I must not understand some games

[AlastorSword]

Personally I was never interested in Skyrim enough to just sit down and play it. It just doesn't look very interesting on the surface or worth my monthly fee. I know that's like judging a book by its cover (and I get that it's unfair and all) but something just tells me I'm not going to like it like Vindictus or even the new A Relm Reborn. Maybe I'll give it a chance someday...

 

[Dark Drakan]

Compare Skyrim to Oblivion, perhaps especially with the Dark Brotherhood questline, and you will see Oblivion is a clear winner. That's just a fact.

I thought the missions were more varied in Oblivions Dark brotherhood questline but thought the actual plotline for it in Skyrim was better. Again there are some things in both that are improved on each other but for the most part I found more improvements in Skyrim overall. If you are going to compare them score wise they both scored an average of the exact same amount which in my experience is about right based on pros and cons of each. Gamers themselves actually voted Skyrim the better of the 2 and most of its awards were voted for by gamers.

Personally I was never interested in Skyrim enough to just sit down and play it. It just doesn't look very interesting on the surface or worth my monthly fee.

There is no monthly fee for Skyrim you are thinking of The Elder Scrolls Online.

Doesn't mean much because they've already bought it.

The review is in a position to get it to sell. ​

If you want to base your decision on what someone else has enjoyed yeah, I dont however buy games purely on review scores or even if a reviewer said it was the best game ever created. I will always either play a demo or do my own research and make my own mind up, if they have been positive about aspects that appeal to me then that may sway my final decision if I have been unsure either way but they do not sell it to me.

I don't think anyone should buy or rent every game just to see if they like it or not, that's wasteful.

Agreed most of us dont have the cash for that, me included. However there are plenty of hands on impressions that come out before a game release and also (in most cases) a demo of some sort to get a basic feel for the game and its mechanics. I always read countless impressions articles and watch videos before a game is released to see if I MAY like it, sometimes I have liked the look but not enjoyed full game but thats risk you take.

What's unfair is if someone hasn't tried the game & they're praising it or bashing it with no intentions of ever getting it.

Couldnt agree more with that, no need to bash things you have no interest in. I would even go a step further and say I dont see why others bash/belittle people for liking something they do not and vice versa. People should just leave it be, everyone has their own taste and thats what makes us unique from each other.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think people waste way too much of their gaming life arguing opinions with others and the us vs them attitude against the gaming media (Gamespot/IGN etc), game developers/publishers (EA/Activision/Ninja Theory etc) and rival franchises (CoD/Battlefield/Fifa/Pro Evo/Old DMC/New DmC etc). Wish people merely stuck to enjoying the games they played and if they didnt like them then either dont buy them or if you have based on the opinion of someone else just sell them. I have bought many games over the years on friends recommendations that I havent enjoyed quite as much as them but never once thought to tell them that their taste sucks and try and change their mind or suggest they have been paid off (some are indeed pro reviewers).

By all means suggest improvements for games and your disappointments but when someone pretty much says 'the game sucks' there is little a developer can do to please them when it comes to that particular title. Just have to accept that maybe it isnt for you (if others seem to have rated it highly) if everyone has slated it then maybe the developers should be held accountable but cant please everyone all of the time no matter how good the game is for some. I mean I work on and help run a site for a game series that im not into and dont play (Devil May Cry) it just isnt my taste of game. I have played it but just couldnt get into it, but I most definitely wouldnt say it sucked (obviously), it just isnt for me. I can see why others enjoy it and can see why it has got the fanbase it has but there is very little Capcom or Ninja Theory could do to make it appeal more to me. Im not really a fan of ANY of Capcoms franchises if im honest.

If I were to review it, then my score as a whole would differ from someone who is a fan or enjoyed it. Obviously things like sound & graphics are set in stone and not open to interpretation or taste/preference (unless it has a particular style) but my scores would differ for pros and cons for story and gameplay for example as my preferences and pros and cons would differ from someone elses. However if my score was lower than someone elses and I were a pro reviewer and I put someone off buying it based on my review would that make it any less credible than someone elses who was more positive and enjoyed it? Reviews are recommendations of a product and I wouldnt have recommended it for different reasons than someone who recommended it yet some parts of the review would be the same for things not based on preferences. In some cases I would rather read reviews from people who are fans of a franchise rather than someone who is impartial or not a fan (if im into the franchise too) as our likes/dislikes will be closer than someone who isnt into it. If something in the game is broken or simply doesnt work as well as it should then everyone will see it as a negative no matter if they are a fan or not. I have often read reviews where some negative points weren't negatives in my eyes as my taste preferred them that way and they didnt see things from the same perspective as me. People will have different pros and cons to things that are open to interpretation and taste factors.

 

[Dark Drakan]

2. Yea i agree, doing research & making use of demos are great thing to take advantage of but unfortunately there aren't too many demos that provide enough hands on to help much in a positive way.
A good demo should either make a gamer drool or barf for a game, not lead to more questions.

3. lol That's why subjective is my favorite word.
You can't really argue that's a subjective opinion is wrong when that subjective opinion is what pertains to that individual's tastes.

As long as that subjective opinion doesn't cross into stupidity by insulting everyone's tastes then that individual's opinion can't be wrong.​

4. I totally understand & agree but that's the way gaming world is.
This is better than that, that is better than this, & everyone gets huffy over it.
You can't stop it because of people will always have a difference in opinion & a need to express it, defend it or ridicule others over it.

The best thing, the only thing to do is not get sucked into it.
If someone can't discuss something with a certain level of maturity then SCREW EM!
You present facts or a reasonable point of view & they act like immature apes, SCREW EM!
People will slowly learn it's ridiculous getting huffy over stupidity.
​

Wholeheartedly agree with you there, had some good mature discussions in this thread I have enjoyed it.

 

[AlastorSword]

I don't think that's unfair at all.
It's about appeal, if a game isn't appealing enough to get someone to wanna buy it then it's the fault of marketing.

I don't think anyone should buy or rent every game just to see if they like it or not, that's wasteful.

What's unfair is if someone hasn't tried the game & they're praising it or bashing it with no intentions of ever getting it.
​

Oh? Well I'm glad you agree And yes it is unfair to bash or praise something you never fancied in the first place. (i.e. coattails) The sight of them makes my butt itch!

 

[AlastorSword]

There is no monthly fee for Skyrim you are thinking of The Elder Scrolls Online.

Oh you know what, you're probably right...

 

[Dark Drakan]

I have never and will never pay monthly fees for ANY game, hence the only MMO ive ever played properly is Guild Wars.

 

[Lionheart]

I just think it's ridiculous to suggest that I reviewed Skyrim unfavorably because 'it wasn't to my taste in the first place' or something like that. Skyrim is a lot like Oblivion, and I loved Oblivion, so that argument doesn't make any sense.

What I'm saying is, Skyrim had fewer varied quests than Oblivion, its main questline was uninspired and anticlimactic, its environments are too colorless (even environments like inns), and so on and so forth. You can read my views in my review; if I were to elaborate here it would take like three whole pages. I have given Skyrim just as good a chance as Oblivion. I have been in every location in Skyrim I could find, and done all the quests I could find. Right now, it's still worth a 7/10 for me, while Oblivion would be about an 8.5/10. It seems like more and more RPG developers are saying ''here's five thousand quests that all remind you of the last. Here's twenty thousand quests that involve you defeating the same generic enemy over and over again. Characters? What are those? Here's a huge map with a lot of boring, similar things to do in it!'' Quantity does not equal quality. I'd rather do a quest in which you had to kill a well developed character that had a name, than doing one in which you have to kill 'generic bandit number 50'. Heck, GTA V did it better.

The majority of gamers seem to agree that Skyrim was a good game, but guess what? Many people who read my review agree with it, which is why it's got a star next to its title (recommended). I don't mean to say I'm right about everything, but I think 'the majority of gamers' doesn't mean much. The 'majority of gamers' is the people who play CoD and other shooters, while playing RPGs on the side. Most of them have no experience playing RPGs, and so they have no frame of reference. Others have just started playing video games. Those people don't have experience playing older RPGs. They have little knowledge of what RPGs can look like. And then there's a huge percentage of gamers who just don't want to play a game that holds their attention for more than an hour, because they don't have the time to spend on deep, involving RPGs. Most of that makes them less qualified to review RPGs, and depreciates their review scores. Anyway, to say Skyrim has a believable game world that really pulls you in seems a bit weird to me. Most NPCs have nothing to say to you. Most NPCs can die without it impacting the game (or my feelings, for that matter). The game world itself has little to offer. Due to that, the quests become the most important aspect of Skyrim, and they're simply not as good as in Oblivion. Not as well written, not as deep, not as engaging, not as much filled with marvels.

I'm not going to go into this again, otherwise the thread will go on to eternity. Apparently, people like playing a game that consists of mostly mediocre quests and disappointing loot/rewards and character development. Even my brother agrees with me that Oblivion's quests were written better than Skyrim's, and that Oblivion's better overall. He just started playing it again, disregarding Skyrim completely. Oblivion wasn't excellent either - to play it a third time or so, I need to mod it, giving it more quests and better looking armor (OOO mod). But Skyrim, that's beyond modding. It's the same The Elder Scrolls stuff all over again, only with quests that are all inferior to previous quests. To me, this is more like an adventure game than an RPG.

Reviews are not just recommendations, they're critiques of the product in question. They should not just talk about how much the reviewer loved it, because nobody cares about that. You have to explain why you loved it. Explain your views by rating the sound, graphics, gameplay and plot. And yes, that does involve opinions, but you can't give a game a bad review simply because you didn't like it. Just like you can't give a game a good review because ''you liked it''. You need to show your readers what you find important in games, then attach values (scores or praise) to those points, otherwise they won't know what you mean. Let's say you wanted to know why I gave Skyrim a good score, and I responded with ''Skyrim is a good game''. Would you be satisfied with that answer? Of course not, because it presents no arguments. Because of that, it's a less valuable opinion than a well founded opinion.
Please do read my review.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/615805-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/reviews/review-150200

 

[Lionheart]

I agree with how you're giving Skyrim a wide eyed evaluation of taking in the quality & not letting the quantity obscure & overwhelm your view.

When things like this are said: Gamers themselves actually voted Skyrim the better of the 2 and most of its awards were voted for by gamers.
And a pattern is forming, it makes me wonder are gamers that are diehard fans of a series suffering from shiny new toy syndrome.
Where the next title is be better simply because it's new
.
OMG IT'S BETTER BECAUSE IT'S THE NEW!
If that's the case then any judgement by those individuals shouldn't be taking seriously because it's based on superficial opinion.

And that falls into the category of FUN FACTOR
& FUN FACTOR alone isn't what reviews should solely be based on.

A very good point! There are plenty of people who even literally say they ''would never not buy a new TES game''. So there's an element of brand loyalty involved as well. Some people like Bethesda, and because of that, a sort of placebo effect starts that makes each and every game of theirs seem excellent and 'the most fun I've ever had'. Well, yeah, because your heart had already decided to love it. Now to just find out what your mind thinks, you know?

I think that objectively, Skyrim is inferior to Oblivion, at least in the quests department. Oblivion had all kinds of quests, and many quests were tailored to a wide audience. You had a whodunit (crime) quest, you had kill contracts, you had a quest in which you had to find J'Skar (like hide and seek), or going into a painting to find Rythe Lythandas. To me, that variety is what TES games are about too. So I just can't fathom why people get all giddy because of one of the many quests that tell you to 'kill bandit x in dungeon y'. I can't get too excited about quests that constantly tell you to 'explore these Falmer ruins'. I've done it like fifty times already, and each time, there was the same boss and the same kind of loot. No great, unique weapons with which I can build my character, no interesting enemies, nothing. It can be fun the first time, but it's just not going to cut it for me when it happens more than three times or so.
And like you said, fun factor does not determine quality. If that were the case, puzzle bobble would be a great work of art that's possibly the best game ever. How much fun you have with a game is completely subjective, so it's not something you can base a review on. And that's exactly the problem of many reviews.

 

[Lionheart]

I think that's a great idea, bring back the old school review system & see how these perfect 10s actually stand up.

Rate each aspect
Controls
Sound
Graphics
Story
Fun Factor
Gameplay
music
Then average each score & see how it stands up.
If any of those games get a perfect 10 in each aspect then it's just lying to oneself.

Best thing ever said & 100% true.

Excellent idea! I did something similar in my reviews, where I would give it a review based on the average grade it got for: story, gameplay, graphics, and the soundtrack.
If, say, Fable III got a 5/10 for its story, a 7/10 for its gameplay, an 8.5 for its graphics, and an 8/10 for it soundtrack, there should be no way it can get an 8.5/10 like some reviews give it. Because that would mean they thought every aspect (story etc) was worth an 8/10 or so.

I rated games this way: add up the scores for the aspects, then divide them by the number of aspects there are. So that would be story+gameplay+gameplay+graphics+soundtrack. I'd count gameplay twice because of its importance. Then divide it by five, so that's the average score.

 

[Lionheart]

From now on i'm calling gaming journalists on it.
A 10 huh ? Well did you rate each aspect individually
Controls
Sound
Graphics
Story
Fun Factor
Gameplay
music
THEN get an average score ?
Because obviously you didn't if players are experiencing any of these glitches. ​

I completely agree. To be honest, I find it very odd to give a game a 10/10 at all, unless your opinion somehow weighs in so heavily that you feel you need to raise the grade from a 9.5 or something. I mean, no game is perfect, and to give it a 10/10 means you did not look at it completely objectively. Of course, looking at a game 100% objectively is impossible, but the game would have to be spectacular and like Halley's Comet in terms of greatness if it were to get a 9.5/10 - especially if you raise it to 10/10.

I don't find glitches to be a big deal, and I didn't have any glitches on my version of Skyrim on the PC, but if there are glitches, it can't be a 10/10.

 

[Lionheart]

So GamePro evaluates
Graphics:
Sound:
Controls:
Game Design:
Story:
Replay Value:

Then Overall score:

This a system that should be used now but can't because it's harder for journalists to BS their way through it. ​

Replay value and game design are two things I'd probably leave out of my reviews, since replay value is not what games are made for or strive for, and game design is highly subjective. But what they're doing is definitely going in the right direction. It's sad that so many reviewers of high standing (like IGN) can do such foolish reviews that they give Fable III an 8.5/10 while it's very much inferior to Fable II. They might've chosen the wrong person to review it. Reviews need to be uniform in how they judge games. When some random reviewer takes up the torch from somebody and rates a game very differently from previous installments, this can be a problem.
It's weird, because some reviewers can really advertize things, but sometimes those same people do not. The movie Man of Steel got a 5.5/10 on Metacritic from the critics, but a 7/4/10 from the users. So apparently, the reviewers had no use in making it look like the movie was excellent. Although, there are some that give the movie a 10/10 or 9/10, which is ridiculous. I'd give it a 6/10, no more. When the difference in grades is so great, it seems to me like some reviewers are getting paid off and some are not. That, or they don't know how reviewing works.

 

[Lionheart]

This a system that should be used now but can't because it's harder for journalists to BS their way through it.

Rating game EVEN movies this way would be more accurate & honest. ​

Yeah, I agree. It's not that reviews can't contain opinions, but indeed, they need to be held to a certain standard. If the graphics don't deserve a 10/10 in your opinion, then how can the game get a 10/10? It seems like anybody can write a 'review' nowadays and spout their love OR hate, and go 'now it's a review, so now it holds weight'. Sad times.

 

[Lionheart]

I don't know about leaving out Replay Value or Game design.
If game can be designed where a replay is necessary to get a different end, a change in experience, a second look at everything.
But Replay Value could be Lasting Appeal:

And Game design could cover difficulty, character, environment design.
Things from enemy variety to level design, are the levels or enemies reused.

But see that's why the GamePro review method isn't used & was dropped because it would expose how inferior it is to the previous title.​

Ah, yeah, I see what you mean. Yeah, replay value would probably be important especially for RPGs and online shooters, and yet, you can still count it in the final grade.

And you make a good point. It's very devious, but a very smart way of making sure people buy a game, and also just a way to stay positive. But then, I think they (IGN etc) also make the mistake of picking the wrong reviewer sometimes.