Why you can't trust the evaluations of critics and how to properly evaluate games.

Hi 👋 Today I would like to talk to you on a very important topic for me - about the evaluation of games by critics and the players themselves. I think it will be interesting for you too, because lately something very strange has been happening with these assessments. Either critics evaluate the game as a masterpiece, and the players completely disagree with them. That the game turned out to be good, and in fact there is something to scold it for, but some fans of another game just decided to instruct it units, for the fact that it is better than their favorite a game. In short, this whole situation with assessments in recent months is strange and prompted me to speculate, as probably many of you. Almost everyone agrees that you cannot evaluate a game without playing it at all. And of course you can't praise a game for just one thing. You need to look at it from all sides and give some kind of assessment from the overall impression. Let's be honest, the gameplay of Last of Ace 2 did not show anything that could surprise you and you would say “Wow, this is really , something new and amazing ”. The game is not far from the first part. But the graphics in the game were just amazing, for which they definitely need to be praised. Then we go to the plot: it has problems. I'm not saying that he is completely bad, no, this is a good level, but definitely not a masterpiece. Everything was fine with the optimization, there were a couple of bugs, but this is not critical. The music and sound design were excellent. As a result, if we objectively evaluate the game, then I would put 10 for the graphics, 7 for the plot, 7 for the gameplay, 9 for the optimization and 9 for the sound.

8.4. That in terms of the critics' rating it will turn out to be 84, but not 94, but judging from a subjective point of view, what I think is more correct. Then I would rate it at about 65-70 points. Because there are a bunch of moments in it that I didn't like and I talked about them in the review. I was also kapets sorry for killing dogs. I was annoyed by the delusional moments in the plot. Especially a pregnant girl who goes on a dangerous sortie to the enemies. Or the stupidity of the confrontation between Wolves and Scars. Maybe if they devoted more time to this and explained why this is happening, it would not piss me off. The only normal enemies in the game were Santa Barbara. These are real psychos and it was not a pity for them, they are creatures and I clearly understood why I should hate them. In short, using the example of the second Last Office, I want to show the whole pointlessness of evaluating games by points. Because if you take it objectively, then the assessment can be good. But if you add some of your impressions to this objectivity, then it can either become a masterpiece or cause disgust. And if you evaluate the game only subjectively, then in this case there is no need to rate the game, you need to write a review and, for example, indicate one of three parameters: liked, not liked or neutral. As much as possible, as for me, everything is done in Steam. Only I would add the ability to leave a neutral impression. Sometimes it happens that you do not quite understand whether you like the game or not. She may be good, but not good enough to say that she definitely liked her. Well, and most importantly, Steam allows you to leave reviews only if you bought the game and played at least a little. This is correct in my opinion, because evaluating the game without playing even a minute is wrong. And the main thing is not to do as on Metacritics, the fact that you do not let leave reviews for the first 30 - 50 hours from the moment of release will not help anything. Anyway, disgruntled people will come running in and will miss the game if they want to, or vice versa, they will instruct a dozen. The feedback to the game should be conscious, it should be supported by some facts, personal feelings, naturally dissatisfaction or admiration for some details. In the first case, the desire to spend time on studying disappears, and in the second, many simply believe that this is a cool game, go and buy, and then it turns out that this is not their game, not their genre, and the money was wasted. It's good that the same incentive or EGS has a return system. But it is not perfect either, you can only get your money back if you hardly played the game. And often you won't be able to do this, because they can get banned. And with games like Des Stranding or Last of As 2, for the first couple of hours you don't really play, you just watch a bunch of plot cut-scenes and move a little. During this time, it is difficult to evaluate the game, it is difficult to understand how it is played, and if you play longer, then you will simply lose the opportunity to get your money back. Therefore, I really think that we need to move away from the scoring system as soon as possible, we need to evaluate games or purely by our experience , or purely from the technical side. And do all this in the form of a small or detailed review with the ability to indicate whether you liked the game or not. It is necessary to move away from the standard separation of reviews from critics and the gaming community. This is not correct, especially since critics have not aroused much confidence lately, everyone is trying to please and suck everyone up, few can tell the truth. And when all these reviews are mixed with the reviews of the gaming community, then it will be possible to adequately evaluate each opinion and understand whether you need this game or not. And I am not against Metacritics and similar services. They just need to grow up and move on too. You need to connect the API of all the stores that provide it and check the availability of the game in the library. And at the same time, game stores should give such services the opportunity to verify this data, so that we get honest aggregators of reviews, where everyone can read these reviews and decide to buy. And of course, don't forget about bloggers. It will just be easier to choose from a variety of games if you rely on someone else's opinion. So why can't the critics be trusted? Because they have been evaluating games from a technical perspective for a long time, they increasingly try to rate games to please someone. And this is not correct. The assessment system needs to be changed and the Steam closest to the ideal now. And this is a game store, not a rating service. What are your thoughts on this topic? Agree or disagree with me? Write whatever you think in the comments, we will discuss ..