The standards for video game reviews need to be higher - Reader's Feature
I love video game reviews and as a game reviewer myself, for a handful of websites, I feel that there is a tremendous expressive power in writing them and sticking a score on the end; a score which may mean absolutely nothing or absolutely everything to the audience, depending on how much stock they put into them and the review given. However, I tend to find a litany of issues with game reviews.
I find modern video game reviews are largely plain, with the sole intention to inform. Now, there's nothing wrong with informing your audience about what you think of a game, as a review's central intent is to inform the reader, reviewer, or listener depending on the way the review is being broadcast, but good writing entertains as well as informs – and many reviews fail to do that. When I read a review, I want the writing to immerse me and sweep me into using my imagination to display what the reviewer is conveying through his/her/their writing.
Judging by the Metascores, I think many critics are too soft with modern games, and some games are held high up on a pedestal above others, even though they have issues nobody talks about. I appreciate Zelda: Breath Of The Wild and Tears Of The Kingdom, but I personally think they both contain many off-putting mechanics that make them more of a chore to play than they should be, such as the durability systems and needing to change your clothes in accordance with the climate.
However, you wouldn't be able to tell there are flaws with these games when all the critics throw praise at them like they're revolutionary, which they really aren't. They're just evolutions of games that came before and to me they're more unwelcomingly complex than they should be. And yes, I expect the comments section to flame me.
Game critics themselves are a wildly mixed bag. Some of them are great at expressing themselves and do so in their own style, like Jim Stephanie Sterling, Videogame Dunkey, and Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw, yet too many are predictable. I know everyone is after different things regarding game reviews and coverage, but many critics recycle the same information, and the results become dry and stale.
One website that I used to love a lot back in the day was GameTrailers, not only because I believe Brandon Jones has the best voice of anybody in video game media, but because the way reviews were edited expressed the opinion given. So you'd have a character in a game who says something that illustrates exactly what the critic thinks of the game. This can be done to hilarious effect and thus it's what I think made GameTrailers stand out from all the other video game websites.
Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning.
I also find that too many gamers attach themselves to IGN. They're either commending it for giving scores to games they deem worthy or blasting them for giving a low score to a very popular and well-liked game.
Personally, I look for critics who I agree with and what with IGN having a huge pool of reviewers, it's very hard to care about who's writing the review at all. IGN is junk food video game journalism, where the audience only cares about the score at the end and the written content doesn't have much reason to exist.
If gamers don't like the score IGN dole out, then instead of finding critics they agree with they crusade and meme them because they'd rather acknowledge that IGN have a spell cast over them than use their senses to find more agreeable critics to follow. More Trending
In all, video game reviews are always great to anticipate, because they drive discussion about our wonderful hobby, but it would be nice if greater enthusiasm was expressed. Seeing a bunch of banal reviews recycled with the same informative spiel and lack of crackle is monotonous and derivative. We should always be reading/watching reviews that have the same enthusiasm as the games they're formed around.
By reader James Davie
The reader's features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.
You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Stuff page and you won't need to send an email.
MORE: Zelda: The Wind Waker is still an amazing game that can inspire future sequels – Reader's Feature
MORE: I wish Bethesda didn't make Fallout and The Elder Scrolls - Reader's Feature
MORE: I've given up on getting a PS5 and I've already got real concerns about PS6 – Reader's Feature
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
a day ago
- Metro
The Nintendo Switch 2 is the closest thing to a modern day Commodore Amiga
A reader celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Commodore Amiga and suggests that the Switch 2 is its closest current equivalent. It's been a lot of fun to see the love for the Commodore Amiga this week, which I had no idea was 40 years old. As has been pointed out, probably nobody outside of Europe either knows or cares about it now but to me it was the most important games format when I was kid. Which is to say it's what I had, and I couldn't afford a Mega Drive or SNES. Or rather I couldn't afford their games. Amiga games were a lot cheaper (and, well, you know) and they also seemed a lot more varied. To my eyes the vast majority of console games were just platformers of one kind or another. I never even heard of Zelda or Final Fantasy until the PlayStation era and while we never got anything as good as Sonic the Hedgehog on the Amiga I can honestly say I wasn't that bothered. On the Amiga we had all kinds of crazy things, and lots of 3D games and games made in Europe and the UK which never appeared anywhere else. But as soon as consoles took over everything was made in Japan or the US and we've never really gone back from that, even with modern indie gaming on the PC. PlayStation and Xbox aren't interested in anything but a small number of games from a small number of publishers. Heck, the whole point of Xbox is Microsoft wanted to make American companies dominate the games industry, so I can't say I'm too upset that didn't work out. Thinking about what the modern equivalent of the Amiga is I guess you'd have to say it's the PC, but it doesn't feel that way to me. It's too unfocused and you have to use Steam to get anything out of it, which is very American focused. Weirdly it's the Nintendo Switch 2 which feels the closest to the Amiga to me, assuming it works out similar to the original Switch. Although the fact that it has a mouse by default already increases the comparisons, so I hope it makes good use of that. Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. But it's really just how strange and varied all the games are, with no first person shooters or sad dad story games so far, just the crazy Mario Kart and Donkey Kong games and the promise that future games will be as weird as the Switch line-up was. Especially as Drag X Drive even looks a bit like Speedball 2. It's not just Nintendo though but all the other, smaller Japanese developers that they encourage. Companies I'm sure probably wouldn't still be going if it wasn't for the Switch. Games are too expensive to make on PlayStation and Xbox now, for small companies, but the Switch is low-powered enough that it's still possible. I'm not saying these sort of games aren't on the PlayStation as well, but there's not as many and they're certainly not as high profile. You'd never get Sony highlighting them in their equivalent of a Nintendo Direct. I guess what I'm getting at is that gaming seemed a lot less corporate and more unpredictable in the Amiga days and now that I'm older I can see why things like where the games are made and how much they cost to make (and so how much risk they can afford to take) affect that. More Trending There's no point dwelling too much on the past but it is useful to look back and see that not everything has changed for the better. By reader Lester The reader's features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro. You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@ or use our Submit Stuff page and you won't need to send an email. MORE: Star Wars Outlaws is Ubisoft's best game and you should get it now it's cheap - Reader's Feature MORE: It is madness that Konami still hasn't made a new Castlevania - Reader's Feature MORE: I had a Commodore Amiga as a kid and this is not the gaming future I imagined - Reader's Feature
Metro
a day ago
- Metro
Star Wars Outlaws is Ubisoft's best game and you should get it now it's cheap
A reader is disappointed to hear that Star Wars Outlaws will not be getting a sequel but recommends the original now that it's heavy discounted. I'm sure if I was in charge of Ubisoft I'd blame Star Wars itself for the failure of Outlaws, but I really don't think that's fair. I doubt they honestly think that season 3 of The Mandalorian being bad is the real reason for its failure, but I'm sure it didn't help so it's a convenient scapegoat that shifts the blame away from them. Either way I'm very upset to hear that there won't be a Star Wars Outlaws 2. I think there's a couple of reasons for the game's failure but it's a real shame because I think it's Ubisoft's best game of recent years and definitely better than Assassin's Creed Shadows, Far Cry 5, and any of their other games I've played lately. It's not massively different from their usual open world formula but it's got a lot of small things it does better, that really should have made it be a bigger hit. Although perhaps, and this is fair enough, it was just too little too late and by that point everyone had just had enough of it all. In terms of the Star Wars aspect of it all, I think the problem was that, as GC said, when you have Star Wars without Jedi it can just seem like a generic sci-fi adventure. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I don't feel they pushed the Star Wars aspects as much as they could and the aliens were definitely underused in terms of making everything feel different but also familiar. I think everything to do with Jabba the Hutt worked the best and that's because it looked and felt the most like the movies. The bigger problem was that none of the main characters were that interesting. They had all that behind the scenes footage of the actress being all bubbly and excited but in the game she's just kind of quiet and a bit dull. She is absolutely not the female equivalent of Han Solo and her pet and that unlikeable robot friend is not a good stand-in in for Chewie. Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. But really, that's relatively minor stuff. It's not like I particularly liked any of the characters in Assassin's Creed Shadows or Far Cry 5 either, and at least Outlaws had multiple different planets (Tatooine is amazing). What Outlaws does better than the average open world game though is that it combines its side quests and its skill tree together so that instead of doing random fetch quests you're actually working to unlock new skills and upgrades, which really makes a difference in terms of things not feeling like busywork. The open world is well designed and there's plenty of variety, with shooting, driving, stealth, and spaceship combat. And the best thing? It's not 100+ hours long. I don't think it would be even if you did everything, but you can definitely beat the main story in less than 20 hours, which for me is a definite plus. Not only does it mean I can beat it in the same year I start it, but it means the game never outstays its welcome, which all the Assassin's Creed games always do. More Trending There's never going to be another one but you can get it dirt cheap at the moment and I believe it's also coming to Nintendo Switch 2. I'd definitely check it out, as it's much better than its reputation and it's sad we're never going to get another one. By reader Tacle The reader's features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro. You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@ or use our Submit Stuff page and you won't need to send an email. MORE: It is madness that Konami still hasn't made a new Castlevania - Reader's Feature MORE: I had a Commodore Amiga as a kid and this is not the gaming future I imagined - Reader's Feature MORE: The biggest problem with the Nintendo Switch 2 is that it's too big – Reader's Feature
Metro
2 days ago
- Metro
I had a Commodore Amiga as a kid and this is not the gaming future I imagined
A reader compares his childhood dreams of what the Amiga era of video games would evolve into with the current day and its very different priorities. There were two things that depressed me in the news this week (the gaming news – there's far more than two in the actual news) and the first was the proof that I'm old, since the Commodore Amiga has turned 40 this month. The other was that the average age of gamers is getting older and older, so that even most Nintendo players are in their 30s. Apparently younger people just aren't playing 'traditional' video games anymore, just free mobile games and live service stuff like Fortnite and Minecraft. Video games don't seem to be of any special interest to them and as companies, most obviously Sony, rush to try and appeal to them… well, you've all seen the release schedules the last few years. This generation has been a disaster, as far as I'm concerned, for PlayStation and Xbox, and as we reach the end of it I'm seriously wondering whether video gaming as I know and love them will even survive for much longer. Suffice to say this is not how I imagined things back when I was playing my Amiga as a wee lad. Back then, when the whole idea of video games was still new, it was hard to imagine what they'd become but I definitely remember talking to a friend about a game in which you could do anything and go anywhere. I think we imagined it as being all our favourite games combined into one, with driving and flying and so on. Little did I know we were basically describing GTA. I'm not sure we had any more specific ideas beyond that, other than the graphics would get more and more realistic and things like Starglider 2 and Frontier: Elite 2 would be expanded upon to a point beyond our imagination. Little did I realise at the time that these games would basically die on the Amiga and never be made again. Looking through GC's list of the 20 best games there were plenty of others I would've added, like James Pond 2: RoboCod, Turrican, Pinball Fantasies, The Chaos Engine, and Superfrog. But overall it was a good list and none of my picks change the point I'm about to make: almost all the games on the list were British. Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. The tragedy is that the only two American games on the list (Civilization and Monkey Island) are also the only two franchises that are still going today. All the other ones are gone or on life support (I think Elite Dangerous is still going on PC, but they stopped updating it on console) and not only are they unlikely to come back but there's nothing like them to take their place. The only thing similar to Elite is the dreadful Starfield, which genuinely feels like a bad Amiga game in terms of its lack of originality and ambition. And there's been nothing else like that for years anyway, so its failure is going to guarantee that doesn't happen again. I haven't got anything against American games but one of the great things about the Amiga was you got games from all over. There were American imports, Japanese imports (although a lot of the arcade conversions were done by British developers), and European games. Nowadays European games either don't exist or are indistinguishable from American ones. Would you know Ubisoft were French if someone hadn't told you? The lack of variety in the types of games that are being made, and the people making them, is truly depressing and it's only going to get worse, as the more games cost the less risks and the less big budget games in general. A lot of games on the Amiga weren't very good but there was always something weird and unexpected round the corner. I'm not sure you even get that with indie games today, which always seem to be just Soulslikes or Metroidvanias. More Trending The dream of ultra realistic graphics has come true but at such a terrible cost that it's just not worth it. All the franchise I used to love are dead and most of the companies making them are too. Worst of all their imagination and ingenuity is dead too, where today more effort is put into cosmetic DLC than the actual games. By reader Johnson The reader's features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro. You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@ or use our Submit Stuff page and you won't need to send an email. MORE: The biggest problem with the Nintendo Switch 2 is that it's too big – Reader's Feature MORE: Donkey Kong Bananza is Nintendo and gaming at its best - Reader's Feature MORE: The best thing the PS6 can do is be less powerful than PS5 – Reader's Feature
