I got a call yesterday from senior editor and my friend Nathan Stevens. He said he wanted my opinion on his L.A. Noire review because folks had commented on it, some of which were less than positive about his writing and his very positive score, a 10/10. In short, the comments brought up the issue of controls (saying the game sports a simple port from the GTA4 scheme) and others simply said that no game is perfect, and does not deserve a 100% (very quickly I would just like to say that a 10 does not mean “perfect,” but rather “superb”). Nathan retorted, stating that while he agreed that there is “always room for improvement,” he honestly could not come up with something bad to say about the game when he wrote the review. He gave his honest, independent opinion on a title that is getting much critical appraise from many other publications. One only needs to go to MetaCritic.com to see that our site is not the only one listed with the “100” green square.
After reading it, I called him up and told him my thoughts. Sure, it may have gushed a little on some points in the game, but if the creators get something right, then it should be noted just as quickly as a mistake would be. But after looking at the aforementioned scores on MetaCriticI saw that the divide between critic and user was really far apart, considering. While the average score from opinion’s “in the industry” is 90/100, the user score is a modest 76/100. Initially I thought well, perhaps this game will be like the low budget survival horror title Deadly Premonition. Many critics hailed the game for being the B-movie equivalent of survival horror games, one that pays homage and pokes fun at the quirky conventions of the genre as a whole and had a relatively cheap price tag to boot. But many gamers didn’t feel as “lenient” about the title, citing that just because you know something is a piece of crap doesn’t mean it shouldn’t face the same level of retribution for being bad. And I have to say that I can completely see where someone could come to that conclusion. But when I was looking at other games to compare scores, I started seeing a trend that is counter-intuitive to the status quo in terms of the opinions about games.
Generally speaking, the opinions/reviews from critics are usually worse or lower than that of the average player, watcher, consumer, etc. For example, the website Internet Movie Database (IMDb.com) has a star rating composed of some critics, but it’s mostly from the users on the site. Recently, they have also listed the critic’s score from MetaCritic (if applicable) that often features write-ups from film vets like Roger Ebert and Peter Travers. The recently released Fast Five has an IMDb rating of 7.7/10 while the MetaCritic score is 67/100. Same with Sucker Punch, IMDb: 6.6/10, MetaCritc: 33/100. Now, I understand that movies and games are different in many obvious ways, like a film usually only being a two hour experience and a game is much longer and much more engaging (for the most part). But the main disparity is price. A movie ticket is usually about $10 (although it is higher in large cities) or at worst the Blu-ray copy can retail $30. So, while the average movie-goer might say “hey it wasn’t that bad, and for a $10 spot and something to do on a Friday night, give it a shot,” critics usually stick to their guns and give their honest (albeit sometimes jaded) outlook, cheap price be damned. And historically, the same rating dichotomy could be said about games, but this is starting to shift.
Again, I return to yesterday afternoon, and I happen to scroll down the page to see other recent reviews to find other instances of “Critic-high, User-low” ratings. At first I thought I would struggle to find any, but within a few seconds I was firmly shocked by what I was reading. Let me run over a few. Average score on MetaCritic from “inside the industry”: Mortal Kombat – 84, Brink – 71, Portal 2 – 95. Average score on MetaCritic from the “users”: Mortal Kombat – 81, Brink – 65, Portal 2 – 79. WHAT! Folks, Portal 2 is going to contend for Game of the Year on almost every gaming publication’s, cable television channel’s, and website’s year end honors. So, for there to be a 16 point disparity between the critic and “average” gamer, with the gamer being the less of the two numbers, was rather astonishing to me. While I was sitting and pondering over this obvious “buck in the trend,” I had a thought that inspired this piece in the first place.
Most of you probably know a kid (or even teen) like this: someone who will only eat one thing. No matter what feast/buffet/smorgasbord that is laid out in front of them on Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, 4th of July, random weekend, what have you, they’ll say “no, I just want Hot Pockets.” “No, I don’t want anything else, I want a Hot Pocket.” “LOOK, I KNOW WHAT I LIKE, AND THAT’S ONLY HOT POCKETS!!!!!!” I understand that I’m comparing grown people to children and adolescents for some of you, but for the sake of argument stay with me. It’s almost as if, more and more, gamers are falling victim to this unfortunate outlook upon the games they play. If its not Call of Duty, or Madden, or Call of Duty, then it must not be worth playing. No thanks, I can’t keep a 30 year Dynasty going, rush for 3,200 yards in a fictional NFL season (which may be the only pro football we get this year, on the real), or be in the top 100 gamers in the world. No thanks, I can’t prestige, use my pro perks, shout at “noobs” for being horrible teammates, and watch myself on Final Killcam after Final Killcam for being awesome. Sorry for my sarcasm, but this is the way, I believe, many gamers are starting to think. And it shows in the scores they are giving on some sites like MetaCritic. Noire also has “high to low” rating, 90/100 compared to 76/100. It could be said that Rockstar pulled a “bait and switch” of sorts considering that most of us probably believed this was the king of sandbox game’s attempt to challenge the surprisingly good Mafia II by 2K. But this game is not that experience in the least, with you playing a character on the right side of the law and much less of an emphasis on all out gun fighting for more calculated, “investigative” work. But just because it’s different, does that alone make it “lack-luster”? Sure, it might feature the same simple, sometimes clunky driving and fighting/shooting mechanics as most other Rockstar sandbox games, but that was good enough to make us connect and love playing with characters like Tommy Vercetti and play ghetto paratrooper over the skyline of San Andreas. And the same favorable feelings were offered to the more recent GTA4. So, over the time between the release of that title and Noire, it seems that some gamers have become impatient with anything that doesn’t fit into their predetermined “mold.” Of which, any “worthwhile” experience must fit. Anything different that may take some risks, or doesn’t feature run-and-gun “Rambo” action at every single second just can’t be as good as the critics say. I’m not sure that’s necessarily correct.
Don’t get me wrong. I am in no way, shape, or form saying that anyone’s opinion is better or worse than someone else’s. I, myself, have only been doing this critic thing since September of last year and I do not think I am above anyone else in terms of being a gamer or movie lover. But, I think that more and more people keep closing themselves off to great experiences just because it’s a new, fresh idea. I guess I am being so adamant about this thought because my favorite genre is shooters. My $60 went to MW, Black Ops, Halo 3, Reach, GoW2, ect. as quickly as anyone else’s hard earned money. But that doesn’t prevent me from enjoying other types of games. My last review was of the awesome Mortal Kombat. And even though approximately 60% of my library is FPS and TPS, I also love fighting games. And the way that WBIE and NRS were able to combine serious fighting game characteristics with classic MK heritage was the reason I gave it a 9.4. Now, is it as deep or lengthy as a campaign driven shooter with a huge online community, or an RPG with 60+ hours of gameplay? No. But, for a fighting game, is it fun, fast, addictive, hard to master, and surprisingly deep? Definitely. It’s not my favorite game and I would rather play other things most of the time. But it would be unfair to rigidly and extensively compare it to anything outside of other fighting games. To directly set MK side by side with anything else would be the proverbial “apples and oranges.” In the way that fighting games go, it’s great, but it probably doesn’t have the weight to be up for Game of the Year, and that’s okay. I’m sure the creators are more than pleased with it being on the short list for Fighting Game of the Year.
Sorry this is so long, but it’s my honest opinion and I’m writing this in the hopes that it will stir some respectful, but spirited debate. Thanks for reading.
