Critics today Is really biased, in my opinin. Sites and magazines are all about how a game looks, how long It takes to be beaten, how content filled Is, how glorious are the production values etc.
On the other hand, Little attention Is dedicated to how a game works, how Is mechanically designed, how Is supposed to challenge and/or entertain the player, how the gameplay Is designed and why Is so.
This Is the reason why I have a hard time to read review. I have a handful of italian (I'm italian of course) and american videogame journalist that I follow because they deeply value what I think is worth to value in a videogame, but that's It.
And, of course, different elements of these sorts can inform whether someone is interested and can be worth noting in different ways. Many people obviously care about graphical fidelity, game length, content quantity -- and the ways these are talked about can help inform people beyond that.
And, unfortunately, an apparently significant portion of the reviews' readerbase isn't going to care about, nor perhaps recognice, some of those core design-related discussions.
That's assuming, also, that the reviewers in question possess the knowledge base and subsequent ability to discuss these different components, which is, itself, not a guarantee. They might attempt to address it, still, suggesting whether they found a title fun or such, but without being able to dissect the particulars.
And all that information can be particularly helpful. Sometimes, yeah, you just have to find the people who care about and will consider the same things as you.
That said, while this distinction can be good to keep in mind, I'm not certain as to its current relevance:
A reminder that gameplay performance is a completely different discussion to whether a game has top notch graphics or not.
Games can target the Switch and have still have stellar performance: look at Mario Odyssey. Absolutely flawless performance throughout, and that game isn't exactly lacking in big setpiece moments or expansive levels.
Platinum have known the specs of the Switch since day one. The debate about whether Bayonetta 3 would look better on PS5 or Xbox is separate to the debate about whether they have managed to tailor the game's performance to the Switch's specs.
This is the relevant portion of the text:
in an unfortunate way, it also highlighted an issue that’s been front of mind for many Switch owners as of late – the Nintendo Switch is showing its age
While not totally a fault of the game, my brief time with Bayonetta 3 showed that some concessions had to be made to get it running consistently. While the core combat runs at 60 frames per second (FPS), the cutscenes and cinematics are set at 30FPS. The transitions can often come off as jarring, and what’s worse is how the visuals and textures have a blurriness to them.
During this preview, I was playing exclusively on a monitor with the Nintendo Switch in docked mode. While the gameplay flows incredibly well running at 60FPS, it did look a bit washed in motion. Of course, these issues are increasingly more common with Switch games, which is a bummer to see.
What's written seems to indicate that the performance itself (for the portion they've played; certainly this could be impacted at various points in the full game, but this is the information provided) is actually really good, that "the gameplay flows incredibly well running at 60FPS" and that the big complaint is "the visuals and textures" -- which, again, can have a place to be mentioned if deemed important, but that can lead to murky territory.
In addition, Platinum's games have been known to have wonky performance for a while now. Their gameplay design is top notch, but they really struggle to make a game that runs at a consistent locked framerate without dips, screen tearing or chugs. Gameplay performance does matter, especially with fast paced action games. If you watched a film on Netflix and it kept dropping frames every minute or so, you can bet people would get upset over it.
This, though, would indicate that any such concerns wouldn't highlight the problem of aging Switch hardware, which would change the framing and course of discussion. However, those don't even seem to be the concerns that are raised.
And a consistent pattern of such might be worth pointing out where performance is mentioned.
Journos commenting on the game's performance isn't a personal insult to Nintendo or anything like that
I do feel this should be highlighted, though. The years have heated various tensions and led to people expecting particular sorts of statements in discourse -- with the understanding that those statements are meant to be derisive. There can be a lot of hyperbole involved and in response, but the existence of criticism itself won't necessarily point to any nefarious intent.
In this particular case, any agenda in this framing seems to be a desire for new hardware to play with, which maybe didn't fit as well here as the writer and editorial assumed.
