Discussion How to be a good game reviewer + Thoughts

[Narroo]

Let's be honest here; Dunkey is a making a good point. A lot of people on the internet cannot handle things they like being criticized. It's okay to speak shit about things they don't care about, but god forbid you insult something they like, no matter how fairly.

Here's the thing: This affects more than just game reviews. It also affects forums!

If you go into a video game forum with a negative opinion about a game, you'd best be prepared to defend youself! Unless a game is considered unanimously bad, like say Bigs Rigs: Over the Road Racing, you're going to piss someone off and start an argument with a negative opinion.

Think about it: You go into a topic and there's a dozen hyperbolic posts saying "best game ever!". You post "Game's kinda shit," and then you get banned for "shitposting." So instead you spend 20 minutes writing a thoughtful post on why a game is shit, only to get dogpiled by people who just denigrate everything you say with "well that's your opinion," or "I don't care." Usually quite rudely. Try not to argue back to much, or you'll probably get banned. Forums really have a toxic bias towards superficial "positivity."

I think of this as a kind of "toxic positivity." Not in the conventional sense of the word, but more in the sense of "on many forums, it is considered okay to be toxic as long as your opinion is superficially positive." So, if someone comes into a thread with a negative opinion, you can be as much as an asshole as you want to them, while they can barely say boo back without being banned. Because being negative is a bad thing, and being positive is good, right?

Think is extremely unhealthy. Negative opinions are just as valid as positive ones. The concept of "like" makes no sense without it's compliment, "dislike." People naturally want to have their thoughts heard, both negative and positive. And people need to have their opinions valued. This sort of "toxic positivity" confuses superficial positivity with actual positivity, and in doing so creates a whole of negativity and toxicity on the internet. Here's an example:

Years ago on Resetera, there was a launch thread for FFVII remake. One poster wrote a length post about how the original FFVII was one of his favorite games growing up because of the quality of the writing (at least with respect to 1997.) He hated the remake because the writing was terrible and turned the game into a joke of itself. It was very depressing for him.

Another poster replied to him with "I thought it was great! The writing was so bad it was good! I was rolling on the floor laughing! I hope that the writing in the next get's worse!"

Isn't that just a terrible, toxic response? A lot of people got banned in that thread for shit posting things like "terrible game." A lot of people got dogpiled for saying that the game was bad. But the guy who said that he enjoyed the game? Not a peep from anyone to this guy though.

Aside from creating unhealthy environments, this sort of thinking also strangles forums. Having interesting, engaging discussions becomes difficult because everyone needs to roughly agree on everything, and only allow small disagreements on minutia. For example, if Pikmin 4, or Mario Wonder, comes out and "everyone likes it," then what else is there really to talk about? I think a lot of the reason why Famiboards is slow is because no one can really start challenging topics, because no one can handle it. Sure, Famiboards is a small community, but there's more than enough people here to have plenty of topics. But what's the point of starting a topic just so everyone can mostly agree on everything?

Oh, and one last note: I should probably lead by example here. So, I'm going to end this post by criticizing a "beloved" game that I know will create a shit storm, even though I think I'm absolutely right. Trigger Warning: Severe Game Criticism:

Spoiler: WARNING

Tunic is a fundamentally uncreative game, and represents everything wrong with self-indulgent indie projects. It's little more than Zelda turdunkened with Dark Souls, and therefore has almost no original ideas of it's own. The game as a whole does not fit together well, and is boring if you've played the other, better, games it's based on. It is a mediocre, derivative, game. The only highlights are the hand-drawn manual and the "golden path" puzzles, which are so divorced from the main game that you might as well split the game into two.

...Hmm, maybe that was too mean. This topic is probably going to spontaneously combust into a firey explosion now.

 

[Catsylvania]

As a personal rule, I don’t argue people’s opinions unless it’s based on a false premise and even then, I often don’t even want to. I’m trying to have a good time; I don’t want to get in meaningless arguments with strangers on the internet.

 

[Kreese]

Everyone's tastes are different so you are bound to ruffle a few feathers if you go against the grain but it's unavoidable as are the responses you will get for said opinion. People are very passionate about games, so you can expect some measure of hostility from those who feel like you're shitting on something they love. Having said that, it is true that one who reviews a game should be well versed in the genre and even the franchise in question so they have points of reference to draw comparisons and build their case. I've never been a fan of reviews where the reviewer in question shits on said game just because they don't like that sort of game. A good game reviewer will either nope out of a review where they hate the franchise or genre in question, or be able to separate their own biases and judge the game based on its technical merits, polish, artistry and overall quality of craftsmanship relative to comparable games on the market.

 

[Aurc]

Personally, the reason I'm less interested in forum / social media negativity these days is because I feel like I've already pretty thoroughly explored the "debate me, bro" style of online engagement throughout my teens and early to mid 20s. I'll be 30 soon enough, and it's not as though I just stopped disliking stuff, but rather, that I feel like I've naturally outgrown any desire to waste energy debating things like which video games I don't enjoy.

You mention dogpiles against opinions that deviate heavily from whatever the forum culture deems the "correct" positive impression, but one of my most nuclear takes (by Fami standards) is that I don't think Breath of the Wild is a very good game at all, yet I've never felt suppressed on here for holding that opinion. I could write you an essay on my issues with BotW, and I think I'd be able to articulate my criticisms really well! I just don't care to waste my time writing it, and I doubt anyone cares to spend time reading it. I don't like BotW, so why would I devote my time to talking about it, over and over again? Makes little sense to me. Not worth it.

Years ago, I used to play a ton of Destiny with my friends. I acknowledged the game's many faults, yet still had fun. Eventually, I became bitter about the game's direction when Destiny 2 launched, and stopped playing. Problem was, I'd enter Destiny threads on ResetEra just to shit talk the game (I actually developed a poor reputation for my pattern of doing this). My negativity was doing nothing for me, nor the people who still play, and it certainly wasn't doing anything to improve the state of the game itself.

These days, I mostly just talk about what I enjoy. As a result, I'm happier navigating the internet than I've ever been. I've noticed people who act like social media is a plague tend to frequent the most toxic hellholes, post like the most bitter old people, then wonder why they're miserable. For their own good, I hope they figure it out someday!

 

[meatbag]

I personally have no problems with constructive criticism, whether it leans positive or negative. As long as the other person is willing to discuss, we’re golden.

 

[Supreme Overlord]

So instead you spend 20 minutes writing a thoughtful post on why a game is shit, only to get dogpiled by people who just denigrate everything you say with "well that's your opinion," or "I don't care." Usually quite rudely.

You're missing the part where people will call you out for hostility or trying to show you're smarter than them because you had the gall to compose a longer piece in your criticism.

I've definitely seen what you've described, though, where discussion is a vapid mist of vaguely liking a thing or being excited, and when someone dissents that's not handled well -- and if they explain why, it's sometimes handled even worse.

And then there are the times people will complain about this other thought or opinion as if it is currently present, even when it's not been mentioned, or one thing will be responded to through the lens of replying to that even when it doesn't apply.

Of course, one must also avoid here what might be termed toxic negativity, wherein the art of the critique, the examination of what works or what doesn't, the introspection and consideration, is missing. If everybody simply saying "I liked it" or "BEST THING EVAR" isn't conducive to any actual discussion, dropping a "ur thing sux, lol" isn't exactly going to raise the quality of discourse at all. The concepts here can work very much in reverse.

And, yeah, oftentimes the topic at hand isn't even that important, but then there are times where a discussion should have more weight but nobody is interested in allowing that.

Given all that, obviously I'm glad to see when differences are handled well. I distinctly recall the topic of Tunic, since it's mentioned here, provoking differing levels of like and dislike on this very site, where nobody was attacked or belittled.

I've never been a fan of reviews where the reviewer in question shits on said game just because they don't like that sort of game. A good game reviewer will either nope out of a review where they hate the franchise or genre in question, or be able to separate their own biases and judge the game based on its technical merits, polish, artistry and overall quality of craftsmanship relative to comparable games on the market..

This is another thing I've seen a lot, too, and I'm sure I've referenced it in the past: people often don't seem capable of separating whether they like something from whether that thing is good. They like a thing, and so it is good, and likewise for things disliked. In reality, something might be legitimately good, and you can see that, but you also just don't care for it. Or you might recognize something is unmitigated dreck, but you enjoy it regardless. Usually there's something of a mix.

To veer a bit farther, confirmation bias is a connected concept. We'll have already determined something is true, so we seek out sources and authorities that tell us how very right we are and we discard and denigrate those that disagree -- without even considering that we might be wrong.

In the end, we don't grow by never allowing ourselves to be challenged. And we can't properly provide the necessary sort of challenge to others if we're unwilling to hear them out. We stagnate, and we might even rot.

I'm going a bit far from the game criticism and review topic here though.

But yes, "did I like this (and why)?" and "is this good (and why)?" are different questions. Sometimes it might be worth answering both.

 

[AngryAlchemist]

I'm too lazy to come up with a response right now, so I'll just say another great video from Dunkey. His videos on game criticism and critics of game critics is his best series yet.

Personally, the reason I'm less interested in forum / social media negativity these days is because I feel like I've already pretty thoroughly explored the "debate me, bro" style of online engagement throughout my teens and early to mid 20s. I'll be 30 soon enough, and it's not as though I just stopped disliking stuff, but rather, that I feel like I've naturally outgrown any desire to waste energy debating things like which video games I don't enjoy.

You mention dogpiles against opinions that deviate heavily from whatever the forum culture deems the "correct" positive impression, but one of my most nuclear takes (by Fami standards) is that I don't think Breath of the Wild is a very good game at all, yet I've never felt suppressed on here for holding that opinion. I could write you an essay on my issues with BotW, and I think I'd be able to articulate my criticisms really well! I just don't care to waste my time writing it, and I doubt anyone cares to spend time reading it. I don't like BotW, so why would I devote my time to talking about it, over and over again? Makes little sense to me. Not worth it.

Years ago, I used to play a ton of Destiny with my friends. I acknowledged the game's many faults, yet still had fun. Eventually, I became bitter about the game's direction when Destiny 2 launched, and stopped playing. Problem was, I'd enter Destiny threads on ResetEra just to shit talk the game (I actually developed a poor reputation for my pattern of doing this). My negativity was doing nothing for me, nor the people who still play, and it certainly wasn't doing anything to improve the state of the game itself.

These days, I mostly just talk about what I enjoy. As a result, I'm happier navigating the internet than I've ever been. I've noticed people who act like social media is a plague tend to frequent the most toxic hellholes, post like the most bitter old people, then wonder why they're miserable. For their own good, I hope they figure it out someday!

Damn, why the call out post Aurc

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

I can't keep arguing with people whose formative internet years were spent watching AVGN and Zero Punctuation. I just can't do it anymore.

 

[Narroo]

Of course, one must also avoid here what might be termed toxic negativity, wherein the art of the critique, the examination of what works or what doesn't, the introspection and consideration, is missing. If everybody simply saying "I liked it" or "BEST THING EVAR" isn't conducive to any actual discussion, dropping a "ur thing sux, lol" isn't exactly going to raise the quality of discourse at all. The concepts here can work very much in reverse.

Truth be told, part of what I'm doing is pointing out the double standard between superficial "positive opinions" and superficial "negative opinions." Choruses of hyperbolic "best game ever" posts contribute almost nothing to a game, and are even slightly harmful that they can get someone to spend their money on mediocre games. There's really little difference between that and superficial negative posts, other than potentially hurting the developer's feelings. Yet, they're treated differently. And that implicit double standard permeates many forums discussions.

This is another thing I've seen a lot, too, and I'm sure I've referenced it in the past: people often don't seem capable of separating whether they like something from whether that thing is good. They like a thing, and so it is good, and likewise for things disliked. In reality, something might be legitimately good, and you can see that, but you also just don't care for it. Or you might recognize something is unmitigated dreck, but you enjoy it regardless. Usually there's something of a mix.

This a 1000 times. A ton of people on the internet do seem incapable of separating whether or not they like something, from whether or not it's good. And as a result, they take certain kinds of criticisms personally. Hence, they yelling and the swearing.

One thing I've seen in the past few years is the idea that "people shouldn't think that the things they like or bad, or that the concepts of "bad or good" are purely subjective and thus you should never say anything is bad if someone else likes it." That's not the best way to phrase it, but I think a lot of people here know what I'm talking about. I saw it a lot on Resetera.

This argument is usually trotted out as a cudgel to silence all criticism of a game, or movie, someone likes. It's an incredibly unhealthy idea that discourages people from being honest with themselves or thinking critically about the things they like, or the things other people like. I believe this idea has been taking root over the past few years because people, as you said, can't separate their feelings from their judgement. "If they like something, it must be good, so shut-up and stop saying things that will make them upset."

Of course, this implicitly denies that negative opinions are equally valid, and that people need their negative opinions heard just as much as positive opinions. Think about it: Don't you get frustrated when people shut you down with: "Well, that's just your opinion!" before they go off and spout their "positive opinion" everywhere like it's gospel truth?

 

[PixelKnight]

Regarding Fami in particular (I don’t much care about the vibe anywhere else), I think the Fire Emblem Engage thread was really good to be honest. I made several posts arguing that I thought the battles/scenarios/new combat mechanics were great, but the cut scenes/story/reliance on old characters were utterly dire. Some people agreed, there was a counter-argument about the goal of a celebration/anniversary game, we talked about it’s merits and flaws back and forth for a few weeks while we all played through. The thread wasn’t universal praise or criticism, it’s a game with heavy flaws (IMO) but I still enjoyed it immensely.

In February we had Octopath 2, and I’ve written loads about what an awesome rpg I think it is. I liked it so much that I went back to play Octopath 1 immediately after and made a thread about that too, which had plenty of criticism and discussion around both games. @Hero of Hyrule made an Octopath thread recently too to similar results. There’s always criticism from people who think the core aspects don’t gel well (amongst other points) and that’s totally OK. I’m not gonna tell them they are wrong when I find plenty to criticise about most stuff I play. The key is that you can’t dictate what people think about even the games you think are wonderful. Nor does critical consensus, or even broad consensus on the forum, mean much as a counter-argument to opinion (unless that opinion is ‘everyone hates it’ lol). However, on the other hand, it’s often worth reading the room. If a thread is full of people who are actually playing a game and/or discussing it in detail, heading in with a sweeping vague criticism of ‘looks shit’ is likely gonna have you asked to be more specific, especially if you keep doing so. In the same vein, a thread breaking down elements for more specific criticism is likely to be more resistant to a generic driveby ‘you’re all wrong, this is the best game ever’. In contrast to both, a thread about the reveal of a game is likely to be full of superficial ‘looks good/looks bad’ as all people have is their immediate gut reaction. Whereas, a thread made a year down the line and discussing the post-game, where people are 100+ hours in, probably isn’t the best place for a ‘looks shit’ post.

 

[Christer]

I think this is an interesting discussion. So I see a couple of things going on at the same time:

* Insecurity about how to enjoy something just because IGN gave it a 7.
Here I think that there is a part that is just insecurity and angst in anticipation of how a certain score will be used in the console wars discourse. It's also to some extent a result of the way in which scores from publications such as IGN on the one hand seem to be set so to say by the publication and thus being comparable to each other (so if Starfield gets a 7 and Hogwarts Legacy gets a 9 that means that HL is a much better game), and on the other hand in practice the scores reflect individual reviewers preferences and expectations. This problem isn't as big with individual content creators who also review games where it's more clear that their score reflect their subjective taste.

* Entanglement with "the culture wars" or US politics in which everything "woke" comes under fierce attack online. As well as the opposite sometimes.
I think we all have seen a lot of this (lex Last of Us part 2 for example). Donkey shows a lot of this in his video referenced above. And it's just sad that there is this group of people that are so entangled in identity politics and loosing sight of basic decency. A lot of review bombing and shitty YouTube comments and Twitter discourse to me is connected to this. Of course there is much to dig into here but I'll leave it at just calling it sad.

* Online discourse often has this really heightened tone in which everything is either shit or the greatest ever.
It's just something with the affordances of forums and comment sections that make hyperbolic statements stick out and all reasonable and nuanced comments fade into the background. There is also something quite juvenile often about the type of discourse that are used online in that people argue as if they are in a natural science seminar about cultural artifacts. This affordance of online means of communications in my view exacerbate other issues.

* There is very little in terms of real critique on video games.
There are for sure good and entertaining videos and text critiquing games. But the medium is young and there isn't the kind of institutions for deep and theoretically, historically grounded critique such as for example London Review of Books and similar literary magazines. The culture of games critique is quite amateurish in comparison or purely entertainment.

Taken together these aspects of game reviews and the ways in which gaming culture functions lead to the type of discourse we see.

 

[Thorakai]

I think a lot of the reason why Famiboards is slow is because no one can really start challenging topics, because no one can handle it. Sure, Famiboards is a small community, but there's more than enough people here to have plenty of topics. But what's the point of starting a topic just so everyone can mostly agree on everything?

I'm highlighting this phrase specifically because it's a really wild assertion to hold. We just had a Nintendo Direct rating thread with people voicing their negativity on what was shown. We have regular posters that bemoan the fact Nintendo hasn't released new hardware because the Switch is way underpowered and they are tired of sub-native, sub-60 FPS games. The ToTK preview threads were filled with people concerned that there doesn't seem like enough has changed. The Splatoon 3 OT regularly has posters criticizing balance changes, maps, and rate of content additions. How are you coming away with the impression Famiboards can't handle criticism or challenging topics?

To me, the situations you describe at the start of your OP sounds like it comes from the POV of posters who have gotten in trouble for being really antagonistic and toxic in their posts, they get banned, and later when they get unbanned they bemoan that they are being punished for being critical or negative - washing away the context that it was how they communicated that got them in trouble in the first place. It's hard for me to believe someone can read ERA at any time of day or week and think toxic positivity is some systemic problem that needs to be addressed. There is plenty of space for being negative here and on the internet lol.

Adding some thoughts on the topic itself:

• I don't think its at all unusual or noteworthy that low-effort positive comments might get less pushback than a similar low-effort negative comment. People search out niches to find like-minded individuals that love the things they do. Seeing positivity and people being happy isn't going to trigger that many people in say real life, but you see someone being negative? Yes that might ruin someone's day, get someone's mood down, make them feel insecure, or whatever. The two things are just not going to be equivalent. This has always been the case when you se what news headlines are created, what stories are run, what gets clicks on Youtube, etc.
• It matters how you phrase things. I think you inherently know this because you phrased the opposite of "best game ever!" as "game is kinda shit" instead of "game is shit". The "kinda" is doing a lot of work to lessen the impact of shit here. And when it comes to being critical, you have a way larger arsenal of negative words and insults that can be called upon that can get someone to bite because it pushes things too far or it hits some type of nerve.
• There is still a lot to talk about in a scenario where everyone likes a game or are united in liking a topic. You dissect what makes something good, talk about why certain decisions were made, talk about how might something evolve. Just think back to some English classes where you talk through a book. Most of the time is spent analyzing the story and characters, not really being an argument between those that liked a book over those that do.
• I think it's a bit reductive to look at Dunkey's video and boil it down to people can't take critiques and pivot to a point around negativity needing to be more accepted in threads. There is a lot going on with gamer culture around review scores. Like how most people use the internet to seek validation rather than looking to be challenged, how gaming companies cultivate brands and create relationships with fans that it becomes such a strong part of their identity, how outrage specifically is something that has been promoted as a deliberate tactic by bad actors to sow discord and get what they want.

 

[JorgenRaft]

The distance between a 7 and an 8 is not nearly as big as people often make it out to be.

 

[AngryAlchemist]

I'm highlighting this phrase specifically because it's a really wild assertion to hold. We just had a Nintendo Direct rating thread with people voicing their negativity on what was shown. We have regular posters that bemoan the fact Nintendo hasn't released new hardware because the Switch is way underpowered and they are tired of sub-native, sub-60 FPS games. The ToTK preview threads were filled with people concerned that there doesn't seem like enough has changed. The Splatoon 3 OT regularly has posters criticizing balance changes, maps, and rate of content additions. How are you coming away with the impression Famiboards can't handle criticism or challenging topics?

Ehhhh. I'll be honest, I don't think Famiboards handles criticisms or challenging topics well. There is a lot of criticism of Nintendo, but that's not the same as that criticism being treated fairly. I think it's certainly better than a lot of online communities, but your own examples don't do any favors as someone who remembers all those events. That Nintendo Direct thread had multiple posts talking about how everyone who didn't like the Direct was either a troll, in bad faith, or a salty Metroid / DK / FE fan. The Splatoon thread is allowed to be negative because its its own little community and pretty much everyone agrees with the criticisms. The Zelda example is particularly bad, people who had valid concerns for the games marekting were told that they "didn't have enough imagination" and that they were dumb because the game was pre-ordering well. This, of course, later became incredibly ironic when Nintendo not only advertised TOTK in a Switch news feed by saying don't worry if you aren't creative, but later Aonuma said he thought they didn't market the game well enough.

And then of course, toxic negativity is something that actually gets moderated, whereas it's pretty much impossible to moderate toxic positivity, because it's theoretically not wrong. So people can continue making nuanced discussion worse by just being "positive". Just to be clear, I'm not saying that there should be moderation. I'm just saying that people who are negatively toxic eventually get weeded out, whereas toxic positivity is pretty much never weeded out on just about any forum.

Beyond that I'm not that interested in debating. But I think it's way more complex than wording, people honestly just don't like knowing people are down on something they like.

The distance between a 7 and an 8 is not nearly as big as people often make it out to be.

Yeah, I agree. Like I'm playing Mario 3 right now and it's pretty good, but an 8 for me is great so I might not give it that score. There's a whole range of games of varying quality, ranging all the way from Amazing to Metroid. Sometimes you gotta wallow through the Zebes to get to the Gusty Gardens.

 

[BassForever]

Abolish review scores, make people actually read reviews to find out if a review liked something.

 

[Deleted member 3433]

Have not watched the video yet.

What I can say is that I find it strange that games that were given a score below 7 are considered "bad" by both critics and fans. 6 shouldn't even be considered bad. The whole metric across numerous outlets is off, and has been for a very long time. Maybe it always was, thinking about old reviews in gaming mags.

 

[Thorakai]

Ehhhh. I'll be honest, I don't think Famiboards handles criticisms or challenging topics well. There is a lot of criticism of Nintendo, but that's not the same as that criticism being treated fairly. I think it's certainly better than a lot of online communities, but your own examples don't do any favors as someone who remembers all those events. That Nintendo Direct thread had multiple posts talking about how everyone who didn't like the Direct was either a troll, in bad faith, or a salty Metroid / DK / FE fan. The Splatoon thread is allowed to be negative because its its own little community and pretty much everyone agrees with the criticisms. The Zelda example is particularly bad, people who had valid concerns for the games marekting were told that they "didn't have enough imagination" and that they were dumb because the game was pre-ordering well. This, of course, later became incredibly ironic when Nintendo not only advertised TOTK in a Switch news feed by saying don't worry if you aren't creative, but later Aonuma said he thought they didn't market the game well enough.

And then of course, toxic negativity is something that actually gets moderated, whereas it's pretty much impossible to moderate toxic positivity, because it's theoretically not wrong. So people can continue making nuanced discussion worse by just being "positive". Just to be clear, I'm not saying that there should be moderation. I'm just saying that people who are negatively toxic eventually get weeded out, whereas toxic positivity is pretty much never weeded out on just about any forum.

Beyond that I'm not that interested in debating. But I think it's way more complex than wording, people honestly just don't like knowing people are down on something they like.

I can see how there can definitely be a discussion around how to better moderate these instances of positivity that downplay or try to invalidate the negative opinion of others when they happen. I guess I should clarify that I don't see the moderation of this place downplaying negativity to the point that pushback against these types of comments/posters would lead to ban or silencing of those negative opinions (as laid out in the OP "So, if someone comes into a thread with a negative opinion, you can be as much as an asshole as you want to them, while they can barely say boo back without being banned", "Try not to argue back to much, or you'll probably get banned", "You post "Game's kinda shit," and then you get banned for "shitposting""). No one ended-up getting banned in the Direct thread and the mods came in to the ToTK thread to cool it and respect each other's opinions.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Everything is so hyperbolic these days. I know I have been in the past, but I try to stay out of discussions where I'm just going to make a negative comment anymore. Its ok to not like things other people like, and to like things other people don't like.

The distance between a 7 and a 9 is not nearly as big as people often make it out to be.

FTFY. But honestly, review scores do way more to hurt than help actual substantial videogame critique/discussions.

 

[BassForever]

Everything is so hyperbolic these days. I know I have been in the past, but I try to stay out of discussions where I'm just going to make a negative comment anymore. Its ok to not like things other people like, and to like things other people don't like.



FTFY. But honestly, review scores do way more to hurt than help actual substantial videogame critique/discussions.

Reviews and review aggregates are a tool that are as useful or useless as you let them be.

 

[Prophet64]

Maybe not the place to argue this, I don't know, but Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is an 11 out of 10 in my book. Just a celebration of big rigs. A triumph in over the road racing. And an absolute revelation in its implementation of pavement, I assume. To each their own I guess.

Anyways, on topic: I always appreciate a well thought out dissenting voice (that I agree with).

This might seem too broad but I guess I don't like to feel like someone is trying to convince me to share their same opinion of what is treated as more product than work of art. Like there is an underlying need to sway public opinion, which may subconciously stem from the potential volatility of the industry if a product fails commercially.

Also the ways we can engage with videogames is so vast and varied (relative to other forms of media) which will already cause differences in opinions yet that rarely seems to be remarked upon. Like an immersive playthrough versus a fast-traveling, blazing through it style. Just providing some context like that for backing of their opinion rather than breathlessly trying to convince somebody to purchase or spend several hours playing a game that they themselves seemed already convinced they will love it since the day it was announced.

 

[dingbat]

I think people are more accepting of superficial positivity than negativity, which I don't see a big issue with, but in my view commentary is often of a lowish quality because people only tend to post their conclusions on a game rather than how they arrived at those, making even presumably reasoned positions like yours about Tunic sound unappealing to respond to (reasonably) because of their harshness. For example, I like Tunic overall and wouldn't be opposed to unpacking its issues, but your post is so confrontational and relentless that I don't want to engage with it further.

At the same time, it'd be odd if everyone constantly went hardcore essayist in their posts, positively or negatively. Banter is fine on a forum. It's just easy to take things personally when a piece of media resonated a lot with you, and someone taking a steaming dump on it, also a project that people involved poured their soul into (worth keeping in the back of your mind imo), is simply kinda rude. There are ways of saying the same things without drawing out kneejerk reactions. Being more measured in how you express yourself can be good for the discourse -- and maybe reduce pile-ons.

As a very picky player, I do wish people engaged more with posts where I disagree about the quality of something, if only to draw a better picture of what it is other people see in something that I don't, but you can't force anyone to. Making your stated opinion more easily digestible does help though.

 

[xghost777]

It’s not hard to share a wide range of opinions online and not get much pushback. Generally just keep these ideas in mind:

No gross hyperbole and bouncing.

Share both stuff you liked and didn’t.

Have a sense of recognition when something isn’t for you.

Share your own actual thoughts after you experienced the thing and don’t bring in other people’s opinions or other outside things like sales data.

Remember opinions are always subjective.

Don’t attack others for liking something more or less than you do.

….

With all of that in mind, you generally can express a wide range positive or negative opinions and be fine.

 

[PixelKnight]

Reviews and review aggregates are a tool that are as useful or useless as you let them be.

I look at aggregates that they are a reasonable shorthand of ‘wider critical opinion from the games press at the time of release’. What they aren’t is data, due to being arrived at through different scoring systems and then massaged into an aggregate by further invisible weighting systems, and then they end up compared to further aggregates reached at different points in time by a different set and different amount of outlets under different weighting. Which is why I find arguing over comparisons and percentage points in the aggregate and attacking reviewers for an outlying review utterly pointless, especially when that argument then overshadows discussion of actual, interesting critical points made by reviewers. That ethos pretty much underpins Fami’s review thread policy, it’s just pointless to argue over aggregates as if they offer precision rather than just a useful shorthand if given in context. It’s even more pointless to think outlying reviews are somehow a bad thing or disingenuous, as if other media doesn’t have wildly different reviews land all the time.

 

[BassForever]

I look at aggregates that they are a reasonable shorthand of ‘wider critical opinion from the games press at the time of release’. What they aren’t is data, due to being arrived at through different scoring systems and then massaged into an aggregate by a further weighting system and then they end up compared to further aggregates reached at different points in time by a different set and different amount of outlets. Which is why I find arguing over percentage points in the aggregate utterly pointless, especially when that argument then overshadows discussion of actual, interesting critical points made by reviewers. That ethos pretty much underpins Fami’s review thread policy, it’s just pointless to argue over aggregates as if they offer precision rather than just a useful shorthand if given in context.

I think they're useful short hand for bad faith arguments like "everyone agrees insert game here was bad".

 

[PixelKnight]

I think they're useful short hand for bad faith arguments like "everyone agrees insert game here was bad".

That too, yeah. They get wielded like clubs in silly arguments, stripped of all context, when the whole point of an average is it’s a snapshot of disparate views. It’s just that some people get weirdly upset when a review strays too far below the average it’s contributing to while somehow thinking it’s totally fine if they stray above it, lifting that average higher. It’s a constant cycle of predictable arguments as people want really precise vindication about their hype for a game they haven’t played yet to be arrived at as if the entire press need to all arrive at a ridiculously tight range of opinion.

 

[Vookatos]

I remember caring way too much about game reviews when I was a teen, but now I feel like criticism is what makes video games better.
I'm much more interesting in opposing views or constructive analysis than reading another take on my Mario 3 is good.

There are people who just can't handle negative opinions and it's so wild to me.
I remember back on Twitter I made a really strange dual-language russian-english pun about my dislike of TTYD, and some absolute rando found it, wrote a full-on manifesto calling me every word under the sun and blocked me before I could read it. Like, how is your enjoyment of the game lessened because I don't like something? I don't like Mario World, for example. If it hurts you somehow, please think about it long and hard.

Sure, if a big Youtuber would shit on a relatively unknown game, that's understandable, but we're usually talking about giant releases with AAA titles here! The only time in recent memory I was disappointed by a review is when that one dude wrote about Pathologic 2, because it might've been responsible for low sales which people needed to fix via word of mouth.

This is also something I don't get about people criticizing Dunkey. Dude doesn't like anime. I don't either. I think Xenoblades 2 and 3 are kinda trash. But to act so personally offended over a funny opinion man is absolutely insane to me. He doesn't like some games I like and vice versa. Sometimes I think his opinions are dumb. We all are frequently very stupid, that's the point of being a human being! We're not rational perfect machines who can objectively measure art.

This can be lessened somewhat in professional cicrles by getting rid of pointless numbered scores, but some people will still go out of their way to call a person who gave BotW a 7 a troll at best, and send them transphobic hysteria at worst.

 

[Beanstar40]

This is a good thing to talk about, as gaming discourse online can get toxic very fast. What helps me is remembering that there is another actual human being on the other side, and I wouldn’t be snarky to someone’s face over a video game, so I shouldn’t do it online. Also, it helps to preface your opinions with I think. “I think” makes it known that your statement relates entirely to you and you are not making generalizations. This is helpful when you have an opinion that may be controversial, like for example “I think that mario 64 has not aged well”. Thats just how I feel, and there are plenty of speed runners who know that game inside and out who would disagree. But both of these opinions are valid, and when I say “I think”, or “its my opinion” im speaking subjectively rather than trying to make objective statements on behalf of the community.

 

[PixelKnight]

This is a good thing to talk about, as gaming discourse online can get toxic very fast. What helps me is remembering that there is another actual human being on the other side, and I wouldn’t be snarky to someone’s face over a video game, so I shouldn’t do it online. Also, it helps to preface your opinions with I think. “I think” makes it known that your statement relates entirely to you and you are not making generalizations. This is helpful when you have an opinion that may be controversial, like for example “I think that mario 64 has not aged well”. Thats just how I feel, and there are plenty of speed runners who know that game inside and out who would disagree. But both of these opinions are valid, and when I say “I think”, or “it’s my opinion” im speaking subjectively rather than trying to make objective statements on behalf of the community.

All true. In terms of forum games discussion, I think the framing is important, particularly thread titles can set the tone for them. I guarantee ‘I think Mario 64 hasn’t aged well, and here’s why!’ as a thread title would lead to a more constructive discussion than ‘Mario 64 is overrated, it’s just fanboy nostalgia’. As the latter is already just a pre-emptive triple attack on the (assumed larger) group of people who disagree, it’s baity, looking for an argument, will get fast responses reacting to that but will derail immediately (in my experience), whereas the former is just offering an opinion for discussion. ‘Overrated’ and ‘underrated’ tend to go badly in discussion as they are pretty much discarding the opinions of the people you want to talk to before they’ve even said anything.

 

[wonaph]

* There is very little in terms of real critique on video games.
There are for sure good and entertaining videos and text critiquing games. But the medium is young and there isn't the kind of institutions for deep and theoretically, historically grounded critique such as for example London Review of Books and similar literary magazines. The culture of games critique is quite amateurish in comparison or purely entertainment.

Taken together these aspects of game reviews and the ways in which gaming culture functions lead to the type of discourse we see.

Totally agree here. Reviews are almost always entertainment and marketing masquerading as critique. Not to even shit on them at all, it's just people doing their jobs working for profit. I think I even heard this on IGN somewhere and I think it's true: reviews are there to help you make a purchasing decision; after you've made that decision yes or no, the review should have no bearing on your actual enjoyment of the game: that comes from actually playing the game. If a review is "living rent free in your mind" the problem is actually with you and how you process you own life, not with the review.

I think another thing that's just gone way too far and people place an even more disproportionate burden on reviews is this idea that one has to advocate for a game or series or franchise extremely positively and vocally in order prevent that series or franchise from dying. Every single time. If a game gets a bad score, or if there's too much negative chatter from anonymous individuals online, somehow that will translate into Nintendo making even fewer games in that series, or ever again. And then somehow arguing incessantly and loudly with strangers online will somehow convince them to change their anonymous tune and then magically that will help create the next game in X series in 5 years. It's just an absurd way of thinking. Nintendo made Pikmin 4 because they wanted to and thought they could sell enough of it to make it worthwhile. Not because strangers have been yelling at each other in forums for 10 years.

Some games with good review scores often get sequels 10 years later; some games with bad review scores get continuous sequels every year. The thought that any individual or small group on the internet make any difference in that calculus is just plain silly.

 

[Sheldon]

People, as a general rule, aren't good at taking in criticism and worse at giving it. Most video game reviews, from professionals and amateurs alike, are therefore bad and and whether they land on a 10 or a 7 makes no difference to their level of insight. Like the spoiler in the OP is the beginning of a thesis, but there's big chunks of connecting tissue missing to turn what is winkingly presented as an inflammatory statement into a useful, coherent evaluation of a piece of art or entertainment.

What's the point of picking review scores and reactions to them from comments or how does the video apply to Famiboards? I don't know. The argument isn't well made.

 

[Metroid]

There's no way I'm getting tricked into watching a Dunkey video, but my stance has more recently been that people care too much about reviews and way, way too much about "low" (read: anything below an 8/10 for whatever reason) review numbers. It's especially heartbreaking in a way when people base their opinions or decide whether or not to try something based entirely on the metacritic score. It's semi-arbitrary number that barely has anything to do with the game itself and people use it to write off wonderful, unique experiences just because anywhere around 20 to 50 people said "eh"? And without doing any further research or experimentation on your own? Speaking a little more personally, a bunch of the games near and dear to my heart hover in the low 70s to low 80s, and more games than I care to count that I'm looking forward to, you can bet will end up there. I can't imagine getting upset at a 6/10 or lower review for a game you are genuinely interested. I can understand reading a review to help you make better purchasing decisions (money isn't infinite, after all) or simply out of the enjoyment of reading more about a game you already know you want or even just reading the words of a writer you are a fan of, but making it an entire personality is... well, I don't get it.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

"Let's be honest here; Dunkey is a making a good point."

 

[Nmanic]

I just wish people could be a little more chill/empathetic when discussing their disdain for something. If you call something trash/shit, my brain immediately feels bad for the people who had their heads down working on it, some of whom may have genuinely believed in what they were doing.

I could discuss differing opinions on just about anything all day if it didn't feel like people were personally angered about imperfect art. It feels sometimes like flaws are talked about as moral failures. I've just never liked that vibe.

As for reviews, that whole world has been fucky forever, and I think it would be better if generally we all agreed that numerical scoring is a fun thought experiment, but it will always, ALWAYS represent either one personal taste or an aggregate of several personal tastes. And then just like... If something scores different than you see it, be chill about it lol

Edit bc I feel like someone will bring this up otherwise: I am NOT talking about being harsh when fucky work conditions or something that harms a group of people is being criticized. I am ONLY talking about when something is like, literally just not as good as you think it could/should be.

 

[Lozjam]

The distance between a 7 and an 8 is not nearly as big as people often make it out to be.

Since most reviews are in either an American or British context, it actually is burned into our psyche. An 80%, or a B, is a pretty passable grade overall ever since we were kids. A single 70%(or a C) can prevent you from getting into college, cost you scholarships, and in general ruin your entire rest of life and force you to go into a hellish minimum wage job and be a wage slave for the rest of your life.

This has literally happened to 5 people I know from high school. A single C.

There's no way I'm getting tricked into watching a Dunkey video, but my stance has more recently been that people care too much about reviews and way, way too much about "low" (read: anything below an 8/10 for whatever reason) review numbers. It's especially heartbreaking in a way when people base their opinions or decide whether or not to try something based entirely on the metacritic score. It's semi-arbitrary number that barely has anything to do with the game itself and people use it to write off wonderful, unique experiences just because anywhere around 20 to 50 people said "eh"? And without doing any further research or experimentation on your own? Speaking a little more personally, a bunch of the games near and dear to my heart hover in the low 70s to low 80s, and more games than I care to count that I'm looking forward to, you can bet will end up there. I can't imagine getting upset at a 6/10 or lower review for a game you are genuinely interested. I can understand reading a review to help you make better purchasing decisions (money isn't infinite, after all) or simply out of the enjoyment of reading more about a game you already know you want or even just reading the words of a writer you are a fan of, but making it an entire personality is... well, I don't get it.

I don't think we should be blaming people for not trying something based on even a single review. Considering the incredible cost of games. Both in time and money. Like with the Starfield debacle. Yeah, if you are a PS5 or Switch only user, and you see that Starfield gets a 7 from a huge outlet from IGN. Wouldn't that give you pause? On the absolute cheapest, it costs those players $370 plus tax in order to experience the game, and it has a significant time investment too.

$70 games ensures that not many people can waste their time and money on games. The stakes are just so high. I really didn't realize how expensive games are, until I sold most of my collection, and it was enough for a down payment of a house. And I had only been building that collection since 2019.

Overall though, on the point of the thread. I think we should realize that if you are going to criticize a game, you should also prepare for your own words to be criticized too. If you have an opinion, you best bring receipts to back it up.

But I really think context should be made, that an outlet like IGN very rarely brings those receipts either way. Their writing is super clunky, surface level, instead of anything close to coming to critique. Are we really surprised that IGN is going to attract those sorts of commenter's? You have a critic like King K, previously lambasting a mega popular game like BotW. Not many people gave him that much shit for it, because it was well written, and even if you don't personally agree, you can see where he comes from. Even he himself now disagrees with that standpoint, but he sees where he was in 2017. Of course there was dissentment, but never anything like we see IGN reviews.

 

[Metroid]

I don't think we should be blaming people for not trying something based on even a single review. Considering the incredible cost of games. Both in time and money. Like with the Starfield debacle. Yeah, if you are a PS5 or Switch only user, and you see that Starfield gets a 7 from a huge outlet from IGN. Wouldn't that give you pause? On the absolute cheapest, it costs those players $370 plus tax in order to experience the game, and it has a significant time investment too.

I understand, but answering personally, not at all.

 

[Lozjam]

I understand, but answering personally, not at all.

And that's great. It's wonderful that you have both the time and the money to be able to try a lot of stuff.

But I think telling people that they should try a lot of these AAA games regardless of reviews is a bit of a privileged take. Now, with something a bit more affordable like Indies, I think people should branch out a little bit more. But with a cost of living crisis, games increasing in price, and people having less time. I don't think that it should be the burden of the consumer if they get to be picky. People literally can't afford a 7/10, because if they are spending their livelihood, or have to make sacrifices for the cost of entry, that better be a 9/10 or 10/10 experience for them.

 

[Metroid]

And that's great. It's wonderful that you have both the time and the money to be able to try a lot of stuff.

But I think telling people that they should try a lot of these AAA games regardless of reviews is a bit of a privileged take. Now, with something a bit more affordable like Indies, I think people should branch out a little bit more. But with a cost of living crisis, games increasing in price, and people having less time. I don't think that it should be the burden of the consumer if they get to be picky. People literally can't afford a 7/10, because if they are spending their livelihood, or have to make sacrifices for the cost of entry, that better be a 9/10 or 10/10 experience for them.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me that I find insulting. And simply reiterating my own points or just completely misunderstanding them.

 

[Lozjam]

You're making a lot of assumptions about me that I find insulting. And simply reiterating my own points or just completely misunderstanding them.

Im not making any assumptions. In fact, I really used to be in that mindspace of not caring about reviews. Especially the fact that people should try more games outside their comfort zone. Or to understand that even slightly low review scores can prevent someone from getting into an ecosystem. It's a huge investment.

It really took some friends falling on really hard times, and also thinking about my own financial future for me to truly understand.

And I do agree with you that people shouldn't make their personality about it, we agree with that, and the points I am reiterating I know are your own points. So we really are in agreement, and that's good. I just wanted to reiterate for sake of discussion.

 

[doodlewhizz]

A good game review just needs to be a well thought out piece about the reviewer's experience playing the game, what they though worked (and didn't) and why that's the case for them. They don't need to have any levels of objectivity attached to them

They don't need to be genre experts, or even fans of the specific genre the game finds itself in. They don't need to be even casually versed in the lore or story of a game series. Opinions from a wide range of viewpoints should be expected and even celebrated - I prefer that kind of thing to be mentioned in the text itself but I also don't think it needs to be there as a steadfast rule.

Scores are useful tools but absolutely not the be all and end all. I don't mind numbered scores at the end of a review but there's way too much focus on them from gamers (the same way that there's also way too much focus on the RT number for movies from filmbros) and the attitude that anything below an 8 is 'bad' needs to die a very swift death. People talk about the US school grading system as being the reason for this but the majority of the world are not the US - if you look at the UK, at university an A grade is 70% or higher, with a C being 50-59%.

I also agree that within fandoms there's a very low tolerance for anyone who dislikes popular thing - I've seen critiques swatted away as being fanboy talk or someone just trolling for attention, rather than actually engaging with the discussion. At the same time, some people will just jump into conversations with a drive-by comment never to be seen again. All we can really do on an individual level about it all is just be open to different viewpoints.

Really, those people who get all twisted in knots about how a score is too low or high just needs to, like, not. Life is too short and important to be concerned about whether someone else disliked a game that you did (or vice versa)

 

[Joy-Boy]

There's been a trend of people just getting more and more hyper fixated on the stuff they like, to the point it becomes their entire lives and personality, and any critisism or views that disagree with their opinion is a personal affront.

On top of that, now games are getting more expensive and taking longer to make, which is making things worse beause it's giving people more incentive to try and justify their purchases. Reviews get the worst blast of it but it's prevelant in disccussion everywhere.

Like we've been talking about in another thread, we have people online getting so crazy over Paper Mario, a series which (in their opinion) stopped being good in 2004 and have been unable to just move on because their entire lives, social circles, hobbies, and in some cases even sources of income, revolve around Nintendo and cant process the fact that the series went in a different direction and it's ok to not engage if they dont like said direction. (Not referring to anyone here, more of a reddit/4chan/youtube problem)

I think people have forgotten that video games are just video games, a fun hobby that they dont need to base their entire lives around. There's so much out there in terms of entertainment, from books to movies to music to other games that people would adore just as much as their favorites if they were to break out of their bubble and try new things.

 

[Metroid]

Im not making any assumptions.

It's wonderful that you have both the time and the money to be able to try a lot of stuff.

I reiterate

You're making a lot of assumptions about me that I find insulting.

 

[Narroo]

A single 70%(or a C) can prevent you from getting into college, cost you scholarships, and in general ruin your entire rest of life and force you to go into a hellish minimum wage job and be a wage slave for the rest of your life.

This has literally happened to 5 people I know from high school. A single C.

This is aside, but I feel the need to call this out. A "single C" will not prevent you from going to college in the United States. And I doubt it would either in Great Britain. Colleges are competitive, but not that competitive.

What a single "C" might do is make the difference if you're applying to a top college, like Harvard or MIT. You know, some of the top colleges in the world that have thousands upon thousands of applicants internationally? But even then, it wouldn't kill you if the rest of your application is fantastic. If you're a straight A student with excellent extracurriculars and excellent essays, then a single "C" probably wouldn't kill your chances, though it may reduce them.

Eitherway, there are hundreds of fine colleges in the USA, and you can get into them with a lot less, far more easily. A single "C" will not stop you.

And even if you somehow fail to get into any reputable college, there's still community college, which will take pretty much anyone with a diploma or a GED. And many of those have community -> conventional college paths, where if you get good grades for 2 years, you can move up to a four year college.

So, if five of your friends failed to get into college over a single "C", then there's something more to the story. My bet is that they had unrealistic expectations or they didn't take the advice of applying to safety schools. Or that their applications had more problems than just a single "C."

I reiterate

So, this back-and-forth is a good example of how arguments really start on forums. Often the problem isn't the topic, but rather how people treat each other in the topics. People are often rather passive aggressive in their posts, or dismissive, or fail to read responses properly, and so on. This angers the other poster, causing them to get mad.

This is actually why "positivity biases" are bad. They often drive toxic arguments, instead of preventing them. People with "negative" posts are put under more scrutiny that "positive" posts. But that means "positive people" have much more leeway in being rude and nasty to people with negative opinions, driving arguments. The catch is, they just need to be superficially polite about it. For example:


Exaggerated for clarity.
A: This is the best game ever!
B: This game is terrible.
A: ^Care to back that up, dude? (Otherwise you'll get a ban for shitposting.)
B: Writes his opinions, quickly.
A: Well, I don't think any of that is true! Explain some more.
B: FINE. Spends 20 minutes writing an essay.
A: Sure. I GUESS some pretentious people might think that. But hey, everyone gets to have their own opinions, right?
A: Now, as I was saying. This is the best game ever, and everyone needs to know that this is a fact, and not an opinion.
B: Oh, fuck you.
Poster B has been banned for hostility.
A: Another troll bites the dust. Good riddance, moron.
A: Now, let me list the 10 reasons why this is objectively the best game ever!


Obviously, this is pretty exaggerated, it's a bit of a strawman, but I think it illustrates the point well. The natural bias we have can actually drive toxicity, because it allows certain people to anger other posters with near impunity, as long as they stay within the lines of superficial politeness. In this case, "Poster A" was being a dimissive, hypocritical, and rude jackass. But since he was being positive and didn't swear, he never got banned. Yet, it's obvious why Poster B is angry and tells the guy to fuck off.

Hence, an imbalance in how we moderate people with positive and negative opinions can drive toxicity on the internet.

 

[Leica]

Since most reviews are in either an American or British context, it actually is burned into our psyche. An 80%, or a B, is a pretty passable grade overall ever since we were kids. A single 70%(or a C) can prevent you from getting into college, cost you scholarships, and in general ruin your entire rest of life and force you to go into a hellish minimum wage job and be a wage slave for the rest of your life.

This has literally happened to 5 people I know from high school. A single C.

I don't think we should be blaming people for not trying something based on even a single review. Considering the incredible cost of games. Both in time and money. Like with the Starfield debacle. Yeah, if you are a PS5 or Switch only user, and you see that Starfield gets a 7 from a huge outlet from IGN. Wouldn't that give you pause? On the absolute cheapest, it costs those players $370 plus tax in order to experience the game, and it has a significant time investment too.

$70 games ensures that not many people can waste their time and money on games. The stakes are just so high. I really didn't realize how expensive games are, until I sold most of my collection, and it was enough for a down payment of a house. And I had only been building that collection since 2019.

Overall though, on the point of the thread. I think we should realize that if you are going to criticize a game, you should also prepare for your own words to be criticized too. If you have an opinion, you best bring receipts to back it up.

But I really think context should be made, that an outlet like IGN very rarely brings those receipts either way. Their writing is super clunky, surface level, instead of anything close to coming to critique. Are we really surprised that IGN is going to attract those sorts of commenter's? You have a critic like King K, previously lambasting a mega popular game like BotW. Not many people gave him that much shit for it, because it was well written, and even if you don't personally agree, you can see where he comes from. Even he himself now disagrees with that standpoint, but he sees where he was in 2017. Of course there was dissentment, but never anything like we see IGN reviews.

I'm over debating about how video game reviews work and don't work and wasn't going to post in this thread but a single C won't force you into a "hellish minimum wage job/make you a wage slave for the rest of your life" what the fuck.

 

[gamerguy]

The problem is who the customer is? The review reader, or the company spending lots of money on ads?

These reviewers barely play a preview of the beginning of a game to maintain the illusion of a game review.

In reality, game reviews are just one big advertisement... which is why scores are usually 8-10 on a 10 point scale.

 

[Phosphorescent Skeleton]

I just want a review to be entertaining, well written, and/or though provoking. If you were going to by TOTK anyways, why are you so emotionally invested in someone giving it a bad review?

Since most reviews are in either an American or British context, it actually is burned into our psyche. An 80%, or a B, is a pretty passable grade overall ever since we were kids. A single 70%(or a C) can prevent you from getting into college, cost you scholarships, and in general ruin your entire rest of life and force you to go into a hellish minimum wage job and be a wage slave for the rest of your life.

This has literally happened to 5 people I know from high school. A single C.

Can't believe I have to use this again

 

[EtherPenguin]

This is another thing I've seen a lot, too, and I'm sure I've referenced it in the past: people often don't seem capable of separating whether they like something from whether that thing is good. They like a thing, and so it is good, and likewise for things disliked. In reality, something might be legitimately good, and you can see that, but you also just don't care for it. Or you might recognize something is unmitigated dreck, but you enjoy it regardless. Usually there's something of a mix.

To veer a bit farther, confirmation bias is a connected concept. We'll have already determined something is true, so we seek out sources and authorities that tell us how very right we are and we discard and denigrate those that disagree -- without even considering that we might be wrong.

In the end, we don't grow by never allowing ourselves to be challenged. And we can't properly provide the necessary sort of challenge to others if we're unwilling to hear them out. We stagnate, and we might even rot.

I'm going a bit far from the game criticism and review topic here though.

But yes, "did I like this (and why)?" and "is this good (and why)?" are different questions. Sometimes it might be worth answering both.

This is something I admittedly really struggle with and your second paragraph actually hints at why I struggle with it. I struggle to understand how we can define objective good for something as subjective as media, and I've never seen a good case for how to define 'legitimately good' that doesn't essentially come down to an ad populum argument.

There are certain things regarding the content of a game that I think we can easily put in the box of objectively bad when it's something morally objectionable, but for something as abstract as game mechanics I just find it incredibly difficult to be convinced we can define an objective good without the argument being "well the majority says so" or "more sales means better art". I also worry that it adds to the vitriol some fans will have in the preferences they have for one entry in a series over another where sometimes it feels like they're campaigning for their preferred entry to get the majority vote to declare it the objectively good one.

Like there are definitely games that I have an unpopular positive opinion about. And things that I like about these are things that I truly believe are legitimately good game design choices but how would I prove that or gather evidence to prove myself wrong aside from majority rules?

I'm not even sure the issue of defining "objective good" has been solved in other mediums. It's no secret the bulk of what we consider the western literary canon was curated by wealthy white men and exclusionary of minorities. And Pauline Kael wrote plenty of criticism on the worship of auteur directors of the European art film heyday.

I'm also reminded of Stephanie Sterling's old "objective" Final Fantasy XIII review that a lot of people wrote off as disingenuous. But I've always wondered if they had point.

 

[Raysu Delight]

I've just posted about how shit the Mario vs DK rerelease is in its thread, so I suppose that sort of ties in with the topic of this thread.

As long as you have valid reasons for disliking something I doubt there's much of an inherent issue with negativity.

 

[Yzz]

You know video game criticism is in a terrible state when Nostalgia Critic tier garbage like videogamedunkey is considered an authority in the topic

 

[lexony]

The problem with many game reviews is that a lot of them still get structured like a product test:

• Does it run 60fps 4K? Yeah, then Graphics 10/10.
• Does it have a story (which mostly means does it have cutscenes and/or voiceover etc.)? No, Story 3/10.

It got better in the last few years because of a lot more individual reviewers who look on games with specific perspectives; even sites like IGN got better with this. Though still too often single elements of a game get looked as separate entities instead of how well it works for the whole game or impacts the experience.

Like you can see that with games like the Stanley Parable. At the time, some reviewers gave it a bad score because it has "no gameplay". Or we see that every year when some type of games, regardless how good they are, never get nominated for GOTY Awards.

It is fair if you dislike as a reviewer a game because it’s missing something that you think every game should have, but you need to specify that instead of trying to put it in some weird categories that should somehow count for all games. Even when it means that you give a Mario game a bad score because you think Jumping is in general a bad Game Mechanic for whatever reason. With the right premise, you should be able to criticise anything.

Though Sites like IGN can‘t do that because people still look at them as those big entities that need to gather to everyone, instead of what we have with film reviewing, where individuals with different backgrounds and tastes just write for publications.

 

[Regulus Tera]

The best reviews are the ones that come months or even years after a game releases, completely detached from the marketing and discussion around the product being sold. So my only suggestion would be to not do video game reviews in the vicinity of a game’s launch.

I stopped caring about pre-release reviews years ago, and frankly I find the entire industry behind it to be abusive of both the writers and the readers. I find pre-release reviews also encourage to view video games less as art pieces from talented teams and more as products to be consumed and discarded as quickly as possible.