We start out back in April with the release of God Of War for PS4, everyone and their Nanas say the game is one of the best in recent memory, rightfully so. Then we march towards September, Spider-Man for PS4 is on the horizon, many gamers are hyped and at launch, most agree it is another great game, in a year of great games. However, it's critical reception is far more divisive, while many agree the game is fantastic, there was always a however, it falls just short here from being perfect. Now we hear that about a lot of games, and while reviews can be subjective, it appears odd when so many can agree on the likes of God of War, and now more recently Red Dead Redemption 2. At this point, you probably think I am just upset that Spider-Man's scores were lower, but that is not the issue here. Having played and loved all three games, I can tell you each game is of the same high quality, each game features tons of variety, plenty to do, tons of detail and above all else they are great fun. The only difference in why you would prefer one or the other, would be based on which theme and gameplay style you like best.
This is where my issue lies, we use a scoring system thinking it helps the player decide, maybe back in the day when games could be truly flawed it was needed. Now there are so few games that suffer the kinds of issues that warranted a scoring system, it seems pointless. Today the best reviews are done to explain what a game is, how it plays, and what it does really well and maybe not so well. However, most of the time the things a game does not do well, come down to player preference. Spider-man's biggest complaint is that some side missions are of a silly nature, or that they become repetitive. Yet I heard similar issues regarding Red Dead and God of War, so why does Spider-man's score get dropped?
I am not saying the critics were wrong, after all a review is your subjective take on a game while trying to give objective facts, so I cannot fault them if they truly disliked those mechanics. Yet most of the time when you read the review, they never really match the score. What is worse is that most just look at the score, without reading the review, while that is their fault, they are also trusting that the scoring system has some kind of merit. But, how can you score something that is mostly based on subjective opinions? Sure the score is the reviewer's score, yet when you have things like Metacritic, it more or less implies that the score is more than just subjective opinion, these reviews now are seen more like facts. Which leads to any good critic trying to justify the score they chose, however that makes it very easy to lose sight of what makes a review. We now look at reviews to see if a game is good or bad, not if the game is enjoyable or boring for us. We have created the notion that we only buy the good games, but what is good for me, is not always good for you. The need to score a game forces writers to become so critical, that they fail to see the things they are claiming in one game made it short of perfect, was in their last perfect game too. They label it a fault in one game, and simply ignore it in another, if that one thing was enough to make the game just short of perfect, why did it not affect the other game? Red Dead Redemption, God of War and Spider-Man PS4 are all great games, with a lot in common. It seems very odd to think that due to design choices present in all three games, only Spider-man would be seen as the lower ranked experience.
I am sure each of us has a favourite that we prefered this year, but I am also sure most would agree those three were great games. Which is why this issue now seems so much clearer, I always kept thinking maybe I am just being that fan, maybe I am just upset that the game I loved got a lower score. But this shows me that the scores truly have no merit, as there is no separation in quality with these three games, and if the reviews are to somehow suggest which game would be more universally loved, as opposed to merely the quality, then how can it be someone's subjective review? Do I know all the answers, nope. I just see these issues, and the more I see gamers relying on Metacritic and scores as opposed to reviews, it is clear something needs to change, this is why so many good games get overlooked. A gamer is more likely to buy a game they have little interest in, so long as the reviews are good, they then sadly miss out on the game they may truly love, all because it's scores were lower. See me as an entitled gamer if you choose to, but I see this as an issue that is keeping many gamers away from experiences they would love. Gamers trust reviews, they use them to make sure they can spend their hard-earned cash wisely. I think too many gaming critics forget their responsibility to the reader, due to having to justify some silly number that really means nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment