Living up to the Hype - your insights into the last two years of video games.

[SymphonicX]

Hey all I've been reading a LOT of threads on here, and everywhere else, about games that simply don't live up to their hype. It's not exactly a new phenomenom - its been happening since before the days of Sonic 2 (remember how hyped that was?). But recently, over the last few years, we've seen a phenomenom far removed from anything we've seen before in video game media - the perfect 10.0 score. Now if you cast your minds back to the days of Sonic 2 - one of the most overhyped games of our generation, that game only scored 87% in the OFFICIAL sega magazine....When Street Fighter 2 Turbo was FINALLY ported to the Megadrive/Genesis, it only scored 97%. At the time, that was the highest ever score awarded to a game by the mainstream video game media - it lost points because the voice sounds were a bit crackly and poor. So back in the days of old it felt far more objective, far more honest. No game could reach 10.0 or 100% because frankly, nothing can be perfect, and perfection is subjective anyway. Fast forward to today's climate and things have changed. With the advent of GTA4 we saw what I can only remember as the first perfect 10.0 score. Now whether you love it, or hate it, something should be clear to all of us - it's NOT perfect. You may think it a great game, fair enough - but to say it is flawless, to say that there isn't ONE single solitary thing in it that narks a player, or causes a bug, or has a bad gameplay mechanic of some sort, is quite obviously a fallacy. Forward further down the line and this seemed to have paved the way for other games to recieve the perfect 10.0 score - even whilst the reviews themselves are highlighting inconsistencies in the games story, mechanics, etc etc - they are still calling these games the best games ever made. Take CODMW2 - we've all been through this one many times. Campaign is woefully short (although good) and the multiplayer is only fun to those who enjoy that sort of thing. They sold us out on the co-op mode and they sold us out on the selection of maps and map packs. The packaging was more fun and lasted longer than the game. Whether you loved it or not - to call a game with a badly neglected single player campaign "perfect" is beyond offensive. It's worse than cannibalism. To me, for a game to score a perfect 10.0, it would have to do the impossible. It would have to incorporate every single playing style and genre of game perfectly, the graphics should be flawless for the system's capabilities and there shouldn't be one single bug or glitch in the whole experience. What kind of a game could achieve that without being a massive abortion is beyond me - its too broad. Scoring the 10.0 or 100% score instantly strikes suspicion with me. I'm pretty sure the era of backhanders and whatnot has come full force to the gaming media industry and as a result it seems the only real trustable opinions on this subject come from you guys and other internet users. A real shame.

[MinionZombie]

I played the nuts off GTA IV, and I really dug the game - but yeah, it's NOT perfect. Perfect scores for games are crooked as all get out. I got somewhere close to 200 hours of play time out of GTA IV (and the "Episodes" expansions), but it wasn't perfect. I had a lot of fun and drama out of CODMW2, but the hype around it was retarded and actually damaged my first play through, and again, it's not perfect. The single player is, as you say, stupidly short (although I've played it through four times to date) ... for me it was also the quality of the script. There are whopping plot holes in it. In fact, this goes beyond that and into this whole Multiplayer thing - take the new Medal of Honor as an example - of the videos going online, only a handful have been to do with the single player. They're OBSESSED with multiplayer - just like with the COD games (again, same thing - barely any single player videos, it's all about multiplayer retardation) - and it does my nut in. People have complained recently about Mafia 2 not having multiplayer as well - WHY does every game need multiplayer?! These same people would be (and no doubt are) the ones moaning about a game not bringing anything new to the multiplayer platform ... feckin' eejits.

[SymphonicX]

That's exactly right and the focus on multiplayer has damaged the industry to no end. Back in days of old the multiplayer was a nice addition - but you bought a game for it's single player content. Not everyone has online capabilities and not everyone wants to play online (MW2 is for me the worst online game I own) and to shirk off those who want a nice single player experience is shortchanging us at best. Certain games, like L4D, I can understand having a focus on multiplayer - but your average FPS nowdays tacks on the single player experience as though it's an obligation rather than a selling point. And any game that does that instantly loses ponts in my book.

[bassman]

Games are being over hyped just like they do with movies. It's no longer about giving an honest review, but boosting anticipation in an attempt to gain more audiences. And I wouldn't be surprised if most gaming sites get a kick back for giving great or perfect scores. Par for the course, I suppose. I can't remember the last game I played that got a perfect 10(probably GTAIV), but the last two highly anticipated games lived up to their hype, imo. RDR and Batman:Arkham Asylum. They had their minor flaws, but the experience of the game actually lived up to the anticipation and hype built around the marketing. Hell....RDR may have gotten a 10, but I can't remember.

[Tricky]

I dont think any game will ever deserve a 100% score, because technology & gameplay are evolving all the time so after years have passed, a game that scored 100% will need its score knocking down significantly because it lacks features newer games have introduced. I havent played GTA 4 so I cant comment on whether it deserves the score it got (I've avoided the PC version as I heard a few horror stories about the installation DRM) but one day I'll give it a go!

[MinionZombie]

Remember when Kane & Lynch: Dead Men came out and some guy gave it a suitably stinky review and got fired for it as the K&L lot were pissed off? Shameful, frankly.

[Danny]

This is something i've put off writing an article on my blog for for a very long time because it should be stating the obvious, 10/10 or 100% is perfection and cannot be improved and has no faults. that game does not exist. reviews should only ever be an opinionated guideline to impress wether the reviewers experience was a positive or negative one. Trouble is the review industry is crooked. look at kayne and lynch or tomb raider underworld. either hold off on low reviews until after the game is released or don't get review copys for being honest. be honest and lose your job like gerstman or company support like egm did with the likes of midway for not swallowing the industry cock and give every mortal combat game a 7 just for making its shipping date. hell, famitsu is famously crooked, giving the highest scores to whatever is paying for the most in magazine advertising that month.

[bassman]

...and give every mortal combat game a 7 just for making its shipping date. Shit, man. With what seems like EVERY game being pushed back further and further these days, they should give extra points to a game that makes it on time. You can't really trust release dates until they're about two weeks out. Even then they still might pull the rug out from under you and push it back another six months.

[AcesandEights]

Take CODMW2 - we've all been through this one many times. Campaign is woefully short (although good) and the multiplayer is only fun to those who enjoy that sort of thing. They sold us out on the co-op mode and they sold us out on the selection of maps and map packs. The packaging was more fun and lasted longer than the game. Whether you loved it or not - to call a game with a badly neglected single player campaign "perfect" is beyond offensive. I really enjoyed my time with CODMW2 (though I took a break and never went back for the additional map packs) and I do not hate on it like so many seem to do, however you have hit the nail on the head with your above statements. I definitely agree there is some bed-sharing going on between the media outlets that feed off the industry and the producers and that's what's leading to the ridiculous hype. It's worse than cannibalism. Wellllll, I don't know how to respond to that

[AcesandEights]

You can't really trust release dates until they're about two weeks out. Even then they still might pull the rug out from under you and push it back another six months. This I don't care so much about, to be honest. I'd rather have a more polished game than the even buggier one we'd otherwise receive (and god knows what we get is bad enough at release all too often). Couple that with the need to deliver on multiple platforms (for a lot of games, anyway) across multiple markets in some accordance with the dates put out by the requisite marketing campaigns that help push these games on people and it's a pretty natural outcome.

[Danny]

Shit, man. With what seems like EVERY game being pushed back further and further these days, they should give extra points to a game that makes it on time. You can't really trust release dates until they're about two weeks out. Even then they still might pull the rug out from under you and push it back another six months. *psst* that's too make sure it works.

[bassman]

*psst* that's too make sure it works. *psst* Set a reasonable release date from the start and this wouldn't be a problem. Instead, they set a premature date without having any idea if it will be done in time. It's like Hollywood setting release dates for films because that's when the product tie-ins will be released. How about focus on the important things first?

[Danny]

*psst* Set a reasonable release date from the start and this wouldn't be a problem. Instead, they set a premature date without having any idea if it will be done in time. It's like Hollywood setting release dates for films because that's when the product tie-ins will be released. How about focus on the important things first? correct, but thats what you get when you make something from scratch.

[darth los]

That's exactly right and the focus on multiplayer has damaged the industry to no end. Back in days of old the multiplayer was a nice addition - but you bought a game for it's single player content. Not everyone has online capabilities and not everyone wants to play online (MW2 is for me the worst online game I own) and to shirk off those who want a nice single player experience is shortchanging us at best. Certain games, like L4D, I can understand having a focus on multiplayer - but your average FPS nowdays tacks on the single player experience as though it's an obligation rather than a selling point. And any game that does that instantly loses ponts in my book. Here's 9 perfect scores alone. http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?t...c&official=all

[ProfessorChaos]

yeah, GTA was great, but it was not perfect by any means. there are so many areas in which san andreas is the better game (number of safe houses, character customization, vehicle modifications, better mini-games, etc) and MW2 is another example of an inflated score. i played the campaign once and was almost disgusted at how lazy and careless the writers behind the story got with some of their plot advancement techniques. the video game industry, as a whole, is altogether killing my gaming interest. between retailer-exclusive pre-order bonuses, never-ending barrages of over-priced DLC content, and a total lack of creativity (seriously, how many shitty FPS's are out there now? and sadly, most of them are either sequels or prequels), i'm really starting to play less and less. i've traded in or sold almost all of my 360 games, i've only got about 3 or 4 on my shelf. i spend most of my time on the 360 playing XBL titles. also picked up a wii recently, and that's been getting a lot more action lately due to the virtual console and all the classic games available, ya know, from when games were actually fun and engaging, rather than flashy graphics and explosions and stupid plot elements. sorry for the rant, not trying to get this thread too off-topic, but this seemed like a good place to vent about how much i think the gaming industry is run by a bunch of greedy assholes who only care about taking our money.