Review score inflation is a fact of life in today's gaming journalism. I could provide you with hundreds outrageous examples but the one that shocked me recently was Mass Effect 3. I never really played the space fantasy RPG before today. While I was aware of the controversy surrounding the ending, it was quite surprising to realize how many problems that game had. The combat mechanics are woefully archaic, especially when compared to ME3's peers such as Gears of War 3 or Uncharted 3. Furthermore, player customization and the RPG-specific systems are clearly inferior to the standards set by Mass Effect 2, the game's predecessor. Finally, exploration is as mechanically broken as ever. While the awkward sprinting mechanic was kind of cute in ME1, it's rather embarrasing that Bioware had not fixed it with the third installment of the amazing series. And while it is still a very good game in many respects, it is mired in some significant problems. Yet, the Metacritic average review score for Mass Effect 3 stands at 93, suggesting that it was one of the best video games ever made...The example above is far from the most outrageous instances of the trend. Every seasoned gamer can name at least a few underwhelming titles that really didn't match up to what was being said about them in the press. When considering this trend, one has to mention the sometimes dubious relationship between the biggest gaming outlets and game publishers. The fact that gamer publishers end up buying the vast majority of ad space on these websites is certainly something to keep in mind. The promotional "merch" that game journalists are flooded with is also something many journalism professors would frown at. Although all of the above concerns are all legitimate factors, it would be a bit paranoid to blame it all on collusion. As the recent controversy surrounding the Division reviews shows, the underlying reason for review score inflation might be a lot more mundane than we think.
The Division came out to mostly positive critical acclaim. The game was lauded for the mesmerizing depiction of the post-endemic New York City. And even though the Metacritic score currently stands at around 80 across all platforms, the game garnered several middling reviews. Two most vivid examples of the criticism were Vince Ingenito's IGN US review as well as Jim Sterling's review for the Jimquisition website. Both gentlemen decided to give the game a seemingly decent score of 6.5. The controversy that followed was mind-blowing. The amount of various insults hurled at Ingenito and Sterling was comparable to the infamous DMC backlash of 2013. And why? Because the journalists posed that the Division was a decent game that did not really excel at anything, while delivering a solid experience nonetheless.We as a community have a tendency to passionately criticize game journalists for inflating review scores. Seemingly, though, scoring below the general critical consensus is a similar offence. While researching this piece I came across a fascinating article on the millennial generation that might shed some light on this schizophrenia of unmet expectations (link here). In this article Joel Stein states that "The incidence of narcissistic personality disorder is nearly three times as high for people in their 20s as for the generation that’s now 65 or older". This, he says, is caused by a widespread epidemic of positive reinforcement parenting in the 70s and 80s . Basically, the theory goes, our parents and teachers have programmed us to believe in our own greatness while having little regard for reality. That's why, Stein says, "40% of all millennials believe they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance."
What does that have to do with gaming? Possibly, quite a lot. Gaming has slowly become a passion that people can be proud of. Our community is capable of great things and the games we play can often be considered interactive art. Similarly, we often feel the need to strrongly identify with the games we play. Since we play them a lot, we consider them to be means of our individual expression. Since we are all special and the games we play mean a lot to us, we need them to be great. It's very difficult for many gamers to accept that their favorite game is just decent, or maybe even slightly below average in some ways. Moreover, a game we dislike scoring above our personal judgment also invalidates our uniqueness. This may well be an interesting way of looking at why most games fall into the infinitely spacious scoring bracket between 7.5 and 9.0. In a way, it's a consensus that makes most of us happy.
I know it might be a wild goose chase but awareness that the problem exists is often the first step towards positive change. Maybe it's time to open ourselves to some unsettling radical ideas. From time to time, it's really OK to enjoy a game that's considered mediocre by the press. A true expression of how special you are may well be your ability to appreciate a misunderstood game in all its glory. As for game journalists: Guys, most of us are just being dramatic while coming up with the conspiracy theories. We know you aren't really corrupt. However, It wouldn't hurt to be a little bit bolder. Your audience will only benefit if they are provided with a bitter pill every now and again. Gaming has never been as expansive as it is now. We need you more than ever to be brutally honest with us. We will bitch at you for insulting our favorite franchise the first time around, maybe even the second time around. In the end, however, we will learn to truly appreciate defending our consumer rights, most of us anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment