Critics Don't Understand Video Games transcript

The way he leaps off of rooftops and flips backwards to face the camera before falling into a head first dive is just full of the exaggerated swagger of a black team. Need help, Eddie? If I had a dollar for every time I fell in love with a globally hated video game, I'd probably have enough money to buy good video games. It's a recurring theme where massive gaming critique companies get themselves into controversy for ridiculous takes and reviews.

And you may have been witness at times to a video game's reception on the internet being overwhelmingly negative even though you enjoyed it. The truth is, every year dozens of incredible video games get tossed aside by the hands of the privileged who vote yes game or no game just because of a YouTube review. No gamers, as of launch day, this game is pretty good. This is the greatest thing ever. But unfortunately, it does have some minor issues.

I'm going to dodge to develop. It's common practice before making a purchase to do research and see what other people say about the product you want to buy. If you're getting a vacuum cleaner or a television, this is a great habit to keep up. A vacuum's power consumption and performance is entirely objective. everybody will have the same experience with a vacuum cleaner because you can't interpret anything differently about it.

On the other hand, a video game is a whole other ball game. There are so many factors that make a video game inherently good that it makes it so nobody in the world will ever agree on what the best video game ever truly is. No matter how qualified they are, no matter how many games they play, you will always be the best judge for whatever you end up purchasing. So, are these big dog game reviewers truly reliable? Well, to come to that conclusion, let's go over some of the most iconic moments in gaming journalism.

Kicking it off with IGN's notorious Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire review. Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire take place on an island, and depending on which version of the game you have, the antagonist of the game will use different Pokémon. For the Ruby version, the main villains will be known as Team Magma and will prioritize fire types, while the Sapphire version is Team Aqua, which of course uses water types.

The reviewer of the game, whose career is reviewing video games, took points off the game because there was too much water. What the heck? The main issue with the too much water critique was that Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire were remakes of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. The main gimmick about those games that people loved and wanted to experience again, don't leave me, was that it took place on an island, and there was a huge focus on water type and firet type Pokémon.

So, docking points from a game because it's faithful to the original version rubs some people the wrong way, especially longtime fans of the [Music] franchise. Another classic moment in gaming journalism was when Super Smash Bros. Ultimate added Joker from Persona 5 as DLC content, and along with them came songs from the original soundtrack. The song Wake Up, Get Up, Get Out There is sung by a Japanese woman who doesn't speak in a traditional American accent, and because of that, some of her words can be misinterpreted.

Instead of doing proper research, a writer at Kotaku made a whole article about how she uses the Rword in the song. And in her defense, it does kind of sound like it. Ready to pick up? Let's go. Let's play [ __ ] But in reality, that is not the case. One, its placement in the lyrics makes no sense at all. Why would she say rword? I can say it. Like, I mean, I guess you can, but what does that have to do with the rest of the song, Lynn?

And second, what she's actually saying is retort it, which means to respond to something in accusation. And that is the entire premise of Persona 5 after all, taking on the role of a teenage boy standing up to corruption and changing the hearts of the wicked. So again, instead of doing proper research, a journalist at Kotaku decided to write a whole article on a word she thought she heard and it backfired. [Music] The last classic tale of gaming journalism I'll recite is IGN's Alien Isolation review.

Alien Isolation is a game where you're trying to navigate a space station while avoiding a serial murdering alien. The following statement is one of the criticisms that the IGN reviewer had for Alien Isolation. Fright dissolved into frustration as I got killed from behind for the eenth time, even as I was crouched motionless and out of sight in an air duct. And one of the great things about Alien Isolation is that the alien in question that's trying to kill you is actually intelligent and does everything in its power to seek you out.

In most video games, the AI is about as intelligent as my left nut. Oh, that's got to be her. Let's find this kid already. Spread out. I got you. [ __ ] She got another one. You keep searching. [Music] Where the hell are you? But the developers really poured their heart and soul into the xenomorph in Alien Isolation because it's actually a competent threat to the player. And the reviewer criticized that and declared the game too hard.

The slightest sound, light source, or sight of you will cause the serial murdering life form to charge and kill you. 6 out of 10. In all the cases I just mentioned, except for the Super Smash Bros. DLC article, the journalist criticized the games over personal issues with the product, not bugs, not price, personal preference. No matter how qualified, and how huge a company is, a human being is the person doing the review at the end of the day.

Imagine a super realistic pirate game comes out. Blackbeard's Pirate Legends comes out for the Xbox Series X, PlayStation 5, and PC. It has historically accurate pirate ship mechanics. The seabed is identical to how it would look at that part of the ocean the game is set, and the story contains a ton of references to real life events. IGN gets an early copy of the game, and they have to select one of their reviewers who can give it a thoughtout review.

The thing is, IGN doesn't have anybody that understands Scallywag history at a deep level, but they do have somebody who's seen all the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. So, of course, they pick the most qualified person they have to do the review, and he doesn't care for the one:one recreation of the ocean floor. He thinks the pirate ship mechanics are stupid and clunky. He doesn't understand any of the historical references that the story talks about.

Every core mechanic that the developers put their heart and soul into goes right over his head, and he gives it a 7 out of 10. However, the target audience that the game was made for absolutely loves it, and they praise it to high heaven. But because IGN gave it a 7 out of 10, a lot of gamers missed out on the title that would have loved it. Do you see what I'm saying? Alien Isolation on Steam's user reviews has a very positive rating with 92% of people saying they liked the game and only 8% claiming they didn't, which completely contradicts the rating that IGN gave it in 2014.

The only reason it got a rating so low on IGN is because the person who played it wasn't the target audience. A similar thing happened with the openw world zombie game Days Gone, which received a 6 out of 10 by IGN. Similar to Alien Isolation, Days Gone is rocking a 92% user rating on Steam with the vast majority of people having a blast with the product. The critic that IGN had for Days Gone's review talked about how the bike was easily damaged by the environment, including when it impacts with zombies.

All that repetition is exacerbated by the fragility of your bike. This thing gets banged up from contact with just about any object, including sadly freakers. Why take this joy away from me? While I don't mind the sense of vulnerability, it becomes a drag when you simply want to get from A to B to complete a task without the fuss of uncompromising physics. Deacon's bike in Days Gone is one of the most important features in the game.

Throughout the campaign, you're building up credits and collecting scrap to keep it in shape and upgrade it. If the bike wasn't damageable and never ran out of gas, the progression of Days Gone wouldn't be as significant. When you finally get that upgrade and your bike can drive longer and withstand more damage, it makes you feel like the work you put into developing your character paid off. I mean, seriously, this is game design 101.

You can't just fault a game for having progression. In Red Dead Redemption 2, your horse controls better the more you bond with it. The player has to spend time with it, taking care of it. Eventually, after hours of getting to know your horse, it gets easier to ride it. This is good progression, and IGN wouldn't dock points for that. But Days Gone having a progression system with the bike 6 out of 10. Days Gone isn't Grand Theft Auto 5.

It takes itself super seriously. You're scavenging for materials to craft bandages and basic things you'll need for survival. It's a grounded openw world zombie game with videogaby elements and the slow-paced nature of it is what makes the pacing so good and the high-speed action moments so rewarding when they finally happen. The reviewer then followed up the statement by saying, "And what kind of bike drives around super carefully anyway?" Personally, I felt that the weakest moments in AMC's The Walking Dead was when the characters would run over zombies like they were completely weightless, or when the characters would have an infinite amount of ammo in a high stress scene.

The entire show, Rick and everybody else, is preaching to the viewer how dangerous it is out there. But when the show throws all of that out the window for a few minutes of fun cinematic action, it's hard for me to immerse myself in the characters dread as much as I did before. Coral Coral, I don't think that breaking away from realism is bad. I think it's a great thing. Django Unchained, for example, has a bunch of unrealistic gunfights that are super fun to watch.

And it works because Django Unchained doesn't try to be a grounded, tense movie at the same time. It's very hard to accomplish being two things at once. And I think it's good that Days Gone doesn't stray too far off its foundational style. I don't think that this reviewer was incompetent. I don't think they were wrong about anything that they said. I just think that they clearly weren't the target audience. And how could they be?

IGN doesn't have an infinite number of gamers to choose from. And it's evident that the people who Days Gone was meant for, loved it. But because IGN, the main source people go to before buying a game, said it was a 6 out of 10, tons of people who would have loved the game, like the 92% of people who bought it on Steam did, missed out on an experience they probably would have enjoyed. I know I did. When I saw Days Gone revealed at E3, I was super excited.

Hey, baby, come here. I'm going to hug you. Oh, but when it came out on the PlayStation 4, I held off because IGN made a bunch of claims about the game that I believe now to be complete misinformation. I'm happy Days Gone in recent years has began reaching the audience it should have when it first released because it's a really fun open world game. Yeah, it has its flaws. I think that Days Gone can be repetitive after a while, and the cutscenes are super stiff, but the combat, bike riding, and storytelling carries the entire experience, so it's easy to overlook that stuff when you absorb yourself in the world.

And as a little bonus, the PC port is really well optimized and $20 if you get it on sale. With a Ryzen 5 3600, 16 GB of RAM, and an RTX 2070, I maintain 60 frames per second the entire game without using upscaling on the ultra graphics preset. And all my fellow PC gamers know that that is rare these days. So, it's pretty common knowledge that the review format these huge video game journalists used is known to be flawed.

But there's another community that I think should be discussed and most importantly should not be taken seriously when it comes to their video game critiques. Streamers. Don't listen to streamers. Have you heard of a little indie game called Red Dead Redemption 2? Well, I have, and it's my favorite game of all time. It's one of those games that doesn't do much wrong. The protagonist is not the traditional brute man that we play as in most openw world adventure games, and he has a lot of intellectual depth.

But what makes him enticing as a character is that he's so unintentionally humble because he hates himself. No wonder they all leave you, you sourfaced idiot. He's convinced he's an idiot. He thinks he's ugly. And it naturally draws us to him because we, the player, see him for who he is, a killer, a thief, but also a loyal artist with a guilty conscience. Brian Cranston has spoken about manipulating the audience's emotion in film.

And it applies to video games as well, where if we see a character on screen holding back tears, the audience is more inclined to cry, but if we see a character on screen crying, we won't be as emotionally affected by it. And it's the same with Arthur. Arthur isn't a good guy, but he's certainly not an idiot, and it's the fact that he doesn't see that that makes him beautiful. Moving on to another aspect of Red Dead Redemption 2, the world is huge and cared about by the developers, feeling at times more like a simulation opposed to an environment meant for the player to interact with.

Matthews. Oh, no. No, not me, sir. Uh uh, that's the Green Horn over there. Oh, and there he goes. So long, Long Shark. Damn it. Hey. And supporting everything else is the soundtrack. From acoustic ambience to heartbreaking melodies summarizing and elevating our feelings throughout the game. Now, I'm not going to say any names, but a lot of huge Twitch streamers have publicly expressed their distaste for Red Dead Redemption 2.

There's a certain Red Dead Redemption 2 review on YouTube, and I'm not going to say names, but this unnamed streamer's criticism was that Red Dead 2 was immersive to a fault. The primary example he gives is that when Arthur goes to loot a can of beans, it takes a super long time to do so. If we go into the game and loot some beans, it takes about a second. Sure, other games have it, so looting is instant, but I think that works for whatever the game is trying to accomplish.

He said it himself in his review. Red Dead insists on its immersion, but that's because it's what the target audience wants. And the audience that Red Dead caters to is the people that want to bask in the little things, which streamers a lot of the time can't do. When you're live, there's constant pressure to keep the entertainment fresh for your viewers. That's why Twitch is dominated by competitive games, because those are fast-paced and easy to latch on to.

But games like The Witcher 3, Red Dead, and I don't know, Astanineir aren't watched as much on the website because they're slower paced and designed to be enjoyed and not just completed. [ __ ] this [ __ ] That's why when you do see somebody live streaming Red Dead Redemption 2, they're probably doing as little side stuff as possible and at all times they'll have their horse going full speed. Some drinks are just meant to be sipped.

A liter of Mountain Dew is a whole lot different than a cup of Earl Grey. And it's the same thing with video games. If you're somebody that strictly focuses on getting to that next objective, Red Dead Redemption 2 is not going to be a good experience for you. You're going to get annoyed by the longevity of the cut scenes, you're going to spite the game for making you question your morals, clean your weapons, skin everything you hunt, and pick each individual flower.

To the person who rushes, this is bad game design. But in actuality, it's just that the person doesn't understand the art of slowing down the pace so that the player can embrace each moment. One of the reviewers big complaints was that in every mission there's a horse ride to the objective and the characters have a conversation every single time instead of immediately getting to the meat of the mission. This is character development.

In the mission further questions of female suffrage, Sadi accompanies Arthur to Roads. On the way into town, we get a glimpse into Sadi's rebellious nature. She reads Pearson's letter out loud and upon arrival almost robs the general store before Arthur stops her and bluntly tells her the gang's code. So, what's the plan? I shoot the shopkeeper while you No, but you insane. I thought we was outlaws. Outlaws, not idiots.

We rob fools and rob other people. These people, they're just trying to get by. The gamer who wants to get to the next objective will see this and think it's just stupid blabbering distracting us from the combat. But the person who truly enjoys Red Dead will appreciate the significance of this small conversation. We now understand Sadi at a deeper level and where she stands morally. And we also get a glimpse into the gang's motives because Arthur indirectly explained it to us.

I cannot tell you a conversation in Red Dead Redemption 2 that doesn't have some kind of subtlety that develops the characters. The reviewer also said straight up that Red Dead Redemption 2 is the same game as Red Dead Redemption 1, which is such a dismissive, blunt take on the game. Sure, it's a thirdp person action adventure game, but that doesn't mean Halo 1 is the exact same as Halo 2 because they're both first-person shooters, or Skyrim is the same as Oblivion because it uses the same Bethesda formula.

Red Dead 2 is a lot more depth than its random encounters, making it so that they don't focus exclusively on combat 90% of the time to stay interesting. The meaning of the narrative is completely different than Red Dead 1, and the shooting is dramatically different, making it so Arthur can only carry so many firearms at once, forcing him to swap guns if he wants to change weapons, and a lot of other improvements, of course.

So, if we evaluate all the critiques that this person had of Red Dead Redemption 2, we can conclude that they not only don't understand the appeal, but also rushed through the game as fast as possible to push a review out. Now, you guys may be thinking, Justin, how do you know that this person rushed through the game? You're not them. Because their review was uploaded 5 days after launch. And that's why I think Moisty Critical's take on Red Dead Redemption 2 is flawed.

The thing about streamers and video games is that there's only a limited amount of games they can play. Because if they stick with a game like Red Dead Redemption 2 and actually sit back to enjoy it, the people watching will leave and do something more stimulating. That's why whenever you see streamers give criticism on a game, it's almost always how to make it more streamable and not, you know, slow paced and boring.

Flashback to when Dr. Disrespect said the only way Halo could succeed is if it added battle royale. We need Spartan 117 Master Chief. No, you need a battle royale. That's what you need. In order for this game to go longer than 3 weeks after launch from a spectating standpoint, it needs a BR. Yeah, too bad he's attracted to miners. Twitch streams are for CS GO, Valerant, Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, and Fortnite. Competitive, fast-paced multiplayer games that allow the streamer to create the tension and the climax based on how they play each round.

Story games are different because everything from the environment to the dialogue to the body language on the characters tells a story that's best if given the proper attention. My super hot gamer girlfriend and I were watching Tik Tok the other day, and a significant emotional moment from The Last of Us came up on her feed. At the most gut-wrenching, impactful moment of dialogue, the person streaming interrupted with, "Thank you, Mega Gamer, for the sub." And after the streamer said that, I couldn't help but notice the Wii shop menu music playing in the background as well. which would be fine for a game that doesn't have a narrative that you're supposed to pay attention to to enjoy.

But for a slow story game like Red Dead Redemption 2 or something, I feel like all the added-on stimulation like the thanks for the sub and the donation notification and the chat on screen and the background music kind of takes away from the experience since a lot of the viewers would be seeing that game for the very first and last time probably. Special shout out to all the awesome YouTube let's players that stay silent during cutscenes and provide commentary during gameplay.

The Rad Brad, everybody. Rad. Now, you guys may be thinking, Justin, you are an opinionated [ __ ] Why can't you just let people enjoy things the way that they want to? And my response to that is, I am right. You are wrong. I am a video game connoisseur that knows what I'm talking about. And if you disagree with my opinion, get out. Get the [ __ ] out. But all jokes aside, let's say you're watching a story game for the very first time.

Which of the two following examples grips you more? Everyone I have cared for has either died or left me. Everyoneing except for you. So don't tell me that I would be safer with someone else because the truth is I would just be more scared. [Music] You're right. You're not my daughter and I sure as hell ain't your dad. Damn, this is kind of emotional though. Has either died or left. Oh, you heard that, chat. That was the $100 donation to get the sounding rod in.

All right, let's just get this over with. God damn. All right. [Music] Holy [ __ ] All right, $200. I'll put that in my mouth. Something that I really like about the Game Ranks Before You Buy series is that in each video, they go over the main game mechanics from a non-biased perspective. They tell it as it is, but they don't talk about certain features as if they're objectively the worst thing ever, which lets the person watching decide for themselves if they want the game or not.

If there's a YouTuber you really like and they say, "Well, some people might like the slow-paced nature, but some won't." A lot more people will be willing to give the thing in question a try opposed to if the YouTuber had said, "Well, it's slowpaced nature is boring." No question about it. I have a confession. I don't like Balders's Gate 3. I really should have seen that one coming. Balders Gate 3 was game of the year 2023, and it is one of the best games ever made.

It was made by a passionate team of D&D loving developers. Over the course of 6 years, the player freedom that the RPG offers is one of a kind, and no matter how many different choices you make along the journey, the game stays fresh, and you can tell that it was made by gamers for gamers. It won numerous 10 out of 10 ratings with an overwhelmingly positive reception on Steam. Nice. And I didn't like it. I couldn't really tell you why, but I would recommend it to anybody looking to try it out.

It's a great game. I don't have to like it to see that. And I wish that streamers, reviewers, and people in general could normalize the idea that just because something isn't for you doesn't mean that it's bad. And the consequence of one big name on the internet saying something is bad is actually pretty strong because social media is the ultimate echo chamber. In 2020, if you openly stated that you enjoyed the Cyberpunk story despite the bugs, you'd get bombarded with, "No, Cyberpunk's bad.

Cyberpunk story is ass." The narrative that Cyberpunk provided was subpar compared to that of The Witcher 3. the goal that City Project. No matter what you said, the chances are not that many people would agree with you because the internet rule at the time was Cyberpunk was bad. Then all of a sudden, the anime came out and Cyberpunk's public reception completely 180ed. I always loved Cyberpunk 2077. The story was incredible, and I really sympathize with V.

Rebecca's my favorite character. Would anybody like to roleplay on the Discord? I'd say the equivalent of the Cyberpunk 2077 situation applies perfectly to The Last of Us Part Two as well. The Last of Us Part Two was an extremely experimental sequel to the critically acclaimed first game because it challenged us. It did a character that we grew to love so dirty by killing him off, but did it in a way that mirrored his actions in the first game.

It showed us the cruel world of The Last of Us in an unromanticized light. Joel dying is sad. It's painful, and that's exactly what the writers intended. Ellie's journey of trying to take revenge on Abby for killing Joel ruins her. And hate takes such a strong grip on her life that she loses everybody she loves just to accomplish what she felt was right for Joel. Her frustration with him before his passing was justified.

But because he was killed off so suddenly, it made her realize she spent the last few years of his life with him not showing him any of the love that he showed her. The way Ellie sits in The Last of Us 2 is stiff, stressful, and tense. But at the very end, after she lets Abby go, she stares at the ocean, relaxed and at peace. There is so much symbolism in this game, and the story executes itself almost perfectly, but it's impossible to talk about this game on the internet, and I don't think it ever will be possible to talk about this game on the internet.

I've seen enormous walls of text talking about just how deep the writing is just to be downvoted to [ __ ] and shut down with, well, it's woke, and why does Abby have muscle? Hey guys, alter ego editing Justin here. I thought it would be important to delve into some Last of Us 2 discussions right now just to immerse you in what it's like to talk about this game on the internet and to get a general idea of the kind of people that really hate this game.

Is there any symbolism with the Rat King? I think the Rat King symbolizes Joel. Why? Abby sees Joel as the monster from the hospital. The hospital segment with Abby is a nightmare version of the hospital in part one. Abby never properly fought Joel, so the fight symbolizes Abby facing her fears. So, I think that the rat king is Joel from Aby's nightmares. This was my TED talk. All right, let's just scroll down here for a sec.

Why does there have to be symbolism in things? One of my least favorite aspects of the YouTube era is people focusing less on dialogue and literally what's happening in a plot to try and find symbolism. It's literally a bunch of infected piled in a Cortiseps fililled hospital dying and melting into each other. And ain't that the truth. Me and Moon River have been saying this [ __ ] for years. narratives have no business having deeper meanings.

I don't know when this started, but I have a hunch that it has something to do with Biden, Justin Trudeau, and the gay person next door. There's a special hell just for Neil Drman and the person who played Abby lesbian. Man, who sits down and writes this? This was the firsting comment I had to read. Anyway, let's go over some of The Last of Us 2's most common critiques. Why did Joel tell a group of strangers his name?

Because Joel from The Last of Us Part 1 didn't trust anybody. He lost his daughter and had no shits to give except keeping himself alive. His relationship with Tess shows how emotionally distant he was. But as he goes through the chapters with Ellie, he grows to trust people in love like he was able to before the apocalypse began. People forget that in the first game, Joel was going to shoot Henry, but decided against it when Ellie told him not to.

By Joel's standards, this was a poor judgment call because they left him for dead once and they could have done it again. But The Last of Us doesn't follow a guy who doesn't change. It follows a broken man who restores himself piece by piece until eventually, fast forward to part two, he learns to trust people again, which unfortunately gets him killed. This is not bad writing. It's basic character development. Why does Abby have big arms?

She looks stupid. Video games are not real life, and even the most realistic games stretch fiction to accomplish a greater goal. Sadie Adler from Red Dead 2 is a traumatized gunslinging badass who can take on unrealistically large groups of O'Driscolls no problem because she's [ __ ] Satie Adler. Nobody cares about how unrealistic this is because it progresses the story forward and she's a really cool part of the main cast.

Mario is a short chubby man with a mustache. James Sunderland is an average height skinny guy. Roadhog is a comically overweight champion from Overwatch. Something about all these characters is that they have different body types. Having dramatic differences in body proportion is what makes fiction so interesting because it's separate from reality. Abby is a trained soldier with a gym in her house. Sure, she wouldn't be as jacked as she is in the game if she was a real person, but she's not.

She's a trained soldier in the Last of Us universe, and she's jacked. So what? If video games could only stylize the appearance of dudes, then that would be a huge limitation to creative writing. I'm using these examples of critiques that millions of people are throwing at the game to drive home the point that even though millions of people might say something doesn't mean it's true at all. There's a certain video game out there that holds a very special place in my heart.

And I've even made a whole video on why I believe it's overhated and underrated. And if I had listened to what everybody said about it, I never would have played this game that I absolutely adore. Everybody, I love Starfield. The Bethesda formula goes like this. You talk to a guy, loading screen. You go into a sketchy area to grab something for them. loading screen. You return loading screen and you level up and I wouldn't want it any other way.

As somebody that loves Skyrim, Oblivion, and Fallout 4, Starfield feels like a game that was made for me. The bad reviews will tell you that the characters feel juvenile, but the followers that have quests that reveal more of their backstory and evolve the longer you spend time with them makes me believe otherwise. It's nowhere near as deep as Balders's Gate 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last of Us, or God of War, but for what it is, an openw world adventure game where you make your own path, I think it works really well.

I can understand the repetitive go here and do that formula getting tiring for some people, but in my experience, I found that the quests were much more open-ended than Skyrim's. And especially if you're playing as a character that you really resonate with in your playthrough, it makes the game all the more enjoyable. I've replayed Starfield probably four times, and I've also found a community that loves Starfield as much as I do.

And while I understand how other people feel about the game, have a better understanding on whether you want to purchase the game forever or not. Long live Steam, everybody. But I'm interested. Are there any games out there that you feel have a bad reputation that you personally enjoy? Or are there any games out there that are glazed to death that you feel are completely overrated? As always, thank you so much for taking time out of your day to watch this video and make sure to have a good [Music]