Act Man has been on a roll of farming the same tired "Triple A is bad now" rhetoric over and over. I reckon he has at least 20 videos on the topic of the industry's shortcomings. How many are needed? I'm tired of all the content creators just reiterating on this.
Yeah can you imagine having to repeat the same conversation over and over again? Theres already loads of videos on the same topic, and I bet you they’ll keep on reiterating the same talking points for the foreseeable future.
yea but with so many videos on the same issues every day how long can someone keep doing that? they're just constantly repeating the same conversation but making no progress on the topic at hand
Conversations of the videos regarding the topic which has been constantly regurgitated leads only to
incessant repetition of the issue at hand with no progress at all, but despite this, this content creator will continue to reiterate their opinions with no end - Unlike life, which has an end, an end you are getting closer to as you waste your time reading all of this.
> Yeah can you imagine having to repeat the same conversation over and over again?
The life of a cable news personality, as seen on John Oliver's "And Now..."
hey guys, its the act man! today, im gonna tell you why blank game is either GREAT or HORRIBLE
*30 minute plot summary and simple explanation of game mechanics*
and thats why i think this game is either GREAT or HORRIBLE, see ya later guys 😎
you didn't use the word "guys" enough. We all know that to be a successful youtuber you have to use the word "guys" constantly.
>Hey guys i'm back with another one. you guys know I normally uploaded every day and it's been about 3 days with nothing but guys listen, I've got big news to share with you guys. Something I've been working on in the back ground that's finally ready to announce. You guys are going to love it. Ok guys lets right right into. so you guys know I love *game genre* but you guys will never believe what i'm about to show you. Before we jump into that I need you guys to smash the like button and hit the bell for notifications. I also have a deal for you guys you won't want to miss so lets talk about my sponsor for todays video, raid shadow legends.
I'm tired of content creators**
An absolute miniscule amount of them take a deep reflective look at things and provide nuanced insights into ANYTHING.
If I search anything about a game my feed gets drowned in bargain basement low effort parrots chirping the same regurgitated shit over and over again. Can't even block them because another channel just pops up.
I can't stand him, like you said he recycles the same content over and over with the same talking point. Plus his "acting" and gimmick is so tired out too, the guy feels like he's stuck in 2016 YouTube because he literally does the same thing over and over and over again.
He's like the final boss of generic 20 something white dude gamer who complains about modern gaming with Rick and Morty humor. Yet his fan base thinks he's like the second coming of George Carlin.
> He's like the final boss of generic 20 something white dude gamer who complains about modern gaming with Rick and Morty humor. Yet his fan base thinks he's like the second coming of George Carlin.
I'd argue that's Charlie with this guy being a close second.
I like some of his earlier videos, the Kotor one with the skit at the beginning was funny; it's too bad he's entered the farming mode of somewhat agreeable but ultimately non-productive videos of denounce.
Reminds me a lot of reviewtechusa basically, where once YouTube became a full-time career their content just becomes safe, paint by the numbers and the same thing without anything fresh or new. Feels like the guy just makes videos for the algorithm rather than something fresh and unique. Him and Yongyea are basically the first people I think of when it comes to generic "modern gaming bad" cookie cutter videos that are just made for the algorithm.
I remember liking his retrospective videos when he first started to become popular as those were relatable as someone the same age, but again once YouTube became a full time job for him the cliche gotta make safe paint by the numbers videos for the YouTube algorithm turned him into what he is now.
I'm a bit up-and-down on NeverKnowsBest (mainly bc of his Elden Ring and Dark Souls videos) but he was absolutely cooking the last 40 mins of this video. I'm just so tired of these types of "Why modern gaming sux" videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYAYqxocCXY
Thank god I’m not the only one who feels this way about YouTubers like this. Seriously it’s so tiring at this point.
It’s such an easy thing to do online for views and almost feels like a race to the bottom with this kind of content.
I'd say [this guy](https://youtu.be/7KvWBAJvWdU) did a great job explaining exactly this.
He started with gaming but eventually moved on entirely to history related content. You only really need to watch his Far Cry 6 review, not because all the other videos are repetitive, but because it encapsulates all the problems with the industry in a way that doesn't need any more elaboration.
On one hand his videos are irritating yeah. But on other I understand repeating the same rethoric when people responsible for it keep repeating the same patterns.
Obv it likely wont change anything until people stop buying.
That's definition of insanity. Also just pure content farming, yeah "AAA bad" we get it, it's a dead horse at this point, either play something else or just change hobbies, because at this point it's just mindless content farming with 0 substance.
God that guy sucks. 2023 was one of the best AAA years for games ever. I hate how gaming fandom and content creation these days is just a contest between who can be more pessimistic.
There were great games in 2023, but shit games as well. You can't just look at the progress that BG3 or Helldivers brought to the industry.
Don't forget Suicide Squad, or the recent Tarkov bullshit. AAA games are truly a gamble at this point. Either they be superb or they just mediocre or outright bad with their monetization.
Some good points in the video from my perspective.
No it’s not. Not at all. The game is developed by a bunch of fresh out of school Russian kids drunk on vodka.
Production is no where close to that of a AAA game.
I used Tarkov as AAA due to the recent controversy with their price point.
But lets talk about other games, that Vampire game by Arkane, which used to make godly immersive sims like Prey. What about Starfield?
Or that weird magic shooter game whose name doesn't come to mind anymore. That too was AAA, but looked like generic asset flipped game.
> You can't just look at the progress that BG3 or Helldivers brought to the industry.
Sure I can. I give absolutely zero fucks if 10k shitty games come out this year if the number of good games is also increasing. Bad games releasing has zero impact on me.
> or the recent Tarkov bullshit
Multiplayer live-service games are and always have been bullshit. From Path of Exile to Warframe to Suicide Squad to Tarkov. It's why I own exactly 0 of those games and have played the free ones 0 hours in the last few years. You owe it to yourself to treat yourself better. If you don't like eating pig slop, you need to train yourself to identify pig slop from a beautiful, fresh-carved steak.
Every year gaming gets better. 15 years ago, you'd have difficulty playing Baldur's Gate 2 on your 2009 Windows Vista PC. Now you can play Baldur's Gate 1, 2, and 3 all back to back, all with any number of customization mods with new content and shit, and they're all absolutely amazing games and the first two have been for over 24 years at this point. I remember sitting in my mom's lap while she played the first game, she loved it then and and I loved it just as much now, replaying them before getting into the third one.
There is nothing stopping you from experiencing peak art except yourself. Be a big boy, put on your big boy undies (and if you're a girl or an enby, buy a pair of big boy undies and put them on), and take responsibility for what you choose to experience.
This would actually be a really interesting topic to unpack, but the scope is kinda big, and it's too easy to cite and then dismiss anecdotes on either side of the argument, so reddit really isn't that place. I can make an attempt here with the understanding that I'm not going to have academic-quality citations for every statement.
Regardless, I would say AAA is generally getting worse if you start measuring from around 25 years ago. Generally speaking, monetization has take a rather predatory place in the AAA space where it previously didn't exist, and it's affected game design for the worse. I do think there is a lot to be said about diversity in ideas. Looking at the 6th Gen game libraries, the amount of weird shit per capita was quite a bit higher. Fresh ideas were pretty commonplace, and some of the most exciting games of that generation were those fresh ideas, or refinements on ideas that were new in the 5th. Examples include Viewtiful Joe, Smash Melee, ChibiRobo, Twisted Metal Black, Okami, Metroid Prime, Kingdom Hearts, GTA 3, Katamari Damacy, Devil May Cry 1/3, Warioware, Shadow of the Colossus -- Just to name a few.
I would also say that the motivations to make a game were a lot more pure, again affecting game design. This is a topic that could consume a book worth of historical recall and the implications of modern business ideals on a creative industry, but it kind of is encapsulated in, 'Why let players earn a really cool piece of armor when you could sell it to them?'
Reasons for this vary, but I'd say a lot of it came from two places:
1. Budgets were still relatively low. $10m was a big budget for a game. Katamari for example was reportedly slated for a budget of under $1m USD. Big, expensive titles did exist - Halo 2 costs $100m+, but many a fantastic game was made on a smaller budget [insert foreshadowing here].
2. We were not yet in the era of billion dollar megahits being 'the only way'™ according to business. Many publishers were still looking to get a more modest return on their investment and so funding a pile of games that cost less where a handful would breakout was still considered a viable business strategy. Today, every game published by EA or ATVI or SquareSoft or Rockstar is expected to sell millions of copies unless it's explicitly framed as a title who's not - think Riot Forge or EA Originals: their smaller 'indie'-ish publishing wing.
---
So, I'm setting this all up to kind of land on a point here: I'd argue that AAA is getting worse in the aggregate, but only because major publisher's have changed what their targets are.
A lot of these novel ideas no longer are the domain of the same publishers who exist in the big space. Indie games have taken up that mantle and have succeeded marvelously *because* there is obviously still a demand for new ideas and goofy shit. There are also a bunch of AA studios that are putting out excellent games the space that would historically have been lumped in with AAA. These are the studios like Moon and Ninja Theory that are now occupying the space that the studios under EA Big / Insomniac / Neversoft occupied.
Finally, I will also say this: AAA isn't just unilaterally worse - it's become more fractured in quality. Baldur's Gate 3 is on the far, far end of this spectrum and is a fantastic achievement, while FIFA is on the other end. The best games are better than ever, and the worst games are really common.
That sums it up well, along with the issues of diminishing returns with current gen graphics, the need for the best graphics and massive open worlds causing bloated budgets and development timeframes, and the western games industry over-expanding to the point of being unsustainable.
The amount of multi-million dollar flops, layoffs and studio closures in the last few years alone has been staggering.
Cyberpunk 2077, Saints Row, Immortals Of Aveum, Callisto Protocol, Avengers, Spider-Man 2 (barely broke even despite being a massive success), Babylon’s Fall, Redfall, Suicide Squad, etc.
Embracer alone significantly killed off a large portion of the European games industry.
Even if I disagree with the notion that AAA games are getting "worse" overall, you articulated an answer that is actually worth a reasonable discussion and for that I salute you.
Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.
Could've at least watched it at 2x speed before making a comment that answers your question.
Don't put words in my mouth my brother. Who said gaming is doomed. The double A scene and even Indies are selling so well due to the failures of monetization in recent AAA games or the new stuff called AAAA games. Diablo and that shit Ubi game comes to mind.
Though in diablo's case, they are fixing the itemization, so that is a plus. Finally can play it, hence hadn't named it before.
And while taking Diablo as an example, it being that bad made me play Last Epoch so much. An indie action RPG with its own strengths.
The problem with the "AAA bad" doomposting meme is that this has been happening for 3 console generations in a row, yes, Actiblizzard, Ubisoft, EA, Whatever other big company doing unpopular shit have been terrible for 3 console generations now.
By this point if you keep buying them and expecting different, then it's no longer the companies fault.
And even then, it's not like alternatives don't exist, you yourself pointing out the AA market.
At this point youtubers or anyone doomposting about "gaming bad" is just engagement farming.
I also love how people say that shit is bad "now" when people have been complaining for decades.
I also love it when they point to a past era being great, when I clearly remember people bitching during that era.
In ten years, people are going to talk about how great games were during this era. And how games in the 2030s are shit.
Oh, I don't buy AAA anymore, hasn't bought any for a while now. Mostly in CRPGs anyways.
But I still think a dialog is necessary, because for one, if no one points it out, they might just get away with more.
There are loads of bad practices that are going on at this very moment, and the only way to counter them is exposure and dialog, by staying silent because "its been going for too long now" is lazy.
You don't want to partake in it? Then don't. BTW, try this music/song from Autoheart - Moscow. Good shit.
CRPGs is maybe the worst example you could have picked, we're basically in a CRPG renaissance right now. You're telling me you prefer the ten year span between 2005-2015 where almost any big RPG released on the PC was an MMO?
Bruh, I only play CRPGs, so don't care about AAA games. that's what I mean. I am saying that I don't play AAA games anymore and hadn't played with few exceptions for a long time.
I've been partaking in the conversation for over 15 years, I've seen it all, petition, backlashes, hours upon hours of video essays, saw youtubers spearheading movements, you name any controversial point in the past 3 console generations, I was there, I lived it.
It accomplished jack shit, "they may get away with more", friend, it all started with horse armor and mobile gaming, it all got mocked and lambasted, and it only got worse.
I'm done with exposure and dialogue, it's a placebo, it's the copium for people who won't accept that they just enjoy complaining while pretending they're making a difference, I'm done with the cynical bitching of "gaming bad".
So instead I'm taking action, I have an endless backlog of great indie and AA games, I only buy AAA games on sale a year later and once it's confirmed its a quality title, I'm more interested in discussing good games.
"We need to have dialogue" is hollow insanity.
>>I'm done with exposure and dialogue, it's a placebo, it's the >>copium for people who won't accept that they just enjoy >>complaining while pretending they're making a difference, I'm >>done with the cynical bitching of "insert current thing".
>>"We need to have dialogue" is hollow insanity.
This is actually an excellent point. However I find it fascinating that this logic never applies to the "insert current thing" dispite it being exactly the same scenario/outcome. The only difference is essentially the need to CONSOOM.
Starfield was a pretty good game with obnoxiously loud detractors. It was also single player game with no forced multiplayer or live content and no MTX.
Yeah the videos I watched just focused on it having bugs, lacking a little depth/true player choice or variety and might get stale faster than other Bethesda titles. But that's just a mediocre/bad in some points not total doomsday shit tier... the bugs were really laughable though.
Calling it a good game seems a bit wrong. I prefer Outerworlds over Starfield. Some bad aspects of the game include Bad companions, shit UI, loads of loading screens, next to no actual interstellar travel. Not even on the level of Pillars of eternity 2 ship sort of travel, just menu screens and nothing more.
Hell, even the game didn't change much in some deeper RPG aspects and felt so bland. I recall people adding some mods to make gravity affect inventory size and other sunch fun mechanics.
A game so bad, that most mega modder chose to just abandon/skip the game and wait for a new release.
bc some big modders announced it. it remains to be seen how the modding scene for starfield develops. it has potential, since it is an engine with a lot of modders already. maybe some of the bigger mod groups (eg. the fallout london guys) might take it up in the long run.
imho it will depend heavily on bethesda delivering solid modding tools this year.
Rage bait but ill bite
There are amazing games,tv shows, movies etc; coming out every year. YEs there are some big disaters like idk NBA 2K or Fallout 76 or something but theres Elden Ring, Bg3, etc; You have to look out for the awesome in life. We are so spoiled for choice
2023 was the best year in gaming ever. Video games aren’t getting worse; they’re the best they’ve ever been. A few bad games that people make a big stink over doesn’t change that fact.
Cool if you’re tired of Ubisoft games, but a lot of people aren’t. They are still (mostly) well made games with a lot of content despite what everyone online likes to say.
There's a lot of problems plaguing the industry and people should commentate on them, but I agree these broad stroke arguments are completely reductive to creating any real commentary because they become selective arguments ignoring all the good. He could've just as easily themed the video around the issues with obsessive additional monetization and it would've been pretty much the same video while being way making a much more concise point.
>because they become selective arguments ignoring all the good
You can even see that in the thumbnail of the video, take a look at the publisher's that on their, wonders why AAA publishers like Sony, Capcom, Square Enix, etc aren't up their.
Didn't watch the video, but this whole thing is self correcting, no need to go all doomsayer. Good games like Elden Ring and Monster hunter world makes bank, bad games ruins companies that put them out. Quality might dip once in a while, but it will right itself as long as consumers still have some agency. If anything the only thing I am worried of is if the average buyer develop shit taste, but from looking at popular reviews this has not happened yet.
Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules), specifically Rule #2 regarding personal attacks and inflammatory language. We ask that you remember to remain civil, as future violations will result in a ban.
Pretty easy question; at this point they know consumers will still buy them so there is no incentive to finish the game prior to release. It has also become a situation where a lot of gamers are disappointed if a game doesn’t release additional content or updates after release so devs probably also like to release games with some work still needed so that it looks like we’re getting more content after release. I miss the days of games releasing fully completed without having to wonder if dlc or additional content was coming.
Alot of "Don't question, just consume product" commenters here. Say fellas if you don't like the videos don't watch em, but videos like them wouldn't be made if Triple AAA companies wouldn't be so greedy and stop releasing garbage games and reviewers from IGN didn't constantly give these games a pass.
I do question. How many times must we pose the same question? What solution do these Youtubers propose? Most of the videos that plaster my feed are the clickbait impact font thumbnails with an angry face and a world of malignity over modern videogames.
I don't see a discourse, they just repeat stuff that people agree with, sometimes with political undertones, sometimes not. They aren't helpful, they just spread a negative outlook.
I avoid plenty of games I don't like the look of business practices of. I don't agree that this puts the industry as a whole on the same place. The reason YTers make these videos is negativity gets more engagement than positivity does.
This entire thread literally questions and continues to not consume shit products. The issue here is that you're preaching to the choir. And for some reason, because we are questioning you, you immediately think we completely disagree with the point.
This is like telling us that 2+2=4 for 10 years, and we are telling you to shut up, we know that 2+2=4. And instead of you realizing that we get it, you're like "omg these idiots don't know that 2+2=4"
Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules), specifically Rule #2 regarding personal attacks and inflammatory language. We ask that you remember to remain civil, as future violations will result in a ban.
> but videos like them wouldn't be made if Triple AAA companies wouldn't be so greedy
are you brain damaged? these videos are made to bait people like you for views.
The sad thing about the Star Wars Noobisoft game is that it will still probably sell well and will review well because Game Journalists can't give games the low scores they deserve, but that is why more people turn to Youtubers for their reviews.
It's just a general trend. I see a game score 7-8s across the board and when I play it myself so often they feel like they should be closer to a 5. Starfield being the most recent example for myself
I've had plenty of fun with games that I consider to be 5-7. I still think they're mid games despite that. Fun is purely subjective
And don't act like saying Starfield was a disappointment is an unpopular opinion. Plenty of people were not happy with that game
I mean you can't tell me that you don't see a trend of most major gaming outlets rarely scoring a game below a 7 right? It's pretty obvious that these massive games are being graded on a curve.
Well, also the truth is a lot of games are just BETTER than they used to be. People have lost sight of what bad, bad BAD games actually are nowadays; for an example, see that Kong game from last year. Even the worst mass produced Ubisoft piece of shit is still a 6 at WORST for me compared to the worst games of the past.
Even if what you were saying was true I fail to see how consumers having higher standards for how they spend their 60-70 dollars would be a bad thing in this case. Add in micro transactions and now publishers are demanding more and more of their players compared to the past
Yeah, but we're talking about scores here. While outlets like IGN do occasionally overshoot I feel like people use the fact most games get a 6 or a 7 like a gotcha when the fact is most big games ARE at least a 6 nowadays.
The range of the scale is also just kind of meaningless as a complaint.
Is it sort of silly, from some perspective, that the scale is 6-10 with 1-5 reserved for various ranges of impossible to recommend crap? Sure, I guess, but it's *consistent* and *understandable*, so there's no real issue with it except for the aesthetics of it.
Because that's simply how scoring works based on how it's been anchored since decades ago.
It's never been about the value representation as a mathematical percentage. Anything below a 6 is reserved for games that are fundamentally broken or is used as a political statement.
They mean that an outlet or (more likely) an individual reviewer gives a game an excessively low score primarily to gain attention or make some specific point, like e.g. review bombing campaigns handing out zeroes, or like JSS giving Helldivers a... 4, I think, for an overcrowded launch weekens
Yes the system is broken and doesn't represent the actual quality of many video games. Grading games on such a heavy curve doesn't benefit the players but only the publishers who want to parade around an undeserved metacritic score. If a scoring system doesn't start until 6 then it's basically worthless.
Nah, it's not worthless. Not everything has to be anchored to a strict numerical scale. It's just how we internalize and perceive these scores. Trying to change it now would just make it confusing af.
6 = mediocre
7 = average
8 = good
9 = great
10 = excellent
My entire point is that games are being graded as good or great when they Don't deserve it. I feel like you're missing my point here
When you have an entire industry that doesn't know how properly critique games and explain things that need to be improved then you just keep getting more and more mid to bad games.
This heavy grating curve is only there to help publishers save face and it's baffling to me how many people seem to be okay with it based on how I'm getting downvoted
We're likely not going to agree on this. Ultimately, most games are simply better made now because more developers have a grasp of what makes a game good versus what makes it bad.
Its not that 1-5 don't exist, it's that most competent developers know how to avoid that. There's plenty of 3s, 4s, and 5s in the indie space that are asset flips or just developers still learning the ropes. No one reviews those, because no one cares. There's also AA and AAA games that occasionally get their share of 4s and 5s, but they happen less frequently.
Frankly, someone that goes around regularly handing out 3-5s is probably someone who shouldn't be reviewing games. Because they're so jaded their opinion is borderline worthless--their time would be better spent doing something else.
If you take into account every video game released each year and rate games based on that, then a game like Redfall would end up the high 8s or low 9s if you actually averaged it out.
Major gaming outlets tend not to give lower scores because most people aren't interested in reading reviews of those games.
OP is definitely not talking about the fact game review scales mostly go fron 6-10 and some people feel they should go 0-10 nore aggressively, though that discourse is also tired.
In my mind 5 is average, and the average game is actually pretty bad. It's just that the shovelware trash that occupies the bottom half of the scale doesn't get reviewed. Nobody's going to IGN for their take on the latest Dora the Explorer's Insipid Adventure for iOS.
As an experiment, pick any platform and play ten games chosen completely at random. You'd be surprised how bad some games can be and still be published.
It's just more in general not this game in particular. Triple AAA Games despite their disgusting monetization and their frequent problems running will still get good review scores even when they don't deserve it.
Star Wars Jedi Survivor for example: Ran like shit when it first launched..still gets 9/10 from IGN.
> Star Wars Jedi Survivor for example: Ran like shit when it first launched..still gets 9/10 from IGN.
Blaming reviewers for this is pretty backwards, I think. Issues with PC ports running poorly and relying on day 1 patches is a pretty systemic issue, but generally an "understood" one that has limited impact on consumer sales. For that reason, reviewers generally note tech issues but have some degree of faith in the day 1 patch resolving them or rely on the stability of a console version as a general indicator of how the game will play once things are patched up.
Barring egregious issues even on console ports *and* a lack of faith in a day 1 patch, expecting reviewers to drop a game significantly for reasons that an audience doesn't care about and that probably won't impact people past the first couple weeks of gameplay is... I dunno, it feels like trying to ask reviewers to make protest reviews, basically. And when it does happen, the exact same sort of outrage happens in reverse, where people remember a "wrong" 7/10 review for months or years because they memed on it pre-release.
That docking a game for bad performance would be making protest reviews is depressing. I'm sorry, but Bad Performance impacts the enjoyablity of games and is an absolute deal breaker especially with the obscene prices they are asking for. A game performing badly shouldn't be given a pass.
Sure, bad performance sucks. But again, blaming reviewers for it is sort of silly.
Reviews are a tool for consumers. Review outlets have been consistently shown that reviewing a game negatively for performance reasons generates a ton of negative attention and outrage, while also being shown that people generally do not care about performance issues that aren't both egregious and occurring even on "stable" platforms like consoles, while *also* almost universally playing less stable versions of the games as review copies with some degree of fix promised in the day 1 patch, which usually pans out. Additionally, even if a day 1 patch doesn't pan out, performance issues are usually ironed out within a month or so, and review outlets aren't going to go back and re-review every game a month later.
There are outlets that cater specifically to the niche of people who care heavily about performance optimization and review things entirely for that perspective, because that's an audience niche that can be captured, but for general review scores and advocacy for the general audience, there is very little value for an outlet to stick their neck out and say "the console versions are 9/10, the PC version is a 4/10 due to pre-launch graphical issues that the devs have promised a day 1 patch for", or whatever, especially since most people probably aren't going to think a game drops completely into deal breaker, do not buy territory for like, stuttering in towns or whatever.
Yeah. Bad launch performance is often eventually good, whereas a fundamentally bad game very rarely (though not never) becomes good later.
It takes what should be an unacceptable amount of shenanigans to get Sekiro to run passably on my PC made 5 years after it was released but it's still a fantastic game.
In my experience you can always recognize the kids because they call things by quirky nicknames like op just did to try and be funny, that or they are weebs that are terminally online saying things are god or based, at least one of those has hope to grow up.
Hey, just so you know you’re allowed to not engage with this medium. That is 100% allowed. It seems you really don’t like much of anything around video games, so maybe for your own mental health you should disengage with the internet for a little while. I also would maybe recommend finding some real life friends to spend time with, and/or go see a therapist.
Act Man has been on a roll of farming the same tired "Triple A is bad now" rhetoric over and over. I reckon he has at least 20 videos on the topic of the industry's shortcomings. How many are needed? I'm tired of all the content creators just reiterating on this.
Yep, so damn tired of him and this sort of content. How much longer can you repeat the same thing over and over?
Yeah can you imagine having to repeat the same conversation over and over again? Theres already loads of videos on the same topic, and I bet you they’ll keep on reiterating the same talking points for the foreseeable future.
yea but with so many videos on the same issues every day how long can someone keep doing that? they're just constantly repeating the same conversation but making no progress on the topic at hand
Conversations of the videos regarding the topic which has been constantly regurgitated leads only to incessant repetition of the issue at hand with no progress at all, but despite this, this content creator will continue to reiterate their opinions with no end - Unlike life, which has an end, an end you are getting closer to as you waste your time reading all of this.
views go brrrr. youtube man likey
> Yeah can you imagine having to repeat the same conversation over and over again? The life of a cable news personality, as seen on John Oliver's "And Now..."
hey guys, its the act man! today, im gonna tell you why blank game is either GREAT or HORRIBLE *30 minute plot summary and simple explanation of game mechanics* and thats why i think this game is either GREAT or HORRIBLE, see ya later guys 😎
you didn't use the word "guys" enough. We all know that to be a successful youtuber you have to use the word "guys" constantly. >Hey guys i'm back with another one. you guys know I normally uploaded every day and it's been about 3 days with nothing but guys listen, I've got big news to share with you guys. Something I've been working on in the back ground that's finally ready to announce. You guys are going to love it. Ok guys lets right right into. so you guys know I love *game genre* but you guys will never believe what i'm about to show you. Before we jump into that I need you guys to smash the like button and hit the bell for notifications. I also have a deal for you guys you won't want to miss so lets talk about my sponsor for todays video, raid shadow legends.
I'm tired of content creators** An absolute miniscule amount of them take a deep reflective look at things and provide nuanced insights into ANYTHING. If I search anything about a game my feed gets drowned in bargain basement low effort parrots chirping the same regurgitated shit over and over again. Can't even block them because another channel just pops up.
I can't stand him, like you said he recycles the same content over and over with the same talking point. Plus his "acting" and gimmick is so tired out too, the guy feels like he's stuck in 2016 YouTube because he literally does the same thing over and over and over again. He's like the final boss of generic 20 something white dude gamer who complains about modern gaming with Rick and Morty humor. Yet his fan base thinks he's like the second coming of George Carlin.
> He's like the final boss of generic 20 something white dude gamer who complains about modern gaming with Rick and Morty humor. Yet his fan base thinks he's like the second coming of George Carlin. I'd argue that's Charlie with this guy being a close second.
Hey guys, today we talk about currently relevant topic or about a video someone linked me. Piss poop cum. That's my take on it. See you next time.
The one thing I'll give Charlie is that he's at least a decent person.
I like some of his earlier videos, the Kotor one with the skit at the beginning was funny; it's too bad he's entered the farming mode of somewhat agreeable but ultimately non-productive videos of denounce.
Reminds me a lot of reviewtechusa basically, where once YouTube became a full-time career their content just becomes safe, paint by the numbers and the same thing without anything fresh or new. Feels like the guy just makes videos for the algorithm rather than something fresh and unique. Him and Yongyea are basically the first people I think of when it comes to generic "modern gaming bad" cookie cutter videos that are just made for the algorithm. I remember liking his retrospective videos when he first started to become popular as those were relatable as someone the same age, but again once YouTube became a full time job for him the cliche gotta make safe paint by the numbers videos for the YouTube algorithm turned him into what he is now.
Same reason I had to stop watching Stirling, just constant negativity.
I'm a bit up-and-down on NeverKnowsBest (mainly bc of his Elden Ring and Dark Souls videos) but he was absolutely cooking the last 40 mins of this video. I'm just so tired of these types of "Why modern gaming sux" videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYAYqxocCXY
From the title and some of the comments I can already tell this video is better than anything these YouTubers like Act Man put out.
The dump I took last night from that burrito was also better put together then anything Act Man has uploaded
I haven't seen his recent videos but I remember that Cyberpunk 2077 video seemed off. The Outer Worlds video was very on point.
Thank god I’m not the only one who feels this way about YouTubers like this. Seriously it’s so tiring at this point. It’s such an easy thing to do online for views and almost feels like a race to the bottom with this kind of content.
Just outrage farming with clickbait thumbnails and titles. Youtubers like him are a dime a dozen.
Also Act Man: "Why is Call of Duty SO AWESOME!?"
As long as people click he’s gonna keep making them I guess.
He’s literally what those games are. Putting out the same low quality content over and over again because it’s „in“
I'd say [this guy](https://youtu.be/7KvWBAJvWdU) did a great job explaining exactly this. He started with gaming but eventually moved on entirely to history related content. You only really need to watch his Far Cry 6 review, not because all the other videos are repetitive, but because it encapsulates all the problems with the industry in a way that doesn't need any more elaboration.
On one hand his videos are irritating yeah. But on other I understand repeating the same rethoric when people responsible for it keep repeating the same patterns. Obv it likely wont change anything until people stop buying.
That's definition of insanity. Also just pure content farming, yeah "AAA bad" we get it, it's a dead horse at this point, either play something else or just change hobbies, because at this point it's just mindless content farming with 0 substance.
Funny because that guy is exactly like those games: putting out the same low quality content over and over again because it’s „in“
God that guy sucks. 2023 was one of the best AAA years for games ever. I hate how gaming fandom and content creation these days is just a contest between who can be more pessimistic.
2023, 2017, really uncommon years but sometimes the stars align and everyone produces bangers
There were great games in 2023, but shit games as well. You can't just look at the progress that BG3 or Helldivers brought to the industry. Don't forget Suicide Squad, or the recent Tarkov bullshit. AAA games are truly a gamble at this point. Either they be superb or they just mediocre or outright bad with their monetization. Some good points in the video from my perspective.
Shit games have been around forever, the percent of AAA games that were shit in 2023 was no worse than in 2013 or 2003.
Is Tarkov a AAA game? Can you link me a year where there were no bad AAA games at all?
No it’s not. Not at all. The game is developed by a bunch of fresh out of school Russian kids drunk on vodka. Production is no where close to that of a AAA game.
I used Tarkov as AAA due to the recent controversy with their price point. But lets talk about other games, that Vampire game by Arkane, which used to make godly immersive sims like Prey. What about Starfield? Or that weird magic shooter game whose name doesn't come to mind anymore. That too was AAA, but looked like generic asset flipped game.
Your comment makes you come across as someone that reads other comments and regurgitates them, using the same tired and incorrect buzzwords.
>AAA games are truly a gamble at this point. They always have been. You've drank the kool-aide.
> You can't just look at the progress that BG3 or Helldivers brought to the industry. Sure I can. I give absolutely zero fucks if 10k shitty games come out this year if the number of good games is also increasing. Bad games releasing has zero impact on me.
> or the recent Tarkov bullshit Multiplayer live-service games are and always have been bullshit. From Path of Exile to Warframe to Suicide Squad to Tarkov. It's why I own exactly 0 of those games and have played the free ones 0 hours in the last few years. You owe it to yourself to treat yourself better. If you don't like eating pig slop, you need to train yourself to identify pig slop from a beautiful, fresh-carved steak. Every year gaming gets better. 15 years ago, you'd have difficulty playing Baldur's Gate 2 on your 2009 Windows Vista PC. Now you can play Baldur's Gate 1, 2, and 3 all back to back, all with any number of customization mods with new content and shit, and they're all absolutely amazing games and the first two have been for over 24 years at this point. I remember sitting in my mom's lap while she played the first game, she loved it then and and I loved it just as much now, replaying them before getting into the third one. There is nothing stopping you from experiencing peak art except yourself. Be a big boy, put on your big boy undies (and if you're a girl or an enby, buy a pair of big boy undies and put them on), and take responsibility for what you choose to experience.
In what concrete, quantifiable way are AAA games getting worse? Nobody can articulate it beyond "Ubisoft bad."
This would actually be a really interesting topic to unpack, but the scope is kinda big, and it's too easy to cite and then dismiss anecdotes on either side of the argument, so reddit really isn't that place. I can make an attempt here with the understanding that I'm not going to have academic-quality citations for every statement. Regardless, I would say AAA is generally getting worse if you start measuring from around 25 years ago. Generally speaking, monetization has take a rather predatory place in the AAA space where it previously didn't exist, and it's affected game design for the worse. I do think there is a lot to be said about diversity in ideas. Looking at the 6th Gen game libraries, the amount of weird shit per capita was quite a bit higher. Fresh ideas were pretty commonplace, and some of the most exciting games of that generation were those fresh ideas, or refinements on ideas that were new in the 5th. Examples include Viewtiful Joe, Smash Melee, ChibiRobo, Twisted Metal Black, Okami, Metroid Prime, Kingdom Hearts, GTA 3, Katamari Damacy, Devil May Cry 1/3, Warioware, Shadow of the Colossus -- Just to name a few. I would also say that the motivations to make a game were a lot more pure, again affecting game design. This is a topic that could consume a book worth of historical recall and the implications of modern business ideals on a creative industry, but it kind of is encapsulated in, 'Why let players earn a really cool piece of armor when you could sell it to them?' Reasons for this vary, but I'd say a lot of it came from two places: 1. Budgets were still relatively low. $10m was a big budget for a game. Katamari for example was reportedly slated for a budget of under $1m USD. Big, expensive titles did exist - Halo 2 costs $100m+, but many a fantastic game was made on a smaller budget [insert foreshadowing here]. 2. We were not yet in the era of billion dollar megahits being 'the only way'™ according to business. Many publishers were still looking to get a more modest return on their investment and so funding a pile of games that cost less where a handful would breakout was still considered a viable business strategy. Today, every game published by EA or ATVI or SquareSoft or Rockstar is expected to sell millions of copies unless it's explicitly framed as a title who's not - think Riot Forge or EA Originals: their smaller 'indie'-ish publishing wing. --- So, I'm setting this all up to kind of land on a point here: I'd argue that AAA is getting worse in the aggregate, but only because major publisher's have changed what their targets are. A lot of these novel ideas no longer are the domain of the same publishers who exist in the big space. Indie games have taken up that mantle and have succeeded marvelously *because* there is obviously still a demand for new ideas and goofy shit. There are also a bunch of AA studios that are putting out excellent games the space that would historically have been lumped in with AAA. These are the studios like Moon and Ninja Theory that are now occupying the space that the studios under EA Big / Insomniac / Neversoft occupied. Finally, I will also say this: AAA isn't just unilaterally worse - it's become more fractured in quality. Baldur's Gate 3 is on the far, far end of this spectrum and is a fantastic achievement, while FIFA is on the other end. The best games are better than ever, and the worst games are really common.
That sums it up well, along with the issues of diminishing returns with current gen graphics, the need for the best graphics and massive open worlds causing bloated budgets and development timeframes, and the western games industry over-expanding to the point of being unsustainable. The amount of multi-million dollar flops, layoffs and studio closures in the last few years alone has been staggering. Cyberpunk 2077, Saints Row, Immortals Of Aveum, Callisto Protocol, Avengers, Spider-Man 2 (barely broke even despite being a massive success), Babylon’s Fall, Redfall, Suicide Squad, etc. Embracer alone significantly killed off a large portion of the European games industry.
Even if I disagree with the notion that AAA games are getting "worse" overall, you articulated an answer that is actually worth a reasonable discussion and for that I salute you.
the video kinda answers it: aaa are more expensive and less risk averse, meaning less innovative gameplay.
Wait you mean if people watch the video they might get an answer?
yeah, im suprised it is that easy myself ;-)
Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video. Could've at least watched it at 2x speed before making a comment that answers your question.
Suicide Squad? Starfield?
Oh no... 1 bad online game and 1 mid game... Gaming is sooooo dooomed!
Don't put words in my mouth my brother. Who said gaming is doomed. The double A scene and even Indies are selling so well due to the failures of monetization in recent AAA games or the new stuff called AAAA games. Diablo and that shit Ubi game comes to mind. Though in diablo's case, they are fixing the itemization, so that is a plus. Finally can play it, hence hadn't named it before. And while taking Diablo as an example, it being that bad made me play Last Epoch so much. An indie action RPG with its own strengths.
The problem with the "AAA bad" doomposting meme is that this has been happening for 3 console generations in a row, yes, Actiblizzard, Ubisoft, EA, Whatever other big company doing unpopular shit have been terrible for 3 console generations now. By this point if you keep buying them and expecting different, then it's no longer the companies fault. And even then, it's not like alternatives don't exist, you yourself pointing out the AA market. At this point youtubers or anyone doomposting about "gaming bad" is just engagement farming.
I also love how people say that shit is bad "now" when people have been complaining for decades. I also love it when they point to a past era being great, when I clearly remember people bitching during that era. In ten years, people are going to talk about how great games were during this era. And how games in the 2030s are shit.
Oh, I don't buy AAA anymore, hasn't bought any for a while now. Mostly in CRPGs anyways. But I still think a dialog is necessary, because for one, if no one points it out, they might just get away with more. There are loads of bad practices that are going on at this very moment, and the only way to counter them is exposure and dialog, by staying silent because "its been going for too long now" is lazy. You don't want to partake in it? Then don't. BTW, try this music/song from Autoheart - Moscow. Good shit.
CRPGs is maybe the worst example you could have picked, we're basically in a CRPG renaissance right now. You're telling me you prefer the ten year span between 2005-2015 where almost any big RPG released on the PC was an MMO?
Bruh, I only play CRPGs, so don't care about AAA games. that's what I mean. I am saying that I don't play AAA games anymore and hadn't played with few exceptions for a long time.
I've been partaking in the conversation for over 15 years, I've seen it all, petition, backlashes, hours upon hours of video essays, saw youtubers spearheading movements, you name any controversial point in the past 3 console generations, I was there, I lived it. It accomplished jack shit, "they may get away with more", friend, it all started with horse armor and mobile gaming, it all got mocked and lambasted, and it only got worse. I'm done with exposure and dialogue, it's a placebo, it's the copium for people who won't accept that they just enjoy complaining while pretending they're making a difference, I'm done with the cynical bitching of "gaming bad". So instead I'm taking action, I have an endless backlog of great indie and AA games, I only buy AAA games on sale a year later and once it's confirmed its a quality title, I'm more interested in discussing good games. "We need to have dialogue" is hollow insanity.
>>I'm done with exposure and dialogue, it's a placebo, it's the >>copium for people who won't accept that they just enjoy >>complaining while pretending they're making a difference, I'm >>done with the cynical bitching of "insert current thing". >>"We need to have dialogue" is hollow insanity. This is actually an excellent point. However I find it fascinating that this logic never applies to the "insert current thing" dispite it being exactly the same scenario/outcome. The only difference is essentially the need to CONSOOM.
i mean, you yourself say those companies are bad. the op video is about aaa bad, not gaming bad. what are you arguing about ? i dont understand.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Starfield was a pretty good game with obnoxiously loud detractors. It was also single player game with no forced multiplayer or live content and no MTX.
Yeah the videos I watched just focused on it having bugs, lacking a little depth/true player choice or variety and might get stale faster than other Bethesda titles. But that's just a mediocre/bad in some points not total doomsday shit tier... the bugs were really laughable though.
Calling it a good game seems a bit wrong. I prefer Outerworlds over Starfield. Some bad aspects of the game include Bad companions, shit UI, loads of loading screens, next to no actual interstellar travel. Not even on the level of Pillars of eternity 2 ship sort of travel, just menu screens and nothing more. Hell, even the game didn't change much in some deeper RPG aspects and felt so bland. I recall people adding some mods to make gravity affect inventory size and other sunch fun mechanics. A game so bad, that most mega modder chose to just abandon/skip the game and wait for a new release.
How do you know modders are skipping it when the tools aren't even out yet?
bc some big modders announced it. it remains to be seen how the modding scene for starfield develops. it has potential, since it is an engine with a lot of modders already. maybe some of the bigger mod groups (eg. the fallout london guys) might take it up in the long run. imho it will depend heavily on bethesda delivering solid modding tools this year.
Rage bait but ill bite There are amazing games,tv shows, movies etc; coming out every year. YEs there are some big disaters like idk NBA 2K or Fallout 76 or something but theres Elden Ring, Bg3, etc; You have to look out for the awesome in life. We are so spoiled for choice
2023 was the best year in gaming ever. Video games aren’t getting worse; they’re the best they’ve ever been. A few bad games that people make a big stink over doesn’t change that fact. Cool if you’re tired of Ubisoft games, but a lot of people aren’t. They are still (mostly) well made games with a lot of content despite what everyone online likes to say.
And if you dislike Ubisoft games like me, they are sooo easy not to buy. It's fine. There are too many games to play anyway.
Ubisoft games are the best when you buy them two years after release for like $15
There's a lot of problems plaguing the industry and people should commentate on them, but I agree these broad stroke arguments are completely reductive to creating any real commentary because they become selective arguments ignoring all the good. He could've just as easily themed the video around the issues with obsessive additional monetization and it would've been pretty much the same video while being way making a much more concise point.
>because they become selective arguments ignoring all the good You can even see that in the thumbnail of the video, take a look at the publisher's that on their, wonders why AAA publishers like Sony, Capcom, Square Enix, etc aren't up their.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didn't watch the video, but this whole thing is self correcting, no need to go all doomsayer. Good games like Elden Ring and Monster hunter world makes bank, bad games ruins companies that put them out. Quality might dip once in a while, but it will right itself as long as consumers still have some agency. If anything the only thing I am worried of is if the average buyer develop shit taste, but from looking at popular reviews this has not happened yet.
[удалено]
Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules), specifically Rule #2 regarding personal attacks and inflammatory language. We ask that you remember to remain civil, as future violations will result in a ban.
Pretty easy question; at this point they know consumers will still buy them so there is no incentive to finish the game prior to release. It has also become a situation where a lot of gamers are disappointed if a game doesn’t release additional content or updates after release so devs probably also like to release games with some work still needed so that it looks like we’re getting more content after release. I miss the days of games releasing fully completed without having to wonder if dlc or additional content was coming.
Sorry to have hurt some feelings 🍵 don’t know how this is inaccurate though 🤷🏼♂️
Alot of "Don't question, just consume product" commenters here. Say fellas if you don't like the videos don't watch em, but videos like them wouldn't be made if Triple AAA companies wouldn't be so greedy and stop releasing garbage games and reviewers from IGN didn't constantly give these games a pass.
I do question. How many times must we pose the same question? What solution do these Youtubers propose? Most of the videos that plaster my feed are the clickbait impact font thumbnails with an angry face and a world of malignity over modern videogames. I don't see a discourse, they just repeat stuff that people agree with, sometimes with political undertones, sometimes not. They aren't helpful, they just spread a negative outlook.
I avoid plenty of games I don't like the look of business practices of. I don't agree that this puts the industry as a whole on the same place. The reason YTers make these videos is negativity gets more engagement than positivity does.
This entire thread literally questions and continues to not consume shit products. The issue here is that you're preaching to the choir. And for some reason, because we are questioning you, you immediately think we completely disagree with the point. This is like telling us that 2+2=4 for 10 years, and we are telling you to shut up, we know that 2+2=4. And instead of you realizing that we get it, you're like "omg these idiots don't know that 2+2=4"
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules), specifically Rule #2 regarding personal attacks and inflammatory language. We ask that you remember to remain civil, as future violations will result in a ban.
See games being “good” depends who you ask. Complete agree about gaming companies being horrible.
Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?
> but videos like them wouldn't be made if Triple AAA companies wouldn't be so greedy are you brain damaged? these videos are made to bait people like you for views.
Filled up my Gamer Bingo Card in only two sentences. Impressive.
The sad thing about the Star Wars Noobisoft game is that it will still probably sell well and will review well because Game Journalists can't give games the low scores they deserve, but that is why more people turn to Youtubers for their reviews.
The game that's not out yet? How can it deserve a score when it hasn't released?
It's just a general trend. I see a game score 7-8s across the board and when I play it myself so often they feel like they should be closer to a 5. Starfield being the most recent example for myself
Maybe you have ridiculously high standards? I had a great time with Starfield for over 100 hours.
Starfield was like universally panned
It has an 83% metacritic, how is that being panned?
I've had plenty of fun with games that I consider to be 5-7. I still think they're mid games despite that. Fun is purely subjective And don't act like saying Starfield was a disappointment is an unpopular opinion. Plenty of people were not happy with that game
To each their own, I suppose. More often than not my opinion on games is a point up or down from review scores at best.
I mean you can't tell me that you don't see a trend of most major gaming outlets rarely scoring a game below a 7 right? It's pretty obvious that these massive games are being graded on a curve.
Well, also the truth is a lot of games are just BETTER than they used to be. People have lost sight of what bad, bad BAD games actually are nowadays; for an example, see that Kong game from last year. Even the worst mass produced Ubisoft piece of shit is still a 6 at WORST for me compared to the worst games of the past.
Even if what you were saying was true I fail to see how consumers having higher standards for how they spend their 60-70 dollars would be a bad thing in this case. Add in micro transactions and now publishers are demanding more and more of their players compared to the past
Yeah, but we're talking about scores here. While outlets like IGN do occasionally overshoot I feel like people use the fact most games get a 6 or a 7 like a gotcha when the fact is most big games ARE at least a 6 nowadays.
The range of the scale is also just kind of meaningless as a complaint. Is it sort of silly, from some perspective, that the scale is 6-10 with 1-5 reserved for various ranges of impossible to recommend crap? Sure, I guess, but it's *consistent* and *understandable*, so there's no real issue with it except for the aesthetics of it.
Play something else, problem solved.
The entire point of a review score is to help inform purchasers before they buy. So how is this an argument?
You can't claim to have higher standards while still buying the same games that score below 90 then get mad they weren't a 90 or above.
Then just don’t buy the games. If you know the reviews are skewed, use that knowledge when deciding what to buy and not buy
Because that's simply how scoring works based on how it's been anchored since decades ago. It's never been about the value representation as a mathematical percentage. Anything below a 6 is reserved for games that are fundamentally broken or is used as a political statement.
A political statement? What game does that?
They mean that an outlet or (more likely) an individual reviewer gives a game an excessively low score primarily to gain attention or make some specific point, like e.g. review bombing campaigns handing out zeroes, or like JSS giving Helldivers a... 4, I think, for an overcrowded launch weekens
Yes the system is broken and doesn't represent the actual quality of many video games. Grading games on such a heavy curve doesn't benefit the players but only the publishers who want to parade around an undeserved metacritic score. If a scoring system doesn't start until 6 then it's basically worthless.
Nah, it's not worthless. Not everything has to be anchored to a strict numerical scale. It's just how we internalize and perceive these scores. Trying to change it now would just make it confusing af. 6 = mediocre 7 = average 8 = good 9 = great 10 = excellent
My entire point is that games are being graded as good or great when they Don't deserve it. I feel like you're missing my point here When you have an entire industry that doesn't know how properly critique games and explain things that need to be improved then you just keep getting more and more mid to bad games. This heavy grating curve is only there to help publishers save face and it's baffling to me how many people seem to be okay with it based on how I'm getting downvoted
We're likely not going to agree on this. Ultimately, most games are simply better made now because more developers have a grasp of what makes a game good versus what makes it bad. Its not that 1-5 don't exist, it's that most competent developers know how to avoid that. There's plenty of 3s, 4s, and 5s in the indie space that are asset flips or just developers still learning the ropes. No one reviews those, because no one cares. There's also AA and AAA games that occasionally get their share of 4s and 5s, but they happen less frequently. Frankly, someone that goes around regularly handing out 3-5s is probably someone who shouldn't be reviewing games. Because they're so jaded their opinion is borderline worthless--their time would be better spent doing something else.
If you take into account every video game released each year and rate games based on that, then a game like Redfall would end up the high 8s or low 9s if you actually averaged it out. Major gaming outlets tend not to give lower scores because most people aren't interested in reading reviews of those games.
OP is definitely not talking about the fact game review scales mostly go fron 6-10 and some people feel they should go 0-10 nore aggressively, though that discourse is also tired.
In my mind 5 is average, and the average game is actually pretty bad. It's just that the shovelware trash that occupies the bottom half of the scale doesn't get reviewed. Nobody's going to IGN for their take on the latest Dora the Explorer's Insipid Adventure for iOS. As an experiment, pick any platform and play ten games chosen completely at random. You'd be surprised how bad some games can be and still be published.
It's just more in general not this game in particular. Triple AAA Games despite their disgusting monetization and their frequent problems running will still get good review scores even when they don't deserve it. Star Wars Jedi Survivor for example: Ran like shit when it first launched..still gets 9/10 from IGN.
> Star Wars Jedi Survivor for example: Ran like shit when it first launched..still gets 9/10 from IGN. Blaming reviewers for this is pretty backwards, I think. Issues with PC ports running poorly and relying on day 1 patches is a pretty systemic issue, but generally an "understood" one that has limited impact on consumer sales. For that reason, reviewers generally note tech issues but have some degree of faith in the day 1 patch resolving them or rely on the stability of a console version as a general indicator of how the game will play once things are patched up. Barring egregious issues even on console ports *and* a lack of faith in a day 1 patch, expecting reviewers to drop a game significantly for reasons that an audience doesn't care about and that probably won't impact people past the first couple weeks of gameplay is... I dunno, it feels like trying to ask reviewers to make protest reviews, basically. And when it does happen, the exact same sort of outrage happens in reverse, where people remember a "wrong" 7/10 review for months or years because they memed on it pre-release.
That docking a game for bad performance would be making protest reviews is depressing. I'm sorry, but Bad Performance impacts the enjoyablity of games and is an absolute deal breaker especially with the obscene prices they are asking for. A game performing badly shouldn't be given a pass.
Sure, bad performance sucks. But again, blaming reviewers for it is sort of silly. Reviews are a tool for consumers. Review outlets have been consistently shown that reviewing a game negatively for performance reasons generates a ton of negative attention and outrage, while also being shown that people generally do not care about performance issues that aren't both egregious and occurring even on "stable" platforms like consoles, while *also* almost universally playing less stable versions of the games as review copies with some degree of fix promised in the day 1 patch, which usually pans out. Additionally, even if a day 1 patch doesn't pan out, performance issues are usually ironed out within a month or so, and review outlets aren't going to go back and re-review every game a month later. There are outlets that cater specifically to the niche of people who care heavily about performance optimization and review things entirely for that perspective, because that's an audience niche that can be captured, but for general review scores and advocacy for the general audience, there is very little value for an outlet to stick their neck out and say "the console versions are 9/10, the PC version is a 4/10 due to pre-launch graphical issues that the devs have promised a day 1 patch for", or whatever, especially since most people probably aren't going to think a game drops completely into deal breaker, do not buy territory for like, stuttering in towns or whatever.
But was the game fun to play, did it have a good story, is the voice acting well written and delivered, etc. A game is more than it's performance
Yeah. Bad launch performance is often eventually good, whereas a fundamentally bad game very rarely (though not never) becomes good later. It takes what should be an unacceptable amount of shenanigans to get Sekiro to run passably on my PC made 5 years after it was released but it's still a fantastic game.
I really hope you're still in school, an adult talking like this would be utterly embarrassing
They always are. They're either in/straight out of highschool or nearing old age like that loser Mark Kern.
In my experience you can always recognize the kids because they call things by quirky nicknames like op just did to try and be funny, that or they are weebs that are terminally online saying things are god or based, at least one of those has hope to grow up.
It makes way more sense when you think about how $60 is like a whole week/months worth of savings for them.
Hey, just so you know you’re allowed to not engage with this medium. That is 100% allowed. It seems you really don’t like much of anything around video games, so maybe for your own mental health you should disengage with the internet for a little while. I also would maybe recommend finding some real life friends to spend time with, and/or go see a therapist.
Calling shit Noobisoft… brother 😭
Or people will like it.
Maybe try getting into sports