Ever feel critic's reviews are just too.......picky?

Okay, now before I start this I just want to clarify I AM NOT SAYING I'M AN AMAZING CRITIC OR THAT MY TASTE IS BETTER.

I recently played through Assassins Creed III: Liberation, and I noticed none of the technical problems that many critics complained of. The game never slowed to a crawl, sure it stuttered but that was only when I WAS REALLY REALLY LOOKING FOR IT. As for bland textures? bland textures? did they look at everything else! This game is visually unlike anything I have ever seen on a handheld console. It's really quite amazing. There were times when I would just pan the camera around and think to myself what a wonderfu......oh no wait sorry.... that this could easily be a PS3 game (lowish end I admit)

As for the story, well I can understand their remarks, it's not so much disjointed and perhaps 'unjointed' (especially in the beginning). However, it didn't bother me. I was having far to good of a time to care, and even when I did go "wait...but that was like nothing with that thing before....ummm" I didn't actually care as...you guessed it...I was having too much of a good time.

I've seen this problem with other titles. I have found reviews to be so so picky, sometimes highliting 'problems' that I don't even notice. I understand that these reviews are made by professionals but surely they have the same eyes as me! I would reccomend ACL to a friend without a doubt as, for me, it is a really great game! Ubisoft have made an amazing game, to make it on a portable is simply an engineering feat.

I just wanted to know if anyone else has had similar experiences as this?

Anyways...speaking of disjointed (as well as a grammatical abomination)....this rant is getting long. I understand that this post may need to be moved to the Vita section but as it is both a commentary on the game and on general reviews I thought it would be okay to leave it here.

Cheers

I feel like this thread was made recently.

I honestly think most video game reviews aren't harsh enough.

Two replies in and no mention of Jim Sterling?

I know what you mean about the bland textures remark. That seems to be the go to complaint that every reviewer uses when they can't think of anything else! I think they teach them that in game reviews 101. Who the hell decides on a game purchase by the blandness of textures anyway?

Nope, they're getting paid to critically analyze a product. My interaction with video games is recreational. Different mindsets.

Don't take this as a endorsement of all reviewers from professional outlets of course.

They're not picky enough.

"9/10 - It's alright"

@believer258: Some would say too recently.

No but people put too much stock into what reviewers say or the number they throw at a game.

@MariachiMacabre said:

Two replies in and no mention of Jim Sterling?

The less we mention him, the better.

@Unilad said:

I have found reviews to be so so picky, sometimes highliting 'problems' that I don't even notice.

There's your problem: they're noticing things you didn't. Everybody notices different things.

The problem with that is sometimes reviewers don't get any bugs and some get a truck load of bugs.

THIS IS SUPER IGNORANT....but what's up with Jim Sterling?

I've slowly gotten away from reading reviews because I rely on others opinions of games before I buy it. Now don't think I'm reading one review and taking that as my immediate decision maker. I read one review then another review from someone else, then ask friends what they think of it. Then if the good mostly outweighs the bad then I'll usually buy it. Sometimes I'll just buy a game anyways off of a whim. I've noticed some triple A titles get amazing reviews from everyone in the industry, then one other professional reviewer decides that he should be different and search for miniscule problems and make them into a massive deal. From that, it can make someone believe it's terrible in every aspect. It makes me wonder if he's genuinely thinking on his own about the game or striving to be noticed so bashes the title in every single way.

People have different quality benchmarks than others. What might not bother you could be a deal breaker for someone else. Reviewers sound picky because they are picky. It's their job to be picky. And it's their job to point out frame rate dips and ugly textures, because someone out there is going to care.

Not to mention they play everything on day 1, if not day -7 or something: before all the inevitable patches come out.

Also, anyone who plays that many games, especially as part of their job, is bound to get a little choosy over them.

Most reviewers cater to an audience, if they know their crowd well enough they'll make sure to note things they'll know their audience will notice.

This thread is a 7/10 - Would read again.

I always simply keep in mind the tastes in games of a given reviewer before hand.

You don't go to say, Zero Punctuation to see if a fighting game is good.

I just feel bad for Ubisoft. Not as a major corporation, but for the individual engineers and designers who have work hard for a long time to create this game only to have some guy to say its poor. I mean, I understand that some games are just bad, made by people who don't care, but that is the minority.

I feel these incredibly talented and qualified engineer's and designer's work can simply be dismissed by a frankly far less skilled individual. I'm sorry, but this is my opinion. I go on youtube, I look at reviews made by some users and they are equally thorough (and frankly less annoying and in some cases less arrogant) that a lot of the gaming websites. I guess I'm just going to stop reading reviews and listen to my friends.

I'm not saying that some games don't deserve harsh reviews, and I'm not saying that game critics should run and hide in the mountains, but I just think sometimes they can make a review more negative to create this artificial island of individuality amongst a sea of reviews.

Sometimes it just pisses me of.

These guys make games for us, the everyday game player, to play and hopefully enjoy. I really enjoyed ACIII liberation and I think the production team did an amazing job.

@Unilad said:

I just feel bad for Ubisoft. Not as a major corporation, but for the individual engineers and designers who have work hard for a long time to create this game only to have some guy to say its poor. I mean, I understand that some games are just bad, made by people who don't care, but that is the minority.

I feel these incredibly talented and qualified engineer's and designer's work can simply be dismissed by a frankly far less skilled individual. I'm sorry, but this is my opinion. I go on youtube, I look at reviews made by some users and they are equally thorough (and frankly less annoying and in some cases less arrogant) that a lot of the gaming websites. I guess I'm just going to stop reading reviews and listen to my friends.

Sometimes it just pisses me of.

"Well, I didn't enjoy your game at all, but you worked real hard on it so good job guys! Pat on the back."

Their obligation is to be too picky. If I wanted to have an uninformed discussion about something with other people who aren't capable or interested in being too picky about things, I'd just end up sitting around the water cooler with a bunch of fist-bumpers in ties talking about Scary Movie 4 or Meet the Spartans and what a laugh riot those films were.

It should be understood that when a reviewer is reviewing your thing, they are being extra critical about it, but that readers are also consuming it with the understanding that not every negative is significant, even if it is worth pointing it out in the review.

@Dr_Ventum said:

I always simply keep in mind the tastes in games of a given reviewer before hand.

You don't go to say, Zero Punctuation to see if a fighting game is good.

I watch Zero Punctuation to laugh.

@Unilad said:

@Dr_Ventum said:

I always simply keep in mind the tastes in games of a given reviewer before hand.

You don't go to say, Zero Punctuation to see if a fighting game is good.

I watch Zero Punctuation to laugh.

Most do.

@Dr_Ventum: You don't go to Zero Punctuation to see if any game is good. That show is for entertainment, not to be taken as a purchasing advice.

@Unilad: I'm sorry dude, but you're just kind of coming off as being salty that you liked a game the critic's didn't. No matter how shoddy, misguided or crass, something as large scale as most video games, there's going to be at least one person who worked hard on it. Doesn't make the game any better, or mean it should be given slack.

@Alkaiser said:

I honestly think most video game reviews aren't harsh enough.

That's basically how I feel about it.

Accuracy is my issue, but I get it. Too many games way too fast is the culprit for most paid reviewers. It's mostly a time thing imo. Check users to be sure is a better barometer usually.

@Alkaiser said:

I honestly think most video game reviews aren't harsh enough.

Stole my exact words. There are definite times where they can be extremely nit picky and exaggerate flaws, but more often then not I feel they gloss over problems far too easily.

@Unilad said:

THIS IS SUPER IGNORANT....but what's up with Jim Sterling?

Nothing is. He's one of the better reviewers out there. People just hate him because he doesn't share the common opinion on most things.

@GrantHeaslip said:

I do sometimes wonder what it must feel like to be, say, a programmer or artist who worked on game they felt was quality, suffered through crunch time, and emerged from it only to hear critics tear the game up. I don't mean to say the critics shouldn't be critical — I'd expect nothing less, and I'm sure game developers do too — but the reality is people are more emotional than rational, especially coming out of a crappy period in their life.

Yeah right. I lot of these dudes are super qualified and have worked hard, and I do wonder (especially with the news we keep hearing of companies crashing) how these reviews effect these dudes. I feel that some of these reviewers hold themselves in such fucking high regard and can be so arrogant.

Some are great however.

Reviewers seem to be much more nitpicky and critical on podcasts than they do in their actual reviews.

Yeah. A lot of my gripes tend to be with things other than graphics though, especially controls. I am pretty dextrous when it comes to controls, and I feel like what a lot of reviewers call "clunky" controls, I adapt to them so well and find them quite engaging.

@kishinfoulux said:

@Unilad said:

THIS IS SUPER IGNORANT....but what's up with Jim Sterling?

Nothing is. He's one of the better reviewers out there. People just hate him because he doesn't share the common opinion on most things.

otherwise known as trolling

Sometimes. And then sometimes they're not picky enough. And then there are the reviews that completely trash the game, and score it as a nine out of ten. Opinions are subjective, and scores are arbitrary.

No, I want reviewers to do their best to rip games to shreds. I will then read the review and see if any of the problems they found are things that would bother me. I'm not looking for overall impressions from any review. Just want to know what's good, what's bad, and value proposition (length/replayability).

@PHenry1991 said:

Sometimes. And then sometimes they're not picky enough. And then there are the reviews that completely trash the game, and score it as a nine out of ten. Opinions are subjective, and scores are arbitrary.

That's the long and the short of it. Reviewing is an inexact practice. I know from personal experience that there are games I love, which I would recommend to anyone, but with which I could fill pages and pages of text by listing minor flaws and niggles. There are other games which I find boring and hard to recommend, simply because they lack character, but which are executed well and lack real examples of tangible flaws.

In general, though, I don't think there is enough negativity in the gaming press by a long chalk.

Well its their job to be critical and nit pick even the smallest of things b/c there may someone who cares about something like texture quality so they have to bring it up. Obviously things like story or character development can be a bit subjective but on the whole, I'd rather a review be nit picky than be too generous.

I only use reviews as a quick reference, I never let them dictate my purchase. Though there are some reviewers I trust more so than others, a lot of times I find that high reviews are governed by things like publisher power, how much hype or popularity a game has etc....instead of the actual quality of the game it's self. But reviews are subjective so in the end it doesn't matter.

@Carousel said:

They're not picky enough.

"9/10 - It's alright"

See: Cliffy B getting pissed off at 8/10 scores for Gears 3.

What is the purpose of a critic if not to criticize? That said reviewers have a tendency to get butthurt if they suck badly at a game and are also quite pedantic; but both of these things are highly amusing when viewed through the right lens.

I propose that critics be less harsh of games.

"oh, the frame rate dropped a bit... but it's ok, they tried their best and that's what mattered." - 9/10 good effort

I think the problem is more the way scores are perceived in gaming. Anything below 8 is seen as bad, while probably most games above 6 can give you some amount of entertainment. Critics are supposed to point out all the flaws and rank games accordingly, doesn't mean you can't enjoy a lower scoring game. It all depends on what kinds of things in games bother you personally. Some of my favorite games are lukewarm reviewed games. Examples: Nier, Alpha Protocol. I can recognize the flaws in those games and don't disagree with the scores, but I still had a ton of fun playing them.

If you look at movies, people understand the difference between a critically acclaimed movie and just entertaining movies way better. In games they somehow have to overlap all the time.

@Unilad said:

I just feel bad for Ubisoft. Not as a major corporation, but for the individual engineers and designers who have work hard for a long time to create this game only to have some guy to say its poor. I mean, I understand that some games are just bad, made by people who don't care, but that is the minority.

I'd be willing to argue that the majority of people are passionate and care about what they put so much of their occupational life into, particularly when working creatively. No one wants to make a bad game, but shit happens.

Unfortunately media criticism is an aspect of life, both from a consumer-buying decision perspective and from a critical/academic perspective. What is the point of producing something that is meaningful to our society if it isn't both appreciated and scrutinized?

I think a lot of reviewers are too generous, fans are too picky.

my 2 cents.

As others have said, sometimes I feel they are not picky enough. I have definitely seen the examples of reviewers trying to be extra harsh in order to seems like they are "against the system", but most cases reviewers are extra forgiving.

At the end of the day, reviews are nothing but opinions by knowledgeable people. Don't feel bad for having a different opinion...

No, they're not too picky. Games are not stagnant - everyone runs into a different version of every game. Bugs and glitches are just one of those things that make games special. The more bugs I experience in a game, the more annoying, generally, each bug becomes. So if I run into to 50 and you run into 5 then maybe my review reads as picky to you.

Graphics are where the pickyness happiness. Where reviewers need to be more picky is with things like story. In today's games having a story is basically having a great story. It's funny because this is actually where reviewers could flex their muscles. As much as anybody in games criticism thinks they know graphics, animation and systems, they most often really don't know shit. That's why so many vague, generalized remarks are made. And why so many "easier-said-than-done" statements show up in game reviews, ex: framerate whining.

I think the way many games are going now a days, critics have to be more critical.

Some games get beaten down for 'using a mechanic similar to another title'. Others get praised to heaven for 'making clever use of mechanics similar to another title.'
 
All about taste.

This reminds me of that one time I said to myself: "Maybe I'll watch a TotalBiscuit video to see what the fuss is about". I fired up his Prototype 2 video and he proceeded to complain about the low quality of the texture of the rear side of a newsstand that was facing the wall, since it was not up to the PC standard. I stopped the video immediately afterwards, swearing never to watch such bullshit ever again.

But not counting him, most critics are pretty lax, generally speaking. They range from "OK" to "too lenient", but I much rather have someone who is able to see the bigger picture of what a game has to offer than someone who loses his shit because a texture is too low res for PC.

I have to side with the press on this one, that game is technically fucked. The frame rate is so terribly low and the graphics are really bland.

That being said, yes it's a handheld game and yes it's impressive, but I think they should be punished for biting off more than they could chew graphically. Maybe they should have stylized them to give it a more interesting art-look plus save some polygons. That technique has worked for years which is why I find the obsession with realistic graphics in games to be annoying as hell. Especially on a handheld. I don't expect it on one, and frankly I don't need them to enjoy a game. Especially if the end result actually makes the game play that much of a slog.