How To Be A Good Game Reviewer | Asmongold Reacts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- by @videogamedunkey • How to be a Good Game ...
► Asmongold's Twitch: / zackrawrr
► Asmongold's Twitter: / asmongold
► Asmongold's 2nd YT Channel: / zackrawrr
► Asmongold's Sub-Reddit: / asmongold
Channel Editors: CatDany & Daily Dose of Asmongold
If you own the copyright of content showed in this video and would like it to be removed:
/ catdanyru
Remember folks, IGN gave Alien Isolation a 6/10 because the alien AI was smarter than the reviewer.
Alien isolation and prey people alway bring up this 2 games when shitting on IGN more 7/10 for starfeild….what are those game like?
@@TanvirAhmed-bz2ox both games are solid. Prey on console might be a bit iffy though because I think using a controller for that game would be a pain.
i will never forgive them for that, that game is one of my favorite games
@@bushmonster1702 how would u rate them?
@@TanvirAhmed-bz2ox Prey and Alien Isolation are very good, but Prey can be a bit meh sometimes
4 out of 10 is really terrible when you consider that game journalists rate everything on a scale from 1 to 5 and then add 5.
Basically true. I also thought of it as like grades. 7+ is passing and less than 6 is failing.
Err,
wut lol?
@@netweed09 game journalists are basically aliens, don't try to understand them
@@justkev6277
It should be mandatory for ratings to come with a regional disclaimer, like they did with movies. In America, the passing grade is 7/10 whereas in other regions of the globe it is 5/10. If you don't know where the person is coming from, it is either a terrible grade or a good one.
Yep. In my eyes it's always been 1-4 is how bad a game is, 5 just is, and 6-10 is how good a game is.
I lost it so hard with the comment "great review, I agree on everything you said. I cannot wait to play the game TOMORROW"
Why is that weird?
@@anna48792think really hard, bud. I know you can figure this out
@@anna48792he's fanboying so hard when he hasn't even played the game yet
Truth is a lot of comments on YT are from bot accounts, specially under viral videos on big channels
@@anna48792how tf would he know if the reviewer with early access is correct when he ain't ever played it.
All he can possibly say is that he hopes they are right. Unless he's time traveling, perfectly valid explanation I suppose.
i've said this for 10 years. People are using reviews wrong. They're using it to affirm their own bias of how good the game is.
How you should actully use game reviewers is to finde someone who likes the same games as yourself and dislike the same games as yourself. That way if they say they don't like a game, it's not because it's inherently a bad game, but rather because it's not for them. And since you generally agree with said person opninions it's safe to say you'd alos not like the game.
A good review should explain the basics of the game well enough to tell if you might still like it, even if the reviewer did not.
or you just figure out what you like and dislike in a game and judge whether you should play it that way instead of piggy backing a random person and hope that they're your clone
The same is true for the news in general often.
That's because the general mentality on the internet (specially nowadays) is to think your taste is correct and everyone else is wrong. It's the "special snowflake syndrom". I also don't like this way of invalidating game journalist reviews, even with they're mostly bad, soulless and heavily corporate reviews. It opens the opportunity to people to act like everyone on the internet can a be a game reviewer as they are gamers and their opinion is indisputably correct, and oh boy... we know gamers can have absolute garbage takes as well.
Dunkey made a video about this very thing, which has it's own set of problems. Reviewers used to be a small group of folks at each company that were consistent in their biases and would stay with companies for a long time. When they said they liked or disliked something, you could trust their word on it. Nowadays there are 20 different people at the same company making reviews with little history behind them, reviewing every single type of game that management throws their way.
Most people don't actually like honest reviews, they like reviews that they agree with. That's what makes a review feel honest for them.
It's also the fact that a lot of people might've bought the game, didn't really like it themselves and somehow powered through it. Then they go watch a review to find some solace in their failed investment only for the reviewer to shit on it even more.
It's like people who invested in cryptocurrency defending their favorite shitcoins because they can't live with the fact that they're about to lose a lot of money.
I want to say Starfield kicked this whole shit show off, which is totally a 6 maybe a slight 7 of a game. Still love it. Also fucking Hyperlight Drifter kickstarter teaser trailer thumbnail? Love it! I need to go finish that game. Did that enemy ever make it into the game?
@@trippinhard250I feel like people would not really delude themselves to that point, with games you just have to admit you lost time and 60$, with crypto you have to admit you lost time and half of your life investments
Or validates them into spending money.
3 words and a sentence for you:
Too much water
8.5 to pokemon swsh
I dont care, you CANNOT give an 8.5 to a game that you need, i repeat, NEED to spend 90 dollahs on, at the very minimum, to get DECENT. I actually think that it was eveen higher than 8.5, but i am already on the edge of my patience and dont want to have a bad day so i wont check it.
People nowadays have zero tolerance for any opinion that is not in outright agreement with them. You're either with them, or against them. A lot of it boils down to insecurity and the fact they need external validation to feel justified in their choices. They can't think for themselves or stand by their decisions, and are jealous of anyone who can, which is why they dog-pile on anyone who thinks differently. Spoken plainly, they have weak and immature personalities.
10/10 somebody give them raise!
People really wear their insecurities on their sleeve these days.
Good games are good, bad games are bad. Does it really go any deeper than that?
confirmation bias w
no need to act like "those people are scums" the world is designed for people to think that way. You are that way too for someting.
I love it when Asmond starts drawing graphs.
you mean NFTs
"is it too complicated for you, im gonna draw"
When he starts drawing you know it's serious, true and real even.
@@kanaria-cu3uv non-fungible thoughts
That’s when he goes full r3t4rd
10 - masterpiece, 9 - amazing game, 8 - very good game, 7 - good game, 6 - above average, 5 - average, 4 - below average, 3 - bad game, 2 - very bad game, 1 - trash
nah i think game reviewers use the exam grading method like for instance 1-6 doesn't matter different range of bad, 7 - pass/decent 8 - good 8.5 - very good 9 - great 9.5 - excellent 10 - must play/masterpiece
@@illusionlb
The grading system varies globally. In Europe, and most other parts of the world, the passing grade is a 5/10, not a 7/10 like in the US. America decided they had to do things differently, just like temperature (celsius vs fahrenheit) and measurements (metric vs imperial). Rating a product is already pretty polarizing as is without adding all the misunderstanding and misinterpretation due to different systems. Really wish we had a regional disclaimer for gradings...
@@ivoryowlPeople forget that these are literally opinon articles. The scale of 1 to 10 is a simplified version of percentages(0 or 1 to 100% which is universal) The grade it self is subjective, it's literally the opinion of the particular journalist grading that individual game. That's why diffrent reviews/journalist have diffrent scores. People have to understand an IGN rating isn't the definitive score of a game. The individual rating has diffrent biases or preferences than the next person. Not just with game reviews, but with all other reviews like this.
You fail a test if you go below 50%. An average playable game is 7.5, not a 5. 5 is a bad and barely playable game. Anything below is unplayable and failed the test.
@@moerko94 test scores are a horrible example. They are extremely flawed and vary. Test score in some areas fail at 69.
It literally does come to an opinion.
Saying a game review score below 7 or 8 is a bad game is just absurd imo when the individual who gave said score believes 7 is good and 6 is okay. Keep in mind most review sites such as IGN will LITERALLY have a scale on how they review games and what they perceive. 5 is mediocre the middle. 4 is where they say games are bad. When it comes to rankings it will vary by opinion. But as for IGN this is their scale formula. Suggesting 1 number means different from you is irrelevant when the individual who reviewed based it on a different formula. Opinions are not facts. Yet people are trying to pass them off as facts or failures based on their perception. Someone could pop out of no where and say 1 is better than 10 and basically just flip the scores but you see a 1 and go wtf 1 is bad durr hurr.
IGN believes 7 is good you think 7.5 is an average playable game. You see 7 and place it based on entirely different metrics straight up ignoring and dismissing the reviewers opinions.
People don't even take into consideration the scale being used and instead see a number and place it in their scale that is formed based on their opinion.
One could literally remove scores from a review and you probably wouldn't have the brain power to determine if they liked or disliked the game. Yes I'm calling you an idiot if you haven't picked up on this yet cause I didn't insert a number.
I’ve started to enjoy reviews that don’t give scores. Feels like I get too distracted by the number and not the actual content of the review. HappyConsoleGamer and SuperDerek are pretty good at this
This pretty much. I generally don't like numeric scoring systems because imo it skews expectations of people thinking that how they score is likely different from how the reviewer scores something. Hearing how reviewers describe their thoughts in a game with context has more value and shows whether their views align to yours or not, and one can reconcile agreeing and disagreeing from there.
Doesn't help that even if IGN technically has one scoring system in their site, they still have many reviewers that can have different perspectives on how to apply those scores.
It also prevents comments from developer's stuff accounts or just fanboys, who doesn't actually seen the review and just reacting to final score.
Number scores have felt arbitrary to me as though someone is trying to flex how much they can quantify their experience (going even further by adding a decimal point). TheCompletionist has a good way of going about it where it basically boils down to if you should play it or not. No debating if a 5-7 is actually worth the time, he stats clearly. That doesn't mean you can't disagree, but that's the very nature of someone else giving their opinion.
ACG is great as well.. He basically uses a buy, wait or don't touch scale
Real,at this point it seems to be the way to go
Pretty much why I like Josh Strife Hayes' review system for his "Worst MMO ever?" series, consisting of rather nonsensical and subjective "(something ridiculous) out of 10" that's completely different for every game. Like: "A-, plays well with others, competent build, can seem easily distracted, needs to stop killing people when they're trying to find big demons... out of 10" for Albion Online.
Reviews can't be trusted as long as companies give out free keys and advance play opportunities to youtubers. Too many of them are afraid to say anything too negative in case they lose these privileges.
It doesn't work this way. Companies need reviewers much more than reviewers need free key. If any company bans them from getting keys in future after an honest review, this will hit company's reputation.
@@gatchenko_asunfortunately it does work that way, this is coming from friends who worked for multiple big gaming companies like Santa Monica, Activision and blizzard.
@@gatchenko_as game companies don't need to care about their reputation since they know gamers are addicts. Just look at Blizzard, their reputation is in the gutter yet their games keep hitting record highs every release.
@@datguy8296only for free games, like overwatch. Diablo 4 has plummeted.
No, they're too afraid to say something negative because the gamers will tear them apart for not giving their over-hype piece of microtransaction riddled shit a 9 or 10. There is hardly ever backlash for rating a game too high, but there is always backlash for rating a game just a 7/10, that some people are utterly hyped for.
10/10 Give this man a raise!
reviews only exist to validate my fragile ego
imagine watching a review for any other reason 😂
Most predatory publisher or even devs has carefully curated (read, gaslighted) the audience into merging their identity into the game's identity. Thus every criticism and score of the game is an direct criticism and attack on their personal character too
Turn customers into fanatics
products into obsessions
employees into ambassadors
and brands into religions
@@snoweh1reading this made me think of BTS and blackpink fans.
I love how Dunkey manages to get his point across without ever directly telling you what that point is, the old "Show, dont tell"
10/10 This comment is a masterpiece of analysis, truly one for the history books.
@@zym6687 Amazing review!! I agree 100%!
This is how comments should be done, give this man a raise
Excellent comment! We need more comments like this!
@@zym6687 1/5 comment, any true Dunkey fan would know he doesn't use a out of 10 rating system.
i feel like reviews over time have become less about accurate information and more about pandering to the masses for views.
AMAZING COMMENT
That’s why the best reviewers sell their reviews based on the personality and writing style, not just the publishing outlet they’re tied to. Like Yahtzee, although he works for The Escapist, isn’t putting out reviews to say “this is what The Escapist scores X,” it’s all “here’s what *I* think of the game.”
It’s been like this for a long time already. Only rely on a review from a content creator you generally agree with as well as audience scores
It's exactly this. Asmongold is guilty of this too, he milks games heavily for this, like Diablo 4, Baldur's Gate 3, and Starfield. I don't blame him, it's easy money. The problem are the viewers who incentivize this kind of content.
Correct. This is also supported by the companies themselves, paying for better "reviews"
You just added the fact of "fanboys" which makes it even worse and by time, organic instead of bought positive feedback.
Organic, but heavily influenced by the masses, so basically also KINDA fake and not the true experience of individuals.
For example, you watch Asmongold for 10 years, but in 2023 you decide to START playing WoW. Will you keep playing it now that your favorite streamer is out of his gaming phase and is talking bad about ANYTHING related to the game, even if it's a positive change? You will probably NOT have the same amount of fun in the game, if your streamer buddy isn't inside of that world anymore and his content isn't about it anymore. Even though you actually had nothing but fun playing, until you heard the negative feedback. Now imagine a whole website like Twitch, hundreds of streamers ALL saying "x" is bad. Because of this, the viewers will also not play those games, thus the games die even easier.
So, if you TRULY want a review of ANYTHING nowadays, test it yourself.
It happened on Starfield IGN Review as well. Alot of peeps hated the review cuz it was 7 but MOST of them didnt even have the game yet when the review was out lmao. In what world would they know whether it was worth a 7 or not.
Console warriors 😮💨
They should stop putting a score on reviews instead just list all the pros and cons of the game, most people see a score and immediately think the game is good or bad without reading the full review, most of people will tell you Starfield is "Skyrim in space", but depends on that person likes Bethesda RPGs or not you will get scores ranging from 5 to 8
Because they were comparing them to other reviews from the same publication. IGN has given higher scores to shovelware motion control cooking games and stuff like that.
@@hourai1052 Which is odd as Starfield is far more like Fallout in Space. This be real Fallout has always been the better RPG when it came to dialogue, traits, and overall character creation. In terms of the tone they did capture the wonder of Oblivion with the wacky sci fi elements but to me Starfield had far more traits from Fallout 3 and New Vegas than Skyrim. Reminds me of them calling Far Cry 3 "Skyrim with Guns" would be a sad Skyrim player if you went into Far Cry expecting an RPG.
@@RmnGnzlz and? It still doesn't prove anything on how they know whether the game is worth a 7 or not. Most streamers were still at character creation or intro atm.
This made me realize I would love see data from back in the day of how people voted on Netflix when it had star reviews and see how many gave it a max review or 1 star compared to the in between ratings.
Ill admit, I never cared enough to rate unless it was a 1 or a 5. If its inbetween not worth my time. Was my mind set lol
@@CEDROU95 real and true.
I remember netflix changed the star system shortly after an amy schumer special got 1 star bombed
You can still see this trend on Google Play reviews. A lot of people vote 2-4 but the vast majority are 1s and 5s
To be fair. That wasn't a good special. Her TV show had moments of brilliance. Of course it helps she lucked into one of the greatest comedy skit writers of a generation.
"The way he leaps off of rooftops to face the camera before falling into a head first dive is just FULL OF THE EXAGGERATED SWAG OF A BLACK TEEN. IT GIVES ME GOOSEBUMPS EVERY TIME HE DOES IT!"
The cringe levels are off the charts.
I never knew that was where it originated
I think part of the problem is that time remains a factor. Let's say we have 3 games that are a 10, and 8, and a 6. Even if the 6 really is "above average, " it's still possible that it's also "not worth my time" since there is only so much time to go around, and there are a lot of 7-10 games to play before a 6 gets played.
Total onboard with Asmon here that the scales for games are soo skewed now that 7-8 for a game is basically it came out, it works and it's average just because reviewers are too scared to rate something a 5 and get blacklisted from the company so its easier to write a review saying its average while scoring it a 7 because the score is all the company looks at.
Personally I want 2 things to change in game reviews:
1. Reviewing of the score system that an average game gets a 5 not a 7-8.
2. Removal of the word "Masterpiece". I hate that the word masterpiece has become synonymous with "I really love this game". People need to understand your love for a game doesn't make it a masterpiece, you can love your kids drawing of a stickman on your fridge and call it a masterpiece but it's not the same as the Sistine chapel being an actual masterpiece, a masterpiece has critical aspects behind it not just your individual love for it. Masterpieces should be an extremely rare thing because it's essentially calling a game completely flawless and yet if you look at reviews for every game that has come out you'll find someone calling it a masterpiece, so either we need to re-assess what masterpieces actually are to be very unique and special games OR we need to accept that masterpiece holds no weight in critical assessment anymore and can just be thrown into fanboying culture.
I think part of it comes down to the fact that there are genuinely games that are 1s and 2s on this scale. If you go to Steam and pick a random game made by some schlub in his basement in 2 hours, that game is probably not functional, has tons of bugs, very little gameplay, and isn't worth your time. That game is never going to draw a review by these companies because they already know it's not worth your time. The games that are being reviewed most likely are all in the 7-10 range compared to the larger body of games out there.
The 16th chapel....
This comment will probably get a lot of hate.
Also the way some americans and british people are speaking and behaving is weird and cringe.
If you take all reviews, and average them, the average review score any given year typically falls around a 70-71, aka a 7 out of 10. So yes, a game in the 40s is massively below the average.
That most reviewers fail at their job does not change the fact that the average of the scale is 5.0 (or 5.5 if the scale starts at 1).
@@miriamkapeller6754 no, the middle of 1-10 is 5. But that's assuming a linear progression. The progression is clearly not linear.
If you average _the reviews_ across all of the games industry, the average game is around a 7.1 and anything that is below that is a game with a below average score. I don't make these rules, it's just how the math is mathing.
@@badlatency9979 You're just repeating what the OP said. First, the average of a 1-10 scale is 5.5, not 5. Second, the distribution for scores has to follow a normal distribution, not a linear one, i.e. the center score is the most common one and the outliers 1 and 10 are exceedingly rare. And if the scores of your review outlet don't follow that distribution, then you have simply failed as your job as a reviewer. That so many fail at their job is not magically making it better, there is a good reason game reviewers have become a meme.
@@miriamkapeller6754 listen, if you want to play 5.5 meta rated games and below as your bread and butter games and say they're good, feel free. I don't eat shit though.
@@badlatency9979 Of course not, I wouldn't listen to an opinion from a reviewer that doesn't even understand the scale they're rating on in the first place. Asmongold at the very least understands the scale, so I will at least listen to what he has to say, but for the most part I will just play a game myself to rate it.
IGN reviewer, dan stapleton called Bloodborne a bad game.
Oof.
So…you know his IP address?
My favorite part about Dunkey's vid is he never explains anything. He just shows the reviews and shows the comments and that's enough alone to prove his point
Who tf even watches reviews in 2023? 🤣
Console players.
Steam users simply scroll down to the reviews section.
Not saying it's better, but it's just how it is.
I think if you truly want to write a good review, you can make good use of the reference my friend made for himself:
1. State the Version of the game if possible/needed
2. State your understanding of the series (if it is)
3. State whether you are into the genre or not (and any other conflicts of interest...)
4. Write a holistic review of the game, comparing it to every other titles you have played (add reference if needed/you can)
5. Give a public score in general accordingly to every other games you have reviewed
6. Give a personal score based on your subjective feelings
Whether you have finished the game or not, as long as you have unlocked all the gameplay features and you have references to everything else, you should be able to make an objective review. Then summarize it so it doesn't go as long as my current comment! 😂
Reviewing isn't a new thing. Why change the format and force the reviewer to divulge more information than they need to when the standard format has remained more or less the same for decades.
You can spend a year reviewing a game and people will jump straight to your scoring
On BG3 review a majority of the reviewers didn’t even mention the bugs in ACT 3 because they didn’t play long enough. It should be a criteria to include the amount of hours played. Alternatively did they give the game full marks knowing this? If so bugs still should be mentioned.
Ive played the game twice and didnt have any problems with bugs( worst one was my party waking up naked after a long rest) Yes its should definitely be better but at the same time, people are overreacting
Dude... ign, pcgamer, mortismal, skillup, and the gamer all mentioned Act 3. Why am I seeing these weird comments on "Pffft, they are IDIOTS for giving rhis game a 10! They aren't true gamers cuz they haven't reached act 3!!!" Read their reviews again. More slowly... (hint: they include the hours played, lmao)
Like, where were you when they reviewed witcher 3? Lmao, there's no way you care this much, no? Anyways, you are doing the EXACT same thing dunkey is making fun of in THIS video asmon is reacting to!
Didn't IGN's review come out practically a MONTH after release?! PCgamer's took some time as well iirc
When the game was initially released and reviewed majority of the reviewers were still stuck in act one hence they couldn’t review act three. Some but not all reviewers have updated their reviews since. It’s an issue because it shows game developer can offload performance issue at the backend of a game and most reviewers won’t notice in their initial review. BG3 is a great game I have no problem with a reviewer giving a 10 as long as performance encountered issues are mentioned. My problem is a lot of the reviews aren’t being updated after the fact to include this.
@auroraboracat26 Idk, a LOT of people were mentioning performance in their reviews. In fact, a lot of people were mentioning performance before their reviews were published. Both by players showcasing the issues and articles putting them on full display.
Edit: Actually, if I recall correctly, they were mentioning performance problems before their review on some other other stuff they were publishing about the game. I think PCgamer and ign mentioned a few crashes and inconsistent frame rates if I'm not mistaken? There's also that forbes article
Edit: "they couldn't review act 3"
If you read rheir reviews, they talk about their thoughts on act 3. This includes angry joe, mortismal, skillup's thoughts on Twitter, ign, gamespot, pcgamer, etc
IMHO it's probably like elden ring. That game got (and deserved) amazing reviews, but the pc version was fcked early on. My friends pc crashed like crazy.
It's easier to patch bugs than rework a game to have good gameplay and story.
Good game vs bad game is very simple.
Good game: I like it
Bad game: I don't like it
No it’s actually this
Good game: I like it
Bad game: I don’t like it
if 10/10 means its a great review and what IGN should be publishing every time, what these commenters want is not a review, they want an advertisement.
The best example I ever came across of a review convincing me to buy a game was TotalBiscuit trying out Thomas Was Alone
Because Thamos Was Alone is good! RIP TotalBiscuit
If the review is about gameplay, graphics, sound, voice acting, quality of life, art design and so on, then it is good review. If the score is just about what political agenda the game is covering, then F that review. Also, if the game actually is political, it’s probably a pass for me.
Step one: Play game like a common gamer would.
Step two: Share your thoughts on how it played.
Step three: Don't look like an idiot.
Then again, they're journalists.
It's crazy no? Gaming has been a thing for more than half a decade yet there hasn't a single respectable critic. Compare this to movies and the avg cinephile could name atleast a dozen critics that are well respected in the community. If gaming has to evolve as a serious artform, independent criticism has to be promoted otherwise the medium is doomed to be consumerist trash.
I disagree with asmongoloid on this one. A 4 out of 10 is bad in the gaming sphere and ESPECIALLY in a triple a budget environment.
You can't look at this black and white on a scale of 1 to 10 like he's doing because we invest time into these things. And no one in their right mind wants to invest their time in a 4/10 game when there is enough 8+/10 games to last us two lifetimes.
The problem with a scale out of 10, is some people think of it like normal (5/10 being middle/average), and other people think of it like school letter grades where a 7/10 is a C, and 5/10 is an F.
Yeah you’re right. Also mid is now the new bad for people so they feel insulted
Im a KH fan and I hated how they did KH3 like after that amount of wait for every boss to be a lackluster heartless and combat be reduced down to 80% cutscenes it was not worth the wait lol
09:51 - The amount of effort cracks me up, the capitalization, the grammar, the over explanations... I give that comment a 10/10🤣🤣
Dunkey still pressed over AC6. In all seriousness, a bad review is a review where the points are nonsensical. Like in the SpongeBob review he showed, the dude said the game sucked because a remake of a PS2 game that's supposed to be faithful to the original plays like a PS2 game. Saying something sucks because it works as intended is ridiculous.
The game is dated, so this type of gameplay used to be "good" but in 2023 there are better games.
Baldur's Gate III - not 10/10 BUT 12/10!!!
IGN actually had one of the most balanced Starfield reviews at 7/10. Game is good, but not great, needs a lot more polish. And they talk about the glitches and all.
I think the problem is that a lot of these scores mean nothing, since they are all different genres for different set of gamers. And also from what I understood, they are rating games based on weird bias where when the game is in the series of the same game, they will try to compare it to the best game of that series itself. Like when they gave the new CoD: M2 score of only 6/10 you know why they did it.. because a lot of players see it as a FIFA series, meanwhile it was probably the best CoD for singleplayer they have released, now MP was a trash, but yeah, it is unfair. Imagine if they did the same for Mass Effect series or any other. Also they don't count the amount of work that was put into the game, the graphics, etc. I don't really care, never in my life was trying to see these scores, actually Steam rating is much more important and accurate, but yeah, it is what it is.
A score is important, the people who say they aren't are just simply in denial or aren't actual gamers. When you say a game is 'Good' and like the game, you're in fact giving it a score simply through your vote of approval. People who just appreciate games from a distance would maybe rate it 7 or even 8. People who actually _Buy_ games, well , it's anything from an 8/10 to even a full 10/10 as it's committed them to open their wallet - the Ultimate high score.
@@netweed09 Maybe I am the OG gamer, but why would you ever need to see a review when you can just watch 5 minutes of gameplay of anyone random on UA-cam and decide for yourself..? Listening to someone's opinion is way worse imo, it's for stupid people. There's like a million different tastes for a million different people. Nobody's right or wrong, it's all relative. Same with the music genre, etc.
@@netweed09Scores aren't important. They don't convey actual information. Games are massive and different people value different things. A 9/10 means nothing if the aspect you care about (gameplay, story, character build diversity, whatever) is not a 9/10. But you can't perceive that just from a singular, overarching score. And this isn't even considering the fact that people would score games drastically differently depending if they're the target audience or the anti-audience, yet people act like a single, overarching score is valid for all gamers.
Literally meaningless.
@@Aldraz Scores are bad, buttttt, i can see why people in the new age need it. There is just way too many games now, and you don't want to waste your energy on shit. Back then you could afford to watch a few videos here and there or just jump into the game right away. But the video game scene is just too oversaturated.
@@vickerfinalI wouldn't say oversaturated
FROMSOFT super fans are some of the worst to deal with from my experience, I’d almost take a Nintendo fanboy over one of them.
the thing i hate about the video asmon is watching is the video creator cherry picked 1 comment on each review. IGN is still one of the worst reviewers out there that shills for big companies all the time. Any big release they have to give the game a 7 or higher. If its lower than that they either werent paid enough, didnt care or got someone that hated the game to play it. Try and prove me wrong
I’m famous!
If the Xenoblade commenter ever stopped typing that reply he'd have to go back to playing xenoblade
The thing is there are so much games out there, that it kinda needs to be at least an 8 for it to be worth your time.
Some people might find it entertaining to watch stupid people blather on about how little they understand statistics when they cannot discern between mean, median, or mode, but I find this annoying and disappointing.
There’s an easy solution to all this: get rid of review scores. That’s the only way gamers will be forced to think in a critical and nuanced way about games. But gaming sites will never ditch review scores because review scores drive traffic. Especially IGN.
So basically just tell people what they want to hear to be a good video game reviewer
@AsmonTV
hi tnx for your good videos . asmon i need help blizzard banned my account of 5 years and not they don't want to unban me it permanent ban and i swear to my life 100% i did nothing i can prove it at all cost show me a way please
I stopped watching Dunkey vids way back. Good to see he is still same old same old
There are reviews and reviewers who are just bad. Objectively bad. Remember the guy who couldn't figure out a jump button in Cuphead?
I truly believe Dunkey is the reviewer we need but don't deserve
I stopped listening to game reviewers a long time ago. If a game is getting review bombed there is a reason, I'll check the reason and see if it's something that bothers me then RIP my interest in that game if it is cuz thousands come out ever year and plenty of them are more than entertaining enough. If a game isn't overwhelmingly positive on steam you can usually check the negative reviews and find a consensus on why you might not enjoy it. Good gameplay and story but wonky graphics and animations, personally doesn't bother me, I'll stick it on the wishlist and maybe play it some time in the next 5-10 years. Last review I read was PCGamer's Starfield review and it was fine but I learned more about the game checking the steam user reviews, also the pcgamer article took 10 minutes to get through where as the user reviews game me all the info I needed to build a picture of what this game was like in half the time if not less.
Some people never get past the stage of 'everyone who dislikes something I like is doing a PERSONAL ATTACK on ME' and I MUST retaliate. Its very common on the internet tbh.
4/10 is a lot worse than just "below average". For comparison, on imdb the average movie score (entirely user based) is 7/10. That's the average. Now, I don't know the average user score on metacritic, but I'd guess it's probably also around 3.5/5 (i.e. 7/10). The average critic score I don't know either, but I can assure you it must be higher than 7/10. That would mean that a game receiving a 4/10 is an absolute braindrain of a droolfest.
The reason why asmon thinks 5 is average and everyone else thinks 5/10 is bad is because asmon is thinking 5 is the middle of the bell curve while most people think of the bell curve academically where the average is typically around 6.5/10
5.5 is the actual average of 1-10 though. So there's also that
No, it's literally just "gamejournos" using only 6-10.
I'm curious tho to what was the point of Dunkey's video tho. Cause it was actually quite misleading '-'
While you can find comments like the ones he listed in some cases those don't reflect the majority of comments you see people talking about some of these games on the internet o-o
I wonder if Asmongold or Zazck would play BG3 or not
He don't play turn based games
turn based is a nono for asmon.
@@4LiveRastaJoy have you heard about Star Rail? Also he played BG3 a few years ago in early access. You couldnt be more wrong
yea after genshin impact
After Genshin
A 4/10 is bad if that's how the scale is designed. There's no "well I'm not sure if that's the right word for a 4/10 here, it should be 3/10"---the entire point of the label is to let you know that when they say "4/10" they mean "bad."
The only outright wrong review was IGN's take on Alien Isolation.
You're all wrong. Think in percentages rather than round numbers. A 10 is 100% right? A 4 is 40%.
Guess what? 40% quite a bit lower than a failing grade. You fail at anything lower than 60%. 50% is an F, 60% is a D, 70% is a C and so on. If a game gets a 4 out of 10 it did more than fail.
It's straight up incomplete according to our education system in America.
The comments in this section are dripping with more irony than currently thought to exist 😂 it’s like when a group is promoting a video that is actually trashing them
4 is extremely bad when reviewers made the average a 7.
No, the average is actually 7/10. There are metacritic statistics for that. The reason is quite obvious too. Try giving a nintendo game a 2/10 and see what happens. Youll never be invited to anything ever again, youll never get review copies again etc.
In my opinion, just find someone who has similar tastes to you, and watch their video and consider to buy that game or not. It's not that hard.
I rate things on a scale from -3 to +3, with 0 being neutral or evenly mixed feelings. I remember one gamer magazine back in the 90's that used various emoticons to rate the different aspects of a game. 🤢🙁😐😲🤯
... or using made up words and metrics to rate the game unironically.
"I give this game a rating 7 zoinker out of 5 and a half badoongdong"
honestly those emoticons capture the ways you can feel about a game pretty well
BG3 is not that good.
Most of reviewers didn't really finish it before they make ther reviews, just like reviewing Diablo 4 based on it campaign only without considering everything after. I would give it 8/10 if considering campaign only.
To be fair, if there's a game that deserves a 10/10 it's definitely Baldur's Gate 3.
To be fair there are some terrible reviewers out there. Polygon by default is garbage. The guy who reviewed Doom eternal who couldn't even shot a demon in front, among others. Don't really see what is Dunkey's point here taking dumb comments like they were examples. "I'm a reviewer, don't argue with me? "
I like Starfield. I's pretty fun.
it has its charms despite being dated in many ways and the shambolic dialogue.
Same, I know it's not a masterpiece but even a 7/10 game can be fun
I still think that Starfield is going to be another Cyberpunk situation. Starts out "ok" with stupid bugs then gets a major patch and is fixed. Also most people on Steam have rated it as fine, not great but fine.
The average game might not be an 8, but the average game which is worth my time is.
7/10 has for a long time been seen as the "I was paid to say good things about this" score. Lower than a 7 would hurt the game. When there's 8/9/10 scoring games coming out fairly regularly, why would someone want to play an "average" game that scores in the 4-6 range.
When I say a game is a 7/10, it's a pretty solid game that needs some work to be considered an all time great. A lot of people would have 7/10 as "good" at least, because we're not paid for our opinion.
Each player should find a reviewer whose taste they know and align with, and from whom they can build trust, instead of relying on reviews from major publications where some random person, about whom nothing is known, reviews a game and assigns it a numerical score on that absurd scale out of 10.
I think Asmon missed the point, or at least it wasn't in the clip. It looks more like Dunkey is saying that people come to see reviews for positive affirmation, so if you say a game is bad, people will always criticize you because the majority that are interested in watching the review wanted to hear that it's good. On the the contrary, if you say a game is good, then even if it's bad you will still get praise because the fanboys will flood the positive comments.
I think that's why he did the pikmin example. The reviewer said the game is bad, but still gave it a 9. And got a positive comment because nobody actually listens to what the reviewer has to say.
This transfers some of the blame for grade inflation onto the viewers, because in a way they demand all reviews to be positive. So in the short term, a reviewer's integrity to say a game is bad is unfavourable to the review companies growth. Which is a sad reality for them because the only ways to stay popular is to be overly positive, or hope that the gaming industry will pump out mostly positive games.
Orrrr he cherrypicked comments agreeing/disagreeing with the review trying to make some point.
The point is dunkey does these low-effort videos because he's busy or can't think of a good idea that week. It might be a bit of a meta-joke too.
Im glad someone noticed it, this comment section is full of the people dunkey is making fun of
@@stock6600 9/10 of the comments in the video have 0 likes. Really went digging through the bottom of the barrel to make this video and you have people like "Batteral" falling for it. Yeah, let's suck off IGN giving God Hand a 2/10 because Dunkey so great.
Gaming youtubers should just make a review for fans and a review for haters so both sides can feel smugly validated for agreeing with someone about a game they won't care about in two weeks.
Bg3 was maybe a 7 at best. The 3rd act was a buggy mess which seriously detracts from the perfection of act 2. I was at a 9 or 10 at the end of act 2
Only for you.
Bait and switch. Larian-stans are easy to dupe.
Remember last week when asmon gave his 2 cents about dunkeys review of armored core 6? Same thing as all the examples shown in the video.
If I ever did reviews, as some random content creator. I'd have a Disclaimer: Any game rated below an 8, means I personally hate you, and your family.
10 - not exist
9 - masterpieces
8 - amazing
7 - great game
6 - above average
5 - below average
4 - not really good
3 - bad game
2 - sports game
1 - activision blizzards
Long ago... I've learnt that the only way to talk about a game is to play it first
7 out 10, mid.
I watch you play wo long. I watch you ignore tutorials. I watch you feed. Most people who disagree with you on the game. They are only doing so because your gameplay was a horror show. I am not saying the game is good. I am only saying you need asterisk on your review of the game.
BG3 is my favourite game of all time
"You're criticizing the game..." yea that's why they call it a critic's review
Isn't dunkey the guy who said, turn based games are outdated game design, while clearly reviewing a game that he already have no interest.
@@orbbb24 He's also the guy who deletes videos if they get disliked. When he received criticism for lou2 he literally said, I am no reviewer, it was a joke.
@@meandtheboyz4796 why are you just straight up lying. Dunkey has and still defends his Tlou2 review even though he gets so much backlash. We can agree or disagree with his opinions but you make it seem like dunkey is a bad person
@@alexmercer6585 he got rid of every bit of criticism in the comment section. It doesnt matter if he defends the video itself.
@meandtheboyz4796 The comment section on that video is still filled with criticism. Are you sure youre not wrong about this
@meandtheboyz4796 looking at your original comment even, you really seem like you just dont like dunkey. "interest" I didn't know there was a judge who decides if you were interested in a game or not. As I said its ok not to like dunkey or anyone, im just confused why you would watch a video on him, make negative comments, and defend them even though its just straight wrong
I feel like the good game bad game review needs to be seperate from the game score. Game score should be technical but good/bad should be about enjoy ability of the product bugs included.
The starfield review was spot on though.
They gave rain world (one of the best games ever) 6/10 becouse they are way too easy of a pray to lizards
Great video Asmond you really nailed it this time. Can't wait to watch your stream later.
"This reviewer has clearly never been indoctrinated by his parents into worshipping this holy game series, of course he gives it a bad rating"
Honestly reviews are just opinions, they are there to give you an general idea of a common opinion of entertainment, but everyone’s opinion is always going to be different. A review is more of a suggestion for checking it out. Letting a review make your decisions is the worse thing you can do.
The sad thing about the KH3 Review at the end is that every person i know that actually waited for this game to release gave it a bad review or just dropped it halfway through
Idk if it's nostalgia bias or whatever, but I loved kh2.
I got kh3 like 10 years later, thinking it would be decent like Ff7 remake which I enjoyed well enough. But it was unplayable, I couldn't do it more than 1 hour.
Idk i played and enjoyed every bit of it, the gameplay was some of the most fun i had in a while, the most annoying part for me was the story, it was so confusing at some point like the whole xehanort return, roxas return xion and all the time travel bs, overall the game was a solid 7/8 out of 10
That's why, as I have said a million times by now, the Steam review system is the perfect system for reviews, period. Defining an arbitrary number for a review literally doesn't mean ANYTHING. Who cares if someone thinks that a game is 5 or 9? It doesn't matter; what matters is that ultimately there's either a positive feeling or a negative feeling, and then you have a percentage of that across all people so that you get a reference as to whether that product is good or bad in a statistical way. How do you define a 2/10 game? How do you define a 6/10? You start creating a bunch of arbitrary reasons, and MOST are subjective. So if that's the case, most indie games would NEVER come close to high budget games, yet they always somehow deliver 8/10 scores. That makes no sense. It happens because you have a positive feeling towards that game, and for you, it's a thumbs up, and if 95% of people say it's a thumbs up, then you can easily notice the pattern that the game is actually good for a wide group of people, as long as it hits its target audience, which is also very important and often times completely ignored from reviews.
If IGN, for example, says, We recommend this game! then it's just much, much better than saying this game is a 7/10. What does that MEAN???? It's impossible to compare, and even if you could, who's to say that they have this "power" to define what a score is? You can however apply number scores if you make a tierlist for yourself in a way that categorizes games into x > y > z... but other than that, people always have different opinions and tastes, and ultimately, from your own experience, you should either give a positive thumbs up or a negative thumbs down. If you're feeling pressured that most games will end up being always too positive, you can make a list of pros and cons and leave it at that. Reviews are supposed to be STATISTICAL (in a world where people don't also make fake reviews to keep their jobs or also get paid for them, audience and open reviews are always the ones that's most accurate by FAR).
I miss when EGM had 3 people review the same game
I think games cant be slapped with singular number and say it good or bad from that.
I think you can score the breakdown points of the game eg graphics, story, gameplay, music etc
But it creates the issue of if someone doesn't care about story in they're games and the game has poor story.
Overall score of the game will down and that person on glance will think "oh low score must be bad" but it could of been the perfect game for them.
I think the most relevant reviews are the ones about technical issues, like bugs and poor performance. Doesn't matter if you're in for the story or gameplay - if the game is a broken mess, neither side is going to like it. But even so, technical issues don't usually affect everyone equally, and they tend to be fixed over time. Also, people sometimes make mountains out of mole hills.
Or just don't score it at all and force prople to focus on what the reviewer actually says about it instead.
I will never forget how awesome their Dwarf Fortress review was though.
His review was a work of art imho.
I thought most people didn't like hogwarts. I hear a lot of complaints about the gameplay getting stale really early.
people still liked it, it wasn't a great game but it still is a good one. Most of the hate was about buying the game, not the game itself. probably a 6.5 for me. but if you were a HP fan, probably 8-9 just because of seeing the world come to life.
it's a good game. A worthy 7 I would say despite it's cookie cutter approach to quests.
"fair and honest review, can't wait to pick it up tomorrow" so you don't have it, but you already know because of the way it is... Sound logic to me.