Rensin Rants: Everyone's a Critic!

[Harmonic]

I hope it doesn't become hostile. And I'm not seeing anything that's hostile. We do disagree on things, but, we all agree---this boils down to opinion, which is my case here. I knew a lot of people wouldn't agree with my feelings on ME3's ending, but... it was a risk I was willing to take.

I neglected to mention my feelings on SimCity for that reason. TOO SOON. Tooooo soooon.

[Mathias]

I'm sensing no hostility from anyone in this thread. Life is boring if everyone agrees. We disagree, and maybe we'll walk away with a different perspective once this thread dies down. Who knows?

Now, give me your opinion on SimCity. Open those wounds.

[Demigod204]

One of the few games I would actually suggest to never play is D3, mainly because they accused me of hacking, even though my account was locked a month prier and I changed my password 20 times and never reactivated my account.

[Harmonic]

I'm sensing no hostility from anyone in this thread. Life is boring if everyone agrees. We disagree, and maybe we'll walk away with a different perspective once this thread dies down. Who knows?

Now, give me your opinion on SimCity. Open those wounds.

SimCity. Yeees. Okay, my opinion. I am of the opinion, that everyone fell for an overhyped game without again waiting to see what it was like before purchasing. They condemned the company for all the day one bugs (Which is something I can fully agree with---if they make it online constantly, make sure you stress test your servers before putting stuff out to the public), but ALSO for some of the different design choices. Smaller cities, the online play with friends. I can understand the qualms that it's forced to be online at all times, but to say that it's something NOBODY wants is silly. Single player experience---sure. If they can add it, do so. BUT TAKING OUT multiplayer is a silly, backwards request. One that seems to be popular.

I think the attention drawn to this game---was too much. It was a crappy game that was expected to be popular. This happens all the time. But people lost their minds over it. Heard nothing but this on the internet for a month or two, and I bet you -anything- EA was eating up the press. All press is good press. People KNOW about this game. People will PLAY this game. They will want to see that trainwreck first hand.



If people really want to make a change... sitting there and complaining about it in the hopes others will agree with you and won't buy it themselves is backwards. Should always put your money where your mouth is. I'm of the opinion, people should have not pre-ordered this, and waited to see what would happen. We knew it was gonna be always online. We knew this was EA. Why did we complain about the burn after touching the stove?

[Wuvvums]

I actually dislike more critics who seem to have been bought out by major publishers and might not give a totally honest opinion about the game.

I am not sure how many professional reviewers have an agenda to hurt the sales of a game. I don't really find it plausible that that is their motives when giving a harsh review. And I don't think buying advice is a bad thing when you deal with a medium where some of the new games out are going to be $50 or $60. Not a lot of us can afford that.

[Geoni]

I think that critics have poisoned the development of innovative video games in the past decade or so, especially when it comes to gameplay, and I think that this is the reason that a lot of the games that offer different gameplay than we've ever seen are coming from indie-game companies. Thatgamecompany is a terrific example that has actually gotten some great reception from people who never thought they would play a game like Journey.

But the point is, not everyone likes the same kind of game, which is why I think critics need to hold their tongues in some cases. I also think that criticism in gaming is too often mixed up with preferred formula.

[Krent]

You know what the funniest thing is? In my opinion, the only good gaming criticism that comes out nowadays is from....

Forbes.

The articles on Forbes are usually base on and objective. You wanna know why?

'Cause Forbes is such a huge mega house money pile that they don't need the ad support of the major AAA game industry.

I do agree that the mainstream "Gaming Journalism" has gotten poisonous for the consumers. Every AAA title gets huge amounts of unwarranted praise, 10/10's being showered on it by golden laurels, while everyone else gets the shaft.

You ever notice how every cookie-cutter CoD expansion gets raving 10/10 reviews, yet JRPG's get negative marks for being "unoriginal" "repetitive" and "samey?" It's that kinda irony that reveals the problem.

"Game Journalism" needs the ad revenue from the major publishers. Critics in that circle know better than to bite the hand that feeds them, and thus will inflate their scores for AAA titles, even if they don't deserve them.

There's such a disparity between what the consumer base feels and what the "critics" feel. Just look at the dissonance with Dragon Age 2, as one example.

"Game Journalism" and criticism has become a marketing tool of the major publishers. They only time they get "critical" of certain things (DRM, Used Games Blocking, Online Requirements) is when it becomes fashionable to do so--when the public is so outraged from this that they have no choice but to chime in.

Otherwise?

They're usually either quiet about these issues (See: Diablo 3) or actually try to defend them.

At the end of the day, it's alllllllll about money. So in the wise words of The Wu Tang Clan....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjZRAvsZf1g