Random Thoughts

[SliverOfSand]

Do you think the video game industry puts way too much focus on Metacritic?

I was talking with a friend of mine today. He mainly writes about the film industry but he said something of interest to me today.

"Remember those pre-social media days when people into genre cinema didn't care what other people thought and when we didn't need IMDB or box office numbers to judge a genre film's quality? I probably miss that more than anything."

And it got me to thinking about the video game industry in general and how both fans and those in the industry put way too much focus on Metacritic scores because the higher your score is, the more likely your game will sell.

It got me to thinking, was it ever different? Before social media, it was video game magazines and what not, but did it matter less back then than it does now? Have we always dependent on score? Are we too dependent on score?

I've said here a few times before that I miss days of AA games because AA games were where developers tried the most interesting of things. Where as AAA has become so bloated and so samey in many regards that it feels like we haven't had a genuine new idea in a long time as we just keep doing the same type of games over and over.

I don't know, I guess I'm asking did the reliance on Metacritic fuck things up?

I think that there have always been rating systems for entertainment. There are always reviews for something, an opinion about the latest movie, TV show, or play. Although, 20 or 30 years ago rating systems and reviews were more for the industry than for the general public. It was almost like at an art exhibit, where the general public goes and enjoys what they like, and they have no idea what sort of criticism the artist may have received from a journalist or critic. The general public usually forms it’s own opinions on things, mostly because they don’t really know about the art industry or where to find reviews.

These days though, with the internet, anyone can look something up and the first thing on their screen is a metacritic score. Suddenly, they already have other people’s opinions that affect their own. And in a world where people want the best results as fast as possible, the reviews and opinions of other people can tell them what’s worth their time and what’s not.

It seems a lot of people these days don’t want to take the time to form their own opinions on things. That’s why there’s suddenly so much weight put on metacritic scores. Because now, a bad score can mean the end of studios or companies, because people will take 5 seconds to look up the movie or game on the internet rather than risk their time and money to try it for themselves.

A recent example that comes to my mind is Balan Wonderworld. Sure, it’s definitely not on the level of Nintendo games, but it’s not unplayable. The demo seemed to rub people the wrong way, and then people on social media started ranting about it, and soon it seemed everyone had a negative opinion about it. I’m not saying their opinion is wrong, I just think there is a problem in having that hive mentality. There were people who formed negative opinions about the game only based on what other people said. They hadn’t tried playing the game themselves, and yet they already decided that it was a bad game. Even all that is fine, but that’s where the scores come in. People who might be interested in a game look to the internet first, and then they see all this negative press and an opinion is already ‘given’ to them. So a month after it released, it went on sale, and in general underperformed globally. That could mean the end for Balan Company, since, like was said before, big companies like Square Enix are mostly risk-averse.

So long story short, I don’t think it’s solely metacritics fault for big companies being less experimental and creative; it’s because the internet allows people to state their opinions for everyone to see, which snowballs and makes it harder for people in any industry to be successful with new and creative ideas, because people now have higher standards than ever.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

I think that there have always been rating systems for entertainment. There are always reviews for something, an opinion about the latest movie, TV show, or play. Although, 20 or 30 years ago rating systems and reviews were more for the industry than for the general public. It was almost like at an art exhibit, where the general public goes and enjoys what they like, and they have no idea what sort of criticism the artist may have received from a journalist or critic. The general public usually forms its own opinions on things, mostly because they don’t know about the art industry or where to find reviews.

These days though, with the internet, anyone can look something up and the first thing on their screen is a Metacritic score. Suddenly, they already have other people’s opinions that affect their own. And in a world where people want the best results as fast as possible, the reviews and opinions of other people can tell them what’s worth their time and what’s not.

It seems a lot of people these days don’t want to take the time to form their own opinions on things. That’s why there’s suddenly so much weight put on Metacritic scores. Because now, a bad score can mean the end of studios or companies, because people will take 5 seconds to look up the movie or game on the internet rather than risk their time and money to try it for themselves.

A recent example that comes to my mind is Balan Wonderworld. Sure, it’s not on the level of Nintendo games, but it’s not unplayable. The demo seemed to rub people the wrong way, and then people on social media started ranting about it, and soon it seemed everyone had a negative opinion about it. I’m not saying their opinion is wrong, I just think there is a problem in having that hive mentality. Some people formed negative opinions about the game only based on what other people said. They hadn’t tried playing the game themselves, and yet they already decided that it was a bad game. Even all that is fine, but that’s where the scores come in. People who might be interested in a game look to the internet first, and then they see all this negative press, and an opinion is already ‘given’ to them. So a month after it was released, it went on sale, and in general, underperformed globally. That could mean the end for Balan Company, since, like was said before, big companies like Square Enix are mostly risk-averse.

So long story short, I don’t think it’s solely meta critics fault for big companies being less experimental and creative; it’s because the internet allows people to state their opinions for everyone to see, which snowballs and makes it harder for people in any industry to be successful with new and creative ideas. After all, people now have higher standards than ever.

Well said. What baffles me though is that we have trailers airing every day on YouTube. We have "Let's Plays" on various streaming platforms which could be used to conclude whether a video game is right for you or not. Then again, I guess you already answered that quandary when you stated people are impatient.

I concluded that Balan Wonderland was not for me because of the gameplay videos I watched. Not because some internet personality told me so. I wish more users would adopt that approach. Sorry for my arrogant bragging as I did not mean to toot my own horn. However, your point is absolutely solid that I could not resist responding.

 

[SliverOfSand]

Well said. What baffles me though is that we have trailers airing every day on YouTube. We have "Let's Plays" on various streaming platforms which could be used to conclude whether a video game is right for you or not. Then again, I guess you already answered that quandary when you stated people are impatient.

I concluded that Balan Wonderland was not for me because of the gameplay videos I watched. Not because some internet personality told me so. I wish more users would adopt that approach. Sorry for my arrogant bragging as I did not mean to toot my own horn. However, your point is absolutely solid that I could not resist responding.

Gameplay videos are an amazing way to decide whether or not you want to spend the money on a game. Like you pointed out, it’s a shame that people don’t want to spend that much time watching them.

I also didn’t mean to say that people who haven’t played Balan Wonderworld don’t have a right to their own opinion; like you said, some people do research and know when a game is not for them. I just wish more people would take the time to form an opinion based on their personal experiences or preferences, and not jump on the bandwagon of popular opinion.

It’s a similar situation with Shenmue 3. People who are interested just have to search up Shenmue 3 on YouTube and the first result they get is a negative and (in my opinion) clickbaity video with millions of views. The video itself has been discussed to death, so I’m not going to get into it, but what was interesting to me is that a lot of the people in the comments of that video haven’t played the game and probably never will, they just watch that person’s videos. That has an impact on someone who might be thinking of playing it. If they see all those negative comments, they might just pass on it. And even if they do try it out, their experience is already dampened by the opinions they saw before playing. Of course, that doesn’t go for everyone, many people do try and make their own opinions without relying on the internet, but even if that’s every second person, it still impacts sales, which impacts whether or not a studio stays open.

That’s why when I research games that I potentially want to play, I’ll look at what the game itself is, and take the review scores with a grain of salt. Because lately I’ve found that a lot of games I like are games that didn’t do too well on metacritic. I think that people shouldn’t let other people‘s opinions ruin games they might enjoy.

 

[Mittens2317]

I will always disagree with the notion that videos of let's plays or whatever are the best way to judge whether or not you'll like a game. I'll say it til my dying breath, but video games are an interactive medium. The number of times I've been suckered in by interesting aesthetics only to be bored shitless, or shunned a game coz it does look dire, but ends up being a positively unforgettable experience is truly Ludacris with cornrows.

Demos aren't always the best, no, and games in the long run apparently miss out on sales due to their release [citation needed], but they - or a vertical slice-like alternative - are much better than just sitting there watching someone play. Hell, I'd argue that cinematic trailers are better than gameplay videos, as you know it's just trying to convey the feeling and tone rather than giving someone the false, deluded impression that they know if they'll love the game or if they'd hate it.

Fuck first level demos off, and give us a hop, skip, and a jump within a test level, accompanied by a traditional trailer at the end. Job done. Everybody wins.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

I will always disagree with the notion that videos of let's play or whatever is the best way to judge whether or not you'll like a game. I'll say it till my dying breath, but video games are an interactive medium. The number of times I've been suckered in by interesting aesthetics only to be bored shitless, or shunned a game coz it does look dire, but ends up being a positively unforgettable experience is truly Ludacris with cornrows.

Demos aren't always the best, no, and games, in the long run, miss out on sales due to their release [citation needed], but they - or a vertical slice-like alternative - are much better than just sitting there watching someone play. Hell, I'd argue that cinematic trailers are better than gameplay videos, as you know it's just trying to convey the feeling and tone rather than giving someone the false, deluded impression that they know if they'll love the game or if they'd hate it.

Fuck first-level demos off, and give us a hop, skip, and a jump within a test level, accompanied by a traditional trailer at the end. Job done. Everybody wins.

I would agree with you if there wasn't one simple problem. Unless you want to pirate a game, not every title comes out with a demo. It's either you buy the game or you don't. So when there is not any middle ground what is a consumer supposed to do?

 

[Mittens2317]

I would agree with you if there wasn't one simple problem. Unless you want to pirate a game, not every title comes out with a demo. It's either you buy the game or you don't. So when there is not any middle ground what is a consumer supposed to do?

Just watch the trailers. Let's Plays are like judging a painting based on a thumbnail on your phone as you scroll through Google Images. A trailer, at the very least, is like a press release for said painting.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

Just watch the trailers. Let's Plays are like judging a painting based on a thumbnail on your phone as you scroll through Google Images. A trailer, at the very least, is like a press release for said painting.

And how is this any different from watching some gameplay? Also, it's not above game developers and/or publishers to mislead the consumer.

 

[Mittens2317]

And how is this any different from watching some gameplay? Also, it's not above game developers and/or publishers to mislead the consumer.

How is something that isn't a game different from something that is a game? Is that what you're asking?

Look, if it's a cinematic trailer, it's more than likely showing off parts of cut-scenes and snippets of scripted gameplay free from GUI elements from camera angles that aren't used. The latter is just to meld the two and communicate that, yes, this is advertising a video game. The former though is exactly what you'll experience.

At no point in watching a let's play are you solving a puzzle, exploring a different area, hitting the block button in time, making your character wear a funny hat. There's a disconnect in its ability to accurately portray any of the experience it's attempting to show you.

Cinematic trailers, again, are there for tone and feel. You sit on your arse watching and hearing it the same way you would the cut scenes. They're the same. Let's plays and gameplay are not.

And on top of that, the streamers that make money off this shit are deplorable, imo. They're using other peoples content. At least with a DJ the license fee is paid and people get to enjoy the piece as intended.

Video game streaming would be a most welcome sight in tomorrow's obituaries.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

How is something that isn't a game different from something that is a game? Is that what you're asking?

Look, if it's a cinematic trailer, it's more than likely showing off parts of cut-scenes and snippets of scripted gameplay free from GUI elements from camera angles that aren't used. The latter is just to meld the two and communicate that, yes, this is advertising a video game. The former though is exactly what you'll experience.

At no point in watching a let's play are you solving a puzzle, exploring a different area, hitting the block button in time, making your character wear a funny hat. There's a disconnect in its ability to accurately portray any of the experiences it's attempting to show you.

Cinematic trailers, again, are there for tone and feel. You sit on your arse watching and hearing it the same way you would the cut scenes. They're the same. Let's play and gameplay is not.

And on top of that, the streamers that make money off this shit are deplorable, IMO. They're using other people's content. At least with a DJ, the license fee is paid and people get to enjoy the piece as intended.

Video game streaming would be a most welcome sight in tomorrow's obituaries.

No. You criticized me for stating that seeing someone else playing the game does not mean that your experience will be the same. I agreed partially with you that if every game had a demo that would render Let's Players null and void. Since not every game offers a demo, what would be the middle ground.

Your reply was a cinematic cutscene and/or trailer. My issue with that was that trailers can be purposefully misleading whether done by the developer and/or publisher. I agree that watching a Let's Play video cannot replicate your own experience playing a game, but it at least gives you an idea of what you are in for.

Also, not every Let's Player is trying to monetize their videos. Some do it because they love the titles they play and want to share that with the rest of the world.

 

[Mittens2317]

I criticised the general idea of it, not you. Don't take it so personally.

Cinematic trailers may not be a perfect representation of the game, but they don't trick your mind into thinking it has a good idea of how the game plays.

As for people who do Let's Plays, whether they make money off it or not doesn't really matter, it's not theirs. It's worse than pirating, imo.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

I criticized the general idea of it, not you. Don't take it so personally.

Cinematic trailers may not be a perfect representation of the game, but they don't trick your mind into thinking it has a good idea of how the game plays.

As for people who do Let's Plays, whether they make money off it or not doesn't matter, it's not theirs. It's worse than pirating, limo.

I apologize as I did not intend for my previous post to come off as defensive. In either case, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I did enjoy my debate with you though.

 

[red]

tried booking an appointment with the dentist. i guess covid has messed everything up because i'm looking at 6weeks before they can see me. luckily im not desperate to see them yet.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

With all the Malware, Doxxing, Hacking, and Data Breaches that occur every second, I wonder why anyone still believes in the online disinhibition effect or more colloquially dubbed "The Internet Jerkwad Theory" and that is not even getting into what the NSA is doing.

 

[Mittens2317]

With all the Malware, Doxxing, Hacking, and Data Breaches that occur every second, I wonder why anyone still believes in the online disinhibition effect or more colloquially dubbed "The Internet Jerkwad Theory" and that is not even getting into what the NSA is doing.

You mean you don't think people feel a sense of detachment on the Internet, thus leading to language and behaviours that differ from their "irl" selves?

 

[Nathanial Essex]

If there is one specific food item left on the shopping shelf, does anyone feel weird about taking it? I went to the grocery store this morning and on the list of things to get was fresh orange juice. There was one carton left in the fridge and I didn't take it. Thought about it, tried to convince myself that I was just lucky to get the last one as opposed to something being wrong with it but I simply couldn't bring myself to taking it.

Got a smoothie instead.

 

[red]

If there is one specific food item left on the shopping shelf, does anyone feel weird about taking it? I went to the grocery store this morning and on the list of things to get was fresh orange juice. There was one carton left in the fridge and I didn't take it. Thought about it, tried to convince myself that I was just lucky to get the last one as opposed to something being wrong with it but I simply couldn't bring myself to taking it.

Got a smoothie instead.

lol yes sometimes because you never know if the product is damaged or just some shop worker found it back behind a dirty shelf and just stuck it on display. i did buy a small bottle of sprite (fizzy lemonade) from a supermarket petrol station once but it was over a year out of date and it tasted like dishwater. i was quite angry and i took it back but they barely apologized now i always check best-before dates on food items & make sure the product seals are not broken.

 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Similar thing happened to me in HS; I would get a larger-sized bottle of Pepsi (I think it was 750 ML, as opposed to the standard 580 ML or whatever) and after the second sip, it would always go flat.

After about a month of this (every weekend, only), I noticed the best before date and it was 3 months after BB. Now, I check every single bottle or can of anything, from pop, to Perrier, to Bubbly, etc.; not taking a chance anymore lol

 

[BloodyHeartland]

I always always always check expiration dates after some of the stores I’ve worked for. You don’t know how long it’s been sitting on a pallet in the back room, nor whether the person stocking the product even bothered to rotate them.

 

[Nathanial Essex]

I'm always checking expiry dates when I'm getting something from a local shop. I used to work in a supermarket and when checking for out of date products, the worst section to do was the cheese. Very difficult to get to the item at the back without removing items, hands would get cold and worst of all, their would hardly be any waste products because of the expiry dates are typically quite long.

Because of this, people would not check the cheese properly. Even worse, because it was difficult to take the blocks out, when stocking the cheese people would seldom bring the old ones forward and stock the newer ones to the back. This was all on the poor assumption they would be purchased before going out of date.

Long story short, a customer complained of mouldy cheese that was at least 3 months out of date. Checking the shelves, there was like 30 or so blocks of cheese gone all mouldy at the back of the fridge.

 

[Tsukuyomimagi99]

Ever since the dawn of entertainment, there have been "good" stories and "bad" ones. Never was there a "Golden Age" only the "bad" stories were filtered out and the "good" stories persevered (much like history). So why is it so easy for older adults to romanticize the past? Nostalgia is quite a double-edged sword.