Game reviews have become increasingly divisive in recent years and today i wanted to take a look at this issue, why it happens and discuss some of the main problems with game reviews.
The truth is you should never base your opinions only on reviews. Watch gameplay, watch reviews, do some research and form your own opinion based on what you value in a game. There have been plenty of times where a game is a 10/10 game that everyone loves but it doesn't land with me. There have also been games that get a 3/10 but i love. A good example for me personally is Halo Infinite. If you ask almost any gamer about Halo Infinite chances are they will slam it. But for me the game is absolutely hands down my favorite arcade shooter. The gameplay just hits for me, and a lot of the complaints although valid do not outweigh the enjoyment I get from playing. If i would have based my opinions on others I wouldn't had played my most played game for the past 2 years. Play what you think you will enjoy, don't let others tell you what games you can enjoy. P.S. I don't need an argument in the comments on how bad halo is. I already know people don't like the game. That was my whole point.
Yes very true. Reviews are subjective, at least partly. I do think watching gameplay is about the only way to see what is desirable and what is not. The bummer of it is: the spoiler aspect. But that's the only way to make the purchase less risky:)
Reviews are how you do research though. The problem has always been the scoring systems, and how its lead to a lack of need to articulate its reasoning. To quote Dan "1/10, not enough Haunter"
@@freelancerthe2561 That was the point of what i said. Watch reviews, gameplay, and get your own opinion based on what you value in videos games. Do not look at a score whether that be high or low to decide if you are playing a game.
I honestly don’t know how starfield scored so high. Like it’s a good game don’t get me wrong, but it’s missing a lot of things that made their other games great
@@ChairmanOfConstellationI don’t think as much, it came out after games like star citizen, elite dangerous and no man’s sky have shown what space exploration could be, but starfield is just a fast travel game, the whole point of space games is the freedom of space and huge exploration. If this came out a long time ago it would have done a lot better. I’m not even going to finish it because I spend so much time going though air locks, watching my ship land, move from planet to planet and warp travel, but I don’t get to use my ship for any exploration myself. The space game type does not work well for Bethesda’s style. I’ll just go play elite dangerous and land wherever I want on any planet or moon I want.
SO what is a score of a good game? if we use a scale of 1-10 I would assume your good would be a 6 or 7 ( so you say its a good game. but upset people gave it an 8 or 9 when your good would be a 6-7 ? )
Absolutely. Its nowhere close to the previous games. it feels totally disjointed because of the way they designed planets etc. The other games felt rich and compact this one feels bare and bland. Worst Bethesda game by far.
Well that’s kinda why. The game itself isn’t bad. It’s just not what people expected and did not innovate on anything. The combat and feel of the game is the same as their last, Fallout 4 had the base building and such, games like Avorion does ship building 100% better, nms does exploration better. Outside of story telling and being immersed in the universe, there isn’t anything to write home about with Star field. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad game. . It’s just “same old same old”. Probably the definition of a 7/10 where most other games that get the score are actually 5s. Coming from someone who’s deeply into Bethesda games, I enjoyed it. Just more Bethesda and very comfortable. I expected “more” but I can’t say I dislike what we got.
The worst part of modern gaming is that we know everything about every new game coming out, weeks if not months before it's out. The bliss of enjoying a game fresh as a kid was the best feeling. I try to avoid videos/news about games I really look forward to, for that reason.
As a 45 year old saying this often I bet your a bit older as well 😂. The love of the mystery is what made gaming so fun. Playing Remnant 2 as if the internet didn’t exist was the best game experience I’ve had in years.
To be honest a 5 star rating system is pretty much just: Highly Recommend, Recommend, Wait for sale/patches, Skip it and avoid at all cost. It's really that simple. It's just a recommendation, as we can't simple evaluate art like it's math.
The annoying part is review aggregate sites will just take those 5 star ratings, multiply the number by 2, and throw it into the mix with all the other 10 point scale reviews.
For written reviews you also pretty much have to include the score out of 10 or it will less hits when folks do a search. Every writer I have spoken with dislikes or outright loathes scoring a game out of 10. There is a discussion every year about trying to be rid of it.
Why would this be annoying? How is reviewing a game on a 1-10 scale annoying? Whether it is a 1-5 scale or 1-10 scale its the same. Its not hard to figure out if a game is going to be fun for you or not. @@ForceGamingYT
This is a 20 minute video that could have been 5 minutes. You talk WAY too much and go on and on and on. You shouldnt waste 20 minutes of our time man. Respect your viewer's time. PSH@@ForceGamingYT
Well said. Indeed. Funny thing is, that's pretty much how our current 10/10 system works, except we only use half of the scale, like Force said in this video.
Mortismal Gaming is my number one source for game reviews (nothing against you, Force). He does a first-look video on new games. To give impressions and opinions. But then doesn't release a review until he 100%'s the game. With it being exclusive to PC games. And has his Steam profile public so people can confirm his 100% of steam-listed games. This means his reviews come "late." But as long as you're not someone that wants to jump into a game at launch. He's the best source. Though, he sticks to various forms of RPG's, primarily. So his scope is also a bit limited. And he does all this without getting review copies. And launching reviews after a game is out and established. Is not typically good for the algorithm on RUclips and such. The man does it for love of gaming. And to give people who don't jump on games immediately, a full in-depth review of a title. And even goes back through and 100% a game AGAIN if they do a major update or overhaul. Like he's doing with Cyberpunk 2077 right now.
He does get review copies… wtf… like he’s released several things on games before they were released… for your main review source you seem to know remarkably little…
I was about to comment this same thing Mortismal has great reviews not for all audiences because they are long videos but you will never buy a game without knowing if you like it or not after seeing his review. Also I don't get this thing about "late" reviews I think if a game is no longer relevant a week or two after release it says a lot about the said game as a review of itself. I don't buy any game day 1 anyway since they often release buggy and expensive
He doesn't 100% every game legitly. I've seen plenty of sketchy shit to never trust his reviews soley on the basis of 100%. His reviews are sometimes focused on shit that doesn't matter either. You should never base anything on 1 source...
The comment you made about finding someone who likes and covers games I enjoy to follow is why I watch your stream. You have excellent reviews for games, very helpful on pinpointing good and bad points about a game, and the gameplay. It has really expanded my list of games to play and I have enjoyed them quite a bit more than I expected.
I follow three reviewers, you among them, to get three different angles on the games I'm interested in. I feel Force is much more about "does the game feel fun?", whereas the others have different foci such as performance and atmosphere/lore/story in which they appear to align with me. Aside from that, Force is also just a chill and pleasant dude to listen to.
@therotten6152 For me, I go for gameplay and story telling. Gameplay: Is it gun to keep replaying over and over tirelessly fun? Story telling: Why must I play this game/the drive from beginning to end. It's like a book. Something to draw you into the game and end in a bang. Example 3 games I will mentioned. Destiny/Anthem. These 2 games in gameplay mode is actually fun. The drawback is the story which is confusing. Chrono Trigger. The gameplay is boring and tedious but the story is excellent. Uncharted 2. It has both good gameplay and story mode which give it an almost perfect score. If a game (no matter if it's from AAA to indie games) does not draw me in within 5 to 10 hours, I'm not going to continue. I might go back later on to see if my perspectives are different. And sometime I will test why the reviewers give it this rating to see if it's accurate on what they review. LeVar Burton said, "Of course, you don't have to take my words for it."
Finding reviewer you trust who like the same things as you is 99% of the battle. There is no point at all in reading a review from someone who you know nothing about...
I can't remember the last time a "professional" review influenced my decision to buy a game or not. When live gameplay so readily available online shortly after release I don't know why anyone would actively seek out a traditional review anymore. When I purchase a game it's based almost completely on word of mouth and live gameplay.
@therotten6152 Nobody suggested that you watch the entire playthrough. 2-3 hours is more than enough to know if you're gonna enjoy the game or not. Story means nothing at all if the core game mechanics are not there. And those can be seen in said 2-3 hours.
Bruh, I haven’t even made it past the first goblin village in BG3 yet cuz I keep making new characters to try the other classes before I commit to one for a playthrough. Even with redoing the intro that many times, it’s still just as interesting to see how differently characters react if I either am a different race or if I do things differently. So far, I’ve agreed with, convinced, and killed Kahga and I found that convincing her back to the proper side rewards you with a pretty cool quarterstaff with innate ensnaring vines as a cantrip. The variety of approaches is so friggin refreshing. 🙏
That’s such a great insight into your process, a lot of this I hadn’t even considered when watching reviews. There’s two RUclipsrs out there that I will always weigh more heavily when looking to purchase a game, yourself and Splattercat. It’s both refreshing and disappointing that you guys are the only RUclipsrs I’ve found who are both honest in your reviews and enjoyable to watch. Keep up the good work sir
Hey if you want to transition to more post release reviews I'm all up for it. I usually don't buy games on release. Last time I did was darktide and I regretted it so much that I swore to stop buying games on release. I have to say, your pre-release coverage of the game definitely had an impact on my decision but there's no problem with that, I took the decision and I take it as a lesson learned. Also how could you guess that they were going to release an MTX shop as the "secret bonus feature on release" instead of the crafting system....
@@teapouter6109 you either only played it very little or are being disingenuous. it currently has 16 missions (17 next month), Vermintide 2 (its fantasy analog) launched with 13. and left 4 dead 1 & 2 together (the inspiration for this genre of games) had 9 campaigns. Sure Vermintide 2 has way more content now but we're 5 years into that vs 1 year with Darktide. I think maybe you're just not into the Co-op horde games, they're all similar in that you run the same campaign over and over, the progression is in upping the difficulty higher and higher as you get better. if you played all 14 missions they had at launch on difficulty 1-3 until you got bored then thats on you. and if you played it enough to be on a higher difficulty then you'd probably be familiar with the genre and would know its got as much or more content than most comparable games.
Always appreciate your insights and your honesty man thank you. I know this makes zero sense (and at this point likely impossible to enforce) but I'd love to see a big game launch where the studio/publisher has an embargo on the game all the way leading up to launch... AND for one month after launch. Essentially treat a 1.0 launch as an NDA closed beta or something. It would be so interesting to see how people engage with a game and how its socialized online if people cant stream it or cover it in any way even after its launch.
You don't strictly say it, but your desire to spend more time with games is why I like your content and value your opinions. I wrote off outlets that use point scales years ago. ACG, The Escapist, and yourself are my go-to review/impression outlets because of this type of self awareness. ❤
ACG is fantastic, honestly. I enjoy when reviewers try their best to stay objective and just skip the number rating/star rating. I appreciate people telling me if they think a game is worth the time investment more than anything.
I get this... I realized that first off, I need to stop buying pre-orders because I'm kinda of done gambling on a game before I know if it's good or not. I feel like it's perpetuating releasing unfinished games. Secondly, I'm not giving any definitely opinions opinions on a game until I have at least completed the main story.
There is a significant issue when it comes to assigning game scores in a manner similar to that used for movies. Movies have a clear beginning and end, allowing for the evaluation of various parameters to assess the quality of the artistic product. In contrast, video games offer a unique experience to each player, with different paths, objectives, and outcomes. The criteria for evaluating games cannot be standardized because they vary depending on the individual player's experience. And dont get me started about magazines and websites that have a polarized way to see some subjects. Because this changes everything
The exact same thing can be said about movies, books, or any other type of interpretive media. The issue isn't that movies have a clear start-to-finish and games don't; the issue is that everybody has their own interpretation of what is good, bad, and emotionally stimulating. Reviews can't be standardized across any medium because too much of everything is left to your own interpretations. Movies can vary just as much based on individual experience. The only significant difference between the two is that games are generally FAR longer, which is why its easier to invest in a 1-2 hour movie that you're not completely into versus a 6-10 hour game that you're not completely into. The things that can be objectively measured, such as the performance in games or scene editing in movies, can and should be used as standard. In fact, games are actually easier in this regard because there are more intricate mechanics in a game that can be objectively measured. But the rest...? Yeah, that is getting into too murky of waters to have anything objective. Something as simply of a genre is a movie or a control scheme in a game, both of which can be done of varying objective quality, will alter your overall perception based on your own biases for or against said genre/control scheme.
@@Wolfcub23 Let us never forget the girl who reviewed Cyberpunk 2077 and said that the game had no sidequests, despite her background gameplay actively showing her avoiding every sidequest and doing only the main quests.
Which is why the only reviews I trust are Steam reviews. Its not ideal but better than the rest. youtubers, game sites, streamers all do it for money, so theyll either play fast to get fast reviews, or lie about what they think, or not play it at all. When money is involved its rarely honest.
@@RobertTrey-ov1lz hes generally ok but he has his own interests and biases. His starfield review is clearly bootlicking. He wants to stay on the publisher's good side side so he plays it too safe when reviewing big publisher games, he doesn't want to get blacklisted and not get early code. In other words he puts self interest ahead of integrity.
Between reviewers hardly having any time to review a game and sometimes just general bias for a franchise, it makes taking any review ratings seriously difficult. Like some games may end up opening up after many hours into the game and end up being a great game, but due to not having enough time to get to that point, a reviewer may have to give a lower rating simply because what they've played so far had been stale and boring. Then you have the opposite of that where a game might be amazing for the first X amount of hours, like BG3, for example, but then the end hours of the game the title just falls flat, is missing content or just doesn't hit the mark in a variety of ways. So then you end up having some games with way higher scores than they should be. Not to mention just human bias in general. Some people will rate a game way above what it should be simply because they're blinded by the hype, or you can have the opposite affect of that as well. Thats why I very rarely buy a game day 1 here and there, and ill just give it a week or 2 and watch people play it before I come to my conclusion if it's worth picking up or not.
The other issues, specifically with reviewers on big sites: either the writers or reviewers are inexperienced or just plain bad at doing the review. Now, this could be mitigated if they had someone questioning them on their thought process or editing their work, but that clearly isn’t happening. This is also hurt by the pay of this job. By the time someone could get good at it, they are going somewhere else to get paid more. If sites aren’t willing t pay for talent and make them better, they won’t last. It’s why we keep getting kids out of college who burn out at don’t improve…we just keep getting worse and worse writing and reviews. RUclips mitigates this somewhat, but then some YT are less willing to criticize certain companies in fear of losing their perks (the sports games are very much like this) and won’t criticize UNLESS it is so well known it is safe to say.
'i recommend' and i 'i don't recommend' is just a 2-scale instead of a 10-scale, what matters is the dependabilty of the reviewer. There should just be a site that has the review scores for most reviewers then you could easily see if past reviews matched up with your own views.
Force there is also the problem of people review bombing a game because of an issue external to the game itself or just to be a troll. Also, I think it's pretty stupid for a video game studio to tie any kind of compensation to a Metacritic review because of the issues you referenced. The studio should know how easily these scores can be manipulated, making them unreliable.
Thanks for being practical rather than philosophical on criticizing game reviews. For review scores: I want to see games to be reviewed on 3 branches instead of a single score: Story (similar to film and TV reviews), gameplay (game design, fun) and technicals (audiovisual, UI, bugs, performance, optimization).
i feel like this video was a 8/10 because its points out the perspective of reviewers and makes me realize how ridiculous the reviews can actually be, thank you for the upload honestly great video allround
It's a game of numbers, reviewers want to release fast reviews to get views/traction or push an agenda while consumers want fast reviews as well. This will never change.
LOL, U ppl are so funny, ppl call IGN a shill for scoring games high at the same time say: " oh no they game my favorite game a 7". basically, this video by Dunkey ruclips.net/video/kAIVMhja4CI/видео.html
Force, I appreciate all the work that goes into your videos. One of my pet peeves is the glut of unscripted, unedited videos that a lot of content creators call 'reviews'.
In their defense depends on how big the channel is, if its huge theres no excuse. If its a smaller channel the amount of time that goes into it isnt worth it. I tried it, even for basic edited video, between research recording and editing it could take you 40-50hours of work, to earn like $2. Thats if you're monetized. its super harsh.
@@AzureRoxe No. I want people to think about what they want to say before they say it. It's not unusual for the first attempt to express an idea to be the worst attempt.
This is a big problem. The short time window to get the reviews out is one reason I don't pay much attention to big publication reviews, or day 1 reviews of any kind at all anymore. I wait for awhile after a game releases and then get a sense of what user reviewers are saying, and then I use what I hear there combined with what I think based on my own perceptions and gameplay videos as to whether or not I think something is worth trying or not.
Some very good points - I think it would be great if reviewers listed their top three games played by hours played - it helps put the review in perspective. Honestly, the Starfield reviews amazed me -- especially the written ones -- I'm not sure all of the reviewers had ever played any games before. Not to put down Starfield which I enjoy, I think there were a ton of reviews from folks who had never played an RPG.
Although it’s not a perfect system, the way we rate things in a professional environment is to answer a series of “Do you agree with ” and then derive a score from the answers that is mapped to a 0 to 100 scale. One way to think of this in game terms is that the game starts as 10/10 and then every time you disagree that influences the score downwards. Questions are often nested for context. For example, you could respond that the graphics do not meet expectations and then get a question about whether the graphics impact the gameplay. I feel like some behavioral science students who like video games could come up with a standard system. (Assuming no-one wants a pay a consulting firm to do it. )
The aggregated score is actually more reliable than individual scores because it accounts for all the variations amongst gaming reviewers Yes, there will be ridiculous outliers of 1/10, but those will be averaged out over time, and likely be evenly distributed across games. Regardless, agree that the Buy, Wait, Pass type system is better than the raw scores.
They're not automatically paid the trick is if they don't give a positive review then for the next game there's a chance that they don't get a copy of the game then cannot do a launch review, that's how it works
Having a Reviewer take their time, Explain the systems, Manage Expectations, Address their Grievances and Provide Criticism is Infinitely better than Watching a Streamer play a 50+hour game for only a day, storming through the content, screaming at every bugs they see, downplaying game systems that are otherwise a good thing for a different kind of player, then calling the game Trash and going to Twitter/Xitter crying why they didn't have Review Codes, How 'Companies are Screwing the ConSumErs', yelling how they 'Know Things Other People Don't', then slap a 1/10 number on it. I love your Stuff man, Definitely a Diamond in a sea of Trash.
And everyone should remember reasoning why those first day review/first impressions are pushed - from the point of RUclips, if you have small channel - you have only day or two to release a video and get some attention, after that you may produce video that will be shown to really small number of people. That causes rush, that causes many reviews that are not really deep. I'm recording for several years on different languages and in fact that always work this way. As for score to the game - fully agree. And more popular niche game goes for - more harsh people in its scoring. That is just not fair in many events
Have you ever noticed how videogames are pretty much the only media where the numeric rating is common place? Like, you don't talk about movies, books, plays, etc, in that way.
Well, your not talking about movies with a score, but it's much about what other people say, so the user score on Rotten Tomatoes can represent this. But it is true that no one cares. The difference is, if ur watching a bad movie ur wasting 1-3h of time. If you play a bad game u can waste 100s of hours. So u care more about the score
As long as I remember movies, books, plays, concerts, restaurants, etc. has had a number based score in the newspaper my dad subscribes to. Decades before they even had games reviews in the newspaper.
I really wish the old system of categories wasn't eliminated entirely like it seems to be these days. I like hearing the reviewers take on graphics, performance, audio, story, fun factor, etc. It doesn't need an arbitrary number for each category but I like the fulsome review to cover all those aspects. I find the new methodology of just talking about it and the feels it gives doesn't paint a full picture as blind spots can form. The categories at least keeps the review on track to cover "all" aspects of the game. For example, now someone may rave that they loved it so much, it was so fun, it made me feel incredible playing the game. It turns out they are an audiophile and it was the OST that carried the game for them. I may not care what the OST is like and that doesn't impact my experience as much.
I think star field is one of the only games that actually deserved a 7/10 score. Most other games are 5s at best or even better and are actually 8s but folks play it safe and say 7. Star Field is not a bad game. It just wasn’t innovative and what people were expecting. You got half the people writing and putting their 2 cents on it when they never have played it or even planned to. Then you got the other half of people who’ve never liked Bethesda’s games but are just on the hate bandwagon. You got more folks who already wanted to dislike the game than people who didn’t. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not “great” by any means but it sure as hell isn’t a bad game. It’s straight up just same old same old with a new coat of paint. It’s still enjoyable, still immersive, and still has that Bethesda charm. That’s why I say: “If you like Bethesda games you’ll find that you’ll like this. If you’ve never liked their games or wanted to check this out to see if your mind would be changed then this isn’t the game for you”. Not bad, but not great. Just the same comfortable formula we’ve been getting for years. Not an excuse to not innovate because that sucks but I can’t say it’s a bad game when it isn’t an actual bad game. I also can say as a long time Bethesda fan, I out Star field down for other games. More games out there that are adding new things. I’ll pick it up later. Only got like 40 hours into it. But I see no reason for it to take the spot over other stuff that’s coming out.
One individual review is subjective, the average of a hundred subjective reviews, usually is a pretty decent indication of the quality of a game. The only exception to that, is when/if these subjective reviewers are being paid by companies, or flavour their reviews to keep their 'access media' access. This whole convoluted 21 minutes could have been a 2 minute segment.
That thumbnail alone makes me not want to watch your video. I know that gaming publications aren't the most popular thing these days, but reeling people in with outrage by making up an imaginary gaming publication that gave Elden Ring a 0.6? Oh well, at least Adblock is still working.
I feel like we have forgotten about the first impression existing as a version of reviewing a game (or something else). Personally I always think of reviews as "someone else's opinion".
Please dont clickbait your thumbnails like that. I like your content but the fact you present a super controvercial critic score on the thumbnails that is just made up is really off putting and makes it hard to want to take in any of the valid points you make.
Dude it’s crazy you brought this up, I’m working on a game review framework which is based solely on objectively measured system implementations. Registered the site today and you came out with this video lol!
Oh son, this has been done before and it doesn't work. Video games are no toaster. German game magazines tried this for decades and got rid of it as it completely misses the point. It's impossible to be objective and it's also pointless. There are many fantastic games with less mechanics, less time to complete, a lot less polygons that are so much better than the soulless AAA games with hundred times their budget. A good art style makes a game look so much better than higher resolution textures and polygon count etc.
@@1IGG others may have tried but I have a pretty decent solution in the works. Once I get everything setup I will update this comment with a link to it. The good news is I’m a system engineer by trade, so I kinda have some background in this stuff. It definitely hard, but not impossible. This isn’t a traditional scoring system, and it isn’t a replacement for current reviewers. I’m hoping it can be adopted for the exact reasons stated in the video.
Thanks for the peek behind the curtain, Force! I follow you because your content struck me as high-effort, but I didn't really have a grasp of how that translates into hours. Makes sense why the review establishment seems so off the mark.
My suggestion would be to wait until you have a lot of reviews from a playerbase as a whole who don't usually have bias, which is what I do. However, that begs the question that if everyone did that... where would we get the reviews from? So, that posits (incorrectly, as I shall point out) that at least the first adopters need reviewers who are given free copies, and if this is the case then they should probably be competent at reviewing. Hence, professional reviewers. However, the game company doesn't really want competent reviewers, they want shills - and they pick the reviewers. Which leads me to the ultimate conclusion that this is as pointless as just asking the game company if their game is good - surprise on what answer you get. Even pre-recorded footage doesn't help - this can be curated to the point of being not very representative at all. So, the only good way I see is to have people who prove they are capable and non-bias who can make money from reviewing, who do it live while streaming, not obligated by an employer for peddling the game a certain way in a certain timeframe, and just buy it at release the normal way and so are not dependent on the game company. We've seen a rise of these in 'influencers' on youtube, twitch, etc. Honestly, I think if everyone waited a week or more and instead watched a variety of the youtubers/etc that resonate with them and prove not to act like shills, especially live streamed footage so its not being curated, we would probably have a far better game market. Otherwise, the success of a game is often just around how much hype they generate through marketing and paid-for closed-access reviewers.
I don't watch reviewers much, just you and TheLazyPeon. I really like that both of you do a "first impressions" video at launch, and then an actual review after a few weeks or even months sometimes.
Why do you think they give reviewers so little time? Could it be the build, or maybe worried about leaks? Probably both I assume. But you make a good point about reviews of games right at launch. You need more than a week to get a good grip on most games.
I do find it interesting... that seeing Starfield getting 7/10 was a gasp and then I was like isn't a 7 good, like a 7/10 is good, not amazing sure, but it is good and I liked Starfield and thought it was a 7-7.5/10... But if I gave it a reviewing score... My score would be "Lightly Recommend"
I remember you going into this a bit in your Rain World review, which was very eye-opening for me and I can see why it was important for you to go through in relation to Rain World specifically.
There is also a trend of lambasting the people who would buy a game that is considered bad by someone else. Channels like Worth a Buy basically just throw constant insults out at anyone who would enjoy the game, and usually throw in a few at the developers for good measure. Even if the game isn't totally broken... it's just toxic. The main reason I watch reviews by Force is because there isn't that toxicity, he can review the game and give negative feedback without going into rants about the larger community being braindead, or how you'd "have to be an idiot" to enjoy the game. There are a lot of times Force didn't like a feature but he described it objectively and I was able to determine that I would like it.. which is EXACTLY how a review should work.. outline the objective and then comment with the subjective. I think this is the REAL problem with reviews, the toxic attitude that comes with a lot of these reviews on YT and elsewhere. Seems to be linked to some idea of superiority for enjoying particular products, it's quite child-like.
1) You have some useful information here. And some ethics. Rare. 2) A gamer's consumer rights movement is needed. Companies should be compelled to have proper refund periods to start with: move from the 2 hour crap to 12 hour minimum. Also, warranties are a feature of most consumer products, clearly that doesn't apply to games. We could have them though. Warranties could vary with "expected playtime value". A little 9 dollar game that is in early access is different from a AAA game costing 79 bucks. Diablo 4 is hated not because the game is "the worst game of the year," according to some specific listed criteria, but because as an ARPG it is unique for having no long-term play value. It met the 2 hour refund limit only; not the criterion we usually assume is in place for ARPGs such as PoE, Grim Dawn, Torchlight, and earlier Diablos. These other games all had long-term play value, and not just because they had seasons or were online. D4 is "wrong" in some fundamental, genre destroying way. That is the reason so many gamers feel defrauded, and why so many of the fanboys are really struggling to find a way to justify their purchases or justify wasting their subscribers time if they are content creators. 3) The other problem with reviews and playthroughs, which you have partly hit upon, is that they are often little more than promotions. Imagine if movies were reviewed this way: it would be a scandal, possibly something much worse, even grounds for legal action. (You took money for that playthrough/review? Movie reviewers would lose a great deal of their credibility if payment from the movie's producers was confirmed.) 4) Gaming is early days in the sense that it is a semi-regulated area with many loopholes and abuses available for companies/individuals. This is why a consumer rights movement tailored to the uniqueness of gaming is badly needed.
Funny enough this review OF "reviews" was one of the best reviews I've heard in years. Great video. P.S. - In the context of "user reviews" we need to use more of a "mean" rating because of the abundance of both negative AND positive emotional review bombing. That said I've seen much more unreasonable negative review bombing from "players" AND a lot of very suspect positive reviews from professional "critics"... I can't decide which I abhor more... actually it's the 9's and 10's from "critics" when a game is objectively flawed, whether that means HIGHLY flawed or only slightly flawed. Starfield and Diablo 4 are, of course, two games I have in mind.
Games journalist here. I'll give you some insight that when we get a code for Diablo 4 there was a test realm up for about 6 days, depending on your timezone. If we had an extra day or two we would of likely caught the issue with the D4 end game. But, because we had to test features, classes, and get some level a variety to get a more rounded opinion it was something we ended up missing sadly. Hope that helps while we are on the clarity hype train. Not using it an excuse but it can be a reality of getting review codes sometimes. Don't forget it took about two weeks for it to settle in among the masses that the D4 end game was a sub optimal experience, which again, was outside of the review window's run period.
@@fandasubacraig D4 has WAY MORE issues than just the endgame, which may be it's biggest one but not the only one. Besides I'm referring more to the ridiculous amount of 10/10 type reviews by mainstream gaming journalists and sites for big AAA games that are just either buggy garbage or soulless cash grabs. Starfield is a better example because it got widespread acclaim by the press and the game is extremely buggy and poorly crafted. Anyone with objectivity and not blinded by the Bethesda name (which is simply a "NAME" now and nothing else) would see it for what it is. A poorly crafted game with a weak "safe" story that has no real edge to it. Poorly written characters with the standard atrocious facial animations. An abundance of "lazy" design choices like constant loading screens and not just for "space travel" but even in buildings. Bad performance and a bland art style that still a lot of people could barely get 60 FPS out of while being able to run far better games at 120+. One bad choice after another and tons of dev lies about the game and blaming players for things. Starfield got that 7/10 from IGN and that became a meme yet that review was still positive while also being one of the FEW accurate reviews and time proved that. This is what I'm saying and it's not a personal attack but "reviewers" mean little to nothing anymore even the ones who do truly try to give players an accurate depiction of the game.
This video perfectly encapsulated the reasons why I have long since stopped buying games at launch. I wait until there is a broad spectrum of reviews before plonking down my hard earned cash on a game that I am interested in buying.
I feel that game reviews should go into a "State of the Game re-review" mode after like a month or so. Specially to keep an eye on publishers who release a game without a cash shop for those good first reviews and then after a first patch or so add it on the sly. Or to give something of a second chance to games who have a messy launch and actually shape up after a little while.
What you're saying is why I personally believe that RUclipsrs and other Reviewers are also responsible for the bad state of gaming today. And everything you said proves me right. Sure the game developers are most responsible, but RUclipsrs and Reviewers constantly ignoring ethics and morals for more clicks is a very big problem with the modern state of gaming. And please, DONT say "I don't have a choice" because it's on the publisher you ALWAYS have a choice. And the truth is that if you all stuck together on it, and called the publisher out on their B.S., and took a stance, and waited until you could reasonably review games, then the publisher would adjust. As long as RUclipsrs continue to allow the publishers to continue, then your at least partly responsible. You can blame it 100% on the publisher if you want, but that's just a cop out. That's just RUclipsrs saying they don't want to take a stance, and believe everyone else should do it for them. It's RUclipsrs saying "me making money matters more then the customer losing money". Just saying, nothing is EVER 100% one person's fault, it's always a combination of both sides making mistakes. And in this case it's the publisher making the initial mistake, and then most RUclipsrs allowing the publisher to do it, because they don't care about ethics, and just care about making money. And the reality is this process HELPS certain RUclipsrs, like IGN, etc...
I think there is a huge problem in the gaming industry where reviewers don't accurately reflect whether a game is good past the first two hours for these very reasons. Anyone can make a good "first two hours." Many games I have played are great for 2 hours, but are they good at 10, 20, 40, or the vaunted 100+ hours that people want? Take Lies of P. Lies of P is a game that wears out its welcome fast. Its later areas are miserable to play through. It doesn't get BETTER - it only stays middling or gets worse. And yet, people are lauding it for its Soulslike consistency and design. I bet not one major review outlet actually beat the game. Tell me that game is a 10/10 with the last act. I don't think anyone can.
Personally I pay very little attention to individual reviews and almost none to review scores. I tend to just do a mix of looking into what the game is advertised as, filtering out things I have little interest in, followed by skimming some articles and more importantly discussions, then just sort of using that to guage if it's something I want to buy, something I need to do a deeper look into, or something I can dismiss outright. Really though the important thing for me is to just find the key takeaways from what people are saying. I've gamed long enough to know what I tend to like and what I don't, what I find interesting, as well as what I might want to give more of a try. I honestly can't even think of the last time I've felt burned buying a game. Like even games that I didn't end up liking that much I was generally okay with the purchase and giving them a try.
But going by adverts can, and has been, very misleading over the past decade and a half. A lot of promoters are also very bad at conveying certain ideas that are outside the AAA mindset; so you have decent, if not great games, being advertised wrong, to the wrong demographics, or pitched as entirely incorrect genres. I spend a ton of time wadding through steam's indie scene, and found many games that I ended up liking having HORRIBLE advert videos, that look like they were built off a check list of numbers. 2 things in adverts that always grab my attention in a bad way. Narrating an explanation of an esoteric game system, but UI design communicates something entirely different. Narrating a backstory, but that information doesn't translate into the actual game in any meaningful way. Written reviews can't show the game in action, while video reviews tend to be too effort intensive for most reviewers (even supposed professional ones) to manage both writing and editing for cohesion. Bias' aside, being genre savvy in multiple genres is practically a requirement for articulating modern game design, due to a lot of borrowing between them. And good quality review can convey much of that information using genre conventions as an anchor point. Now if you can further integrate bias' into that assessment, you can essentially triangulate specific vectors of a game's design that get your goat; and 2 to 3 video/written essays is enough to understand the overaching game mechanics, and what makes it stand out in the long run. The trouble, though, is that kind of comprehensive review takes a lot of time and investment most reviewer don't have. Too many games coming out to be addressed, and too many people expecting you to have an opinion on every game they come across. Too specialized, and they lose that broad perspective needed to keep things in context. But if too broad, lack the in-depth knowledge of genres to recognize if something special is going on. Not many games can be easily digested at multiple levels of understanding. So knowing what to draw attention to, and understanding its impact (both to the game and the genres), is key to understanding if a game is worth your time. But gamers (TM) have shown they collectively lack that perspective, and even going by player reviews is not enough to understand a game beyond a surface level, and its barrier for entry.
@@freelancerthe2561 "But going by adverts" Immediately you need to reread what I said. Seeing how a game is presenting itself is just an initial filter. Literally went on to explain how I actually decide. "having HORRIBLE advert videos" Advert videos is not the only part of how a games presented. What's the actual pitch, what gameplay videos are there, etc. "Written reviews can't show the game in action" I usually put the video aspect under how a game presents itself. I also do check out gameplay videos, probably should have added youtube to the things I skim along with articles/discussions but same thing applies. "The trouble, though, is that kind of comprehensive review takes a lot of time and investment most reviewer don't have." I think my point is a comprehensive look is not exactly needed, or if it is it's generally pretty quick to tell. At the end of the day I have an abundance of games I could play and enjoy but will never have the time to play all of them. I just need to filter games into worth a try and not worth a try. That's pretty quick top do at a glance. Might I miss some gem? Sure. But even with perfect insight I'd still not be able to play every gem. My criteria is really just do I have games that will make my free time enjoyable and engaging.
I definitely appreciate that you are pretty measured with your videos and don't overuse hyperbole. Unfortunately thanks to the algorithms i understand why so many creators end up having to fall back to using extremes in their titles and clickbait. Games are nuanced and personal, and your opinions of them can even change over time. We all hated loved, hated, and loved again Cyberpunk. Sekiro and It Takes Two won GOTY, and while great, I think most would agree they dont stand among the titans that are BOTW, GoW and Elden Ring. Everything is context and relative to that moment in time. Its why CoD will prob never win GOTY but for some reason is the best selling game almost every year. Objective Opinions are an oxymoron and we just gotta educate people on critical thinking, so thanks for helping
Games journalist here who works for a smaller, niche site. Glad to see sites and RUclipsrs alike have the same issues. When i get a code like 2 weeks in advance its a bliss moment. But then i know if i have it that early, then most people will, and working for a niche site that comes with its issues sometimes. I've dubbed the entire process games journalism fuckery. I also like using the full 1-10 scale when i review something so i guess its another reason why i get codes late :P
I definitely agree on this, and I think the best way to deal with this type of review trend is to just ignore early (first-impression) "reviews". Like any other smart consumer, don't immediately jump on the bandwagon. Have a bit of sense that the actual relevant review would be around what FG said - after 20 to 50 hours of gameplay (depending on the game), better if after a complete game. Don't fall for these early "reviews", but rather as FG said - treat these as first impression. Bottom line, the internet public (the consumers) will determine on how these reviews will evolve or devolve, like any other product outhere.
there should be a website that shows who got a review copy and how many days before release. It would be a great help for consumers to know if the publisher used dirty tricks and they can get called out way easier.
Back in grade 11, I left public highschool and starting taking distance education, which included an intranet webforum for all the students taking distance ed to talk to each other about whatever, including school of course. But in any case I remember finding like 10X more like-minded gamers in distance-ed school than I did in public highschool, and I proposed that videogame reviewers/journos should stop rating games and instead should try and focus on who the ideal audience for a game is (not necessarily the same as the target audience), and who a game will annoy, etc. Literally nobody agreed with me. Of course I've been smug about being right about this for years now because clearly many other independent game commentators agree since more often than not I'll see them say 'this game is a ham-sandwich out of 10' or something. But that aside, I think another issue is that the mainstream game journos are seemingly not self-aware of these obvious facts themselves. They try to maintain the norms of their patently flawed process instead of just own up to them and try to accommodate as best they can. How often is it painfully obvious that a journalist didn't even finish a game but acts like they did. I personally would have no negative opinions on a journo who said 'I only got roughly half-way thru the game as of writing this, but intend to update my progress later, check back here in a week if you're still undecided a week after launch'. Multiplayer is also a problem area, like journalists aren't going to be ruining a game with cheating and whatnot prior to release, but so many online multiplayer games lose so much of their value due to cheating later on. All too often they think difficulty is some kind of aspect that can be 'correct', with 'too hard', and 'too easy'. Instead they should try and gauge what kind of gamer the level of difficulty is catered towards, and how adjustable it is, etc. IMO they need to focus on just trying to tell the objective truth about the game rather than try and focus on how much they like it and what they think of it on a personal level. Some things are subjective, not objective, true, so don't try and objectify those aspects, it's not that hard.
I’d argue that in the current landscape of reviews, the aggregate scores are the only ones worth looking at unless you know a reviewer’s tastes well. Seeing a general consensus can give more information than those singular reviews in a bubble. It’s more of a lay of the land. You can see a village in the distance, but the only way to experience it is to go into it.
agreed on all points. the industry over time has put WAY TOO much importance on pre-release reviews, thinking they're like the movie industry that can whip out a movie review much quicker after a 90-minute watch. post-release reviews as the way to go. pre-release should just be first impressions all around.
19:00 I agree with you, "recommend" or "not recommend" is a great binary to use. I've also seen "Buy, Try or Why" which I think is a great scale combined with some commentary about the game/product.
It's a total "tragedy of the commons" situation with reviews and reviewers. As long as even one person does a pre-launch review, then everyone has to for the sake of things like ad revenue and channel metrics. I can't see a way we could actually get game reviews onto a solid, trustable footing with the way the whole gaming ecosystem is at the moment. People still pre-order digital downloads of games because they want the Day 1 experience, which means there's an appetite for pre-launch content, and creators are going to feed that. We as gamers need a mentality shift to move away from just snapping up The New Shiny because it was marketed well, which will allow creators time and space to give honest, well considered reviews. It's a pretty bad cycle we're all in, industry, reviewers, and customers/gamers alike, and I'd argue that the current model isn't really working for anyone involved. Which is a huge shame, because I love this hobby, and the communities within it, but I just don't see it changing any time soon.
I remember that once in their podcast 3 Gordos Bastardos they mentioned that they never feel conditioned in their opinion for getting review copies. They constantly publish negative reviews about Digimon and SAO games and Bandai Namco keep sending them codes. Think that people that decides who to hand the review codes don't get any reward if the reviewers talk positively or not. They are just people working for others.
Also should mention a lot of reviewers now judge a game based on their politics which is insane. "Not enough gay/trans characters" or "too many hot and sexy characters" 😂
I prefer to watch your reviews simply because you and I have similar tastes but watching this video and seeing how you like to dissect games just puts the cherry on top as to why I will keep watching your videos/reviews keep up the great work!
I have been watching you since your bartending / SC2 days and you are pretty much the only game reviewer I have stuck with consistently. While our personal taste in games are quite different I find your reviews -- both in substance and in calm style -- provide a high quality signal that others do not provide.
This is one of the few videos I have seen that has an intelligent assessment of "game reviews." The problem with "game reviews" are twofold; reviews are largely offered by amateur consumers. the language & tools for talking about video games as a piece of critique are borrowed from the critique of other mediums such as film & theater. How many reviewers view the purpose of review as a recommendation? Rather than an insight? That's a problem. For example, considering something other than gameplay is a mistake and a misunderstanding of the video game medium. Gameplay is the very purpose of the medium. A video game can exist sans visuals, audio, or story. However, a video game can NEVER exist without gameplay. Anyone can start a YT channel if they like games and offer "reviews." There is no vetting, ethics board, required degrees, or scholarly understanding required to review video games. So it's just a bunch of amateurs "reviewing" games with the same intellect as communicating their favorite flavor of ice cream. The video game industry is, in all regard, juvenile.
the funniest thing about people giving games that x/10 rating is when one reviewer will give elden ring a 9/10 as a game and then give lies of p a 9/10 as well xD and its like, in what actual universe are you living in where you think those 2 games are of the same quality. it becomes difficult to take reviewers seriously when it also feels like their motive is to conform with the most popular take. maybe I just want to find a reviewer that had gone through the same issue i did but I rarely find reviewers truly talk about issues of a game nowadays unless its popular to bash said game. one game will get a complete pass for doing something horrible with QoL and bugs but another game will be bashed completely and utterly just because of the same type of bugs. its beyond me how difficult it truly is to find middleground reviewers this day and age.
As soon as this guy complained about venues giving AAA games a 1/10 I knew this was unserious. Reviews are full of context; a 1/10 is as valid as a 4/10. It's inherently subjective and contextualized.
My point is that these scales - and what they scale against - is the issue. We shouldn’t aggregate 1-10 scale reviews since they don’t all use the same references. Like if the 1-10 scale is meant to say “where does this game fall in comparison to ALL games” then yes, I would say no AAA game gets a 1. Because there are some absolutely atrocious garbage heaps launching into Steam daily, that even the buggiest AAA game is significantly better than. But if the 1-10 scale measures “how does this game rate compared to other games I personally enjoy” then sure, I can see plenty of AAA games with 1 ratings. And that’s my entire point, every reviewer has their own method of using the 10 point scale, so aggregating those numbers on sites like Metacritic is as good as worthless.
As a consumer with a limited gaming budget and limited time on this earth and a massive ever-growing list of discounted all time great classic games I've yet to play, I can't emphasize enough how important it is for me to buy every hot new games on day 1 or earlier if possible so please don't expect me to wait for thorough and honest reviews.
I used to pre-order every game I was even remotely interested in. But for the past couple of years I've completely stopped cold. As hard as it can be sometimes, it's always best to wait about a month after release to find out if the game is good or not, broken or not, etc. It's wild to see just how many games start off with good reviews (due to the issue raised in this video) then a few weeks in everyone now hates the game for various reasons. I've saved so much time and money by doing this.
7:24 - And a problem is they'll give out codes selectively to people who will overlook issues with the game or ones who will just not give a decent negative review if it's deserved.....
For all MMO and RPG content you are always the guy to go to. Good in depth reviews, you also sound very relax. With a lot of other creators I loose interest after couple of minutes, almost all your content I watch from start to end. Keep up the good work!
Appreciate you touching on "Access Journalism". You're 100% right, not every reviewer is going to get a code, and reviewers are not owed a review code. Which means sometimes a reviewer just didn't get a code. However, for some people acting like "Access Journalism" doesn't exist is disingenuous, and if they are a reviewer acting like "Access Journalism" doesn't exist I have to ask myself why they are pushing back on that or why are they refusing to acknowledge that it exist. Which ultimately leaves me no longer trusting them or their reviews.
I find Starfield a very interesting example. Upon its launch day and in the 2 days after when all the reviews popped up I watched perhaps 20 to 30 reviews with some gameplay to see all the different takes and I figured for myself... The expenctations and reservations I had about the game are pretty much what I expected and some reviewers proved me right while other were still dogshit. I've purchased that game 4 weeks or so after the launch and found that again I was correct in my estimations. What I need/want to hear is an objective and/or even semi-detailed outlay of how systems and aspect of the game work, not if the reviewer thinks that its good or bad. After all, you (as the reviewer) cant know wether or not I (as the potential player) value the "can I manually land my spaceship on a planet?" so I've got much more value from being said it can or cannot be done and how that looks like generally, which is something I respected from your review in general. Force Gaming, my man. Respect for this video and at least understanding the problem (of which you also recognize its a forced evil on your side often these days).
I think that precisely games like starfield reviews are incredibly weird, and this is something that has been obvious in the starfield subreddit since the game came out on EA. 99% of the bethesda fans rate the game 9-10/10, most see no flaw on it, so when I began playing on day 2 or 3, and found the story bland, the game kinda buggy, a lot of systems shallow, all the loading screens, the lack of phones or email or any form of communication which forced me to walk back and forth and so on, I was at odds. I finished the game on NG, went into NG+ to finish all the faction questlines that I missed and the game felt too big in scope but unfinished, so I'd give it a 6 or 6.5/10. If you ask me to tell you how I rated the game I can break it down in criteria and how much of it I value, but on the subreddit if I said that the first weeks I'd get either called a sony fanboy, a review bomber, hater, etc. For whatever reason there's games whose players/fans exist in a bubble and make them prone to ignoring flaws either in the game, or the studio policies/decisions, blizzard is another one, where people complain a lot about how blizzard cares more about store mounts and pandering than improving the writing for the game, and cleaning up bloat in the skills/talents, but at the same time a big chunk of said people will buy the latest store mount that costs 30 dollars because "it looks cool".
@@TheShitpostExperience You see that too big is why people like Bethesda games because you played, you can tell this wasnt a play it safe game. Who in their right mind goes, lets make an open world game. Then make it a huge rpg, but lets make it a good shooter, then lets add base building, survival gathering, management to it. Then lets add space travel and spaceship fighting. Then lets make it customizable ships Even though I enjoyed Spiderman 2018, Miles Morales, God of War etc. I couldnt finish Zero Dawn because it felt like another ubisoft checklist open world game 3rd person, open world, average action combat, good visuals and story. That seems to be most of gaming big games this past decade if we are lucky
@@imo098765Woaahh. Starfeild is one of the safest game of the year. What you described,except the spaceship, was in previus Bethesda games. The lore and story have zero imagination. Like they legit copied a whole faction quest from Alien. It is certainly a tribut but come on, its freaking space!!! We are talking about the unknown. Make us dream about creative possibilities and outcomes. I dont want to see something ive already seen before in 5 movies. Thats like one of hundred exemple why Bethesda stayed in their confort zone making that game. This game has again zero innovation and some aspects got even backward from precedent Bethesda games.
numbered systems are inherently flawed because of biases we have with numbers. while the 'recommend/dont recommend' system is a too basic, ive always liked the letter grade system. a 5/10 can mean different things but if people were giving a game consistent C's we know that the game is average, and a game with As is great, and a game with Fs means its a waste of time
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
The truth is you should never base your opinions only on reviews. Watch gameplay, watch reviews, do some research and form your own opinion based on what you value in a game. There have been plenty of times where a game is a 10/10 game that everyone loves but it doesn't land with me. There have also been games that get a 3/10 but i love. A good example for me personally is Halo Infinite. If you ask almost any gamer about Halo Infinite chances are they will slam it. But for me the game is absolutely hands down my favorite arcade shooter. The gameplay just hits for me, and a lot of the complaints although valid do not outweigh the enjoyment I get from playing. If i would have based my opinions on others I wouldn't had played my most played game for the past 2 years. Play what you think you will enjoy, don't let others tell you what games you can enjoy.
P.S. I don't need an argument in the comments on how bad halo is. I already know people don't like the game. That was my whole point.
Yes very true. Reviews are subjective, at least partly.
I do think watching gameplay is about the only way to see what is desirable and what is not. The bummer of it is: the spoiler aspect. But that's the only way to make the purchase less risky:)
Reviews are how you do research though. The problem has always been the scoring systems, and how its lead to a lack of need to articulate its reasoning. To quote Dan "1/10, not enough Haunter"
Halo infinite would have been insane if it weren't for desync and insane aim assists
@@freelancerthe2561 That was the point of what i said. Watch reviews, gameplay, and get your own opinion based on what you value in videos games. Do not look at a score whether that be high or low to decide if you are playing a game.
@@ChairmanOfConstellation lol you had to do it. I'm not jumping in on this one.
I honestly don’t know how starfield scored so high. Like it’s a good game don’t get me wrong, but it’s missing a lot of things that made their other games great
True , easily could have been a 10/10 game if was released later
@@ChairmanOfConstellationI don’t think as much, it came out after games like star citizen, elite dangerous and no man’s sky have shown what space exploration could be, but starfield is just a fast travel game, the whole point of space games is the freedom of space and huge exploration. If this came out a long time ago it would have done a lot better. I’m not even going to finish it because I spend so much time going though air locks, watching my ship land, move from planet to planet and warp travel, but I don’t get to use my ship for any exploration myself. The space game type does not work well for Bethesda’s style. I’ll just go play elite dangerous and land wherever I want on any planet or moon I want.
SO what is a score of a good game? if we use a scale of 1-10 I would assume your good would be a 6 or 7 ( so you say its a good game. but upset people gave it an 8 or 9 when your good would be a 6-7 ? )
Absolutely. Its nowhere close to the previous games. it feels totally disjointed because of the way they designed planets etc. The other games felt rich and compact this one feels bare and bland. Worst Bethesda game by far.
Well that’s kinda why. The game itself isn’t bad. It’s just not what people expected and did not innovate on anything.
The combat and feel of the game is the same as their last, Fallout 4 had the base building and such, games like Avorion does ship building 100% better, nms does exploration better. Outside of story telling and being immersed in the universe, there isn’t anything to write home about with Star field. But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad game.
. It’s just “same old same old”. Probably the definition of a 7/10 where most other games that get the score are actually 5s. Coming from someone who’s deeply into Bethesda games, I enjoyed it. Just more Bethesda and very comfortable. I expected “more” but I can’t say I dislike what we got.
The worst part of modern gaming is that we know everything about every new game coming out, weeks if not months before it's out. The bliss of enjoying a game fresh as a kid was the best feeling. I try to avoid videos/news about games I really look forward to, for that reason.
What game are you looking forward to? Ill tell you all about it.
How did your blind run of Redfall go?
@@coopstain1728 Why don't you just worry about your failed youtube career?
@@mscomies Why don't you have anything better to do than this is the real question you're asking.
As a 45 year old saying this often I bet your a bit older as well 😂. The love of the mystery is what made gaming so fun. Playing Remnant 2 as if the internet didn’t exist was the best game experience I’ve had in years.
To be honest a 5 star rating system is pretty much just: Highly Recommend, Recommend, Wait for sale/patches, Skip it and avoid at all cost. It's really that simple. It's just a recommendation, as we can't simple evaluate art like it's math.
The annoying part is review aggregate sites will just take those 5 star ratings, multiply the number by 2, and throw it into the mix with all the other 10 point scale reviews.
For written reviews you also pretty much have to include the score out of 10 or it will less hits when folks do a search. Every writer I have spoken with dislikes or outright loathes scoring a game out of 10. There is a discussion every year about trying to be rid of it.
Why would this be annoying? How is reviewing a game on a 1-10 scale annoying? Whether it is a 1-5 scale or 1-10 scale its the same. Its not hard to figure out if a game is going to be fun for you or not. @@ForceGamingYT
This is a 20 minute video that could have been 5 minutes. You talk WAY too much and go on and on and on. You shouldnt waste 20 minutes of our time man. Respect your viewer's time. PSH@@ForceGamingYT
Well said. Indeed. Funny thing is, that's pretty much how our current 10/10 system works, except we only use half of the scale, like Force said in this video.
Mortismal Gaming is my number one source for game reviews (nothing against you, Force). He does a first-look video on new games. To give impressions and opinions. But then doesn't release a review until he 100%'s the game. With it being exclusive to PC games. And has his Steam profile public so people can confirm his 100% of steam-listed games. This means his reviews come "late." But as long as you're not someone that wants to jump into a game at launch. He's the best source. Though, he sticks to various forms of RPG's, primarily. So his scope is also a bit limited. And he does all this without getting review copies. And launching reviews after a game is out and established. Is not typically good for the algorithm on RUclips and such. The man does it for love of gaming. And to give people who don't jump on games immediately, a full in-depth review of a title. And even goes back through and 100% a game AGAIN if they do a major update or overhaul. Like he's doing with Cyberpunk 2077 right now.
Just a correction, he definitely does get review copies. That just doesn't stop him from waiting until 100% for his reviews
He has the most well thought out and neutral reviews around.
He does get review copies… wtf… like he’s released several things on games before they were released… for your main review source you seem to know remarkably little…
I was about to comment this same thing Mortismal has great reviews not for all audiences because they are long videos but you will never buy a game without knowing if you like it or not after seeing his review. Also I don't get this thing about "late" reviews I think if a game is no longer relevant a week or two after release it says a lot about the said game as a review of itself. I don't buy any game day 1 anyway since they often release buggy and expensive
He doesn't 100% every game legitly. I've seen plenty of sketchy shit to never trust his reviews soley on the basis of 100%. His reviews are sometimes focused on shit that doesn't matter either. You should never base anything on 1 source...
The comment you made about finding someone who likes and covers games I enjoy to follow is why I watch your stream. You have excellent reviews for games, very helpful on pinpointing good and bad points about a game, and the gameplay. It has really expanded my list of games to play and I have enjoyed them quite a bit more than I expected.
To add to this, I love that Force addresses the "Is it fun?" question. Games can be jank and still be fun.
@@AcidCortex1 Exactly!
The way Gameranx does their "Before you buy" series is my favorite way of doing reviews and they are my go to channel before I buy a new game
I usually go for ACG. I love his narrative approach. Seeing the good and bad. His recommendations. No scores though.
I follow three reviewers, you among them, to get three different angles on the games I'm interested in. I feel Force is much more about "does the game feel fun?", whereas the others have different foci such as performance and atmosphere/lore/story in which they appear to align with me.
Aside from that, Force is also just a chill and pleasant dude to listen to.
same actually mind you my taste seems to generally align with force's taste so that helps lol
Nothing pleasant in this voice but he is a cool dude
@therotten6152 For me, I go for gameplay and story telling.
Gameplay: Is it gun to keep replaying over and over tirelessly fun?
Story telling: Why must I play this game/the drive from beginning to end. It's like a book. Something to draw you into the game and end in a bang.
Example 3 games I will mentioned.
Destiny/Anthem. These 2 games in gameplay mode is actually fun. The drawback is the story which is confusing.
Chrono Trigger. The gameplay is boring and tedious but the story is excellent.
Uncharted 2. It has both good gameplay and story mode which give it an almost perfect score.
If a game (no matter if it's from AAA to indie games) does not draw me in within 5 to 10 hours, I'm not going to continue. I might go back later on to see if my perspectives are different. And sometime I will test why the reviewers give it this rating to see if it's accurate on what they review.
LeVar Burton said, "Of course, you don't have to take my words for it."
Finding reviewer you trust who like the same things as you is 99% of the battle. There is no point at all in reading a review from someone who you know nothing about...
I can't remember the last time a "professional" review influenced my decision to buy a game or not. When live gameplay so readily available online shortly after release I don't know why anyone would actively seek out a traditional review anymore.
When I purchase a game it's based almost completely on word of mouth and live gameplay.
@therotten6152 Nobody suggested that you watch the entire playthrough.
2-3 hours is more than enough to know if you're gonna enjoy the game or not.
Story means nothing at all if the core game mechanics are not there. And those can be seen in said 2-3 hours.
Bruh, I haven’t even made it past the first goblin village in BG3 yet cuz I keep making new characters to try the other classes before I commit to one for a playthrough. Even with redoing the intro that many times, it’s still just as interesting to see how differently characters react if I either am a different race or if I do things differently. So far, I’ve agreed with, convinced, and killed Kahga and I found that convincing her back to the proper side rewards you with a pretty cool quarterstaff with innate ensnaring vines as a cantrip. The variety of approaches is so friggin refreshing. 🙏
yea except the wokeness and various bugs lowers the game down for me
@@tjhicks3600dude get the fuck over it, it’s a great game just stop listening to Heelvsbabyface and actually give it a try
That’s such a great insight into your process, a lot of this I hadn’t even considered when watching reviews.
There’s two RUclipsrs out there that I will always weigh more heavily when looking to purchase a game, yourself and Splattercat.
It’s both refreshing and disappointing that you guys are the only RUclipsrs I’ve found who are both honest in your reviews and enjoyable to watch.
Keep up the good work sir
Hey if you want to transition to more post release reviews I'm all up for it. I usually don't buy games on release. Last time I did was darktide and I regretted it so much that I swore to stop buying games on release. I have to say, your pre-release coverage of the game definitely had an impact on my decision but there's no problem with that, I took the decision and I take it as a lesson learned. Also how could you guess that they were going to release an MTX shop as the "secret bonus feature on release" instead of the crafting system....
Have you checked out darktide lately? SO DOPE!
@@GimmeItams It has 0 content.
There is nothing to check out.
@@teapouter6109 nonsense. Sounds like you've not honestly played it. At least not sense the new update.
@@GimmeItams lmao sure
Enjoy playing the same missions over and over again
@@teapouter6109 you either only played it very little or are being disingenuous.
it currently has 16 missions (17 next month), Vermintide 2 (its fantasy analog) launched with 13. and left 4 dead 1 & 2 together (the inspiration for this genre of games) had 9 campaigns.
Sure Vermintide 2 has way more content now but we're 5 years into that vs 1 year with Darktide.
I think maybe you're just not into the Co-op horde games, they're all similar in that you run the same campaign over and over, the progression is in upping the difficulty higher and higher as you get better.
if you played all 14 missions they had at launch on difficulty 1-3 until you got bored then thats on you.
and if you played it enough to be on a higher difficulty then you'd probably be familiar with the genre and would know its got as much or more content than most comparable games.
Always appreciate your insights and your honesty man thank you. I know this makes zero sense (and at this point likely impossible to enforce) but I'd love to see a big game launch where the studio/publisher has an embargo on the game all the way leading up to launch... AND for one month after launch. Essentially treat a 1.0 launch as an NDA closed beta or something. It would be so interesting to see how people engage with a game and how its socialized online if people cant stream it or cover it in any way even after its launch.
This video deserves MILLIONS of views. Thanks and please continue to spread the word!
You don't strictly say it, but your desire to spend more time with games is why I like your content and value your opinions. I wrote off outlets that use point scales years ago. ACG, The Escapist, and yourself are my go-to review/impression outlets because of this type of self awareness. ❤
ACG is fantastic, honestly. I enjoy when reviewers try their best to stay objective and just skip the number rating/star rating. I appreciate people telling me if they think a game is worth the time investment more than anything.
What about Mortismal Gaming or SkillUp?
I get this... I realized that first off, I need to stop buying pre-orders because I'm kinda of done gambling on a game before I know if it's good or not. I feel like it's perpetuating releasing unfinished games. Secondly, I'm not giving any definitely opinions opinions on a game until I have at least completed the main story.
There is a significant issue when it comes to assigning game scores in a manner similar to that used for movies. Movies have a clear beginning and end, allowing for the evaluation of various parameters to assess the quality of the artistic product. In contrast, video games offer a unique experience to each player, with different paths, objectives, and outcomes. The criteria for evaluating games cannot be standardized because they vary depending on the individual player's experience.
And dont get me started about magazines and websites that have a polarized way to see some subjects. Because this changes everything
Movies have a much wider range. The same movie can be rated 5/10 or 10/10, and everything in between.
The exact same thing can be said about movies, books, or any other type of interpretive media. The issue isn't that movies have a clear start-to-finish and games don't; the issue is that everybody has their own interpretation of what is good, bad, and emotionally stimulating. Reviews can't be standardized across any medium because too much of everything is left to your own interpretations. Movies can vary just as much based on individual experience. The only significant difference between the two is that games are generally FAR longer, which is why its easier to invest in a 1-2 hour movie that you're not completely into versus a 6-10 hour game that you're not completely into.
The things that can be objectively measured, such as the performance in games or scene editing in movies, can and should be used as standard. In fact, games are actually easier in this regard because there are more intricate mechanics in a game that can be objectively measured. But the rest...? Yeah, that is getting into too murky of waters to have anything objective. Something as simply of a genre is a movie or a control scheme in a game, both of which can be done of varying objective quality, will alter your overall perception based on your own biases for or against said genre/control scheme.
Games are reviewed by people at best are terrible at games and at worst, literally hate video games.
@@Wolfcub23 Let us never forget the girl who reviewed Cyberpunk 2077 and said that the game had no sidequests, despite her background gameplay actively showing her avoiding every sidequest and doing only the main quests.
Which is why the only reviews I trust are Steam reviews. Its not ideal but better than the rest. youtubers, game sites, streamers all do it for money, so theyll either play fast to get fast reviews, or lie about what they think, or not play it at all. When money is involved its rarely honest.
Mortismal is my go to as he 100% his games and bases his reviews on if the game is fun and worth the price which is ultimately all that should matter.
@@RobertTrey-ov1lz hes generally ok but he has his own interests and biases. His starfield review is clearly bootlicking. He wants to stay on the publisher's good side side so he plays it too safe when reviewing big publisher games, he doesn't want to get blacklisted and not get early code. In other words he puts self interest ahead of integrity.
@@niftydegen sadly that seems to be most reviewers.
Between reviewers hardly having any time to review a game and sometimes just general bias for a franchise, it makes taking any review ratings seriously difficult. Like some games may end up opening up after many hours into the game and end up being a great game, but due to not having enough time to get to that point, a reviewer may have to give a lower rating simply because what they've played so far had been stale and boring. Then you have the opposite of that where a game might be amazing for the first X amount of hours, like BG3, for example, but then the end hours of the game the title just falls flat, is missing content or just doesn't hit the mark in a variety of ways. So then you end up having some games with way higher scores than they should be. Not to mention just human bias in general. Some people will rate a game way above what it should be simply because they're blinded by the hype, or you can have the opposite affect of that as well. Thats why I very rarely buy a game day 1 here and there, and ill just give it a week or 2 and watch people play it before I come to my conclusion if it's worth picking up or not.
The other issues, specifically with reviewers on big sites: either the writers or reviewers are inexperienced or just plain bad at doing the review.
Now, this could be mitigated if they had someone questioning them on their thought process or editing their work, but that clearly isn’t happening.
This is also hurt by the pay of this job. By the time someone could get good at it, they are going somewhere else to get paid more. If sites aren’t willing t pay for talent and make them better, they won’t last. It’s why we keep getting kids out of college who burn out at don’t improve…we just keep getting worse and worse writing and reviews.
RUclips mitigates this somewhat, but then some YT are less willing to criticize certain companies in fear of losing their perks (the sports games are very much like this) and won’t criticize UNLESS it is so well known it is safe to say.
'i recommend' and i 'i don't recommend' is just a 2-scale instead of a 10-scale, what matters is the dependabilty of the reviewer. There should just be a site that has the review scores for most reviewers then you could easily see if past reviews matched up with your own views.
Force there is also the problem of people review bombing a game because of an issue external to the game itself or just to be a troll. Also, I think it's pretty stupid for a video game studio to tie any kind of compensation to a Metacritic review because of the issues you referenced. The studio should know how easily these scores can be manipulated, making them unreliable.
Thanks for being practical rather than philosophical on criticizing game reviews.
For review scores: I want to see games to be reviewed on 3 branches instead of a single score: Story (similar to film and TV reviews), gameplay (game design, fun) and technicals (audiovisual, UI, bugs, performance, optimization).
I love your reviews. Always in depth explaining why you like or dislike. I don’t pay attention to 10 score ratings on video games or movies.
This makes me realize how little I care about reviews; haven't given them a chance for many, many years now.
i feel like this video was a 8/10 because its points out the perspective of reviewers and makes me realize how ridiculous the reviews can actually be, thank you for the upload honestly great video allround
Why so low?
It's a game of numbers, reviewers want to release fast reviews to get views/traction or push an agenda while consumers want fast reviews as well. This will never change.
Push an agenda? Huh?
7 is my favorite number but it appears to be IGN's as well...
LOL, U ppl are so funny, ppl call IGN a shill for scoring games high at the same time say: " oh no they game my favorite game a 7".
basically, this video by Dunkey
ruclips.net/video/kAIVMhja4CI/видео.html
I still expect to hear "keep watching and keep owning" at the end of your videos- much love, Force. Great discussion!
Force, I appreciate all the work that goes into your videos. One of my pet peeves is the glut of unscripted, unedited videos that a lot of content creators call 'reviews'.
So you actually WANT scripted fake reviews.
In their defense depends on how big the channel is, if its huge theres no excuse. If its a smaller channel the amount of time that goes into it isnt worth it. I tried it, even for basic edited video, between research recording and editing it could take you 40-50hours of work, to earn like $2. Thats if you're monetized. its super harsh.
@@AzureRoxe No. I want people to think about what they want to say before they say it. It's not unusual for the first attempt to express an idea to be the worst attempt.
This is a big problem. The short time window to get the reviews out is one reason I don't pay much attention to big publication reviews, or day 1 reviews of any kind at all anymore. I wait for awhile after a game releases and then get a sense of what user reviewers are saying, and then I use what I hear there combined with what I think based on my own perceptions and gameplay videos as to whether or not I think something is worth trying or not.
Some very good points - I think it would be great if reviewers listed their top three games played by hours played - it helps put the review in perspective. Honestly, the Starfield reviews amazed me -- especially the written ones -- I'm not sure all of the reviewers had ever played any games before. Not to put down Starfield which I enjoy, I think there were a ton of reviews from folks who had never played an RPG.
Although it’s not a perfect system, the way we rate things in a professional environment is to answer a series of “Do you agree with ” and then derive a score from the answers that is mapped to a 0 to 100 scale. One way to think of this in game terms is that the game starts as 10/10 and then every time you disagree that influences the score downwards. Questions are often nested for context. For example, you could respond that the graphics do not meet expectations and then get a question about whether the graphics impact the gameplay. I feel like some behavioral science students who like video games could come up with a standard system. (Assuming no-one wants a pay a consulting firm to do it. )
The aggregated score is actually more reliable than individual scores because it accounts for all the variations amongst gaming reviewers
Yes, there will be ridiculous outliers of 1/10, but those will be averaged out over time, and likely be evenly distributed across games.
Regardless, agree that the Buy, Wait, Pass type system is better than the raw scores.
early reviews is not the problem, the problem is the reviewers are paid and sponsored by the company to leave a positive review.
They're not automatically paid the trick is if they don't give a positive review then for the next game there's a chance that they don't get a copy of the game then cannot do a launch review, that's how it works
Having a Reviewer take their time, Explain the systems, Manage Expectations, Address their Grievances and Provide Criticism is Infinitely better than Watching a Streamer play a 50+hour game for only a day, storming through the content, screaming at every bugs they see, downplaying game systems that are otherwise a good thing for a different kind of player, then calling the game Trash and going to Twitter/Xitter crying why they didn't have Review Codes, How 'Companies are Screwing the ConSumErs', yelling how they 'Know Things Other People Don't', then slap a 1/10 number on it.
I love your Stuff man, Definitely a Diamond in a sea of Trash.
Cant trust these reviews, better watch the gameplay on yt
And everyone should remember reasoning why those first day review/first impressions are pushed - from the point of RUclips, if you have small channel - you have only day or two to release a video and get some attention, after that you may produce video that will be shown to really small number of people. That causes rush, that causes many reviews that are not really deep. I'm recording for several years on different languages and in fact that always work this way.
As for score to the game - fully agree. And more popular niche game goes for - more harsh people in its scoring. That is just not fair in many events
Have you ever noticed how videogames are pretty much the only media where the numeric rating is common place? Like, you don't talk about movies, books, plays, etc, in that way.
What? Movies have been rated with numbers since before video games existed.
Well, your not talking about movies with a score, but it's much about what other people say, so the user score on Rotten Tomatoes can represent this. But it is true that no one cares. The difference is, if ur watching a bad movie ur wasting 1-3h of time. If you play a bad game u can waste 100s of hours. So u care more about the score
As long as I remember movies, books, plays, concerts, restaurants, etc. has had a number based score in the newspaper my dad subscribes to. Decades before they even had games reviews in the newspaper.
I really wish the old system of categories wasn't eliminated entirely like it seems to be these days. I like hearing the reviewers take on graphics, performance, audio, story, fun factor, etc. It doesn't need an arbitrary number for each category but I like the fulsome review to cover all those aspects. I find the new methodology of just talking about it and the feels it gives doesn't paint a full picture as blind spots can form. The categories at least keeps the review on track to cover "all" aspects of the game.
For example, now someone may rave that they loved it so much, it was so fun, it made me feel incredible playing the game. It turns out they are an audiophile and it was the OST that carried the game for them. I may not care what the OST is like and that doesn't impact my experience as much.
I noticed with starfield a lot of smaller content creators were given keys and a lot of more bigger more controversial creators were left out.
Maybe because they don't deserve it.
@@Daventry85 it’s possible and it could be that Bethesda knows that them being critical could negatively affect the sale of the game.
@@SuperBlitzKingACG got a code... Only Skillup did not get one, because of what he said in Fallout 76 review
@@revben You’d think developers would want to reach as large an audience as possible.
As someone who runs 3 RUclips channels, this is insanely true. Great video and spot on take.
I think star field is one of the only games that actually deserved a 7/10 score. Most other games are 5s at best or even better and are actually 8s but folks play it safe and say 7.
Star Field is not a bad game. It just wasn’t innovative and what people were expecting. You got half the people writing and putting their 2 cents on it when they never have played it or even planned to. Then you got the other half of people who’ve never liked Bethesda’s games but are just on the hate bandwagon.
You got more folks who already wanted to dislike the game than people who didn’t. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not “great” by any means but it sure as hell isn’t a bad game. It’s straight up just same old same old with a new coat of paint. It’s still enjoyable, still immersive, and still has that Bethesda charm. That’s why I say:
“If you like Bethesda games you’ll find that you’ll like this. If you’ve never liked their games or wanted to check this out to see if your mind would be changed then this isn’t the game for you”.
Not bad, but not great. Just the same comfortable formula we’ve been getting for years. Not an excuse to not innovate because that sucks but I can’t say it’s a bad game when it isn’t an actual bad game.
I also can say as a long time Bethesda fan, I out Star field down for other games. More games out there that are adding new things. I’ll pick it up later. Only got like 40 hours into it. But I see no reason for it to take the spot over other stuff that’s coming out.
One individual review is subjective, the average of a hundred subjective reviews, usually is a pretty decent indication of the quality of a game. The only exception to that, is when/if these subjective reviewers are being paid by companies, or flavour their reviews to keep their 'access media' access.
This whole convoluted 21 minutes could have been a 2 minute segment.
That thumbnail alone makes me not want to watch your video. I know that gaming publications aren't the most popular thing these days, but reeling people in with outrage by making up an imaginary gaming publication that gave Elden Ring a 0.6? Oh well, at least Adblock is still working.
I feel like we have forgotten about the first impression existing as a version of reviewing a game (or something else). Personally I always think of reviews as "someone else's opinion".
Please dont clickbait your thumbnails like that. I like your content but the fact you present a super controvercial critic score on the thumbnails that is just made up is really off putting and makes it hard to want to take in any of the valid points you make.
Dude it’s crazy you brought this up, I’m working on a game review framework which is based solely on objectively measured system implementations. Registered the site today and you came out with this video lol!
Oh son, this has been done before and it doesn't work. Video games are no toaster. German game magazines tried this for decades and got rid of it as it completely misses the point. It's impossible to be objective and it's also pointless. There are many fantastic games with less mechanics, less time to complete, a lot less polygons that are so much better than the soulless AAA games with hundred times their budget. A good art style makes a game look so much better than higher resolution textures and polygon count etc.
@@1IGG others may have tried but I have a pretty decent solution in the works. Once I get everything setup I will update this comment with a link to it. The good news is I’m a system engineer by trade, so I kinda have some background in this stuff. It definitely hard, but not impossible. This isn’t a traditional scoring system, and it isn’t a replacement for current reviewers. I’m hoping it can be adopted for the exact reasons stated in the video.
Tons of insight here that i am sure alot of us either didn't know, or haven't considered.
i have more respect for what you do on this channel now :)
Not that anyone was asking, but as an Australian, that 'mate' at 15:37 was perfect. 💯
Thanks for the peek behind the curtain, Force! I follow you because your content struck me as high-effort, but I didn't really have a grasp of how that translates into hours. Makes sense why the review establishment seems so off the mark.
This honest and open approach is what makes you one of my absolute favorite reviewers in this space. Thank you Force - signed Old Man Gamer
My suggestion would be to wait until you have a lot of reviews from a playerbase as a whole who don't usually have bias, which is what I do. However, that begs the question that if everyone did that... where would we get the reviews from?
So, that posits (incorrectly, as I shall point out) that at least the first adopters need reviewers who are given free copies, and if this is the case then they should probably be competent at reviewing. Hence, professional reviewers. However, the game company doesn't really want competent reviewers, they want shills - and they pick the reviewers. Which leads me to the ultimate conclusion that this is as pointless as just asking the game company if their game is good - surprise on what answer you get.
Even pre-recorded footage doesn't help - this can be curated to the point of being not very representative at all. So, the only good way I see is to have people who prove they are capable and non-bias who can make money from reviewing, who do it live while streaming, not obligated by an employer for peddling the game a certain way in a certain timeframe, and just buy it at release the normal way and so are not dependent on the game company. We've seen a rise of these in 'influencers' on youtube, twitch, etc.
Honestly, I think if everyone waited a week or more and instead watched a variety of the youtubers/etc that resonate with them and prove not to act like shills, especially live streamed footage so its not being curated, we would probably have a far better game market. Otherwise, the success of a game is often just around how much hype they generate through marketing and paid-for closed-access reviewers.
I don't watch reviewers much, just you and TheLazyPeon. I really like that both of you do a "first impressions" video at launch, and then an actual review after a few weeks or even months sometimes.
Why do you think they give reviewers so little time? Could it be the build, or maybe worried about leaks? Probably both I assume. But you make a good point about reviews of games right at launch. You need more than a week to get a good grip on most games.
I do find it interesting... that seeing Starfield getting 7/10 was a gasp and then I was like isn't a 7 good, like a 7/10 is good, not amazing sure,
but it is good and I liked Starfield and thought it was a 7-7.5/10... But if I gave it a reviewing score... My score would be "Lightly Recommend"
This is why I don't base my purchases on reviews and no one should.
I remember you going into this a bit in your Rain World review, which was very eye-opening for me and I can see why it was important for you to go through in relation to Rain World specifically.
There is also a trend of lambasting the people who would buy a game that is considered bad by someone else. Channels like Worth a Buy basically just throw constant insults out at anyone who would enjoy the game, and usually throw in a few at the developers for good measure. Even if the game isn't totally broken... it's just toxic.
The main reason I watch reviews by Force is because there isn't that toxicity, he can review the game and give negative feedback without going into rants about the larger community being braindead, or how you'd "have to be an idiot" to enjoy the game. There are a lot of times Force didn't like a feature but he described it objectively and I was able to determine that I would like it.. which is EXACTLY how a review should work.. outline the objective and then comment with the subjective.
I think this is the REAL problem with reviews, the toxic attitude that comes with a lot of these reviews on YT and elsewhere. Seems to be linked to some idea of superiority for enjoying particular products, it's quite child-like.
1) You have some useful information here. And some ethics. Rare.
2) A gamer's consumer rights movement is needed. Companies should be compelled to have proper refund periods to start with: move from the 2 hour crap to 12 hour minimum. Also, warranties are a feature of most consumer products, clearly that doesn't apply to games. We could have them though. Warranties could vary with "expected playtime value". A little 9 dollar game that is in early access is different from a AAA game costing 79 bucks. Diablo 4 is hated not because the game is "the worst game of the year," according to some specific listed criteria, but because as an ARPG it is unique for having no long-term play value. It met the 2 hour refund limit only; not the criterion we usually assume is in place for ARPGs such as PoE, Grim Dawn, Torchlight, and earlier Diablos. These other games all had long-term play value, and not just because they had seasons or were online. D4 is "wrong" in some fundamental, genre destroying way. That is the reason so many gamers feel defrauded, and why so many of the fanboys are really struggling to find a way to justify their purchases or justify wasting their subscribers time if they are content creators.
3) The other problem with reviews and playthroughs, which you have partly hit upon, is that they are often little more than promotions. Imagine if movies were reviewed this way: it would be a scandal, possibly something much worse, even grounds for legal action. (You took money for that playthrough/review? Movie reviewers would lose a great deal of their credibility if payment from the movie's producers was confirmed.)
4) Gaming is early days in the sense that it is a semi-regulated area with many loopholes and abuses available for companies/individuals. This is why a consumer rights movement tailored to the uniqueness of gaming is badly needed.
So much good sense in this video! It has crystallised many thoughts I've had swirling around my head on this topic.
I'm loving the background music. You can increase its volume just a tad I think.
The points system is archaic, indeed
Funny enough this review OF "reviews" was one of the best reviews I've heard in years. Great video.
P.S. - In the context of "user reviews" we need to use more of a "mean" rating because of the abundance of both negative AND positive emotional review bombing. That said I've seen much more unreasonable negative review bombing from "players" AND a lot of very suspect positive reviews from professional "critics"... I can't decide which I abhor more... actually it's the 9's and 10's from "critics" when a game is objectively flawed, whether that means HIGHLY flawed or only slightly flawed. Starfield and Diablo 4 are, of course, two games I have in mind.
Games journalist here. I'll give you some insight that when we get a code for Diablo 4 there was a test realm up for about 6 days, depending on your timezone. If we had an extra day or two we would of likely caught the issue with the D4 end game. But, because we had to test features, classes, and get some level a variety to get a more rounded opinion it was something we ended up missing sadly. Hope that helps while we are on the clarity hype train. Not using it an excuse but it can be a reality of getting review codes sometimes. Don't forget it took about two weeks for it to settle in among the masses that the D4 end game was a sub optimal experience, which again, was outside of the review window's run period.
@@fandasubacraig D4 has WAY MORE issues than just the endgame, which may be it's biggest one but not the only one. Besides I'm referring more to the ridiculous amount of 10/10 type reviews by mainstream gaming journalists and sites for big AAA games that are just either buggy garbage or soulless cash grabs. Starfield is a better example because it got widespread acclaim by the press and the game is extremely buggy and poorly crafted. Anyone with objectivity and not blinded by the Bethesda name (which is simply a "NAME" now and nothing else) would see it for what it is. A poorly crafted game with a weak "safe" story that has no real edge to it. Poorly written characters with the standard atrocious facial animations. An abundance of "lazy" design choices like constant loading screens and not just for "space travel" but even in buildings. Bad performance and a bland art style that still a lot of people could barely get 60 FPS out of while being able to run far better games at 120+. One bad choice after another and tons of dev lies about the game and blaming players for things. Starfield got that 7/10 from IGN and that became a meme yet that review was still positive while also being one of the FEW accurate reviews and time proved that.
This is what I'm saying and it's not a personal attack but "reviewers" mean little to nothing anymore even the ones who do truly try to give players an accurate depiction of the game.
This video perfectly encapsulated the reasons why I have long since stopped buying games at launch. I wait until there is a broad spectrum of reviews before plonking down my hard earned cash on a game that I am interested in buying.
I feel that game reviews should go into a "State of the Game re-review" mode after like a month or so.
Specially to keep an eye on publishers who release a game without a cash shop for those good first reviews and then after a first patch or so add it on the sly. Or to give something of a second chance to games who have a messy launch and actually shape up after a little while.
What you're saying is why I personally believe that RUclipsrs and other Reviewers are also responsible for the bad state of gaming today. And everything you said proves me right. Sure the game developers are most responsible, but RUclipsrs and Reviewers constantly ignoring ethics and morals for more clicks is a very big problem with the modern state of gaming. And please, DONT say "I don't have a choice" because it's on the publisher you ALWAYS have a choice. And the truth is that if you all stuck together on it, and called the publisher out on their B.S., and took a stance, and waited until you could reasonably review games, then the publisher would adjust. As long as RUclipsrs continue to allow the publishers to continue, then your at least partly responsible. You can blame it 100% on the publisher if you want, but that's just a cop out. That's just RUclipsrs saying they don't want to take a stance, and believe everyone else should do it for them. It's RUclipsrs saying "me making money matters more then the customer losing money". Just saying, nothing is EVER 100% one person's fault, it's always a combination of both sides making mistakes. And in this case it's the publisher making the initial mistake, and then most RUclipsrs allowing the publisher to do it, because they don't care about ethics, and just care about making money. And the reality is this process HELPS certain RUclipsrs, like IGN, etc...
I think there is a huge problem in the gaming industry where reviewers don't accurately reflect whether a game is good past the first two hours for these very reasons. Anyone can make a good "first two hours." Many games I have played are great for 2 hours, but are they good at 10, 20, 40, or the vaunted 100+ hours that people want? Take Lies of P. Lies of P is a game that wears out its welcome fast. Its later areas are miserable to play through. It doesn't get BETTER - it only stays middling or gets worse. And yet, people are lauding it for its Soulslike consistency and design. I bet not one major review outlet actually beat the game. Tell me that game is a 10/10 with the last act. I don't think anyone can.
Personally I pay very little attention to individual reviews and almost none to review scores. I tend to just do a mix of looking into what the game is advertised as, filtering out things I have little interest in, followed by skimming some articles and more importantly discussions, then just sort of using that to guage if it's something I want to buy, something I need to do a deeper look into, or something I can dismiss outright.
Really though the important thing for me is to just find the key takeaways from what people are saying. I've gamed long enough to know what I tend to like and what I don't, what I find interesting, as well as what I might want to give more of a try. I honestly can't even think of the last time I've felt burned buying a game. Like even games that I didn't end up liking that much I was generally okay with the purchase and giving them a try.
But going by adverts can, and has been, very misleading over the past decade and a half. A lot of promoters are also very bad at conveying certain ideas that are outside the AAA mindset; so you have decent, if not great games, being advertised wrong, to the wrong demographics, or pitched as entirely incorrect genres. I spend a ton of time wadding through steam's indie scene, and found many games that I ended up liking having HORRIBLE advert videos, that look like they were built off a check list of numbers.
2 things in adverts that always grab my attention in a bad way. Narrating an explanation of an esoteric game system, but UI design communicates something entirely different. Narrating a backstory, but that information doesn't translate into the actual game in any meaningful way.
Written reviews can't show the game in action, while video reviews tend to be too effort intensive for most reviewers (even supposed professional ones) to manage both writing and editing for cohesion. Bias' aside, being genre savvy in multiple genres is practically a requirement for articulating modern game design, due to a lot of borrowing between them. And good quality review can convey much of that information using genre conventions as an anchor point. Now if you can further integrate bias' into that assessment, you can essentially triangulate specific vectors of a game's design that get your goat; and 2 to 3 video/written essays is enough to understand the overaching game mechanics, and what makes it stand out in the long run.
The trouble, though, is that kind of comprehensive review takes a lot of time and investment most reviewer don't have. Too many games coming out to be addressed, and too many people expecting you to have an opinion on every game they come across. Too specialized, and they lose that broad perspective needed to keep things in context. But if too broad, lack the in-depth knowledge of genres to recognize if something special is going on. Not many games can be easily digested at multiple levels of understanding. So knowing what to draw attention to, and understanding its impact (both to the game and the genres), is key to understanding if a game is worth your time. But gamers (TM) have shown they collectively lack that perspective, and even going by player reviews is not enough to understand a game beyond a surface level, and its barrier for entry.
@@freelancerthe2561 "But going by adverts"
Immediately you need to reread what I said. Seeing how a game is presenting itself is just an initial filter. Literally went on to explain how I actually decide.
"having HORRIBLE advert videos"
Advert videos is not the only part of how a games presented. What's the actual pitch, what gameplay videos are there, etc.
"Written reviews can't show the game in action"
I usually put the video aspect under how a game presents itself. I also do check out gameplay videos, probably should have added youtube to the things I skim along with articles/discussions but same thing applies.
"The trouble, though, is that kind of comprehensive review takes a lot of time and investment most reviewer don't have."
I think my point is a comprehensive look is not exactly needed, or if it is it's generally pretty quick to tell.
At the end of the day I have an abundance of games I could play and enjoy but will never have the time to play all of them. I just need to filter games into worth a try and not worth a try. That's pretty quick top do at a glance. Might I miss some gem? Sure. But even with perfect insight I'd still not be able to play every gem. My criteria is really just do I have games that will make my free time enjoyable and engaging.
I definitely appreciate that you are pretty measured with your videos and don't overuse hyperbole. Unfortunately thanks to the algorithms i understand why so many creators end up having to fall back to using extremes in their titles and clickbait. Games are nuanced and personal, and your opinions of them can even change over time. We all hated loved, hated, and loved again Cyberpunk.
Sekiro and It Takes Two won GOTY, and while great, I think most would agree they dont stand among the titans that are BOTW, GoW and Elden Ring. Everything is context and relative to that moment in time. Its why CoD will prob never win GOTY but for some reason is the best selling game almost every year.
Objective Opinions are an oxymoron and we just gotta educate people on critical thinking, so thanks for helping
AAA game reviews are paid for, that's the only reason they always get close to a perfect 10 despite the poor reviews from actual gamers
Games journalist here who works for a smaller, niche site. Glad to see sites and RUclipsrs alike have the same issues. When i get a code like 2 weeks in advance its a bliss moment. But then i know if i have it that early, then most people will, and working for a niche site that comes with its issues sometimes. I've dubbed the entire process games journalism fuckery. I also like using the full 1-10 scale when i review something so i guess its another reason why i get codes late :P
I think going back to having mass FREE demos for anyone that would like to try a game before buying it,would be a great help also.
I definitely agree on this, and I think the best way to deal with this type of review trend is to just ignore early (first-impression) "reviews". Like any other smart consumer, don't immediately jump on the bandwagon. Have a bit of sense that the actual relevant review would be around what FG said - after 20 to 50 hours of gameplay (depending on the game), better if after a complete game. Don't fall for these early "reviews", but rather as FG said - treat these as first impression. Bottom line, the internet public (the consumers) will determine on how these reviews will evolve or devolve, like any other product outhere.
there should be a website that shows who got a review copy and how many days before release. It would be a great help for consumers to know if the publisher used dirty tricks and they can get called out way easier.
Back in grade 11, I left public highschool and starting taking distance education, which included an intranet webforum for all the students taking distance ed to talk to each other about whatever, including school of course. But in any case I remember finding like 10X more like-minded gamers in distance-ed school than I did in public highschool, and I proposed that videogame reviewers/journos should stop rating games and instead should try and focus on who the ideal audience for a game is (not necessarily the same as the target audience), and who a game will annoy, etc. Literally nobody agreed with me. Of course I've been smug about being right about this for years now because clearly many other independent game commentators agree since more often than not I'll see them say 'this game is a ham-sandwich out of 10' or something.
But that aside, I think another issue is that the mainstream game journos are seemingly not self-aware of these obvious facts themselves. They try to maintain the norms of their patently flawed process instead of just own up to them and try to accommodate as best they can. How often is it painfully obvious that a journalist didn't even finish a game but acts like they did. I personally would have no negative opinions on a journo who said 'I only got roughly half-way thru the game as of writing this, but intend to update my progress later, check back here in a week if you're still undecided a week after launch'. Multiplayer is also a problem area, like journalists aren't going to be ruining a game with cheating and whatnot prior to release, but so many online multiplayer games lose so much of their value due to cheating later on.
All too often they think difficulty is some kind of aspect that can be 'correct', with 'too hard', and 'too easy'. Instead they should try and gauge what kind of gamer the level of difficulty is catered towards, and how adjustable it is, etc.
IMO they need to focus on just trying to tell the objective truth about the game rather than try and focus on how much they like it and what they think of it on a personal level. Some things are subjective, not objective, true, so don't try and objectify those aspects, it's not that hard.
I’d argue that in the current landscape of reviews, the aggregate scores are the only ones worth looking at unless you know a reviewer’s tastes well. Seeing a general consensus can give more information than those singular reviews in a bubble. It’s more of a lay of the land. You can see a village in the distance, but the only way to experience it is to go into it.
agreed on all points.
the industry over time has put WAY TOO much importance on pre-release reviews, thinking they're like the movie industry that can whip out a movie review much quicker after a 90-minute watch.
post-release reviews as the way to go.
pre-release should just be first impressions all around.
What you saying is so much important, people give the rating of a game so much credit it feels dumb how the whole thing escalates over it
19:00 I agree with you, "recommend" or "not recommend" is a great binary to use. I've also seen "Buy, Try or Why" which I think is a great scale combined with some commentary about the game/product.
It's a total "tragedy of the commons" situation with reviews and reviewers. As long as even one person does a pre-launch review, then everyone has to for the sake of things like ad revenue and channel metrics. I can't see a way we could actually get game reviews onto a solid, trustable footing with the way the whole gaming ecosystem is at the moment. People still pre-order digital downloads of games because they want the Day 1 experience, which means there's an appetite for pre-launch content, and creators are going to feed that. We as gamers need a mentality shift to move away from just snapping up The New Shiny because it was marketed well, which will allow creators time and space to give honest, well considered reviews.
It's a pretty bad cycle we're all in, industry, reviewers, and customers/gamers alike, and I'd argue that the current model isn't really working for anyone involved. Which is a huge shame, because I love this hobby, and the communities within it, but I just don't see it changing any time soon.
I remember that once in their podcast 3 Gordos Bastardos they mentioned that they never feel conditioned in their opinion for getting review copies.
They constantly publish negative reviews about Digimon and SAO games and Bandai Namco keep sending them codes.
Think that people that decides who to hand the review codes don't get any reward if the reviewers talk positively or not. They are just people working for others.
Also should mention a lot of reviewers now judge a game based on their politics which is insane. "Not enough gay/trans characters" or "too many hot and sexy characters" 😂
Great video Force
The biggest problem is that people forget that a review is just one person's opinion with all the biases that can bring to the table.
I prefer to watch your reviews simply because you and I have similar tastes but watching this video and seeing how you like to dissect games just puts the cherry on top as to why I will keep watching your videos/reviews keep up the great work!
I have been watching you since your bartending / SC2 days and you are pretty much the only game reviewer I have stuck with consistently. While our personal taste in games are quite different I find your reviews -- both in substance and in calm style -- provide a high quality signal that others do not provide.
You NEED to watch Skillup. Seriously he is THE BEST reviewer out there. He tells it exactly like it is and doesnt just go with the popular vote.
For the last 10 years or so the only reviews I take completely to heart are the ones that come out at least a a week after launch
This is one of the few videos I have seen that has an intelligent assessment of "game reviews."
The problem with "game reviews" are twofold; reviews are largely offered by amateur consumers. the language & tools for talking about video games as a piece of critique are borrowed from the critique of other mediums such as film & theater.
How many reviewers view the purpose of review as a recommendation? Rather than an insight?
That's a problem.
For example, considering something other than gameplay is a mistake and a misunderstanding of the video game medium.
Gameplay is the very purpose of the medium.
A video game can exist sans visuals, audio, or story. However, a video game can NEVER exist without gameplay.
Anyone can start a YT channel if they like games and offer "reviews."
There is no vetting, ethics board, required degrees, or scholarly understanding required to review video games. So it's just a bunch of amateurs "reviewing" games with the same intellect as communicating their favorite flavor of ice cream.
The video game industry is, in all regard, juvenile.
the funniest thing about people giving games that x/10 rating is when one reviewer will give elden ring a 9/10 as a game and then give lies of p a 9/10 as well xD and its like, in what actual universe are you living in where you think those 2 games are of the same quality. it becomes difficult to take reviewers seriously when it also feels like their motive is to conform with the most popular take. maybe I just want to find a reviewer that had gone through the same issue i did but I rarely find reviewers truly talk about issues of a game nowadays unless its popular to bash said game. one game will get a complete pass for doing something horrible with QoL and bugs but another game will be bashed completely and utterly just because of the same type of bugs. its beyond me how difficult it truly is to find middleground reviewers this day and age.
As soon as this guy complained about venues giving AAA games a 1/10 I knew this was unserious. Reviews are full of context; a 1/10 is as valid as a 4/10. It's inherently subjective and contextualized.
My point is that these scales - and what they scale against - is the issue. We shouldn’t aggregate 1-10 scale reviews since they don’t all use the same references.
Like if the 1-10 scale is meant to say “where does this game fall in comparison to ALL games” then yes, I would say no AAA game gets a 1. Because there are some absolutely atrocious garbage heaps launching into Steam daily, that even the buggiest AAA game is significantly better than.
But if the 1-10 scale measures “how does this game rate compared to other games I personally enjoy” then sure, I can see plenty of AAA games with 1 ratings.
And that’s my entire point, every reviewer has their own method of using the 10 point scale, so aggregating those numbers on sites like Metacritic is as good as worthless.
The scale on which I'd rate a game: "How much did I enjoy the time I spent?"
Nothing else matters.
As a consumer with a limited gaming budget and limited time on this earth and a massive ever-growing list of discounted all time great classic games I've yet to play, I can't emphasize enough how important it is for me to buy every hot new games on day 1 or earlier if possible so please don't expect me to wait for thorough and honest reviews.
I used to pre-order every game I was even remotely interested in. But for the past couple of years I've completely stopped cold. As hard as it can be sometimes, it's always best to wait about a month after release to find out if the game is good or not, broken or not, etc. It's wild to see just how many games start off with good reviews (due to the issue raised in this video) then a few weeks in everyone now hates the game for various reasons. I've saved so much time and money by doing this.
What you said makes total sense.
And I have only really been following reviewers who have the same sort of interests in games.
You being one of them.
7:24 - And a problem is they'll give out codes selectively to people who will overlook issues with the game or ones who will just not give a decent negative review if it's deserved.....
For all MMO and RPG content you are always the guy to go to. Good in depth reviews, you also sound very relax. With a lot of other creators I loose interest after couple of minutes, almost all your content I watch from start to end. Keep up the good work!
Appreciate you touching on "Access Journalism".
You're 100% right, not every reviewer is going to get a code, and reviewers are not owed a review code. Which means sometimes a reviewer just didn't get a code.
However, for some people acting like "Access Journalism" doesn't exist is disingenuous, and if they are a reviewer acting like "Access Journalism" doesn't exist I have to ask myself why they are pushing back on that or why are they refusing to acknowledge that it exist. Which ultimately leaves me no longer trusting them or their reviews.
I find Starfield a very interesting example.
Upon its launch day and in the 2 days after when all the reviews popped up I watched perhaps 20 to 30 reviews with some gameplay to see all the different takes and I figured for myself... The expenctations and reservations I had about the game are pretty much what I expected and some reviewers proved me right while other were still dogshit.
I've purchased that game 4 weeks or so after the launch and found that again I was correct in my estimations.
What I need/want to hear is an objective and/or even semi-detailed outlay of how systems and aspect of the game work, not if the reviewer thinks that its good or bad.
After all, you (as the reviewer) cant know wether or not I (as the potential player) value the "can I manually land my spaceship on a planet?" so I've got much more value from being said it can or cannot be done and how that looks like generally, which is something I respected from your review in general.
Force Gaming, my man. Respect for this video and at least understanding the problem (of which you also recognize its a forced evil on your side often these days).
I think that precisely games like starfield reviews are incredibly weird, and this is something that has been obvious in the starfield subreddit since the game came out on EA.
99% of the bethesda fans rate the game 9-10/10, most see no flaw on it, so when I began playing on day 2 or 3, and found the story bland, the game kinda buggy, a lot of systems shallow, all the loading screens, the lack of phones or email or any form of communication which forced me to walk back and forth and so on, I was at odds. I finished the game on NG, went into NG+ to finish all the faction questlines that I missed and the game felt too big in scope but unfinished, so I'd give it a 6 or 6.5/10. If you ask me to tell you how I rated the game I can break it down in criteria and how much of it I value, but on the subreddit if I said that the first weeks I'd get either called a sony fanboy, a review bomber, hater, etc.
For whatever reason there's games whose players/fans exist in a bubble and make them prone to ignoring flaws either in the game, or the studio policies/decisions, blizzard is another one, where people complain a lot about how blizzard cares more about store mounts and pandering than improving the writing for the game, and cleaning up bloat in the skills/talents, but at the same time a big chunk of said people will buy the latest store mount that costs 30 dollars because "it looks cool".
@@TheShitpostExperience You see that too big is why people like Bethesda games because you played, you can tell this wasnt a play it safe game. Who in their right mind goes, lets make an open world game. Then make it a huge rpg, but lets make it a good shooter, then lets add base building, survival gathering, management to it. Then lets add space travel and spaceship fighting. Then lets make it customizable ships
Even though I enjoyed Spiderman 2018, Miles Morales, God of War etc. I couldnt finish Zero Dawn because it felt like another ubisoft checklist open world game
3rd person, open world, average action combat, good visuals and story. That seems to be most of gaming big games this past decade if we are lucky
@@imo098765Woaahh. Starfeild is one of the safest game of the year. What you described,except the spaceship, was in previus Bethesda games. The lore and story have zero imagination.
Like they legit copied a whole faction quest from Alien. It is certainly a tribut but come on, its freaking space!!! We are talking about the unknown. Make us dream about creative possibilities and outcomes. I dont want to see something ive already seen before in 5 movies. Thats like one of hundred exemple why Bethesda stayed in their confort zone making that game. This game has again zero innovation and some aspects got even backward from precedent Bethesda games.
numbered systems are inherently flawed because of biases we have with numbers. while the 'recommend/dont recommend' system is a too basic, ive always liked the letter grade system. a 5/10 can mean different things but if people were giving a game consistent C's we know that the game is average, and a game with As is great, and a game with Fs means its a waste of time
The problem with game reviews is way too many people care more about what other people think than their own entertainment
Not Skillup. Skillup is the best