I am referring to RPGs.

I note that some roguelikes (which are a type of RPG) actually have scoring systems; Nethack is an example of this.

Also, at least some of the Might and Magic games have scoring systems.

Score-attack games, doesn't mean just a checkbox where the game has a scoring system. You seem to be taking everything too literal. Whatever...

Sometimes it feels like AA and indie are punchbags for gamejournos because they can't make honest reviews for AAA because publisher might get angry...

Short answer: No. The "gaming press" does a terrible job of reviewing any games.

Generalising here, but over the last 10 years, they have started reviewing everything through a political lens rather than an objective one. I suspect this is partly because the journalists are gunning for jobs on more mainstream publications and partly because the editors aren't doing their jobs properly. The big issue with this is that in the majority of reviews, gameplay, compatibility, performance etc becomes secondary (or even non-existent) to "does this game conform or push my personal political beliefs" and "do I agree with the reported politics of the people who worked on or created this".

For the avoidance of doubt, this is just my view as to why the quality of reviews has tanked. I'm not making a political statement and certainly am not wishing to start a political discussion as to whether we agree or disagree with the views or the gaming journalists.

Given that the average game review no longer gives any information you can't find on the metaphorical back of the box, I've stopped reading the gaming press, and largely base buying decisions on what is released here coupled with me taking a personal view on whether it looks and sounds like something I'd enjoy playing. Strangely enough, I'm actually enjoying what I play more now I don't take buying decisions based on third party advice.

Basically, ignore reviews and trust your gut instinct when buying games.

Fair enough. I did write that sentence "... reviewers are all over the place"...

.. but...

... as I went into more depth about from whence this thread sprang...

... my thrust was mainly about reviewers contradicting themselves when reviewing AA content.

While you took me to mean "why aren't reviewers on the same page" -- and I certainly can see how I could have cleaned up that initial post (my mistake. although at the time I may have had issue with the extremes in reviews? i seriously do not remember) -- that isn't truly what I had meant. Sorry. I should have spent more time thinking before typing.

For the record...

I think variation in opinions is great, but variations built on contradiction often feels strange... and IMO suspect.

The reasons why TB will go down as the best game reviewer ever for me:

- He made his personal preferences and tastes very clear at all times. Even if you disagree or have different tastes, his reviews were still useful because you knew where he was coming from.

- He reviewed the technical aspects of the game from a consumer perspective, often showing and explaining what the graphics options did in great detail. There was a practical utility to his work. It wasn't just entertainment, it was a service to the gaming community.

- He seldom reviewed game design and mostly did it to highlight jarring problems in the game. He wasn't trying to indoctrinate people about what constitutes a good game.

- He never incurred in the pretentious college grad linguistics mumbo jumbo that so many YT reviewers regularly spew nowadays.

Videogames are dumb hobby. Reviewing videogames should be like reviewing a swimming pool toy, not like reviewing a Thomas Mann novel.

You can make it funny, you can make it edgy, but when people start making 10 hour long The Witcher reviews that use the first hour just to explaing the origins and uses of the word witcher... I think that's highly pretentious content for low IQ people.

I feel many have lost a sense that reviewing is primarily about utility and value...

... where academic analysis is about meaning, societal worth, etc.

Many reviewers today came out of college and want desperately to sound like professors, to say something profound, or to direct opinion / taste (I can only guess they dream of working at a university press or The New Yorker) when most people just want "is it worth my time and money?"

If you start regarding those vids more as a sort of hobby then as actual reviews, and of course, to be part of something you can leave out the whole iq comment to prevent further embarrassment

I'm the other way around: I *prefer* my games to have no or minimal story, and RPGs are *not* an exception.

In this case, I think "what's the point?", as game design is what can be the deciding factor in terms of how much I like the game.

I had worked in the gaming industry before so I can at least say that most antics are indeed true.

- Employees are told to promote/ promote the game.
- Companies contact "influencers" and "game sites" (or vice versa) for at the very least not a "bad review" and if they can praise it as best they could. It's more of a courtesy than anything.

Influencers and Game sites need sponsors and the fact that these game companies provide giveaways, early access or exclusives in return for favorable reviews is not too out there.

The best thing to do is still to consolidate reviews from as many people and watching gameplay videos to help you decide. In the end, you'll eventually decide if the game is something that you'll personally like.

Coming from storytelling, I would have tended in the past to disagree...

... but...

... with my favorite game being an action RPG with minimal story (Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen)...

... I now tend to feel gameplay is the most important aspect, and if done well, minimal story is needed. In fact -- for me -- long stretches of story can destroy feelings of atmosphere and game progression.

Now, as far as reviewing a game...

... I think it's best to try and review a game based on what it tries to accomplish. If a game centers around story, then whether the story is engaging and well-told. If a game centers around gameplay, then whether that gameplay is engaging and well-implemented.

That does make sense.

I've seen reviewers pan Quest 64 for not having that much of a story, even though the game didn't really set out to be story-heavy; the game does not have a tendency to throw you into lengthy cut-scenes with lots of dialog the way other RPGs of the time had a tendency to do. There's even games on the same console that I don't regard as RPGs that have a much bigger story focus, like the Zelda games (and that's the biggest problem with the game from a speedrunning perspective, I'd say; from a casual perspective, the biggest probllems are the stealth sequences and that one Goron racing minigame).

Speaking of which, I don't like it when reviers gloss over or ignore parts of the game that can prove obstacles, like mandatory insta-fail stealth sections, or Chrono Trigger's mandatory button mashing segment.

If it's a big enough impediment negatively affecting the experience, it'll be mentioned in a good review. In this example, the difficulty would scale after you lose to her a bunch of times.

What example?

The Chrono Trigger case does not get easier after repeated failed attempts, and with my hand getting tired, it actually becomes harder (and quitting to try again later means having to repeat the prevous boss fight and cutscene).

They should have either just made the player pass out after enough attempts, or better yet, remove the "minigame" entirely.