Criticise game

>Criticise game
>i'd like to see you do better!

Attached: 1491902021901.jpg (562x588, 60K)

Other urls found in this thread:

christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/pc-mac/6748-kingdom-come-deliverance-pc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Ok I will, now gimme a loan of about 25 million

The worst fucking argument in the history of arguments.

Vladimira

>you're just being entitled

Attached: 1522208469492.jpg (495x362, 17K)

>Hey here's my opinions on why I think this game isn't very good
>BAIT BAIT MOMMY SOMEONE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN ME BAIT BAIT!
If you do this, kill yourself.

Attached: advice.jpg (722x832, 127K)

You gotta have ground to back your claim fag. Or you want to be another complaining shitter?

Literally everyone who defends the Mods

I don't like this image.

as long as you don't confuse criticism with being an edgy faggot making personal attacks

I can't cook but I still know when your food tastes like shit.

>You should just be grateful the devs gave you this at all

But you're unable to cook better food; that's the problem wtih people that thinks too high of themselves.

Every fucking time I say I don't like kirby or zelda

I was not put here to outdo you but you were put here to feed me. I have no obligations. Also
>Food analogy

In what way do you say it
>i don't like it because *reasons
or
>its bad and your taste is bad

Have you tried both kinds of Zelda?

Only good zelda is 2

Food analogies are pretty accurate imo. On topic, when someone is critical of a game, they're most, if not all the time, faggots who try for the raging to be accepted.

If you're shitting on something at least must have a grasp of the topic, which is hardly the case. Healthy critisism can be found all the time despite some millenials and contrarian faggotry.

>Faggots who manned up and made games are shitty indie devs Steam tier.

The thing is, in a free market, you earn my dollar. Ever heard of "the customer is always right?" Thats because if I give you my money, and you give me back bullshit, or just something I don't like, I just won't give you my money next time. The game industry is the only one that has the gall to call its consumers "entitled" for criticizing them.

Unfortunately, this also can lead to stagnation of the industry, as products tend to be developed on the "safe" side and implement tried and tired mechanics over and over in yearly iterations in lieu oftaking any chances so they can make their bottom line and please their shareholders. But, I still think it's better than any other system, we still have cult followings that establish niche and interesting devs like Yoko Taro and Platinum.

who is this fluid druid?

>Its popular so it's good and you're wrong

And that's a good thing

>Implying they paid/bought/played said product
You're wrong, most of the critisism is to older games whereas their issues are known.

Also the customers don't know shit about the products or their making, just buy it by desire if they found it worth of the money or reason like manufacturing quality. Your first proposition, I think, falls flat.

>Not being an informed customer.

A tranny and a madman put through like 10 million photoshop filters in order to actually look good.

Almost all criticism basically boils down to "it doesn't meet my expectations and/or suit my tastes", with the implication that what they SHOULD have done was made a game catered to your own personal tastes. This is entitlement.

Vladimir Cutin

I think this is the argument I found the most autistic

user, I'd like to see you do better. I know you have it in you. You just have to believe.

>game is completely different from the trailer and disappointed everyone except an extremely vocal minority
>well, it's better than nothing!

Attached: team rocket togepi.jpg (1280x720, 95K)

Its because they know you will come back for more and even with "the customer is always right" you have to be a customer and not recieving free games to review. Assuming if that happens and even then one costomer doesnt speak for all costomers.

>"This is bad level design"
>Only complains of why he didn't like it or why he could beat the game/having troubles.

Attached: 1449375072865.jpg (855x720, 79K)

You deserve better user. Never forget that.

Thanks Conman!

>I don't like this greedy business practice
>the multi-billion dollar gaming companies need to make a living, they have to make a profit somehow! they're just barely scraping by if they don't charge for texture packs and online services they used to offer for free!

Attached: 1478235794683.jpg (960x960, 592K)

>criticize a F2P game for its flaws
>"Why the hell are you complaining if you didn't even pay for this game?"

Kek why does he looks like Sing Sing

>this is blatantly p2w
>devs need to make money to survive!
>conveniently ignoring the gorillions of dollars tf2 and dota2 make thru only cosmetics

Attached: 8.jpg (366x380, 18K)

>"Piracy deprives the devs from a buy"
>"Devs won't get paid because of it"

Attached: 1521782311762.png (212x322, 83K)

This is the stupidest thing I've read today.

>criticize a game you paid for
>you're just being entitled

>Our game needs microtransactions, because its not like we spent 70% of our budget to advertising, and VAs who are shit at their job.

Too many people view criticism, constructive or not, as an attack on themselves. They can't handle it, so they lash out. It's too bad, because any remotely creative person that doesn't have paper thin skin knows criticism is far more useful than praise.

But it sold well
But it's GOTY
But it's 90+ on metacritic

it's MOSTLY for indie games that people pull of that argument:
>it was a one man team
>they did it with a small budget
>he did it in his spare time

Rarely (not completely) do I see people tell you to make a better game than what a profesional team with many resources can. But with indie games people can get VERY defensive, and always pull the "I'd like to see you do better" card.

What the fuck is tiger tail icecream?

>"It's dead! HAhA suck it other FGfags"
>Puts viewers chart from twitch

Attached: 1449194637953.jpg (322x357, 20K)

If you point out all of the game's flaws and tell exactly how you would've fixed them it would already be as if you made your own better game, but only in theory.

Whos that chick? Shes hot. Sauce?

Attached: bbe8720a294fad6aa248fd98c05154fb--fat-pug-funny-pugs.jpg (441x400, 24K)

Why does do people treat metacritic's word as gospel?

I wish we could go back to the times where these piece of shit rewievers were legit people, the magazine times.

Shilling and fanboying existed even back then, but at least they could back it up.

the appeal to authority fallacy at work

>Almost all criticism basically boils down to "it doesn't meet my expectations and/or suit my tastes"
No. To criticize is to judge the merits and flaws of something. To dismiss something as bad because it doesn't appeal to them is just an ignorant insult. People conflate critiques with insults far too often. They don't like to accept or become aware of the flaws in something they enjoyed. What's worse, they often take it as a personal offense and bend over backwards to defend against it. To offhandedly dismiss criticism and only accept praise is to embrace stagnation.
Also, failing to meet expectations =/= failing to suit ones tastes

>criticize game
>"I'd like to see you do better!"
>make own game
>do better
>sell millions of copies

Attached: 1518479672184.jpg (147x201, 7K)

>criticize game
>"Have you ever made a game?"
>"Everybody who has these complaints are literal children, so I can't be too mad."
>"It's literally free dessert. Have you ever made food?"

I want to fuck putina

Came here to post this one. What kind of thinking is behind that logic? Do they think the devs are just their friends and they need to defend them? Too insecure and they feel like they're below the devs and they can't handle anyone else not feeling the same way?

A cocksucker's logic.

Problem is review sites know just how obsessive fans will respond to their hyped game/series getting a poor review (which nowadays means anything less than 8) and feel the need to pander to them or risk losing that audience. Reviewers also only have a limited amount of time to play through each game, which often leads to only initial impressions rather than full fledged, comprehensive reviews.

Because it's an aggregate of all the reviews and the best metric we have. That's not to say it fixes the underlying flaws of reviews, just that it's the best we have because it at least tallies up and averages those reviews equally, whether they're good or bad.

>criticise game
>people defend it by posting viewer count on twitch

>Do they think the devs are just their friends and they need to defend them?
>Too insecure they can't handle anyone else not feeling the same way?
Pretty much.

The president of the russian federation

Well if the dear "reviewer" is a piece of shit journalist who got his marxist and women's studies degree who doesn't even play video games, then its pretty much his/her/xir's opinion has as much weight as a single feather.

It's simultaneously appeal to authority and ad populum, so that's doubly compelling

This. I could do better if I wasn't dirt poor college student.

Not just the fan's reaction, but if you give the big AAA game a 6 you might not be getting a review copy of their next game. If you don't get a review copy you won't be able to get a day one review out. If you don't get a day one review out you're missing the majority of clicks and getting less ad revenue. If you continue this trend you lose your dedicated userbase to the sites that will give every game an 8 and therefor be able to consistently release day one reviews.

more like president of my heart

>you don't have enough hours in this game to criticize it
>you played it that long and now you decide you don't like it!?

Attached: b.jpg (423x287, 76K)

What a shitty argument. I'm with you OP.

And then you reach the source of the assclownery that goes on within games journalism. They might not be paying them money but commercial journalists ARE being rewarded for high scores. Which completely flies in the face of what journalism is supposed to be. Because how can someone give an objective review when they're being bankrolled by the person they're reviewing?

>Say on Sup Forums that you like a game and you'd like to talk about it
>"Shill!"

Attached: 1493939035941.jpg (635x466, 85K)

>>Say on Sup Forums that you don't like a game and you'd like to talk about it
>"Contrarian"

>Because it's an aggregate of all the reviews and the best metric we have.
It's the least useful part of a game review separated from the person who made the review.
A game review is useful when you know who made it and they have consistent tastes and opinions because you can approximate your own tastes by seeing how other games you played fared in their eyes and then extrapolate based on that.

Metacritic is still just weighted and averaged opinions and is fairly heftily swayed by subjective factors. Games that came before, the status of the franchise/publisher/devs, the platform it is released on, the specific type of game being reviewed (Some games are just better reviewer games than others), the possibility of contrarians and fanboys and of course the need to give all but atrocious games a safe score.
It is the only metric that you have but it is a bad metric, it's like if you had no thermometers and just kind of had to ask a bunch of random people who only stayed outside for 15 minutes how hot or cold it is and then sort of arrive at a consensus based on that independent of what the people are wearing, what season it is, what the specific weather conditions are and what they are used to as well as whether or not they could be lying or have some kind of medical condition. It would be absolutely terrible.

i hate these fucking braindead hypocritical idiots
as if they've never had a complaint or criticism with anything in their entire lives

>Disrespecting our President
Would you like some novichok-infused flavour with your next cup of coffee at your favorite local cafe next time you go there?

Attached: 19109_original.jpg (467x335, 50K)

>it's some obscure game that just shows up on steams popular sales and you just want to know if it's any good
>meanwhile, ubisoft pays for the 8th fucking thread on the catalog to spam their newest piece of garbage

The sooner the better

Attached: 13532582.jpg (340x291, 28K)

>go to game review website
>turn off adblock
>whole website is suddenly decked out in custom-made for the site ad for upcoming game that wraps around every bit of content
Gee I wonder if they'd have any incentive for staying on good terms with the company that paid out the ass for this to happen.

>That was our first look at GAM3. Come back next month for the full review
>Says the reviewer currently wearing a GAM3 shirt with GAM3 merchandise strewn in the background

No really the review will be objective. Trust me.

>everyone parrots misinformed YouTube video
>any dissent is hating on based X

Attached: displeasedmegamanavatar.jpg (551x596, 171K)

>turn off adblock

user, you only have yourself to blame. Why do you think you had adblock in the first place?

Attached: Gravel_Poot.jpg (335x188, 9K)

Say no more.

Attached: 3177.jpg (300x300, 23K)

>Youtube video states the obvious
>Suddenly arguments that have always been used are cancerous e-celeb bullshit

>objective
But user. Objectivity is a myth, so I don't have to even try to be objective.

Attached: top keplek.png (721x472, 65K)

That's ridiculous. Only inmature zillenials believe objectivity is a myth.

>people who are ruled by theirs and others emotions believe objectivity doesn't exist
big mmm...

No reviews are "objective", they're subjective by nature. I think the word you're looking for is unbiased.

You can't be truly objective about a game review outside of the obvious reporting of how well it performs (Which still depends on your machine). You will naturally find certain things fun, engaging and enjoyable that others will not. Some things will be novel to you that will be stale for others. Some things will easy/difficult for you that others may find difficult/easy.
Even the act of replaying an older game may lead to you discovering that your opinion on it has changed over time.
Even the idea that you could go into a game unbiased is quite untenable as you will likely have expectations for it not matter what you do.

Sure, but everyone has their own tastes and opinions involving different reviewers. You might like one guy, but someone else could hate them. Metacritic brings everyone together, whether they like it or not. That's why people cite metacritic over their favorite reviewers. They know exactly what will happen if they use their reviewer of choice in an argument. Remember, this isn't about deciding what game you'll enjoy, its about why people treat metacritic as "gospel".
In an ideal world, metacritic would be fine. Unfortunately, the foundation its built off of is rotten. Even then, you'll never have anything even close to universally accurate or truly factual regarding subjective opinions on creative works.

>Games age
No. I understand your point. Fairly accurate to some extent. Yet, I have to disagree.

>Not being able to go outside your comfort zone
>Not being able to be se further and enjoy anything.
>Not being comprensive about it at the same time.

Apparently is too hard to recognize good things on games one particularly is not fond of.

You can't be perfect, but you can do better.
For example Christ Centered Gamer is a heavily biased review site. They wear their bias on their sleeve. But while they may say "hey this game has NAUGHTY INFLUENCES" they'll also say "but the gameplay is good".

Just check out their KC:D review.
christcenteredgamer.com/index.php/reviews/pc-mac/6748-kingdom-come-deliverance-pc
10% morality score, and 90% game score. Polygon would never be willing to give such high praises to a game that is so against their morals.

>niche and interesting devs like Yoko Taro and Platinum.

Attached: 1428121532002.gif (254x275, 1.68M)

>Tiger tail ice cream (also simply called tiger tail, or tiger tiger ) is orange-flavoured ice cream with black licorice swirl. It is said to be popular in some small parts of Canada, and not often found elsewhere

He's upset because he can't believe his mother could have such shit taste.

is that Bad Vlad?

nice bait haha

Wtf, Putin is a cute girl?

What fucKing relationship is this? You have limited time so you have to pick something. Just because you have feelings doesn't mean they have to be expressed in your work either? Is this out current generation? Seriously?