As last gen winds down and the new gen winds up, there are a lot of AA titles coming out...

... and...

... reviews are absolutely all over the place.

Do you think reviewers do a good job reviewing AA (or at least non-AAA) content?

If not, what do you think is the issue?

Nah, they're not paid to care.

With my backlog and a wishlist over a hundred games long I don't really follow new releases much or the reviews. All I know is that this thread is almost certainly going to quickly devolve into quasi-political rants and general vitriol towards reviewers, journalists and media in general.

The random YouTube hobbyist reviewers whose gameplay and "Should I buy?" videos I sample and skim through usually do a well enough job of it. Don't really care for anything else. ;)

It's a tricky one, but...here we go!

So most Middle Market titles fall foul of reviewers the same way a lot of eurojank tends to. Both share a similar market space, both fall victim to similar criticisms from the press...which by default is coming from a Western (American mostly) lens. Even the likes of Eurogamer pretty much review stuff from the American lense.

The Western press value production more than anything. Concepts are often overlooked in favour of anything shiny. This ignorance towards concepts tends to be where the average to below-average scores come from. Additionally, the mainstream press tends to have little to no interest in niche titles outside of their direct interest. E.g. the criticisms of Kingdome Come Deliverance not being 'accessible' even though the game tells you how each mechanic works. Simply picking up and playing is a vital aspect of the most review process, even if that means overlooking a concept or a goal a game is trying to achieve.

You'll rarely see much coverage of things in the same areas as Squad, Escape From Tarkov for these reasons...unless it's to blindly cause some issue around the game's content or the like.

When it boils down to it, most review outlets simply don't know what to make of the middle market. They're conditioned and brought up on a diet of Triple-A or indie (and even then their indie titles tend to fall into a similar field).

This is why it's important to bring on a diverse collection of writers from different perspectives and knowledge. Someone who has played a lot of Euro Jank tends to value concepts and ideas over flashy visuals. Those people will dig past some rough-looking textures to identify the real meat and bones of the game.

A problem the game's media suffer from (as well as Twitch/Youtube at the top end) is its all pretty much the similar voices saying the similar thing. It's like giving someone who enjoys Katy Perry albums a Venom album to review and expecting something nuanced and detailed.

I don't think the 'they were paid to say this is really a thing for the most part, but the poor range of voices and experiences is most certainly an issue.

Plus, hyperbole is hot. No one cares for the measured response to things, it's all about going big, loud and proud...even if you lack the detail, attention or care.



Ultimately, we have so many resources at our fingertips when it comes to info on new releases. Your best off taking a sample of everything, but always with a pinch of salt. Just don't trust anyone who wants to review a FPS and can't tell the difference between Doom, Quake and Half-Lifes positions in history!

What's "eurojank"?

A type of concrete.

Eurojank refers to games that tend to use unconventional game mechanics and gameplay that result in innovative approaches not common in mainstream game development... but are usually very clunky and/or rather non impressive in the graphics department.

These kind of games where mostly common in eastern European countries, which gave them the name eurojank. Made in Europe and being a bit janky.

Huh. All these years, and I don't think I've ever heard that term before. Ah well, I guess we learn something every day.

Watch this video and you know everything about slavjank too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMzAjixbXMk

Subcategory - asphalt (see: roads)

I like reviews, but I know my taste for games and I will buy a game despite bad reviews when I know I will like it.

Seems to much of assumptions going on here, at least it is a different kind of cake then " name your favorite hentai girl " line of questioning though.... maybe.. not by much

The whole category of AA games in its self is maybe hard to define by them selves, could those solely be judged by their entry price? ranging from 14 to 33 euro's? and who are the reviewers you mention? opencritics? as a general site? The renowned British papers such as PCGAMER or RockPaper&Shotgun, niche for niche by StrategyGamer or heavensforbid, EXPLORMILATER ;;DD or the hard working consumers rating high content games after 30 mins of play

I feel so confused already only by partially exploring the mixed set of feelings your question calls forth. I would implore you not to stray to far from your usual routine

dear regards

A concerned forumist

Not always. For example:
* Niche games often end up being reviewed by someone who is not a fan of them, and end up docking the game for things that I am explicitly looking for in a game. For example, an RPG might get a poor review due to lack of a significant story (something they wouldn't do with, say, an FPS or a Mario game).
* Experimental games, like the original SaGa Frontier, end up with getting bad reviews, even if they are in fact good games. (SaGa Frontier was produced by an AAA game developer, but the game feels more like an indie game in terms of how experimental it was; people were expecting another Final Fantasy 7 and that's definitely not what they got.)
* There's also, of course, the occasional mistake in a review. I remember reading a review of Final Fantasy Legend (English version of SaGa 1), and the reviewer docked points for the game not having save anywhere, which would be fine, except for the fact that the game *does* have save anywhere. First time I've seen that term.

This term actually makes me think of the SaGa series, even though that series comes from Japan and is from a developer that makes AAA games. (Also, the SaGa games actually do tend to have good graphics for their time; compare Romancing SaGa 3's graphics (SFC version) to those of Dragon Quest 6 (SFC version), Chrono Trigger, and Trials of Mana (SFC version), so there's that difference. On the other hand, I don't think Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song's graphics are as good as Dragon Quest 8's.)

Well, I could mention the PS2 open-world post-apocalyptic JRPG Metal Saga (no relation to the SaGa series) as possibly a better example here; some interesting ideas, but has a lot of what could be described as jank.

What about games that aren't priced en euros, but use different currencies?

Also, I would argue that NISA's releases are AA rather than AAA, and yet they can be more expensive (my most recent NISA purchase has a base price of $50, though it at least does include two substantial games).

Here is a video on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSoNFAAYIdM Here is a video on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSoNFAAYIdM