Is anyone else frustrated with game reviews and what seems to be a complete lack of understanding of video games?
*Cough* IGN *Cough* Gamespot.
There are First Person Shooters games being rated on their likeness to Call Of Duty, regardless of whether they are a shooter at heart (Mirror’s Edge or No Man’s Sky come to mind). By this logic diversity is frowned upon. Then there are RPGs being slandered for piggy-backing features from other games, or for having similarities in gameplay mechanics (Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning), so homogeneity is also shunned. Essentially, unless it’s an AAA game, it is no good in the eyes of a majority of reviewers. They blame artists for being inspired by others, while simultaneously criticising them for exploring uncharted avenues.
This leads to some ridiculous game reviews, which is a shame as so many people rely on reviewers to decide if they will purchase a game. I urge gamers to do their own research before they listen to a guy who hasn’t played anything beyond an EA Games or Activision title.
Most recently the hot topic is No Man’s Sky, and its failure to meet people’s expectations. Anyone who complains about the game just didn’t listen. Yes, there are videos on the internet that show Sean Murray, the game’s creator, ‘lying’ about features in No Man’s Sky…kind of. These lies were vague, precisely worded replies to an audience who would relentlessly badger for information. Murray continually told people to manage their expectations and to stop asking questions about the game…just be patient. The critical point that so many have complained about was that the game was supposed to be multiplayer. It is, just not in the traditional sense.
We’ve been following the game since its announcement. It has met and exceeded all of our expectations. If I read another review that rates No Man’s Sky on how its gameplay mechanics compare to Call of Duty, which have remained unchanged for a decade, I’ll lose all faith in gaming. If one more person tells me how much better Star Citizen will be…Well then you’re preaching to the choir…
When a game that breaks boundaries is released we should praise it for its achievements, not deter people from playing it because it didn’t meet your self-inflated expectations.
There is no game that equals No Man’s Sky in scale. There is no game that so brilliantly achieves a feeling of isolation in a vibrant, infinite universe. No loading screens. 18 quintillion planets and no chance of seeing more than 1% of them. The scale of this game is absolutely mind bending.
The essence of video games is art. Whether you like the game or not, it is undeniable that No Man’s Sky is an impressive piece of art. I mean come on – a mathematical equation represented as an interactive experience that is infinite in the context of our own lives? If you don’t see the game in the same light that I do that’s fine. I promise if you chuck on a pair of good headphones, turn off your lights and take your medicine, you’ll enjoy your time in No Man’s Sky.
The overarching point is that all games have a vision. If you criticise them for something that is irrelevant to that vision, you shouldn’t bother putting a score on it. It’s like saying Dark Souls is a bad game because it’s really hard, giving it a score of 4/10 for its ‘inaccessibility’. It defies any logic.
We have to stop giving developers strife for giving something new a shot, and perhaps turn our attention to those who are clearly in the industry to line their own pockets. We need to take a step back and consider the gargantuan effort goes into creating a game that we so readily disregard. It’s always easy to find and criticise the negatives…
Disclaimer: Here at The Neversphere we appreciate that it’s all very subjective when it comes to gaming. This is why our goal is to bring to you a better understanding of game titles and their experience based on what they actually are, steering away from hype and misguided reviews.
Over and out.