In particular, one of my favorite video games is one that I'd rate a 7 on the secondary scale. That still means the game is decent, but that there's also a share of problems with it as well. Even back when I was a kid, if I saw reviews, and I saw something got an 8 or 9, I could immediately tell that there was a decent amount of quality put into it. But the point of talking about this is that it isn't just in video games; it's spread throughout the media as well.
Many don't remember back when Youtube had a 5 star rating system (I do since I've had my account on there since early 2006, and one in late 2005 I forgot the name of). Nowadays, there's a like and dislike system. There's a reason for this: people mostly rated 5 stars or 1 star. 3 probably fell shortly behind them, with 4 brining up the rear, and then poor old 2 probably killed itself because no one cared about it. But when you throw out a bunch of 5 stars and 1 star, there's a clear classification with the mentality of people; "If I like this, I'll give it a perfect score," or, "I didn't enjoy this very much. Which means it's the worst thing I've ever watched in my entire life. Here's a 1."
It also feels the same for movies. "That movie got 3 stars out of 5, it must be garbage!" "A 7 out of 10? Must be average at best." Etc., etc. It's a strange mentality we've all developed. We always want to get the best of the best, and to weed away any garbage that comes our way, so that we don't have to waste our time being disappointed. There's something people didn't plan on with this though. Going back to games, with the constant 10s, 9s, and 8s, there is actually plenty of garbage that is out there.
Let me talk about sequels for a minute or two. Take Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Plus ghost, plus black ops, all of that. The setting changes very little, with small additions here and there to the series, and there is constant high ratings. It's not bad for a game to be like its predecessor, but the games themselves feel like they change the formula very little.
Take Spyro and Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage. Both have similar gameplay, but there are many changes from the first game to the second. For example, in the first game, there is the inability to swim, where in the second game, you can immediately see water does not hurt you (don't touch water kids, you will lose a health point). There is also another mechanic in the second, where while gliding, pressing the triangle makes you do a small "hover" for extra vertical height, something where going back to the first one, is actually a lot more helpful than it sounds. Then with NPCs, temporary power up gates, a bonus for getting 100% that carries onto new game plus, proper bosses and more, the game feels very fleshes out.
Another example would be Super Mario Bros to Super Mario Bros 3. I don't even have to go into detail with how much of an improvement it is, to the point people still recite it as one of the best games ever made. More stages, being able to store power ups, mechanics to help you past hard stages, plenty of challenge, and more.
When I look at Modern Warfare 2 compared to the first, I see what feels like an expansion pack. There's some different layouts and stuff, more guns, etc., but that's exactly what an expansion pack feels like. Yet, reviewers rate it a straight 10 because they know it will get them views. The only change is that some rate it lower for the sake angry fanboys flooding their pages with views (have some more money from ad revenue and views, take that!)
I know I've been ranting for awhile, so let me wrap this up. The review system just simply not dependent. I'm not a fan of it. If I ever review something on this blog, know that if I give a game a 6, I still think it's good. I would like to throw out some reviews some time, there's no harm in that. But I do wish people would put more effort into reviews and rating games. Hell, Steam gave a game to reviewers, and showed off steam achievements, showing off how much progress they made it through. Only a small portion (less than 50%) played an hour's worth of a game. Even if some games are only really 4-5 hours in length nowadays on average, even playing under an hour shows just how much of a joke this really is. If I find the image, I will post it. Still, if anyone does read this, just realize what those reviews really mean; that 10 you see on a new game might've come from a guy who watched gameplay videos on youtube and/or simply looked at another person's review. Just a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment