blrrmmmff
Scholar
- Joined
- May 2, 2017
- Messages
- 173
To be fair, he kinda has a point with objectivity. You got games that are objectively terrible, usually because they are unfinished, buggy with terrible production values. But a lot of at least decent games in terms of production values, it is very subjective how good they are, and depends on how many games you played previously, your taste etc.
Take the Last of Us. I had not played video games in years, I was not really used to the newer graphics, due to being busy with other things and losing interest in video games. So I bought a PlayStation and played this game and was blown away by it. Thought it was a pretty amazing game. But if you played a ton of games right before this, it would probably merely be a decent game at most. As it did not really innovate much.
Then take Red Dead Redemption 2, when this came out I had played a lot of games previously, and I was bored stiff by this game. It felt like a horse riding simulator, and I did not like the low FPS. But I can see how someone with less gaming experience can be blown away by it.
That is why I think those studios have gotten away with so much crap, an influx of new players that are a lot less critical. Imagine playing a far cry or call of duty game for the first time when you have played barely any video games in your life. You will probably be blown away. Even though I would probably rate them 3/10. So IMO there is hope for an incline, as the gaming industry is maturing. You can see it happening already, you can see more and more unhappy gamers on reddit for example, complaining that there is no innovation and games are often repetitive.
The problem is that game journalists rate every game as if you are playing video games for the first time. And focus too much on production values. Of course every new Call of Duty game would deserve a high score then.
Take the Last of Us. I had not played video games in years, I was not really used to the newer graphics, due to being busy with other things and losing interest in video games. So I bought a PlayStation and played this game and was blown away by it. Thought it was a pretty amazing game. But if you played a ton of games right before this, it would probably merely be a decent game at most. As it did not really innovate much.
Then take Red Dead Redemption 2, when this came out I had played a lot of games previously, and I was bored stiff by this game. It felt like a horse riding simulator, and I did not like the low FPS. But I can see how someone with less gaming experience can be blown away by it.
That is why I think those studios have gotten away with so much crap, an influx of new players that are a lot less critical. Imagine playing a far cry or call of duty game for the first time when you have played barely any video games in your life. You will probably be blown away. Even though I would probably rate them 3/10. So IMO there is hope for an incline, as the gaming industry is maturing. You can see it happening already, you can see more and more unhappy gamers on reddit for example, complaining that there is no innovation and games are often repetitive.
The problem is that game journalists rate every game as if you are playing video games for the first time. And focus too much on production values. Of course every new Call of Duty game would deserve a high score then.
