What I can't stand about modern reviewers/critics is how everything is either garbage or a masterpiece. Nothing inbetween. And fans of certain influencers (UA-camrs or streamers) tend to view their opinion as fact, echoing it all over the internet. It's annoying. This to the point where you feel bad for liking an unpopular game, and feeling bad for not liking a very-well-liked game.
That's what makes 7/10s so funny. 70% good isn't bad, but it's ambiguous enough to screw over people who have preconceived notions on what the game "should" be (subpar trash or the next coming of Christ).
Yep. This is also a problem. But that is also the foult of the outlets. And the outlets alone! They literely give slop a 7 of 10 despite calling it out as slop. They also give flawed games a 9 of 10 or even 10 of 10 sometimes. So of course people are furious if they rate a "okay" game without real flaws but no big pros either just 5 of 10 and worse as slop.
Remember when one person dared giving BOTW only a 7/10? man the angry fanboys were going wild. Also i'm glad you mentioned the people complaining about "grrr woke game". i was just thinking about that while watching the video. Maybe "fucking pronouns" guy will one day realise that starfield isn't bad because 2 minutes of your 80hour playthrough include "woke" stuff.
The funny part is. Pronouns guy called out many real issues the game has. (Starfield is trash after all). But came to the conclution "WOKE" is the problem. This is how drifters work. They call out real issue and then frame "Woke" for being the reason.
It will never not be funny to me when people get upset at the review for a game they haven't even played. Like, homie, what is your stake in this? You haven't even experienced 1 second of the game to have an opinion. You just assume you'll like/hate it and get pissed when a reviewer doesn't feel the way about a game you think you'll feel. If you don't care for a game, don't look at reviews and don't play it. If you do have an interest in a game, don't look at the reviews and just play it. Only you can make your own opinion on something.
I've never understood why people get so insanely invested in review scores. I've always used video reviews as a way to see more gameplay and find out if there are major issues (example: horrible frame rate). Hoping that a game fails because it doesn't directly pander to "you" be beyond pathetic. Who cares if the game is "woke"? Don't play it, don't watch videos about it, just move on with your life.
It's funny because IGN, PC Gamer, and others have just recently backtracked their reviews and now more align with more negative reviews for Dragon Age. They literally have polar opposite reviews in comparison to their initial ones.
@@OteimPrincewill The person is right, at least for IGN (PC Gamer score was 79, only good). They published an article recently called : "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Is at War With Itself".
@@L4in1998 Okay? That article is not the review of the game and stands separately from the review. Also written by different people and the IGN review score is still 9/10
@OteimPrincewill and video game articles are another can of worms. "What Blizzard's future plans for Diablo 4 can learn from Elden Ring and Stardew Valley."
Great video, I spend a lot of time trying to find hidden gems and the most valuable resource are individual reviewers that have similar taste to me and Steam reviews. As far as I can tell it's the only system that actually checks if you played it and for how long. Being able to filter by length really helps understand the mindset. I have seen negative reviews by people with thousands of hours because of very niche things that won't make sense unless I become obsessed and positive reviews that are just memes. Being able to filter that is a tool that pretty much every other public review site lacks.
I always appreciate reviews like skill up because even though he was the outlier his review convinced me to wait for the game to go on sale rather than pick it up at launch. Despite how critical he was I’m still looking forward to it and can’t wait to get into the good parts I’ve heard about from other reviews like the combat. Reviews like skill ups don’t have to mean you won’t play and enjoy the game it could just be a good reason to wait and play the game when it’s cheaper and has proper bug fixes. I think I’ll enjoy veilguard much more as a $30-40 game rather than a fully priced $70 one
"I trust games journalists more because most of the users on metacritic push their internally held beliefs about a game" (Paraphrased) Dawg.... I've got some bad news for you.
@@StarsAndSticks Well let's think it out. In the case of sad Dragon Age Veilguard, Metacritic allows anyone to post a review of this controversial game. Metacritic is also flooded with low information, highly negative, and inflammatory reviews. However Steam and PlayStation only allow people to review the game if they actually _played it._ These reviews are more positive and in line with the general critical perspective as well. What should we deduce? Why would it be the case that when we actually control for if someone played the game the responses they give radically shift? 🤔 If the people who know play the game align with basket A and not basket B. What might that tell us about the "Reviewers" in Basket B?
I supported the concord trailer way back (cause I hate overwatch 2) and took so many shots cause of it. The game got dug such an unnecessarily large hole. Didn’t even get to play it 😂
Hey! Just want you to know I’ve watched all your videos and your content is excellent. Keep up the great work! Hope you blow through 10k subs and hit 100k soon!
The best review setup was Tips and Tricks Magazine back in the day. First they put how they scored their games right at the front of every review section, second in that score system, an acceptable was a 5/10, which meant games had to truly be bad to get below a 5, and truly be worth most peoples time of they got a 7, and 9's and 10's were must plays that are still in the cultural conversation today. Third, they individually scored gameplay, sound, graphics, etc there were like 5 categories plus an overall score. Fourth, they always had two people review a game, either two writers, or a writer and an editor, one was reaponsible for the majority of the review, the second just gave their scores and got a small blurb if they were in general agreement or an entire paragraph, sometimes an entire page if they significantly disagreed over the game. Fifth, they were not industry friendly or bought by the industry, they were a bunch of nerds with industry connections offering honest consumer opinions. Six, they'd answer criticism of their reviews in their mail bag section openly and honestly, never doubling down or insulting, but defending their position politely and a lot of times going into further depth of why some games scores were what they were. I miss that mag, it had the best strategy guides :(
The honest reason a lot of people dont like or trust teviews anymore are 2 big reasons. First, it is public knowledge that there are numerous devs whose executives receive bonuses BASED on critic review scores. So it makes reviews look VERY purchased when games receive unanimous 8+ reviews when public opinion and user reviews are in direct contrast. Even more so when multiple outlets all essentially have the SAME exact review, down to pretty much the same verbage just rearranged. "A return to form for bioware" is the perfect example. Second, is when scores are increaded or decreased based on things that dont actually impact gameplay. A good example of this is when ign and other outlets docked points from Black Myth Wukong based on "lack of diversity". When they openly admitted they didnt play past the second act of the game, and if you ask anyone the characters and diversity ALL open up from act 3 onwards. With 3 & 4 center around femalce characters. Showing the reviewers own lack of a proper review, and more of a first impressions. Not an actual truthful review. Not to mention when outlets like IGN and Forbes, specifically Paul Tassi, run hate pieces that make absolutely wild claims based on mistranslations and "insider sources" and then attack those who call them out. These are the factors that cause gamers to be hyper critical of game reviews from multiple of these outlets. And its in human nature to be able to pick up on patterns and start to see them. Its how humans managed to survive. Its gotten worse over time bc its a pattern that many can clearly see now and that outlets aren't even bothering to hide.
@@iownall2222 The Wukong example is literally from a single reviewer who wasn't even from IGN. "Return to form" is just a really common phrase to describe a comeback
@OteimPrincewill there were multiple outlets, IGN included, that mentioned a lack of diversity in the game when talking about it, bringing it up as a negative. Also IGN was the outlet that ran a smear campaign on the company based ENTIRELY on mistranslations, so they were guilty of more than just mentioning a lack of diversity. Also when you put out a game review based on less than half the game, that's not a review, period. That's an impression. When you "review" a game, you play the entire game so you can actually make an educated assessment of the entirety of the game. You wouldn't do a movie review on less than half the movie, the same thing applies to games. As for "return to form", while yea that might be a popular phase when talking about a comeback. When almost every review using that phrase reads the EXACT same way, that is an indication of a prefabricated review. No two people think the exact same way, so to have numerous reviews that use the same verbage and phrasing happens, it is a clear indicator that these are not honest reviews. No two outlets will say the same things on the same points, that's just not a human thing. That is a clear indication of a purchased review as well as having a script for your review.
@@iownall2222 No they don't read the exact way if the even read like 3 of them. This is just grasping at straws. IGN article on Game Science wasnt based on mistranslation also in the IGN review of the game diversity isn't even mentioned once. You are talking about the screen rant review which isn't IGN. Then why hasn't any one leaked the script? Why didn't even the reviewers who were critical of the game leak the script?.
@@iownall2222 Multiple people can come to the exact same conclusion, take a look at stellar blade, most of the reviews laud the combat but pan the lackluster story.
@OteimPrincewill all the veilguard reviews do read the same. Maybe not current ones bc now that more critical reviewers have gotten the chance to play, there are more critical reviews out, but every single one prior to launch read the exact same using almost the same verbage and phrasing. There is a next to 0% chance that every single outlet would use "return to form". That's just not how separate reviewers behave without a script on what to say. And they wouldn't leak a script bc these review sites want to stay in business, have audience and receive review copies. No two separate people are going to describe something in the exact same way, that's just not how humans are. Also, yes, the IGN article was based ENTIRELY off of mistranslations. That has been proven by multiple different people who speak Chinese/Mandarin fluently. They also did mention a lack of diversity in the game. Screen rant was the one who docked points because of it, but IGN also mentioned it in their review.
The problem is that "game Jornalist" lack any expertise and were often proven to rate favorable out of fear to not get the next test copy. The problem isn't Mario & Luigi getting a 5 of 10 as a not mind blowing but okay game. It's that the same people give the next COD a 9 of 10 despite having serious complains.
@@OteimPrincewillNot sure you understand how game journalism works bud. There is a reason why Bioware chose certain companies to review their games. It's happened countless times and will continue to happen.
@brandonadams6607 What companies were those? And they even gave a number of UA-camr like Skill up that gave it a negative reception. Do you have any evidence at all
@@OteimPrincewill You say I'm wrong without any facts. I shortened as you can't link in you tube anyway. But my observation is build on over 18 years of playing games and reading reviews. With the ever increasing size of games reviewers of big outlets have less and less time to review and they not even try anymore. Nowadays many just play the first few hours and call it a day. Look at the FF16 reviews. It was called a masterpiece because the jornalist not bothered to play further as the beginning. This is trend you can see over and over again. They often only play the beginning and make their review. Then they are inconsistent. One time they complain about one element while praising it in their next review. Also many "long time" jornalist not even play games anymore outside of reviewing them. Its only a job at this point. So they not look out for fun or exspirience anymore but only look for flags they can use to say "good" or "bad". One more issue is people copy pasting reviews this is something german jornalist even admit! If some even admit it you can be sure it happens quite often. But most of all most outlet not really give sound reasons for reviews despite the same reviewer writing. You can just feel there is no reason for a score besides how the reviewer felt while writing the review. Indepented reviewers become more and more popular as this people normaly have more sound reasons why they dislike or love a game. Even if you not agree you can unterstand why they review it like they did. They are also honest if they not finished a game.
@@OteimPrincewill for there 1000 times you can't link on UA-cam and I could only calö out german sourches anyway. People that left outlets because of missing freedom in their reviews or old moderator talking about the review process and how they tricked because time issues. (A problem that surely only got worse with ever longer games.)
Hey I want to know if you watch the video that fextralife put out on reviews for valguard? Because that does make reviews from major organization a little suspicious.
most of the backlash about a review comes from people getting the idea that perhaps the review isn't honest. that's pretty much it. we just want honesty.
Its inconsistency. If the next cod would get the same rating for doing the same as always nobody would complain. But they pretty much come up with the most stupid reasons to rate a "okay" game as okay while they rate other games that are not even okay with a 9 out of 10
@@mrcaos999IGN isn’t a single person, it’s a large group of people, IGN reviews are made by tons of completely different people all with different tastes
@@Gouda992thats it, if you have no method, the number has no context, and thus, no real value for the consumer. You may not agree with skill up, but you can understand what he values and how he works and unlike IGN, that’s useful.
@@TotoPechi How is skill up different than the individuals who review said game from IGN. Just look up the reviewer and you can see their history of reviews. They too express subjective opinions on said game. But people like you will use Skill as an authoritarian figure to determine the truthfulness of one's judgment. Skill-up words are no more truthful than an IGN reviewer's opinion. You just don't want to hear what they have to say because you disagree with it from the get-go. Just like I do not care what Skill Up has to say because he's just some guy on the internet.
many people only understand IGN as some single entity, rather than a capitalist corporation run by managers, with a revolving-door cast of writers whose opinions are influenced by financial incentive.
IGN isn't trusted to give a good a good informed look into a game because you can tell when a reviewer hasn't played the game they're talking about. You say they are 'vetted" but jus look at how many IGN reviews are 7s and or the only COD game scoring below a 9 is the one the internet unanimously agreed was bad. ON that point just look at how many major reviews by IGN never receive less than a 7. Unlike your statements about Capital G GAMERS, IGN be blanket judged because like you said they are "vetted" and PAID to do reviews FOR IGN meaning even thought they are individuals the reviews for the site are treated as the IGN opinion so those supposedly vetted reviewers can have a bad opinion and it will be the sites opinion. Defending major review outlets seems just stupid in this day and age when you can have rotten tomatoes give a provably good movie a bad review and the reviewer still get paid for essentially word salad.
Where is " The Internet" that decided this? Did you mean "My personal bubble?" Steam has COD:BO6 at a 58% Positive review "Mixed" rating. Meaning about 6/10 people liked the game. Playstation users gave it a 4/5 and google ratings give it a 76%. How can you claim you hate IGHN for not playing the games they review and support that by spitting out a supposed fact you didn't even check? Does it get more ironic>
@@Awaken_To_0 Heh funny you assume im talking about BO6, which has a 9 on IGN by the by. No im talking about the modern warfare 3 remaster which by Steam metrics is MOSTLY negative now lets check IGN, oh, how strange, unlike the others it's at 4 how odd one might say. Rather than get into this comment section and assume something about me, how about you look into what I'm talking about using the context clues to find out im not talking about BO6. Does it get more ironic> It's crazy how not only were you so confidently wrong, you were smug about it. Have some shame
@@thebanjoorder4446 I'll take the L on looking at the wrong game. Okay what are the metric for Modern Warfare 3? Let's see, MW3 has a 53% from google users, 56% on metacritic, and a 4/5 stars on playstation. So you're _still_ wrong... and for the exact same reason as before. Congratulations! You sure showed me! I'm not sure what but... something!
@@Awaken_To_0 OK so we are ignoring Steam because it no longer fits your argument and sticking to Metacritic, a site similar to IGN and has similar issues, google reviews which is actually a 1.7 when looking oh idk the subject with which this is about and if you still wanna use review site has a 2/5 with Eurogamer and PS platform it is mostly played on where their will be an obvious bias, which to be fair is fine because that is their right to have that opinion And are accusing me of being wrong in the same way Congratulations! You sure showed me! I'm not sure what but... something! Also to add a 56% and 53% is a failing grade. But go off, go ahead and say something else false. And on the point of 53% liked this video game that would only account for the people who even know you can click the like button on google when looking up games and movies, which I didn't, so you taught me something. Ig that's a thing you can be proud of
@@thebanjoorder4446 a failing fra... You understand the world is not highschool, right? You do? Say yes If a game has about a 50% positive review rate that doesn't mean it scored 50/100 points on a grading metric. That means the rates of people who like it are relatively 50/50. Half of people like it, half of people don't. There is no Game God who can look at Mario and declare "This game is objectively a 7/10. Therefore it gets a C." Notice that is in stark contradiction to your claim that "the internet" has decided it's bad. I'm not ignoring Steam because it's "bad for my argument." I'm ignoring it because it's wholly irrelevant. You claimed there was broad consensus. There is not. Most places where people voice their opinion and those opinions need a basis it comes down to about 50/50.That's _divisive_ almost by definition. Half of people like it, and half the people don't. I have no idea why you would reference Metacritic when a big part of the video you presumably watched was about how it's often manipulated by bad actors to paint a narrative not give informed honest feedback. Still, good source or bad source it's still at the end of the day an irrelevant source. If you claim " All apples are red" all I need to do to prove you wrong is show that actually some if not many apples are green or yellow. You saying, " Well this apple is red!" Is irrelevant. The green and gold apples still prove you wrong. You claimed consensus. There is not. Accept the fact that some people have a different opinion on a _luxury entertainment product_ than you and move on.
I made fun of the chuds several times. Let's say I tried to stay neutral because both sides have been questionable. But 02:45 is dishonnest. DAV has been promoted as a game that respected what Bioware did before. That's probably the main issue. They should have created a new licence while making a DA more faithful to the original. I saw nobody saying that it's the right direction, only another one.
I enjoy/usually agree with skill ups reviews. However, he did strongly recommenced scorn and I played it based off his recommendation. That game, although artistically interesting, was one of the most frustrating games I’ve ever played. The combat was awful and the gameplay was terrible. He didn’t like veilguard, and it was one of my favorite games this year. It’s okay to watch/read a review and check it out for yourself! You might be end up being surprised. To each his own!
In general, people are often weird about reviews because most people are just stupid. Septerra Core on GoG is majorly broken on modern systems, it's a game from like 1999, and somehow, per their own reviews in GoG, some have stated if you give the game bad reviews, then maybe nobody will fix it, and apparently under the impression that perfect 5 of 5 reviews will somehow lead to it being fixed because people love what the game COULD be if it worked right. One person even admitted to having not tried running the game from GoG on a modern system despite giving a 5 of 5 review. I disagree that reviews are always subjective, because if you make a claim on an objective fact, especially if that objective fact is wrong, then the review is now partially objective. And especially if the review is objectively wrong about facts, then the review is garbage in terms of the objective facts, and that can bleed over into the subjective part, if the factual wrong parts impact their subjective impression, which can turn into a situation where an opinion is actually wrong. And games like Veilguard is a mix of issues. A lot of people did go in pre-hating that one for two main reasons, you cover the "Gamer" perspective, the "go woke, go broke" crowd who will attempt to review bomb any game with woke content in it, including Baldur's Gate 3. But in the case of Baldur's Gate 3, you don't see them making video after video ranting about it, because it doesn't actually fit the narrative. It's woke AF and successful, because it was woke and a very good game, and the "go woke, go broke" narative is "woke games always fail because they're woke". Veilguard on the other hand, it has a very objective lack of consequences to the vast majority of "choices" you make in that game, unlike all the previous games, and that is the other reason a lot of people have pre-hated it, after early reviews were coming out, and more so after some post release reviewers have gone through and finished the entire game. And at this point, if the game were to drop 2% more on Steam, it'd be in the Mixed category, even where people have to buy and play the game for at least 5 minutes or so to review it. So Veilguard is a mix of pre-hating solely for woke content (which is going to happen anyway, and part of why "grifter" is a fitting term for youtubers making money of false cause of outrage), pre-hating due to early feedback about lacking mechanics, and further revelations post release that the early game design concerns were very valid.
People don't trust IGN because their rating scale has almost literally no meaning when industry slop is (on average) 7/10 despite glaring technical issues, narrative contradictions, and/ or massive shifts away from establishes lore or histories of a series. People are allowed to be upset about these things and their voices should be heard. You said we should have constructive conversation without actually looking at the reasons for why they didn't like things. You're ignoring the nuance you're saying we should look for
IGN rating system is just not consistent. and not only because many people write reviews for them. It's also because the same people rate differently. You can find people tearing a game apart and still giving it a 8 of 10. While the same people love everything about a game except for dificulty and trash it to 4 of 10^^
In my house game is game play what you want. Game same game. This is game you like game play game if it is game you don’t like game you don’t play game.
This is the point people that blindly protect "bad reviews" not get. It's not about giving something a bad score if you argument it logical. I know one reviewer who gave Fallout 4 a good score. I not agree with him at all but he at least had reasons for why he did it. Many outlets miss this. There reasons feel arbitary. FF16 is a good example. A game praised as masterpiece by many outlets. And you really could see if a Reviewer only played the first few hours or the whole game. If you finish FF16 you can't claim it as masterpiece... You can't even claim it being a "good" game. The game is absolutely trash with some good boos fights and a good start. It's quite obvious to see most Reviewer only tested the beginining. Just like Stephanie Steerling only tested one Chapter right in the middle and maid wrong claims about the whole game and then felt wronged for people calling her out on this. People that pretty much agreed with her that the game is bad. But she still basicly lied because she only played like 2 hours and made claims about the whole game. This is a big problem. Indepented Reviewers are more trustworthy because they normaly claim openly of how much they played. Something outlet not do. They act like they did a full review while only making a first impression.
@@OteimPrincewill She worked in the industrie for years. Man how stupid can one person be and still annoy everyone here. Do us all a favor and just stop answearing i put you on ignore now. It's enough!
You seem to be forgetting some points that discredit game reviwers. Some of them like RTS games and have to review a game out of their genre and this happens A LOT. So if I hate fighting games and have to review one ... speaks for itself. Then there is the factor time or deadline -> Alien: Isolation killed reviewers because of tight deadlines, so they rushed trough a game where you have to be SLOW to not get killed every time. Next is the "you get paid for it" argument ... it is really a thing if you buy a game because you are interested in it and with your own money. Also ... why discuss everything with other staff? You have your opinion: leave it at that. Then "Sponsors" ... don't be so harsh to a game that our todays sponsor has published ... and last ... i think reviewers are bored about gaming. They HAVE TO review - it's a business.
@OteimPrincewill I'll repeat what he said staring from 16:35 "Reviewers won't ever tell you what to think, these are people that are paid to provide their opinion cause they are valuable
I am not sure if i agree or disagree with your video. But i think that is because a 19 minute video is not enough to truly anderstand the point someone makes. I did not buy the new Dragonage and i wont. But i also wont review it. Does not make sense to me since i did not play it. I watched some gameplay and did not like what i saw. And that was it for me. Still i feel attacked by your video. No hard feelings obviously. But i understand the negative score it got from players. The story and dialogue looked pretty badly written. The combat looked flashy but i had the feeling it would get boring fast and multiple reviews i watched later confirmed that. And the "controversial" character that everyone is bitching about felt also badly written and felt very unlikable as a person. I dont got a problem with trans characters. My problem was that the character seemed like an annoying brat that tries to lecture everyone around. And i do not agree that a game with these flaws gets a 9 (IGN).
13:23 no, no, no. Youre pulling a strawman argument. Whats going on, is people can sense when diversity is being done without actual good intent. Good examples if diversity, feel like they came from a place of a cool character idea, or having a complex story that can be told through them. What we despise, is when its identity politics being shoved down our throats, and being told that we are bigots, if we dont agree with what ideology is being shoved down our mouths. We can see when the writing is forced inclusion. We dont hate lgbtq. We hate when its being used as a vessel to push political views, and talk down to us like we are lesser. Just because a small vocal minority gets hyper angry about it, doesnt mean that you can say what you do, and thus portray hardcore gamers as hating this stuff. We just hate a very specific type of it, that being called Forced Diversity. And the irony of it, is that it does more harm than good for the people that it claims to represent. Because its the same tired tropes, pulled time after time. Like tokenism in the nineties
And regarding your grifting comment, the exact same thing happens on the other side. Frankly, the problem overall is that both sides are deadlocked in a culture war, and it's the loudest voices that are heard. The most extreme. And do you want to know who's voices therefore get drowned out? That of the sane.
And why does diversity have to have a deeper meaning behind its existence in games? You're talking about diversity like it's a storytelling device rather than simply a fact of life and unless it fits neatly into the plot and whatever the consumer already believes it shouldn't be there in the first place because anything else is "forced". Why do you need that justification for example black people existing or people being queer but not straight white men? "What we despise, is when its identity politics being shoved down our throats, and being told that we are bigots, if we dont agree with what ideology is being shoved down our mouths. " What exactly do you mean with that? What ideology? Queer people exist? What does it mean when identity politics are being shoved down your throat? "We can see when the writing is forced inclusion. We dont hate lgbtq. We hate when its being used as a vessel to push political views, and talk down to us like we are lesser." And you can see this based on what exactly? What would be examples of non forced inclusion and how does it differ from forced inclusion? "And the irony of it, is that it does more harm than good for the people that it claims to represent. Because its the same tired tropes, pulled time after time. Like tokenism in the nineties" While I can definitely agree that the way a lot of lgbt characters are included is done very poorly (especially in AAA games, DA:V being no exception), this isn't what Gamers complain about but rather the mere existence of them. Not to mention that if you were to ask these people about what they would change about lgbt inclusion and the way it's done, barely any of them would bring any actual improvement to the character without erasing some part of their identity as minority.
Stop soiling the critic with this nonsense claim. Dragon Age dropped to be dark and gridy after game one. The only thing that was consistence was the games adding LGBTQ+. The first game already had it and it added more with each installment^^
Wait. If all these vetted great writers know so much about games and have such good opinions, why aren't they making videos like you or Shill-up? Why do they choose to slave away at IGN reviewing games they don't like giving them 5s saying they're boring? And that's considering they even wrote those copy paste reviews to begin with or even finished the games : D Anyway keep up the bad takes, so I can get a laugh every now and then!
Dude... I think people have the right to be upset that Dragon Age has so much modern-day nonsense, this stuff doesn't belong in the world of Dragon Age. People wanted their Dark Fantasy genre to stay Dark Fantasy, it's like if they made a Jurassic Park movie but instead of being about dinosaurs it's about drag queen shows. Is that what you want in a dinosaur movie? Of course not, people have the right to be pissed about their beloved IP being used as a political vehicle to push a narrative it was never meant to have.
This is what people dislike about the current dragon age. Gamers are generally welcoming (you can’t convince me otherwise based on the actions of a loud, few assholes) but we know nonsense when we see it. This is a dark fantasy game and they’re worried about pronouns?? Come on. People play games to have a break from reality, not think about current, modern day issues especially in this style of game. They could have at least given the subject a dragon age paint job but they didn’t. It’s exactly this issue that makes it bad. If people say gamers are hateful without nuance, well gamers are being painted by an awfully broad brush… which sure is interesting.
@@justinrowan4539 No this statement just not stands. Dragon Age was only "dark fantasy" in the first game. This "dark fantasy" element is just the worst excuse as it pretty much dropped the grey areas quite soon. The only thing that was consistent in the game were LGBTQ+ elements. All games had them and they added more in each game. It's just a blunt lie to claim otherwise^^
@@mrcaos999 i think they just get it wrong, the problem never was the inclusion, because past dragon age games had aswell, but the writting its just trash, making a character whose entire personality boils down to being non-binary is just bad and lazy writting. And im not talking abt just the woke shit, most of the dialogues are down right bad written. Doing pushups bc she got the wrong pronoums, like, wtf is this lmao
With all duo respect this video has many wrong points and not because i dont agree or any of that stupid shit the video is praising any review an opinion like there isnt any wrong and yes there isnt a wrong opinion if its a true unbiased opinion game journalists have alot to save they cant bash certain games and they cant be late in releasing alot of reviews you said we have to trust those journalists who played the game and yes thats the point they dont play the game their job isnt to make a review their job is to make a review as fast as possible also its funny you said GAMERS are pushing their agendas by bashing on games that are actively pushing agendas and politics!! i am not trying to be rude but this video is going towards a totally wrong point and maybe you have to think about all of this again
Great video! Defending game journalists and offending conservative gamers at the same time. This will surely piss off some people, but I think you're generally fair here.
Maybe i am misunderstanding ehat you said in the video, but thinking the political landscape isnt effecting modern games is just false. DEI pushed investments (blackrock) are a huge issue with the modern day landscape of gaming. Having someone in dragon age say 'get in my lane' is just a massive turnoff. Nevermind that same companion's side quest is about feelings. Guess what, they are nonbinary. They had to force their shit down our toilets just to ensure they hit those investment guidelines. Say what you will that DEI is slowly dying, guess who was hired during the peak of it and is still designing those same games? Hire good people for good reasons. Dont hire bad people for money go up reasons. Its quite simple. Those with money to buy your games and anything else are not the same gamergate/sjw/hyper-liberals that made Dragon Age. Bioware is shit now. Never will buy a game from them again, no matter how much i loved DA Origins.
Give a single example of " DEI" being added into a game where it otherwise would not have been because of Blackrock. Just one shred of evidence. YOu guys are literally as dumb and annoying as the SJWs. You get an optional quest line with a character you don't like, play it anyway, then complain because "MINORITY BAD." >:[ It's literally as stupid, tiresome, and transparent as the other way around.
@@OteimPrincewill no, this based on perspection, And is highly subjective. But the usage and certification offered by DEI-judging companies wasn't a popular idea to follow until recently. And recently large developers have created some mid-tier games that don't follow their original values. Bf5 is an example of the top of my head, low quality game.
@Manksii So basically you have no evidence asides from some games being mediocre? BlackRock doesn't determine what games studios produce and people seem to not even know what DEI is. Perception is not the same as fact.
It is unbelievable just how detached this person is from the reality of the gaming industry.A robot was given pronouns,and this person will act as if identity politics isn't something that the audience does not want.Does saying you don't want identity politics in games make you a grifter?.Games that sell people stuff they already said they don't want should expect to be ripped to shreds.People like this will talk about pushing agendas whilst not mentioning the increasing levels of censorship and the lesser quality of game releases as a result of trying to push those agendas.People like this might only realize what is happening to the gaming industry if Lara Croft got race AND gender swapped.Think that's absurd?.Find out what happened to Sektor and Cyrax. UA-cam has many people with demonstrably false opinions and perspectives,this person is one of those people.
Maybe the capital G-Gamers need to have the option to play the Chinese release version of games where there isn't any LGBT or African American characters or ideas pushed so hard
@7:24 IGN has been a mainstay outlet since 1996 it's been around for 25+ years. So that would be 28 years then, why say 25+ years that's just stupid and bad grammar.
This is something people have done for the entirity of the 40 years I've been alive. In this particular case, saying 25+ means that the video will still be accurate in 5 years from now. Either way, it's just a different way of framing something. Regarding the grammar aspect of it, well you can just spend all day correcting grammar online if you want to. That sounds like unpaid labor to me, though.
@@foreignuser_ Just noticed your stup, i was born in 1966 so that would be 58 years i have been alive this means nothing. I can get into the weeds of how you would know this from when you were just born, but move that to the side. You yes you stupid, you typed that by him saying 25+ years that this video will still be accurate in 5 years from now, 28 + 5 =33 so what's your comeback fool. Oh by the way labour is spelt this way. From full stop to next line should be one space just letting know, and yes i am from Scotland.
Far too many people make the critical reception of games their entire personality. These people should not be allowed near sharp objects.
What I can't stand about modern reviewers/critics is how everything is either garbage or a masterpiece. Nothing inbetween.
And fans of certain influencers (UA-camrs or streamers) tend to view their opinion as fact, echoing it all over the internet. It's annoying.
This to the point where you feel bad for liking an unpopular game, and feeling bad for not liking a very-well-liked game.
Agreed
That's what makes 7/10s so funny. 70% good isn't bad, but it's ambiguous enough to screw over people who have preconceived notions on what the game "should" be (subpar trash or the next coming of Christ).
Yep. This is also a problem. But that is also the foult of the outlets. And the outlets alone!
They literely give slop a 7 of 10 despite calling it out as slop. They also give flawed games a 9 of 10 or even 10 of 10 sometimes.
So of course people are furious if they rate a "okay" game without real flaws but no big pros either just 5 of 10 and worse as slop.
Remember when one person dared giving BOTW only a 7/10? man the angry fanboys were going wild. Also i'm glad you mentioned the people complaining about "grrr woke game". i was just thinking about that while watching the video. Maybe "fucking pronouns" guy will one day realise that starfield isn't bad because 2 minutes of your 80hour playthrough include "woke" stuff.
Starfield is an outdated POS. No one complained about it been woke, it was just a shitty game by 2024 standards.
The funny part is. Pronouns guy called out many real issues the game has. (Starfield is trash after all). But came to the conclution "WOKE" is the problem.
This is how drifters work. They call out real issue and then frame "Woke" for being the reason.
Starfield is garbage. If you have a pronoun then you probably loved dragon age lol
@Drifter18903 You have a pronoun, it came with your existence.
@@johnskelington god dammit we both know what I meant.
It will never not be funny to me when people get upset at the review for a game they haven't even played. Like, homie, what is your stake in this? You haven't even experienced 1 second of the game to have an opinion. You just assume you'll like/hate it and get pissed when a reviewer doesn't feel the way about a game you think you'll feel. If you don't care for a game, don't look at reviews and don't play it. If you do have an interest in a game, don't look at the reviews and just play it. Only you can make your own opinion on something.
I've never understood why people get so insanely invested in review scores. I've always used video reviews as a way to see more gameplay and find out if there are major issues (example: horrible frame rate). Hoping that a game fails because it doesn't directly pander to "you" be beyond pathetic. Who cares if the game is "woke"? Don't play it, don't watch videos about it, just move on with your life.
It's funny because IGN, PC Gamer, and others have just recently backtracked their reviews and now more align with more negative reviews for Dragon Age. They literally have polar opposite reviews in comparison to their initial ones.
The IGN review for veilguard is still 9/10 what are you talking about?
@@OteimPrincewill The person is right, at least for IGN (PC Gamer score was 79, only good). They published an article recently called : "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Is at War With Itself".
@@L4in1998 Okay? That article is not the review of the game and stands separately from the review. Also written by different people and the IGN review score is still 9/10
@OteimPrincewill and video game articles are another can of worms.
"What Blizzard's future plans for Diablo 4 can learn from Elden Ring and Stardew Valley."
Great video, I spend a lot of time trying to find hidden gems and the most valuable resource are individual reviewers that have similar taste to me and Steam reviews. As far as I can tell it's the only system that actually checks if you played it and for how long. Being able to filter by length really helps understand the mindset. I have seen negative reviews by people with thousands of hours because of very niche things that won't make sense unless I become obsessed and positive reviews that are just memes. Being able to filter that is a tool that pretty much every other public review site lacks.
I always appreciate reviews like skill up because even though he was the outlier his review convinced me to wait for the game to go on sale rather than pick it up at launch. Despite how critical he was I’m still looking forward to it and can’t wait to get into the good parts I’ve heard about from other reviews like the combat. Reviews like skill ups don’t have to mean you won’t play and enjoy the game it could just be a good reason to wait and play the game when it’s cheaper and has proper bug fixes. I think I’ll enjoy veilguard much more as a $30-40 game rather than a fully priced $70 one
"I trust games journalists more because most of the users on metacritic push their internally held beliefs about a game" (Paraphrased)
Dawg.... I've got some bad news for you.
More like "I trust Game Journalists mre because they actually at least _played the actual game._ "
So you can tell me with 100% certainty that every user registered on metacritic doesn't play video games? They simply write angry reviews?
@@StarsAndSticks Well let's think it out. In the case of sad Dragon Age Veilguard, Metacritic allows anyone to post a review of this controversial game. Metacritic is also flooded with low information, highly negative, and inflammatory reviews.
However Steam and PlayStation only allow people to review the game if they actually _played it._ These reviews are more positive and in line with the general critical perspective as well.
What should we deduce? Why would it be the case that when we actually control for if someone played the game the responses they give radically shift? 🤔
If the people who know play the game align with basket A and not basket B. What might that tell us about the "Reviewers" in Basket B?
'too much water' nuff said
mfs will laugh at this point and then cry when a game throws you into a water level
I supported the concord trailer way back (cause I hate overwatch 2) and took so many shots cause of it. The game got dug such an unnecessarily large hole. Didn’t even get to play it 😂
Hey! Just want you to know I’ve watched all your videos and your content is excellent. Keep up the great work! Hope you blow through 10k subs and hit 100k soon!
The best review setup was Tips and Tricks Magazine back in the day. First they put how they scored their games right at the front of every review section, second in that score system, an acceptable was a 5/10, which meant games had to truly be bad to get below a 5, and truly be worth most peoples time of they got a 7, and 9's and 10's were must plays that are still in the cultural conversation today. Third, they individually scored gameplay, sound, graphics, etc there were like 5 categories plus an overall score. Fourth, they always had two people review a game, either two writers, or a writer and an editor, one was reaponsible for the majority of the review, the second just gave their scores and got a small blurb if they were in general agreement or an entire paragraph, sometimes an entire page if they significantly disagreed over the game. Fifth, they were not industry friendly or bought by the industry, they were a bunch of nerds with industry connections offering honest consumer opinions.
Six, they'd answer criticism of their reviews in their mail bag section openly and honestly, never doubling down or insulting, but defending their position politely and a lot of times going into further depth of why some games scores were what they were.
I miss that mag, it had the best strategy guides :(
The honest reason a lot of people dont like or trust teviews anymore are 2 big reasons. First, it is public knowledge that there are numerous devs whose executives receive bonuses BASED on critic review scores. So it makes reviews look VERY purchased when games receive unanimous 8+ reviews when public opinion and user reviews are in direct contrast. Even more so when multiple outlets all essentially have the SAME exact review, down to pretty much the same verbage just rearranged. "A return to form for bioware" is the perfect example.
Second, is when scores are increaded or decreased based on things that dont actually impact gameplay. A good example of this is when ign and other outlets docked points from Black Myth Wukong based on "lack of diversity". When they openly admitted they didnt play past the second act of the game, and if you ask anyone the characters and diversity ALL open up from act 3 onwards. With 3 & 4 center around femalce characters. Showing the reviewers own lack of a proper review, and more of a first impressions. Not an actual truthful review.
Not to mention when outlets like IGN and Forbes, specifically Paul Tassi, run hate pieces that make absolutely wild claims based on mistranslations and "insider sources" and then attack those who call them out.
These are the factors that cause gamers to be hyper critical of game reviews from multiple of these outlets. And its in human nature to be able to pick up on patterns and start to see them. Its how humans managed to survive. Its gotten worse over time bc its a pattern that many can clearly see now and that outlets aren't even bothering to hide.
@@iownall2222 The Wukong example is literally from a single reviewer who wasn't even from IGN. "Return to form" is just a really common phrase to describe a comeback
@OteimPrincewill there were multiple outlets, IGN included, that mentioned a lack of diversity in the game when talking about it, bringing it up as a negative. Also IGN was the outlet that ran a smear campaign on the company based ENTIRELY on mistranslations, so they were guilty of more than just mentioning a lack of diversity. Also when you put out a game review based on less than half the game, that's not a review, period. That's an impression. When you "review" a game, you play the entire game so you can actually make an educated assessment of the entirety of the game. You wouldn't do a movie review on less than half the movie, the same thing applies to games.
As for "return to form", while yea that might be a popular phase when talking about a comeback. When almost every review using that phrase reads the EXACT same way, that is an indication of a prefabricated review. No two people think the exact same way, so to have numerous reviews that use the same verbage and phrasing happens, it is a clear indicator that these are not honest reviews. No two outlets will say the same things on the same points, that's just not a human thing. That is a clear indication of a purchased review as well as having a script for your review.
@@iownall2222 No they don't read the exact way if the even read like 3 of them. This is just grasping at straws. IGN article on Game Science wasnt based on mistranslation also in the IGN review of the game diversity isn't even mentioned once. You are talking about the screen rant review which isn't IGN. Then why hasn't any one leaked the script? Why didn't even the reviewers who were critical of the game leak the script?.
@@iownall2222 Multiple people can come to the exact same conclusion, take a look at stellar blade, most of the reviews laud the combat but pan the lackluster story.
@OteimPrincewill all the veilguard reviews do read the same. Maybe not current ones bc now that more critical reviewers have gotten the chance to play, there are more critical reviews out, but every single one prior to launch read the exact same using almost the same verbage and phrasing. There is a next to 0% chance that every single outlet would use "return to form". That's just not how separate reviewers behave without a script on what to say. And they wouldn't leak a script bc these review sites want to stay in business, have audience and receive review copies. No two separate people are going to describe something in the exact same way, that's just not how humans are.
Also, yes, the IGN article was based ENTIRELY off of mistranslations. That has been proven by multiple different people who speak Chinese/Mandarin fluently. They also did mention a lack of diversity in the game. Screen rant was the one who docked points because of it, but IGN also mentioned it in their review.
The problem is that "game Jornalist" lack any expertise and were often proven to rate favorable out of fear to not get the next test copy.
The problem isn't Mario & Luigi getting a 5 of 10 as a not mind blowing but okay game. It's that the same people give the next COD a 9 of 10 despite having serious complains.
@@mrcaos999 That is completely wrong.
@@OteimPrincewillNot sure you understand how game journalism works bud. There is a reason why Bioware chose certain companies to review their games. It's happened countless times and will continue to happen.
@brandonadams6607 What companies were those? And they even gave a number of UA-camr like Skill up that gave it a negative reception. Do you have any evidence at all
@@OteimPrincewill
You say I'm wrong without any facts.
I shortened as you can't link in you tube anyway. But my observation is build on over 18 years of playing games and reading reviews.
With the ever increasing size of games reviewers of big outlets have less and less time to review and they not even try anymore.
Nowadays many just play the first few hours and call it a day. Look at the FF16 reviews. It was called a masterpiece because the jornalist not bothered to play further as the beginning.
This is trend you can see over and over again. They often only play the beginning and make their review. Then they are inconsistent. One time they complain about one element while praising it in their next review. Also many "long time" jornalist not even play games anymore outside of reviewing them. Its only a job at this point. So they not look out for fun or exspirience anymore but only look for flags they can use to say "good" or "bad".
One more issue is people copy pasting reviews this is something german jornalist even admit! If some even admit it you can be sure it happens quite often.
But most of all most outlet not really give sound reasons for reviews despite the same reviewer writing. You can just feel there is no reason for a score besides how the reviewer felt while writing the review.
Indepented reviewers become more and more popular as this people normaly have more sound reasons why they dislike or love a game. Even if you not agree you can unterstand why they review it like they did. They are also honest if they not finished a game.
@@OteimPrincewill for there 1000 times you can't link on UA-cam and I could only calö out german sourches anyway. People that left outlets because of missing freedom in their reviews or old moderator talking about the review process and how they tricked because time issues. (A problem that surely only got worse with ever longer games.)
Hey I want to know if you watch the video that fextralife put out on reviews for valguard? Because that does make reviews from major organization a little suspicious.
Good video. I've ejoyed your content so far and I hope you hit that 10k sub mark and more.
most of the backlash about a review comes from people getting the idea that perhaps the review isn't honest. that's pretty much it. we just want honesty.
Its inconsistency. If the next cod would get the same rating for doing the same as always nobody would complain. But they pretty much come up with the most stupid reasons to rate a "okay" game as okay while they rate other games that are not even okay with a 9 out of 10
@@mrcaos999 consistency is the result of truthfulness
@@mrcaos999IGN isn’t a single person, it’s a large group of people, IGN reviews are made by tons of completely different people all with different tastes
@@Gouda992thats it, if you have no method, the number has no context, and thus, no real value for the consumer. You may not agree with skill up, but you can understand what he values and how he works and unlike IGN, that’s useful.
@@TotoPechi How is skill up different than the individuals who review said game from IGN. Just look up the reviewer and you can see their history of reviews. They too express subjective opinions on said game. But people like you will use Skill as an authoritarian figure to determine the truthfulness of one's judgment. Skill-up words are no more truthful than an IGN reviewer's opinion. You just don't want to hear what they have to say because you disagree with it from the get-go. Just like I do not care what Skill Up has to say because he's just some guy on the internet.
many people only understand IGN as some single entity, rather than a capitalist corporation run by managers, with a revolving-door cast of writers whose opinions are influenced by financial incentive.
IGN isn't trusted to give a good a good informed look into a game because you can tell when a reviewer hasn't played the game they're talking about. You say they are 'vetted" but jus look at how many IGN reviews are 7s and or the only COD game scoring below a 9 is the one the internet unanimously agreed was bad. ON that point just look at how many major reviews by IGN never receive less than a 7. Unlike your statements about Capital G GAMERS, IGN be blanket judged because like you said they are "vetted" and PAID to do reviews FOR IGN meaning even thought they are individuals the reviews for the site are treated as the IGN opinion so those supposedly vetted reviewers can have a bad opinion and it will be the sites opinion. Defending major review outlets seems just stupid in this day and age when you can have rotten tomatoes give a provably good movie a bad review and the reviewer still get paid for essentially word salad.
Where is " The Internet" that decided this? Did you mean "My personal bubble?"
Steam has COD:BO6 at a 58% Positive review "Mixed" rating. Meaning about 6/10 people liked the game. Playstation users gave it a 4/5 and google ratings give it a 76%.
How can you claim you hate IGHN for not playing the games they review and support that by spitting out a supposed fact you didn't even check? Does it get more ironic>
@@Awaken_To_0 Heh funny you assume im talking about BO6, which has a 9 on IGN by the by. No im talking about the modern warfare 3 remaster which by Steam metrics is MOSTLY negative now lets check IGN, oh, how strange, unlike the others it's at 4 how odd one might say.
Rather than get into this comment section and assume something about me, how about you look into what I'm talking about using the context clues to find out im not talking about BO6. Does it get more ironic>
It's crazy how not only were you so confidently wrong, you were smug about it. Have some shame
@@thebanjoorder4446 I'll take the L on looking at the wrong game. Okay what are the metric for Modern Warfare 3? Let's see, MW3 has a 53% from google users, 56% on metacritic, and a 4/5 stars on playstation.
So you're _still_ wrong... and for the exact same reason as before.
Congratulations! You sure showed me! I'm not sure what but... something!
@@Awaken_To_0 OK so we are ignoring Steam because it no longer fits your argument and sticking to Metacritic, a site similar to IGN and has similar issues, google reviews which is actually a 1.7 when looking oh idk the subject with which this is about and if you still wanna use review site has a 2/5 with Eurogamer and PS platform it is mostly played on where their will be an obvious bias, which to be fair is fine because that is their right to have that opinion
And are accusing me of being wrong in the same way
Congratulations! You sure showed me! I'm not sure what but... something!
Also to add a 56% and 53% is a failing grade. But go off, go ahead and say something else false. And on the point of 53% liked this video game that would only account for the people who even know you can click the like button on google when looking up games and movies, which I didn't, so you taught me something. Ig that's a thing you can be proud of
@@thebanjoorder4446 a failing fra... You understand the world is not highschool, right? You do? Say yes
If a game has about a 50% positive review rate that doesn't mean it scored 50/100 points on a grading metric. That means the rates of people who like it are relatively 50/50. Half of people like it, half of people don't. There is no Game God who can look at Mario and declare "This game is objectively a 7/10. Therefore it gets a C."
Notice that is in stark contradiction to your claim that "the internet" has decided it's bad. I'm not ignoring Steam because it's "bad for my argument." I'm ignoring it because it's wholly irrelevant.
You claimed there was broad consensus. There is not. Most places where people voice their opinion and those opinions need a basis it comes down to about 50/50.That's _divisive_ almost by definition. Half of people like it, and half the people don't.
I have no idea why you would reference Metacritic when a big part of the video you presumably watched was about how it's often manipulated by bad actors to paint a narrative not give informed honest feedback. Still, good source or bad source it's still at the end of the day an irrelevant source.
If you claim " All apples are red" all I need to do to prove you wrong is show that actually some if not many apples are green or yellow. You saying, " Well this apple is red!" Is irrelevant. The green and gold apples still prove you wrong.
You claimed consensus. There is not. Accept the fact that some people have a different opinion on a _luxury entertainment product_ than you and move on.
I made fun of the chuds several times. Let's say I tried to stay neutral because both sides have been questionable.
But 02:45 is dishonnest. DAV has been promoted as a game that respected what Bioware did before. That's probably the main issue. They should have created a new licence while making a DA more faithful to the original. I saw nobody saying that it's the right direction, only another one.
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION, ftlog someone gets it!
Yadayadayada they can publish reviews and anyone can disagree. It’s not a hot topic, it’s an evolution. We needed them pre internet, now not so much
I dont remember when i subbed to this channel but i'm fixing that mistake now. Gonna pull a barf for ever subbing.
What's wrong with the video my man's making good points after he repeats himself a couple times
Did the video hurt your feelings ?
How dare this guy not feed my narrative!
“So lowly” 🤣
Pro Corpo gamer or contra Corpo gamer. There's nothing else.
Basically tired of bullshit adds disguised as reviews
I enjoy/usually agree with skill ups reviews. However, he did strongly recommenced scorn and I played it based off his recommendation. That game, although artistically interesting, was one of the most frustrating games I’ve ever played. The combat was awful and the gameplay was terrible. He didn’t like veilguard, and it was one of my favorite games this year. It’s okay to watch/read a review and check it out for yourself! You might be end up being surprised. To each his own!
In general, people are often weird about reviews because most people are just stupid. Septerra Core on GoG is majorly broken on modern systems, it's a game from like 1999, and somehow, per their own reviews in GoG, some have stated if you give the game bad reviews, then maybe nobody will fix it, and apparently under the impression that perfect 5 of 5 reviews will somehow lead to it being fixed because people love what the game COULD be if it worked right. One person even admitted to having not tried running the game from GoG on a modern system despite giving a 5 of 5 review.
I disagree that reviews are always subjective, because if you make a claim on an objective fact, especially if that objective fact is wrong, then the review is now partially objective. And especially if the review is objectively wrong about facts, then the review is garbage in terms of the objective facts, and that can bleed over into the subjective part, if the factual wrong parts impact their subjective impression, which can turn into a situation where an opinion is actually wrong.
And games like Veilguard is a mix of issues. A lot of people did go in pre-hating that one for two main reasons, you cover the "Gamer" perspective, the "go woke, go broke" crowd who will attempt to review bomb any game with woke content in it, including Baldur's Gate 3. But in the case of Baldur's Gate 3, you don't see them making video after video ranting about it, because it doesn't actually fit the narrative. It's woke AF and successful, because it was woke and a very good game, and the "go woke, go broke" narative is "woke games always fail because they're woke". Veilguard on the other hand, it has a very objective lack of consequences to the vast majority of "choices" you make in that game, unlike all the previous games, and that is the other reason a lot of people have pre-hated it, after early reviews were coming out, and more so after some post release reviewers have gone through and finished the entire game. And at this point, if the game were to drop 2% more on Steam, it'd be in the Mixed category, even where people have to buy and play the game for at least 5 minutes or so to review it. So Veilguard is a mix of pre-hating solely for woke content (which is going to happen anyway, and part of why "grifter" is a fitting term for youtubers making money of false cause of outrage), pre-hating due to early feedback about lacking mechanics, and further revelations post release that the early game design concerns were very valid.
Game reviews. You know em, I’m tired of gaming.
Oh whoops, I see I subscribed to one of Those channels
People don't trust IGN because their rating scale has almost literally no meaning when industry slop is (on average) 7/10 despite glaring technical issues, narrative contradictions, and/ or massive shifts away from establishes lore or histories of a series. People are allowed to be upset about these things and their voices should be heard. You said we should have constructive conversation without actually looking at the reasons for why they didn't like things. You're ignoring the nuance you're saying we should look for
IGN rating system is just not consistent. and not only because many people write reviews for them. It's also because the same people rate differently. You can find people tearing a game apart and still giving it a 8 of 10. While the same people love everything about a game except for dificulty and trash it to 4 of 10^^
100% gonna watch this one 🗣️🙏
In my house game is game play what you want. Game same game. This is game you like game play game if it is game you don’t like game you don’t play game.
IGN very clearly only played the first few hours of the game. This isn’t real journalism and no, they were not honest and fair.
This is the point people that blindly protect "bad reviews" not get. It's not about giving something a bad score if you argument it logical. I know one reviewer who gave Fallout 4 a good score. I not agree with him at all but he at least had reasons for why he did it. Many outlets miss this. There reasons feel arbitary.
FF16 is a good example. A game praised as masterpiece by many outlets. And you really could see if a Reviewer only played the first few hours or the whole game.
If you finish FF16 you can't claim it as masterpiece... You can't even claim it being a "good" game. The game is absolutely trash with some good boos fights and a good start.
It's quite obvious to see most Reviewer only tested the beginining. Just like Stephanie Steerling only tested one Chapter right in the middle and maid wrong claims about the whole game and then felt wronged for people calling her out on this. People that pretty much agreed with her that the game is bad. But she still basicly lied because she only played like 2 hours and made claims about the whole game.
This is a big problem.
Indepented Reviewers are more trustworthy because they normaly claim openly of how much they played. Something outlet not do. They act like they did a full review while only making a first impression.
@@mrcaos999 You do realize that Stephanie Sterling is an independent reviewer right?. They aren't tied to any outlet
@@OteimPrincewill She worked in the industrie for years. Man how stupid can one person be and still annoy everyone here. Do us all a favor and just stop answearing i put you on ignore now. It's enough!
You seem to be forgetting some points that discredit game reviwers. Some of them like RTS games and have to review a game out of their genre and this happens A LOT. So if I hate fighting games and have to review one ... speaks for itself. Then there is the factor time or deadline -> Alien: Isolation killed reviewers because of tight deadlines, so they rushed trough a game where you have to be SLOW to not get killed every time. Next is the "you get paid for it" argument ... it is really a thing if you buy a game because you are interested in it and with your own money. Also ... why discuss everything with other staff? You have your opinion: leave it at that. Then "Sponsors" ... don't be so harsh to a game that our todays sponsor has published ... and last ... i think reviewers are bored about gaming. They HAVE TO review - it's a business.
Do you have any evidence of journalists being paid for reviews
@@OteimPrincewill 16:39
@thebanjoorder4446 Yes he's describing journalism. Journalists are paid to do journalism by whatever media outfit they work for
@OteimPrincewill I'll repeat what he said staring from 16:35 "Reviewers won't ever tell you what to think, these are people that are paid to provide their opinion cause they are valuable
@thebanjoorder4446 Who do you think he's referring to exactly
I am not sure if i agree or disagree with your video. But i think that is because a 19 minute video is not enough to truly anderstand the point someone makes.
I did not buy the new Dragonage and i wont. But i also wont review it. Does not make sense to me since i did not play it.
I watched some gameplay and did not like what i saw. And that was it for me. Still i feel attacked by your video. No hard feelings obviously.
But i understand the negative score it got from players. The story and dialogue looked pretty badly written. The combat looked flashy but i had the feeling it would get boring fast and multiple reviews i watched later confirmed that. And the "controversial" character that everyone is bitching about felt also badly written and felt very unlikable as a person.
I dont got a problem with trans characters. My problem was that the character seemed like an annoying brat that tries to lecture everyone around. And i do not agree that a game with these flaws gets a 9 (IGN).
13:23 no, no, no. Youre pulling a strawman argument. Whats going on, is people can sense when diversity is being done without actual good intent. Good examples if diversity, feel like they came from a place of a cool character idea, or having a complex story that can be told through them. What we despise, is when its identity politics being shoved down our throats, and being told that we are bigots, if we dont agree with what ideology is being shoved down our mouths.
We can see when the writing is forced inclusion. We dont hate lgbtq. We hate when its being used as a vessel to push political views, and talk down to us like we are lesser.
Just because a small vocal minority gets hyper angry about it, doesnt mean that you can say what you do, and thus portray hardcore gamers as hating this stuff. We just hate a very specific type of it, that being called Forced Diversity. And the irony of it, is that it does more harm than good for the people that it claims to represent. Because its the same tired tropes, pulled time after time. Like tokenism in the nineties
And regarding your grifting comment, the exact same thing happens on the other side. Frankly, the problem overall is that both sides are deadlocked in a culture war, and it's the loudest voices that are heard. The most extreme. And do you want to know who's voices therefore get drowned out?
That of the sane.
what game told you that you're a bigot? are you ok??
And why does diversity have to have a deeper meaning behind its existence in games? You're talking about diversity like it's a storytelling device rather than simply a fact of life and unless it fits neatly into the plot and whatever the consumer already believes it shouldn't be there in the first place because anything else is "forced". Why do you need that justification for example black people existing or people being queer but not straight white men?
"What we despise, is when its identity politics being shoved down our throats, and being told that we are bigots, if we dont agree with what ideology is being shoved down our mouths. "
What exactly do you mean with that? What ideology? Queer people exist? What does it mean when identity politics are being shoved down your throat?
"We can see when the writing is forced inclusion. We dont hate lgbtq. We hate when its being used as a vessel to push political views, and talk down to us like we are lesser."
And you can see this based on what exactly? What would be examples of non forced inclusion and how does it differ from forced inclusion?
"And the irony of it, is that it does more harm than good for the people that it claims to represent. Because its the same tired tropes, pulled time after time. Like tokenism in the nineties"
While I can definitely agree that the way a lot of lgbt characters are included is done very poorly (especially in AAA games, DA:V being no exception), this isn't what Gamers complain about but rather the mere existence of them. Not to mention that if you were to ask these people about what they would change about lgbt inclusion and the way it's done, barely any of them would bring any actual improvement to the character without erasing some part of their identity as minority.
Stop soiling the critic with this nonsense claim. Dragon Age dropped to be dark and gridy after game one. The only thing that was consistence was the games adding LGBTQ+. The first game already had it and it added more with each installment^^
are you ok? what game called you a b1gg0t?? who hurt you???
Wait. If all these vetted great writers know so much about games and have such good opinions, why aren't they making videos like you or Shill-up?
Why do they choose to slave away at IGN reviewing games they don't like giving them 5s saying they're boring?
And that's considering they even wrote those copy paste reviews to begin with or even finished the games : D
Anyway keep up the bad takes, so I can get a laugh every now and then!
@@pavkaroth Do you think everyone can make a living on UA-cam? Or does UA-cam come with pension? Or health insurance?
Dude... I think people have the right to be upset that Dragon Age has so much modern-day nonsense, this stuff doesn't belong in the world of Dragon Age. People wanted their Dark Fantasy genre to stay Dark Fantasy, it's like if they made a Jurassic Park movie but instead of being about dinosaurs it's about drag queen shows. Is that what you want in a dinosaur movie? Of course not, people have the right to be pissed about their beloved IP being used as a political vehicle to push a narrative it was never meant to have.
Actually the points you call out are no issue at all and people who keep calling this out, soil the actually critic you can have of the game...
This is what people dislike about the current dragon age. Gamers are generally welcoming (you can’t convince me otherwise based on the actions of a loud, few assholes) but we know nonsense when we see it. This is a dark fantasy game and they’re worried about pronouns?? Come on. People play games to have a break from reality, not think about current, modern day issues especially in this style of game. They could have at least given the subject a dragon age paint job but they didn’t. It’s exactly this issue that makes it bad. If people say gamers are hateful without nuance, well gamers are being painted by an awfully broad brush… which sure is interesting.
@@justinrowan4539 No this statement just not stands. Dragon Age was only "dark fantasy" in the first game. This "dark fantasy" element is just the worst excuse as it pretty much dropped the grey areas quite soon.
The only thing that was consistent in the game were LGBTQ+ elements. All games had them and they added more in each game. It's just a blunt lie to claim otherwise^^
@@mrcaos999 i think they just get it wrong, the problem never was the inclusion, because past dragon age games had aswell, but the writting its just trash, making a character whose entire personality boils down to being non-binary is just bad and lazy writting. And im not talking abt just the woke shit, most of the dialogues are down right bad written. Doing pushups bc she got the wrong pronoums, like, wtf is this lmao
WOKE BAD got it
Huh why does the vid have a wild dislike ratio.
*gets past halfway mark*
Oh, i see.
With all duo respect this video has many wrong points and not because i dont agree or any of that stupid shit the video is praising any review an opinion like there isnt any wrong and yes there isnt a wrong opinion if its a true unbiased opinion game journalists have alot to save they cant bash certain games and they cant be late in releasing alot of reviews you said we have to trust those journalists who played the game and yes thats the point they dont play the game their job isnt to make a review their job is to make a review as fast as possible also its funny you said GAMERS are pushing their agendas by bashing on games that are actively pushing agendas and politics!! i am not trying to be rude but this video is going towards a totally wrong point and maybe you have to think about all of this again
Great video! Defending game journalists and offending conservative gamers at the same time. This will surely piss off some people, but I think you're generally fair here.
well you're objectively wrong.
dude this video is bad you dont show how ign is paid off by companies and change their score everytime there is a backlash
Do you have any evidence of this
Again do you have any evidence
@@OteimPrincewill The evidence is " My feelings say so. Facts DO care about MY feelings."
@@Awaken_To_0 Like no one has been able to give me any substantial evidence
Maybe i am misunderstanding ehat you said in the video, but thinking the political landscape isnt effecting modern games is just false. DEI pushed investments (blackrock) are a huge issue with the modern day landscape of gaming. Having someone in dragon age say 'get in my lane' is just a massive turnoff. Nevermind that same companion's side quest is about feelings. Guess what, they are nonbinary. They had to force their shit down our toilets just to ensure they hit those investment guidelines. Say what you will that DEI is slowly dying, guess who was hired during the peak of it and is still designing those same games?
Hire good people for good reasons. Dont hire bad people for money go up reasons. Its quite simple. Those with money to buy your games and anything else are not the same gamergate/sjw/hyper-liberals that made Dragon Age. Bioware is shit now. Never will buy a game from them again, no matter how much i loved DA Origins.
DEIz nuts
@@Manksii Do you have any example of this DEI hiring?
Give a single example of " DEI" being added into a game where it otherwise would not have been because of Blackrock. Just one shred of evidence.
YOu guys are literally as dumb and annoying as the SJWs. You get an optional quest line with a character you don't like, play it anyway, then complain because "MINORITY BAD." >:[ It's literally as stupid, tiresome, and transparent as the other way around.
@@OteimPrincewill no, this based on perspection, And is highly subjective. But the usage and certification offered by DEI-judging companies wasn't a popular idea to follow until recently. And recently large developers have created some mid-tier games that don't follow their original values. Bf5 is an example of the top of my head, low quality game.
@Manksii So basically you have no evidence asides from some games being mediocre? BlackRock doesn't determine what games studios produce and people seem to not even know what DEI is. Perception is not the same as fact.
It is unbelievable just how detached this person is from the reality of the gaming industry.A robot was given pronouns,and this person will act as if identity politics isn't something that the audience does not want.Does saying you don't want identity politics in games make you a grifter?.Games that sell people stuff they already said they don't want should expect to be ripped to shreds.People like this will talk about pushing agendas whilst not mentioning the increasing levels of censorship and the lesser quality of game releases as a result of trying to push those agendas.People like this might only realize what is happening to the gaming industry if Lara Croft got race AND gender swapped.Think that's absurd?.Find out what happened to Sektor and Cyrax.
UA-cam has many people with demonstrably false opinions and perspectives,this person is one of those people.
Maybe the capital G-Gamers need to have the option to play the Chinese release version of games where there isn't any LGBT or African American characters or ideas pushed so hard
@7:24 IGN has been a mainstay outlet since 1996 it's been around for 25+ years. So that would be 28 years then, why say 25+ years that's just stupid and bad grammar.
This is something people have done for the entirity of the 40 years I've been alive. In this particular case, saying 25+ means that the video will still be accurate in 5 years from now. Either way, it's just a different way of framing something. Regarding the grammar aspect of it, well you can just spend all day correcting grammar online if you want to. That sounds like unpaid labor to me, though.
WHO F CARS
VOLVO CARS
It's easier to conceptualize 25 for scale than 28
@@cl8804 Are you trying to type who the fuck cares? Just want to know?
@@foreignuser_ Just noticed your stup, i was born in 1966 so that would be 58 years i have been alive this means nothing. I can get into the weeds of how you would know this from when you were just born, but move that to the side. You yes you stupid, you typed that by him saying 25+ years that this video will still be accurate in 5 years from now, 28 + 5 =33 so what's your comeback fool. Oh by the way labour is spelt this way. From full stop to next line should be one space just letting know, and yes i am from Scotland.
As a Capital G g*mer myself, this is a good video. Really gets some of the issues with online gaming spaces out there in a digestible fashion.