Alien isolation and prey people alway bring up this 2 games when shitting on IGN more 7/10 for starfeild….what are those game like?

@@TanvirAhmed-bz2ox both games are solid. Prey on console might be a bit iffy though because I think using a controller for that game would be a pain.

i will never forgive them for that, that game is one of my favorite games

@@bushmonster1702 how would u rate them?

@@TanvirAhmed-bz2ox Prey and Alien Isolation are very good, but Prey can be a bit meh sometimes

Basically true. I also thought of it as like grades. 7+ is passing and less than 6 is failing.

Err, wut lol?

@@netweed09 game journalists are basically aliens, don't try to understand them

@@justkev6277 It should be mandatory for ratings to come with a regional disclaimer, like they did with movies. In America, the passing grade is 7/10 whereas in other regions of the globe it is 5/10. If you don't know where the person is coming from, it is either a terrible grade or a good one.

Yep. In my eyes it's always been 1-4 is how bad a game is, 5 just is, and 6-10 is how good a game is.

Why is that weird?

@@anna48792think really hard, bud. I know you can figure this out

​@@anna48792he's fanboying so hard when he hasn't even played the game yet

Truth is a lot of comments on YT are from bot accounts, specially under viral videos on big channels

​@@anna48792how tf would he know if the reviewer with early access is correct when he ain't ever played it. All he can possibly say is that he hopes they are right. Unless he's time traveling, perfectly valid explanation I suppose.

It's also the fact that a lot of people might've bought the game, didn't really like it themselves and somehow powered through it. Then they go watch a review to find some solace in their failed investment only for the reviewer to shit on it even more. It's like people who invested in cryptocurrency defending their favorite shitcoins because they can't live with the fact that they're about to lose a lot of money.

I want to say Starfield kicked this whole shit show off, which is totally a 6 maybe a slight 7 of a game. Still love it. Also fucking Hyperlight Drifter kickstarter teaser trailer thumbnail? Love it! I need to go finish that game. Did that enemy ever make it into the game?

@@trippinhard250I feel like people would not really delude themselves to that point, with games you just have to admit you lost time and 60$, with crypto you have to admit you lost time and half of your life investments

Or validates them into spending money.

3 words and a sentence for you: Too much water 8.5 to pokemon swsh I dont care, you CANNOT give an 8.5 to a game that you need, i repeat, NEED to spend 90 dollahs on, at the very minimum, to get DECENT. I actually think that it was eveen higher than 8.5, but i am already on the edge of my patience and dont want to have a bad day so i wont check it.

A good review should explain the basics of the game well enough to tell if you might still like it, even if the reviewer did not.

or you just figure out what you like and dislike in a game and judge whether you should play it that way instead of piggy backing a random person and hope that they're your clone

The same is true for the news in general often.

That's because the general mentality on the internet (specially nowadays) is to think your taste is correct and everyone else is wrong. It's the "special snowflake syndrom". I also don't like this way of invalidating game journalist reviews, even with they're mostly bad, soulless and heavily corporate reviews. It opens the opportunity to people to act like everyone on the internet can a be a game reviewer as they are gamers and their opinion is indisputably correct, and oh boy... we know gamers can have absolute garbage takes as well.

Dunkey made a video about this very thing, which has it's own set of problems. Reviewers used to be a small group of folks at each company that were consistent in their biases and would stay with companies for a long time. When they said they liked or disliked something, you could trust their word on it. Nowadays there are 20 different people at the same company making reviews with little history behind them, reviewing every single type of game that management throws their way.

you mean NFTs

"is it too complicated for you, im gonna draw"

When he starts drawing you know it's serious, true and real even.

@@kanaria-cu3uv non-fungible thoughts

That’s when he goes full r3t4rd

10/10 somebody give them raise!

People really wear their insecurities on their sleeve these days.

Good games are good, bad games are bad. Does it really go any deeper than that?

confirmation bias w

no need to act like "those people are scums" the world is designed for people to think that way. You are that way too for someting.

nah i think game reviewers use the exam grading method like for instance 1-6 doesn't matter different range of bad, 7 - pass/decent 8 - good 8.5 - very good 9 - great 9.5 - excellent 10 - must play/masterpiece

​@@illusionlb The grading system varies globally. In Europe, and most other parts of the world, the passing grade is a 5/10, not a 7/10 like in the US. America decided they had to do things differently, just like temperature (celsius vs fahrenheit) and measurements (metric vs imperial). Rating a product is already pretty polarizing as is without adding all the misunderstanding and misinterpretation due to different systems. Really wish we had a regional disclaimer for gradings...

@@ivoryowlPeople forget that these are literally opinon articles. The scale of 1 to 10 is a simplified version of percentages(0 or 1 to 100% which is universal) The grade it self is subjective, it's literally the opinion of the particular journalist grading that individual game. That's why diffrent reviews/journalist have diffrent scores. People have to understand an IGN rating isn't the definitive score of a game. The individual rating has diffrent biases or preferences than the next person. Not just with game reviews, but with all other reviews like this.

You fail a test if you go below 50%. An average playable game is 7.5, not a 5. 5 is a bad and barely playable game. Anything below is unplayable and failed the test.

@@moerko94 test scores are a horrible example. They are extremely flawed and vary. Test score in some areas fail at 69. It literally does come to an opinion. Saying a game review score below 7 or 8 is a bad game is just absurd imo when the individual who gave said score believes 7 is good and 6 is okay. Keep in mind most review sites such as IGN will LITERALLY have a scale on how they review games and what they perceive. 5 is mediocre the middle. 4 is where they say games are bad. When it comes to rankings it will vary by opinion. But as for IGN this is their scale formula. Suggesting 1 number means different from you is irrelevant when the individual who reviewed based it on a different formula. Opinions are not facts. Yet people are trying to pass them off as facts or failures based on their perception. Someone could pop out of no where and say 1 is better than 10 and basically just flip the scores but you see a 1 and go wtf 1 is bad durr hurr. IGN believes 7 is good you think 7.5 is an average playable game. You see 7 and place it based on entirely different metrics straight up ignoring and dismissing the reviewers opinions. People don't even take into consideration the scale being used and instead see a number and place it in their scale that is formed based on their opinion. One could literally remove scores from a review and you probably wouldn't have the brain power to determine if they liked or disliked the game. Yes I'm calling you an idiot if you haven't picked up on this yet cause I didn't insert a number.

10/10 This comment is a masterpiece of analysis, truly one for the history books.

​@@zym6687 Amazing review!! I agree 100%!

This is how comments should be done, give this man a raise

Excellent comment! We need more comments like this!

This pretty much. I generally don't like numeric scoring systems because imo it skews expectations of people thinking that how they score is likely different from how the reviewer scores something. Hearing how reviewers describe their thoughts in a game with context has more value and shows whether their views align to yours or not, and one can reconcile agreeing and disagreeing from there. Doesn't help that even if IGN technically has one scoring system in their site, they still have many reviewers that can have different perspectives on how to apply those scores.

It also prevents comments from developer's stuff accounts or just fanboys, who doesn't actually seen the review and just reacting to final score.

Number scores have felt arbitrary to me as though someone is trying to flex how much they can quantify their experience (going even further by adding a decimal point). TheCompletionist has a good way of going about it where it basically boils down to if you should play it or not. No debating if a 5-7 is actually worth the time, he stats clearly. That doesn't mean you can't disagree, but that's the very nature of someone else giving their opinion.

ACG is great as well.. He basically uses a buy, wait or don't touch scale

No it’s actually this Good game: I like it Bad game: I don’t like it

Console warriors 😮‍💨

They should stop putting a score on reviews instead just list all the pros and cons of the game, most people see a score and immediately think the game is good or bad without reading the full review, most of people will tell you Starfield is "Skyrim in space", but depends on that person likes Bethesda RPGs or not you will get scores ranging from 5 to 8

Because they were comparing them to other reviews from the same publication. IGN has given higher scores to shovelware motion control cooking games and stuff like that.

@@hourai1052 Which is odd as Starfield is far more like Fallout in Space. This be real Fallout has always been the better RPG when it came to dialogue, traits, and overall character creation. In terms of the tone they did capture the wonder of Oblivion with the wacky sci fi elements but to me Starfield had far more traits from Fallout 3 and New Vegas than Skyrim. Reminds me of them calling Far Cry 3 "Skyrim with Guns" would be a sad Skyrim player if you went into Far Cry expecting an RPG.

@@RmnGnzlz and? It still doesn't prove anything on how they know whether the game is worth a 7 or not. Most streamers were still at character creation or intro atm.

Turn customers into fanatics products into obsessions employees into ambassadors and brands into religions

​@@snoweh1reading this made me think of BTS and blackpink fans.

Ill admit, I never cared enough to rate unless it was a 1 or a 5. If its inbetween not worth my time. Was my mind set lol

@@CEDROU95 real and true.

I remember netflix changed the star system shortly after an amy schumer special got 1 star bombed

You can still see this trend on Google Play reviews. A lot of people vote 2-4 but the vast majority are 1s and 5s

To be fair. That wasn't a good special. Her TV show had moments of brilliance. Of course it helps she lucked into one of the greatest comedy skit writers of a generation.

It doesn't work this way. Companies need reviewers much more than reviewers need free key. If any company bans them from getting keys in future after an honest review, this will hit company's reputation.

​@@gatchenko_asunfortunately it does work that way, this is coming from friends who worked for multiple big gaming companies like Santa Monica, Activision and blizzard.

@@gatchenko_as game companies don't need to care about their reputation since they know gamers are addicts. Just look at Blizzard, their reputation is in the gutter yet their games keep hitting record highs every release.

​@@datguy8296only for free games, like overwatch. Diablo 4 has plummeted.

No, they're too afraid to say something negative because the gamers will tear them apart for not giving their over-hype piece of microtransaction riddled shit a 9 or 10. There is hardly ever backlash for rating a game too high, but there is always backlash for rating a game just a 7/10, that some people are utterly hyped for.

AMAZING COMMENT

That’s why the best reviewers sell their reviews based on the personality and writing style, not just the publishing outlet they’re tied to. Like Yahtzee, although he works for The Escapist, isn’t putting out reviews to say “this is what The Escapist scores X,” it’s all “here’s what *I* think of the game.”

It’s been like this for a long time already. Only rely on a review from a content creator you generally agree with as well as audience scores

It's exactly this. Asmongold is guilty of this too, he milks games heavily for this, like Diablo 4, Baldur's Gate 3, and Starfield. I don't blame him, it's easy money. The problem are the viewers who incentivize this kind of content.

Correct. This is also supported by the companies themselves, paying for better "reviews" You just added the fact of "fanboys" which makes it even worse and by time, organic instead of bought positive feedback. Organic, but heavily influenced by the masses, so basically also KINDA fake and not the true experience of individuals. For example, you watch Asmongold for 10 years, but in 2023 you decide to START playing WoW. Will you keep playing it now that your favorite streamer is out of his gaming phase and is talking bad about ANYTHING related to the game, even if it's a positive change? You will probably NOT have the same amount of fun in the game, if your streamer buddy isn't inside of that world anymore and his content isn't about it anymore. Even though you actually had nothing but fun playing, until you heard the negative feedback. Now imagine a whole website like Twitch, hundreds of streamers ALL saying "x" is bad. Because of this, the viewers will also not play those games, thus the games die even easier. So, if you TRULY want a review of ANYTHING nowadays, test it yourself.

I think part of it comes down to the fact that there are genuinely games that are 1s and 2s on this scale. If you go to Steam and pick a random game made by some schlub in his basement in 2 hours, that game is probably not functional, has tons of bugs, very little gameplay, and isn't worth your time. That game is never going to draw a review by these companies because they already know it's not worth your time. The games that are being reviewed most likely are all in the 7-10 range compared to the larger body of games out there.

The 16th chapel....

I never knew that was where it originated

Ive played the game twice and didnt have any problems with bugs( worst one was my party waking up naked after a long rest) Yes its should definitely be better but at the same time, people are overreacting

Dude... ign, pcgamer, mortismal, skillup, and the gamer all mentioned Act 3. Why am I seeing these weird comments on "Pffft, they are IDIOTS for giving rhis game a 10! They aren't true gamers cuz they haven't reached act 3!!!" Read their reviews again. More slowly... (hint: they include the hours played, lmao) Like, where were you when they reviewed witcher 3? Lmao, there's no way you care this much, no? Anyways, you are doing the EXACT same thing dunkey is making fun of in THIS video asmon is reacting to! Didn't IGN's review come out practically a MONTH after release?! PCgamer's took some time as well iirc

When the game was initially released and reviewed majority of the reviewers were still stuck in act one hence they couldn’t review act three. Some but not all reviewers have updated their reviews since. It’s an issue because it shows game developer can offload performance issue at the backend of a game and most reviewers won’t notice in their initial review. BG3 is a great game I have no problem with a reviewer giving a 10 as long as performance encountered issues are mentioned. My problem is a lot of the reviews aren’t being updated after the fact to include this.

@auroraboracat26 Idk, a LOT of people were mentioning performance in their reviews. In fact, a lot of people were mentioning performance before their reviews were published. Both by players showcasing the issues and articles putting them on full display. Edit: Actually, if I recall correctly, they were mentioning performance problems before their review on some other other stuff they were publishing about the game. I think PCgamer and ign mentioned a few crashes and inconsistent frame rates if I'm not mistaken? There's also that forbes article Edit: "they couldn't review act 3" If you read rheir reviews, they talk about their thoughts on act 3. This includes angry joe, mortismal, skillup's thoughts on Twitter, ign, gamespot, pcgamer, etc

IMHO it's probably like elden ring. That game got (and deserved) amazing reviews, but the pc version was fcked early on. My friends pc crashed like crazy. It's easier to patch bugs than rework a game to have good gameplay and story.

Because Thamos Was Alone is good! RIP TotalBiscuit

It's crazy no? Gaming has been a thing for more than half a decade yet there hasn't a single respectable critic. Compare this to movies and the avg cinephile could name atleast a dozen critics that are well respected in the community. If gaming has to evolve as a serious artform, independent criticism has to be promoted otherwise the medium is doomed to be consumerist trash.

That most reviewers fail at their job does not change the fact that the average of the scale is 5.0 (or 5.5 if the scale starts at 1).

@@miriamkapeller6754 no, the middle of 1-10 is 5. But that's assuming a linear progression. The progression is clearly not linear. If you average _the reviews_ across all of the games industry, the average game is around a 7.1 and anything that is below that is a game with a below average score. I don't make these rules, it's just how the math is mathing.

@@badlatency9979 You're just repeating what the OP said. First, the average of a 1-10 scale is 5.5, not 5. Second, the distribution for scores has to follow a normal distribution, not a linear one, i.e. the center score is the most common one and the outliers 1 and 10 are exceedingly rare. And if the scores of your review outlet don't follow that distribution, then you have simply failed as your job as a reviewer. That so many fail at their job is not magically making it better, there is a good reason game reviewers have become a meme.

@@miriamkapeller6754 listen, if you want to play 5.5 meta rated games and below as your bread and butter games and say they're good, feel free. I don't eat shit though.

@@badlatency9979 Of course not, I wouldn't listen to an opinion from a reviewer that doesn't even understand the scale they're rating on in the first place. Asmongold at the very least understands the scale, so I will at least listen to what he has to say, but for the most part I will just play a game myself to rate it.

The only boss I raged in that game. Actually considered quitting.

Oof.

So…you know his IP address?

Reviewing isn't a new thing. Why change the format and force the reviewer to divulge more information than they need to when the standard format has remained more or less the same for decades.

You can spend a year reviewing a game and people will jump straight to your scoring

A score is important, the people who say they aren't are just simply in denial or aren't actual gamers. When you say a game is 'Good' and like the game, you're in fact giving it a score simply through your vote of approval. People who just appreciate games from a distance would maybe rate it 7 or even 8. People who actually _Buy_ games, well , it's anything from an 8/10 to even a full 10/10 as it's committed them to open their wallet - the Ultimate high score.

@@netweed09 Maybe I am the OG gamer, but why would you ever need to see a review when you can just watch 5 minutes of gameplay of anyone random on KZfaq and decide for yourself..? Listening to someone's opinion is way worse imo, it's for stupid people. There's like a million different tastes for a million different people. Nobody's right or wrong, it's all relative. Same with the music genre, etc.

@@netweed09Scores aren't important. They don't convey actual information. Games are massive and different people value different things. A 9/10 means nothing if the aspect you care about (gameplay, story, character build diversity, whatever) is not a 9/10. But you can't perceive that just from a singular, overarching score. And this isn't even considering the fact that people would score games drastically differently depending if they're the target audience or the anti-audience, yet people act like a single, overarching score is valid for all gamers. Literally meaningless.

@@Aldraz Scores are bad, buttttt, i can see why people in the new age need it. There is just way too many games now, and you don't want to waste your energy on shit. Back then you could afford to watch a few videos here and there or just jump into the game right away. But the video game scene is just too oversaturated.

​@@vickerfinalI wouldn't say oversaturated

Wrong.

Idk if it's nostalgia bias or whatever, but I loved kh2. I got kh3 like 10 years later, thinking it would be decent like Ff7 remake which I enjoyed well enough. But it was unplayable, I couldn't do it more than 1 hour.

Idk i played and enjoyed every bit of it, the gameplay was some of the most fun i had in a while, the most annoying part for me was the story, it was so confusing at some point like the whole xehanort return, roxas return xion and all the time travel bs, overall the game was a solid 7/8 out of 10

5.5 is the actual average of 1-10 though. So there's also that

No, it's literally just "gamejournos" using only 6-10.