Erin's Razor

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Erin's Razor

The truth is less exciting.

Read Full Article

Heh, nice.

The only Assassin's Creed I ever played was a brief rental of the second game, and them some of the Pirate one. And after Syndicate it out... I doubt that will change.

Still, to those who do enjoy them I hope you have a blast. It isn't my thing, but if people dig it then more power to them. :)

I never would have guessed. The horror! Oh the humanity!

Excuse me, number 351163A...you're making a scene. Please stop your individual thought process, link back to us and get back in your cell pod!

You mean I don't have to listen to the opinions of some random jackass on the internet? That said random jackass' likes and dislikes might not align with my own?

Mind...BLOWN!

image

Bad choice of example maybe.
In the most recent Assassins creed Ubisoft did try to deceive reviewers.
For example they hid all the microtransactions and microtransactionhooks.
Arguably the worst aspect of the game is only in the consumerversion of the game while the different reviewer version of the game was superior.

It is also important to note that the whole we paid for advertising so reviews better be good thing happens and is the reason Giant Bomb came into excistance.

Sources:
http://i.imgur.com/ZWmYv4Y.jpg

http://kotaku.com/5893785/yes-a-games-writer-was-fired-over-review-scores

Upon recent news this doesn't hit far from truth.

Maybe it's good? Most critics didn't like Unity.

Grey:
These strips never go down well,

Actually, I think you'll be surprised.

Because this...

Grey:
The growing disconnect between traditional games journalism and, for lack of a better term, "core" gamers.

... This is going to resonate quite well with a fairly large portion of the userbase of this site.

You know I do wonder though with many of these games if the disconnect between reviewers and players is caused how long the critic plays it vs how long the player does. A critic has a limited amount of time and means that games that superficially shine tend to leave a good impression and they tend to get acclaim. A player gets the same but the metaphorical paint starts to chip off after the twentieth hour or so. So while critics and players might consider a game like skyrim to be brilliant after the couple of hours the reviewer quickly moves on to the next game while the player spends much more time and wonders how a reviewer gave it such high praise forgetting our own honeymoon period with a game. This seems to really affect sandbox games with generally shallow mechanics only becoming really obvious after burning through the main content.

This is why we need personal opinions out of reviews, even though reviews are heavily reliant on personal opinions.

At the same time, if the type of gamer who enjoys Assassin's Creed isn't what you would define as the "core" gamer, I'm not sure why this is the big issue. I would think, then, that it's the increasing obsolescence of the "core" gamer and the lack of touch with modern gaming that becomes the problem, because no matter what the medium of journalism, a medium which so heavily revolves around franchises like this will find itself with many critics who are positive towards it.

This is more rhetorical than anything, because I think of "core" gamers in the sense of being the foundation of the market, and therefore it's the ACs and the CODs who make up the "core" gamer's library. Or, at least, are a noteworthy part of it.

Also, if movies had the same kind of score inflation games did, we'd be seeing the Transformers movies getting 9/10 all the time. This is the end result of a culture that thinks 8/10 is trashing a game and 9/10 is a firing offense.

I'm not sure what part of this you're going to get more crap for. I feel for you, Grey!

GiantRedButton:
Bad choice of example maybe.
In the most recent Assassins creed Ubisoft did try to deceive reviewers.

Where does "deception" come in? I looked back at the comic, which only brings up bribes and threats. The text says nothing about deception that I saw.

IceForce:

Grey:
The growing disconnect between traditional games journalism and, for lack of a better term, "core" gamers.

... This is going to resonate quite well with a fairly large portion of the userbase of this site.

I think we both know what people are going to hear there.

While I thoroughly despise the crowd that screams about corruption and bribery the minute a review fails to confirm their opinions, it does often seem like all a game has to do is have a big budget and be basically functional for reviewers to start singing its praises.

Grumpy Ginger:
You know I do wonder though with many of these games if the disconnect between reviewers and players

You mean a certain kind of player, right? Because looking at user reviews, games like the AC series rarely fall too far off the critic scores. And the one instance where they do appears to be people review bombing in protest of the practices of the game, not the quality of the game itself.

This is why I disagree that reviews are out of touch. The reviews reflect, roughly, the audience.

Something Amyss:

GiantRedButton:
Bad choice of example maybe.
In the most recent Assassins creed Ubisoft did try to deceive reviewers.

Where does "deception" come in? I looked back at the comic, which only brings up bribes and threats. The text says nothing about deception that I saw.

An example where the Reviewers had the opportunity to fairly criciqe a game would have been a better example. In this case the review would have been off no matter the taste of the reviewer. So it is not a great example for the point. You could propably think of a few obvious examples yourself haha.
I am aware that the comic only listed two ways publishers attempt to influence reviews. Propably because there were no public cases of that in a long time so they are less likly to occur. certainly less likly than bad taste.

Edit: Wow quoting that right was hard!

GiantRedButton:

An example where the Reviewers had the opportunity to fairly criciqe a game would have been a better example. In this case the review would have been off no matter the taste of the reviewer.

Really? Were they unaware of them with the last game? Or Ubisoft's other recent titles? Several of those got praise with know MTs.

It could be that reviewers don't really care about MTs, and this was more about the audience.

Something Amyss:

GiantRedButton:

An example where the Reviewers had the opportunity to fairly criciqe a game would have been a better example. In this case the review would have been off no matter the taste of the reviewer.

Really? Were they unaware of them with the last game? Or Ubisoft's other recent titles? Several of those got praise with know MTs.

It could be that reviewers don't really care about MTs, and this was more about the audience.

If that was the case they wouldn't have hidden the hooks for them. In gamedevelopment just removing something can be difficult and cause alot of bugs. Same reason the hot coffee stuff was left in the game by Rockstar.

Grumpy Ginger:
You know I do wonder though with many of these games if the disconnect between reviewers and players is caused how long the critic plays it vs how long the player does. A critic has a limited amount of time and means that games that superficially shine tend to leave a good impression and they tend to get acclaim. A player gets the same but the metaphorical paint starts to chip off after the twentieth hour or so. So while critics and players might consider a game like skyrim to be brilliant after the couple of hours the reviewer quickly moves on to the next game while the player spends much more time and wonders how a reviewer gave it such high praise forgetting our own honeymoon period with a game. This seems to really affect sandbox games with generally shallow mechanics only becoming really obvious after burning through the main content.

Actually, I think you'll find the opposite happens just as often. When you review games for a living, your judgement of value gets thrown off by the fact that A: you're not spending your own money on a game and B: you become acutely aware of games that waste your time and tend towards more focused (read: shorter) games. That's why games like Gone Home do so well with critics (despite the fact that $20 for a one hour experience is fucking ridiculous) and a lot of reviewers don't really talk about campaign length.

But there is truth in the idea that more immediately impressive games review better. I think every reviewer has fallen for it at least once. For example: I think I said Skyrim was going to be my GOTY at one point. I was wrong.

Shit taste? I wouldnt mind that.

But the "real, real" truth is that its pretty standard nowadays to give high ratings to everything the AAA publishers shit out unless its so obviously broken that it wont even function correctly (sim city anyone?) and even THEN it will get higher scores then usual... just to be on the sure side.

Its not simply shitty taste because then they would every now and then give a AAA title a score below 8/10 or god beware a 7/10

See AAA publishers dont need to threaten anymore.. it was allready well established what will happen to you if you go against the choir and give a AAA title a low score in the past.

No one wants to be that one dude that gave kane and lynch a low score 2.0

They may harp on and spew vitriol and call EA, ubisoft and Activision out all the friggin time but yet give their games the highest of scores each and every time? And thats suposed to be only because of shit taste?

Nah..dont buy it. It simply is an unwritten rule that you dont give AAA games from the big publishers low scores no matter how shite they are.

GiantRedButton:

If that was the case they wouldn't have hidden the hooks for them.

Unless they didn't want the public informed, something I literally just said in my last post.

In gamedevelopment just removing something can be difficult and cause alot of bugs. Same reason the hot coffee stuff was left in the game by Rockstar.

It wasn't left in the game. The code was left on the disc. They did remove the "hooks" on that one and you had to modify the game to put it back in.

The Wooster:

Grumpy Ginger:
You know I do wonder though with many of these games if the disconnect between reviewers and players is caused how long the critic plays it vs how long the player does. A critic has a limited amount of time and means that games that superficially shine tend to leave a good impression and they tend to get acclaim. A player gets the same but the metaphorical paint starts to chip off after the twentieth hour or so. So while critics and players might consider a game like skyrim to be brilliant after the couple of hours the reviewer quickly moves on to the next game while the player spends much more time and wonders how a reviewer gave it such high praise forgetting our own honeymoon period with a game. This seems to really affect sandbox games with generally shallow mechanics only becoming really obvious after burning through the main content.

Actually, I think you'll find the opposite happens just as often. When you review games for a living, your judgement of value gets thrown off by the fact that A: you're not spending your own money on a game and B: you become acutely aware of games that waste your time and tend towards more focused (read: shorter) games. That's why games like Gone Home do so well with critics (despite the fact that $20 for a one hour experience is fucking ridiculous) and a lot of reviewers don't really talk about campaign length.

But there is truth in the idea that more immediately impressive games review better. I think every reviewer has fallen for it at least once. For example: I think I said Skyrim was going to be my GOTY at one point. I was wrong.

I think everyone falls for it occasionally. I've purchased Assassin's Creed 3 as well as Brink; I attempted to play them both as punishment.

Sometimes I go to Metacritic not to check ratings but to see how they change and eventually settle over time. I find it interesting to compare the reviews that come out as soon as possible versus the ones that come out later where it seemed like the reviewer was actually able to take their time with it. I generally find the later reviews more useful as it can be difficult to explore what parts of a game worked and what didn't while under a deadline and against a sometimes overwhelming level of hype, but I also almost never buy a game on release nowadays so for major releases, things have often settled down by the time I get around to playing them anyways.

It's kind of unfortunate that reviews on websites can't really be updated as easily as a Steam review.

Something Amyss:
This is why we need personal opinions out of reviews, even though reviews are heavily reliant on personal opinions.

At the same time, if the type of gamer who enjoys Assassin's Creed isn't what you would define as the "core" gamer, I'm not sure why this is the big issue. I would think, then, that it's the increasing obsolescence of the "core" gamer and the lack of touch with modern gaming that becomes the problem, because no matter what the medium of journalism, a medium which so heavily revolves around franchises like this will find itself with many critics who are positive towards it.

Speaking as a professional reviewer, this is more a human limit rather than a games writing-centered one. We have to make assumptions in order to communicate. By using the words I do, both in terms of word choice and chosen language, I'm making assumptions about what you (my reader) will understand, and how well it will resonate with you. If I use FPS, I can assume through context you can figure out whether or not I mean frames per second or first-person shooter, and what sort of audience I'm gathering if I'm willing to use those kinds of acronyms. An Escapist reader will probably be able to get it, but a regular New York Times or Wall Street Journal reader might not, and that's an assumption I have to make in order to even have a hope at successfully communicating to my reading audience.

It's not wrong to make assumptions about who one's audience is, because it's a necessary part of being able to communicate something. The disconnect spoken about in this comic becomes more about whether or not a reviewer can successfully convey what mechanics and aesthetics make up that subjective opinion. For example, I know I don't particularly care for a games like the Metal Gear Solid series, but in that opinion, I recognize where my subjective tastes for those mechanics translate differently for others, and my review of an MGS game would be written to reflect that. Likewise, I recognize that though I may love platformers like Dustforce or Super Meat Boy (Personally, 9/10 and 7/10 respectively), I recognize that the average audience member will be easily frustrated by the nail-bitingly difficult central mechanic, the aesthetic for both are very highly subjective, and the games are made or broken on precision, which isn't for everyone.

However, it's worth also recognizing that my reviews will never be in a vacuum. My scores are going to appear alongside at least 5+ others in Metacritic, and the words I've written along with those scores will be foiled against the words others have written, and all of that together will paint a very clean, clear picture of the game that any consumer with a smart phone can access at any time when deciding if they want to pick up a game. So if my subjective tastes don't mesh with another - or even the majority - there are more options, and it's not the end of the world.

Karadalis:
See, AAA publishers don't need to threaten anymore... It was already well established what will happen to you if you go against the choir and give a AAA title a low score in the past.

You do realize this is an industry that goes through something to the effect of hundreds of AAA titles on a yearly basis? You cite a single example of a single publication as proof that no one will ever give a low score to a AAA game because of it. I mean, I agree, that was genuinely awful.

But bear in mind the Call of Duty: Ghosts, published by the big three, averaged 68 on Metacritic, which would be a failing grade (D) by the bizarro US-grading scale we use for game reviews. The Elder Scrolls Online didn't fair much better with a 71. Nor Final Fantasy XIII: Lightning Returns at 69. Or Final Fantasy XIII at 65. Or Doom 3 at 59.

I mean, the scale is very heavily weighted toward the top, I'll grant you, but relative to the others in the scale, it's not like AAA games have ever been immune to criticism like you suggest. Any game can be, and often will be, panned by the critics.

Karadalis:

Its not simply shitty taste because then they would every now and then give a AAA title a score below 8/10 or god beware a 7/10

And gamers don't want [franchise I like] to get lower than X/10, and will demand your head on a platter when it doesn't get it.

There is a phenomenon within US politics where people generally agree that Congress sucks. I mean, this isn't really controversial, they sometimes poll below cockroaches. So if Congress is so awful, why don't we vote them out and get new guys? Well, that's the thing. Everyone seems to hate Congress, but love "their" guy. As such, Congress tends to trend low, but [local guy] tends to trend high. There are some major exceptions, but this ain't a politics thread.

What's the relationship to gaming? It seems there's a similar effect among fans of a specific franchise: gamers want honest reviews, but believe that their favourites are beyond reproach. This is one of the major reasons we've seen score inflation, because everybody says they want change, but nobody seems to be willing to risk their games being shown in the harsh light of day.

With such a massive pre-order culture, reviews are likely obsolete in terms of their influence as far as the major market is concerned. You can talk Kane and Lynch, but that was an 8 year old instance which garnered massive attention. It's time for the gaming community to start looking inward at why these problems exist. There can be no change as long as there is rage that [franchise I like]'s latest game "only" got a 9.

Change does not start elsewhere.

Karadalis:

No one wants to be that one dude that gave kane and lynch a low score 2.0

Jeff Gerstmann's Kane and Lynch review and subsequent firing made him a celebrity, established a fuckton of credibility and gave him the clout and influence to start his own website went on to make a fuckton of cash.

Literally every game reviewer wants to be the dude that gave Kane and Lynch a low score 2.0.

NewClassic:
So if my subjective tastes don't mesh with another - or even the majority - there are more options, and it's not the end of the world.

If this response was spawned by my first line, I was making a joke about something people are admittedly actively calling for. I figured the second half of the statement lampshaded that it was, however, a joke. The intent was to illustrate the absurdity of attempting to remove that same human element you reference.

For determining whether I will, in my biased opinion, like a game? I go a slightly different route. I've followed certain people long enough that I have a feel for how they review games. What to look for in their language that determines whether or not I will like a game. This isn't a matter of "X agrees with me." Using the example of Jim Sterling, I often don't like the same games he does, but I have a feel for how he weights games, what he looks for and how that balances with what I look for. Comparing across several people whose style I'm familiar with has always given me a better feel than a general metascore or just looking at Metacritic reviews. Both have their uses, mind.

I don't object to the "bias." I understand and embrace it.

But then, I used to write music reviews. I mean, I thought music fans were brutal before I started participating in online gaming discussion.

The Wooster:

Jeff Gerstmann's Kane and Lynch review and subsequent firing made him a celebrity, established a fuckton of credibility and gave him the clout and influence to start his own website went on to make a fuckton of cash.

Literally every game reviewer wants to be the dude that gave Kane and Lynch a low score 2.0.

Actually, good point. That it hasn't happened again may speak more to the credibility of reviews than anything else. Wooster, you done blown my mind.

Something Amyss:

The Wooster:

Jeff Gerstmann's Kane and Lynch review and subsequent firing made him a celebrity, established a fuckton of credibility and gave him the clout and influence to start his own website went on to make a fuckton of cash.

Literally every game reviewer wants to be the dude that gave Kane and Lynch a low score 2.0.

Actually, good point. That it hasn't happened again may speak more to the credibility of reviews than anything else. Wooster, you done blown my mind.

That's why reviewers being "paid off" is so fucking ridiculous. I'd get far more mileage out of revealing that someone tried to pay me off than I would from taking the bribe. Everyone wants to be games industry batman.

You do realize this is an industry that goes through something to the effect of hundreds of AAA titles on a yearly basis? You cite a single example of a single publication as proof that no one will ever give a low score to a AAA game because of it. I mean, I agree, that was genuinely awful.

But bear in mind the Call of Duty: Ghosts, published by the big three, averaged 68 on Metacritic, which would be a failing grade (D) by the bizarro US-grading scale we use for game reviews. The Elder Scrolls Online didn't fair much better with a 71. Nor Final Fantasy XIII: Lightning Returns at 69. Or Final Fantasy XIII at 65. Or Doom 3 at 59.

I mean, the scale is very heavily weighted toward the top, I'll grant you, but relative to the others in the scale, it's not like AAA games have ever been immune to criticism like you suggest. Any game can be, and often will be, panned by the critics.

Eh.. most of those "low" average scores seem to stem from the smaller review sites giving lower scores... you know the sites that the big publishers dont really give a damn about and most people havent even heard about?

If i look at what the big ones like to dish out like IGN, KDestructoid etc. the trend goes more like "lets give it a 70+ score and call it a day. (mind you these are mostly taken from metacritic and not every big review site allways has an entry for the examples but i doubt if i checked the big review sites i would find scores below the 70 mark for these, more like 80+)

Assasins creed unity: IGN: 78
Sim city: polygon: 95 IGN: 70
Call of duty ghosts: IGN: 88 (pc gamer gave it a surprising 68 though)
Lightning returns: Destructoid: 75 (IGN gave it a 7 out of 10)
Elder scrolls online: IGN: 78 Escapist: 80

Seeing a trend here?

JRPGs usually do very badly compared to other AAA games in the western market though for various reasons that can be tracked down to the very game formula of a JRPG. Capcom, square, konami... they used to be big names but nowadays have lost allmost all influence on the western market and cant even begin to compare to ubisoft, EA and activision. And even then the average scores are mostly at the 70 mark from big name reviewers even if the game deserves a much harsher score.

Heck Final fantasy XIII has only 6 critic entries even listed on metacritic, and again with most negative reviews comming from smaller websites

And guess what score it got from IGN? A whopping 8.9 Gamespot? A glamorous 8.5 (Jim gave it a good spanking on destructoid though of 4, but then again hes Jim "fucking" Sterling...son, who aint afraid of being blacklisted by fuck konami and square)

And the cherry on top? Its PS 3 metacritic overall score is 83 despite it being the worst final fantasy title ever made. (when compared to all the other FF titles)

It seems only the smaller less known and frequented review sites dish out lower scores then 70 on a regular basis. Its really rare to see one of the bigger known review sites go below 70 with AAA titles if all.

Really the 7 seems to be the magical barrier here.

Also Doom 3? Dont you think that that game is a tad to old to be relevant?

Johnny Novgorod:
Maybe it's good? Most critics didn't like Unity.

Unity didn't get low scores because it was bad or bland. It got low scores because:

1. It was broken and buggy as hell
2. It directly de-innovated, removing most of the new stuff that was acclaimed in Black Flag.

A game doesn't need to be great to be successful, but it does need to not be an obvious step backwards from something in the same franchise just the previous year.

P.S. Thanks

Covarr:

Johnny Novgorod:
Maybe it's good? Most critics didn't like Unity.

Unity didn't get low scores because it was bad or bland. It got low scores because:

1. It was broken and buggy as hell
2. It directly de-innovated, removing most of the new stuff that was acclaimed in Black Flag.

A game doesn't need to be great to be successful, but it does need to not be an obvious step backwards from something in the same franchise just the previous year.

P.S. Thanks

And even then the big game review sites gave it scores above the 70 mark. Yet we are told that its just shitty taste?

I do think that the smaller review sites are more honest with their reviews after looking over metacritic.. but IGN, kotaku, destructoid, giantbomb etc.?

Yeah... that has nothing to do with bad taste...

Now see this is one of those weird things that i never really caught onto until quite recently, I'd say as early as 3 years ago.

It's quite easy to make the assumption of money switching hands. "Oh this game is hated by everyone I talk to/follow, and I'm not fond of it myself, yet it still gets a 9 or something. There's no other really logical reason behind this, so if people are saying it, it must be true. Plus it's actually happened once." But then the accusation started happening more... and then more... and then eventually it became the go to reasoning for every bad game getting a high score... and then this mindset started bleeding from the professional gaming sites to the individuals of Youtube fame. And then I started wondering if maybe were exaggerating a tad.

And then when I thought about it, when you think about how many people would be involved in something like that, just how MANY hands that money would have to pass through in order to reach it's dirty, dirty destination, how the common reviewer is starting to become less and less part of the consumer decision making process and how we live in a time where a company's shenanigans will almost instantaneously get whistleblown, you realize that it at the very LEAST can't be happening nearly as much as we accuse... if at all. One such of those Youtubers, after being accused of such an act after liking a game generally perceived as awful by his watchers, had to address it, and noted how the law kinda sorta makes things like paying off reviewers pretty hard. And the obvious answer to this is "the law doesn't really matter when you're breaking it"... but again, the whistleblowing.

There's no doubt in my mind that reviewers padding scores actually does happen, but nowadays I'm starting to realize that the factors aren't as centralized and sensationalist as "EA gave us money." Maybe the reviewer is making a true attempt at objectivity and is judging, say, the newest COD by what it's trying to accomplish rather than what he might personally want it to be or how similar it is to its previous iteration. Maybe he's extra nice to it for fear of alienating the site's viewers if you're a company as widely known as, say, IGN and you REALLY don't want to lose them. Or... maybe they personally, just really, truly had fun with the game. Maybe they, as we core gamers will so affectionately mention... have really shit taste.

It's something I've been rolling around in my head for a while now, and I find it pretty interesting that you guys made a strip about it.

Caramel Frappe:
When an AAA company treats a critic very well before the game itself is reviewed. I forget whom talks about it, but a critic can be given a free plane ticket to fly across the globe, attend this awesome party thrown by the AAA company, given such kind treatment and once the critic actually plays the game- they're going to give the game a higher score because of remembering how that AAA company treated them.

That's a fair point. That's why a lot of sites don't let reviewers go to "review events" (though they've been growing steadily less popular over the years anyway). That being said, most of the stories I've heard from other journos about being flown to review events have been horror stories. Susan Arendt once said to me, "If you think sticking me on a crowded plane for 11 hours is going to improve my opinion of your game, you're an idiot."

I fucking knew it , this explains everything! Well I never was a big fan of "all the journos are corrupt" theory anyways, I could believe they were cliquey, I could believe they were generously treated by devs which might have impacted their partiality, but the idea of a deliberate conspiracy seemed a bit farfetched.

Still I'll add that heavy marketing and hype does seem to be a big factor in positive reviews, regardless if bribery was involved.
That's how I rationalize good games with little hype getting mediocre reviews compared to mediocre AAA getting decent reviews and going on to be smash hits even though they really ain't that good of a game (looking at you destiny, people were treating that game like the second coming of the Messiah ffs...). Or Dragon Age Inquisition, ha! That one even won escapist game of the year (I think having been just released before said competition was what helped it win btw) , yet I think it's safe to say the general verdict on that game is lukewarm at best now.

Catchpra: drawing board Yeah let's go back to it.

Mega Man 10.
Yes, TEN.
Capcom threw ten mega mans at us and we screamed for more every single time... except the one time they did something different, with Mega Man 8, which gets panned.

I don't think it's just reviewers.
I think we all have terrible taste. :D

The Wooster:

Caramel Frappe:
When an AAA company treats a critic very well before the game itself is reviewed. I forget whom talks about it, but a critic can be given a free plane ticket to fly across the globe, attend this awesome party thrown by the AAA company, given such kind treatment and once the critic actually plays the game- they're going to give the game a higher score because of remembering how that AAA company treated them.

That's a fair point. That's why a lot of sites don't let reviewers go to "review events" (though they've been growing steadily less popular over the years anyway). That being said, most of the stories I've heard from other journos about being flown to review events have been horror stories. Susan Arendt once said to me, "If you think sticking me on a crowded plane for 11 hours is going to improve my opinion of your game, you're an idiot."

Did somebody say... konami bootcamp?

Or fizzy water? XD

Nah lets talk about politics in the philipines instead!

Thing is... despite these events getting rarer... i guess cause nowadays the consumer just gets wind of them way to quickly... i have yet to see the big guys going out and simply not attending these special events... the big review sites allways send someone over it seems.

Wich lets face it for the sites themselves is more a case of staying relevant, but for the individual reviewer getting such prefered treatment might affect scores.

Frankster:
I fucking knew it , this explains everything! Well I never was a big fan of "all the journos are corrupt" theory anyways

The thing is.. this "all" usually doesnt really mean "all" journos. Its again targeted at the big sites who usually do control the narative. Kotaku, IGN, Gamespot, Destructoid.

You will rarely have disagreeing opinions between those when it comes to AAA gaming, while smaller outlets might rip a title to shreds.

As i said before there seems to be a rule or understanding never to go lower then a 7 out of 10 with any given AAA game, unless its some outlier or wildcard like jim sterling. And his harsher critics have landed him on konamis and squares shitlists aparantly.

Norithics:
Mega Man 10.
Yes, TEN.
Capcom threw ten mega mans at us and we screamed for more every single time... except the one time they did something different, with Mega Man 8, which gets panned.

I don't think it's just reviewers.
I think we all have terrible taste. :D

The Gap between Megaman 8 and 9 was 11 years.
thats blizzard like in release scedule. Of course as soon as you count spin offs those 11 years disappear pretty quickly.
I guess the once per year rythm worked because nintendo only allowed a handfull fo games per publisher so there was less competition?
Nowadays i doubt we will see another Megaman game sometimes.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here