-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Founder of Arkane Studios, co-creator of Dishonored says: "The Metacritic ecosystem encourages devs to make safe boring games"
- Thread starter RedC
- Start date
vaibhavpisal
Member
Completely agree.
Putting in a boat load of polish is short cut to getting good metascore.
Putting in a boat load of polish is short cut to getting good metascore.
Shake Your Rump
Member
Maybe ten years ago, sure. Now, the root cause is developer/publisher acquisitions leading to a complete and blind dedication to returns on investment.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
Stop releasing broken games...
vaibhavpisal
Member
Stop releasing basic, simple games. Propped by polish on metacritic.
Am playing Jedi Survivor right now. Super high metascore. Plagued by basic puzzles, hard to fail platforming, level design that hardly makes me think. It is supposed to be metroidvania.
If you started making a game and your benchmark is Metrics, you already have problems in the studio and they will only get worse. Games, like any other art - music, painting, etc, are an object that is designed to convey the author's thoughts and ideas to the audience. Exactly at the moment when you just start looking at all sorts of metrics, you stop creating from the soul, you turn into a machine that does work in order to put a tick in the schedule.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
I'm assuming you played Jedi Fallen Order, so I'm not sure why you're surprised? Why do you keep buy the same games from the same developers if you're not happy with them?
TheChumpNation
Member
He's out of line, but he's right.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Fallen Order had better level design and platforming wasn’t as simple.
Also, was hard to cheese through battles so gameplay was good bit better as well.
Hypereides
Gold Member
Guy is on point. Way too many people rely on Metacritic as some sort of undisputed and definitive "checklist" for absolute answers. That's counter-creative. We'll be stuck playing the same recycled shit over and over again this way.
Last edited:
Saber
Gold Member
What encourages safetyness in games are lack of creativity and willingness to take risks. And those are heavly affected by the person own views being inserted in the game.
Metacritic is just a flag, not a completelly 100% certain factor that the game is bad. Numbers are nothing without context.
Metacritic is just a flag, not a completelly 100% certain factor that the game is bad. Numbers are nothing without context.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
and this very forum I noticed is part of the problem. the fact that there is a metacritic thread for basically every bigger release on here always makes me cringe.
I always feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people say Jedi Survivor is as good or even better than Fallen Order... like wtf are these people smoking?
I always feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people say Jedi Survivor is as good or even better than Fallen Order... like wtf are these people smoking?
poodaddy
Gold Member
He's absolutely right, and people's obsession with metacritic as a barometer for quality in the industry is verifiably insane considering some of the upsets we've had as of late. Veilguard was treated as a second coming of Christ by mainstream review outlets, and we all know what the game really is.
A shit game that works as intended is still shit, and yet it will get good reviews because it works as intended.
A very well made game that has bugs, (understandable if you have the slightest knowledge of programming, as the functions of these big systemic RPG's have far more variables to deal with and clean code can be very challenging there), will be a far better game than the shit one when it's all patched up, but it will always have a lower metacritic score than the shit one that worked as intended at launch.
It's a fundamentally broken review system that you should be ignoring, not utilizing for purchase decisions. Especially considering how demonstrably and obviously corrupt the mainstream media outlets are.
A shit game that works as intended is still shit, and yet it will get good reviews because it works as intended.
A very well made game that has bugs, (understandable if you have the slightest knowledge of programming, as the functions of these big systemic RPG's have far more variables to deal with and clean code can be very challenging there), will be a far better game than the shit one when it's all patched up, but it will always have a lower metacritic score than the shit one that worked as intended at launch.
It's a fundamentally broken review system that you should be ignoring, not utilizing for purchase decisions. Especially considering how demonstrably and obviously corrupt the mainstream media outlets are.
Mr Moose
Member
Review threads have both Meta and Open in them normally.
kevboard
Member
yeah, but they are both bad... Open Critic might be not as bad as Metacritic, but the idea is the same. worthless numbers next to mostly uninformative summaries of reviews.
Topher
Identifies as young
Strange to "cringe" that people dare talk about a subject like reviews of a game. Either way, forums like NeoGAF are typically the first to call out bullshit from reviewers, especially in recent years. A review thread on GAF is meaningless to uninformed casuals who take metacritic scores as the standard of quality.
Topher
Identifies as young
I don't think they are paid, but I think the system is becoming tainted by the fact that publishers have begun to weaponize review codes by handing them out primarily to those who they believe will be more favorable.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
It is a system where two parties, publisher and press, see a common interest in their respective activities by working together. Sadly, people buying the products are consumers, not publishers nor the press. So why would you, as a consumer, give any credit to either publisher or press about the product you might want to buy ? How can the press be objective when their entire main page is a giant advertisement for whatever game. How can publishers be objective when they decide to whom they send review codes, and also give a ton of money for advertisement ?
I stopped reading any kind of "professional" press 15 years ago because this is what it is all about.
Wolves hunt in packs
Member
Agree and don't agree.
Reviews means shit to me, I played awesome games at 70 or even lower ratings, but in case of Stalker 2 it does have issues, i still think it's an awesome bastard game, which when fixed would be a cult hit, But does reviewers should wait to the game fixed before rating it? how long to wait? a year? 2? they got a game that has stick drift in it, should this be ignored?
Also while i love Arkane.. Redfall was and still is a generic game, so they went safe and didn't succeed.
I think that in general the gaming industry should not focused on game ratings so much, if the reason we didn't get Days Gone 2 is because the ratings wasn't all 9s then companies should think what players love to play and not some ratings that is only a few hundred players opinions.
Reviews means shit to me, I played awesome games at 70 or even lower ratings, but in case of Stalker 2 it does have issues, i still think it's an awesome bastard game, which when fixed would be a cult hit, But does reviewers should wait to the game fixed before rating it? how long to wait? a year? 2? they got a game that has stick drift in it, should this be ignored?
Also while i love Arkane.. Redfall was and still is a generic game, so they went safe and didn't succeed.
I think that in general the gaming industry should not focused on game ratings so much, if the reason we didn't get Days Gone 2 is because the ratings wasn't all 9s then companies should think what players love to play and not some ratings that is only a few hundred players opinions.
Last edited:
Hugare
Member
"Rough around the edges" in the understatement of the year
Stalker launched with a not functioning AI system, ffs. With bugs as ridiculous as "turning off motion blur fucks up the whole screen", "SMG using shotgun sounds" and etc.
"You can fix a good game", but will it be fixed tho? Who knows? Should we score games in ambition, not execution? Some outlets review the game again after updates, and thats the right way to do it. Complaining that an ambitious game wasnt reviewed well when it has ridiculous bugs is just absurd.
I agree that a lot of mediocre games are well received just for being polished enough, tho. But when 80% of the industry cant release a functioning product, who is in the wrong?
Stalker launched with a not functioning AI system, ffs. With bugs as ridiculous as "turning off motion blur fucks up the whole screen", "SMG using shotgun sounds" and etc.
"You can fix a good game", but will it be fixed tho? Who knows? Should we score games in ambition, not execution? Some outlets review the game again after updates, and thats the right way to do it. Complaining that an ambitious game wasnt reviewed well when it has ridiculous bugs is just absurd.
I agree that a lot of mediocre games are well received just for being polished enough, tho. But when 80% of the industry cant release a functioning product, who is in the wrong?
Last edited:
MiguelItUp
Member
I can't fully agree. I get what he's saying, but I more so feel like the majority focus on "safe and boring games" so their studio doesn't close. It's why we see a lot of the same or similar gameplay mechanics, etc. Anything that sounds risky to studios clearly sounds like a no-go. Unless there's some kind of ungodly backing/investing and they can afford to take risks. Especially in AAA.
Last edited:
XXL
Member
Most casuals don't even look at review scores.
They don't care what COD, Madden, NBA2K, Fortnite or Apex gets scored.
Topher
Identifies as young
It is like I said in another thread, direct reviews from youtubers like
Karak
and
Mattyp
are my go to these days. Review scores are interesting to talk about and, often, laugh about, but for me they don't have nearly as much sway in my choices as they once did, for exactly the reasons you've pointed out.
Lunarorbit
Member
That humble bundle on arkane games is going on right now FYI.
Prey, all the dishonoreds, deathloop, etc
Prey, all the dishonoreds, deathloop, etc
Bumblebeetuna
Member
I’m skeptical of most games that release to high MC scores nowadays because it makes me think they are basic, by the book group tested safe games. Most of the time I am right.
YeulEmeralda
Linux User
Nah budgets do that. There is a game called Citizen Sleeper. High scores, not safe or popular. Developer doesn't care he has an audience and makes enough money for a sequel.
xenosys
Member
Spot on.
owandeseis
Member
Agreed, some reviews from AAA games are a great example, i've seen some that made me want to run away from the game, i thought it'd be a 7/10 at best, but then they gave it a 9/10 or even higher.
Making a very polished game, having a good functional combat, and a very good early presentation is a must, many reviewers will just play some hours, and they don't want a complex system nor to have to think much.
What gets like a 5-6/10 in the cinema space (Marvel stuff, Fast and Furious and other popcorn movies) is what works in the videogame one to get an easy 9/10.
But as he says, it works, and some studios are really good at it, check Playground, Insomniac or Guerilla for example, their games get easy 9/10's always and sell a lot.
Making a very polished game, having a good functional combat, and a very good early presentation is a must, many reviewers will just play some hours, and they don't want a complex system nor to have to think much.
What gets like a 5-6/10 in the cinema space (Marvel stuff, Fast and Furious and other popcorn movies) is what works in the videogame one to get an easy 9/10.
But as he says, it works, and some studios are really good at it, check Playground, Insomniac or Guerilla for example, their games get easy 9/10's always and sell a lot.
mayham2199
Member
This is how I feel. You shouldn’t get a pass just because you released a broken game that will be good when fixed.
I loved cyberpunk when it was release but if it got a 6/10 on release I would have understood.
TerribleAtThisGame
Member
That guy made Prey. Dude can say whatever the fuck he wants.
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
Personally I'd much prefer a broken and buggy game that's great/amazing at its core because bugs can be charming and be fun to mess around with, and it's stuff that will get patched out anyways
Mediocre "polished" games like Hellblade 2 or Calisto Protocol work at launch, yes, and are discussed only at launch
games with severe bugs shouldn't get rated higher than a 91 on MC but they should be more lenient with scoring when in regards to bugs
Mediocre "polished" games like Hellblade 2 or Calisto Protocol work at launch, yes, and are discussed only at launch
games with severe bugs shouldn't get rated higher than a 91 on MC but they should be more lenient with scoring when in regards to bugs
ChorizoPicozo
Member
publishers buy review scores anyway.
Da1337Vinci
Member
Nah safe and boring games are ubisoft like games. No real hook and familiar gameplay. And looking at share price of ubi certainly not the winning strategy currently.
killatopak
Gold Member
Cyberpunk releases : Why the fuck do reviewers not score properly.
Stalker releases : Why the fuck do reviewers not score properly.
Stalker releases : Why the fuck do reviewers not score properly.
Kronark
Neo Member
This is rarely the case. I think it's true with steam reviews and that those audiences will bomb anything even remotely unpolished, but I do not think this is true of the general professional reviewer space (Both legacy media and alt media).
I might buy this argument with a game like Cyberpunk 2077 where the launch title was incredibly buggy but the underlying game was great, even then the game reviewed ok on PC / Xbox and hit like mid 80s. What are the other example games though? I'm struggling to think of any 7/10 metacritic games that are secretly 9s or 10s. He mentions Stalker 2 but I've seen a lot of fans that consider the game a let down, it fails to do things the earlier titles did, and it wasn't a completely new creative formula either. The things that are good about it also probably appeal to a niche audience that likes the sort of soft mil sim feel it goes for. It never seemed like a general audience game to me. I'm sure there are 7/10 games that might be 7.5/10 or 8/10 games with a more polished bug free launch but most 7/10 games I've experienced deserve less than 7/10.
The reality is that too many generic / boring / safe games get a passing 8/10 because they're polished. Game devs are already getting a pass from reviewers so they don't get blacklisted in most cases. I'd advocate for lower review scores across the board and think we need to hand out more 4s, 5s, and 6s. I also think it's funny an Arkane dev is complaining about this considering Death Loop is one of the most over rated games of the last few years. A 7.5/10 game that most reviewers gave a 9+ and raved about.
proandrad
Member
No he’s not, stop releasing broken games.
Last edited:
why is he out of line?????????????????
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Make a good game that is polished. Problem solved.
Not surprised a techie worker wants to release sketchy stuff to customers with the usual corporate strategy….. “Uhhhh don’t worry, we’ll release a patch soon”
Not surprised a techie worker wants to release sketchy stuff to customers with the usual corporate strategy….. “Uhhhh don’t worry, we’ll release a patch soon”