Games aren't worth re-reviewing for websites and magazines. They rarely if ever do that. Besides, if a game released good or bad at launch and then goes the opposite way, the player count usually reflects that and by that time, people are simply going based on word of mouth, how many people are playing the game and may look them up to see what content has been added and whatnot. But for websites and magazines where they're constantly reviewing new games, none of them are going to waste their time re-reviewing a game.
The bolded is actually not always true. WOM alone can only get a game so far even when the ship has been righted. There is so much traffic and noise on social media since that information is both free and both dispensable and providable by literally everyone, it's the simplest (but also "lowest") form of advertising and marketing.
The games that usually see strong WOM either have accompanying decent traditional advertising methods, or go viral with some big-time streamer or celebrity playing the game and exposing it to a huge new audience who then fuel the new growth via social media WOM. If your game has neither of those things going for it (and the latter of the two is completely uncontrollable and can't really be relied on), then the only perception the vast majority are going to have is what it was like at launch and that could be a false impression based on where the game actually is via post with patches.
I agree with you that due to the nature of click-based traffic, gaming websites more than likely won't re-review a game after it's come out. However that doesn't mean they're making the right decision, and there's probably a market for someone to do that if they're very good at it. Could also be argued that if reviewers actually made a habit of it more, they'd have more actual substantial content to report on and less time to engage in crappy clickbait, crappy rumors and crappy Twitter console war-baiting posts.
Majority of critics and reviewers don't like Ubisoft and rarely rate their games 80+. The last 90 was Far Cry 3 if I remember correctly. Ubisoft games are usually in that good (7 range) to great (8 range) area for vast majority of people. Some of their games score higher for me because im a Ubisoft guy and they're my favorite company but even then, if a game disappoints (Valhalla, WD Legion) I say so and if a game isn't worth playing (Breakpoint), I drop that shit and move on.
A lot of this is just your anecdotal perspective, though. I don't think a style of game that regularly lands 80+ MC means critics/reviewers hate them. Could there be fatigue in it for them, though? Possibly. But if that's the case, why not have some fresher perspectives come in to balance out more jaded reviews. Not everyone has eaten up/gotten overstuffed on open-world AAA games, myself for example, and I think reviews could be balanced a bit to reflect that.
The HFW being a Ubisoft structured game is how it's setup. Anyone who's played them should easily see this. They all have a set amount of bandit camps, random enemies/machines roaming around, side content that basically repeats throughout the game (like how many ruins or pyramids can you complete before realizing that the setup is the same). Even The WItcher 3 which was my PS4/XBO game of the generation has a Ubisoft style structure for it's open world. How many nests do I have to clear out? How many bandit camps do I have to clear out?
The structure in open world games are literally all the same but with different content meaning there's no "nests" in AC or HFW but they are in Days Gone. They all normally have a ton of bandit camps to clear out. The reason why is simple, what else can they do in an open world game to fill it out. The story/characters, setting, combat, etc. can all vary but the structure of how open world games is setup are all exactly the same. How many "points of interest" does there have to be in an open world game? Usually hundreds.
TBF, many of these same criticisms can be had for ANY style of game. Majority of FPS games on the market follow a standard, proven formula. Same with racing games, hero shooters, RTS games etc. You can't just list genre staples as a negative unless, again, you've over-indulged in that content and it's made you more jaded towards it or tired of consuming it. Both of which are at least partially on the gamer, not just the market providing certain types of content.
Your views on those open-world games can even be applied by a Souls fan towards Elden Ring, since that game is essentially the Souls formula but in an open world. You can say that there aren't that many Souls-like games on the market to where it feels saturated and that's 100% true, but what if you're that hardcore Souls player who has played nothing but Souls for 10 years and now you get something in Elden Ring which is basically more of the same with some slight differences? Can't you risk having the same feeling of burnout? I think realistically speaking, you could, so I don't know why it's more applicable to other types of open-world games or Ubisoft-style ones in particular.
That's what I mean when HFW is a Ubisoft style game because the open world structure is exactly setup like a Ubisoft open world game. I'm not bashing this as I do like them but at times, even I get bored going through an almost 100 hour open world game where im constantly doing the same shit over and over.
It may draw from that template but it's clearly not "exactly" like an Ubisoft open-world game. Just thematically speaking, Ubisoft's never done anything like HFW and probably never will. The story for HFW doesn't beat-for-beat match anything in Ubisoft's games, even if there may be some tropes in common but you can find similarities in tropes for almost all stories in any medium.
As for Elden Ring, if the reviewers were souls fans, it's no different than people here being Sony fans and giving their games high ratings because they're fans of those particular games and unless it's truly bad or broken, they will always score high. I do the same thing. I may be a little more critical based on my expectations for each individual game, meaning if my expectations are high, im far more critical than if my expectations are low. Reviewers are no different than us. They're just people and gamers. Only difference is that they're getting paid where as someone like me who's doing this stuff for my own personal reasons and self isn't.
Reviewers should be held to higher standards though because their job is to influence the purchasing habits of large swathes of the customer base, via recommending (or not) certain games to be purchased. I don't think being a fan of something precludes you from being honest in the work's flaws, and I know some ER reviews did that as well as HFW ones, same with people who like Sony games as per your example (most of them, anyway).
The problem with the reviews process as I see it, though, is that there aren't enough balanced perspectives when it comes to some games, some accreditation for certain review sites/channels etc. seem spotty, and aggregate sites like MC don't do enough to help ensure either of these things. If you have 10 our of 10 superfans reviewing Game A and it gets a 98 MC, but Game B only has 1 out of 10 superfans reviewing it and 5 out of 10 people not even into the genre, and it gets an 80 MC, how can you really say those MC scores are fair? There was very little constant between them and a LOT of wildly differing variables.
If aggregates like MC could ensure that every game had a minimum quota for total review submissions, a balanced mix of hardcore fans/casual fans/non-fans submitting the reviews, have some standards on what mix of objectivity/subjectivity a review should have, etc., then I think you'd have much better reviews across the board and more honest MC averages reflecting the game itself. Now, if said game is something clearly meant for just the hardcore fans, then you can have more "superfans" weigh the review average, if it's a game trying to expand to a new audience, have more non-fans (either of that IP or genre) weigh the review average (just make sure they are willing to give the game a fair shot to impress them), etc.
I haven't played Elden Ring nor will I ever because im not a souls guy. Most I played was about 10 hours of Bloodborne and that was more than enough. I did however complete Nioh but I needed save wizard on PS4 to do so. In general, Nioh had better combat and I liked the story/characters, setting and prefer a preset voiced protagonist than a silent created character. And even with Nioh, I simply wanted a "samurai" game to play while I was waiting for Tsushima.
Same, haven't gotten around to Elden Ring yet, but I plan to pick it up later in the year. I'm trying to avoid playing it on PS4 so hopefully I'll have a PS5 by the time I'm ready to pick it up.
I agree with you completely with the second paragraph but from what I understand about the review process. It all comes down to who's available to review the game and im pretty sure those who want to say review God of War Ragnarok or Elden Ring would put their request in to get the review code so they can play and review it because it's their type of game. Of course, this is just based on what I have read and seen others say over the years. I don't know 100% for certain how the review process works at sites and magazines. One thing is that when it comes to a certain genre, franchise or company, I do believe that they all get someone who is favored towards that when reviewing the game because they don't really want someone like me for example reviewing an Elden Ring because that shit would be like a 6/10 for me because it's of no interest to me and I see it as simply inferior to what I prefer to play.
Well I think in some ways the process could be better and more fair/balanced across the board. Again with getting favored people to do the reviews, I know that's publishers trying to mitigate risk on their part, but you don't just want a Yes Man or, if you get them, minimize their presence in the review pool as much as possible. Same with cutting out any people who have a clear negative bias toward your product (like what Stevivor was displaying with several Sony exclusives the past couple of years, hence them being blacklisted).
Back to Elden Ring for a minute, the one major issue I had with reviews was that the majority didn't complete the story campaign which in my opinion, is a must for me to take your review seriously. I have played games where the ending/final hours made the game better or worse so for the majority to not complete the game is disappointing but since they're souls fans and huge From Software fans, they're going to give it a pass.
Yeah, I also agree that if you're gonna do a review, at least complete the main campaign before doing the review. I know that could get difficult, and publishers need to work better with reviewers so they can get review copies a bit earlier, but it's probably a work-in-progress thing industry-wide.
I was told this wasn't a pure pony circlejerk site and that Xbox god gamers are welcome. Maybe a mod can clarify.
You're definitely welcome dude, the more the merrier. Just as long as threads don't break down/devolve into console warring nonsense, I don't see why Xbox & PlayStation (& Nintendo & PC) gamers can't have some respectable debates on facets of gaming. If we all agreed on everything it would get pretty boring.
I'm just more glad "other" stuff (politics, more or less) is absent. I just wanna talk games, none of that other crap.
