Also, a lot of people who review games get them for free from a publisher or distributors so who are they to lecture me about a game's monetary value.
What if Last of Us: Left Behind was released as a stand-alone product for $60? Do you think the reviews should have rated it just as highly?
I love this example, because "graphics" is one of the very few things AAA games still have over other types of games.
In any case, yes, I personally judge indies just like I judge any given AAA game. Many times I tend to favor indie games, so I'm not worried about my criteria.
I think the price should definitely be mentioned in the review, and I'd be more than happy for the reviewer to say that they had problems with the price - however, I'm firmly in the 'review it as art' camp so I don't think the review score should be affected as the game would still be To The Moon.To those who say no, so lemme ask you a question: are you okay if lets say To The Moon a very good reviewed game were sold at 60 bucks?
Question to the ones that have answered no:
If price doesn't matter, does this mean that - by your standards - indies will be judged just as harsh as any AAA title would, including graphics and etc.?
If not, how do you separate it and why?
What is your criteria to judge them differently if not price?
I judge indies as harshly as I judge AAA releases based on if I feel they are succeeding at what they are trying to do, and how much enjoyment I am getting out of the final experience. If a game is trying to be a graphical showcase, then I will think of it higher if it succeeds and judge it more harshly if it is marred by technical glitches or poor performance. If the look of an indie game compliments the gameplay or fits the tone the developers are going for, I can appreciate that as much as a AAA experience, but if I were to feel the game looks poor in a way that doesn't match the tone or feel otherwise, it has failed.If price doesn't matter, does this mean that - by your standards - indies will be judged just as harsh as any AAA title would, including graphics and etc.?
If not, how do you separate and why?
What is your criteria to judge them differently if not price?
You don't have to tell me things I already know. To throw that back at you, there's no need to make that separation into tiers because one can create a good artstyle with the most rudimentary toolset. In my eyes that segregation shouldn't exist, because it's a symptom of people note even valuing style over substance, but fidelity over substance.Not all triple AAA games are shit and not all indie games are the best games in the world.
That said, i personally think that when reviewing the graphical quality of a game, there should be some relativity towards what the game budget is, for example.
I say no, because ultimately games eventually come down in price and/or hit services like PS Now and Game Pass.
So if you review with the price in mind, then you're essentially reviewing it against the launch price, which means your review score has a short expiry date.
Also we never see movies judged on their price of entry. They're judged on their own merits.
Reviews almost always come out on launch where there are no sales
Question to the ones that have answered no:
If price doesn't matter, does this mean that - by your standards - indies will be judged just as harsh as any AAA title would, including graphics and etc.?
If not, how do you separate it and why?
What is your criteria to judge them differently if not price?
Depends on brand, brand loyalty, marketing, different target market etc. etc. It's a fairly bad comparison.It absolutely does. Try selling a car for $30,000 that's only SLIGHTLY better than a $15,000 car and see how well it reviews or is received.
Not for a moment did I go 'WOW, this 15$ game is amazing' though. I just went: 'This game is amazing'. When recommending it to others, I do use the 'it's only 15$, try it out' argument, but not in my acknowledgment of the game's quality.Yep. Look at Hollow Knight as an example. A $15 game that is oozing quality in every nook and cranny and easily provides like 30-40 hours of top notch gameplay? Something like that is bound to have an impact on anybody's impressions of a game.
YepMost reviews are used/made for determining whether you should buy a game at launch, so yeah. Review as a product, not as art.
lol, how do you suppose review something without a price? By that logic you could compare a McDonalds to a 5 stars restaurant.
Part of the point of a review is to recommend buying/not buying a game. Sure, Hollow Knight is excellent enough to be an easy recommendation regardless of price, but all that stuff and quality for just $15? That makes it an infinitely easier recommendation.Not for a moment did I go 'WOW, this 15$ game is amazing' though. I just went: 'This game is amazing'. When recommending it to others, I do use the 'it's only 15$, try it out' argument, but not in my acknowledgment of the game's quality.
Stick a prestigious badge on it and people will and do lap it up.It absolutely does. Try selling a car for $30,000 that's only SLIGHTLY better than a $15,000 car and see how well it reviews or is received.
You can compare a McDonald's to a Michelin star restaurant, but it wouldn't fare well. Example would only make sense if all the best games cost the most money, but it doesn't work like that.lol, how do you suppose review something without a price? By that logic you could compare a McDonalds to a 5 stars restaurant.