I don't really watch videos of this sort; I'm more of a text sort of person (with the exception of watching videos of games being played, though I won't just watch *any* old video of that sort),

Corporate reviewers from any big mainstream site (IGN, PC Gamer, Gamespot, etc.) are all shills.

None of them do a good job at reviewing any game, regardless of its budget.

Their sites have no credibility and are never worth visiting, period.

European game that places more emphasis on gameplay depth at the cost of graphics and presentation because of budget constraints. Lack of polish resulting in some bugs / glitches / experiences so bad it becomes good (i.e., camp).

Examples (* = GOG): Kingdom Come*, Gothic series*, Witcher 1-2*, Risen seies*, STALKER series*, ELEX*, etc.

--

Anyway, with respect to topic question, it depends. I use Youtube for reviews. Oftentimes, these reviewers are trying to figure out their review style due to inexperience or have already established their own that appeals to their niche audience with preferred tastes (e.g., genre-specific reviews). This is the reason why you see a diversity of opinions between a corporate reviewer and these small reviewers. If I'm unfamiliar with the reviewer, I'll watch another review to get a different perspective.

People don't consider the source usually. Sites like IGN for example are made for an extremely mainstream audience, and their perspective on "AA" or whatever is usually a result of that. If you're someone like me who's into games like Elex or Pillars of Eternity then the last place you want to go for reliable reviews is IGN. That doesn't mean IGN is "bad" or "shills" it just means they have a different audience and set of goals.

There are plenty of websites and Youtube channels devoted to covering every niche out there, so just find a good one of those and stop asking MTV to air folk songs.

That does sound like SaGa, actually. *Pulls out a chainsaw, attempts to saw apart the user I'm replying to, but fails because their skin is too soft. Then attempts to saw apart a deity, and succeeds.*

Well, what do I do if I *do* want to hear folk songs?

Depends on which reviewers and what do you want from them.
Find somebody who plays/airs folk songs?

IMO...

... there has been a general corporatization of many reviewers and even YouTubers. Where sponsorships were once blatant and few, they are now commonplace, and with publisher relationships quite volatile, AAA may have a tendency to get "kid gloves" criticism while AA gets "the works." AA doesn't pay the bills in either corporate sponsorships, accessibility, or viewership numbers (ad revenue)

The reason I brought up this topic is...

... recently I've seen a lot of praise for an element(s) of a AAA game while the reviewers criticize the same element(s) in a AA game. It's happened so often that I feel there must be deeper issues at work. Is it money? Sometimes I'm certain. Unfamiliarity with a genre? Often I get this feeling. Rushing through games without really understanding or digesting them? I'm starting to think this may be a primary culprit; the grind of trying to make revenue from consistent game reviews creates a cycle that is incredibly hard for most YouTubers or outlets to keep up over time -- especially in the age of giant and numerous releases. Saying something -- anything (even if it contradicts earlier AAA reviews) -- is better than no review at all.

Hello StingingVelvet,

I totally agree with your argument. Hence, no offense, but I think the comparison given is not such a great example.

Because at least in Europe MTV is airing folk music, as well, especially in the so-called 'unplugged' concerts.
Take for instance the one from the band "Santiano" (also available on Youtube).

Kind regards,
foxgog

No, the mainstream media and the major "amateur" reviewers, don't even recognize that there is such a thing as "AA": if a game is not made by a small Indie team they will compare it to AAA.

I always cringe when I discover these sites have reviewed a AA, it's the same sunken feeling I get when they review niche genres like 4x or sim racing. Since these reviewers are clones of each other, as far as opinions go, the negativity AA games usually receive has an exponential effect. Instead of calling them "AA" they sometimes use the derogatory term "euro-jank" ... even though half of these games are not actually made in Europe. And it's not as if every US, British, or Japanese-made game is 100% perfect, yet these games don't get derogatory terms invented and attached to them: there's no Brit-junk, Ameri-trash, or Japa-crap.

However, I think most consumers who are open to AA have learned to stay away from the above review-sites, since you know they will not be reviewed from an appropriate or rational perspective. Certain popular streamers like CohhCarnage also help to educate younger mainstream gamers about AA, what the game is and isn't.

It's not hard to define AA, for a long time now we've had publishers who more or less exclusively publish AA (THQ/Nordic, Focus, Bigben/Nacon, etc). If a game is not published by a AAA publisher or developed by a AAA-studio, and is made by maybe 10-50 people ... it's AA.

I don't get it. I view it as a perfectly reasonable criticism for a RPG. Or are you talking about "RPGs" such as hack-and-slashes or dungeon crawls?

I'd argue that, if it's a perfectly reasonable criticism for an RPG, it should be an equally reasonable criticism for games with other styles of games, like first person shooters and falling block puzzle games.

Also, I really do enjoy RPGs for the gameplay, and I want to have more of that, rather than being forced to watch story to get to the next bit of gameplay.

I would expect reviews on average to be all over the place, and I have never thought you can place too much credo in them.

If they are not all over the place, then I would suspect undue outside influence.

While I do check out some media reviews, I generally don't make them myself and don't put too much stock in them and often avoid certain cases, where I have enough background information or especially don't want negatives or positives or other people's notions in my mind while playing.

So many things about a game can be so subjective. I have seen absolute opposite views about the same game on many occasions.

And for sure, I have many friends that like a lot of the same media that I like, but every now and then we are polar opposites in what we like, so it has been a long time since I have recommended something based on something else I thought very similar, as though that other person would definitely love it.

I have a friend who likes a lot of the same music I like, but it eventually became apparent that he and I liked the same things for pretty much different reasons ... he's a drummer and I am a guitarist, which probably explains why.

Well of course gameplay is king, but a good story can elevate a perfectly functional game to a masterpiece. That's why there should be only a few perfect 10 games, and then lower score games that suffer from weaker storylines/music/sound design/visual aesthetics. But a game with weak gameplay is inexcusable.
Again, I don't know about that. These are ultimately mechanical/score-attack games, you can't really judge them for a lack of story, unless they go out of their way to include one.

I don't think there is such a thing, or at least I can't think of any. You're probably referring to a "RPG", or more exactly a game with a progression system. Just because your game character levels up doesn't mean the game is a RPG.