The Hot Topic Returns

[shinymcshine]

Venetica was a cracking little RPG game, that bizzarely got dumped on, with Destructiod giving it 30%.

 

At least players mostly ranked it properly on Metacritic:

 

[one-armed dwarf]

What I think as well though is people need to look past the metascore if they want to get a better idea. I've said that a lot I know, but it's such a blunt and crude way to decide if something is worth your time.

 

I've talked a lot on here about Pathologic 2, I won't talk about it more here. But I think that game has like a 50 or 60 metascore and I can see why cause it's an un-reviewable game. It's a big 'fuck you' to doing reviews as a job. It's also a game I put up there with BOTW for having some really great game design ideas, sadly let down tho by the cheapness of the overall product and lots of bugs (and an unfinished story, the original was supposed to be about seeing an narrative from 3 different perspectives and how that can turn your impression of certain characters and story events around)

 

If you rely on Metacritic though you will never hear about or care about a game like that. 

 

Nier is probably one of the few exceptions I can think of where a game like that got given a second chance by it's much more polished and critically acclaimed sequel leading to its remake. It still kinda divided opinions, but it got a platform the second time around. Purely I think cause a lot of the reviewers the second time where people who already loved the original, which also speaks to the subjectivity of it all. I'm sure there's a few who would argue that the critics got it right the first time around looking at the discussions on the Nier thread 🤣

[OCH]

We had a Local Blockbuster equivalent during the 16 bit era. The games were often very cheap to buy, being ex-rental. That was our qualifier. Brand new games were expensive and as we were kids, limited to Birthdays and Christmas. Yet £5 every now and then was more tolerable to our parents. Some games were great IE Rolo to the Rescue, Spider-Man vs. The Kingpin. But not every game was a winner. A game called Super Hydlide comes to mind. But we judged how good each game was, ourselves.

It is for reasons like that, wherein I tend to only look to reviews of games, films, TV etc after purchase.

[HandsomeDead]

Just play what you like and let everyone else do the same.  It's largely the same kind of people with similar tastes that work in games criticism, I'd say moreso than other creative media.  So that's why there is more of a consensus and that's what results in these kinds of conversations.  

 

The whole overrated idea is cancer to conversations about games, and anything else.

 

It's trite to say but it's all subjective, we get different things from different games (or even the same game), we have different things that do and don't irk us and trying to quantify it is so pointless.  

 

So the boys in California can say what they like, I may even agree at times but they're not the authority and there shouldn't be one.

[mmmark]

25 minutes ago, HandsomeDead said:

The whole overrated idea is cancer to conversations about games, and anything else.

👆

[Sly Reflex]

You can already guess mine.

[DANGERMAN]

34 minutes ago, HandsomeDead said:

 

The whole overrated idea is cancer to conversations about games, and anything else.

 

It's trite to say but it's all subjective, we get different things from different games (or even the same game), we have different things that do and don't irk us and trying to quantify it is so pointless.  

 

 

that's kind of redundant isn't it? They're opinions, so long as people can back it up with a critique of the game, film, music, whatever, I don't see a problem

[Nag]

10 minutes ago, Sly Reflex said:

You can already guess mine.

 

Tell us so there can be no doubt...

[Maf]

The only Nintendo game called out so far which I think is definitely overhyped is Paper Mario, specifically The Thousand Year Door. That’s not even a Metacritic thing either, the amount of times I see it on lists or be mentioned in great RPG’s and all this…Like it’s a good video game. But massively too long and outstays it’s welcome. I would still probably rate it a weak 8/10 or something but people talk about it like it’s a game to sacrifice virgins too. 
 

Mario & Luigi RPG’s, though? Where are the virgins time for sacrificing. Particularly the first 3 are gold. I didn’t play any after that because they ruined the art style but those first 3? Man. That some excellent video gaming.

 

Circle back quickly to Origami King. Loved it. Genuinely thought it was funny, creative, every new world introduced surprise and took a turn I didn’t see coming. With the faceless toads and a character actually dies in it. Metacritic gives it a 80. I’m saying that’s underrated. It’s a fucking 9/10. That games great.
 

I dunno. Nintendo certainly has their b-tier video games. Tri-Force Heroes, Metroid Football, Mario Party, etc. But they all end up in the 6/7 range which is probably appropriate. I’m not playing them but that sounds reasonable. Not shovel ware, not high quality games. Just kind of half assed stuff with a brand name on it. 

[OCH]

I'd agree with Thousand Year Door. It does outlive its welcome pretty quickly. I've played really long RPG's that feel worthwhile spending a protracted amount of time in their world. That wasn't one of them. Given the same roughly 20-30 hour mark the amazing M&L series had, Paper Mario would have benefited from it.

 

Yet, as we discussed back then, Origami King left me cold. I dunno, maybe it is me. But the last few Nintendo first party releases have given me a more negative vibe than those in the past. Skyward Sword, Other M, Odyssey, BOTW, Origami King.

[Maryokutai]

3 hours ago, shinymcshine said:

Venetica was a cracking little RPG game, that bizzarely got dumped on, with Destructiod giving it 30%.

 

Wow, I didn't even realise that got such a bad reception overseas. Back when it came out I was mostly in my German bubble (it's from a German studio) and it got really positive feedback over there, which I would totally co-sign, it's one of my favourite games from that generation.

 

I guess you could argue that the console ports were a bit wonky but if you get past some of the framerate hiccups and the complete lack of anti-aliasing it's a really good RPG with a very likeable lead.

[Maf]

38 minutes ago, OCH said:

Skyward Sword, Other M, Odyssey, BOTW, Origami King.

The only thing that sticks out for me in that is Odyssey. Which is an excellent video game. Compared to other games, it’s an amazing thing they put together. Controls perfectly, animations are superb, tonnes of really good content, really original worlds Mario hasn’t been in before, breaking down the Mario structure and doing something new with it, the amount of different things Mario can capture and most of them are fun. It’s really, really great. When it’s at it’s best it probably is a 96. It’s just not there often enough.
 

My main memory of Odyssey is running around each world what felt like a 100 times just looking for the one thing I didn’t interact with the first tonne of times I walked past it. It’s just got too much filler content in it. If I was a better writer I could avoid being so reductive but the best way I can put it is it has too much Ubisoft style shit in and drags it down. I just don’t understand how it scores so high. Before anyone says Nintendo fans or California or whatever 

 

 

Staggering. People love this video game. And I get it to a point. But this is unbelievable.

[HandsomeDead]

29 minutes ago, DANGERMAN said:

 

that's kind of redundant isn't it? They're opinions, so long as people can back it up with a critique of the game, film, music, whatever, I don't see a problem

 

A problem with what?  Quantifying the experience of games (I'm referring to the metacritic culture here)?  I'm getting at perhaps too much stock is put in it since it's subjective.  A big pro or con to someone could be less meaningful to someone else.  It's like there is a 'correct' way of doing things when you start making the argument that a game deserves less praise.

 

Obviously criticism is good and interesting to people, I'm not saying I have a problem with that.  I just don't think it's good in this framing because it just ends up delegitimising good faith opinions.

[OCH]

4 minutes ago, Maf said:

Odyssey

I'm not saying it is bad, per say. But I wasn't wowed by it. I felt that with Sunshine (initially). Both Galaxy games, definitely. After a couple hours, Odyssey just didn't. Maybe it was the filler. There were far too many "stars" to collect. Many for the most trivial and banal of objectives. Rare did the whole collect-a-thon thing better, years before.

[mmmark]

9 hours ago, Nag said:

Readers name the video game reviews they’ve disagreed with the most

🙄

[Nag]

7 hours ago, Nag said:

The IGN review of Alien Isolation is an absolute farce... 5.9 fuck off.

 

🙄

[DANGERMAN]

2 hours ago, HandsomeDead said:

 

A problem with what?  Quantifying the experience of games (I'm referring to the metacritic culture here)?  I'm getting at perhaps too much stock is put in it since it's subjective.  A big pro or con to someone could be less meaningful to someone else.  It's like there is a 'correct' way of doing things when you start making the argument that a game deserves less praise.

 

Obviously criticism is good and interesting to people, I'm not saying I have a problem with that.  I just don't think it's good in this framing because it just ends up delegitimising good faith opinions.

fair enough, I read you're post as you shutting down people talking about what's overrated. Although I agree with you (not that anyone is saying this), that scores largely aren't given out of any sort of cynicism, just their own biases and tastes

[AndyKurosaki]

I stopped giving a flying fuck about review scores long ago. As I’ve played plenty of mediocre scoring games that I’ve enjoyed, and high scoring ones that I haven’t. Last Of Us 2 was massively over-rated. As was Super Mario 64 back in the day. 

[Maf]

I’m sort of a hypocrite. I like Metacritic/ review scores because I’m interested in, overall, what does the rest of the world think about a game. Seeing the number is a good snapshot of that. Even in a selfish way Metacritic can be interesting just to see if I am with or against the majority if nothing else.
 

I think it has value in a historical context as well. Games age so rapidly and context changes so fast I wouldn’t rely on someone’s opinion today about a 10 year old game they’ve only just played for the first time, where as MC/OC can stand as, generally, what did people think about it at the time when it was judged in a more fair and balanced environment.

 

I also view MC as a leaderboard and that’s an interesting aspect to it too
 

The flip side is I’m too lazy to read the reviews in full. I look at the number, I read the top excerpts, then move on (With exceptions). So I can say I value MC for all these reasons and then not read what anyone is actually saying. I’m a lazy asshole, I only place value in the number. 
 

So I use it because I’m interested in what others think, but only in limited ways
 

When it comes to actually engaging with other people’s opinions on a more substantial level that’s what forums and YouTube videos are for. I don’t need 10 paragraphs on what is essentially a product review, I just need the number but if you have an in depth opinion piece that I will read/listen too. 

[Nag]

In terms of reviews how do people feel about games getting re-reviewed (for want of a better term)... what with more and more GaaS and Mmo's getting released, I'd bet something like Sea Of Thieves would get a very different score now than it did at release. Should things like that be looked at again at a later date or the original score stand?