I mean they could say that the rating is relative to other games in the same genre. That would make it less stupid. Maybe compared to other Antifa Simulators Dustborn really is a 7.😂
Simple as. I haven't played Dustborn or Concord, but Outlaws is a buggy and broken mess with terrible writing. Stellar Blade at least functions properly, and that game was made by a mobile game developer team.
@@leg0land100 Hence the investigation 🔍 Interesting times ahead. I just want a return to games made for the consumer, like Space Marine, Helldivers (before Sony’s nonesense) and *arguably* even XDefiant (excluding the fact Ubisoft are yet to release it on Steam) rather than the developer’s ideologically motivated personal desires. They’re getting there, but we need to keep the pressure on as consumers 👌🏻
Here's what I got out of this. 1-5 is absolutely useless. So simple fix... From now on, we look at every 6,7,8,9,10 from IGN specifically, as a 1,2,3,4,5 out of 5.0. Starwars got a 2 out of 5 from ign
I also think the education system is to blame. Grades work where 50% is a failure. So mentally people will see 5/10 as an absolutely awful game. So it would make sense why reviewers use 7 so much. But wukong definitely deserves 5/5 -10/10
The problem isn't that everything is 7/10 (the midpoint is just skewed). The problem is that terrible games are ranked the same or higher as good games.
"The guy who makes the review is no more qualified than anybody else" Did you know that this was not always the case? When gaming magazines were a thing before the internet took over, the guys who wrote in depth guides for games, discover glitches, bugs and know all the meta and lore of any given franchise they had to write about, they were the journalists. They were the ones who would teach players new stuff. They were literaly more qualified than most gamers. In my country there was a magazine called Game Power. If game power gave a 7/10 to any game, you could know the game was good. The only games i remember ever getting a 10 was Zelda Ocarina of Time and Final Fantasy VII.
@@LaSpookyPR lmao steam maybe, but reddit is a circlejerk of soyboys. The only social media that has really honest reviews of anything is 4Chan, but normies can't filter through the shitposting, they get triggered.
This just shows how little respect for the material (video games) there is from the people that took over games journalism. They're just not that into it.
We used to have “games master” The criteria to be in a written format is very different than the criteria to be in visual and audio format. The gatekeepers have been taken down. Now we have influencers with the highest following giving there 2 cents. When what you really want to review the game is a massive gaming nerd. Who has played every game ever
Another problem is that they are getting paid to do this. If they have L takes just like any other guys that arent journalist. What's the point of a journalist, if they can't even upheld the code of Journalist.
@@DarkXessZthis is why I watch people play games live The only opinion that should matter is your own So I form mine based on what I see on a livestream of a game I’m interested in I don’t look at reviews or scores or some website about a game cuz those people reviewed the game from their perspective and will give me their two cents about it I need to see the game and analyze it from my perspective cuz it’s what’s gonna make me want to buy it or leave it seeing someone else’s opinions on a game is cool but that’s as far as it should go. This is why demos for games need to make a serious comeback being able to play a small section of a game is amazing and that can lead to some gamers buying or forgetting about games For example I played the stellar blade demo and gori cuddly carnage demo And I enjoyed the stellar blade demo but it didn’t generate enough hype in me to want to buy it I just thought it was cool On the other hand gori cuddly carnage spoke to me when I played it Felt amazing and fun and engaging and I put it on my list of games I want to buy cuz the demo was that exciting for me. At the end of the day Your opinion on a game is what should matter not some random journalist or review score.
The fact that dustborn is one point away from wu-kong is all that needs to be said. There is a fundamental problem with the review system and people notice that stuff..
Yes a lot of the journalists are looking to work in the industry. The IGN Nintendo guy ended up working at Nintendo, one of the guys at GI ended up at Capcom. That’s their biggest dream (the ones who love games) to work at a gaming company especially their favorite one. They usually end up getting a job as PR bc they don’t have any other skills. I will say as someone who worked in the industry, it’s alright. It is cool to hang out with other people who are mostly all gamers. But it’s a lot of crap too. Just like any other job.
@@HamHamHampstertell that to the investors of EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and Take Two. Reviews are just part of the business, low score games don’t make the money. Reviewers don’t take their job seriously enough.
I'm kinda over hearing her out only to have her run defence for these subjects yet again. She worked for IGN for years, at AAA studios in the industry, and for The Completionist's family. Pretty sure they're even the sponsor on her green card ffs. So she obviously has superior industry insight compared to the majority(which is why I'm willing to hear her out regardless), but there's just zero chance she isn't going to also be more skewed and biased toward the industry than the majority of coverage.. So I don't mind Alannah most of the time, but not for these subjects. She's never going to call out anything that could potentially affect her standing. It's like when IGN released a video trying to justify the 7 issue. It's really got that internal "investigation" vibe. 🙄
@@GodFormHermet If it is for you, sure. You are entitled to your opinion. As long you are not a jerk trying to push it thought other peoples, then all is fine.
I think that's the problem. "I don't like a game, 0/10" whereas game reviewers kind of can't do that. It's why user scores aren't a great metric either, as you have people posting zeroes on a game that's perfectly functional and it drags a game far below journalist reviews.
toxic negativity prevents people from enjoying the games they like and prevents reviews from being honest with good scores. example.. Good game comes out. a small minority of people dont like the game or follow a content creator who doesnt like it... every piece of media that follows has toxic neagtivity trying to ruin peoples enjoyment. Ign who are a Playstation centric channel ( openly admitted to live on air ) will rate Playstation games higher than they deserve and rate xbox's lower. its quite simple.. people stop putting so much stock in what a streamer or reviews say... most of the time their view is slanted due to bias, platform, genre, poltical stance or the main culprit.. for views!!! If you enjoy a game.. enjoy it. if you dont... play a game that you will!!!! ITS SO SIMPLE.... or just be a sheep.
One thing she said is that journalists are just another guy with an opinion.. that's not true at all. they parade around as some kind of voice of truth, spouting bs agendas, and lying about scores to get access journalism. They're not just another guy. Maybe that's how it used to be, that game journalists used to be just gamers, but that's not the case anymore they're propaganda journalists now. Also, imo, journalists opinions are way less valuable than the average RUclips commenter. The youtube commenter isn't getting paid for their comments, they aren't restricted to not have certain opinions, they don't have rules they need to abide by - besides RUclipss guidelines, etcetera. Trying to say a journalist is just the same as a RUclips commenter is completely false, and imo is trying to push the narrative that "oh we're one of you!" There's so many things wrong with what she said, but hey we can pick it apart for fun.
The biggest issue with Alannah is that she tries to act as though she’s on the side of the gamers, but is clearly biased and herself is part of the problem. She makes leaps and bounds to defend these companies while giving the most milquetoast criticisms on the shit they do.
@@sheyarjames4904 yea I remember back when she was at IGN, and even now she works with Sony Santa Monica if I’m remembering correctly. She honestly is the last person who should be talking about this stuff.
No, she isn't unhinged enough to outrage over things (games) that don't ultimately matter in our lives. I take games seriously, even unhealthily so, but they are just games.
"Some of yall take game reviews way too seriously." Yeah immediately disregarded this video after such a bad faith comment. She is making a false equivalence by trying to tell us what our issue actually is and downplay it under that explanation. Our problem isn't that we take reviews too seriously, our problem is with disingenuous ethics and clearly biased takes from what are supposed to be reputable sources of information. Much like yourself, Alanah. But honestly what can you expect from a former "journalist" who thinks parenthood is a disability that should be catered to in gaming...
Ok I was agreeing with you but that disability part is wildly misinterpreted, she basically just said that games should think about having a pause button at all times and used having a child as a example of urgent moments where you need to pause, it's not that big of a deal
exactly, "its just an opinion" is such a bad take. they shouldnt be just opionions of some random dude, it should be an informed piece about an medium in which the reviewer has a significant stake in, the medium not the product itself. But yeah sure if nothing matters, everyone can just talk out of their asses, nice gaming media world
Yeah who cares if they're just trying to make a living. People are expected to act ethically at their job. Cops aren't supposed to accept bribes. Teachers aren't supposed to favor students. Journalists should be honest.
"someone who's played 1000 games might find something bland & generic, whereas someone who's only played 100 games would not" Concord proves that this is incorrect. The 'professional journalists' all gave it high marks, whereas regular people thought it was a bland & generic rip-off of things like Overwatch & Fortnite (but with shittier characters).
@@Lazydino59 sure. But her point was presupposing an area in which the reviewer was 'unbiased' (i.e. not paid off or lobbied to). Concord proves that the point she makes isn't reflected in reality.
She completely went back on the fact that the reviewer "is just a normal dude" "they're just a normal dude.... but they can play 10x more games then you ever will so you'd never know" 😂 like play 5 games I don't care. You should tell if a game I good or not.
IGN gave Days Gone a 6.5. A lot of game reviews have become like movie or show reviews. The Acolyte gets 9’s from the “media” and much lower from most watching it. The activists in media aren’t actually grading the product for entertainment value but rather an external set of points they believe is higher level then entertainment value.
It's more the old idea that was in play. In the past, media reviewers were known for often being overly critical of derivative work. This is no longer a thing, to be honest.
Mortismal reviews games after legitimate and literal 100% completion of a game. All paths and alternate endings included. The guy is a freaking machine. He and ACG, who buys the games even if he's given a free copy, are the two I actually value the opinion of. Also, ACG doesn’t give a number value. He just tells you if it's worth buying, buying on sale, or not worth money. I usually just watch gameplay videos and listen for reviewers like IGN to report bugs if I listen to them at all.
for example, she would be an ACTUAL 7/10. Very attractive, but not as others i have seen. Also, 10/10 doesn't exist, because that is perfection and only God is perfect.
No something being a 7 according to bell curve which is what is meant by that number is that it's within top 23% of all games in quality. Any Ubisoft game is even better than that. If it was 8 it would be within 11% and if it was 9 it would be within 4%.
I hate the dismissive "whoa, it's just some guys opinion man, my dooderino haha we just some guy bro". No, it's not "just some guy" it's someone's who's job it is to do this. An user review on steam, that's just some guy. I agree that journos don't have anything that makes their opinion on a game more valid, the problem is that they should, they ought to, it's your fucking job. Ideally these people should be making reviews to inform customers, to save them time and money, but that's not what they're doing, they're blatant shills for AAA gaming corpos and a lot of them are activists to top it off.
the way she worded it basically made the whole job redundant and moot. if he's just "some random dude" then why not focus on the thousands of "random dudes" that bought and reviewed the game? the audience score is filled with random dudes that don't get paid by IGN or the studios to artificially up their score.
@@habama1077 Knowing how to write a program is not anywhere near the same as having a random opinion on a video game. Even then most of the people working for medical software are just random people who happen to know programming or who got nepotismed in.
She's not out here comparing a $1 game made by some guy on his spare time to $120 ultimate delux edition game made by hundreds of people in a triple A company on the same rating scale😭
No she's not really doing that she poisoning the well of this discussion with a bad faith argument to justify what blatantly bad review by her and others in games media.
The logic behind this is so hard to understand for me. If you need half an hour to justify the concept that doesnt make sense, then maybe its the wrong concept. They reserve 1-4 for games they don't even review, they hardly ever give any fives, and a 10 almost never happens, so their scale is effectively a 5-9, which really translates to 1-5 again. This means every seven is basically a 2, compared to all the other games that they bother to review. (which suddenly starts making sense again when you look at concord which is really a 1 or 2, but stops making sense when you compare concord to all the other 7s). But also, the most condescending and self righteous part of it all is, each and every single game that IGN decides NOT to cover is automatically a 1-5 to them, going by that logic. So they either need to fucking start actually reviewing and scoring the 1-5 bracket, like journalists did back in the day when their integrity was still intact. Or they just start disregarding the games they don't review anyway, and start giving games like concord and star wars the 1s and 2s they deserve.
@@yoooyoyooo Which again is not true. If a game is bland and did nothing new and has way too many bugs, it should get less but because it is just a known studio, they are afraid of giving it less especially if the studio panders to them.
1:40 I disagree. If it is your JOB to review something, it should be accurate, detailed, and thorough. $70 is a lot to some people. Hell, games where I am are north of $85. A lot of people can only afford one new game extremely seldomly. If I did my job as poorly as most IGN reviewers, I'd be kicked to the curb.
She starts with "game reviewers are not special, they dont know more then you, just one guys opinion" and then "games reviewers play alot more games then you and have a greater perspective and understand the full scope of games better then you"
@@davidhill3595 The context matters, first one was explaining that their opinion is not absolute and that your personal preferences do matter, the second means - "they play way more games, so they get to see way more shitty games, so what you consider shit is average to them"
@@davidhill3595 That's a different question, I was just saying both those statements are true and her points in this video are very valid. I actually totally agree with the idea that AAA games, unless something goes horribly wrong are as a baseline above average. I don't think we should discount the fact that most existing games are hot garbage made by someone who wanted to practice the engine or whatever. I think an AAA game should likely start out as a 6 because they will have a higher level of polish, better graphics, good controls, most likely fully voice acted etc. compared to a game that didn't have that budget. But an AAA game that gets only a 6 is a massive failure imo and probably not worth my time. I also don't count price into the grading system cz I can just wait for a sale and get the game for 20-30 bucks. That being said, I think that for most games the final grade doesn't matter as much, what matters is the reason for that grade. For instance, did they give it a good grade because it has good music and graphics and the gameplay/story lowered the score? I think if you're a casual player who likes pretty things Star Wars Outlaws probably seems like a good game. If you want good gameplay, then that game sucks. Very few things are actually objective when grading a game like bugs/performace issues, everything else is personal opinion, so then if a review is aimed at a broad audience it needs to take all these things into account. For the above reasons, even though I think the grading is often decently fair (with few exceptions obviously, some reviewers can just suck at their job), in my opinion written reviews are useless. Reviews are either inherently extremely biased or if they try to be as unbiased as possible we end up with what we have now and nobody seems to be happy with that. I rather watch a let's play for an hour to see if I like the game and then pause once I decide if I want to buy it or not. Even if a game is a true 10/10 it still might not be for me and even if a game is a 5/10 I might still enjoy it. Or I'll read through the steam comments section and see what the user rating is there since then I can form an opinion based on multiple people's experiences not just one. I also think people need to start admitting that just because they're not the target audience for something, doesn't mean that particular thing is shit.
Yeah "critics" just don't want to damage relationships with certain publishers/devs at this point. Probably not directly money into hand or bank account though. Likely it's flying ppl out to test their game, look at the studio or fun locations, cruises, conventions, have nice dinner/parties, connections to early access demos/games/insider information, or interviews with prominent industry figures. I know makeup companies did similar stuff when influencers would test their new products (like 6 years ago, not sure about now).
@Killer_Turnip Agreed. It may not be direct cash payment. But all the early access games, sponsored travel, game show tickets, review opportunities, and such all lead to work/income. So they are indirectly getting paid.
@@redpanda416 even if the journalists themselves aren't getting these deals, someone at their company is. I'm sure there's unsaid rules about scoring that managers/higher ups make sure to address, and maybe give a nice end of year bonus if journalists make certain things happen for the company (which technically means they aren't getting paid by the publisher to promote a game). Although this is just speculation from my own experience with corpo companies.
Was there an exclusive press event? rating +1 Have they rented ad space on the front page? rating +1 Did the game or developer do anything not matching our corporate values? rating -2
Should do what Anime/Manga does for "adventures system", so we can have something like classes such as; F 1-10 E 1-10 D 1-10 C 1-10 B 1-10 A 1-10 S 1-10 So you grade different games on different scales. Which also allows game to "break" out of their initial class system, showing that they were better than you thought.
If paid game reviews are all "just some guys opinion" and not an informed critique of the mechanics, genre and industry the entire entire review industry is worthless.
@@andrijabulicic2207 If the critique is published by a large company it's expected that the person giving the review has some level of knowledge that qualifies them to have that position. not just a random dude with an opinion. you wouldn't expect published reviews in other industries to be from armatures or uninformed people, you don't see fancy restaurants, broadway musicals etc getting published reviews in the NYT written by Steve from Deleware.
7/10 is in my opinion a byproduct of let's not offend both sides, so let's give woke games like Dustborn, Concord... 7/10 but we will also give Stellar Blade 7/10, because if IGN would rate games based on gameplay, music, story... Dustborn and Concord would be below 5 and Stellar Blade would probably be a 8 or even a 9 lmao.
Most company hired journalists today are fence sitters. If they are not obviously bought out and paid for by certain factions or drooling for their quid pro quo, they're gonna play it real safe and ere on the side of "who's paying for my salary"--someone who has sided with a certain ideological faction.
yep. Its the perfect safe score for people who can't be bothered to actually get into a game and give their honest opinion. Instead they start on 7 and add or subtract 1 based on how annoying their experience was.
Another L take by her. It is wild how she talk about how reviewers play more games and, therefore, some things that might see fresh for players are stale for them, and then begins to talk about SW Outlaw, where it is completely backwards. Then she talks about how the scale works, and despite saying that she is not defending it, she absolutely did by going as far as playing some indy games to show the 'inferior' games. "Hey, look at those bad games! Those are 1-2 out of 10." Imagine trying to defend some garbage movie from Hollywood, by scaling it against some school projects? It was both sad and pathetic to see the length she was willing to go to defend the way AAA slops are being reviewed. Her arguments of why game like SW Outlaw deserve a 7 are the reason why western AAA games are such a mess. Who gives a shit about number of music tracks, complexity of game mechanics, visuals, UI, etc., when people don't find the game to be fun to play? This whole video was her trying to defend outlets like IGN and their review system, while trying to sound like she is on gamer's side. Super lame.
Exactly. Nobody is thinking: well, at least it has more music than some flash game I played in 2007, this game is so good. The 'baseline' games she talks about, either dont exist, or they are things like flash games. Even then, a lot of these flash games are more fun than bad AAA games.
Yeah, there are many big RUclipsrs that consistently give different scores than journos and yet the RUclipsrs reviews tend to be more aligned with the normal gamers despite both Game journalists and RUclips reviewers both have this gap between average gamers in terms of numbers of games played due to that being their job.
Also the score is supposed to tell me if it’s worth to buy the game. How much bang for my buck. A 5 bucks indie game can easily be a 10/10. Chained together costs 5 bucks so far I’ve „only“ played 15 hours I loved. That’s 3 hours per buck I’d need to play concord 120 hours for that or classic triple a 180.
its funny, she points at games that are rated 1 and then goes, see thats why every AAA game deserves a 7!!! uh no? ok that maybe it wouldnt be a 1 or 2 but a lot of AAA games can fit the 3 4 5 and 6
i totally with your attitue about the scale of the games. No one thinks every hollywood movie should be a 8/10 and up even though 99% of movies made are utter garbage compared to the ones that make it into theaters. Movie reviews do have a problem of having a 5 not be average, but it's not nearly as bad as game reviews are in that aspect. Like, you get hollywood made box office movies that get slammed as low as 3/10 regularly.
I just clicked on the video, had never heard of her. I spent about 5 minutes reading into her past and looking at her old videos on her channel. Came to the conclusion that this video wasn't worth an hour of my life👍
Why would she have any insight in that that. it's not relevant to the point she's making, which is games expected to be below a 7 just don't get coverage because no one is expected to care about them. So outlets prioritize reviewing games they expect to be a 7 or above and just some fall below that expectation but few do.
@mrthewhite2620 Quid pro quo. You give our game a good score, and we keep giving you early access review copies. You give our game a bad score, and we no longer give you early access review copies.
@stopsign7547 Again, though, how would she have any insight into what happened to someone who isn't her, by a company that she's never worked for? Totally itrelevant to this video.
I'd say someone like Angry Joe and his team are on of the best reviewers ever. In-depth analysis with lots of entertainment and comedy on the side, they've almost never missed or failed a review, at least in my experience. And some of the rants are straight up legendary.
Imo using numbers to rate entertainment products is shallow and misleading. The reason why is that many of these reviewers don't even have any methodic criteria to dish out such scores, so it all feels fake and arbitrary. >This game has a really fun combat, but the story is kinda lackluster, so it's a 7. >This game has a really boring gameplay, but the graphics are kinda good and the story made me cry, so uhhhh 9 I guess. It therefore begs the question of: what's the point of attributing something as objective as a number to something, if there's no objective method behind the attribution of that number?
The problem with the idea of reviews as a way of informing customer decisions is reviewers by the nature of their job play far more games than customers do and under different conditions, there is a vast difference between playing something for fun in your free time and it's one of the six new games you bought this year and playing something for work and it's the eleventh one you've played this month, things that normal audiences are perfectly ok with become a ridiculous lack of effort when it's the fifteenth time you've seen that story beat or mechanic this month, the problem with reviewing games for a living is that by doing it you become someone that normal gamers can't relate to Games having no easy mode isn't an issue for most gamers as they simply won't buy those games but if you have to play it for a review and you have a deadline then suddenly the way the game is designed is making the thing you do for money harder, same with dungeon and raid finder, if your on a deadline then finding a group and getting to the place isn't a fun game it's making your job harder and even if you try to mentally take that into account, simply by having to do so you are separated from the base emotional reaction of a normal player
@@_Major00Donut_ Perhaps in the board room it was a 5 point system but they dont want to be excluded out of future game review copy's so they inflate it by 5 so it does not look as bad
That still doesn't fix anything. So, space marine is a 1/5? The problem is that most reviewers are activists rather than normal fucking people. They judge games based on the moral stance of a company. Not on the actual quality of the product.
And that's precisely why she complained about a colleague giving Doom 2016 an "insane" low score of 7/10. She knows. She's either pretending not to or is so immersed in that culture that it's nothing but cognitive dissonance.
The difference is game journalists hate gamers, I don't believe for a second they play more video games than me 😂access journalism is the most important factor in this whole discussion . There is a massive flaw in her theory that one of the journalists would break the story if they were being paid but that could only happen if the publication let them put out the story and we know that would never happen
She never said reviewers play more games than ALL gamers she said they play more than your AVERAGE gamer, who will be far more casual. She wasn’t talking about WoW nolifers.
Is it just me, or did anyone else feel gaslighted the whole video? Her repeatedly saying nobody would pay for positive reviews and acting like that's an absurd consideration but then NEVER covering the intangible repercussions (no more gifts, trips, event invites, future considerations) of bad a review seems quite ignorant. How do you make a video on this topic and not dive into the blurred lines and impropriety involved with review scores, glad Asmon called it out.
I'm still sitting here working out how she thought giving a terrible barely working claw machine game a 7/10 after playing it for 5 minutes was gonna somehow help her argument. It proved exactly what IGN reviewers do. Barely anything.
Shes also giving the argument that IGN rates on a 1-10 scale for every game and that bugs etc should be reviewed equally. So a 1 guy indie game has to have the same standards as games from multimillion dollar companies...
@@the_real_natsu9901Annoyed the ehll out of me as well. The logic is astounding and it just sounds like an ex-employee trying to save face with the company that used to employ her.
Wouldn’t be her first time. I remember her releasing a video a few years ago and people praising. She said then too that reviewers are not “paid” to give favorable reviews. Completely ignoring the whole problem with access journalism. If nothing else, she is consistent in her delusion. 😂
Her commentary is stale. It feels completely lop sided, disingenuous, and tone deaf to the real reasoning behind everything is just access journalism. 7/10, a true journalist experience.
She's a corpo insider. She gets the sponsorships, the early access, she speaks at awards ceremonies, invites to all the gaming parties, gets flown around the world by companies. She sold her integrity years ago in exchange for her career.
Well she did say having a kid is a disability that prevents you from playing a game without a pause button. Like turn the damned game off and take care of the kid. Elden Ring you respawn at the stake of Marika anyway. No big deal. 😂😂😂
I found the GG stuff, and I found it compelling, the very next month she was on Total Biscuit's podcast, she must have got so many followers. A while later, she got hired at IGN, and was shocked that a part of TB's audience was critical. She basically told us "You're not my dad" and everybody moved on. I find it hard to see malice in her, she's a pretty apparatchik, she's just a part of her machine. I guess if I needed to apologize to Logan Paul to keep my day job, I'd probably do it? I feel like Allanah is much the same. You need more balls when it comes to culture, I think. She's clearly much more apathetic. I would never apologize for my bad fanfiction, for example. If I did, I'd have to stop writing it as a part of myself? Professional pop culture critics are in a weird spot, I do not envy them.
Them being afraid to do bad reviews to be on good terms with companies does make sense but honestly at this point they only hurt them, the perception of journalists in general but particularly games journalists has been going further and further into the negative faster and faster as time goes on. Because of how negative of an impact they have on companies makes me believe it's more likely that the industry as whole such as games journalists, developers, and even the higher ups of specific companies are so heavily influenced by social political opinions that it impacts their performance in their respective fields.
But it's not some random dude with a opinion. It's their literal Job... They get paid so its not a random dude. The Dude was picked by someone to do a Job.
yeah I hate when people are dismissive about gaming outlets giving wild scores with it's just some random person. as if that absolves all responsibility.
Yeah, that's the thing. They're "professional" reviewers. The very nature of the fact someone is paying them to review games gives them an extra level of authority that "some random dude" doesn't have. People are naturally more trusting of opinions on a topic from someone whose job is related to that topic. That not-so-random dude's opinion is also going to be used by product sellers (and other journalists) as an appeal to authority and selling point. You're not going to see "4/10 made me want to kick a dog" on the back of a GotY edition release, they're going to cover the case in 8/10s and 9/10s, because it looks good to customers. Which is also why GotY editions are even a thing, it's a strong selling point.
ign does nothing but politicking and kill games while not praising good games like wukong and space marine. we are better off without them. if a journalist at ign is being branded as some fing guy, then might as well get rid of ign and all the useless reviewers. they are not doing what they are paid to do. we dont need them.
people don’t realize this but there is an automatic bias when people review games even if their job is just to report on the game they’ll automatically be biased because they’re reviewing the game from their point of view so what that means is Their opinions will come out on certain systems that are in the game and it doesn’t help that the people reading these reviews will latch on to the reviewer’s perspective and what they say. They are unable to say if a game is good or bad without directly or indirectly injecting their own opinions in there when making the review.
21:45 I think conversely the solution should be that IGN should have a spot segment for games like these, like top 15 weekly releases or some dumb shit like that. I mean we live in a day and age where all information is entirely free to print and universally accessible, and instead of growing their catalogue they've actively been shrinking it in both scope of purview and range of idea, both of which are utterly absurd. I think it would help them to gain a lot more favor with the community as well, but that could be reaching at this point.
because her whole trash argument would fall apart, "oh it is just some guy reviewing it" Oh really? so why are they paying you guys then? Easy it is because you will shill their unfinished activist ridden piece of shit game as a master piece.
@@Versosurma Just a bunch of "It's just some guy's opinion." Like duh, we know that already-- that's how we've been treating it. That's why we just watch streamers/RUclipsrs nowadays.
yes she did and said thats so complicated she would make a whole video on it. she just denied that reviewers are explicitly paid for reviews and scores
I'm fairly certain she's made a lot of money through her varying jobs, likely the reason she's able to make content while also working another job. I don't think she really needs views at all. Not that I would trust her completely either but I only really trust what I know and I don't know her personally.
Yeah totally, if she really wanted the views she really just needs to say everything bad = woke and keep saying DEI and she’d rack up a TON of views…. Ok ok, jokes aside, she’s been in, and is inside the industry . Take what she says with a bit of skepticism. But I trust her more than most gamer “personalities”
"My review isn't worth more than your review." Disagree. A Korean Starcraft tourney player's review of an RTS is absolutely worth more than mine. Knowledge plays a factor. There have been so many instances of reviewers getting into trouble for saying something like DMC5 is boring and it turned out they were just playing it on Easy which just auto combos for you.
@@RDV333 I find that steam reviews are way more reliable than anything IGN has ever put out in their existence. I don't see how IGN has made it this far.
"it's just a random person's opinion" ok, but as it's influenced by access journalism and CEOs take that for a true, faithful feedback (for example Ubisoft's CEO in the internal memo) then it's a problem
Her point about most games being bad is irrelevant. She said ign scores aren’t based on averages rather the quality of the game. The shovelware games she showed are all 1s. On the other hand, how could you describe outlaws as anything other than a 5? It has all the mechanics you’d expect but theres nothing remarkable about any aspect of the game and the graphics are objectively mediocre. Ofc its a 5
Fuck no it's not a 5. Aside from graphics what does it do that's mediocre? There's plenty in the 2-3 range and I'm struggling to think of anything at all beyond that. Even if you just reviewed it as a story, it'd struggle to be beyond a 2.
This. 5 and oulaws is barely passing minimum requirements for average game. It is not good or not total shit but just there at between that can be passed as a game and doing bare minimum in all aspects
Defends Outlaws, saying that most games are poorly thought out and buggy... Yeah, because outlaws is not that, obviously. And outlaws complexicity as a peace of software is not an excuse. If mario is a simpler game, why is it an 8 to a 10?
There was a guy who passed away recently, who made a name for himself asking people to rate themselves, and he would always say before they answer "but you can't chose 7" and there's a good reason for that
Flashgames were incredible for what they were A huge complex game with incredible systems but with bad gameplay and P2W is miserable to play A game that has 90 hours of cutscenes and 10 minutes of gameplay is incredible sure, but it's trash as a game. I agree
This chick has regular bad takes. The issue with game reviews is that they're not just opinion most of the time. These people are activists and pretending they're not is disingenuous
I agree. The more I’ve caught random RUclips vids of her over the years… the more I check my brain out. She just annoys me now :/ I’m sure she’s a good human and good at what she does… but I just can’t with her anymore
Absolutely, she's trying to downplay their role as "just some guy with an opinion" when in reality they're hired to push a cultural narrative that best suits their corporate overlords, regardless of the real quality of the game theiy're reviewing. They don't love or play games, they peddle propaganda, and THAT's why most gamers hate them.
Why would somebody pay for a 7? Because otherwise they would get a 4! And why not pay extra for 10? Because NOBODY with 2 working brain cells would believe games like Skull and Bones or Star Wars are even CLOOOOOOOOOSE to a fucking 10
ikr, her logic is so flawed, thats how i imagine a child would think the world works. "lets just print more money" "if you are homeless just buy a house" "stealing is illegal so you cant rob me" "why would someone commit a crime if they will go to jail?" "why would anyone lie? truth is good"
@@hugopereira4212 Yes, also comparing indi games to triple or even AAAA games on the same scale is plain stupid. Girl, just because you worked in IGN doesn’t mean you know what’s happening behind closed doors. Ubisoft financing RUclipsrs trips to Disney World or whatever is a bribery, you can’t tell me IGN is neutral and their journalists just have their oWn oPiNiOnS
@@MCCiabattaGrande well i agreed on the part of comparing it to indie games, thats where the 1 and 2s are, but saying because those exist an AAA game cant be bellow 7 is stupid, there are AAA games that are 3s 4s 5s and 6s, as well as indie games that are 7s, 8s, 9s and 10s. we should grade things as they are not "its AAA so the minimum is 7" bs- who made it, how many people made it and how much money doesnt matter. undertale was made by like 1 guy if im not wrong, cheap asf to be made but its one of the best games ever made
She just insulted game journalists in a pathetic attempt to cover for their obvious garbage reviews. Alana, goes to eat pizza gets crap pizza then says hey it’s fine it’s just some guy making pizza so we should expect it to be crap.
Imagine if the scoring system for books had to take into account every piece of fanfiction on the internet. All books would be a 7 because we need to keep 1-5 reserved for all the furry porn fanfiction. Her argument it ridiculas. All feature films get a 7 because we have to keep 1-5 reserved for every video put on youtube. All restuarants get a 7 because we have to keep 1-5 for all the hot dog vans.
@@GeneralSpecificI don’t care which ever way she was implying it was stupid situational disability crap try having a spinal cord injury like me where your legs don’t work all you feel is pain
Damn, I'll go back to Diablo 4 eventually based on Asmon, I am not an experienced arpg player but the item ui and lack of more storage was annoying. Then I heard you don't get the horse till the last act or act 4 (if there is a 5?)
Her take about numbers of games is beyond stupid and disingenuous; imagine we applied a similar take to film reviewing and took into account every single thing ever committed to camera!! lol (when we talk about if the latest studio block buster is good and has good effects we have 0 interest in comparing it to the effort of 2 grad students in a flat share unless theirs is better of course)
This NO one looks at shovelware free to play and then compares it to triple A. These shovelware game are not on the scale normally when someone judging games. She put them on it to poison the well. It's a bad faith argument.
Yeah and she didnt address the problem: lack of standard. A game that lasted 2 weeks cannot have a rating greater than Space Marines 2. I mean they are not reviewing things objectively, how the heck they can rate.
NEVER! It is important to invest in abilities players need to deactivate to make the game playable on a computer that is more then a year old. Yes I agree.
"It's just some guy" is such a dumb take. No it's not, they are portraying themselves as professional critics. This is their job. They absolutely SHOULD be held to a higher standard and attempt to be as objective as possible since that's their job. And if no one can do that, the job needs to disappear.
Why not just have one triple A scoring for big game publishers then one for indie games? Seems like the most simple solution ever but if the combined IQ is 7 on their team I guess it’s hard to realize that.
I don't wanna defend IGN or any game journalists you try to push political agendas on players, but you know there are game journalists who are also REAL gamers?
Sure, IGN is some guy like everyone else opinionated reviewing a game, but the problem is that they are PAID to do this and suppose to have much more professionalism, less bias, analyze things at a deeper level when you are paid to do this and to tell the truth. That is what journalism is about. If any journalist loses every one of these, you are basically like any other L take person internet reviewing a game. What's the point of a Journalist who get paid then?
Unbelievably stupid take from her. So a policeman is also just another guy with a job? Everyone right? Why are we paying them then? To be another guy? These people are trying to relativize everything. No responsibility if you are just some guy!! Hey spend money on this game I am just a guy
@@blicleak1101 Cops are literally "just another guy" that's the entire reason why people start complaining about cops abusing their power. A cop is just some guy who happened to pass a 6 month training course. A doctor has to spend 8+ years learning to be a doctor only to make a mistake and lose his job while a cop spent 6 months in a boot camp and now has the right to use a gun because "he was scared".
She’s saying people are just upset with reviews that they don’t personally agree with, and her advice is to just find the individuals that you agree with. She’s basically defending the terrible business practices of these companies and tells us to just go away if you don’t like it. Sound familiar?
If that's what you took away from what she said then you really need to work on your literacy skills. She's basically saying that IGN is just a bunch of dudes who all have their own tastes and opinions so the reviews shouldn't be taken as gospel. Instead you should find reviewers whose tastes align with your own and stick to their reviews because their opinions on a game are far more likely to align with your own and are, therefore, far more meaningful to you than the opinions of someone whose taste in games is the complete opposite to your own. For example, I'm a huge fan of character action games, but I don't particularly enjoy turn-based RPGs. If you are big fan of turn-based RPGs, but don't particularly enjoy character action games then my opinion of a game is pretty much meaningless to you because we have opposite tastes.
@@jordanwood3150 People shouldn't be really reviewing things based on their own tastes. It can be a small factor and its own section for context. With independent reviewers they're often going to be discussing only what they consider worth talking about. So what would be the point of large publications assigning reviews at all? Her opening was that they're "just guys", but so are competent reviewers. Someone whose job it is to play a large number of games and would have experienced plenty, hopefully to the extent they can review them and should have a breadth of knowledge on the subject. "I like it" shouldn't be the standard for reviews. That's how we get takes like "Fallout is good". When in reality it's mechanically broken slop. I don't watch many horror movies. However if it was my job to review movies, either I should not be reviewing movies I don't watch. Or even if I don't favor them I should be reviewing a range of movies, such that my knowledge should be comprehensive enough. If I didn't have an aversion, I could watch hours of horror movies to see what differences there might be specifically within that genre. Something potentially immediately worthwhile to qualify me, both for that review and any in the future. Bly is easily a 9/10. It's well written, well crafted. It doesn't appeal to me the same way something I'd usually choose to watch, but which might only be 7/10. I like terrible games and bad writing, therefore Star Wars Outlaws is a 10/10. It's the only game I've ever played. How is that useful to anyone? Why should that have a place on a mainstream curated platform?
@@alicea3421 "People shouldn't be really reviewing things based on their own tastes." You could say that, however, it's inevitably the case that the tastes of a reviewer will effect how they experience the game and, therefore, their review. You're acting like video game reviews are somehow proper journalism that need to have an air of objectivity. They aren't, they're essentially just glorified opinion pieces that far too many "gamers" seem to take way too seriously.
@@jordanwood3150 Then they serve no function. Taste shouldn't effect the account of the experience, experience should effect the taste. I gave you an example of how I would rate something I don't like as much, higher than something I do. I can resonate with something, I can enjoy it, that doesn't mean it's good or well crafted. Media can be discussed in an objective way. If someone is reading or listening to a review, they likely already have an interest in it. If the reviewer talks about the mechanics, the viewer can logically discern that and apply to their own taste. "You're acting like video game reviews are somehow proper journalism that need to have an air of objectivity. They aren't, they're essentially just glorified opinion pieces" That's literally the problem. They ought to be. That's why her argument is bad. "It's just some guy", everyone knows this. So what value does it have to a consumer? Gamers are not the ones taking them seriously, they purport themselves to be. The industry is valuing their scores.
The problem there is that those Independent Creators eventually cave to access journalism or sponsorship money as well. Look at all the youtubers who shill trash that they never use like "Better Help".
@21:37 This is the obvious hole in her argument lol. Are we supposed to believe that they’re grading AA+ games 7/10s because they’re being considerate of someone’s random flash game ?
Thats exactly what I have thought about. She has a very shallow position. First she says, reviewers are just “some dudes” who have zero expertise or special knowledge, then she states they have huge gaming experience due to specifics of their job. And as a cherry on top she basically tries to justify weak and lazy triple A game by comparing it to some low budged developed by one guy indie project. Pathetic argument to be honest.
Alannah doing her usual of trying to be relevant and protecting ppl in the industry, this was some next level mental gymnastics on 7/10 reviews while ignoring real factors like access journalism, preview events, reviewers being buddy-buddy with devs (just like she was), ideology bs that is rampant amongst journalists, toxic positivity and so on. She just wanted to try and gaslight ppl cause she once worked for IGN and is trying to act like that means everything she says is correct.
Authority fallacy and gaslight is typical of this people that benefit from the status quo of the industry. Specially her that had jobs with sony and ign. So of course she will play dumb and pretend people are the problem and not the industry itself.
I have to say. I started the video while on the title screen of Elden Ring, and her rant at the beginning leading to "the number 7" was perfectly timed with the music.
Her main point is that she’s trying to convince us that game reviewers are people we should empathize with and not corporate shills. Which we KNOW they are
Why is she pretending that reviewers play literally every single new game that comes out, and that they dont choose which games to play based on popularity?
Bullshit, you CANT compare an indie game made by one developer to an quadruple A game with a multiple 100Ks of budged on the same scale wtf…? How is the ranking 1-5 reserved for indie games?
Yep. I would expect better from the latter, less from the former. Theres always a massive price difference between those different types of games as well. Also they literally spend millions, hundreds of millions at times. Whereas an indie dev is extremely lucky if they spend a million. Comparing them shouldn't be a thing, weirdly enough it is though since indie games keep being way better than AAA games when that just shouldn't be the case. Saying lower rankings is only for indie games literally just sounds like "I got payed/access journalism is a thing so we can't rate them lower than this score" basically. What a joke XD
IGN gave Concord an 8 because they didn’t want to ruin their “relationship” with Sony. Facts. If they just removed 1-5 on the scale you would essentially have a 5 star system. So a 7 would be 2 stars…garbage.
3:48 Yeah I can tell she used to work at IGN or a similar environment based on feeling the need to make this disclaimer. Literally nobody but an extreme feminist would've thought to get offended about that.
Here is how to make objective scores for games. 1. Describe the game in terms of attributes like genre, subgenre, style, length, franchise, studio, etc 2. Create cohorts of games launched around the same time (year, month, whatever makes sense) 3. Fill performance data in terms of sales, hours played, refunds, churn after 5h and 20h played 4. Fill in subjective review scores by outlet 5. Fit subjective review score to the rank order of performance data, grouped by relevant category and cohort 6. Build a predictor for each performance metric based on reviews
Video games are expensive, we want accurate reviews to see if they are worth the money, the reviews are rigged, and people are aware of that and mock it, her defending it by going against the consumer makes her come off as having a narrative, rather than having an honest opinion. Something about her comes off as disingenuous and semi-scripted, like she starts the video off with 'Some of you take video game reviews far too seriously' is openly dismissive, which is weird seeing as she is currently making an entire video about video game reviews, aka she is taking them very seriously, the problem with her former coworker's reviews isn't people taking them too seriously, it is that no one takes them seriously because they are baught and paid for.
Don't look for reviews, just look for if the game works or not. Journalists are actual scum, in all genres and areas. Don't trust them, trust yourself.
The problem isn’t the metrics, or their “opinions”, it’s the fact they opinions are clearly bought and biased for some games favorably while biased negatively for others. They are supposed to be objective at the benefit of the consumer but are only benefiting the studio and it’s only ones THEY benefit from shilling. Giving concord and black myth wukong similar scores is criminal.
The only scale that should exist for reviews I hate it i dislike it neutral I like it I love it Good, very good, amazing, superb, stunning, just wow are just redundant.
Ill say this. Game reviewers get early access to games to rate them. How? Because devs send them a copy. Why? For exposure and marketing. If a dev thought that a reviewer would rate their game 5-6/10 and not 7+/10 they are much less inclined to send that copy to them... I wouldnt...
Oh, look. It's Alanah, the CEO of woke, again with """""""the truth""""""", huh? Alanah "people don't get this but i do because i work in the industry" Pearce herself.
@@lfcmike12 If you play online no. There's a game feature where other players can appear in your game and try and kill you so you can't pause it whenever you want.
@@tburgess3426 Yeah, thats not even the problem with that video. I couldn't care less if ER has a pause button, its such a non issue for me. The problem with that video is that she starts it by saying "bRo, sHaDOw oF tHe eRdtREe iS noT tHaT hArD" to get some validation in her argument, when i know for a fact that she sucks at Elden Ring (there are videos of her playing). She is disingenuous.
@Yuckyuck1870 wtf you smokin??? 5 is an average person it's universal for at least guys that a 5 is average! You can't get more average than being right in the middle of 1 through 10!
@@Yuckyuck1870if that’s the case then I think your scale needs some fixing. 5/10 is mid, people like IGN have mislead you into believing 7/10 is mid when in reality that’s above average.
@@asoto718 so it really depends on the the time, amount of games coming out and their average reviews. If you add them all into a range the average amongst those games would change over time. Like we see a ton of 7’s,8’s. I’d say average for games now is more like 6.5-8.5 and not 5. It’s not too crazy to understand.
@@keeferChiefer you can still have enough data in current games, say the last 5 years. With the current scale they are using. The average isn’t 5. The new average is probably above 6 but probably below 8.5.
So few video games interest me anymore, and so few critics are worth listening to, I actually just go into games blind now. If I find something I'm thinking of buying (and soon) then I'll quickly look up gameplay footage or the first part of a lets play and go from there.
Stop projecting bro. There's still time to fix your life. You are not completely useless, I'm sure you can do something! Go out there and make a name for yourself
@shadowxhero4953 I'm enjoying my own life. There's nothing wrong with partaking with some online discourse in the early morning before work. I'm not projecting either like you. I'm just pointing out how stupid some of the comments are, including yours. Anyway, I'm taking my advice now.
Access Journalism and Game Review Scores (00:00 - 01:04) Asmongold and the video creator discuss why so many game reviews, especially from popular studios, are rated around 7/10. They suggest that game reviewers are hesitant to give low scores to avoid losing access to early reviews and insider information from game developers and publishers, which leads to a bias in reviews. Opinions and Game Reviews (02:03 - 04:01) The video emphasizes that game reviews are just subjective opinions from individual reviewers who are no more qualified than an average gamer. The idea is that no reviewer holds any "divine insight" into games, and people shouldn't take these reviews as absolute truths. Game Reviews Misaligned with Players’ Priorities (02:59 - 03:32) A major issue identified is the disconnect between what game reviewers prioritize in their reviews and what actual players care about. Reviewers often focus on technical aspects that might not resonate with the gaming community, leading to scores that don’t align with general player satisfaction. AAA Games Skew the Review Scale (06:42 - 07:26) The 7/10 rating often becomes average for AAA games because of survivorship bias. Since most games that receive reviews are of higher quality, they fall into the upper half of the review scale, leaving fewer lower ratings. This inflates the perceived average score, creating a narrow scale for AAA reviews. Influence and Bias in Game Reviews (34:59 - 36:55) While there may not be direct financial exchanges between publishers and game reviewers, there is a soft form of bias through "access journalism" and promotional events, like influencers being flown out by studios. This access creates a positive feedback loop where reviewers hesitate to criticize games, knowing that their future privileges may be affected.
@@EmzzzzzzyThese people are unable to see nuance. They talk about how reviewers shouldn't be subjective while saying that the 8/10 game should actually be "average". When those games are in fact not average. They aren't even the normal for games, they are just the most likely to actually get reviewed in the first place.
Stellar blade 7
but these games have the same note...
Dustborn 7
concord 7
Star wars outlaws 7
IGN = Shit
I mean they could say that the rating is relative to other games in the same genre. That would make it less stupid.
Maybe compared to other Antifa Simulators Dustborn really is a 7.😂
They reviewed the Penguin, probably the best series right now, a 5/10, so it's not only on videogames.
The 7 is just an upside down L
Simple as. I haven't played Dustborn or Concord, but Outlaws is a buggy and broken mess with terrible writing. Stellar Blade at least functions properly, and that game was made by a mobile game developer team.
Dustbin 3/10
Concord 5/10
Stellar blade 9/10
The CEO of Ubisoft just claimed everything is OK because the Metacritic score, comprised of reviewers like IGN, said so…
and the CEO is running scared because the investors are out for his blood. Ain't that funny?
Well yeah he doesnt wanna scare the shareholders any more than they already are.
@@amanitamuscaria5863 It was only a matter of time until investors realized those 7's were to trick them into investing more.
@@sterma3434 unless his main goal is to buy up ubisofts shares at a low
@@leg0land100 Hence the investigation 🔍 Interesting times ahead. I just want a return to games made for the consumer, like Space Marine, Helldivers (before Sony’s nonesense) and *arguably* even XDefiant (excluding the fact Ubisoft are yet to release it on Steam) rather than the developer’s ideologically motivated personal desires. They’re getting there, but we need to keep the pressure on as consumers 👌🏻
Here's what I got out of this. 1-5 is absolutely useless. So simple fix... From now on, we look at every 6,7,8,9,10 from IGN specifically, as a 1,2,3,4,5 out of 5.0. Starwars got a 2 out of 5 from ign
Actually yea, I saw so many 7/10 that I assumed that 5/10 is a 0 and like you said a 8/10 = 3/5 which is still awfully wrong for Wukong
This is the way. On 10 point scales 7 always ends up being the average.
I also think the education system is to blame. Grades work where 50% is a failure. So mentally people will see 5/10 as an absolutely awful game. So it would make sense why reviewers use 7 so much. But wukong definitely deserves 5/5 -10/10
The problem isn't that everything is 7/10 (the midpoint is just skewed). The problem is that terrible games are ranked the same or higher as good games.
All 1-10 is useless, you’ll get a much more objective review with gameplay from random small-to-medium RUclipsrs
"The guy who makes the review is no more qualified than anybody else"
Did you know that this was not always the case? When gaming magazines were a thing before the internet took over, the guys who wrote in depth guides for games, discover glitches, bugs and know all the meta and lore of any given franchise they had to write about, they were the journalists.
They were the ones who would teach players new stuff.
They were literaly more qualified than most gamers.
In my country there was a magazine called Game Power. If game power gave a 7/10 to any game, you could know the game was good.
The only games i remember ever getting a 10 was Zelda Ocarina of Time and Final Fantasy VII.
Reddit and steam has the best honest reviews 😎
I remember that magazine
@@LaSpookyPR lmao steam maybe, but reddit is a circlejerk of soyboys.
The only social media that has really honest reviews of anything is 4Chan, but normies can't filter through the shitposting, they get triggered.
This just shows how little respect for the material (video games) there is from the people that took over games journalism. They're just not that into it.
We used to have “games master”
The criteria to be in a written format is very different than the criteria to be in visual and audio format.
The gatekeepers have been taken down. Now we have influencers with the highest following giving there 2 cents. When what you really want to review the game is a massive gaming nerd. Who has played every game ever
If I get 7 out of 10 from IGN, I would quit whatever I am doing
Wukong got 7/10 should they quit?
upd - remembered it wrong, wukong got 8.
7 means it's good for everyone but bad for them lol
no
@@amai2307wukong is an 8
@@amai2307 Maybe... Wukong is Average...
Many People just like it because of their ADHD.
I think 7 is an accurate Score tbh.
IGN gave Australian break dancing a 7/10
Now that's fair.. the moves were SICK
i love how 7/10 became the same meme 2/10 was
How was break dancing even in the Olympics? Like how do you judge it? lmao crazy
@@Beezkneez187 Probably same principles as they judge ice skating.
@@MG-me7iw lmfaooo
IGN - Dustborn 7/10 Concord 7/10 Star Wars Outlaws 7/10
Just pirate the game and play it, eliminate the middle man that’s clearly bullshitting.
Black Myth Wukong 8/10
Marvel’s Spider Man 2 8/10
PalWorld 8/10
7/10 IGN = 2/5 irl😂
Feels like certain protected games can't be rated below 7
@@SharmV Nah dude, wait for release, watch some middle gameplay no commentary, decide for yourself.
Angry Joe has been using the 1-10 scale for nearly 2 decades now with little issue. The problem isnt with the scale itself
The real problem is that Ign practically gives everything a 7/10. Except if it's something super preachy, like she hulk in which case it gets an 8
And then it gives a masterpiece like Rainworld a 6
Like bruh
Another problem is that they are getting paid to do this. If they have L takes just like any other guys that arent journalist. What's the point of a journalist, if they can't even upheld the code of Journalist.
@@DarkXessZthis is why I watch people play games live
The only opinion that should matter is your own
So I form mine based on what I see on a livestream of a game I’m interested in
I don’t look at reviews or scores or some website about a game cuz those people reviewed the game from their perspective and will give me their two cents about it
I need to see the game and analyze it from my perspective cuz it’s what’s gonna make me want to buy it or leave it
seeing someone else’s opinions on a game is cool but that’s as far as it should go.
This is why demos for games need to make a serious comeback
being able to play a small section of a game is amazing and that can lead to some gamers buying or forgetting about games
For example I played the stellar blade demo and gori cuddly carnage demo
And I enjoyed the stellar blade demo but it didn’t generate enough hype in me to want to buy it I just thought it was cool
On the other hand gori cuddly carnage spoke to me when I played it
Felt amazing and fun and engaging and I put it on my list of games I want to buy cuz the demo was that exciting for me.
At the end of the day
Your opinion on a game is what should matter not some random journalist or review score.
The fact that dustborn is one point away from wu-kong is all that needs to be said. There is a fundamental problem with the review system and people notice that stuff..
Charalanahzard worked at IGN and now works at Sony, the revolving door is part of it.
Ethics in gaming journalism.
@@jimcarrey2866 Nonexistent
YUP
Yes a lot of the journalists are looking to work in the industry. The IGN Nintendo guy ended up working at Nintendo, one of the guys at GI ended up at Capcom. That’s their biggest dream (the ones who love games) to work at a gaming company especially their favorite one. They usually end up getting a job as PR bc they don’t have any other skills.
I will say as someone who worked in the industry, it’s alright. It is cool to hang out with other people who are mostly all gamers. But it’s a lot of crap too. Just like any other job.
Spot on
You take reviews too seriously, huh.
Not like the CEO of the biggest game company uses game reviews to indicate success on their game...
People need to stop taking IGN seriously and stop reading their contents.
The devs of Fallout New Vegas didn't get their bonus because of the review scores.
Wayy to seriously. It's not like they parade the reviews to their shareholders
@@HamHamHampstertell that to the investors of EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and Take Two. Reviews are just part of the business, low score games don’t make the money. Reviewers don’t take their job seriously enough.
They use reviews to persuade investors, they are actually very important
I'm kinda over hearing her out only to have her run defence for these subjects yet again. She worked for IGN for years, at AAA studios in the industry, and for The Completionist's family. Pretty sure they're even the sponsor on her green card ffs. So she obviously has superior industry insight compared to the majority(which is why I'm willing to hear her out regardless), but there's just zero chance she isn't going to also be more skewed and biased toward the industry than the majority of coverage.. So I don't mind Alannah most of the time, but not for these subjects. She's never going to call out anything that could potentially affect her standing. It's like when IGN released a video trying to justify the 7 issue. It's really got that internal "investigation" vibe. 🙄
Toxic positivity prevents people from actually saying "This game is crap, 0/10"
Imagine if they gave "The Day Before" a 7
Well, then can i say dark souls is crap. 0/10?
@@GodFormHermet If it is for you, sure. You are entitled to your opinion. As long you are not a jerk trying to push it thought other peoples, then all is fine.
I think that's the problem. "I don't like a game, 0/10" whereas game reviewers kind of can't do that. It's why user scores aren't a great metric either, as you have people posting zeroes on a game that's perfectly functional and it drags a game far below journalist reviews.
toxic negativity prevents people from enjoying the games they like and prevents reviews from being honest with good scores.
example.. Good game comes out. a small minority of people dont like the game or follow a content creator who doesnt like it... every piece of media that follows has toxic neagtivity trying to ruin peoples enjoyment.
Ign who are a Playstation centric channel ( openly admitted to live on air ) will rate Playstation games higher than they deserve and rate xbox's lower.
its quite simple.. people stop putting so much stock in what a streamer or reviews say... most of the time their view is slanted due to bias, platform, genre, poltical stance or the main culprit.. for views!!!
If you enjoy a game.. enjoy it. if you dont... play a game that you will!!!!
ITS SO SIMPLE.... or just be a sheep.
She fundamentally misunderstands the issue and I have a feeling its on purpose.
It's almost like her job was lying to the public.
She was and is part of the machine - now more than ever.
Feels like controlled opposition
I genuinely think ther are a lot of 7 out of 10
One thing she said is that journalists are just another guy with an opinion.. that's not true at all. they parade around as some kind of voice of truth, spouting bs agendas, and lying about scores to get access journalism. They're not just another guy. Maybe that's how it used to be, that game journalists used to be just gamers, but that's not the case anymore they're propaganda journalists now. Also, imo, journalists opinions are way less valuable than the average RUclips commenter. The youtube commenter isn't getting paid for their comments, they aren't restricted to not have certain opinions, they don't have rules they need to abide by - besides RUclipss guidelines, etcetera. Trying to say a journalist is just the same as a RUclips commenter is completely false, and imo is trying to push the narrative that "oh we're one of you!" There's so many things wrong with what she said, but hey we can pick it apart for fun.
The biggest issue with Alannah is that she tries to act as though she’s on the side of the gamers, but is clearly biased and herself is part of the problem. She makes leaps and bounds to defend these companies while giving the most milquetoast criticisms on the shit they do.
It makes sense when you know that she has and still works at big corporations like IGN and Sony.
@@sheyarjames4904 yea I remember back when she was at IGN, and even now she works with Sony Santa Monica if I’m remembering correctly. She honestly is the last person who should be talking about this stuff.
No, she isn't unhinged enough to outrage over things (games) that don't ultimately matter in our lives. I take games seriously, even unhealthily so, but they are just games.
she's the reason behind all the bad qualities in God of Woke Ragnarok
@@tomekhome I would say it's on Sweet baby inc, the fact that Santa Monica felt the need to hire and consult them is still puzzling to me.
"Some of yall take game reviews way too seriously." Yeah immediately disregarded this video after such a bad faith comment. She is making a false equivalence by trying to tell us what our issue actually is and downplay it under that explanation. Our problem isn't that we take reviews too seriously, our problem is with disingenuous ethics and clearly biased takes from what are supposed to be reputable sources of information. Much like yourself, Alanah. But honestly what can you expect from a former "journalist" who thinks parenthood is a disability that should be catered to in gaming...
Ok I was agreeing with you but that disability part is wildly misinterpreted, she basically just said that games should think about having a pause button at all times and used having a child as a example of urgent moments where you need to pause, it's not that big of a deal
if the CEO of Ubisoft takes reviews seriously then why shouldn't the customers using them as a guide on where to spend their money?
1:30 She worked at IGN , which makes her a 7/10
Lol
That's generous
@@michaelchan4946 I mean let's not kid around. she's pretty attractive.
@@michaelchan4946 Fam thank you
@@pandapo7542 nah
It's kinda hard to take what she says seriously, she's a known activist and she never out right addresses problems directly. She dodges them
Yep 100%.
exactly, "its just an opinion" is such a bad take. they shouldnt be just opionions of some random dude, it should be an informed piece about an medium in which the reviewer has a significant stake in, the medium not the product itself. But yeah sure if nothing matters, everyone can just talk out of their asses, nice gaming media world
Yeah who cares if they're just trying to make a living. People are expected to act ethically at their job. Cops aren't supposed to accept bribes. Teachers aren't supposed to favor students. Journalists should be honest.
So, "previous disagreements preclude current agreement", even if you do agree with what she's saying now?
I was getting ready to fire of my comment but you got it covered.
"someone who's played 1000 games might find something bland & generic, whereas someone who's only played 100 games would not"
Concord proves that this is incorrect. The 'professional journalists' all gave it high marks, whereas regular people thought it was a bland & generic rip-off of things like Overwatch & Fortnite (but with shittier characters).
I disagree, Concord just proved access journalism (call it what it is: legal corruption) is alive and a big issue in the industry
@@Lazydino59 sure. But her point was presupposing an area in which the reviewer was 'unbiased' (i.e. not paid off or lobbied to).
Concord proves that the point she makes isn't reflected in reality.
She completely went back on the fact that the reviewer "is just a normal dude" "they're just a normal dude.... but they can play 10x more games then you ever will so you'd never know" 😂 like play 5 games I don't care. You should tell if a game I good or not.
IGN gave Days Gone a 6.5. A lot of game reviews have become like movie or show reviews. The Acolyte gets 9’s from the “media” and much lower from most watching it. The activists in media aren’t actually grading the product for entertainment value but rather an external set of points they believe is higher level then entertainment value.
It's more the old idea that was in play. In the past, media reviewers were known for often being overly critical of derivative work. This is no longer a thing, to be honest.
Mortismal reviews games after legitimate and literal 100% completion of a game. All paths and alternate endings included. The guy is a freaking machine. He and ACG, who buys the games even if he's given a free copy, are the two I actually value the opinion of. Also, ACG doesn’t give a number value. He just tells you if it's worth buying, buying on sale, or not worth money. I usually just watch gameplay videos and listen for reviewers like IGN to report bugs if I listen to them at all.
Like how every woman is a 7 through 10, nobody can be real.
7 is a pretty high rating, when in reality most these games are 4s or 5s.
legit
for example, she would be an ACTUAL 7/10. Very attractive, but not as others i have seen. Also, 10/10 doesn't exist, because that is perfection and only God is perfect.
No something being a 7 according to bell curve which is what is meant by that number is that it's within top 23% of all games in quality. Any Ubisoft game is even better than that. If it was 8 it would be within 11% and if it was 9 it would be within 4%.
@@coaiemandushman1079 not even god is perfect if his own creations managed to defy him, so no
If it was 4 or 5 that would mean that 50-70% of games are better than lets say concod. That's apsurd.
I hate the dismissive "whoa, it's just some guys opinion man, my dooderino haha we just some guy bro". No, it's not "just some guy" it's someone's who's job it is to do this. An user review on steam, that's just some guy. I agree that journos don't have anything that makes their opinion on a game more valid, the problem is that they should, they ought to, it's your fucking job. Ideally these people should be making reviews to inform customers, to save them time and money, but that's not what they're doing, they're blatant shills for AAA gaming corpos and a lot of them are activists to top it off.
"Just some guy" actually play games, and doesn't have a financial incentive to shill. I will trust an used car salesman before I trust a journalist.
the way she worded it basically made the whole job redundant and moot. if he's just "some random dude" then why not focus on the thousands of "random dudes" that bought and reviewed the game? the audience score is filled with random dudes that don't get paid by IGN or the studios to artificially up their score.
@@habama1077 Knowing how to write a program is not anywhere near the same as having a random opinion on a video game.
Even then most of the people working for medical software are just random people who happen to know programming or who got nepotismed in.
@@HamHamHampster that's saying a lot omg lol
@@Meleena2218I think that IS the point. That games journalism has no purpose and shouldn't exist. She said she doesn't consider it real journalism.
She's not out here comparing a $1 game made by some guy on his spare time to $120 ultimate delux edition game made by hundreds of people in a triple A company on the same rating scale😭
No she's not really doing that she poisoning the well of this discussion with a bad faith argument to justify what blatantly bad review by her and others in games media.
@@neotagatg3238 she says "I'm not defending IGN" while literally defending IGN
@@Xx1devilgod1xX exactly she's trying to justify their bad review scores using a scale no one does.
Hundreds of employees is a low ball
The comparison between games should be done including the price range. Compare 70 to 130 dollar games with each other, not with free to play games.
The logic behind this is so hard to understand for me. If you need half an hour to justify the concept that doesnt make sense, then maybe its the wrong concept.
They reserve 1-4 for games they don't even review, they hardly ever give any fives, and a 10 almost never happens, so their scale is effectively a 5-9, which really translates to 1-5 again. This means every seven is basically a 2, compared to all the other games that they bother to review. (which suddenly starts making sense again when you look at concord which is really a 1 or 2, but stops making sense when you compare concord to all the other 7s). But also, the most condescending and self righteous part of it all is, each and every single game that IGN decides NOT to cover is automatically a 1-5 to them, going by that logic.
So they either need to fucking start actually reviewing and scoring the 1-5 bracket, like journalists did back in the day when their integrity was still intact.
Or they just start disregarding the games they don't review anyway, and start giving games like concord and star wars the 1s and 2s they deserve.
IGN has abused the 7 so badly, it's the reason people think it means a bad game
7 means that the game is at least in top 23% of all games in current market. There is no way any Ubisoft game is below 7.
@@yoooyoyooo They also gave Dustborn a 7. How is Dustborn a 7?
@@yoooyoyooo Which again is not true. If a game is bland and did nothing new and has way too many bugs, it should get less but because it is just a known studio, they are afraid of giving it less especially if the studio panders to them.
@@yoooyoyooo star wars outlaws, skull & bones.
In my mind:
0-4 varying degrees of bad
5 underwhelming but not bad per-se
6 ok
7 good
8 great
9 amazing
10 best
1:40 I disagree. If it is your JOB to review something, it should be accurate, detailed, and thorough. $70 is a lot to some people. Hell, games where I am are north of $85. A lot of people can only afford one new game extremely seldomly.
If I did my job as poorly as most IGN reviewers, I'd be kicked to the curb.
She starts with
"game reviewers are not special, they dont know more then you, just one guys opinion"
and then
"games reviewers play alot more games then you and have a greater perspective and understand the full scope of games better then you"
@@davidhill3595 good point
@@davidhill3595 The context matters, first one was explaining that their opinion is not absolute and that your personal preferences do matter, the second means - "they play way more games, so they get to see way more shitty games, so what you consider shit is average to them"
@@Arkanna96 so do you believe the system is working fine and is a useful guide to the public? Honest question.
@@davidhill3595 That's a different question, I was just saying both those statements are true and her points in this video are very valid. I actually totally agree with the idea that AAA games, unless something goes horribly wrong are as a baseline above average. I don't think we should discount the fact that most existing games are hot garbage made by someone who wanted to practice the engine or whatever. I think an AAA game should likely start out as a 6 because they will have a higher level of polish, better graphics, good controls, most likely fully voice acted etc. compared to a game that didn't have that budget. But an AAA game that gets only a 6 is a massive failure imo and probably not worth my time. I also don't count price into the grading system cz I can just wait for a sale and get the game for 20-30 bucks.
That being said, I think that for most games the final grade doesn't matter as much, what matters is the reason for that grade. For instance, did they give it a good grade because it has good music and graphics and the gameplay/story lowered the score? I think if you're a casual player who likes pretty things Star Wars Outlaws probably seems like a good game. If you want good gameplay, then that game sucks. Very few things are actually objective when grading a game like bugs/performace issues, everything else is personal opinion, so then if a review is aimed at a broad audience it needs to take all these things into account.
For the above reasons, even though I think the grading is often decently fair (with few exceptions obviously, some reviewers can just suck at their job), in my opinion written reviews are useless. Reviews are either inherently extremely biased or if they try to be as unbiased as possible we end up with what we have now and nobody seems to be happy with that. I rather watch a let's play for an hour to see if I like the game and then pause once I decide if I want to buy it or not. Even if a game is a true 10/10 it still might not be for me and even if a game is a 5/10 I might still enjoy it. Or I'll read through the steam comments section and see what the user rating is there since then I can form an opinion based on multiple people's experiences not just one. I also think people need to start admitting that just because they're not the target audience for something, doesn't mean that particular thing is shit.
If they got paid, a 2/10 becomes 7/10. If they didn't get paid, a 10/10 becomes 7/10.
Yeah "critics" just don't want to damage relationships with certain publishers/devs at this point. Probably not directly money into hand or bank account though. Likely it's flying ppl out to test their game, look at the studio or fun locations, cruises, conventions, have nice dinner/parties, connections to early access demos/games/insider information, or interviews with prominent industry figures. I know makeup companies did similar stuff when influencers would test their new products (like 6 years ago, not sure about now).
@Killer_Turnip Agreed. It may not be direct cash payment. But all the early access games, sponsored travel, game show tickets, review opportunities, and such all lead to work/income. So they are indirectly getting paid.
@@redpanda416 even if the journalists themselves aren't getting these deals, someone at their company is. I'm sure there's unsaid rules about scoring that managers/higher ups make sure to address, and maybe give a nice end of year bonus if journalists make certain things happen for the company (which technically means they aren't getting paid by the publisher to promote a game).
Although this is just speculation from my own experience with corpo companies.
Was there an exclusive press event? rating +1
Have they rented ad space on the front page? rating +1
Did the game or developer do anything not matching our corporate values? rating -2
It depends.
Should do what Anime/Manga does for "adventures system", so we can have something like classes such as;
F 1-10
E 1-10
D 1-10
C 1-10
B 1-10
A 1-10
S 1-10
So you grade different games on different scales.
Which also allows game to "break" out of their initial class system, showing that they were better than you thought.
If paid game reviews are all "just some guys opinion" and not an informed critique of the mechanics, genre and industry the entire entire review industry is worthless.
But isnt informed critique still just an opinion
yes
@@andrijabulicic2207 If the critique is published by a large company it's expected that the person giving the review has some level of knowledge that qualifies them to have that position. not just a random dude with an opinion. you wouldn't expect published reviews in other industries to be from armatures or uninformed people, you don't see fancy restaurants, broadway musicals etc getting published reviews in the NYT written by Steve from Deleware.
7/10 is in my opinion a byproduct of let's not offend both sides, so let's give woke games like Dustborn, Concord... 7/10 but we will also give Stellar Blade 7/10, because if IGN would rate games based on gameplay, music, story... Dustborn and Concord would be below 5 and Stellar Blade would probably be a 8 or even a 9 lmao.
Most company hired journalists today are fence sitters. If they are not obviously bought out and paid for by certain factions or drooling for their quid pro quo, they're gonna play it real safe and ere on the side of "who's paying for my salary"--someone who has sided with a certain ideological faction.
The score for Stellar Blade is little more higher that it should but I'm fine with that.
This problem is wayyyy older than wokedom.
It was like this in the 80's in magazines (paper book thing we used to read in the stone ages)
yep. Its the perfect safe score for people who can't be bothered to actually get into a game and give their honest opinion. Instead they start on 7 and add or subtract 1 based on how annoying their experience was.
Another L take by her. It is wild how she talk about how reviewers play more games and, therefore, some things that might see fresh for players are stale for them, and then begins to talk about SW Outlaw, where it is completely backwards.
Then she talks about how the scale works, and despite saying that she is not defending it, she absolutely did by going as far as playing some indy games to show the 'inferior' games. "Hey, look at those bad games! Those are 1-2 out of 10." Imagine trying to defend some garbage movie from Hollywood, by scaling it against some school projects? It was both sad and pathetic to see the length she was willing to go to defend the way AAA slops are being reviewed.
Her arguments of why game like SW Outlaw deserve a 7 are the reason why western AAA games are such a mess. Who gives a shit about number of music tracks, complexity of game mechanics, visuals, UI, etc., when people don't find the game to be fun to play?
This whole video was her trying to defend outlets like IGN and their review system, while trying to sound like she is on gamer's side. Super lame.
Exactly. Nobody is thinking: well, at least it has more music than some flash game I played in 2007, this game is so good. The 'baseline' games she talks about, either dont exist, or they are things like flash games. Even then, a lot of these flash games are more fun than bad AAA games.
You are spot on. Best comment on this video so far
Yeah, there are many big RUclipsrs that consistently give different scores than journos and yet the RUclipsrs reviews tend to be more aligned with the normal gamers despite both Game journalists and RUclips reviewers both have this gap between average gamers in terms of numbers of games played due to that being their job.
Also the score is supposed to tell me if it’s worth to buy the game. How much bang for my buck. A 5 bucks indie game can easily be a 10/10. Chained together costs 5 bucks so far I’ve „only“ played 15 hours I loved. That’s 3 hours per buck I’d need to play concord 120 hours for that or classic triple a 180.
its funny, she points at games that are rated 1 and then goes, see thats why every AAA game deserves a 7!!!
uh no? ok that maybe it wouldnt be a 1 or 2 but a lot of AAA games can fit the 3 4 5 and 6
The NPS scale treats 0-6 as negative, 7-8 as neutral and 9-10 as positive. Use that when looking at these review scores. I hate NPS.
Alana is always an apologist for the industry's worst habits.
Yet she’s taken part in those habits no sympathy
Can't take anyone seriously who has been associated with Rooster Teeth except maybe Bruce Greene but that's a stretch as well
She is the same evil as the industry itself or at the same side.
its why i dont watch her anymore, shes just an industry shill, bad dev apologist now
she's such a sellout
IGN - 7/10
"There's a little something for everyone here"
Emphasis on little
7 means seven combined brain cells was used creating the game(concord.outlaw,dustborn)
You used 7 brain cells writing this comment
@@dill492 still on par with a triple A gaming company and all their workforce.
Were 7 brain cells used for making stellar blade?
Her video as well.
i totally with your attitue about the scale of the games. No one thinks every hollywood movie should be a 8/10 and up even though 99% of movies made are utter garbage compared to the ones that make it into theaters. Movie reviews do have a problem of having a 5 not be average, but it's not nearly as bad as game reviews are in that aspect. Like, you get hollywood made box office movies that get slammed as low as 3/10 regularly.
The last person anyone should listen to talk about this subject is this eternal industry apologist.
I just clicked on the video, had never heard of her. I spent about 5 minutes reading into her past and looking at her old videos on her channel. Came to the conclusion that this video wasn't worth an hour of my life👍
Alanah should ask Skillup what happened to his access to review copies of Bethesda products after his review of Fallout 76...
Why would she have any insight in that that. it's not relevant to the point she's making, which is games expected to be below a 7 just don't get coverage because no one is expected to care about them. So outlets prioritize reviewing games they expect to be a 7 or above and just some fall below that expectation but few do.
@mrthewhite2620 Quid pro quo.
You give our game a good score, and we keep giving you early access review copies.
You give our game a bad score, and we no longer give you early access review copies.
@stopsign7547 Again, though, how would she have any insight into what happened to someone who isn't her, by a company that she's never worked for? Totally itrelevant to this video.
@@mrthewhite2620 To be fair, they're good friends.
Don't forget her, Skill Up, Jesse Cox, and YongYea were all CDPR shills that cried victim when exposed.
gameranx is the best because instead of giving a number , they will explain the pro and the cons of the game and let the audience to decide
Like TB did, rip.
I'd say someone like Angry Joe and his team are on of the best reviewers ever. In-depth analysis with lots of entertainment and comedy on the side, they've almost never missed or failed a review, at least in my experience. And some of the rants are straight up legendary.
Gameranx is goated!
Imo using numbers to rate entertainment products is shallow and misleading. The reason why is that many of these reviewers don't even have any methodic criteria to dish out such scores, so it all feels fake and arbitrary.
>This game has a really fun combat, but the story is kinda lackluster, so it's a 7.
>This game has a really boring gameplay, but the graphics are kinda good and the story made me cry, so uhhhh 9 I guess.
It therefore begs the question of: what's the point of attributing something as objective as a number to something, if there's no objective method behind the attribution of that number?
Absolute facts. And knowing Jake Baldino’s style / authenticity, you can tell he’s politely saying a game is dog shit
The problem with the idea of reviews as a way of informing customer decisions is reviewers by the nature of their job play far more games than customers do and under different conditions, there is a vast difference between playing something for fun in your free time and it's one of the six new games you bought this year and playing something for work and it's the eleventh one you've played this month,
things that normal audiences are perfectly ok with become a ridiculous lack of effort when it's the fifteenth time you've seen that story beat or mechanic this month, the problem with reviewing games for a living is that by doing it you become someone that normal gamers can't relate to
Games having no easy mode isn't an issue for most gamers as they simply won't buy those games but if you have to play it for a review and you have a deadline then suddenly the way the game is designed is making the thing you do for money harder, same with dungeon and raid finder, if your on a deadline then finding a group and getting to the place isn't a fun game it's making your job harder and even if you try to mentally take that into account, simply by having to do so you are separated from the base emotional reaction of a normal player
Just remove the first five numbers and it starts to make sense. If it's a 7/10 that means it's a actually a 2/5.
At that point you might as well just use a 5 point system. lol
@@_Major00Donut_ Perhaps in the board room it was a 5 point system but they dont want to be excluded out of future game review copy's so they inflate it by 5 so it does not look as bad
That still doesn't fix anything. So, space marine is a 1/5? The problem is that most reviewers are activists rather than normal fucking people. They judge games based on the moral stance of a company. Not on the actual quality of the product.
And that's precisely why she complained about a colleague giving Doom 2016 an "insane" low score of 7/10. She knows. She's either pretending not to or is so immersed in that culture that it's nothing but cognitive dissonance.
The difference is game journalists hate gamers, I don't believe for a second they play more video games than me 😂access journalism is the most important factor in this whole discussion . There is a massive flaw in her theory that one of the journalists would break the story if they were being paid but that could only happen if the publication let them put out the story and we know that would never happen
They couldnt beat the tutorial of cuphead. Goes to show how many games they play.
They don't. That's why they suck at games.
What makes you think they hate gamers?? Aside from some weird IGN headlines, this is absurd to say.. they are all literally gamers.
She never said reviewers play more games than ALL gamers she said they play more than your AVERAGE gamer, who will be far more casual. She wasn’t talking about WoW nolifers.
Is it just me, or did anyone else feel gaslighted the whole video? Her repeatedly saying nobody would pay for positive reviews and acting like that's an absurd consideration but then NEVER covering the intangible repercussions (no more gifts, trips, event invites, future considerations) of bad a review seems quite ignorant. How do you make a video on this topic and not dive into the blurred lines and impropriety involved with review scores, glad Asmon called it out.
I'm still sitting here working out how she thought giving a terrible barely working claw machine game a 7/10 after playing it for 5 minutes was gonna somehow help her argument. It proved exactly what IGN reviewers do. Barely anything.
Shes also giving the argument that IGN rates on a 1-10 scale for every game and that bugs etc should be reviewed equally. So a 1 guy indie game has to have the same standards as games from multimillion dollar companies...
@@the_real_natsu9901Annoyed the ehll out of me as well. The logic is astounding and it just sounds like an ex-employee trying to save face with the company that used to employ her.
Wouldn’t be her first time. I remember her releasing a video a few years ago and people praising. She said then too that reviewers are not “paid” to give favorable reviews. Completely ignoring the whole problem with access journalism. If nothing else, she is consistent in her delusion. 😂
She works and thrives in this industry thats why she'll never truthfully shine a light on the elephant in the room called "Quid Pro Quo".
The difference is, journo's want their hands held in easy games, while gamers want harder difficulties and no fucking on screen prompts
Her commentary is stale. It feels completely lop sided, disingenuous, and tone deaf to the real reasoning behind everything is just access journalism. 7/10, a true journalist experience.
She's a corpo insider. She gets the sponsorships, the early access, she speaks at awards ceremonies, invites to all the gaming parties, gets flown around the world by companies. She sold her integrity years ago in exchange for her career.
Well she did say having a kid is a disability that prevents you from playing a game without a pause button. Like turn the damned game off and take care of the kid. Elden Ring you respawn at the stake of Marika anyway. No big deal.
😂😂😂
I found the GG stuff, and I found it compelling, the very next month she was on Total Biscuit's podcast, she must have got so many followers. A while later, she got hired at IGN, and was shocked that a part of TB's audience was critical. She basically told us "You're not my dad" and everybody moved on.
I find it hard to see malice in her, she's a pretty apparatchik, she's just a part of her machine. I guess if I needed to apologize to Logan Paul to keep my day job, I'd probably do it? I feel like Allanah is much the same. You need more balls when it comes to culture, I think. She's clearly much more apathetic. I would never apologize for my bad fanfiction, for example. If I did, I'd have to stop writing it as a part of myself? Professional pop culture critics are in a weird spot, I do not envy them.
Them being afraid to do bad reviews to be on good terms with companies does make sense but honestly at this point they only hurt them, the perception of journalists in general but particularly games journalists has been going further and further into the negative faster and faster as time goes on. Because of how negative of an impact they have on companies makes me believe it's more likely that the industry as whole such as games journalists, developers, and even the higher ups of specific companies are so heavily influenced by social political opinions that it impacts their performance in their respective fields.
But it's not some random dude with a opinion. It's their literal Job... They get paid so its not a random dude. The Dude was picked by someone to do a Job.
yeah I hate when people are dismissive about gaming outlets giving wild scores with it's just some random person. as if that absolves all responsibility.
Yeah, that's the thing. They're "professional" reviewers. The very nature of the fact someone is paying them to review games gives them an extra level of authority that "some random dude" doesn't have. People are naturally more trusting of opinions on a topic from someone whose job is related to that topic.
That not-so-random dude's opinion is also going to be used by product sellers (and other journalists) as an appeal to authority and selling point. You're not going to see "4/10 made me want to kick a dog" on the back of a GotY edition release, they're going to cover the case in 8/10s and 9/10s, because it looks good to customers. Which is also why GotY editions are even a thing, it's a strong selling point.
ign does nothing but politicking and kill games while not praising good games like wukong and space marine. we are better off without them. if a journalist at ign is being branded as some fing guy, then might as well get rid of ign and all the useless reviewers. they are not doing what they are paid to do. we dont need them.
When siblings marry, you get comment threads like this one.
people don’t realize this but there is an automatic bias when people review games even if their job is just to report on the game
they’ll automatically be biased because they’re reviewing the game from their point of view so what that means is
Their opinions will come out on certain systems that are in the game and it doesn’t help that the people reading these reviews will latch on to
the reviewer’s perspective and what they say.
They are unable to say if a game is good or bad without directly or indirectly injecting their own opinions in there when making the review.
21:45 I think conversely the solution should be that IGN should have a spot segment for games like these, like top 15 weekly releases or some dumb shit like that. I mean we live in a day and age where all information is entirely free to print and universally accessible, and instead of growing their catalogue they've actively been shrinking it in both scope of purview and range of idea, both of which are utterly absurd.
I think it would help them to gain a lot more favor with the community as well, but that could be reaching at this point.
I essentially didn't learn anything new from Alanah. It seemed like a whole lot of nothing being said. She didn't even mention access journalism.
because her whole trash argument would fall apart, "oh it is just some guy reviewing it" Oh really? so why are they paying you guys then? Easy it is because you will shill their unfinished activist ridden piece of shit game as a master piece.
Thank you so much.. I just watched about 10 min and started to get worried, I really hate these kind videos
@@Versosurma Just a bunch of "It's just some guy's opinion." Like duh, we know that already-- that's how we've been treating it. That's why we just watch streamers/RUclipsrs nowadays.
@@Versosurma Asmon's input was of actual value, though.
yes she did and said thats so complicated she would make a whole video on it. she just denied that reviewers are explicitly paid for reviews and scores
Don’t really trust Alanah to begin with. She doesn’t seem very genuine and one of the whatever gets me popular views.
I'm fairly certain she's made a lot of money through her varying jobs, likely the reason she's able to make content while also working another job. I don't think she really needs views at all. Not that I would trust her completely either but I only really trust what I know and I don't know her personally.
Yeah totally, if she really wanted the views she really just needs to say everything bad = woke and keep saying DEI and she’d rack up a TON of views….
Ok ok, jokes aside, she’s been in, and is inside the industry . Take what she says with a bit of skepticism. But I trust her more than most gamer “personalities”
@@901Wesi dont, she has so much bad takes that repeat on these topics consistently
"My review isn't worth more than your review."
Disagree. A Korean Starcraft tourney player's review of an RTS is absolutely worth more than mine. Knowledge plays a factor. There have been so many instances of reviewers getting into trouble for saying something like DMC5 is boring and it turned out they were just playing it on Easy which just auto combos for you.
She actually says something to that effect later in the video.
Not only that, if Ign's review doesn't matter more than some random I found tweaking in an alley, why are they professional reviewers?
I think she was implying that IGN reviewers are clueless
They literally say that tho
@@RDV333 I find that steam reviews are way more reliable than anything IGN has ever put out in their existence. I don't see how IGN has made it this far.
The fact that Seggs with Hitler outsold Concord then proceed to make a SWH2 will never stop being funny.
"it's just a random person's opinion" ok, but as it's influenced by access journalism and CEOs take that for a true, faithful feedback (for example Ubisoft's CEO in the internal memo) then it's a problem
They forgot to mention the random person is working and influenced by a huge corporation. Its not as simple as just a random persons opinion
Her point about most games being bad is irrelevant. She said ign scores aren’t based on averages rather the quality of the game.
The shovelware games she showed are all 1s. On the other hand, how could you describe outlaws as anything other than a 5? It has all the mechanics you’d expect but theres nothing remarkable about any aspect of the game and the graphics are objectively mediocre. Ofc its a 5
Fuck no it's not a 5. Aside from graphics what does it do that's mediocre? There's plenty in the 2-3 range and I'm struggling to think of anything at all beyond that.
Even if you just reviewed it as a story, it'd struggle to be beyond a 2.
This. 5 and oulaws is barely passing minimum requirements for average game. It is not good or not total shit but just there at between that can be passed as a game and doing bare minimum in all aspects
Defends Outlaws, saying that most games are poorly thought out and buggy... Yeah, because outlaws is not that, obviously.
And outlaws complexicity as a peace of software is not an excuse. If mario is a simpler game, why is it an 8 to a 10?
There was a guy who passed away recently, who made a name for himself asking people to rate themselves, and he would always say before they answer "but you can't chose 7" and there's a good reason for that
18:20 complexity doesn't make a game. there are awesome games out there that aren't complex at all
People confuse depth with complexity. Suits confuse pandering with depth.
@@lokinslawomir0793complexity enables depth
Flashgames were incredible for what they were
A huge complex game with incredible systems but with bad gameplay and P2W is miserable to play
A game that has 90 hours of cutscenes and 10 minutes of gameplay is incredible sure, but it's trash as a game.
I agree
Or on the flip side I bet she would say something like dwarf fortress is simple because of the graphics lol
Spyro the dragon games 1-3 were fucking goated.... not complex AT ALL.
This chick has regular bad takes. The issue with game reviews is that they're not just opinion most of the time. These people are activists and pretending they're not is disingenuous
I agree.
The more I’ve caught random RUclips vids of her over the years… the more I check my brain out. She just annoys me now :/
I’m sure she’s a good human and good at what she does… but I just can’t with her anymore
Absolutely, she's trying to downplay their role as "just some guy with an opinion" when in reality they're hired to push a cultural narrative that best suits their corporate overlords, regardless of the real quality of the game theiy're reviewing. They don't love or play games, they peddle propaganda, and THAT's why most gamers hate them.
Reminder that she is the one that said that having a child is a disability
@@SammySam7xgod forbid someone say a thing you disagree with or they make a mistake with words lol. Have to write them off entirely right?
@@SammySam7x In her defense, ppl clipped her tf out of context for that explaination.
Why would somebody pay for a 7? Because otherwise they would get a 4! And why not pay extra for 10? Because NOBODY with 2 working brain cells would believe games like Skull and Bones or Star Wars are even CLOOOOOOOOOSE to a fucking 10
ikr, her logic is so flawed, thats how i imagine a child would think the world works.
"lets just print more money"
"if you are homeless just buy a house"
"stealing is illegal so you cant rob me"
"why would someone commit a crime if they will go to jail?"
"why would anyone lie? truth is good"
@@hugopereira4212 Yes, also comparing indi games to triple or even AAAA games on the same scale is plain stupid. Girl, just because you worked in IGN doesn’t mean you know what’s happening behind closed doors. Ubisoft financing RUclipsrs trips to Disney World or whatever is a bribery, you can’t tell me IGN is neutral and their journalists just have their oWn oPiNiOnS
@@MCCiabattaGrande well i agreed on the part of comparing it to indie games, thats where the 1 and 2s are, but saying because those exist an AAA game cant be bellow 7 is stupid, there are AAA games that are 3s 4s 5s and 6s, as well as indie games that are 7s, 8s, 9s and 10s.
we should grade things as they are not "its AAA so the minimum is 7" bs-
who made it, how many people made it and how much money doesnt matter.
undertale was made by like 1 guy if im not wrong, cheap asf to be made but its one of the best games ever made
@@hugopereira4212 exactly
@@hugopereira4212 can you show me the AAA that gets a 3? Can you show me a few AAA games that are lower than a 5?
It's really fucking simple.
You have two scales.
Indy and AAA. Both go 1-10. Fixed. They just don't want to.
She just insulted game journalists in a pathetic attempt to cover for their obvious garbage reviews.
Alana, goes to eat pizza gets crap pizza then says hey it’s fine it’s just some guy making pizza so we should expect it to be crap.
To be fair, I'd give every national pizza chain a 7/10 at best.
Imagine if the scoring system for books had to take into account every piece of fanfiction on the internet. All books would be a 7 because we need to keep 1-5 reserved for all the furry porn fanfiction. Her argument it ridiculas. All feature films get a 7 because we have to keep 1-5 reserved for every video put on youtube. All restuarants get a 7 because we have to keep 1-5 for all the hot dog vans.
@@davidhill3595 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Except 2:10 when those “guys” purposefully give bull crap reviews for monetary incentives from the creators of those games
Ah she worked at ign
Makes sense considering she said having children is a disability 😂
Proud triple cripple here 😂
C'mon guys this is cringe. She clearly didn't mean that having children makes you disabled.
@GeneralSpecific oh good, I have three kids, I was worried I might start to think yellow is my favorite number
@@GeneralSpecificI don’t care which ever way she was implying it was stupid situational disability crap try having a spinal cord injury like me where your legs don’t work all you feel is pain
@@paulysmallz8095 I'm reliably informed that you could adventure around dungeons, fighting Orcs and Dragons, so how limiting can that actually be?
Damn, I'll go back to Diablo 4 eventually based on Asmon, I am not an experienced arpg player but the item ui and lack of more storage was annoying. Then I heard you don't get the horse till the last act or act 4 (if there is a 5?)
Her take about numbers of games is beyond stupid and disingenuous; imagine we applied a similar take to film reviewing and took into account every single thing ever committed to camera!! lol (when we talk about if the latest studio block buster is good and has good effects we have 0 interest in comparing it to the effort of 2 grad students in a flat share unless theirs is better of course)
This NO one looks at shovelware free to play and then compares it to triple A. These shovelware game are not on the scale normally when someone judging games. She put them on it to poison the well. It's a bad faith argument.
That type of reasoning is beyond them.
To be fair, all of her takes are stupid and disingenuous.
Yeah and she didnt address the problem: lack of standard. A game that lasted 2 weeks cannot have a rating greater than Space Marines 2. I mean they are not reviewing things objectively, how the heck they can rate.
Well if game devs stopped focusing on extra pixels in shadow detail & start focusing on game mechanics the problem would be gone
AND LOADING ISSUES, stuttering has become waaaaay to apparent now
Yo, I am subbed to you.
NEVER! It is important to invest in abilities players need to deactivate to make the game playable on a computer that is more then a year old.
Yes I agree.
"It's just some guy" is such a dumb take. No it's not, they are portraying themselves as professional critics. This is their job. They absolutely SHOULD be held to a higher standard and attempt to be as objective as possible since that's their job. And if no one can do that, the job needs to disappear.
Why not just have one triple A scoring for big game publishers then one for indie games? Seems like the most simple solution ever but if the combined IQ is 7 on their team I guess it’s hard to realize that.
My question is: Why journalists opinions should be relevant? In my mind only gamers score is the one relevant and important.
I don't wanna defend IGN or any game journalists you try to push political agendas on players, but you know there are game journalists who are also REAL gamers?
@@felygu9268 However they aren't as apparent as the ones who review nowadays in IGN or Gamespot, which is the big problem
Its not relevant, ubisoft is learning it the hard way lmfao
@@felygu9268No self respecting gamer that knows the current state of the industry would call themself a journalist.
They arent - as IGN/PC Gamer has showed us. Not to mention regular "journalists" lololol
Sure, IGN is some guy like everyone else opinionated reviewing a game, but the problem is that they are PAID to do this and suppose to have much more professionalism, less bias, analyze things at a deeper level when you are paid to do this and to tell the truth. That is what journalism is about. If any journalist loses every one of these, you are basically like any other L take person internet reviewing a game. What's the point of a Journalist who get paid then?
Unbelievably stupid take from her. So a policeman is also just another guy with a job? Everyone right? Why are we paying them then? To be another guy? These people are trying to relativize everything. No responsibility if you are just some guy!! Hey spend money on this game I am just a guy
@@blicleak1101 Cops are literally "just another guy" that's the entire reason why people start complaining about cops abusing their power. A cop is just some guy who happened to pass a 6 month training course. A doctor has to spend 8+ years learning to be a doctor only to make a mistake and lose his job while a cop spent 6 months in a boot camp and now has the right to use a gun because "he was scared".
Pointing to powerpoint slide at shareholder meeting: "look someguy at IGN just rated our game a 8/10"
@@blicleak1101 I remember she also made the same stupid take about the situational handicap.
She’s saying people are just upset with reviews that they don’t personally agree with, and her advice is to just find the individuals that you agree with. She’s basically defending the terrible business practices of these companies and tells us to just go away if you don’t like it. Sound familiar?
If that's what you took away from what she said then you really need to work on your literacy skills. She's basically saying that IGN is just a bunch of dudes who all have their own tastes and opinions so the reviews shouldn't be taken as gospel. Instead you should find reviewers whose tastes align with your own and stick to their reviews because their opinions on a game are far more likely to align with your own and are, therefore, far more meaningful to you than the opinions of someone whose taste in games is the complete opposite to your own.
For example, I'm a huge fan of character action games, but I don't particularly enjoy turn-based RPGs. If you are big fan of turn-based RPGs, but don't particularly enjoy character action games then my opinion of a game is pretty much meaningless to you because we have opposite tastes.
She’s biased because she used to work there and probably still has friends there.
@@jordanwood3150 People shouldn't be really reviewing things based on their own tastes. It can be a small factor and its own section for context. With independent reviewers they're often going to be discussing only what they consider worth talking about. So what would be the point of large publications assigning reviews at all?
Her opening was that they're "just guys", but so are competent reviewers. Someone whose job it is to play a large number of games and would have experienced plenty, hopefully to the extent they can review them and should have a breadth of knowledge on the subject.
"I like it" shouldn't be the standard for reviews. That's how we get takes like "Fallout is good". When in reality it's mechanically broken slop.
I don't watch many horror movies. However if it was my job to review movies, either I should not be reviewing movies I don't watch. Or even if I don't favor them I should be reviewing a range of movies, such that my knowledge should be comprehensive enough. If I didn't have an aversion, I could watch hours of horror movies to see what differences there might be specifically within that genre. Something potentially immediately worthwhile to qualify me, both for that review and any in the future.
Bly is easily a 9/10. It's well written, well crafted. It doesn't appeal to me the same way something I'd usually choose to watch, but which might only be 7/10.
I like terrible games and bad writing, therefore Star Wars Outlaws is a 10/10. It's the only game I've ever played.
How is that useful to anyone? Why should that have a place on a mainstream curated platform?
@@alicea3421 "People shouldn't be really reviewing things based on their own tastes." You could say that, however, it's inevitably the case that the tastes of a reviewer will effect how they experience the game and, therefore, their review. You're acting like video game reviews are somehow proper journalism that need to have an air of objectivity. They aren't, they're essentially just glorified opinion pieces that far too many "gamers" seem to take way too seriously.
@@jordanwood3150 Then they serve no function.
Taste shouldn't effect the account of the experience, experience should effect the taste.
I gave you an example of how I would rate something I don't like as much, higher than something I do. I can resonate with something, I can enjoy it, that doesn't mean it's good or well crafted. Media can be discussed in an objective way. If someone is reading or listening to a review, they likely already have an interest in it. If the reviewer talks about the mechanics, the viewer can logically discern that and apply to their own taste.
"You're acting like video game reviews are somehow proper journalism that need to have an air of objectivity. They aren't, they're essentially just glorified opinion pieces"
That's literally the problem. They ought to be. That's why her argument is bad. "It's just some guy", everyone knows this. So what value does it have to a consumer?
Gamers are not the ones taking them seriously, they purport themselves to be. The industry is valuing their scores.
i like the steam reviewers that give a score individually to music, graphics, controls, game play, story, voice acting, replayability, ect.
“Reviews” are now just advertisements. Its only worth watching independent creators
The problem there is that those Independent Creators eventually cave to access journalism or sponsorship money as well.
Look at all the youtubers who shill trash that they never use like "Better Help".
@@FolstrimHori theres plenty of good independent reviewers though.
I don't even care about reviews anymore. Just show me the gameplay and I'll decide if it looks fun or not.
@21:37 This is the obvious hole in her argument lol. Are we supposed to believe that they’re grading AA+ games 7/10s because they’re being considerate of someone’s random flash game ?
Thats exactly what I have thought about. She has a very shallow position. First she says, reviewers are just “some dudes” who have zero expertise or special knowledge, then she states they have huge gaming experience due to specifics of their job. And as a cherry on top she basically tries to justify weak and lazy triple A game by comparing it to some low budged developed by one guy indie project. Pathetic argument to be honest.
Alannah doing her usual of trying to be relevant and protecting ppl in the industry, this was some next level mental gymnastics on 7/10 reviews while ignoring real factors like access journalism, preview events, reviewers being buddy-buddy with devs (just like she was), ideology bs that is rampant amongst journalists, toxic positivity and so on. She just wanted to try and gaslight ppl cause she once worked for IGN and is trying to act like that means everything she says is correct.
Authority fallacy and gaslight is typical of this people that benefit from the status quo of the industry.
Specially her that had jobs with sony and ign. So of course she will play dumb and pretend people are the problem and not the industry itself.
I have to say.
I started the video while on the title screen of Elden Ring, and her rant at the beginning leading to "the number 7" was perfectly timed with the music.
Her main point is that she’s trying to convince us that game reviewers are people we should empathize with and not corporate shills. Which we KNOW they are
She's made the same argument about game devs. We should empathize with the game devs even though they despise their customers and make bad games.
"A 5 does not mean average it means mediocre." Mediocre means average.
Funny how even the 3 dictionary site I check have it mean average like you said, and some say it means low quality. No wonder people disagree on this.
Lol I was thinking the same thing. Wtf does she think "mediocre" means 😂 what a dumb thing to say.
Why is she pretending that reviewers play literally every single new game that comes out, and that they dont choose which games to play based on popularity?
Simple. The scale should be:
Does the game deliver what it proposes?
Absolutely not = 0
Absolutely yes = 10
Bullshit, you CANT compare an indie game made by one developer to an quadruple A game with a multiple 100Ks of budged on the same scale wtf…? How is the ranking 1-5 reserved for indie games?
Because indie games developers don't have the marketing budgets to pay IGN for an advert disguised as a review.
Yep. I would expect better from the latter, less from the former. Theres always a massive price difference between those different types of games as well. Also they literally spend millions, hundreds of millions at times. Whereas an indie dev is extremely lucky if they spend a million.
Comparing them shouldn't be a thing, weirdly enough it is though since indie games keep being way better than AAA games when that just shouldn't be the case. Saying lower rankings is only for indie games literally just sounds like "I got payed/access journalism is a thing so we can't rate them lower than this score" basically. What a joke XD
"Think about how many mistakes you did and you're still here"
Ya, I lost my job several times from minor mistakes. She's completely out of touch.
IGN gave Concord an 8 because they didn’t want to ruin their “relationship” with Sony. Facts.
If they just removed 1-5 on the scale you would essentially have a 5 star system. So a 7 would be 2 stars…garbage.
Instead of helping Sony do better, they'd rather put it 6 feet under.
OG '07 "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" is literally next to Portal for perfect video games.
3:48 Yeah I can tell she used to work at IGN or a similar environment based on feeling the need to make this disclaimer. Literally nobody but an extreme feminist would've thought to get offended about that.
I picked up on that as well.
@@SammySam7xditto
This broad does a whole lot of talking without saying anything
I used to watch alana quite a bit but not now, shes become kind of a shill, a bad dev apologist
Here is how to make objective scores for games.
1. Describe the game in terms of attributes like genre, subgenre, style, length, franchise, studio, etc
2. Create cohorts of games launched around the same time (year, month, whatever makes sense)
3. Fill performance data in terms of sales, hours played, refunds, churn after 5h and 20h played
4. Fill in subjective review scores by outlet
5. Fit subjective review score to the rank order of performance data, grouped by relevant category and cohort
6. Build a predictor for each performance metric based on reviews
Video games are expensive, we want accurate reviews to see if they are worth the money, the reviews are rigged, and people are aware of that and mock it, her defending it by going against the consumer makes her come off as having a narrative, rather than having an honest opinion.
Something about her comes off as disingenuous and semi-scripted, like she starts the video off with 'Some of you take video game reviews far too seriously' is openly dismissive, which is weird seeing as she is currently making an entire video about video game reviews, aka she is taking them very seriously, the problem with her former coworker's reviews isn't people taking them too seriously, it is that no one takes them seriously because they are baught and paid for.
Don't look for reviews, just look for if the game works or not. Journalists are actual scum, in all genres and areas. Don't trust them, trust yourself.
Well said
The problem isn’t the metrics, or their “opinions”, it’s the fact they opinions are clearly bought and biased for some games favorably while biased negatively for others. They are supposed to be objective at the benefit of the consumer but are only benefiting the studio and it’s only ones THEY benefit from shilling. Giving concord and black myth wukong similar scores is criminal.
The only scale that should exist for reviews
I hate it
i dislike it
neutral
I like it
I love it
Good, very good, amazing, superb, stunning, just wow are just redundant.
Which is a simple 1-5
Yeah I'd just stick to saying if I like it or not. Pretty easy to say if you had fun or not.
Ill say this. Game reviewers get early access to games to rate them. How? Because devs send them a copy. Why? For exposure and marketing. If a dev thought that a reviewer would rate their game 5-6/10 and not 7+/10 they are much less inclined to send that copy to them... I wouldnt...
Oh, look. It's Alanah, the CEO of woke, again with """""""the truth""""""", huh?
Alanah "people don't get this but i do because i work in the industry" Pearce herself.
Oh wait. Is this the lady that ranted about Elden Ring not having a pause button?
@@tburgess3426It doesn't? Damn, well that must suck if you need to use the toilet 😅
@@lfcmike12 If you play online no. There's a game feature where other players can appear in your game and try and kill you so you can't pause it whenever you want.
@@tburgess3426 Yeah, thats not even the problem with that video. I couldn't care less if ER has a pause button, its such a non issue for me. The problem with that video is that she starts it by saying "bRo, sHaDOw oF tHe eRdtREe iS noT tHaT hArD" to get some validation in her argument, when i know for a fact that she sucks at Elden Ring (there are videos of her playing). She is disingenuous.
It's basically her whole motto as an "independent" creator
7/10 is what 5s rate themselves.
And 5 is average.
Actually that may not be true. You could have a scale of 1-10 but if the average person is deemed a 6 or 7 then that’s the average.
@Yuckyuck1870 wtf you smokin??? 5 is an average person it's universal for at least guys that a 5 is average! You can't get more average than being right in the middle of 1 through 10!
@@Yuckyuck1870if that’s the case then I think your scale needs some fixing. 5/10 is mid, people like IGN have mislead you into believing 7/10 is mid when in reality that’s above average.
@@asoto718 so it really depends on the the time, amount of games coming out and their average reviews. If you add them all into a range the average amongst those games would change over time. Like we see a ton of 7’s,8’s. I’d say average for games now is more like 6.5-8.5 and not 5. It’s not too crazy to understand.
@@keeferChiefer you can still have enough data in current games, say the last 5 years. With the current scale they are using. The average isn’t 5. The new average is probably above 6 but probably below 8.5.
So few video games interest me anymore, and so few critics are worth listening to, I actually just go into games blind now. If I find something I'm thinking of buying (and soon) then I'll quickly look up gameplay footage or the first part of a lets play and go from there.
They gave Death Loop at 10. Anyone calling that brutally mediocre forgettable game a masterpiece doesn't deserve to be taken seriously
Can't even watch this more than 2 minutes. Alana pierce was, is, always will be completely biased and useless.
Stop projecting bro. There's still time to fix your life. You are not completely useless, I'm sure you can do something! Go out there and make a name for yourself
@@bigbywolf6304Dude all your comments are fighting with other people, chill and go enjoy your own life. Take your own advice 💀
@shadowxhero4953 I'm enjoying my own life. There's nothing wrong with partaking with some online discourse in the early morning before work. I'm not projecting either like you. I'm just pointing out how stupid some of the comments are, including yours. Anyway, I'm taking my advice now.
@@bigbywolf6304 So wait is your entire strategy saying anyone who disagrees with you is protecting, wow 💀
Go touch grass.@@bigbywolf6304
Access Journalism and Game Review Scores (00:00 - 01:04)
Asmongold and the video creator discuss why so many game reviews, especially from popular studios, are rated around 7/10. They suggest that game reviewers are hesitant to give low scores to avoid losing access to early reviews and insider information from game developers and publishers, which leads to a bias in reviews.
Opinions and Game Reviews (02:03 - 04:01)
The video emphasizes that game reviews are just subjective opinions from individual reviewers who are no more qualified than an average gamer. The idea is that no reviewer holds any "divine insight" into games, and people shouldn't take these reviews as absolute truths.
Game Reviews Misaligned with Players’ Priorities (02:59 - 03:32)
A major issue identified is the disconnect between what game reviewers prioritize in their reviews and what actual players care about. Reviewers often focus on technical aspects that might not resonate with the gaming community, leading to scores that don’t align with general player satisfaction.
AAA Games Skew the Review Scale (06:42 - 07:26)
The 7/10 rating often becomes average for AAA games because of survivorship bias. Since most games that receive reviews are of higher quality, they fall into the upper half of the review scale, leaving fewer lower ratings. This inflates the perceived average score, creating a narrow scale for AAA reviews.
Influence and Bias in Game Reviews (34:59 - 36:55)
While there may not be direct financial exchanges between publishers and game reviewers, there is a soft form of bias through "access journalism" and promotional events, like influencers being flown out by studios. This access creates a positive feedback loop where reviewers hesitate to criticize games, knowing that their future privileges may be affected.
🫡 - Thank you for your service. The hero we always want but don’t deserve
Subtract 5 and you get the real score!
7/10 = 2/5
if 7/10 is considered “average” then shouldn’t subtracting 2 to every review be better?
@@EmzzzzzzyThese people are unable to see nuance.
They talk about how reviewers shouldn't be subjective while saying that the 8/10 game should actually be "average". When those games are in fact not average. They aren't even the normal for games, they are just the most likely to actually get reviewed in the first place.
This entire video is "I want a linear curve for something that's inherently a normal distribution".