Are Game Reviewers Too Kind to AAA Games?

[Roderick]

Reviewing games is pretty hard. I do it for a couple of magazines in the Netherlands and sometimes I'm completely at a loss at what the standards are I should judge the game by (and so they will differ at times). To my great shame, I gave Twilight Princess a 10, which was utterly undeserved. The error made me a better reviewer after that.

I would like to disagree with Remo about production values. They do matter. They don't make game mechanics better, but they can make the overall experience much more enjoyable. One rarely likes a game for the complete package. There are always some elements that pop out and a player latches onto. Sometimes a well-polished setting and super-smooth animations and controls make all the difference. Case in point: Assassin's Creed. By itself not a great game (because: marred with flaws), but the unique and well-executed environments and polish on that front elevate it to almost must-play levels.

I also take objection to the mention of GTA4 in the first post. It's very obvious why reviewers all around downplayed the crappy save system. It's because in the grand scheme of GTA it IS irrelevant. The game has so much to offer it's stupid to give it a lower score because of the save system. It genuinely is a nibble, a nitpick. GTA4 isn't a mediocre game saved by its high production values, it's a landmark title in terms of scope, gameplay, vision, etc. Your point still stands of course, but GTA4 was the wrong example.

[MisterNoisy]

Nobody would even be concerned with reviews and perceived leniency/harshness of same if it weren't for Metacritic - we'd just find the reviewers/outlets that matched our tastes or rely on word of mouth and everything would be hunky-dory. MC is easily the worst thing to happen to the industry that isn't buried in a landfill in New Mexico.

[DanJW]

Hmm I dunno, things were pretty bad even before Metacritic became a big deal. They just didn't matter quite as much.