Game reviewers favoring indie games?

[Deleted]

All reviews are biased, find a person with a like-minded mindset on games and follow their reviews. It won't mean what they say is true, not even close...but at least they will point out things you care for.

[Akka]

My biggest disappointment was with SupCom2

Oh God please, don't remind me of this atrocity...

[l33t]

Many posters here say that many of these games are "shit" ... but I've ebnjoyed many. Someone called Assassins Creed terrible ASSassins Creed crap I think... but AC: Black Flag was amazingly fun in my opinion.

See, we're discussing subjective opinions here. Surprise-surprise, game reviews are subjective opinions as well! Of course there are people who enjoy AAA games. There are people who don't. Simple like that. There is no universal truth in this particular matter. People like games, or not, that's pretty much it. Speaking about my personal experience based on playing both AAA titles and indie ones, for the last five years I've enjoyed way more indie games than AAA titles. That's my subjective opinion.

As for AC series... I'm not telling that games are executed badly. Nope. They are simply the same. New assassins creed game goes live and bam - you do just the same as you did in the last one, both mechanically and story-wise... why is it so hard to be a little bit creative? For example: create an AC game where you play as a templar and smash assassins? Something fresh, something unseen before... but nope, next AC game comes and hello you playing next assassin character in next period of history, yay.

Undertale would have probably been blasted in 100 different ways if it were a Blizzard title, for example.

If Blizzard once creates game with as deep story as Undertale has, I'd eat my mechanical Logitech keyboard right away, though.

[Tech614]

Reviews are subjective opinions.

If you don't much agree with a review of a game, then avoid reviews written by that same person in the future and try to find reviews written by people with similar opinions to you. /thread

[Deleted]

I very much disagree objectively that The Witness in any form deserve a 10/10. Its not the best puzzle game ever. Not even close. Not by a long shot.

Obviously you cant be entirely objective as a game review'er. But i think a meassure of professional objectivety is required to be taken seriously.

Once again, subjective opinions are subjective, you simply cannot say ''Objectively so and so is much better than so and so'' because objectively it's not.

YOU might not think The Witness deserves a 10/10 rating, but someone else might disagree with you, and indeed according to the OP someone did.

YOU might think there are better puzzle games out there but that's entirely your opinion, others might agree, sure, and some might disagree.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is the fact that no one thing is superior to another.

[Deleted]

you have to remember how old the game reviewers are. They come from a time where all there was, 2d rpgs, arcade games. They also havent held real jobs in a long time and most of them are artsy fartys they like Games that are art vs the norm.

Im 23 I have always had 3d games available to me. My first console was N64 and I only ever finished one game on my own Starfox. I did not start playing PC games until 2007.

I don't think that's the reason. If they're old enough then they're old enough to remember how shit things were back then. As for art, the games they're claiming to be art, aren't. They just think slapping a label on crap games somehow make them good.

Take Starfox for example as a good game. Not only was it graphically better but it expanded and improved the gameplay of those games that went before it. Now if a game came out today with worse graphics and gameplay but someone calls it art based on a pretentious reason,is it better or art? The answer is nope.

[Borfl]

Paid reviewers favor indie games that are "in" and have a giant following. If they shit on a game such as Undertale they'd get ousted and blacklisted and probably get fired from whatever shitty site they wrote on.

Honestly no indie game is really worthy of a 10/10 and it has nothing to do with graphical fidelity or artstyle; they don't inherently make a game anymore or less fun to play. Regardless the overwhelming popularity goes to show any idiot can put out a simple boring game made with block-code and make millions if they pander to the right audience and break the 4th wall by contemporary humor, memes, meta and being so self aware.

The industry is an incestuous circle jerk of back-alley deals and connections. Knowing the right people is almost as important as whether your game is even good or not because no publicity or good paid reviews means you won't sell for shit.

[Deleted]

Once again, subjective opinions are subjective, you simply cannot say ''Objectively so and so is much better than so and so'' because objectively it's not.

YOU might not think The Witness deserves a 10/10 rating, but someone else might disagree with you, and indeed according to the OP someone did.

YOU might think there are better puzzle games out there but that's entirely your opinion, others might agree, sure, and some might disagree.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is the fact that no one thing is superior to another.

I am the OP.

And it is very possible to objectively score a game.

There are factors that most people use to score games anyways. Those factors will msot likely always feature a hint of subjectivity. But in general there are some things people can agree on. For example: Does your horror game feature RnB music instead of creepy sounds and screams? Not a good idea.

Are the voiceovers done by a complete newb with no ability to get into the roll? Or is it done by morgan freeman?

[Orangetai420]

I don't trust IGN for anything. If I want a decent review I look at someone like AngryJoe who isn't afraid to tell it like it is.

[Simulacrum]

Reviews are subjective opinions.

If you don't much agree with a review of a game, then avoid reviews written by that same person in the future and try to find reviews written by people with similar opinions to you. /thread

Not a very reasonable response when talking about anyone, like IGN, whose reviews are included in something like metacritic's rating system.

Once again, subjective opinions are subjective, you simply cannot say ''Objectively so and so is much better than so and so'' because objectively it's not.

YOU might not think The Witness deserves a 10/10 rating, but someone else might disagree with you, and indeed according to the OP someone did.

YOU might think there are better puzzle games out there but that's entirely your opinion, others might agree, sure, and some might disagree.

The point I'm trying to emphasize is the fact that no one thing is superior to another.

That's right, people. Having nails jammed into your eyes is no better or worse an experience than going to sleep after a long day of hard work.

It's all subjective after all.

[Edge-]

Paid reviewers favor indie games that are "in" and have a giant following.

Well, all reviewers for big sites are paid for their reviews, it's work after all.

But I'm assuming you're implying that they're paid by the developers for good scores, in which case I'm curious as to when this has recently happened at any big or even mid-sized site.

If they shit on a game such as Undertale they'd get ousted and blacklisted and probably get fired from whatever shitty site they wrote on.

Not true. They'd likely be on the receiving end of a lot of grief/harassment from Undertale fans and some ostracizing from their peers (game writers are very insular), but they'd not get fired nor blacklisted.

Honestly no indie game is really worthy of a 10/10 and it has nothing to do with graphical fidelity or artstyle; they don't inherently make a game anymore or less fun to play.

Why not?

Regardless the overwhelming popularity goes to show any idiot can put out a simple boring game made with block-code and make millions if they pander to the right audience and break the 4th wall by contemporary humor, memes, meta and being so self aware.

Considering the thousands of indie games that fit this bill that get released and receive little to no attention, I don't get where you're coming from. Every once in a while there will be a gem that gets a ton of attention/praise/popularity (or just a few of those), but the overwhelming majority of indie games are ignored.

It helps to be friends with some of the right writers to have them get the ball rolling in terms of media attention, but that doesn't guarantee success, hence Sunset's spectacularly abysmal sales despite its generally positive reviews and media hype.

The industry is an incestuous circle jerk of back-alley deals and connections.

To be fair, that is largely how a lot of industries work. Who you know and how you can work connections is a big part of your success in the professional world in general.

Knowing the right people is almost as important as whether your game is even good or not because no publicity or good paid reviews means you won't sell for shit.

This isn't true. Look at Minecraft, a game that blew up before it got any significant media attention. There are plenty of small games that only get looked at by media after they start selling gangbusters, and the popularity of the game is what drives the media to look into it.

And still waiting on someone to show me proof of "good paid reviews" on big sites. There has been YouTube shenanigans, but that's still new territory that's feeling its way out and that kind of behavior is routinely getting called out and those engaged in it slapped on the wrist.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

See, we're discussing subjective opinions here. Surprise-surprise, game reviews are subjective opinions as well! Of course there are people who enjoy AAA games. There are people who don't. Simple like that. There is no universal truth in this particular matter. People like games, or not, that's pretty much it. Speaking about my personal experience based on playing both AAA titles and indie ones, for the last five years I've enjoyed way more indie games than AAA titles. That's my subjective opinion.

As for AC series... I'm not telling that games are executed badly. Nope. They are simply the same. New assassins creed game goes live and bam - you do just the same as you did in the last one, both mechanically and story-wise... why is it so hard to be a little bit creative? For example: create an AC game where you play as a templar and smash assassins? Something fresh, something unseen before... but nope, next AC game comes and hello you playing next assassin character in next period of history, yay.

I'm fairly certain that game does exist. And I don't think story wise the games are the same at all. I haven't played all of them, but the ones I have played are all different.

How do we pick a good game? Lots of time spent? Good graphics and audio? Good story? Good things to do with your character? Well in my opinion, CoD completes those sorts of things. Then you have a game like Braid, where you finish the game 2 times in a few hours and you're done. It was interesting an interesting twist, but for 15$-20$? (still?) It has very positive reviews on Steam with a metascore of 90/100. But lets see:

Story: Unoriginal
Graphics: Mediocre
Sound : Okay
Gameplay: Basic platformer
Replayability: Low

How is this THAT good of a game? I'm honestly not expecting someone to compare CoD to Braid, but its confusing to me how people actually score games. I feel like its hipster bullshit to be honest. Its like with music; its just plain cool to ONLY like local bands and pretend like any band that is music is "mainstream crap" ... its the same with game reviews.

[Morae]

Reviews should not be used to make a choice whether a game is good or not. No matter what they say. You use the game reviews to pick the important parts. Then you use those parts to make your own informed decision. It doesn't matter what the review says in general, but instead the grains of truth. Depending how sure you want to be, you find several sources and repeat the process. Find the grains of truth. Based on those you decide what the game is for real.

Indie games. It is like a pile of junk. Most of it is crap. Then there are the ocassional gems hidden among, but those are pretty hard to find. Personally I don't care about indie games much, but I do sort of keep an eye on general gamer comminity about them.

Like... if I suddenly start seeing fan art of something, it catches my eye. If it is an indie game I wonder why would anyone bother making fan art of an indie game? Perhaps the game is good? I check steam. For example I started seeing a few fan art of Undertale around the time it was released. I looked at steam and I just looked at the screenshots and thought "what?". I ignored it. Then I started seeing more and more fan art. For some reason huge amount of people were noticing that game and making fan art about it. I looked at it again. Maybe I had missed something. This time it stayed in my mind thought I let it be for a while. I kept finding all sorts of fan stuff about it and decided it would be perhaps worth my time to check the game. I really liked it.

The point is. This has happened a few times already with a some other indie games. If people notice one of them, I notice them too. No one makes fan stuff about crappy games. The moment when people spend their time to show that they like the game, there has to be something about it. This is a review that can be trusted pretty far.

[May90]

Can't say there is a single indie game I've ever liked. I watch Day9 play some of them from time to time, and they seem fun - but they also don't seem like something I would get back to ever after playing through them once. It is not just about graphics, it is rather about lack of polish, typically simplistic gameplay, just the feel of cheapness...

[Deleted]

That's right, people. Having nails jammed into your eyes is no better or worse an experience than going to sleep after a long day of hard work.

It's all subjective after all.

Hahahaha grasping at straws there, buddy.

- - - Updated - - -

I am the OP.

And it is very possible to objectively score a game.

There are factors that most people use to score games anyways. Those factors will msot likely always feature a hint of subjectivity. But in general there are some things people can agree on. For example: Does your horror game feature RnB music instead of creepy sounds and screams? Not a good idea.

Are the voiceovers done by a complete newb with no ability to get into the roll? Or is it done by morgan freeman?

If it was possible to objectively score a game then why are there so many reviewers? I'd love to know. I mean we'd really only need one guy to do it if what you're saying was actually the case.

If it was possible to objectively call a game good or bad then every reviewer would be saying the exact same thing.

But it isn't possible, and they aren't saying the same thing because opinions are subjective, one reviewer's opinion might differ greatly from another.

Of course some reviewers might agree that for instance Bioshock Infinite was a great game, and I'd agree, but OBJECTIVELY it isn't a good game, however it also objectively isn't a bad game.

You're right, there are certain factors that people use to rate games, and the factors you use to rate games doesen't necessarily align with the factors the reviewer who rated The Witness uses to rate games. As showcased by the fact that you two disagree on the reviewer's rating of the game.

Because, and I'm gonna need a big fat drumroll for this, opinions are subjective!

Funny how that works.

[l33t]

But lets see:

Story: Unoriginal
Graphics: Mediocre
Sound : Okay
Gameplay: Basic platformer
Replayability: Low

How is this THAT good of a game? I'm honestly not expecting someone to compare CoD to Braid, but its confusing to me how people actually score games. I feel like its hipster bullshit to be honest. Its like with music; its just plain cool to ONLY like local bands and pretend like any band that is music is "mainstream crap" ... its the same with game reviews.

Eh, the problem is you're not objective. You dislike Braid. If you would be objective, you'd add some points to your list, like:

Originality (pretty much original, so 10/10)
Game mechanics unseen before (yes they are, so 10/10 again)
Art - seriously, this should be used instead of graphics everywhere, because me personally see nothing exciting in same games made on same Unreal engine with same lightning effects, blur, etc, etc. Art should add enjoyment to a game, instead of being a main focus of a game, IMO. And, since we're talking about Braid, its art fits the game almost perfectly, so again 10/10.
Add here smooth, almost bugless gameplay process, and you'll see why it gets such great reviews. Me personally hate unoptimised, buggy, laggy games which are unplayable since day1 and up to when devs care enough to patch it. I hate games which are badly executed console ports, heavily lagging on my custom built gaming computer. I don't want to wait for patches, I want to play directly when I want; and if the game is buggy when I want to play it, chances are high I won't bother and will just uninstall it after a couple of crashes.
Also, unoriginal story? Seriously? Compared to ANY CoD game, Braid is a pinnacle of storytelling...

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Eh, the problem is you're not objective. You dislike Braid. If you would be objective, you'd add some points to your list, like:

Originality (pretty much original, so 10/10)
Game mechanics unseen before (yes they are, so 10/10 again)
Art - seriously, this should be used instead of graphics everywhere, because me personally see nothing exciting in same games made on same Unreal engine with same lightning effects, blur, etc, etc. Art should add enjoyment to a game, instead of being a main focus of a game, IMO. And, since we're talking about Braid, its art fits the game almost perfectly, so again 10/10.
Add here smooth, almost bugless gameplay process, and you'll see why it gets such great reviews. Me personally hate unoptimised, buggy, laggy games which are unplayable since day1 and up to when devs care enough to patch it. I hate games which are badly executed console ports, heavily lagging on my custom built gaming computer. I don't want to wait for patches, I want to play directly when I want; and if the game is buggy when I want to play it, chances are high I won't bother and will just uninstall it after a couple of crashes.
Also, unoriginal story? Seriously? Compared to ANY CoD game, Braid is a pinnacle of storytelling...

For the record, I enjoyed the game quite a bit. I just think it gets more praise than it deserves. I paid for it and don't regret the buy.

I don't think the premise is original at all.
I don't remember any unseen mechanics.
The art is enjoyable, but I wouldn't consider it 10/10 either.
I woudn't expect such a simple game as Braid to even have any bugs at all. Its unfair to give it kuddos in that respect.

No, I don't think the twist at the end of braid is original. CoD campaigns aren't original either, but the stories are often fun and I sometimes care about the characters involved, because you go through shit with them.

[Simulacrum]

Hahahaha grasping at straws there, buddy.

I see my point came across as too subtle... and here I was thinking it'd be the other way around.

I suppose your next post is gonna be about how because math is objective we should only have one mathematician in the entire world. Or I guess how it is entirely subjective, too, and we are able to land probes on comets just sort of by accident or something. And those planes stay in the air because we want them to!

[Deleted]

I see my point came across as too subtle... and here I was thinking it'd be the other way around.

I suppose your next post is gonna be about how because math is objective we should only have one mathematician in the entire world. Or I guess how it is entirely subjective, too, and we are able to land probes on comets just sort of by accident or something. And those planes stay in the air because we want them to!

Hahahaha, oh man.

I mean I see the point you were trying to make, I'm simply saying it's pretty far fetched.

Math and rocket science =/= Views and opinions.

But whatever, think what you will, dude, I don't care.

[Deleted]

I can´t wait for pixal art to die. It was cute at first but now half the games on the market look like 1993. It´s hard enough to sort through the indie-landfill that is steam and now every game looks the same at first glance. Here is Dark Souls with big pixels. Heres Castlevania with even bigger pixels than the original. Gtfo.