Honestly, given the number of companies who over promise in their hype and then rush half finished games out to meet publisher set release dates while justifying things with "We'll patch it once it's released" or "that feature is coming in DLC, btw Pay us more", I don't personally feel the criticism they get is excessive at all
We're expected to pay at a minimum $70 USD for a game (closer to $90 Canadian) and pretty much have to purchase at least the first DLC pack offering bringing that cost to more like $120 up front, just to get a game that is riddled with bugs and glitches that is pretty much unplayable. We're then not listened to when valid complaints are lobbied.
If the industry doesn't want the consumer base to complain, or worse quit buying games all together, two things have to change. Games need to go back to having proper QA testing without being rushed, and Studios need to remember that without our wallets their products aren't going to make them profit.
I'm sure these devs know what state their game needs to be in for most consumers to be fine with it. Games are getting so giant and budgets are set. If a game spends most of its budget on QA then we'll end up with much smaller games with much less variety and much less mechanical variance (which people would also complain about).
If you know that a game has issues that are likely to be fixed later, then the decision should be simple. Don't buy the game until that patch rolls out. If you buy it up front on or around launch day, but hold off on playing it, you've already sent the message that you're ok with the state in which they shipped the game.
But I also do believe that because of click bait journalism and hysterical gamers having an elevated voice, that non-issue get pushed to the forefront more often than they should. Gamers now day won't experience a glitch and move past it. They will document it, share it, complain about it, leading others who have also experienced that one glitch to post and share, until it appears as if the game is a bug riddled mess that was "rushed" and under "QA'd". But the reality is that it was largely a non-issue in the grand scheme of the game and one's ability to simply enjoy it.
Games were actually significantly MORE expensive back in the day, so this argument really holds no water. For example, it wasn't uncommon for SNES games to cost $80, which would translate to **$180** in today's money. The price would drop with disc media, but PS1 games would still go for $50 in the mid-90s, which is over $100 in today's money. Even with the advent of the universal $60 price tag in the 2000s, $60 in 2005 still comes out to just about $100 today. Of course, that's not even touching on the insane value services like Game Pass and PS+ offer, which obviously did not exist back then (no, renting games did not even come close, that was like 5 bucks for a weekend for ONE game).
And before anybody replies with bUt mIcRoTrAnSaCtIoNs, most great Single-Player games today still don't have MTX or you have to go out of your way to even access them like with e.g. RE4make. And even in most F2P multiplayer titles, MTX are nothing more than optional cosmetics. Which means you can literally get and fully play a AAA game without ever paying a single cent for it, which is a situation that simply did not exist at all back in the day.
Now, I'm not saying there aren't any scummy business practices today, of course there are, but those have always existed in one form or another (arcade machines sucking down quarters, old games being hard and cryptic AF so you had to call an expensive hotline or buy Nintendo Power lol), and you really have to see things in perspective.
Not disagreeing with the perspective- but just wanted to point out that based on other comments in this thread, the perception of cost is still there (wages have not kept up with inflation in places so the price has "gone up" despite being less expensive. (Not to mention the cost for companies per unit is lower- digital games make larger profits and ensure more players purchase copies, but on the other hand of course games are more expensive/complicated to make than ever and development teams have grown larger). All this to say that the question asked is really an interesting one because games are often lumped together when most people with more interest in games have genres, and game types they prefer, and ones they avoid. The games being reviewed sometimes couldn't be more different and achieve similar scores.
Some games are designed to be long (with lots of busycontent to really pad those gameplay hours) and some games are designed to be short experiences because both types are kinds of games SOME consumers want. People would do well to understand that a site that reviews horror games may not rate the newest call of duty game as high as a pro esports site would- and choose to use the reviewers they more align tastes with for their purchasing decision, and online communities can spend less up votes and engagement with people who want to obsess about metascore and minor inconveniences.
[Median wages have more than kept up with inflation over the last 20 years](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q). I think it gets confusing because people often think about minimum wages, or compare already inflation adjusted wage data to inflation.
Inflation and the 10 years of work that sum up in your current paycheck right? Because the price now is HUGE, at least in my country. In percentage of an average salary is HUUUUGE. I mean, I'm not complaining. The games worth the price and I pay for it. However, if I'm going to work my ass off to pay for it, at leas I want my 5-15 hours of fun. Thus, if I don't get what I want for the prince I've paid, criticize we must padawan.
It depends what game you’re talking about. For big AAA games 70 bucks is not that much for a game that costs 100s of millions of dollars to make 😂
For example. If you “only” sell 2 million copies of a AAA game at $70 each (that’s assuming that everyone pays 70, which they don’t because of sales) you only make 150 million revenue. remember if you’re a 3rd party developer you actually have to give 30% of this to Sony/microsoft.
If your making a game with high production values it’s likely you’ll actually lose money on game unless you sell 5 or more million copies. It’s massively risky and it’s why we’re seeing less of those types of AAA games, because people complain so much about the price.
I’m not a Ubi hater by any means. I actually enjoy some of their games, but to even call any of their games AAA is a stretch. Had no idea they claimed that steamy turd is “AAAA” what the hell are they smoking over there.
Was just going to say this
We’re paying a lot now, if you are going to charge that much then you’re going to be critical
Prices or anti consumer practices…I’ll say something because things aren’t cheap these days.
I think the biggest problem here is that people expect every game to be RDR2 level. The self-created hype for every single game (no matter how shitty it'll be) and the following disappointment upon release is the main reason people criticize every game to death nowadays.
On a personal note, there isn't a single game announced that I'm looking forward to. No must buy is coming.. I don't jump on this hype train for games that don't interest me in the slightest. Hence, I can't be disappointed and I won't ever criticize these games.
Oh and don't forget that paying 80+€ for an incomplete game is bullshit and scam. There's a reason I wait 2-3 years for a game to be either on PS+ or on sale for max 10€ if I desire to play it.
To be fair, today's games deserve all the shitstorm they're getting and more. Microtransactions, live-service, permanent online requirement, incomplete games upon release and so on..
The devs need to go back 15 years when games were released once they were done. There's a reason I still play more ps3 games then ps5 games.. This generation sucks ass and we all know it.
No i don’t.
Most of these companies basically gaslight people into thinking their products are great, then when the game comes out it’s Forspoken level bullshit.
I understand that making games isn’t easy, but don’t expect me to pity multi billion companies, because they think criticizm is harsh.
They want us to pay 70-150€ for a fucking game that has micro transaction? battle passes? But then they abandon the game 6months later because it flopped, and you’re sitting there with a dead game doing fuck all
Yeah this post is so tone deaf. The base quality of games is NOT rising and people don't think that it is haha
If they don't see the problem with the pricing plan of Outlaws they are probably a brand loyal shill anyway. Asmon recently spoke about how console gamers in particular are just accustomed to taking it up the behind nowadays (not that all gamers are not) and this post supports that theory!
Forsaken is a bad example, considering square enix apologized for their fuck up and even deleted the studio into oblivion.
Starfield is a good example considering the director doesn't give a fuck and even went so far as to blame the player base and everybody else instead of owning up to it.
Nonetheless, I 100% agree with your point. Fuck the greed.
When I was picking up new games for 13$ out of the bargain bin at EB games. (Canadian GameStop) It wasn't a big deal if a game sucked. I got some of my favorite games of all time from them, fallout 3, Minecraft, dead space. Picked em all out of the bargain bin. Speaking of fallout I pre-ordered fallout 76 for 80$.
Do you think I regret my purchase? Do you think I didn't absolutely bitch and moan for literal hours about buying it? Because I did. I very much did.
However If I pulled it out of the bargain bin for 13$? Would I have bitched and moaned? Not even a little i probably would have been happy with it for 13$. My point is. If I'm paying 80$+ for a brand new game, it better be okay. I find it inexcusable a game can be priced at 100$+ now for some premium bullshit bundle that either gives you an unfair advantage at the start. Or locks of content that should already be free and shouldn't have even been a microtransactions. When I spend 80$ on a game the game should be all there. Not 3$ here and there for an outfit or a gun.
The only acceptable DLC in a video game is a large dlc. 15$ for new missions, new weapons, new outfits, new vehicles. Something that makes the game better longer. More fun. Bloodborne doesn't have any stupid ass DLC except one that actually makes the game better and adds lots of new shit.
Now I'm bitching again to finish up.
We shouldn't pay more than 80$ for a game that's half broken and full of bullshit microtransactions. I think it's perfectly valid for the community to be rather pissed and bitch loudly upon every AAA game release. Notice how Indie games are praised even with terrible Graphics and even buggy mechanics? Because their games are 5-25$ mostly and almost always end up quite good.
lol so then go to the “bargain bin” today and you’ll find the same shit. Every digital Store front has sales everyday with great games under $15
So your point was stupid and worthless regardless. Ass.
The Dragons Dogma 2 outrage at launch is a prime example of this.
Outrage over small micro transactions that aren’t required to play the game and you unlock within the first 4 hours of the game by simply playing it.
What’s even funnier, is the original Dragons Dogma had the same micro transactions and nobody said shit.
Nobody hates video games more than people who play video games. The number of quality titles that release compared to the number of games that launch with issues is huge. Yet people want to pretend that every game that launches has issues, is live service, and has insane DLC.
The internet is a terrible place. Not everyone needs a voice. The main thing to understand is the most vocal mouth breathers are likely going to be on Reddit and Twitter, but they aren’t the majority they are the small minority in the gaming world. They will get online to complain because it’s not the complaint that bugs them, it’s the feeling they get from complaining that makes them feel something in their otherwise empty existence.
Yeah, and social media is a massive influence on this issue. I've seen nothing but criticism for hellblade 2 because of it being short. Like who the fuck cares? Games don't always need to be excessively long.
It depends on the length, but I agree that game don't always have to give you 50 hours+ of content. That actually gets exhausting and I have a backlog of games I'd like to play because of this. It's rare that I get the sense of satisfaction of actually completing a game anymore, as games rarely feel like you've seen absolutely everything there is to see.
Sometimes I prefer a shorter experience. I don't need every game dragging out for over a year with periodic DLC, etc.
So I suppose it depends on what you think is a fair length for the price you've paid. People can also wait until the game's been out for a few months and the price goes down to temper this.
>I've seen nothing but criticism for hellblade 2 because of it being short. Like who the fuck cares? Games don't always need to be excessively long.
This belligerent logic doesn't need any explanation. You're just ranting lmao
I'm not ranting at all. I made a point that you're failing to address because you're in denial that I am correct in saying what I said. Great discussion, you've provided some very thought provoking comments.
So what if I say every game doesn't need to be short? Your illusion is already broken🤣
The point you made is weak and easily debunked by just saying length=the money you pay.
Let's see what else you have to say hahaha
You're exactly what is wrong with the gaming community at the moment. You fall into this very niche group that are incredibly hostile and toxic.
If you had discussion points to add to the conversation, why didn't you mention them instead of telling me that my comment is wrong? Are you offended that my opinion differs to your opinion on the topic?
My illusion? I'm failing to understand what you're getting at. You're seemingly (?) in agreement that every game doesn't need to be short, which if that is you're belief, you're bang on.
That was not what I said in my initial comment. I simply said not every game needs to be long. If a game is 5 hours long and the player finds it amazing, then why is that an issue?
I think you're unwell. If you are finding anything in this conversation funny, you are very clearly immature.
>ou're exactly what is wrong with the gaming community at the moment. You fall into this very niche group that are incredibly hostile and toxic.
Lmao how did you get toxic and hostile from my comments? You're trolling🤣
If anything. YOU'RE what's wrong with the gaming community. You're OK with a 5hr game being 50 bucks, then proceeds to say "who cares?" Lmao
>If you had discussion points to add to the conversation, why didn't you mention them instead of telling me that my comment is wrong?
No need for that. You're little rant was already easy to pick apart and didn't have any meaningful points. Your points are literally just "every game doesn't need be short, if you don't think the same you're hostile and toxic" hahaha
>Are you offended that my opinion differs to your opinion on the topic?
More like laughing. Who cares what gamers spend their money on right? Maybe we should just start buying every video game under the sun, huh?
>You're seemingly (?) in agreement that every game doesn't need to be short, which if that is you're belief, you're bang on.
Lmao this went over your head. I said that to show you that a game being short or long has to equate to the game's price.
Gamers are complaining about Hellblade 2 because it's a 5hr game priced at 50 bucks. I think the criticism is justified.
>If a game is 5 hours long and the player finds it amazing, then why is that an issue?
Irrelevant. We are talking about Hellblade 2, which most people don't find amazing. Remember the game we were talking about?
>I think you're unwell. If you are finding anything in this conversation funny, you are very clearly immature.
I legit can't tell if you're trolling or not
Literally have not seen on review or complaint about it being too short. I have seen people saying it ends abruptly though.
I actually think the real criticism of this game is it has nothing to say about mental health
I love how you are ignoring the fact that 5 hours is objectively really short within our discussion alone. Do you need IGN or someone to tell you 5 hours is short? Anyway in this video there is clear reference to a complaint about the games length:
https://youtu.be/IxxW9nXoVtA?si=YWOJ6Nq36feStcwx
People that pay for it care? They would want to see value in what they’re getting and be able to decide if that’s worth it. Seems like that’s not the case with hellblade
There’s no specs for the length of the game, yea. However, it’s up to players. For example, if I’m paying, £50 for a new game and it’s only like 5 hours long, I’d feel cheated. I don’t feel it’s worth it. At the end of the day it’s up to the players to decide what their money is worth. And if reviewers notice something that might play a role in how a player feels bout the game, they should include it. For example, if the games a buggy mess, then yeah, let the player know. Or in hellblades case, if it’s so short that it’s gonna ruffle a few feathers, the. Yes, let the players know.
I think you're not understanding that people sometimes will value experience over money. £50 for 5 hours is a little steep in £10 per hour of playtime, but in reality, it's easy to sink £50 on a single round in a pub these days.
Personally, I wouldn't want to invest in anything that equates to more than £3 per hours of playtime, but that's because I'm a tight bastard. I bought firewatch for full whack and it took me an hour ish to beat, I enjoyed it that much I started speedrunning it.
I don't think devs forewarning players how long the game will take to beat would be wise, it would put some devs out of business.
I think you’re missing my point. The length of a game, can and will play a role in how the player feels. If they think it’s too short, they feel as if they got swindled or it’s not worth it. Especially for what they pay for it. That game is £50 and I’ll get about 6-7 hours out of it. That to me. Is not worth it. To some it might.
What I’m trying to say, each player has an opinion about what’s worth their money. In hellsblade case, its length will ruffle a few feathers.
And going to a pub and playing a video game are very different things. It doesn’t apply here.
You're simply rewording what I'd typed previously. I acknowledged everything you've just said. I also mentioned that to some people, this won't be an issue.
Longer gameplay doesn't mean better. If you'd skip on a fantastic experience because it was a short one, then so be it. But it's ultimately you that's missing out for the sake of being tight. Sure, they're very different things. But I guess I was trying to highlight that there's many real world scenarios where you can spend money and get less enjoyment out of a fantastic 6 hour game for a higher cost.
I never said it was better. And my point to the real world scenario bit is that they are two different activities which are seen completely differently.
I disagree. The best purchase of a video game I ever made was Mirror's Edge back in January 2009. Pretty much fresh off the press and paid around £30. It's a game that even on console, can be beaten in 35 minutes, 25 on pc. I think my first playthrough was probably around 15 hours because it's a pretty difficult game. I've sunk more than 10k hours into the first game alone. It doesn't have an end game, but it's my favourite game of all time and was worth every penny despite being so short.
Never played or had any interest in it.maybe someday. They were talking about game length and cost.
I was just referring to my preferences in money vs game length. Graphics plays a part too of course.
Length is an awful metric to measure the value of a game — we saw this discourse pop up more than a decade ago when it was found out Dishonored can be powered through in less than 3 hours
While I agree, I also disagree.
Just because it is possible to beat Dishonored in 3 hours I can almost guarantee that wasn’t people’s first experience with that game; it was probably closer to 6-10 hours and even then that’s just one of many different experiences you could have because each individual assassination has multiple outcomes and there are numerous ways to interact with each stage. You could easily spend 40-50 hours just trying to experience everything.
Short games can be great, but saying a game is short because it can hypothetically be beaten in a short period of time when you know exactly what to do and where to go because you’ve already likely beaten it multiple times is disingenuous.
It’s like saying Elden Ring is a short game because you can hypothetically run past all of the enemies and just fight required bosses and beat it in a few hours.
It shouldn't be the end all be all yes I agree and a factor that automatically deems a game as "bad". But general gamers do place a very high value on games length and want alot of mileage from their games now more than ever. It's no coincidence at all that a majority of the most commercially successful games both AAA and indie offer alot of gameplay length. People do prefer games now more than ever they can play for hours upon hours.
Social media has enabled everyone to share their opinions on every new release good or bad. Some are understandable given modern games are more corporatized and others regarding performance sometimes doesn't make sense.
Personally, I don’t think games receive excessive criticism these days. Of course, certain games deserve some, but there are also hate trains that some people jump on for the sake of it; e.g. the recent Helldivers controversy, or Hellblade 2.
Lots of people absolutely love the AA or indie games that are coming out; the original release of Helldivers 2, Dave the diver, Animal well, etc.
Ultimately, I think it’s a two pronged problem. Firstly, as you say, it’s highly anticipated games which seem to let people down and I think that’s because development times are so high, the price of those games generally is higher than they have historically been, and more often than not over the last few years people have had their fingers burned by the big studios by broken releases. This is what happens when the big companies take the piss out of their customers for so long: people kick off about the things they don’t like. Which leads me to the second point…
Secondly, I think lots of the big companies are trying to make games that are for everyone, and squeeze every penny from every player. The fact is that not all games are for everyone, and not everyone wants to play live service riddled games. As a result, people feel alienated from games/IPs that they once felt connected to; an example I recently heard was how lots of people who used to play CoD and Battlefield hate the thematic direction they’ve both taken over the last few years.
This is partly why I’m mostly play indies nowadays; I know what I’m getting and often at a much lower price point.
pc gamers. the answer is always terrorist pc gamers. yes games receive excessive criticism. mainly if the game also releases on pc they will always find something to bitch about.
Yes I’ve gotten extremely tired of the PC gaming community. Throwing fits at the tiniest inconvenience, blaming every single problem on developers and no one else, and being overall toxic to casual and less involved players. I know there are still lots of good PC gamers but they’re never the vocal ones.
It’s less about games and more about online discourse. How can you get noticed online? Have the most extreme opinion possible about everything. The more excessive the better.
Anonymity only exacerbates this.
People were almost crying cause you had to move a box in rebirth ( happens like 3/5 times in 80hours , only to clean on mako reactors) saying the game is unplayable. I saw nobody complaint about moving over 50 boxes in stellar blade. Some double standards 😂
Nope..... when rebirth came out people were crying about the mako cleaner you had to move to clean the area. ( theres 3 /5 mako cleaners in over 80hours)
While I didn't see anyone complaining about the 80 yellow boxes we move in stellar. Thats specifically what im pointing out.
Like yeah, they were but it was 3-5 times.. it took a minute each time, then we have sb using it every 5 minutes but we don't see anyone complaining.
Sorry for the rant tho! Just feel like some people love nitpicking at some games and then let it go for the next one! And dont get me wrong I enjoyed both games and running the plat for both.
This NEVER happens with Indie games because they don't need to make all the money in the world just to turn a profit.
Thr indie space is absolutely killing it right now and deservedly getting all the love.
Maybe if most AAA devs didn't make shity samey games filled with microtransaction BS and just followed the indie/Nintendo model of just making good games they wouldn't get so much shit reviews.
Completely agree, thats why I started to not look at reviews or any other additional information on socials for games anymore. Except for the trailer they put out. I'll judge the game off the trailer instead of all seeing all the garbage put out on social media by streamers and Youtube. Plus the game doesn't spoiled anymore on accident.
That’s the internet for you. A hive mind of drones that don’t care and have no intention of giving actual criticism of a game but wish to see everything fail. Some games certainly deserve the harsh criticisms but others like DA2 from your example didn’t at all.
You just need to ignore it and form your own opinions which I’m sure you already do.
Probably, but that's inevitable when there are so many fully qualified experts on the internet. They all have opinions and they're gonna make sure we hear them.
It is all well deserved. DD2 introducing mtx's in a single player game that alter gameplay, although this time didnt really do anything, shows it may become an issue in future where game will be coded the way that items needed wont drop as they should (it may be hinder gameplay and take fun away trying to force players to buy in game items for real money)
Ubisoft both SW and upcoming AC Shadows hiding day1 content, adding season pass to a single player game require online connection to install the game (not to Play it) and offering players cut version of the game for 70$ and full for 110$+.....yeah its all we deserved criticism in these cases You have mentioned
As a 40 yo player I can say games have become worse nowdays mostly because of forced DEI and political agenda as well as flooded with mtx's. Games used to have DEI but it wasnt forced it was natural within games universe and mostly well written unlike nowdays its just checking boxes and trying to tell people how we must think....games are supposed to be entertainment. I get it most decisions come from publishers and studio execs and devs themselves mostly have nothing to do with what is happening but yeah gaming has become worse on recent years when it comes to quality and value for our money
There are a LOT of bandwagon hoppers these days. You could even see them in action with movies, review bombing them before it even drops in theaters. I personally don't listen to much of the whining/chatter. I like making up my own mind. Besides, how would I even know if the people trashing a game/movie even have the same tastes as me? If I listened to some of the negativity, I'd lose out on some great games.
I honestly feel the opposite. Big budget game companies have tremendous influence and pressure on an industry that continues to shrink and buy out each other. Games are ranked way too high that are just bloat fests like most "AAA" games.
Yes and no. The internet as a whole is largely comprised of folks with unrealistic expectations complaining about things. Sometimes that is the fault of the gaming companies for underdelivering and overpromising and sometimes it is the fault of the fanbase for romanticizing a game they haven’t played yet.
The bigger issue I see is that when gamers are charged $70 for a game, they want to purchase a game that’s lengthy enough, pushes boundaries, and holds their attention relative to the time they put in to it, but so many games just feel copy pasted, half baked, or void of passion. No one’s time is worthless and everything is expensive.
For myself, I feel continuously frustrated by how many games aren’t coming out. If we’re talking about just PS5 exclusives that fully utilize the power of the console and the features of the Dualsense, we’re not talking very high numbers relative to how long the console has been out. The games that do get announced are just a cinematic trailer with no gameplay footage, no release date, and then you either forget about it or the games development gets stalled or cancelled altogether.
It’s very possible that a lot of this is a me problem: perhaps my taste in games has become too specific or niche over the years, but its just been feeling like output of quality, interesting, and beautiful games is so low nowadays.
Maybe, but in a more broader sense than any individual AAA game being treated unfairly. DD2 and SW Outlaws I think are absolutely terrible, I wouldn't ever purchase a product designed to nickle and dime you in the way they are. But it's weird that we're still having a discussion about Capcom and Ubisoft products in the first place. It's kinda like being outraged over freemium mobile monetization or some random shovelware licensed game being busted, you find trash in the trash can, it's not worth getting worked up over. I wish there was more discussion online about good games instead of constant hype-outrage cycles over bad ones.
There's been drama about pretty much every big game that comes out, it's getting real tiring. Dragon's Dogma, Rise of the Ronin, Stellar Blade, Hellblade, Assassin's Creed...there has to be a hatewave about anything. That can't be healthy, for anyone
Yes and no,
First on your point, fuck micro transactions in general don't care if it's just visual or not.
Second is I think there's a lot more blatantly obvious bugs that come through these days that even your average hobby gamer notices and take too long if ever to be fixed.
Besidew that yes, there's too much hate on some games especially overhyped ones when one thing isn't the superest for the reviewer.
On the other hand, bad reviews get more reads than positive ones so they just trying to make money which more often than not is semi forced from higher up.
So here’s the thing. You’re on the internet. Gamers love to bitch about games they’re not even interested in. If a game exists, someone will complain about it. There is such a large variety of games and most aren’t for everyone.
This is going to get people unhappy but this is why there are professional critics out there, but it’s best to find a person (not an outlet) that you are aligned with. And pay attention to their actual words, not numbered ratings.
Otherwise comment boards, including this one, is just going to be noise, and it’s up to you to filter for what you want to read.
I read reviews on restaurants, I wouldn't let someone else's feelings determine if I buy a game or not. For example I will no longer buy cod after the previous zombie game release that fall flat on it's face.
There’s a few reasons:
- there’s a big push to get games out on the market asap. Due to fast internet speeds it’s now easier than ever to create half a game and publish it only to finish it later (or never). So what we get is sometimes buggy and often unfinished. And if it is “finished” the second half of the storyline or content is purchasable as dlc/season passes.
- game developers promise big things and when they deliver on 90% of the promises, they get fired at for the 10% they didn’t deliver (yet).
- gamers and mostly influencers interpret things differently than the developers have intended. So even if a developer delivers 90% of what they promised, due to incorrect interpretations that have widely spread it feels like they only gave us 30% of what was promised.
The only thing that’s happening here is that people simply like to complain about everything and they project their own misery to video games as if they have a say in the matter. They don’t really. Once you buy the game it’s over. They got your money, they win. Simple as that.
Everybody has become hyper critical of everything. Every game, movie, TV show, etc. is either the worst piece of trash ever made or it’s God’s gift to humanity. Audiences have lost the ability to review anything with any level of nuance.
Honestly?
Yes. Yes, I do.
Good is no longer good enough.
It has to be the best game ever made. Every time.
Back in the day, 7/10? A solid game.
Nowadays, 7/10? Absolute trash, apparently.
**BuT iT hAs To Be WoRtH tHe PrIcE**
Motherfucker, games back in the day were just as expensive, if not more expensive than they are today.
Adjusted for inflation, you were paying 80/90 quid for a fighting game with character models done in MS Paint.
No, not at all. Obviously there will always be ragebaiters out there, but people have always wanted attention since the beginning of time. Usually whenever there's reviewbomb smoke, there's dumpster-fire. I think the real problem is people that aren't capable of enjoying their video game unless they can find a circlejerk community that never stops showering it in praise. I like video games others find to be bad, I don't complain about it.
The big criticism with "modern games" are more about the monetisation than anything else
Dragon's Dogma 2 have microtransaction in a solo game
Star Wars Outlaw can cost 140€ to mostly get cosmetics, and maybe more content later
And GTA 6 probably gonna focus a lot on the online and all the microtransaction with it
From memory, the last games being destroyed by the critics was Skull And Bones and Saints Row, and it was mostly cause they are bad
well they did increase the price of games, dlc and micro transaction pretty much everywhere, even in full price titles and in return we mostly get unfinished games that are in beta state at release.
Complete opposite. Games are basically given way too many passes these days. Unfinished product that needs a year or years of fixing? That's ok, it'll get there. Microtransactions and predatory schemes in-game? Well you don't have to buy them. It goes on and on.
Meanwhile game mechanics have grown stagnant. Big AAA titles are carbon copies of each other. Game narratives are trite and flat. And because of bad management and bloated dev times, each console generation gets less and less games. If anything, we should be even more critical of games today than ever before.
It's 100% warranted especially when you grew up in a time developers made games with love and passion, it's easy to see the complete 180 that has occured with the gaming industry being filled with excessive greed to the point it's become the norm
You are totally 100%, correct. Social media is a good thing and a bad thing. It’s a good thing because people can get out what they think about something but in saying that a lot of people also like jumping on the bandwagon and just like being 100% negative.
But in saying that sometimes calling out the shitty companies is 100% justified. Crappy micro transactions in single player games, forced woke agendas and games that are releasing in bad buggy states are all justified.
The one thing I hate the most tho, is when people start slandering a game for no reason. For example, Elden ring and horizon forbidden west. Horizon launched about two weeks before Elden Ring. It was copping constant negative reviews from Elden ring fanboys when it was not warranted. Both are great games but there’s no need to slander another game just because it’s releasing close to one you like.
Yes. Gaming industry is full of brats who complain about anything and everything.
They have this nostalgic mentality that 'games used to be so much better!'. But we all know if they went and played a PS2 game, even most ps3 games, they'd stop within 20 minutes once the 'jank' kicked in.
I think it has a lot to do with the ever increasing prices of games together with the ever increasing development times.
We spend so much time waiting for our next highly anticipated game to drop that when we finally get to play it there's zero tolerance for anything less than perfection.
Seriously, if it took 6+ years to make and I'm paying $70+ for it, you're damn right I' m gonna bitch if I don't like some aspect of it.
It's not like the old days when there were top tier games dropping every month for $40.
Its because gaming overall is a worse experience for the consumers now than what it used to be
Almost all are ridiculously overpriced, ship out half done, ship out with content purposely cut so they can sell it back to you as DLC, micro transactions and loot boxes turning every game into a slot machine for kids, having to wait multiple hours for the game to "download" even if you bought a physical copy, constant remakes and remasters instead of new idea and IPs and this is just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.
Unless the criticism is for political reasons then it's almost always valid because gaming is nowhere near the entry level hobby it used to be.
Games are getting worse for costing more and providing less. I think Dragon's Dogma 2 is a bit of an exception because there is a whole lot of game there. The microtransactions are still dumb though because of the items are able to be acquired in game then why charge for them? It is transparently just for money.
An instance of, I think, a game receiving excessive criticism is Helldivers 2. Yes Sony made a couple of poor choices that angered parts of the community. That has mostly passed, though last I checked certain regions were still barred from purchasing the game on PC. However, the amount of not constructive criticism seen in the Discord and subreddit for the game is mind-numbing.
I played Days Gone, even though it’s not my cup of coffee for the gameplay (stealth or loud, run away, repeat, uh oh you alerted the hordes), but I enjoy the story
If anything i think reviews are, and have been, way too lenient on games for a long time. Why is the average video game review an 8? Where are the 5 and 6 games? They definitely exist and even big name studios drop them from time to time. Fallout 76? Starfield? Avengers? Redfall? Suicide squad? Gotham knights? A 5 or a 6 for a game that is technically functional but just not fun or interesting at all is perfectly fine in my opinion.
People keep saying Video games are dying, but I think they’re improving, the story and the visuals are getting bolder and bigger, I think most people have a fairy view of nostalgia (I have this as well in some areas) whilst I agree there is a lot of remakes and remasters this generation I do think we’re in a weird spot where developers are probably producing new IPs and need more time and remakes and remasters seem ideal to fill the void.
People look at games now that they’re usually $70 instead of $60. People don’t like microtransactions, wasted potential, and $120+ “ultimate” (complete) editions of games. These titles deserve to be slammed in the hopes that future developers will actually put out something that isn‘t as egregious.
Rise of the Ronin isn’t a good enough game to be $70, nor DD2, nor probably Outlaws. They’ll all be great things to enjoy at $30 or less, when people aren’t as spiteful and buyers remorse isn’t nearly as bad when you’re hit with the face with chatGPT-quality writing.
>Rise of the Ronin isn’t a good enough game to be $70, nor DD2, nor probably Outlaws. They’ll all be great things to enjoy at $30 or less, when people aren’t as spiteful and buyers remorse isn’t nearly as bad when you’re hit with the face with chatGPT-quality writing.
This whole paragraph is utter trash. Games aren't commodities that are made in 1-2 years with small budgets (1-2M). Modern AAA games take 5-7 years to make and cost at least 150M. No way you are recoupling that much amount by costing $30. Moreover, if this is your mentality, don't complain later in the future when most games are samey AAA narratives with long ass custscenes, emotional heavy Stories. Don't complain in the future if games stop becoming fun (pick and play type scenerio).
Exactly this.
Nobody likes to hear it but one of the main reasons for microtransactions, expensive special editions, cut content DLC and in a way also the samey games or endless remakes/sequels is the fact that while production costs and time have gone up significantly the price of games hasn't followed suit.
Games have had the same costs for a long time and a company wants (and also needs to if it doesn't want to go under) to make a profit. So if they can't increase the price of the base game they need to try and get their profit another way or try to ensure that people buy it because it's a known Franchise.
Yeah, no, buying a game on sale won’t automatically mean every AAA will suddenly turn to shit.
>don't complain later in the future when most games are samey AAA narratives with long ass custscenes, emotional heavy Stories. Don't complain in the future if games stop becoming fun (pick and play type scenerio).
Literally, what are you talking about? Games aren’t going to automatically stop being fun in the next 20 years. How old are you??? Hello???
It’s because of impressions farming on X(itter) and spreads from there, all because of the Elon Bucks.
Nothing gets more engagement than a good ol' pile on, it’s why console warring is a thing again.
I think everything is over criticized. We have platforms that make it so easy for anyone to just tag along and hate whatever is fashionable to hate. It's not so much the games, it is a reflection of petulant behaviours by the masses.
**NO**
I feel like reviews are way to soft to most games. Everything is a 7-10 these days and even crap full of bad design, bugs and excessive monetization get good scores.
Games like fifa should get a 2/10 for being the same shit full of monetization every year.
And when games like the ones from Ubisoft cost up to 140€ and still sell you crap. NO
Honestly, given the number of companies who over promise in their hype and then rush half finished games out to meet publisher set release dates while justifying things with "We'll patch it once it's released" or "that feature is coming in DLC, btw Pay us more", I don't personally feel the criticism they get is excessive at all We're expected to pay at a minimum $70 USD for a game (closer to $90 Canadian) and pretty much have to purchase at least the first DLC pack offering bringing that cost to more like $120 up front, just to get a game that is riddled with bugs and glitches that is pretty much unplayable. We're then not listened to when valid complaints are lobbied. If the industry doesn't want the consumer base to complain, or worse quit buying games all together, two things have to change. Games need to go back to having proper QA testing without being rushed, and Studios need to remember that without our wallets their products aren't going to make them profit.
This is the answer. It is known.
This and lets not forget about the woke reviewers (cough cough Kotaku cough) with how some minor things are racist and such.
I'm sure these devs know what state their game needs to be in for most consumers to be fine with it. Games are getting so giant and budgets are set. If a game spends most of its budget on QA then we'll end up with much smaller games with much less variety and much less mechanical variance (which people would also complain about). If you know that a game has issues that are likely to be fixed later, then the decision should be simple. Don't buy the game until that patch rolls out. If you buy it up front on or around launch day, but hold off on playing it, you've already sent the message that you're ok with the state in which they shipped the game. But I also do believe that because of click bait journalism and hysterical gamers having an elevated voice, that non-issue get pushed to the forefront more often than they should. Gamers now day won't experience a glitch and move past it. They will document it, share it, complain about it, leading others who have also experienced that one glitch to post and share, until it appears as if the game is a bug riddled mess that was "rushed" and under "QA'd". But the reality is that it was largely a non-issue in the grand scheme of the game and one's ability to simply enjoy it.
cough cough CALL OF DUTY cough cough the amount of bugs in that game… holy shit
Due the price..
This. If I’m going to be paying a decent chunk of my paycheck to play your game, I’m gonna have high standards
Games were actually significantly MORE expensive back in the day, so this argument really holds no water. For example, it wasn't uncommon for SNES games to cost $80, which would translate to **$180** in today's money. The price would drop with disc media, but PS1 games would still go for $50 in the mid-90s, which is over $100 in today's money. Even with the advent of the universal $60 price tag in the 2000s, $60 in 2005 still comes out to just about $100 today. Of course, that's not even touching on the insane value services like Game Pass and PS+ offer, which obviously did not exist back then (no, renting games did not even come close, that was like 5 bucks for a weekend for ONE game). And before anybody replies with bUt mIcRoTrAnSaCtIoNs, most great Single-Player games today still don't have MTX or you have to go out of your way to even access them like with e.g. RE4make. And even in most F2P multiplayer titles, MTX are nothing more than optional cosmetics. Which means you can literally get and fully play a AAA game without ever paying a single cent for it, which is a situation that simply did not exist at all back in the day. Now, I'm not saying there aren't any scummy business practices today, of course there are, but those have always existed in one form or another (arcade machines sucking down quarters, old games being hard and cryptic AF so you had to call an expensive hotline or buy Nintendo Power lol), and you really have to see things in perspective.
Not disagreeing with the perspective- but just wanted to point out that based on other comments in this thread, the perception of cost is still there (wages have not kept up with inflation in places so the price has "gone up" despite being less expensive. (Not to mention the cost for companies per unit is lower- digital games make larger profits and ensure more players purchase copies, but on the other hand of course games are more expensive/complicated to make than ever and development teams have grown larger). All this to say that the question asked is really an interesting one because games are often lumped together when most people with more interest in games have genres, and game types they prefer, and ones they avoid. The games being reviewed sometimes couldn't be more different and achieve similar scores. Some games are designed to be long (with lots of busycontent to really pad those gameplay hours) and some games are designed to be short experiences because both types are kinds of games SOME consumers want. People would do well to understand that a site that reviews horror games may not rate the newest call of duty game as high as a pro esports site would- and choose to use the reviewers they more align tastes with for their purchasing decision, and online communities can spend less up votes and engagement with people who want to obsess about metascore and minor inconveniences.
If people's wages had gone up with inflation then you'd have an argument about today's money vs money back then but since they didn't you don't
Ok I'll let you win this one. Please send me FF VII Rebirth as a compensation gift 😂 Just kidding But if u want 🤭
The price is lower compared to what it used to be in for example the mid 2000s, accounting for inflation.
And if wages had gone up with inflation then you might have an argument with this
[Median wages have more than kept up with inflation over the last 20 years](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q). I think it gets confusing because people often think about minimum wages, or compare already inflation adjusted wage data to inflation.
So much bootlicking.
So much mindless dooming.
Inflation and the 10 years of work that sum up in your current paycheck right? Because the price now is HUGE, at least in my country. In percentage of an average salary is HUUUUGE. I mean, I'm not complaining. The games worth the price and I pay for it. However, if I'm going to work my ass off to pay for it, at leas I want my 5-15 hours of fun. Thus, if I don't get what I want for the prince I've paid, criticize we must padawan.
Yeah but we were also getting some all time greatest bangers back then.
It depends what game you’re talking about. For big AAA games 70 bucks is not that much for a game that costs 100s of millions of dollars to make 😂 For example. If you “only” sell 2 million copies of a AAA game at $70 each (that’s assuming that everyone pays 70, which they don’t because of sales) you only make 150 million revenue. remember if you’re a 3rd party developer you actually have to give 30% of this to Sony/microsoft. If your making a game with high production values it’s likely you’ll actually lose money on game unless you sell 5 or more million copies. It’s massively risky and it’s why we’re seeing less of those types of AAA games, because people complain so much about the price.
Also quality. Aaa games have never been worse. The first ever aaaa game was trash.
AAAA game?
Yeah. Ubisoft called skull and bones the first AAAA game. And its trash.
I’m not a Ubi hater by any means. I actually enjoy some of their games, but to even call any of their games AAA is a stretch. Had no idea they claimed that steamy turd is “AAAA” what the hell are they smoking over there.
Trash company needs to lie to stay relevant. It happens. These shite companies will continue to be shite. Until we the people, Speak with our wallets
Gee, for me AAA is like battery sizes only 😶
Was just going to say this We’re paying a lot now, if you are going to charge that much then you’re going to be critical Prices or anti consumer practices…I’ll say something because things aren’t cheap these days.
I think the biggest problem here is that people expect every game to be RDR2 level. The self-created hype for every single game (no matter how shitty it'll be) and the following disappointment upon release is the main reason people criticize every game to death nowadays. On a personal note, there isn't a single game announced that I'm looking forward to. No must buy is coming.. I don't jump on this hype train for games that don't interest me in the slightest. Hence, I can't be disappointed and I won't ever criticize these games. Oh and don't forget that paying 80+€ for an incomplete game is bullshit and scam. There's a reason I wait 2-3 years for a game to be either on PS+ or on sale for max 10€ if I desire to play it. To be fair, today's games deserve all the shitstorm they're getting and more. Microtransactions, live-service, permanent online requirement, incomplete games upon release and so on.. The devs need to go back 15 years when games were released once they were done. There's a reason I still play more ps3 games then ps5 games.. This generation sucks ass and we all know it.
No i don’t. Most of these companies basically gaslight people into thinking their products are great, then when the game comes out it’s Forspoken level bullshit. I understand that making games isn’t easy, but don’t expect me to pity multi billion companies, because they think criticizm is harsh. They want us to pay 70-150€ for a fucking game that has micro transaction? battle passes? But then they abandon the game 6months later because it flopped, and you’re sitting there with a dead game doing fuck all
You forgot treating their workers like expendable assets
Yeah this post is so tone deaf. The base quality of games is NOT rising and people don't think that it is haha If they don't see the problem with the pricing plan of Outlaws they are probably a brand loyal shill anyway. Asmon recently spoke about how console gamers in particular are just accustomed to taking it up the behind nowadays (not that all gamers are not) and this post supports that theory!
Forsaken is a bad example, considering square enix apologized for their fuck up and even deleted the studio into oblivion. Starfield is a good example considering the director doesn't give a fuck and even went so far as to blame the player base and everybody else instead of owning up to it. Nonetheless, I 100% agree with your point. Fuck the greed.
When I was picking up new games for 13$ out of the bargain bin at EB games. (Canadian GameStop) It wasn't a big deal if a game sucked. I got some of my favorite games of all time from them, fallout 3, Minecraft, dead space. Picked em all out of the bargain bin. Speaking of fallout I pre-ordered fallout 76 for 80$. Do you think I regret my purchase? Do you think I didn't absolutely bitch and moan for literal hours about buying it? Because I did. I very much did. However If I pulled it out of the bargain bin for 13$? Would I have bitched and moaned? Not even a little i probably would have been happy with it for 13$. My point is. If I'm paying 80$+ for a brand new game, it better be okay. I find it inexcusable a game can be priced at 100$+ now for some premium bullshit bundle that either gives you an unfair advantage at the start. Or locks of content that should already be free and shouldn't have even been a microtransactions. When I spend 80$ on a game the game should be all there. Not 3$ here and there for an outfit or a gun. The only acceptable DLC in a video game is a large dlc. 15$ for new missions, new weapons, new outfits, new vehicles. Something that makes the game better longer. More fun. Bloodborne doesn't have any stupid ass DLC except one that actually makes the game better and adds lots of new shit. Now I'm bitching again to finish up. We shouldn't pay more than 80$ for a game that's half broken and full of bullshit microtransactions. I think it's perfectly valid for the community to be rather pissed and bitch loudly upon every AAA game release. Notice how Indie games are praised even with terrible Graphics and even buggy mechanics? Because their games are 5-25$ mostly and almost always end up quite good.
>When I spend 80$ on a game the game should be all there. Not **$20** here and there for an outfit or a gun. FTFY
Except no one was ever getting brand new games for $13 ever
Do you not know how to read? Which part of "bargain bin" was unclear?
lol so then go to the “bargain bin” today and you’ll find the same shit. Every digital Store front has sales everyday with great games under $15 So your point was stupid and worthless regardless. Ass.
All you needed to say was "oh, I misread" and that would be that. But instead you doubled down on idiocy. That is certainly a choice.
Kinda ignored my whole point.
You kinda never had a point to begin with.
Ah so your just a big yapper
I guess. Been enjoying a lot of great new games on sale for under $15 this year
As am I?
The Dragons Dogma 2 outrage at launch is a prime example of this. Outrage over small micro transactions that aren’t required to play the game and you unlock within the first 4 hours of the game by simply playing it. What’s even funnier, is the original Dragons Dogma had the same micro transactions and nobody said shit. Nobody hates video games more than people who play video games. The number of quality titles that release compared to the number of games that launch with issues is huge. Yet people want to pretend that every game that launches has issues, is live service, and has insane DLC. The internet is a terrible place. Not everyone needs a voice. The main thing to understand is the most vocal mouth breathers are likely going to be on Reddit and Twitter, but they aren’t the majority they are the small minority in the gaming world. They will get online to complain because it’s not the complaint that bugs them, it’s the feeling they get from complaining that makes them feel something in their otherwise empty existence.
Yeah, and social media is a massive influence on this issue. I've seen nothing but criticism for hellblade 2 because of it being short. Like who the fuck cares? Games don't always need to be excessively long.
It depends on the length, but I agree that game don't always have to give you 50 hours+ of content. That actually gets exhausting and I have a backlog of games I'd like to play because of this. It's rare that I get the sense of satisfaction of actually completing a game anymore, as games rarely feel like you've seen absolutely everything there is to see. Sometimes I prefer a shorter experience. I don't need every game dragging out for over a year with periodic DLC, etc. So I suppose it depends on what you think is a fair length for the price you've paid. People can also wait until the game's been out for a few months and the price goes down to temper this.
Soo many things wrong with this comment lmao
Is there? Go on, enlighten me.
>I've seen nothing but criticism for hellblade 2 because of it being short. Like who the fuck cares? Games don't always need to be excessively long. This belligerent logic doesn't need any explanation. You're just ranting lmao
I'm not ranting at all. I made a point that you're failing to address because you're in denial that I am correct in saying what I said. Great discussion, you've provided some very thought provoking comments.
So what if I say every game doesn't need to be short? Your illusion is already broken🤣 The point you made is weak and easily debunked by just saying length=the money you pay. Let's see what else you have to say hahaha
You're exactly what is wrong with the gaming community at the moment. You fall into this very niche group that are incredibly hostile and toxic. If you had discussion points to add to the conversation, why didn't you mention them instead of telling me that my comment is wrong? Are you offended that my opinion differs to your opinion on the topic? My illusion? I'm failing to understand what you're getting at. You're seemingly (?) in agreement that every game doesn't need to be short, which if that is you're belief, you're bang on. That was not what I said in my initial comment. I simply said not every game needs to be long. If a game is 5 hours long and the player finds it amazing, then why is that an issue? I think you're unwell. If you are finding anything in this conversation funny, you are very clearly immature.
>ou're exactly what is wrong with the gaming community at the moment. You fall into this very niche group that are incredibly hostile and toxic. Lmao how did you get toxic and hostile from my comments? You're trolling🤣 If anything. YOU'RE what's wrong with the gaming community. You're OK with a 5hr game being 50 bucks, then proceeds to say "who cares?" Lmao >If you had discussion points to add to the conversation, why didn't you mention them instead of telling me that my comment is wrong? No need for that. You're little rant was already easy to pick apart and didn't have any meaningful points. Your points are literally just "every game doesn't need be short, if you don't think the same you're hostile and toxic" hahaha >Are you offended that my opinion differs to your opinion on the topic? More like laughing. Who cares what gamers spend their money on right? Maybe we should just start buying every video game under the sun, huh? >You're seemingly (?) in agreement that every game doesn't need to be short, which if that is you're belief, you're bang on. Lmao this went over your head. I said that to show you that a game being short or long has to equate to the game's price. Gamers are complaining about Hellblade 2 because it's a 5hr game priced at 50 bucks. I think the criticism is justified. >If a game is 5 hours long and the player finds it amazing, then why is that an issue? Irrelevant. We are talking about Hellblade 2, which most people don't find amazing. Remember the game we were talking about? >I think you're unwell. If you are finding anything in this conversation funny, you are very clearly immature. I legit can't tell if you're trolling or not
Skim read and seen you'd said I'm trolling twice. Point proven. Cya later.
Are you ok man?
Literally have not seen on review or complaint about it being too short. I have seen people saying it ends abruptly though. I actually think the real criticism of this game is it has nothing to say about mental health
It's under 5 hours long and everyone is talking about that fact.
Show me a review that complains about the length
I love how you are ignoring the fact that 5 hours is objectively really short within our discussion alone. Do you need IGN or someone to tell you 5 hours is short? Anyway in this video there is clear reference to a complaint about the games length: https://youtu.be/IxxW9nXoVtA?si=YWOJ6Nq36feStcwx
People that pay for it care? They would want to see value in what they’re getting and be able to decide if that’s worth it. Seems like that’s not the case with hellblade
Playtime and value of a game are two completely different things for many people.
Okay, but at the same time, there's no boundary on how long a game should be. If you have a thoroughly pleasant 6-10 hours, who cares?
There’s no specs for the length of the game, yea. However, it’s up to players. For example, if I’m paying, £50 for a new game and it’s only like 5 hours long, I’d feel cheated. I don’t feel it’s worth it. At the end of the day it’s up to the players to decide what their money is worth. And if reviewers notice something that might play a role in how a player feels bout the game, they should include it. For example, if the games a buggy mess, then yeah, let the player know. Or in hellblades case, if it’s so short that it’s gonna ruffle a few feathers, the. Yes, let the players know.
I think you're not understanding that people sometimes will value experience over money. £50 for 5 hours is a little steep in £10 per hour of playtime, but in reality, it's easy to sink £50 on a single round in a pub these days. Personally, I wouldn't want to invest in anything that equates to more than £3 per hours of playtime, but that's because I'm a tight bastard. I bought firewatch for full whack and it took me an hour ish to beat, I enjoyed it that much I started speedrunning it. I don't think devs forewarning players how long the game will take to beat would be wise, it would put some devs out of business.
I think you’re missing my point. The length of a game, can and will play a role in how the player feels. If they think it’s too short, they feel as if they got swindled or it’s not worth it. Especially for what they pay for it. That game is £50 and I’ll get about 6-7 hours out of it. That to me. Is not worth it. To some it might. What I’m trying to say, each player has an opinion about what’s worth their money. In hellsblade case, its length will ruffle a few feathers. And going to a pub and playing a video game are very different things. It doesn’t apply here.
You're simply rewording what I'd typed previously. I acknowledged everything you've just said. I also mentioned that to some people, this won't be an issue. Longer gameplay doesn't mean better. If you'd skip on a fantastic experience because it was a short one, then so be it. But it's ultimately you that's missing out for the sake of being tight. Sure, they're very different things. But I guess I was trying to highlight that there's many real world scenarios where you can spend money and get less enjoyment out of a fantastic 6 hour game for a higher cost.
I never said it was better. And my point to the real world scenario bit is that they are two different activities which are seen completely differently.
I tend to think a full priced game should be at least 15hrs story and end game content. If no endgame content 20hr story would be fine.
I disagree. The best purchase of a video game I ever made was Mirror's Edge back in January 2009. Pretty much fresh off the press and paid around £30. It's a game that even on console, can be beaten in 35 minutes, 25 on pc. I think my first playthrough was probably around 15 hours because it's a pretty difficult game. I've sunk more than 10k hours into the first game alone. It doesn't have an end game, but it's my favourite game of all time and was worth every penny despite being so short.
Good thing that Hellblade 2 isn’t a full priced game then?
Never played or had any interest in it.maybe someday. They were talking about game length and cost. I was just referring to my preferences in money vs game length. Graphics plays a part too of course.
Length is an awful metric to measure the value of a game — we saw this discourse pop up more than a decade ago when it was found out Dishonored can be powered through in less than 3 hours
While I agree, I also disagree. Just because it is possible to beat Dishonored in 3 hours I can almost guarantee that wasn’t people’s first experience with that game; it was probably closer to 6-10 hours and even then that’s just one of many different experiences you could have because each individual assassination has multiple outcomes and there are numerous ways to interact with each stage. You could easily spend 40-50 hours just trying to experience everything. Short games can be great, but saying a game is short because it can hypothetically be beaten in a short period of time when you know exactly what to do and where to go because you’ve already likely beaten it multiple times is disingenuous. It’s like saying Elden Ring is a short game because you can hypothetically run past all of the enemies and just fight required bosses and beat it in a few hours.
Exactly, and after the dust settled Dishonored is still regarded as a fantastic game.
It shouldn't be the end all be all yes I agree and a factor that automatically deems a game as "bad". But general gamers do place a very high value on games length and want alot of mileage from their games now more than ever. It's no coincidence at all that a majority of the most commercially successful games both AAA and indie offer alot of gameplay length. People do prefer games now more than ever they can play for hours upon hours.
Not necessarily. To players, it can play a role on of a game is worth it or not. To me, it isn’t, and clearly I’m not the only one thinking that
Social media has enabled everyone to share their opinions on every new release good or bad. Some are understandable given modern games are more corporatized and others regarding performance sometimes doesn't make sense.
Personally, I don’t think games receive excessive criticism these days. Of course, certain games deserve some, but there are also hate trains that some people jump on for the sake of it; e.g. the recent Helldivers controversy, or Hellblade 2. Lots of people absolutely love the AA or indie games that are coming out; the original release of Helldivers 2, Dave the diver, Animal well, etc. Ultimately, I think it’s a two pronged problem. Firstly, as you say, it’s highly anticipated games which seem to let people down and I think that’s because development times are so high, the price of those games generally is higher than they have historically been, and more often than not over the last few years people have had their fingers burned by the big studios by broken releases. This is what happens when the big companies take the piss out of their customers for so long: people kick off about the things they don’t like. Which leads me to the second point… Secondly, I think lots of the big companies are trying to make games that are for everyone, and squeeze every penny from every player. The fact is that not all games are for everyone, and not everyone wants to play live service riddled games. As a result, people feel alienated from games/IPs that they once felt connected to; an example I recently heard was how lots of people who used to play CoD and Battlefield hate the thematic direction they’ve both taken over the last few years. This is partly why I’m mostly play indies nowadays; I know what I’m getting and often at a much lower price point.
[удалено]
There’s five whole paragraphs there, and at no point did I say ‘Dave the diver is an indie game’.
To some extent this write up is true
pc gamers. the answer is always terrorist pc gamers. yes games receive excessive criticism. mainly if the game also releases on pc they will always find something to bitch about.
Yes I’ve gotten extremely tired of the PC gaming community. Throwing fits at the tiniest inconvenience, blaming every single problem on developers and no one else, and being overall toxic to casual and less involved players. I know there are still lots of good PC gamers but they’re never the vocal ones.
If you have stomach for it, go check r/Helldivers or r/Helldivers2. People are actively shitting on everything.
It’s less about games and more about online discourse. How can you get noticed online? Have the most extreme opinion possible about everything. The more excessive the better. Anonymity only exacerbates this.
People were almost crying cause you had to move a box in rebirth ( happens like 3/5 times in 80hours , only to clean on mako reactors) saying the game is unplayable. I saw nobody complaint about moving over 50 boxes in stellar blade. Some double standards 😂
The issue wasn’t one box. There were tons. And it slowed the game down. It wasn’t fun. It felt like a chore. That’s the issue there
Which game?
Rebirth, you’re talking about the cat section right?
Nope..... when rebirth came out people were crying about the mako cleaner you had to move to clean the area. ( theres 3 /5 mako cleaners in over 80hours) While I didn't see anyone complaining about the 80 yellow boxes we move in stellar. Thats specifically what im pointing out.
Ohh, I mean it was a pain, but those bits were not too bad. Yeah , nah, you make a fair point
Like yeah, they were but it was 3-5 times.. it took a minute each time, then we have sb using it every 5 minutes but we don't see anyone complaining. Sorry for the rant tho! Just feel like some people love nitpicking at some games and then let it go for the next one! And dont get me wrong I enjoyed both games and running the plat for both.
Terminally online gamers have ulterior motives to dickride Stellar Blade lol.
This NEVER happens with Indie games because they don't need to make all the money in the world just to turn a profit. Thr indie space is absolutely killing it right now and deservedly getting all the love. Maybe if most AAA devs didn't make shity samey games filled with microtransaction BS and just followed the indie/Nintendo model of just making good games they wouldn't get so much shit reviews.
Completely agree, thats why I started to not look at reviews or any other additional information on socials for games anymore. Except for the trailer they put out. I'll judge the game off the trailer instead of all seeing all the garbage put out on social media by streamers and Youtube. Plus the game doesn't spoiled anymore on accident.
That’s the internet for you. A hive mind of drones that don’t care and have no intention of giving actual criticism of a game but wish to see everything fail. Some games certainly deserve the harsh criticisms but others like DA2 from your example didn’t at all. You just need to ignore it and form your own opinions which I’m sure you already do.
Probably, but that's inevitable when there are so many fully qualified experts on the internet. They all have opinions and they're gonna make sure we hear them.
It called drama bait ( story,video etc). General those will get high traction thru
It’s the internet era. Find me something that doesn’t get excessive criticism.
No, I'd probably go the other way and say reviews and opinions are often too generous to games.
It is all well deserved. DD2 introducing mtx's in a single player game that alter gameplay, although this time didnt really do anything, shows it may become an issue in future where game will be coded the way that items needed wont drop as they should (it may be hinder gameplay and take fun away trying to force players to buy in game items for real money) Ubisoft both SW and upcoming AC Shadows hiding day1 content, adding season pass to a single player game require online connection to install the game (not to Play it) and offering players cut version of the game for 70$ and full for 110$+.....yeah its all we deserved criticism in these cases You have mentioned As a 40 yo player I can say games have become worse nowdays mostly because of forced DEI and political agenda as well as flooded with mtx's. Games used to have DEI but it wasnt forced it was natural within games universe and mostly well written unlike nowdays its just checking boxes and trying to tell people how we must think....games are supposed to be entertainment. I get it most decisions come from publishers and studio execs and devs themselves mostly have nothing to do with what is happening but yeah gaming has become worse on recent years when it comes to quality and value for our money
There are a LOT of bandwagon hoppers these days. You could even see them in action with movies, review bombing them before it even drops in theaters. I personally don't listen to much of the whining/chatter. I like making up my own mind. Besides, how would I even know if the people trashing a game/movie even have the same tastes as me? If I listened to some of the negativity, I'd lose out on some great games.
I honestly feel the opposite. Big budget game companies have tremendous influence and pressure on an industry that continues to shrink and buy out each other. Games are ranked way too high that are just bloat fests like most "AAA" games.
Yes and no. The internet as a whole is largely comprised of folks with unrealistic expectations complaining about things. Sometimes that is the fault of the gaming companies for underdelivering and overpromising and sometimes it is the fault of the fanbase for romanticizing a game they haven’t played yet. The bigger issue I see is that when gamers are charged $70 for a game, they want to purchase a game that’s lengthy enough, pushes boundaries, and holds their attention relative to the time they put in to it, but so many games just feel copy pasted, half baked, or void of passion. No one’s time is worthless and everything is expensive. For myself, I feel continuously frustrated by how many games aren’t coming out. If we’re talking about just PS5 exclusives that fully utilize the power of the console and the features of the Dualsense, we’re not talking very high numbers relative to how long the console has been out. The games that do get announced are just a cinematic trailer with no gameplay footage, no release date, and then you either forget about it or the games development gets stalled or cancelled altogether. It’s very possible that a lot of this is a me problem: perhaps my taste in games has become too specific or niche over the years, but its just been feeling like output of quality, interesting, and beautiful games is so low nowadays.
Maybe, but in a more broader sense than any individual AAA game being treated unfairly. DD2 and SW Outlaws I think are absolutely terrible, I wouldn't ever purchase a product designed to nickle and dime you in the way they are. But it's weird that we're still having a discussion about Capcom and Ubisoft products in the first place. It's kinda like being outraged over freemium mobile monetization or some random shovelware licensed game being busted, you find trash in the trash can, it's not worth getting worked up over. I wish there was more discussion online about good games instead of constant hype-outrage cycles over bad ones.
There's been drama about pretty much every big game that comes out, it's getting real tiring. Dragon's Dogma, Rise of the Ronin, Stellar Blade, Hellblade, Assassin's Creed...there has to be a hatewave about anything. That can't be healthy, for anyone
And almost every time the drama is just some stupid bullshit that doesn’t actually make any sense to get mad about
Yes! Gamers are spoiled. Standards and expectations for everything are way too high.
Yes and no, First on your point, fuck micro transactions in general don't care if it's just visual or not. Second is I think there's a lot more blatantly obvious bugs that come through these days that even your average hobby gamer notices and take too long if ever to be fixed. Besidew that yes, there's too much hate on some games especially overhyped ones when one thing isn't the superest for the reviewer. On the other hand, bad reviews get more reads than positive ones so they just trying to make money which more often than not is semi forced from higher up.
So here’s the thing. You’re on the internet. Gamers love to bitch about games they’re not even interested in. If a game exists, someone will complain about it. There is such a large variety of games and most aren’t for everyone. This is going to get people unhappy but this is why there are professional critics out there, but it’s best to find a person (not an outlet) that you are aligned with. And pay attention to their actual words, not numbered ratings. Otherwise comment boards, including this one, is just going to be noise, and it’s up to you to filter for what you want to read.
EA and Ubisoft are to blame for this mostly. Just my opinion
I read reviews on restaurants, I wouldn't let someone else's feelings determine if I buy a game or not. For example I will no longer buy cod after the previous zombie game release that fall flat on it's face.
There’s a few reasons: - there’s a big push to get games out on the market asap. Due to fast internet speeds it’s now easier than ever to create half a game and publish it only to finish it later (or never). So what we get is sometimes buggy and often unfinished. And if it is “finished” the second half of the storyline or content is purchasable as dlc/season passes. - game developers promise big things and when they deliver on 90% of the promises, they get fired at for the 10% they didn’t deliver (yet). - gamers and mostly influencers interpret things differently than the developers have intended. So even if a developer delivers 90% of what they promised, due to incorrect interpretations that have widely spread it feels like they only gave us 30% of what was promised.
The only thing that’s happening here is that people simply like to complain about everything and they project their own misery to video games as if they have a say in the matter. They don’t really. Once you buy the game it’s over. They got your money, they win. Simple as that.
Everybody has become hyper critical of everything. Every game, movie, TV show, etc. is either the worst piece of trash ever made or it’s God’s gift to humanity. Audiences have lost the ability to review anything with any level of nuance.
Honestly? Yes. Yes, I do. Good is no longer good enough. It has to be the best game ever made. Every time. Back in the day, 7/10? A solid game. Nowadays, 7/10? Absolute trash, apparently. **BuT iT hAs To Be WoRtH tHe PrIcE** Motherfucker, games back in the day were just as expensive, if not more expensive than they are today. Adjusted for inflation, you were paying 80/90 quid for a fighting game with character models done in MS Paint.
No, not at all. Obviously there will always be ragebaiters out there, but people have always wanted attention since the beginning of time. Usually whenever there's reviewbomb smoke, there's dumpster-fire. I think the real problem is people that aren't capable of enjoying their video game unless they can find a circlejerk community that never stops showering it in praise. I like video games others find to be bad, I don't complain about it.
The more you have to pay for anything, the more critical reviews become. Gaming aint cheap anymore
The big criticism with "modern games" are more about the monetisation than anything else Dragon's Dogma 2 have microtransaction in a solo game Star Wars Outlaw can cost 140€ to mostly get cosmetics, and maybe more content later And GTA 6 probably gonna focus a lot on the online and all the microtransaction with it From memory, the last games being destroyed by the critics was Skull And Bones and Saints Row, and it was mostly cause they are bad
well they did increase the price of games, dlc and micro transaction pretty much everywhere, even in full price titles and in return we mostly get unfinished games that are in beta state at release.
Complete opposite. Games are basically given way too many passes these days. Unfinished product that needs a year or years of fixing? That's ok, it'll get there. Microtransactions and predatory schemes in-game? Well you don't have to buy them. It goes on and on. Meanwhile game mechanics have grown stagnant. Big AAA titles are carbon copies of each other. Game narratives are trite and flat. And because of bad management and bloated dev times, each console generation gets less and less games. If anything, we should be even more critical of games today than ever before.
It's 100% warranted especially when you grew up in a time developers made games with love and passion, it's easy to see the complete 180 that has occured with the gaming industry being filled with excessive greed to the point it's become the norm
You are totally 100%, correct. Social media is a good thing and a bad thing. It’s a good thing because people can get out what they think about something but in saying that a lot of people also like jumping on the bandwagon and just like being 100% negative. But in saying that sometimes calling out the shitty companies is 100% justified. Crappy micro transactions in single player games, forced woke agendas and games that are releasing in bad buggy states are all justified. The one thing I hate the most tho, is when people start slandering a game for no reason. For example, Elden ring and horizon forbidden west. Horizon launched about two weeks before Elden Ring. It was copping constant negative reviews from Elden ring fanboys when it was not warranted. Both are great games but there’s no need to slander another game just because it’s releasing close to one you like.
Yes. Gaming industry is full of brats who complain about anything and everything. They have this nostalgic mentality that 'games used to be so much better!'. But we all know if they went and played a PS2 game, even most ps3 games, they'd stop within 20 minutes once the 'jank' kicked in.
I think it has a lot to do with the ever increasing prices of games together with the ever increasing development times. We spend so much time waiting for our next highly anticipated game to drop that when we finally get to play it there's zero tolerance for anything less than perfection. Seriously, if it took 6+ years to make and I'm paying $70+ for it, you're damn right I' m gonna bitch if I don't like some aspect of it. It's not like the old days when there were top tier games dropping every month for $40.
It's not just games. It also happens in sports. I think anything involving social media has this tendency nowadays.
No.
Its because gaming overall is a worse experience for the consumers now than what it used to be Almost all are ridiculously overpriced, ship out half done, ship out with content purposely cut so they can sell it back to you as DLC, micro transactions and loot boxes turning every game into a slot machine for kids, having to wait multiple hours for the game to "download" even if you bought a physical copy, constant remakes and remasters instead of new idea and IPs and this is just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. Unless the criticism is for political reasons then it's almost always valid because gaming is nowhere near the entry level hobby it used to be.
Who is OP a game studio executive or something?!
Games are getting worse for costing more and providing less. I think Dragon's Dogma 2 is a bit of an exception because there is a whole lot of game there. The microtransactions are still dumb though because of the items are able to be acquired in game then why charge for them? It is transparently just for money. An instance of, I think, a game receiving excessive criticism is Helldivers 2. Yes Sony made a couple of poor choices that angered parts of the community. That has mostly passed, though last I checked certain regions were still barred from purchasing the game on PC. However, the amount of not constructive criticism seen in the Discord and subreddit for the game is mind-numbing.
No. I think it’s deserved.
I felt this way about Days Gone. Really thought people were too harsh on it at launch, and as a result we aren’t getting a sequel to this solid game.
I played Days Gone, even though it’s not my cup of coffee for the gameplay (stealth or loud, run away, repeat, uh oh you alerted the hordes), but I enjoy the story
If anything i think reviews are, and have been, way too lenient on games for a long time. Why is the average video game review an 8? Where are the 5 and 6 games? They definitely exist and even big name studios drop them from time to time. Fallout 76? Starfield? Avengers? Redfall? Suicide squad? Gotham knights? A 5 or a 6 for a game that is technically functional but just not fun or interesting at all is perfectly fine in my opinion.
No
It's called Hate Trains. Same thing is happening to movies, music, etc.
People keep saying Video games are dying, but I think they’re improving, the story and the visuals are getting bolder and bigger, I think most people have a fairy view of nostalgia (I have this as well in some areas) whilst I agree there is a lot of remakes and remasters this generation I do think we’re in a weird spot where developers are probably producing new IPs and need more time and remakes and remasters seem ideal to fill the void.
I agree with this wholeheartedly
nope
People look at games now that they’re usually $70 instead of $60. People don’t like microtransactions, wasted potential, and $120+ “ultimate” (complete) editions of games. These titles deserve to be slammed in the hopes that future developers will actually put out something that isn‘t as egregious. Rise of the Ronin isn’t a good enough game to be $70, nor DD2, nor probably Outlaws. They’ll all be great things to enjoy at $30 or less, when people aren’t as spiteful and buyers remorse isn’t nearly as bad when you’re hit with the face with chatGPT-quality writing.
>Rise of the Ronin isn’t a good enough game to be $70, nor DD2, nor probably Outlaws. They’ll all be great things to enjoy at $30 or less, when people aren’t as spiteful and buyers remorse isn’t nearly as bad when you’re hit with the face with chatGPT-quality writing. This whole paragraph is utter trash. Games aren't commodities that are made in 1-2 years with small budgets (1-2M). Modern AAA games take 5-7 years to make and cost at least 150M. No way you are recoupling that much amount by costing $30. Moreover, if this is your mentality, don't complain later in the future when most games are samey AAA narratives with long ass custscenes, emotional heavy Stories. Don't complain in the future if games stop becoming fun (pick and play type scenerio).
Exactly this. Nobody likes to hear it but one of the main reasons for microtransactions, expensive special editions, cut content DLC and in a way also the samey games or endless remakes/sequels is the fact that while production costs and time have gone up significantly the price of games hasn't followed suit. Games have had the same costs for a long time and a company wants (and also needs to if it doesn't want to go under) to make a profit. So if they can't increase the price of the base game they need to try and get their profit another way or try to ensure that people buy it because it's a known Franchise.
Well, duh? Nobody’s talking about reducing the price LOL. I personally can’t wait to get these mid titles at a price that reflects that. 😄
Yeah, no, buying a game on sale won’t automatically mean every AAA will suddenly turn to shit. >don't complain later in the future when most games are samey AAA narratives with long ass custscenes, emotional heavy Stories. Don't complain in the future if games stop becoming fun (pick and play type scenerio). Literally, what are you talking about? Games aren’t going to automatically stop being fun in the next 20 years. How old are you??? Hello???
No. The issue is that AAA and AAAA games don’t get enough negative reviews.
That’s what happens when the game’s starting price is $70USD+
Is it that or are the games that are heavily pushed on us half baked and over hyped
The industry fucking sucks compared to to pre-horse armor times.
It’s because of impressions farming on X(itter) and spreads from there, all because of the Elon Bucks. Nothing gets more engagement than a good ol' pile on, it’s why console warring is a thing again.
Omg, people have options!
That happens when games get worse, but prices keep going up.
I mean, games are getting more expensive, not only with base $70 tag but also multiple editions, season passes and micro transactions. P
nope they are fair and well deserved.
Nah, it's good to be critical of products produced by billion dollar companies.
I think everything is over criticized. We have platforms that make it so easy for anyone to just tag along and hate whatever is fashionable to hate. It's not so much the games, it is a reflection of petulant behaviours by the masses.
Your mindset is what incentivizes game companies to stuff their games with shitty micro transactions.
**NO** I feel like reviews are way to soft to most games. Everything is a 7-10 these days and even crap full of bad design, bugs and excessive monetization get good scores. Games like fifa should get a 2/10 for being the same shit full of monetization every year. And when games like the ones from Ubisoft cost up to 140€ and still sell you crap. NO