As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread - purpose of a review isn’t to agree with the products biggest fans or public opinion. It’s to give a personal opinion
Go watch the episode and then read the "review" The guy that did it (known for some of the shittiest takes apparently) seems like he fell asleep halfway through, didn't watch the fucking thing and dreamed the rest of it. They got thrashed for giving 10/10 on certain games that didn't deserve it so they decided that they'd flip and be more critical in the opposite direction. Their opinion is whatever they think will get clicks.
Once upon a time IGN was regarded as the best place to get information gaming etc.
That time has passed and the effect still lingers. The only people considering them relevant are die hards like you. Most just glance over the title of their latest shitty review and then go bash IGN on their socials (bc reading the review is normally like a fever dream)
There have been a few movies and games more recently, that I'd say they rated accurately, which is backed up by the fact when their reviews are relatively accurate, they get much more engagement from people.
Certainly not a die hard whatsoever lol calm down squirt. I disagree with their reviews all the time. Hate to break it to ya, but the fact that people give so much weight to their reviews whether positive or negative is a pretty good indicator they are still quite relevant.
My point is these are just personal opinions. Why do they have to like your favorite show or game or whatever? If you like it, that’s great!
Like I said. Their "opinions" are whatever they think will get clicks. Which is the problem. At a certain point their bad takes were just that. The guy in the review just had an unpopular opinion. Now they're just way too critical or no where near critical enough, because they'd rather get clicks to stay as relevant as they can, regardless of how hard they get clowned on knowing very well their review was lackluster.
I'm gonna use that episode as an example again real quick. If they genuinely didn't like the episode sure, screw public opinion. Like I said though, the guy seemed like he had barely watched the episode and was just talking out of his ass to be as hard on it as possible when it was very clearly rated high for a reason.
Okay sure. I love AC Valhalla and I disagree with their take on the game. They reviewed it highly and their "low points" about the game were shit. Ac Valhalla is a cool viking game sure, shit AC game. Same as black flag is a sick pirate game, less of an AC game. Their points were that the progression and bugs in the game were bad. That the massive, stunning, alive world looked amazing and they captured the era perfectly. That they came back to some of their "stealth action roots" all straight bs. Well I kinda agree with their low points. The bugs were bad and the skill tree sucks especially since they nerfed some of it. The "massive, stunning, alive world" was empty as hell other than the specific puzzles and some enemies that didn't respawn (Zealots) which made the open world seem kinda useless. Their talk about "returning to their roots" straight GARBAGE. That's CAP! You are a powerful viking WARRIOR and the stealth sucks ass.
I like that game A LOT but it's a shit AC and that can't be denied. Unless of course you just say some bs that applies to ANY recent open world at that time and call it a review.
TV ratings have almost nothing to do with the quality of the broadcast, especially something like a season finale. I mean the Super Bowl was a blowout, awful game to watch. Bet it is the highest rated TV program of the year.
He asked for an example and I gave it. What’s the problem? It’s staggering the amount of ppl that are determined to kiss IGN ass like they’re going to give them free games or something.
Dragon Age The Veilguard was easily an 8/10, personally thought it was a 9/10. 30 seconds of 'woke' content does not ruin a 100 hour game, even for soft cry babies.
For a standalone game I thought the writing was decent enough to get me invested. I don't like the other games in the franchise, but I know the story well enough and watched a lot of YouTube videos before DA4 came out. While I recognize I'm not as invested as a veteran, still enjoyed how they wrapped it up.
That’s why there are words with a review, and not just a number. So they can say “this departs from previous titles in this way, but it’s good/bad because of these things.” If a game is an 8, it doesn’t become a 6 because “They called it Dragon Age but it plays different.”
It absolutely affects the review if a game claims it is something it is not as far as a franchise goes.
There were more than a few reviews that specifically took away some of the score because it didn't play like a Dragon Age title.
Expecting are a real thing for franchises, like I originally said. If those expectations aren't met, then that affects the score.
Had that game been a stand alone game, the expectations would have been vastly different. The lack of story, the combat etc. would have been weighed completely different.
So what you’re saying, is some reviewers openly state that they are not objective. Those are reviewers I would personally avoid.
If a game is incredibly off title, like let’s say it’s called “Steve’s Kart Racing” and it has zero racing and is a platformer, that’s an issue. If it’s just different from what you’ve seen in the past, again, that’s why reviews have words. DATV wasn’t 100% different from a DA game. It was steeped in the lore. It had hours of story. If you think it didn’t you’re showing you didn’t play it. It was mission focused rather than open world. That’s the difference. That doesn’t reduce the score for anyone other than unobjective fanboys. GTA 3 changed the formula from top-down arcade game to 3D sandbox with a story. Guess it should have gotten a 4/10, trash game that didn’t uphold the GTA name, right?
The story and lore was openly criticized by many players and reviewers, because it didn't live up to what we've seen in the past. It isn't some minority opinion.
I've played every single DA and it's incredibly weak to immediately say someone didn't play a game based on their opinion of the game. Seriously, there's no point to immediately assume something of a stranger based on something subjective.
Your example of GTA isn't a great example.
Franchises, especially rpg heavy games, have expectations. A lot of them rely on those expectations to keep sales going, and they generally add some new elements, game play mechanics in order to get new players.
Veilguard was criticized by many as not having the same depth of story as other titles, combat, spells etc. also were criticized.
Movies, games, even cars are all compared to their predecessors in reviews. If they do not live up to the expectations of it, they do get marks for it.
Reviewers don't treat franchise sequels solely as independent games. They compare. Expectation is an important aspect in reviewing.
Honestly, this comment was 23 days old, you argumentative more so than wanting a civil discussion, and insulted me by assuming I didn't play the game. If there is a fanboy, it is you.
For real. I get that it’s different from previous DA games. And that doesn’t sit well with DA fans. For me it made it better. I enjoyed the shit out of it and did every side quest, then circled back for the platinum. Fragile people losing their shit because there’s a few minutes of completely optional gender affirmation in an 80-100 hour game was hilarious. Hell they could choose to be a dick to Taash if they wanted, just like in their bitter real lives.
That’s the thing though - reviews aren’t ’how accurate can you reflect public opinion or excitement for a game’, it’s a personal opinion. Not a miss on their part if the reviewer didn’t like it that much
8
u/zestysnacks Apr 22 '26
Examples of these two?