100%.. I only subscribe to GP when its £1. But I love trying games out, if I like it, I'll buy it, I did this recently with Warhammer 3 and before that Battlesector.
I completely agree with this video, 100% cold heartedly! This is why I ignore SOME or ALL Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IGN, Gamespot, Destructoid, any other video game, movie and music review websites and YT channels reviews from here on out going forward! I’m hereby going to review video games, movies and music with a thumbs up or thumbs down approval with a buy it, see it or listen to it right now, wait for sale or wait until it’s on DVD and Blu-Ray, wait until it’s patched and/or updated or wait for a director’s or extended cut or stay away verdict!
i totally agree , many in the internet considered batman arkham knight a really bad game due the overuse of the batmobile but for me it didn't bother me at all it was my most enjoyed batman game ever .some case with days gone i had so much fun while playing it but the online reviews tells you otherwise
TOTALLY AGREE !!! Reviews are subjective, when it comes to the game (excluding bugs and coding problems) I prefer to look at Steam reviews since 50,000 consumers compared to 50 game Journalists gives a better outlook of a game. Even then its just their opinion, My Steam reviews I give the good points, bad points and then my overall opinion of the game, I never give them a score, just recommend or not.
i think what worse thing is in mass effect universe there use to be unlimited ammo (cooldown to reload) but in me 2 and 3 they use this heat sink to reload ammo which is pretty clear a cash grab from weapon manufacturing industry
The lore is pretty convoluted tbh. All ME guns use a Lead Block system where the guns shave small chunks of a lead block and launch it really fast. In ME2 and 3 they added the Thermal Clip system on top of the lead block system as an optional way to speed up cooldown, but it isn't treated like that in gameplay.
2 minutes in and im not sure if you try multiple humble brags... or just to balance your own superior dog existence with uplifting us two legged salt addicts. either way you got my appreciation \[T]/
For me it's quite simple, fuck review scores and actually read/listen to what the reviewer says about the game. There have been games that I was on the fence about buying and I made my decision based on what 4 or 5 reviews said about the game, not the subjective part of the review, but the objective part, like a mechanic I can't stand, performance issues, bad controls, etc...
The only reviews I look at nowadays tend to be steam reviews but at the end of the day the only one who can dictate whether a game is good or not is yourself
People so hype right now about Elden Ring and I'm just shocked honestly. It's like...I know the whole "it's just DS3.5 with an open world" critique is a cliche...but like...that's literally the game. It feels dated IMMEDIATELY upon going in. The few additions to combat weren't enough to make it feel fresh nor that visceral. The boss design is still cool but the world design is beyond fuckin basic. Yet I'm hearing people praise the open world like it's the second coming of jesus when it's probably the most bland open world design I've run into in years. It's just the lack of handholding in the map UI and general UI that is refreshing but at the same time the worst elements of the game could have been fixed with even minimal UI...and they didn't even do it. I got about to the Capital before the game's quality nosedived afterward...and I'm probably gunna not finish it out of pure boredom. The plot is just not compelling enough and the world design is just too archaic and deeply lacking in substance or anything that will pull me back for the DLCs...I just feel like dieing worlds don't need to feel like deserts with a few monsters standing around.
@@MadWatcher No, I'm just not gunna buy the same game with dated tweaks every time. I want them to do better not sell me more of the same shit I've already beaten.
This is why I don't like and have never liked Games Journalism or anyone who tries to sell me a game. I'll look through a list of games and look into if it is a good buy for me or not. Sometimes in my research of the game I'll check on game journo, but take their opinion with a grain of salt.
They could be the best games you out of his own genre but not the best game ever or the best game of that year thank you finally a RU-vidr is saying what I feel
Everytime I hear that when RU-vidr say this is the best game ever I'm like I don't feel like that just because you like it that doesn't mean it's the best game ever
Exactly I've been saying that the whole time on other videos when somebody says this is the best game ever or the best game of the year there's no such thing as a best game of the year or the best game ever you can choose to like a game thank you thank you
Very good representing us as hot dogs 😉 I never really gave 2 shits about those scores, they can be "guideline" if a game is actually worth trying but the worth trying does not start at 80+ but more like 50+. Outriders last year for example may not be a masterpiece. But after the first few updates it was a totally enjoyable experience and with Gamepass I didn't even needed to pay full price. It all comes down to personal preferences.
When I mentioned that review scored don't matter, and that personal preference will always be top, people tried desperately to tell me otherwise. I simply said that if Breath of the Wilds in it's current state had scored a 40/100, I wouldn't care, because the game's amazing. Yes, I agree that the review itself is worth the time. Especially if the reviewer can absolutely be honest and talk about flaws. Though, if a reviewer complains about graphics, I tend to not take that at face value. Graphics mean little, art style will always be best, and if a game plays amazingly, I don't care about fidelity. There's a reason games like Binding of Isaac is very popular. But, if a review tells about the game's overall performance, and it isn't good, then I'll wait and see. It's good to get many opinions and draw conclusions, rather than simply look at outlets which share your thoughts on a game. Aggregate Review Scores are also stupid, since how do you translate a 5 star rating system into an aggregate score? ArsTechnica famously also doesn't give out a score at all, they simply summarize their reviews with "Good, Bad and Ugly" sections, so are their reviews trash?
For example: RU-vidr Under the Mayo made a review on Halo Infinite. I didn't even bother watching it, I already knew his stance on the game. Even before Halo Infinite released, he already mentioned how he does not like Halo's combat and playstyle, and he doesn't like open worlds. ((He literally made a whole video on how Halo ruined FPS, and while I think that video is good, he's already got a hatred for Halo. And in his CP2077 talk video, he mentioned how he doesn't like Open Worlds)). So, when a Halo open world comes out... do you think he's gonna like it? Hell no. Then, RU-vidr AngryJoeShow did have a very good and honest Halo review. He trashed Halo 5 (deservingly so), but gave Infinite a good shot. He mentioned the greats and the weaknesses, overall the game scored respectfully, and at the end of the day, it is his opinion on the game. I agreed with many of the comments he put out. Personal bias towards a product will always influence you, regardless of how objective you try being.
I agree, I had a big backlash if I once said that BotW is a good open world game, but a bad Zelda game. I even explained that it just doesn't translate the Zelda formular very good. Still a good game though.
@@Karamuto While I don't agree with the "It's a bad Zelda Game" simply because it changed the Zelda Formula, it is a great open world. I don't want games to stay the same, and while I LOVE the Zelda formula, I am a self-proclaimed Zelda Fanboy, BotW did change things up, and I like that direction. Now if Nintendo can fuse old and new... they'd have a winner for the ages. Not saying your opinion isn't valid, I just don't share that sentiment. I enjoy games which try something new with a given IP, and BotW being a great open world has made me excited for the future, especially if they can somehow figure out how to blend the new style with proper dungeons.
@@Xyler94 don't get me wrong, I really like that game and pumped around 120h into it ( I wouldn't do that for a game I don't like ). I just felt the "beast dungeons" and some of the shrines were a letdown, because they showed in the past that they are more then capable in making really great dungeons with well made bosses at the end. Dungeons and bosses are more or less the "Zelda formular" for me and if they can fix this little issue in the next game I will be more then thrilled to also put in the same time there 😃 Currently I am playing Elden Ring and I think it translates the souls formula perfectly into the open world and just wish for the next Zelda to achieve the same thing.
@@Karamuto Again, I never said your opinion wasn't valid, I'm just saying that I don't feel like it's fair to say "It's a bad Zelda game". Yes, the dungeons aren't like previous Zelda games, but then I can say world exploration isn't like past Zelda games either. I like this new "Zelda" style, it's refreshing. I didn't mean to say you didn't like it, but I'm simply refuting the claim of it being a bad "Zelda" game. There were puzzles in the game, just split into the shrines, which are fun in their own way. And there were plenty of fun other means. Are the dungeons worse than other Zelda games? Yeah, that's without debate... but almost everything else is a huge step above other Zelda games. Maybe not story, but I always said Story should take a backside when designing an open world. Since you can't force story beats properly if the player's allowed to go anywhere at any time...
Wish more people would see through their tricks. Not all journalists are dishonest, but most rather follow what the general public thinks to avoid backlashes and make money. And more people need to see journalists as a someone's opinions aka subjective opinions on the thing than always bring that out to prove that this is all people think the same way.
I think reviews only work when they're "specialized" in some compacity. If I love Souls games, then it's probably best for me to follow someone that is just as biased as me and not someone that looks like they're forced to play something out of popularity. If I'm a newcomer with a genre/series, I can see why someone experienced likes it instead of looking at another newcomer's likely misguided experience.
Review scores =/= how much you'll enjoy a game since your tastes don't always align with the reviewers. Even audience reception isn't 100% accurate just cause a game is liked by many others doesn't mean you will like it. I played far cry 3 at the end of 2021 for the first time cause everyone tells me how good that game is and how the game is an fps masterpiece (to be fair only a few people said this) and... it was honestly pretty generic the only thing of note to me was the compelling antagonists in the far cry series (they really don't get enough screen time in these games) I don't really see why people worship this game so much but that's probably just my personal taste when it comes to games.
Saw this on my living room TV, went to my PC to comment. This kind of showcases to why I really don't trust reviews or scores, and just choose to play games for myself. Haven't used reviews in a very long time, and I find more games I just enjoy playing, and it makes me happier since I'm not second thinking myself. I've always said what's good and bad in gaming (or entertainment in general) varies from person to person. Games I like may not be a game someone else likes, and vice versa. You bring up some good points Cheems.
I would go so far as to say that often there is a bias towards overhyped AAA games from big publishers - with the exception when a game is clearly broken like Battlefield 2042. Last year for example Deathloop was pretty overhyped and received great review scores and several game awards, but many players found the game a bit dull and some reviewers pointed out that Arkane Studio's previous game Prey: Mooncrash had a similar time loop based gameplay but was much better. The only worth I personally see in review scores is to check why a reviewer gave a certain number (high or low) and see if the reviewer's arguments make sense and align with my game preferences.
Going further in the discussion @Cheems of Regret, in one of the previous videos you mentioned that Sony has some of the best selling games but they don't appeal to you. So the conclusion is no matter how high the aggregated metacritic scores for a certain franchise or a certain publisher/platform owner are, if those games don't appeal to you those scores are worthless.
@@CheemsofRegret if you like the first one you will like this one they mostly made improvement on the first game gun play is better the combat is the same a little bit more polished but it's still not a high budget game Piranha Bytes only has like 33 people I think RPG machnics is still well done as always and there more factions
I don't really care about review scores tbh. Ever since IGN gave COD games high scores I learned they were fucking biased even though I'm a COD fan that enjoys BOCW
Yes exactly, it's all about personal preference. Basing your opinions on games over review scores is a horrible idea. Console fanboys (as you mentioned) suffer from this the most. Just to prove my point, Halo 5 got a 9 from IGN. I disliked the game as I hated the campaign component but the reviewer clearly thought it was good enough to get a 9. If I based my opinions on reviews, IGN's Halo 5 score means it was one of the best Halo games
While reviews matter, only watching multiple reviews will make the full picture, and even then, only playing the full game will make for the full experience and quantify the score in the player’s mind. For GT7 and me, for example, I find the 8/10 in general to be right on the money, but it’s a miracle, and even then I don’t find an 8/10 to mean the same as any other person would. I’d rate Gran Turismo PSP to be a 6/10, or even a 5/10, yet I still recommend it if you have a PSP since it’s a good time killer if you’re a Gran Turismo fan on the go. Gran Turismo 6 to me is a 9/10 due to it having hands down the most content out of a Gran Turismo game, but the amount of things to do does dip the score below a perfect 10 in my mind. Speaking of perfect 10’s, Gran Turismo 4 earns it imho, since it’s a perfect balance between quality of life and the amount of content, not to mention it has the (albeit debatable) advantage of having all the content it will ever have right on the disc. As for something like Uncharted, I’d rate games 1-4 to be a 6/10 or 7/10 (depending if you’re playing it on the Nathan Drake collection), 9/10, 8/10 or 9/10 (depending if you’re playing it on the Nathan Drake collection), and 8/10 respectively. 1 is the one that started it all and has a familiar formula to the rest of them, but the age does show, and the PS3 version especially has a bunch of launch title jank as I’d like to call it. 2 is easily the best out of the quadrilogy in terms of a balance between story, gameplay, and content (it could just be nostalgia talking since I haven’t played it in a while), it’s perfect. 3 is the most different between the PS3 original and the PS4 port, since while the original has split screen capability, I don’t think the PS4 version does, but it does keep the same store system 2 has, which bumps it up a point imho, especially seems how the thing that would attract people to Uncharted _is_ the single player aspect. 4 might be the most controversial opinion I have on the franchise, and this is coming from someone who played the original trilogy first, but I didn’t like it as much as 2 and 3, especially 2. While it’s stacked in terms of single player content (for a non-Gran Turismo PS exclusive), I didn’t find the story good enough to keep coming back to in order to finish the rest of the game imho along with unlocking the rest of the cheats. I’ve yet to play the PC port though, so that may affect my opinion, not to mention potential mod support to replace Druckmann’s OC’s in favor of the typical silly Steam mods, somehow. Why those two games specifically? They’re the only two Playstation franchises I ever actually gave a rat’s ass about. Crash Bandicoot technically counts since I grew up on the original trilogy, but it was on the VERY tail end of their exclusivity, and not a lot of Crash games are exclusive anyway. Maybe that’ll change with the Microsoft-Activision deal lmao.
I think the worst of the reviews in movies and games is when they have to cram a political topic for no other reason other than oh it’s about this it’s such a turn off and it bugs me so much that some people only care about something because oh it’s because of this topic that makes this good or it has this topic that drags it down it’s so stupid
I agree with your video but here is my problem with MetaCritic. According to Metacritic if a game is a 70 they consider that mixed and there are plenty of good games that are 70-74 and there are people that are influenced that if it's mixed they won't play it.
I'll give you guys a prime example to prove Cheems; I bought the Witcher 3 and Hollow Knight solely based on their reviews and praise and absolutely did not like them. I didn't even get 25% through. Witcher had clunky controls, and Hollow Knight wasn't my kind of game.
