Do some genres have a “review score cap”?

Nah, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 proved the opposite years ago.

If it's a JRPG, add 5%-10% to determine "true" score.

Regarding what you wrote about open world games, I think it's likely that publishers realise there's not only a demand for ambitious and grandiose open world titles among consumers, but more potential in them too from a gameplay, production, depth, longevity, narrative and scope perspective. Many are reviewing well because publishers and studios are investing more time and money into them since there is a strong market for them. That added time, focus, ambition and production in to this type of game design can lend to better reception.

There are however still open world games that are less critically favoured, eg this gen Mafia III and Mad Max, so it's certainly not as if open world game design guarantees better critical reception. If anything they run the risk of feeling more monotonous, repetitive and dull if not properly executed.

Yes in a way. That is what wold be called mainstream appeal..!!

For example some of the greatest games of all time on such a list may include GTA: San Andreas, Mass Effect 2, Uncharted 2, Bayonetta.

On another, more meat-and-bones oriented list it may comprise of Civ V, Braid, Jagged Alliance 2, Wii Sports, and Excalibur...

In the end there will be specific flavors of demographic, quality, and genre appeal in most every medium. There will be those that get the most traction, and those that are technically just as good or even better, but, ya know, 'It's a racing game, so who cares!' or something.

95 for racing games is basically 100 on the real scale. Just add four-five to any racing games's metascore.

I think there's an open-world bias when it comes to scores

Linear games have to sweat it out if they want to get similar treatment

Open-world: "detailed, immersive, crap gameplay: 10/10"

Linear: "detailed, immsersive, fantastic gameplay: 9/10"

I'm not sure if "Review Cap" is what I'd call it, but yes there's certain genres and game design choices that are more selective taste for a niche audience and when it comes to reviews more may detract for those design decisions even if the game is built around it. To give an example as a horror enthusiast, if a fixed camera angle tank control survival-horror game came out in this day and age, even if it was really good, like so good it could match with the best of survival-horror games of yesteryear like REmake and Silent Hill 2 (not fixed angle most of the game, but probably know what I mean), and the game was perfectly designed with its fixed angles and tank controls... This is a type of game many survival-horror game fans want to see resurface somewhere with a budget behind it at some point, but due to the love-it-hate-it nature of fixed angles and tank controls with the modern gamer and so many of the opinion that tank controls are "bad", it is guaranteed if such a game was made and was everything survival-horror fans wanted, it'd still score worse due to "archaic" design and people outside of the audience it's aimed at playing it and not appreciating what it is at the heart of it. That's not to say reviewers are wrong for feeling that way, but it's a case where something may be aimed at a specific audience, and even if it strikes it out with that specific audience from an outside view there may be elements of it which people not looking for that exact experience may not like.

Visa-versa to this, I also think there's certain types of designs that pander more to broader modern tastes than others. Reviewers also play games differently than your average consumer is something to also note. One thing that we don't talk about enough when it comes to reviews is that in the end, a game having broader appeal or hitting certain points of "modern" design will review better across a greater width of people than something aimed at a specific sector of gamers.

Yes... at least kind of.

The job of a variety reviewer is not geared towards certain genres or tastes, even accounting for the individual tastes of different journalists. Like Splatoon to Splatoon 2, they won't talk about the effects of map design in the games, what the revamp of specials does, and least of all the subtle differences of weapons. They'll just talk about Salmon Run and the greater variety of weapons in single-player and say there's no new PvP modes.

Yes, and Mario Party is a great example. Even the most perfect Mario Party ever made will never get 95+ on Metacritic. There's yet to be a Mario Party game that's even managed 80.

This is the stupidest shit I've ever heard. Why would anyone in their right mind think you have to wear a special little hat to come up with a review score?!

Tetris Effect scored plenty of perfect scores. Undertale got a few, Celeste got a few, so did Into the breach. So..no, not really. I think a game that's genuinely good enough will get super high scores.

A game like Mario Party will never get perfect scores, because there will always be minigames that people find to be complete duds.

absolutely. starting with late last gen, pretty much all gaming media has come to the conclusion that third person action-adventure games (open world or not) is the best genre and deserves the best scores. obviously there are exceptions, but this gen those games seem to resonate with reviewers the most.

Depends entirely on the reviewer.

Keep in mind that what's also irresistible for many critical circuits -- reasonably so, to some extent -- on a general level is the idea of a game that feels "Important", or has a gravitas and momentum to its name on top of what it is on a purely technical level.

While a game like Snake Pass is brilliant in many ways, it may be passed up simply because it doesn't have the character-driven 'seriousness' (yet marketability and headlining potential) of a high-profile action game. And vice versa.

It's not puritanically this-or-that. But you can see where part of the rationale comes from.

In the end variations of this occur in every form of consumption/art/entertainment.

But reviewer scores/aggregations are not 'everything'. Neither are they completely invalid and should be rendered non-existent. They simply represent one source of the critical zeitgeist, the most prominent and contemporary one -- ie the 'mainstream'. That in itself is not a negative. The question is if it is the only one given room for priority on a critical perspective, in which case it will be a crutch.

When is the last time a game not developed by Nintendo or Rockstar has passed a 96 on metacritic? 20 years ago?

Of course they do.

eg. Party games, visual novels, jRPG's, racing games, point and click/investigation games (Phoenix Wright) etc.

TissueBox said:

Keep in mind that what's also irresistible for many critical circuits -- reasonably so, to some extent -- on a general level is the idea of a game that feels "Important", or has a gravitas and momentum to its name on top of what it is on a purely technical level.

While a game like Snake Pass is brilliant in many ways, it may be passed up simply because it doesn't have the character-driven 'seriousness' (yet marketability and headlining potential) of a high-profile action game. And vice versa.

It's not puritanically this-or-that. But you can see where part of the rationale comes from.

In the end variations of this occur in every form of consumption/art/entertainment.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

this is a good point. i don't think many reviewers start writing a review for something like botw, gow, witcher 3, rdr2, etc with the same mentality that they do when they're reviewing something that they don't feel is as "important" or "significant". you know your review for a big, "event" game is likely to be read 100x more times than your other reviews, so even if it isn't intentional i think the attitude is different.
when reviewing a random game, the difference between a 7, 8 or a 9 must feel pretty non-important. but when reviewing something that you're anticipating your pears to give it 10s across the board, suddenly it becomes a thing of do you really want to give the game a 9 or (god forbid) an 8.

werezompire said:

If it's a JRPG, add 5%-10% to determine "true" score.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This.

Into the Breach. Literally 9/10s and 10/10s, its a turn based game.

I feel like there is a perception that adventure games etc get these scores. But if your game is original and innovative enough, you can achieve these high scores. Look at Tetris Effect too.

No, but there is genre differences. You need to understand that RDR2 10 and Tetris Effect 10 are not the same.

Completely true. The echelon that GOTY contenders occupy consists of those that ostensibly 'advance' the medium for one reason or another, usually a result of technological magnitude or gameplay innovation of some sort, with the former far more recognizable and more readily rewarded than the latter.

Usually, in my experience, it's a pile of bull shit that ages like fine milk.

MadMod said:

Into the Breach. Literally 9/10s and 10/10s, its a turn based game.

I feel like there is a perception that adventure games etc get these scores. But if your game is original and innovative enough, you can achieve these high scores. Look at Tetris Effect too.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

those games are sitting at 90 and 89 metascore. that's the thing, no matter how excellent those games are, they'll never have a shot at entering the 95+ club, simply because of the genre they're in.

Any minigame party games or monster raising games that aren't Pokemon in the 90's?

werezompire said:

If it's a JRPG, add 5%-10% to determine "true" score.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's funny I subtract 5%-10% to determine the "true" score of jrpgs. Opinions! This mostly seem like one of those threads where a bunch of people that feel like the games they like are undervalued can get together and all agree it most be some conspiracy.

werezompire said:

If it's a JRPG, add 5%-10% to determine "true" score.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, though there's a couple where I'll subtract like 1.5 to get to what I feel is a more 'appropriate' score. Namely Pokemon, Fire Emblem, M&L and some others.

Obviously a personal taste thing; please don't go nuts if you think FE: Awakening is deserving of a 92, FE Fates: Revelation is an 88, or whatever.

mazi said:

those games are sitting at 90 and 89 metascore. that's the thing, no matter how excellent those games are, they'll never have a shot at entering the 95+ club, simply because of the genre they're in.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I get that, but i'm not gonna lie, I barely see a difference between a 9/10 and a 9.5/10 personally. Spiderman is just as good as Mario Odyssey for me.

VR games.

The aggregate scores are almost always negatively skewed due to reviewers who got motion sick.

I don't mind reviews that warn readers that a game might cause motion sickness, but if you're the one getting sick, then the game is not meant for you and you shouldn't be reviewing it.

Reviews included in metacritic are largely just opinions with very little professional evaluation of the game. So if these types of reviewer do not enjoy or like a particular genre they will never give it a very high score. You won't find so many reviewers who don't like or enjoy the big genres, but plenty who feel that way about smaller niche genres.

That being said the metacritic score is meant to be an aggregate and represent something more than an individual opinion. Fantastic niche titles don't get very high metacritic scores - but the question is not necessarily "why not?" but rather "should they?". When looking for titles in niche genres I read reviews from sites which specialise in those areas, I don't care what the general consensus is.

If there is a bias in favor of singleplayer adventure / action / RPG games in third person in this forum, why will not there be in the scores?

Back in the day (late PS2 mid 360 era) jrpgs couldn't get more than 80s no matter how good they were unless they were FFX or DQVIII. Now I'm not so sure because I'm out of the review game, but back then it was 100% like that.

werezompire said:

If it's a JRPG, add 5%-10% to determine "true" score.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Whaaaaaaaat. I feel like JRPGs have a history of being reviewed very favorably; perhaps even too favorably. I can't think of any JRPGs in recent memory that seem particularly underrated across the board by critics.

Definitely. Party games, games aimed at children, and games aimed at a different audience from the traditional gaming audience (i.e, the audience that reviewers from mainstream gaming websites are part of) cannot score higher than a certain amount; simply because they have no appeal to the reviewers themselves.

Also, there's an inherent bias within the reviewer circle towards games with serious stories and towards games that don't require them to learn novel gameplay mechanics or forms of controls (motion controls in particular are devestating for review scores, even if they work perfectly, as reviewers have an inherent hatred of them). Reviewers have tight deadlines and have no interest in learning new forms of gameplay; they want something traditional and comfortable (why do you think game developers/publishers hire game reviewers to give their games "predicted review scores" partway through development? It's because they know what they like and they want games to conform to what the reviewers know they like).

Open world games also have an inherent additional score bias, due to the "gee whiz!" factor. Much like how a lot of games score highly purely based off of their production values. Linear games can still review just as well, but only based off of their story and production values.

Speaking of which, game review scores are also strongly positively corrolated to the game's budget (including its marketing budget) too. Only the most technologically advanced and highest budgeted and marketed games can win the best review scores (and the game of the year awards), even if the underlying gameplay is horrible and the game is set to age like milk. There are some indie game exceptions, but they usually get treated as a different category of game and are never really mentioned in the same breath as the "real" games (they are also never really in the running for game of the year awards; even if they get nominated as a diversity display showpiece)

Kain said:

Back in the day (late PS2 mid 360 era) jrpgs couldn't get more than 80s no matter how good they were unless they were FFX or DQVIII. Now I'm not so sure because I'm out of the review game, but back then it was 100% like that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's still like that, unfortunately, which is in line what OP is trying to convey.

I think reviews tend to reward polish above all else, which certain genres don't strive for as much since it's not what their audience demands.

I believe games that are easier to pick up and play immediately tend to score better. Thinking from a Reviewer who has to sit down and play dozens of games per week, or only has a few days to knock out a report of the latest mega game, they would probably be more inclined towards those kinds of games

I think games that target younger audiences seem to easily get token scores in the 7-8 range. Understandable to some degree. The point of reviews is about relaying your own impressions and experiences, so it's hard to slap a number on something that isn't meant for you.

Nah. It's wll perception. For example Uncharted 4 should take a 5-10% hit to get its true score. A lot of reviews are based on initial warm feelings of hype. The true score settles about a year later.

kpaadet said:

That's funny I subtract 5%-10% to determine the "true" score of jrpgs. Opinions! This mostly seem like one of those threads where a bunch of people that feel like the games they like are undervalued can get together and all agree it most be some conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's not a conspiracy - the nicher a game is, the less it's going to connect with a mainstream audience. A game that's aimed at pre-teen girls is going to, on average, receive lower scores than a game of similar quality that's aimed at 25-year old men. A hardcore turn-based dungeon crawler is going to receive lower scores than the latest Pokémon game, even if the two games are of similar quality.

@ JRPG discussion, didn't Persona 5 get a 94 meta score or something?

TissueBox said:

Yes in a way. That is what wold be called mainstream appeal..!!

For example some of the greatest games of all time on such a list may include GTA: San Andreas, Mass Effect 2, Uncharted 2, Bayonetta.

On another, more meat-and-bones oriented list it may comprise of Civ V, Braid, Jagged Alliance 2, Wii Sports, and Excalibur...

In the end there will be specific flavors of demographic, quality, and genre appeal in most every medium. There will be those that get the most traction, and those that are technically just as good or even better, but, ya know, 'It's a racing game, so who cares!' or something.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think the question there is whether mainstream appeal ultimately impacts the quality of the game and therefore how well it reviews.

Maybe for fighting games... I can see Smash Ultimate getting a "low" score compared to what the game offers.

It seems that way.

SirKai said:

Whaaaaaaaat. I feel like JRPGs have a history of being reviewed very favorably; perhaps even too favorably. I can't think of any JRPGs in recent memory that seem particularly underrated across the board by critics.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Night Hunter said:

@ JRPG discussion, didn't Persona 5 get a 94 meta score or something?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

93 and that's widely considered the best JRPG in years. In contrast, RDR2 & Breath of the Wild (two games that are considered to be some of the best open-world action/adventure games in years) are both sitting at 97.

werezompire said:

If it's a JRPG, add 5%-10% to determine "true" score.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't say so, maybe the opposite. Imagine Ni no Kuni 2 having a Metascore of 84...

I don't think it's any wild conspiracy - you do see certain trends in these things. The interesting question is, of course, 'why?' Based one what I've seen it's a myriad of factors, from social perceptions, to heritage, to the marketing language used by publishers, right down to the type of gamers that reviewers tend to be (highly engaged).

werezompire said:

93 and that's widely considered the best JRPG in years. In contrast, RDR2 & Breath of the Wild are both sitting at 97.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Even so, it's a bad paced game that feels like a regression from P4 in lots of aspects, and doesn't offer anything new to the saga (aside from style). I love Persona 5 and I agree that is the best JRPG from the last years, but I don't agree that is a 90+ game by any means.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/ravens-cry

a bad game will get bad scores. open world, adventure games are not getting their scores any higher just because of it. most AAA open world games get a lot of value behind them so despite era's irrational hatred for big worlds and games that "don't respect my time!!!!" obviously they're going to score higher than jrpgs or favourite niche visual novel #246

Tibarn said:

Maybe for fighting games... I can see Smash Ultimate getting a "low" score compared to what the game offers.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

nah, a few smash's have been in the 90s already.

I think Ultimate will get a 95.

maybe other fighting games