To be fair, if you're calling a spongebob game punishing, then it's literally a skill issue.

What's really stupid is when you actually get a journalist to actually review a Video game in a genre they don't like or don't understand.

If I remember right, there was a journalist review of Fire Emblem: Three Houses that complained that the game was too easy after saying that they did only one play through on the easiest possible difficulty…

I remember the Game Informer magazines back in the day would list the genres of games the reviewer specializes in. I think that would be a good change of pace. Also, there shouldn't be this rush to finish the review as soon as possible. That seems to be the biggest quality killer.

Surprising, games that mimic movies excel in a rating system mimicking that of the movie ratings

I remember IGN giving Alien Isolation a bad score because, wait for it, the Xenomorph A.I was too good and made the game too hard...

"Are devs paying off reviewers? Well no, at least not directly." proceeds to explain how they are absolutely 100% paid off, indirectly. Glad we got that figured out.

i started ignoring critics when they started bashing alice madness returns and rules of rose. man i wish games like that were still around. as a young teen girl i related a lot to both. they were dark and edgy but still had female protagonists going thru trauma

I also hate the way that numbers in reviews have been ruined. A 6/10 to me means: "this is a slightly above average game that has issues but I overall still had a positive experience". But a 6 from a game journalist is basically "I didn't like it"

One of my favorite moments of reviewers outing themselves was when someone (in ign iirc) said Devil May Cry 5's music was almost nonexistant. The game has a dynamic soundtrack, so depending on how good you are in combat, depends on how much of the actual track you will hear

Back on the day I used to judge games based on the box art and my gut... apparently that was the way to go

That's one reason they tried to remove the dislike button, cause they could see how many people actually disagreed with it.

As a child, one of the things I loved about EGM magazine was that they had 4 reviewers review every game and they made it very clear not only what games they were currently enjoying, but also what genres of games they enjoy the most. It was very helpful in determining which reviewer weighed the features of said game more closely to the reader. I'm not sure if such a system is sustainable in today's saturated and time-devoid landscape, but I do think that review sites need to be more open in regards to what the reviewers preferences are.

In a nutshell: Video Game critics ARE NOT gamers, they are just a bunch of out-of-touch young adults that just finished their mediocre journalism degree and spend 90% of their free time on Twitter and/or Reddit.

lets not forget journalists use their positions in the media to basically secure themselves jobs at game studios

I actually, un-ironically face palmed at that reviewer struggling with the SpongeBob "puzzle". He should be tested for an intellectual disability or early onset dementia.

I like the fact that you actually took the time to compile data to show a trend instead of just using specific examples👍

IGN gave one of the best combat games of all time God hand a 3 out of 10

I used to be very involved in online gaming communities and forums in the late 2000s and early 2010s. When you are actively reading numerous gaming reviews as well as even communicating with game reviewers, you begin to realize that many game reviewers do not actually finish games. They might play a portion of the game to get the basic handle on things, but the rest of the experience is something they will glean from players who write their own thoughts on forums, or from watching KZfaq video playthroughs. You can also tell that many review scores are impacted by the reviewer's belief of how other reviewers are going to review the same game. I would personally go as far to say that some reviews out there, even on mainstream websites, are nothing but a "plagiarism" of reviews from other places, and once that hits you, you'll stop caring about any review.

I always wonder who the hell even are these gaming critics? How do you become one? What are the requirements to be one?

"Am I implying that reviewers are bought off by large corporations? No, at least not directly." Don't forget Jeff Gerstmann was literally fired because he didn't give Kane & Lynch a high enough score. The soft reasons you describe are insightful, but you can't ignore the harder reasons that affect the industry as well. I think a few years ago I would have really appreciated your attempt to humanize journos and reviewers, but these days I just have so much contempt for the rotten parts of the industry that I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. All that said, however, your reasons are much more thorough than any other explanation or potential analysis of these trends. I'm glad you made the video; what new information it contained was more than worth the effort you expended. Thanks.

The most meaningful difference between gaming journalists and gamers is that gamers actually care about videogames

Its amazing how good graphics, voice acting, and soundtrack can convince people flaming dog crap is a 10/10.

Fortunately, the legitimacy of game reviews is being questioned worldwide. How I decide personally if a game is worth buying? Social media, content creators, seeing someone play it. And I'm sure this goes for most gamers these days. There's no way some of these indie games would have blown up the way they did before this internet era. It's putting gaming into the hands of the masses and it's kind of great.

The problem is that these "games" journalists don't actually play games all that much. My trust in those died when IGN which is suppose to be the premier reviewer uploaded their doom playthrough, cuphead tutorial moment, and the most recent Redfall gameplay. They aren't gamers, they're writers. These are the people who will give the latest NBA, fifa, or call of duty a 9 out of 10 then turn around and give a hat in time or transistor a 6 maybe 7.

that Spongebob clip is legit painful

I feel like video game journalists and movie critics have something in common, after all.

You my friend just gained a subscriber! Great, well structured, well presented video! Amazing work!

I feel like gaming is getting to the point where the average old school gamer would be more qualified than the actual game journalist

I remember that critic who couldn't even pass the tutorial of Cuphead and gave the game a horrible note

This is exactly the case with PC hardware. reviewers are being bribed/held hostage with those early (& free) review samples. & hence cowarding themselves into saying nothing the corporations don't approve of and/or being very soft in their criticism.

Fantastic video and analysis! Can't wait to see more

The most important part of steam’s review system is that it shows playtime in my opinion. I never purchase a triple A game without going to one of the most experienced positive and negative reviews and reading them in their entirety. The important thing is to not just look at the numbers

It's such irony that all the names journalists called gamers fits themselves. Gatekeeping, check Elitism, check Entitled, check Coerse game devs to cater to their specific tastes, check Fragile ego, check Narcissistic, check And they wonder why sites are dying like flies in a fire.

Stellar video man, I hope this blows up (even further)

Yep. I never go to any major review websites when buying a game. I go straight to the user review section on Steam, or if it's not on Steam, I'll go straight to youtube.

Even as a speedrunner, I wouldn’t just rush through a game as fast as possible just to beat it and ruin my experience lol. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason unskippable cutscenes were made was so game reviewers didn’t drop bad reviews on their games after they literally skipped all the story to beat the game in world record time.

I'm much more in favor of Ross's Game Dungeon's scoring system than the percentile that's so popular. Instead of giving a score based on how much you personally liked it in reference to other similar media you've consumed, you list the most unique elements of the game and whether they're positive or negative is based on individual preference.

"So what motivates you to say bad review for a good game?" IGN : (in Mr Krab voice) Money

This reminds me of a highlight video I watched of a racing game fan viewing the top 100 racing games, and one of the best racing games of all time wasn't even on the list, while mobile games no one's heard of were in the top ten. It was obvious that the scores were based on some sort of sample that wasn't primarily racing game fans. What sucks most is realizing that for people trying a new genre, this means they will not actually get to experience what the best to offer is.

It's also worth noting that this trend of video games journalists not really being able to reliably do their jobs has directly led to the success of alternative, non-mainstream video game reviewers who only review what they actually want to, and are willing to review niche titles, think Mandalore, Sseth, Max0r and Jimothy Ross.

I also hate how the big review sites don't pay for their games, or can write it off as a business expense. It taints their reviews to a degree imo. They will gush at how amazing a game is and ignore that it's $70 for a 2 hour game with zero replay value. Or ignore that the game's grind is insane unless you pay for Xp boosters or Gold boosters (that they get for free). Because money is off the table reviewers are often far more generous to mediocre even bad games because they have no stake in it.

This is why I instead listen to random people on KZfaq on what my opinion should be and then completely trust them, instead of listening to random people on a different website.

Man this video and it’s idea is timeless.

There's a very simple solution to this problem that journalists refuse to accept. Have people review the types of games that actually interest them. Having a team of people, each focused on different types of games means that all games will be given a fair review, because the reviewer will actually want to play it. But they won't accept this because it means that they get less work since someone else gets that game instead of them. So they grit their teeth, say they'll give it a fair review and then ignore most of the game and say it was bad or boring.

Remember that IGN gave Super Mario 3D World + Bowser’s Fury a lower score than the original SM3DW despite the fact it’s the same game with gameplay improvements and even an extra game. And the worst part, it was a different person who reviewed it. Not the person who reviewed the original.

Morbid curiosity, what's that music that plays around 4:00 onwards? That sounds so familiar it's bothering me.

And don't forget the time Titanfall 2 was reviewed at a FOUR despite being the best movement shooter of all time because the reviewer, and I quote, "couldn't handle the movement and would appreciate if the game would slow down". And then they realized they fucked up and promptly removed the video, replacing it with a 9/10.

Word of advice: Stop putting so much trust in critics. Anyone can call themself a critic now these days even if they know little to nothing. Play the game to enjoy it, don't pick out details you hate and hang onto them with a passion.

I've always chosen to be my own game critic, doing my own research about a game that interests me instead of trusting a popular reviewer. It almost never leads to buyer's regret.

What I love about this video is the fact that I literally just downloaded that Spongebob game yesterday for my daughter and now this is showing up in my feed today 😂

Thank you. This is a worthwhile endeavor.

Interestingly enough, there is a Christian game review site (Christ Centered Gamer) that manages to be the perfect example of how to separate your personal biases from simply reviewing the games as games. They use two separate categories, game score and morality score, the former reviewing the game solely on its own merits as a video game and the latter being the section where they review the game based on how well a Christian would enjoy it. I'm not very religious myself, but I really respect these guys for being able to stay professional and acknowledge and separate their personal biases like this in a field where that seems like a lost art nowadays. Funnily enough, the typical Californian video game journalist would probably consider a site like this "close minded" or even "bigoted" for being religion focused, but in many ways they manage to be way more open minded and tolerant than them.

Big sites really need to assign specific people to specific types of games. Yahtzee works for a journal, but he has his own show and seems to be rather consistent, so one can know what to expect from him. Same cannot be said for those faceless names in IGN or PCgamer.

Asking sekiro for an easy mode is asking for a horror movie to give the audience less sense of terror and anxiety.

Wait people read popular games news outlets scores unironically??? Oh boy!

What I think would be interesting is to explore how much people outside of America actually care about metacritic. I can't say I know of anyone unironically following metacritic scores here in eastern-ish Europe.

This is why I kinda miss total biscuit. He actually takes the time to play the game for hours and hours, until he can come up with a conclusion for it. Sure he has biases against games with puzzles for example but he’s honest about his biases.

Can’t wait for the sequel vids your were talking about

Correction at 10:02, ocean invertibrates have solved more complex puzzles, let alone invertibrates.

I’ll say it again, IMO, Game Journalism is dead. It’s too corporatized and they cater to a certain bias

Man this was eye opening. There should be more discussion and awareness about such biases - this is a great first step. For pro reviewers, I think they should always display the time spent playing the game in addition to their verdict. That would clear up a lot of biased reviews I think.

Just like how most modern games are set in USA for reviewers, the IGN reviewers make you FEEL like 20 to early 30s Californian.

This isn't even without mentioning our "school" bias. In (at least american) school, a 50 is a bad score, when really it means equal bad and good. But in review scores, 70 is the new 50, somehow. This is a problem with the metric, but since everyone pretty much has this bias, its not really considered biased. I do feel it is worth bringing to light, however, as just how much we are biased without realizing it.

Battle for Bikini Bottom made my childhood and defined my expectations of quality in videogames, I wonder why people even hate on it

Sonic Unleashed was a Victim of an Incompetent Journalist with a Huge Bias against Sonic because it was cool to hate him, especially around that time. If they actually played the game they would recognize it has Great Level design, stunning Graphics, beautiful Music, and a Compelling Story.

Personally, I've found the best way to get an semi honest gauge of a game is to look for a community around said genre of game, and see how people talk about it. Reddit being one such interest, but really most forum/post board sites with a decent history are the way to go.

I'm 3 years late but this is a great video. The whole situation seems to just be kinda unfortunate for everyone.

That frame of the "-Too much water" con in the review reminded me of a video I watched a while ago about Crisis Core: Reunion, where the critic gave a con of the game not having a photo mode. Now while I understand how nice it would be to have a photo mode in a game... not every game needs a photo mode, especially if said game is just an updated version of an old PSP game almost no one has access to anymore due to the PSP being discontinued. (Still have mine and the original Crisis Core disk, the PSP has a broken screen and no battery/charger tho... sad)

The older ive gotten I've found just hearing the voice of the reviewer is often enough to realise where their bias lies, this is perfectly demonstrated in the opening of this video... 😅

Great vid and great use of the gurren lagann ost

Yeah we all know the “critic” score is literally just which company paid the most. You can even fake a lot of user reviews. Thats why I believe the only way to know if your gonna like a game is to watch footage of it

Who knew that videogame "journalists" would hate actual video games, they are failed college students that wanted to work for "real journalism" but got stuck in failing gaming sites.

I've always felt the same way about movie critics, though. Just because someone is a critic does not mean they are the target audience for a movie, and you can expect to see plenty of beloved movies with terrible critic scores like Happy Gilmore

8:55 how was this conducted? I've lived in Peru for a massive chunk of my life and I have only come across a tiny handful of people who played Persona 5 (let alone even heard of it)

Excellent video bud. You got my subscription 🙌

Bias is 100% fine in a review. No matter how critical anyone is bias will always creep in. So leaning into the bias and explaining to your audience is important. But big time reviewers just can do itm making a company see a game a certain way but actually being several people is tricky. It's why small time single reviewers are better. As long as they actually explain their points instead of just saying it's bad or it's good. They need to explain why it's bad or good

I remember you from the Star Control II review and it’s astonishing that your channel hasn’t gained much traction yet. Your writing, editing, sound quality, and narrating have vastly improved (which is a HUGE compliment since your SC2 review was already good and actually got me to experience and fall in love with that game). I seriously hope the algorithm blesses you soon because content that sounds this professional definitely doesn’t deserve to go underlooked.

That's why I tend to watch longplays or whatever for some games to see if it's something I would personally be interested in versus just seeing someone's score number and a blurb.

anyone know what music was playing at 5:05, i recognise it but i dont know where from

As a British person I love that you not only used Dennis the Menace to represent us but also that the game you chose was Football Manager. Hats off to you for all the hard work that clearly went to making this vid and thanks for making me laugh out loud for the first time today.

What’s sad is that it doesn’t matter if they are videogame, music, book, or movie reviews. There’s always the toxic side of it, be it from those producing the work and their need to get a 10/10, and the ones reviewing, professionals or not, fans or haters, who frequently will give a low or high score for no valid reasons. It’s like everyone wants to impose something, instead of letting the work speak for itself.

Well, to be fair, Battle For Bikini Bottom did deserve a middling score, but not for any of the reasons critics said.

Excellent vid!

Steam reviews are usually much more useful because people can mark it as helpful or not. Sometimes what people say they didn't like sounds like something you'd like. IGN reviews and the like generally feel.. generic.. which makes sense after watching your video.

Nothing says “biased” more than IGN’s review of Pokémon Sword and Shield..

16:15 - Yeah... Time has done Sword and Shield a lot of good favors actually, since a lot more appreciation for the games have come to light on sites like Twitter/X and Facebook.

I remember metacritic changing their review score. Most importantly they deleted player reviews. And that’s was something i felt could have been touched up on in the video. Crazy how they try to post a “critic’s” review early but deny player reviews unless the games two days old.

When you think about it, yeah, it’s one of the reasons AVGN is so trusted for game reviews. His life is video games, he loves them, every video he’s surrounded by them on his shelves, and while he’s his reviews focus on bashing old badly made games, the point is, he represents what the ideal game journalist should be: someone who enjoys video games and is passionate about their quality, someone who has a sizable library of games and knows them like the back of their hand

WHY this has so little views? ffs, I was discussing how games are no longer being made to be played with my bro. And you actually built a date to back this up. Great job, thanks

the 3ds and wii u eshop used to have a very in-depth user review system, you didn't just give it a 1-5 rating, you'd also be asked if you thought the game was casual or hardcore, and difficult it was, this'd then be displayed in a ratio of how many players gave what answers. wish they'd kept it for the switch

this is why i watch many many reviews of the same game over a few of days to make a decision

The problem with the modern videogame industry is that many of both developers and journalists wished they were working at the movie industry instead.

More people need to hear this. I've hated video game critics for a while now, and everyone should too.

Damn, this was 3 years ago, crazy

Another thing I'll add is that I think a lot of reviewers try to view video games as art, but most consumers are only interested in games as entertainment. I love creative and unique experiences but often I also just want a couple hour of fun after a long day.

As someone who very briefly did game reviews back in the GameSpy Era (which Quake 2 was new), there is a big reason why major franchises get glowing reviews... they almost always go to a well-established critic who really wants to play it. So even though Quake 2 was widely considered by fans (eventually) as disappointing, it was like Episode 1 disappointment that took a little while for fans to admit. So no surprise that the resident Rockstar or Last Of Us fan who was fighting with other fans to review those games were so damn positive. If any of them doubted the game pre-release they'd probably let someone else do it, because why fight if you think you're going to be disappointed. On the flip side, fans are more disposed to mediocrity because they wanted to plop down $70 for Redfall or whatever and they want to like it... while a critic who had this pushed on him by an editor is more likely to compare it unfavorably to a mediocrity like Dyling Light because they don't actually have a bias in that situation. And, let's face it, those User Scores are filled with huge truckloads of bias. Not only do you have corporate shill ccounts paid to drop 10/10s,but you got folks who loudly announce that their 1/10 has nothing to do with the gameplay or having played the game at all. Ultimately, you have to learn how to spot reviews that line up with your tastes. Aggregate scores are functionally meaningless. Personally, what i do is look for people who passionately love something, even if they're a minority. If someone isn't saying, "wow, Redfall is an amazing game", then, at best, it's going to be "not bad" and "not bad" isn't "good". If enough people love it, that's something I'm willing to take a chance on.

I see this in the cinema industry too. Certain reviewers will praise a movie for lets say fan-service then tell another movie that fan-service in movies are bad. It depends on the scale of the movie franchise too, like Marvel. Im not detailing this but its crazy to see

What's the background music at 17:00 from?

One of the first instances, I remember, of a reviewer not playing the games they review was Brad from Giantbomb. On the bombcast when the guys would ask him how his game was going. His responses were along the lines of I don’t know I just kinda skim through it.