Відео

This is 100% why games go to shit as soon as the developers start listening to twitch streamers.

not to mention the political bias

The only rating on a video game that should matter is from gamers. Frankly, I could not care less about what some "gaming journalist" dog has to say. I have no respect for them or their entire "profession." It's a farce that they exist, and that these losers, who couldn't even get through Cuphead's introduction mission or one map of Doom, think we need their corrupt opinions. I could ask a senile 90-year-old what he thinks of a game, regardless of whether he's ever even touched a video game, and his opinion would mean more to me than any "gaming journalist" dog.

Game reviewers are just people, and people are stupid

Fallout 4 > Fallout NV. NV is dogshit and playing the DLC for it made me wanna shoot my brains out. F4 has horrible dialogue choices but it still beats NV, just better and newer everything. Anyone that thinks differently is a moron and doesn't really provide proper explanations as to why, their logic is "hurr durr you get power armor in 5 minutes in Fallout 4 and NV puts deathclaws that oblitherate you so that you have to follow the proper story path". NV is bad, there are some enemies that kill you with max armor and good perks and then you have vast lands of nothing. The Dead Sea with radiation whatever it's called, in Fallout 4, has more life than NV. I had to take a long break from NV cause dead money or whatever DLC was that, destroyed my brain with boring SAVE/LOAD MECHANICS, CAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THE RADIOS OR EVEN DESTROY THEM, FOR SOME REASON A FUCKING RADIO IS ULTRA GIGA PROTECTED FROM ANYTHING, LASER OR PHYSICAL. Fallout 4 is better and newer, if maybe NV had most of F4 features AND NONE OF THE DOGSHIT DLC, it would be better. Skyrim is better than Morrowind but if Morrowind was made in the same engine, it would win by a mile, can't say the same about NV.

18:35 what?? Did you really expect the distribution of ratings be a bell curve?🤨 No! In steam, to be a game with mixed reviews is to be a bad game overwhelmingly negative are unplayable games or downright trash, those games not even the genre simps could like (the same people bumping up bad games to a mixed) if the distribution was a bell curve, 15,73% of all steam games would be good and 83,99% would be mixed and bellow. You probably didn't mean you wanted a bell curve (I admit I might have pulled out my ahh), but if you did, stop perpetuating internet trends like such, they have nothing to do with good proportion nor game balance.

Critics have horrible opinions due to early access to big budget games bribing them, horrible skill in actually amazing games, normally don’t like indie games much and never experience games properly. That’s why I play games my friends or steam scores mention as good I like platformers, rpg’s and puzzle games that have fun stories your undertale’s, your portal 2’s and your a hat in time’s I know what I like so I look at reviews by like minded individuals who love those genres

10:48 is this real 😂

Some of my favorite games, like Undertale or Super Mario 64, were clearly made with care for the fans, and not for the critics. Really goes to show where developers’ priorities should be

I have made a term for journalists that managed to become the leads of game studios despite being ill suited for those positions, I call it Pagliarulo Syndrome.

They should make me a game critic, I swear I'm not too biased or tasteless

Steam style scores also give the average Joe more control on how a company acts. >points to Sony/Helldivers<

Almost all UA-cam reviewers also exposed themselves making "I played 100 hours of starfield review". All of them are paid reviewers knowing the game is absolute garbage.

The game review isn't the product, the eye balls on the page that see the ads are the product. YOU are the product. Generating rage or interest get more eyes on ad space and that means more money.

Being a kid you believe in the NCR growing up is seeing Caesar is right

There is a reason for why i NEVER listen to critics… I usually find that i dont really enjoy the games they put on the top.

This is such an amazing video

The fact these games are considered dead by the developers and community has only driven my interest in playing them even more to this day.

Nah battle for bikini bottom is so ass

Critics are worthless subhuman garbage.

what game is at 15:29?

I beat Battle for Bikini Bottom when I was 6. Game critics don't know how to play games.

YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE IS A CONTROVERSY….. DEEEEZ NUTZ 🥜 😂

IGN after being criticised for praising overrated crap like Last of Us and bashing peak games: *surprised Pikachu face*

8:45 bro are you talking about the school shootings

Critics come from an age before the Internet when the only way you could find out if something was good was to read about it in your local newspaper. Audience reviews completely negate the need for critics, but companies keep using them because they're good for advertising.

I'm back again Titanfall 2 was fucking awesome tho

if your game doesnt have the beloved yellow paint to hand hold the reviewer, then its over

If you do not think lou2 is a good game then you’re a smooth brain who listens to opinions on TikTok and UA-cam

Steam reviews is the best feature

I basically only play Valorant and Grand Strategy games. Getting me to review Horror games or 3rd person explorer games wouldn't be the best idea. But at least I would be more aware of my bias and inexperience with those games.

Wow a buggy remake of an above average 2000's era licensed kids game wasn't as well reviewed as a AAA cinematic sequel that you don't personally like. I'm literally not even going to watch the video, if that's what you're going for with the thumbnail you're already waving the "I'm stupid don't listen to me" flag proud.

Video was good. Only note: turn mic from stereo to mono 😅

One of my favorite examples is rain world. The game itself is gorgeous and has a really good amount of challenges because the AI of the creatures is so well designed (all of this made a masterpiece loved by the players), whoever, the "game critics" basically hated it, saying that "the game was too punishing"

2:00 I will not continue to accept the fallout 4 hate fo4>fnv

Battle for bikini is literally better than anything naughty dog has created in the past 15 years lmao

Excellent video bud. You got my subscription 🙌

when people talk about "keeping pilotics out of gaming" they usually mean "keep the talk of polotics that I don't necessarily agree with or which aren't my already default view and therefore I don't consider apolitical... out of my video games"

I love video essay's and minds like this. You made the same conclusion to everyone else, game "critics" are biased. But instead of spouting the same reasoning as everyone, you bothered to look into it and give a fair, nuanced and researched opinion based of off visible facts and data. Are there video game critics that get paid off? Probably. But this essay basically breaks down how essentially the enviroment of the video game reviewer industry created what it is now instead of being a forcefull and direct change. Don't normally say this but it's a fucking tragedy that you don't have more subscribers. I'll toss ya a bone and hope to help ya with the algorithim gods.

my left ear liked this

I know that Walrus stated that games shouldn't just be reviewed by experts because there are simply some games that wont interest one people, but I think that's a wrong way of thinking. Games should be reviewed by experts, but these experts should be those that play games for a living and have a resonable understanding of game mechanics and how each genre plays. Even if these experts are biased in what games they like, having a 'filter' for who counts as a reviewer means that those who play the game can give a more honest score, allowing for a better gradient on what games count as good and which games are bad. In fact, having a game be reviewed by both those who like and dislike the genre can really give an overall more rounded score For example, a really good game can result in those who like the genre genuinely praising it, while those who dislike the genre can still find good points in a video game to the point they can praise it, potentially even changing their mind on the genre. On the flip side however, if a game is really bad that even those who like the genre can't even give it any meaningful praise... then you obviously have a bad game, and there's no amount of indirect bribing that can change that.

I just barely discovered that this game has a fast travel system- you have to go to a specific place at a specific time to interact with a specific alien race and do a quest for them, but once you do you can enter "quasispace" which takes a flat 10 fuel to enter, but none inside, and can take MASSIVE shortcuts across the galaxy.

Your diversity of word selection to explain the diverse groups of diverse peoples is really lacking in diversiness of synonyms Really interrupted the flow of the video imo There are others words thats also fit that could be used in the same places, other than just diversity over and over again, such as variety, many, distinct, different etc.

Small critique, you should work on the readability of your graphs. Aka newer game reviews should be on the right not the left. Things like that.

ALL art is political. if you don't see the politics, that's because they're politics YOU'VE been immersed in your entire life. that still doesn't make them the default.

tf was that political compass the ncr is a neoliberal capitalist system

critics just... suck at video games.

IGN has no credibility to me

In general the divide happens because a lot of journalists aren't actually gamers, and have very little to no interest in videogames. A lot of them are frustrated wannabe movie reviewers in the same way that a lot of those who produce some of the worst games are frustrated wannabe movie producers. This is why "a cinematic experience" is touted as a good thing even though it is antithetical to games by removing the interaction. These people are movie snobs that think that VIdeogames are a lesser genre, that's why they like TLOU2, and hate any game that forces them to put in effort.

Developers pay for reviews, it is as simple as that. If they give a bad score/review then they are not given an early release to play the game through a month or so before release. Thus costing the developers money AND if the magazine/website isn’t given the game early people will just go elsewhere to get the review. I am a firearm guy as well as liking video games and you see this in the firearms industry as well. I have yet to see a newly released gun in the last 10 years that reviewers don’t like. It is stupid and dishonest.