Game reviewers favoring indie games?

[fwc577]

I feel the problem is too many hipster fucks are calling themselves gamers now. Seriously, "indie" games. GTFO.

[Deleted]

I feel the problem is too many hipster fucks are calling themselves gamers now. Seriously, "indie" games. GTFO.

Well some indie games can be decent I suppose, if they really try. Not my thing but whatever, but those intentionally "retro" garbage games should have a filter option on Steam.

[Flurryfang]

Blizzard?

Bethesda?


There are plenty of game developers who can make good grand scale games left. And still do

Skyrim and fallout 4 or good recent examples. Some like Witcher 3 aswell.

Okay, i should have said "companies like EA and Ubisoft". But these companies are very aware that there is a lot of danger in putting a lot of money into a single game. That is why when we do see "Grand games", they are pretty rare. You say Skyrim and Fallout 4, but that is games that came out with many years in between. Some would even say that Fallout 4 is a not a "Grand Game" Anyway, you talk about successtories, but my reason for saying that the day of grand games are over, is because it is becoming more and more expensive to make these grand games, while indie games are making more and more money. We are getting closer to the point where there are not enough players for the games to be succesfull. Square Enix even said that Tomb Raider(2013) was not a succes, even though it sold millions of copies.

[Deleted]

It goes both ways though. Like my overall critique is basicly just the competence of the review'ers.

Diablo 3 at launch got insane review scores and most agree it was in a shitty sad state.

I picture game review'ers to be these hipster guys who where popular in school and then started casually playing consoles after college at parties. Not real nerdy gamers with pimples who basement dwelled til they where 30

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, i should have said "companies like EA and Ubisoft". But these companies are very aware that there is a lot of danger in putting a lot of money into a single game. That is why when we do see "Grand games", they are pretty rare. You say Skyrim and Fallout 4, but that is games that came out with many years in between. Some would even say that Fallout 4 is a not a "Grand Game" Anyway, you talk about successtories, but my reason for saying that the day of grand games are over, is because it is becoming more and more expensive to make these grand games, while indie games are making more and more money. We are getting closer to the point where there are not enough players for the games to be succesfull. Square Enix even said that Tomb Raider(2013) was not a succes, even though it sold millions of copies.

And that exactly is my problem. Seriously i cant survive my gaming on indie games. I need a good skyrim or fallout or whatever every few years.

If all i get is meatboy and The Witness i am done gaming

[Flurryfang]

The Witness got good reviews off most gaming sites though. Like really good

That is proberly because the people who played it thought it was good I have not played it so i can't give you my opnion, but a lot of people can enjoy a game while you, personally, does not. I hate skyrim for example, but many people see it as one of the best game of that decade.

- - - Updated - - -

It goes both ways though. Like my overall critique is basicly just the competence of the review'ers.

Diablo 3 at launch got insane review scores and most agree it was in a shitty sad state.

I picture game review'ers to be these hipster guys who where popular in school and then started casually playing consoles after college at parties. Not real nerdy gamers with pimples who basement dwelled til they where 30

- - - Updated - - -



And that exactly is my problem. Seriously i cant survive my gaming on indie games. I need a good skyrim or fallout or whatever every few years.

If all i get is meatboy and The Witness i am done gaming

There is always gonna be a few big games now and then. Blizzard is always gonna use 5-6 years on their few games and EA is proberly gonna boost a game out every year or so. But i am pretty sure that the big games are gonna be more and more rare. And that is sadly something that you have to get used to. Markets change, and the gaming market are just changing to appease the consumer, who demands short games with good mechanics and stories.

[Gib Lover]

Okay, i should have said "companies like EA and Ubisoft". But these companies are very aware that there is a lot of danger in putting a lot of money into a single game. That is why when we do see "Grand games", they are pretty rare. You say Skyrim and Fallout 4, but that is games that came out with many years in between. Some would even say that Fallout 4 is a not a "Grand Game" Anyway, you talk about successtories, but my reason for saying that the day of grand games are over, is because it is becoming more and more expensive to make these grand games, while indie games are making more and more money. We are getting closer to the point where there are not enough players for the games to be succesfull. Square Enix even said that Tomb Raider(2013) was not a succes, even though it sold millions of copies.

Grand what? Grand strategy? Grand theft? Are you saying massive open world games with great graphics?
Because we are clearly talking about games with good graphics. You know how many games came out between Skyrim and Fallout 4 with good graphics? Probably hundreds. The days of games with good graphics is not gone, not even close.
There is a market for cutsy retro style games, I enjoy more than a few of them. But there is also a market for people that want to play something that requires more than onboard graphics to run. You keep saying that making huge AAA titles with great graphics isn't profitable, yet they keep coming?
For the record, Skyrim and Fallout 4 are both mediocre games to me, story wise. They aren't even impressive graphically. Gameplay is solid, though. They are pretty poor examples in my opinion, I only use them as examples because you and the other poster did.

[Flurryfang]

That's not true at all. EA and Ubisoft are not the only companies making games with good graphics, what are you even talking about.
http://www.metacritic.com/feature/ma...box-ps4-pc-wii
list of upcoming cames from big studios, there are plenty of games on this list with great graphics.

Yeah sorry, should have said companies like But we are on a decline in the amount of "Grand Games", no doubt.

[Deleted]

That is proberly because the people who played it thought it was good I have not played it so i can't give you my opnion, but a lot of people can enjoy a game while you, personally, does not. I hate skyrim for example, but many people see it as one of the best game of that decade.

Yes but a review of something needs to be more then "lolz i personally like this game". You cant just be completely subjective about something like that and call yourself a professional.

Like for example i hate The Witcher games. I really dont like them but if i where to write a review about them i'd try and look objectively on it. Look at whats decent about it.

As for example i really enjoy Rocket League atm. If i where to write a professional review off it i wouldnt give it 10/10 just because i like it though. Its a niche game. And it should be scored after that.

[Matchles]

I am not accusing anyone of being bought. I am calling out a fact that indie games are getting very high reviews latelely and i am asking if its fair.

I didn't say you were. I'm saying that reviewers are accused of bias in every area of the industry. They can't show favoritism towards everyone. The only real problem with reviewers is they use an inflated grading scale. Unlike the movie industry where a 2 star movie might be worth seeing if you enjoy the genre, gamers have been conditioned to avoid any game that gets a 5/10. So to combat that, reviewers have shifted the scale up. Anything less than a 6 is a broken game, a 7 is just an okay game, an 8 is decent, a 9 is good to great, a 10 is excellent. Rather than take every number as an indication of how objectively "good" a game is, I see it as a 9 or 10 I should eventually try even if I'm not too interested in the genre. 8 and lower I'll ignore the reviews and make my own judgment based on the game media and criteria I find important (length, a unique graphical aesthetic, difficulty, etc.)

[Gheld]

Skyrim had the most shallow gameplay out of any game I have ever played. So holding that up as an example of a great game is just... I don't know...

[Gib Lover]

Yeah sorry, should have said companies like But we are on a decline in the amount of "Grand Games", no doubt.

No we aren't. In fact, that list proves we aren't.

[fwc577]

Okay, i should have said "companies like EA and Ubisoft". But these companies are very aware that there is a lot of danger in putting a lot of money into a single game. That is why when we do see "Grand games", they are pretty rare. You say Skyrim and Fallout 4, but that is games that came out with many years in between. Some would even say that Fallout 4 is a not a "Grand Game" Anyway, you talk about successtories, but my reason for saying that the day of grand games are over, is because it is becoming more and more expensive to make these grand games, while indie games are making more and more money. We are getting closer to the point where there are not enough players for the games to be succesfull. Square Enix even said that Tomb Raider(2013) was not a succes, even though it sold millions of copies.

Yeah, this is total bullshit. The game didn't meet their sales expectations. That doesn't mean it wasn't a success. The game achieved profitability within 10 months of release and went on to sell another 5 million units after achieving profitability.

The game had higher costs because it was being built from the ground up. The sequel didn't need to be built from the ground up.

It's like other titles too. Far Cry is a great example of this. There isn't that huge of a difference between 3, 4, and Primal. Hell, Primal even re-uses the same map from 4.

If these games weren't profitable, companies would've moved on from them long ago. It's bullshit talk to justify DLC.

[Daedius]

Please go look up all the indie games coming out on steam and how many of them never go out of beta and say that again

It goes both ways... There's plenty of rubbish indie games (There's too many fecking scrollers/pixel/"retro" games ffs), and plenty of good ones.

Same with AAA titles, but nowadays the amount of rubbish ones far outweigh the good ones. Too frequently they're released buggy to meet deadlines, and use patches as an excuse to fix them as a workaround for them deadlines... so people are often paying for a game that shouldn't have even been released yet.

[Deleted]

Skyrim had the most shallow gameplay out of any game I have ever played. So holding that up as an example of a great game is just... I don't know...

You would make a great current date game review'er. You would prolly rate skyrim really low even though most people find it to be an excellent game

[Gib Lover]

It goes both ways... There's plenty of rubbish indie games (There's too many fecking scrolls/pixel games ffs), and plenty of good ones.

Same with AAA titles, but nowadays the amount of rubbish ones far outweigh the good ones. Too frequently they're released buggy to meet deadlines, and use patches as an excuse to fix them as a workaround for them deadlines... so people are often paying for a game that shouldn't have even been released yet.

No doubt. Both industries, AAA and indie, have their problems. AAA releases unfinished games that are patched later like you said, and indie games are often left to die in early access/beta/thrown together release state. The indie games industry just gets a "pass" because the games are sometimes at most a quarter of the price of a AAA title. Does that excuse them for being terrible? No, but you really can't hold them both to the same standard, as much as I'd want to.

[Deleted]

I don't necessarily agree with them, but if that's what their real opinion is I can't criticize. There are plenty of people who still enjoy old 8-bit games to anything that's been released in the last 20 years. Who are you to tell them their sense of joy is wrong?

I dont think you are getting the point to be honest :/

What you are hearing is me saying "indie games are shit, how can games with low graphics possibly be fun"

And thats not at all what i am saying

[Krigaren]

I've been playing video games since the old Intellivision/Colecovision/Atari 2600 era, and some of the best games I've ever played didn't come with amazing graphics and intense, fully 3D immersive audio. However, some (Mass Effect 3) have had all of those things.

Games went through a cycle of being amazing because of their ability to story-tell and for the pure mechanics of the gameplay, to then being "amazing" because they had the most impressive graphics but mediocre story or mechanics. The game industry at large has become rather bloated with shiny AAA abominations that cost tens of millions of dollars to produce, and while they're definitely an experience, they aren't good games (vanilla Destiny). Those things aren't necessarily what made of the best games of all time, well, the best games of all time, and indie devs are tapping back into that.

Indie games are becoming way more popular and are - rightfully - getting increased press exposure because they're going back to the old days of shoe-string budgets, where passionate programmers are able to develop a game that's incredible. That's a huge, refreshing change of pace from a market that's oversaturated with games that are overly flashy, formulaic, dumbed-down or otherwise bad, but do well because they're hyped up by major studios.

There's really nothing wrong with indie devs getting a lot more exposure, and really, it's a net benefit to the overall gaming industry.

[Flurryfang]

Grand what? Grand strategy? Grand theft? Are you saying massive open world games with great graphics?
Because we are clearly talking about games with good graphics. You know how many games came out between Skyrim and Fallout 4 with good graphics? Probably hundreds. The days of games with good graphics is not gone, not even close.
There is a market for cutsy retro style games, I enjoy more than a few of them. But there is also a market for people that want to play something that requires more than onboard graphics to run. You keep saying that making huge AAA titles with great graphics isn't profitable, yet they keep coming??

Ohh i am talking about grand games like Crysis and Skyrim You might say that hundreds of games with great graphics have comed out in between those games, but how succesfull were those games? How much money did these games make compared to games like risk of rain and super meatboy? A lot of more indie games are making their money back and more, then many costly high-graphic games are. When you use under 1 mill on 10 games, you are often gonna make more then if you have used those 10 mill on a single game. Graphics cost a lot of money to make and i would not be surprised if a lot of new gaming companies(and old) are thinking about if its worth using money on new graphic engines, especially when the largest playerbase is where graphic limits the least.

[Gib Lover]

You would make a great current date game review'er. You would prolly rate skyrim really low even though most people find it to be an excellent game

The community does review Skyrim lower than the reviewers did, btw. By over a full point on metacritic. Skyrim had the same gameplay as Oblivion with subpar graphics for the time and bad writing. Mods make it an excellent game. It is a great game for casual gamers no dbout, I won't lie I clocked in hundreds of hours. It had a great marketing campaign and the name of a decent studio behind it. But Skyrim is not the pinnacle of gaming as people make it out to be.

[Gheld]

You would make a great current date game review'er. You would prolly rate skyrim really low even though most people find it to be an excellent game

Yeah I would. It has a 2 button combat system, and all of the choices in the game are an illusion due to the fact that any time you make a decision while playing Skyrim you made that decision because there was no reason to make any other decisions. Like absolutely no reason. Why wouldn't you steal potion reagents when it requires no skill, and you can sell potions made from stolen reagents? Which skill should I work on? All of them obviously. There's no reason not to work on every skill possible. Why would you steal a cup? You can't sell it. No reason to steal cup. It's not a choice. It's the illusion of a choice.

You could be like "I'm going to pretend I'm a good guy and not steal anything on this playthrough". But to say that gives you depth of gameplay would be like saying making motorcycle noises while riding your bicycle gives it an engine. It doesn't.