Exposing BIAS in Game Review Scores

To be fair, if you're calling a spongebob game punishing, then it's literally a skill issue.

What's really stupid is when you actually get a journalist to actually review a Video game in a genre they don't like or don't understand.

I remember IGN giving Alien Isolation a bad score because, wait for it, the Xenomorph A.I was too good and made the game too hard...

I like the fact that you actually took the time to compile data to show a trend instead of just using specific examples👍

Surprising, games that mimic movies excel in a rating system mimicking that of the movie ratings

I also hate the way that numbers in reviews have been ruined. A 6/10 to me means: "this is a slightly above average game that has issues but I overall still had a positive experience". But a 6 from a game journalist is basically "I didn't like it"

I remember the Game Informer magazines back in the day would list the genres of games the reviewer specializes in. I think that would be a good change of pace. Also, there shouldn't be this rush to finish the review as soon as possible. That seems to be the biggest quality killer.

If I remember right, there was a journalist review of Fire Emblem: Three Houses that complained that the game was too easy after saying that they did only one play through on the easiest possible difficulty…

One of my favorite moments of reviewers outing themselves was when someone (in ign iirc) said Devil May Cry 5's music was almost nonexistant. The game has a dynamic soundtrack, so depending on how good you are in combat, depends on how much of the actual track you will hear

As a child, one of the things I loved about EGM magazine was that they had 4 reviewers review every game and they made it very clear not only what games they were currently enjoying, but also what genres of games they enjoy the most. It was very helpful in determining which reviewer weighed the features of said game more closely to the reader. I'm not sure if such a system is sustainable in today's saturated and time-devoid landscape, but I do think that review sites need to be more open in regards to what the reviewers preferences are.

That's one reason they tried to remove the dislike button, cause they could see how many people actually disagreed with it.

that Spongebob clip is legit painful

In a nutshell: Video Game critics ARE NOT gamers, they are just a bunch of out-of-touch young adults that just finished their mediocre journalism degree and spend 90% of their free time on Twitter and/or Reddit.

I remember that critic who couldn't even pass the tutorial of Cuphead and gave the game a horrible note

Big sites really need to assign specific people to specific types of games. Yahtzee works for a journal, but he has his own show and seems to be rather consistent, so one can know what to expect from him. Same cannot be said for those faceless names in IGN or PCgamer.

i started ignoring critics when they started bashing alice madness returns and rules of rose. man i wish games like that were still around. as a young teen girl i related a lot to both. they were dark and edgy but still had female protagonists going thru trauma

The problem is that these "games" journalists don't actually play games all that much. My trust in those died when IGN which is suppose to be the premier reviewer uploaded their doom playthrough, cuphead tutorial moment, and the most recent Redfall gameplay. They aren't gamers, they're writers. These are the people who will give the latest NBA, fifa, or call of duty a 9 out of 10 then turn around and give a hat in time or transistor a 6 maybe 7.

IGN gave one of the best combat games of all time God hand a 3 out of 10

lets not forget journalists use their positions in the media to basically secure themselves jobs at game studios

Its amazing how good graphics, voice acting, and soundtrack can convince people flaming dog crap is a 10/10.