge & Prototype which are far away from the 90+ zone.



Smidlee on 18 November 2009
hsrob said:
Procrastinato said:
hsrob said:

You talk about story and so on but surely that hasn't changed since the first release and was incorporated into the original score. Besides a resolution boost, far and away superior how?

p.s. Most people buy HDTV's because they look nice, take up less space than CRT TV's and these days there's no other option. There were CRT HDTV's around before LCD's that had superior picture quality to pretty much any LCD/plasma released prior to this year, yet they were superceded.

edit: I should say I actually really don't care about the reviews per se.  I have Prime Trilogy and will get to play GOW HD.

Wow man.  Just wow.  People were forced into buying HDTVs, even though CRTs looked better?

That one put a smile on my face.  You made me laugh, and I appreciate that.

No need to be facetious my friend but do some reading before you dis CRTs

HD CRT's had easily better picture quality than the LCD's/plasmas of 2003/4, i.e. a better representation of HD which you claim is so important.  Yet they were outsold, why?  Because the form factor of LCD's/plasmas is much better; they are much more stylish looking, they take up a lost less space and yet you can get screen sizes significantly above 90cm, which was pretty much the limit of CRTs.

My point is not that people would now choose HD CRT TVs, it's that at a time when the option existed, people choose plasma and LCDs but picture quality obviously wasn't the deciding factor.

 

CRT looks better than LCD/Plama when it comes to smaller size screen but CRT doesn't look so well after they get so big. They lose sharpeness on the sides as the beam in the tube has to bend more. (4:3 is more ideal for CRT than 16:9)   With LCD/Plamas you can get 42" , 52", etc. with a lot sharper picture.