Why are movie critics so harsh but game critics easily impressed? It seems like movies are always rated low and most games get a positive review from critics. Whats up with that.
Fuck Ebert. Disgusting creature
Because game critics have zero integrity.
The AAA games that get stellar reviews are like the video game equivalent of Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The critics are either stupid or paid off, usually both.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it happens with movies sometimes too, but it's not even close to as common.
Games are superior to Film in every single aspect. Next question
Man, this guy sure liked to jaw off about movies, and like, half the time he missed the entire point, it's like he didn't even sink his teeth into a lot of them but he's just gonna be mouthy about it anyway. And everybody was always like 'chin up, he gave it two thumbs up didn't he?' and yet he'd STILL make my jaw drop with all the stupid fucking shit he said.
>>62765727
Tryhard/10
>>62765748
Well, at least I can say I tried.
>>62764940
>movie critics are harsh
>game critics are easily impressed
this should easily answer your question buddy
>>62764940
Because "gamers" are manchildren. They are easily impressed.
>>62765655
That wasn't the question you fucking retard.
/v/ in charge of reading.
>>62764940
because game critics get less prestige and less pay, and are far more prone to shilling for bux
>>62765748
Don't listen to this faggot, I thought it was mildly amusing.
The last thing we need to do is discourage original humor in favor of more shit like baneposting.
just post the goddamn webm already.
>>62765826
I wasn't answering the question. I was merely stating the objective truth
Because movie critics are pretentious, and every movie is cliche, pretencious and predictable
movie critics are pretentious
video game critics are shills
I was overjoyed when I heard on /tv/ that this charlatan had finally died, but I was also saddened by the fact that he hadn't suffered that much before deciding that he could insult film criticism no longer. The pain and suffering that he went through is only a fraction of the evil that he inflicted on the millions of cinematically illiterate teenagers. When I found out that the old fart had finally decided to not assault the public with his adolescent approach to art, I pulled off the framed picture of Armond White from my wall, kissed it reverently, and immediately embarked on a Korine marathon. Good riddance, you jawless hack.
because the video game community are a bunch of manchildren with no integrity
>watch E3 stream
>publisher hosting an event
>the crowd is filled with journalist
>we are announcing sequel X
>we are announcing additional content Y to game Z
>crowd goes berserk cheering going nuts
This is why the games journalism industry is shit. No integrity. Journalists should not be cheering like autistic children they need to remain impartial.
>>62764940
Because film is a patrician art form and video games are a pleb art form. Same with television which is why every gimmicky piece of shit tv show now is highly rated.
>>62766158
>>62765559
Pretty much this. Games journalism really needs some Soviet-style purging and reformation. 7 out of 10 isn`t supposed to be a mediocre score, fuckwits.
>Hollywood
>respected industry, art, culture, timeless
>"gaming"
>children's hobby, a fad that will soon pass
>movie critics
>respected, cultured
>"gaming" critics
>failed journalist who couldn't get a job anywhere else, so they create magazines to try to justify their hobby
Because video games are not treated like art
>>62766306
Because they're not art
>>62764940
money. also, stop playing videogames you fucking manchild
>Video games
>Everyone eats up shit handed to them on a platter, as long as it's hyped and has a lot of reddit "memes" and for that reason, claim it's good quality.
>Movies
>Everyone is a bitter, cynical cunt with a sense of superiority whenever they hate a movie for the sake of hating it
>>62766318
It's funny though, because the same people who call them art are the people that whine whenever someone has literally any complaints about them or the industry
>>62766255
Come on now, game "journalists" don't have degrees or a lick of self respect. They're glorified bloggers that started playing video games in 2009.
>>62764940
Ebert gave Revenge of the Sith 3.5 stars. For this and so many other reasons, he was a hack.
/v/ RAUS
Because everyone involved in the video game industry is a dummy. You can literally judge someone's intelligence by what media they're most invested in, and it's a straight drop from oldest forms of media to newest, with books at highest and YouTube at lowest.
>>62766255
>movie critics
>respectable
I agree that video games are for cretins but most movie critics write shit
Video Games aren't art because there really isn't anything subjective about individual games. A good game is universally good across all reviews. Bad games are universally bad across all reviews. Some people have genre preferences, but no one will tell you that a bargain bin game is great while everyone else tells you otherwise. That's just a plain fact.
>>62766158
It's important to note that E3 is also only for people in the game industry. Specifically, it's for press. They come in, attend press conferences, then get to spend the rest of the day playing unreleased video games that are more polished than the actual product, because the companies only need to provide a small demo.
They also get to network with people who matter in the industry, dick around at parties hosted by companies who make the games, and get free swag just for being there.
It's no wonder everyone who goes there writes generally positive things.The crowd contains a lot of people paid to start cheers.
That's not even touching on the many other terrible clusterfucks, like nepotism, free copies of games, or just generally being paid to write good reviews.
>there are actual /v/edditors on /tv/
>they will literally never ever leave
might as well just delete this board hiro
>>62766494
>delete /tv/
I'd like to see what happens now that we have the kek/senpai/desu/baka filters in place before we do anything rash.
>>62766318
How is an interactive movie not a form of art?
>>62766392
this.
the only difference between game and movie critics is how often they shill. both are just part of the apparatus used to promote entertainment industry product.
The Video Game industry is just a lot smaller. Sure there are small indie devs but they don't have anywhere near the kind of community that indie films have and indie films aren't even that important
Part of it is because video games are fairly new and haven't really matured, but it's also because film is just a natively more accessible medium.
>>62766494
Need a /film/ board
>>62764940
>but game critics easily impressed
They get paid by the game companies to be "easily impressed". The gaming journalism industry is notoriously corrupt and they'll give your a game a bad review if you don't pay them to give a good review.
>>62766463
>books at highest
It dodasn't help that game reviews and review scores make no sense.
>I had a lot of fun with this game
>it hit every pohnt I had been excited about since the initial teasers
>the graphics were fine
>the new gameplay mechanic worked surprisingly well
>I look forward to more
>the only complaint I have is that it wasn't made with a specific thing that I would like/like to do that has no real impact on anything and may only affect me in mind
>I give a 9.7 out of said
>shit game, barely playable
>>62766533
>interactive movie
Video games are nothing like that at all though. Shooting a bunch of shit, dying and resetting is nothing like a movie. Also video games have too much emphasis on plot and nowhere near enough emphasis on thematic ideas or characterisation. There isn't a video game that even comes close to a film like a L'avventura when it comes to portraying the emptiness and disconnection from life
>>62766594
Those are all buzzwords giving no concrete information though. A big problem with video game reviewers is they tend to review based on their opinions rather than use a concrete checklist of things that make a game good.
Basically if all you see in a review is "it was fun I enjoyed it" you should probably stop reading what that reviewer has to say.
>>62765847
bonne soirée reddit
>>62766651
>graphics
>game mechanic
>buzzwords
But they're not?Fun is not a buzzword, don't you fucking start this shit.
>>62766536
>The Video Game industry is just a lot smaller
vidya makes more money than the rest of the entertainment industry combined
you mean that the video game media is smaller. critics have very little effect on what sells so they are just mouthpieces as the software companies are in complete control and can just shut anyone out who fucks with them.
>>62764940
Because for some reason game journalists decided anything below 8/10 means bad. They have fucking retarded rating systems and fans eat that shit up
>>62766679
>vidya makes more money than the rest of the entertainment industry combined
Sauce? Star Wars alone will likely at least triple the amount of money made from any game released this year.
>>62766671
It depends on what they are saying about graphics and mechanics. Very often I see reviewers just say "the mechanics worked well" which is a really useless point that is subjective anyway.
>>62766679
I was referring more to the numbers content wise, not profit wise. Film has many many many different genres done in many many many different styles, video games only really have a few. Comparing the number of films out there to the number of games out there is a similar exercise.
It makes video games into more of a community, closer to fans of a certain genre than fans of film.
Games often draw you into a community because of multiplayer. Gamers become fanatically devoted to their overrated shit games, and game critics have to share the internet with them. It's a lot easier for the gamers to lash out against the critics for not validating their shit opinions.
Meanwhile film critics can actually do well by being contrarians.
Because critics get fired for giving games negative reviews.
>>62764940
Game critics are paid for good reviews.
Also, game critics tend to be bandwagoning memer nerds xD so they basically give games like Fallout 4 etc a 10/10 before it's released.
>>62766710
I've heard it from multiple sources before but don't remember any given one. here is what I came up with by googling it now:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-06-03-global-gaming-market-to-hit-usd93-billion-by-2019-report
People easily influenced by gifts. With movies reviews your options are really limited, you could gift a reviewer some movie tickets or an advanced DVD screener but that's about it. With gaming it's hard to give harsh reviews to companies that are giving you games and hardware or even giving you plane tickets to let you visit their studios. I've seen plenty of Youtubers suckered in by that shit, you'll never see Quill18 or Arumba say anything bad about Paradox. There's no cash changing hands and there's no explicit agreements but people are getting bought without even realizing it.
>>62766820
According to some report I found on google, the film industry is worth $88 billion now and will be worth $104 billion in 2019
>>62766616
This is wrong desu
>>62766897
>this is wrong
>literally no attempt at explaining why
You'd make a good video game reviewer
Somebody give my post a good review and I'll pay you $500,000
>>62766891
Giving someone a review copy of a $60 game lifts the burden of buying the game, taking away any weight the purchase itself has on the review.
On top of that, the idea that a developer/publisher is giving you their game comes off as a friendly gesture, which can lead to a more positive bias in your review.
>>62766921
>implying you need to pay that much
Buy me a copy of Xenoblade X and I'll write anything you want.
>>62766921
7/10 Post of the year, definitely purchase at full price.
Looking forward to downloadable content on release.
>>62766909
I put as much effort into my post as you did with your generalization of "shooting a bunch of shit"
>>62766894
remember that that's the *market* for games in those years. the value of the companies is much higher and there are the same tie-ins that Hollywood tries to use to boost the profitability of movies like toys which adds on even more.
>>62764940
If game critics don't consistently give good review they don't receive access to review code, they can't publish reviews on time and generally can't do their Job. So they suck it up.
Also fanboys will fucking eat them alive if they poo-poo their favorite shit, most critics don't want to deal with that shit.
>63 posts
>no webm
Where is webm?! Post webm!!
>>62766921
This post redefines the genre of posting as we know it and could prove highly influential. It gave me hours of fun and has considerable report value. 9/10 possible POTY
Because a video game is considered good when it sufficiently entertains the player.
A movie is considered good when it is provoking, interesting and innovative.
Video games in general don't care about anything besides how much fun it is to play.
>muh interactive media = art
/v/ please go. picking up a paint brush does not make you an artist
>>62766808
This. I still remember the spergings going on over at GameSpot's forums after Jeff was fired. Nothing has really changed since then either, sadly.
>>62766988
All of that is probably more true in the film industry though
Anon is best known for its classic shitposting, but there's nothing subtle or sneaky about its latest post, >>62766921. This time around, the poster put together an ironic Gamergate-themed post that starts out with a simple request, and then rapidly spins out of control until, without much warning, you are being offered $500,000.
While the journey sounds interesting at first, and has a few bright points, it's weighed down by low-quality bait and a real lack of effort. The end result is a post that squanders much of its potential and just doesn't come together as well as it probably should have.
I rate 6/10.
>>62764940
Because video games are not art. That's like asking why why the people who write about the entertainment industry why they aren't harsher on reality TV.
>>62767013
Except for when they actually try to be interesting or innovative, like Spec Ops: The Line, Braid, Undertale, Beginner's Guide, Journey, Stanley Parable, etc.
What a shocker! The AAA titles are cash grabs. Good thing movies aren't like that at all.
>>62766651
> A big problem with video game reviewers is they tend to review based on their opinions rather than use a concrete checklist of things that make a game good.
except all those things are subjective to begin with, and I'd rather have the reviewer speak directly off his own impressions and experience with the game rather than write a glorified wikipedia article
unless he's a bad reviewer but then why am I reading his reviews
and this goes for all reviews of all media
Video games aren't movies. Trying to compare critiquing of the two is fucking retarded.
What?
There are loads of shills that review movies.
Anyway, for games currently, it's most likely because of how business model is.
It's based on exclusive sneak-peaks and basically material before the game is released, not after.
Write bad reviews for my game? The next game I make, I'll go to someone else to write an exclusive preview for it.
Like it or not the film industry is just more mature
>>62767131
Pack up your shit, Gerstmann.
>>62764940
Film critics are "harsh" because they take their "job" seriously. They studied their passions and are able to add to it in their own way.
Game "critics" are hacks. Tools that can be bought and sold for their views.
five guys
>>62767253
Then explain /tv/ and their autist level of crying over colored people in their nerd flicks.
>>62767365
You mean teenagers from /v/ like you?
>>62767365
/tv/ is a shit board full of immature teenagers?
Literally the only impact /tv/ has ever had on the film industry is getting people to say memes in reddit AMAs with directors. What they do is irrelevant.
>>62767376I'm from /pol/
>>62764940
Do prominent film reviewers still include a rating at the top of the page? Do they even exist anymore? Because the guy in your pic is dead.
If game reviewers put up a 5/10 review in your news feed, you're not going to click it because you already know from the title its just another mediocre release.
The difference between the film reviewing and game reviewing industries is that the former has long thrived in print and on TV, whereas the latter only has an online presence as its young audience has ditched traditional media.
>>62767173
The difference is that those cash grab titles still get good reviews, while blockbuster movies are panned by professional critics
>>62767409
99% of those people are not from /tv/. They only come here from other places to shitpost in threads like this.
>>62767515
>implying
/tv/ is full of memelords and has been for years now
>>62767534
And they come from other places to shitpost here. Ask them if they consider /tv/ their home board.
>>62767476
Actually, I'd argue that the reason low score reviews tend to be dismissed is because of the product nature of videogames. This makes it difficult for game critics to do reviews that are more artistic and instead pragmatic. Videogames have not passed the barrier where things like gameplay mechanics, graphicial engines, and artificial intelligence have not been perfected.
Games will never be respected like film because they can still fail to be games before anything else. When developers have no trouble making games that just work perfectly, people will then start to really care more about the emotional return on investment. Right now people just want a working product that entertains them for a little bit. They care about good gameplay, not immersion and emotional investment. This isn't to say that these are not sought after, but this is extremely few and far between.
Somebody give my post a good review and I'll give you $500,000: Black Ops
>>62766255
>Hollywood
>respected industry, art, culture, timeless
Nigga, like 1% of the content hollywood produces can be considered those things. Film and screen -media as a whole? Yes, definitely. But certainly not fucking Hollywood.
>"gaming"
>a fad that will soon pass
Video games have been around for like 40 years now and it's currently a multi-billion dollar industry. Besides games have been around forever and always will be, example, chess, various card games, etc
>"gaming" critics
>failed journalist who couldn't get a job anywhere else, so they create magazines to try to justify their hobby
100% agree.
>>62768794
1% is infinitely more than 0%
40 years is still young and for most of that nobody took it seriously.
>>62764940
Disgusting shitbag fucks
Literally reddit: the critic
>>62767997
this post got exactly the right number of responses
No one bothers to seriously review chocolate bars for a similar reason. It's purpose is only to entertain. Video games are a consumable, throwaway thing that have a clear purpose. Entertainment through interactivity. You're reviewing a game based on its ability to entertain you.
Would you review the artistic merits of competitive sport? Would you review the artistry behind go karting or laser tag or any other game?
Yes video games have stories but the narrative is only ever a delivery vehicle for shooting or solving puzzles. Any art you see is entirely incidental and will always be limited by the video game's primary purpose.
For this reason you should never take video game reviews seriously. Treat them like product reviews for an appliance. Does it work? Does it do what it is advertised to do? Ok it's a good game.
>>62765655
They certainly have the potential to be, but given the state of things now they are a couple decades off of being even close to film.
>>62769507
I don't think video games will ever branch out as much as film has
>>62764940
Lel. what?
How retarded are you?
A movie just has to be about muh blacks or muh gays and it gets an automatic 100% on Rotten Tomatoes these days.
Case in point:
Precious
Selma
Etc.
>>62766255
>movie critics
>respected, cultured
Has a bigger lie ever been posted here?
>>62766616
>There isn't a video game that even comes close to a film like a L'avventura when it comes to portraying the emptiness and disconnection from life
I can smell that unwashed Fedora from here.
>>62766318
>This debunked argument again.
It's not 1978 anymore. Get with the times.
>>62766472
>subjectivity of quality = "art"
This might be the dumbest sentence I have ever read.
>>62764940
I'm surprised no one understands that game critics and gamers want ANY excuse to validate their children's hobby. Any excuse.
>DUDE BINFINITE WAS SUCH A MIND FUCK LMAO !
>DUDE THE LAST OF US IS LIKE A FILM, BETTER THAN A FILM LMAO. IT'S ART!
>DUDE METAL GEAR SNAKE LMAO
The best game ever made is DOOM. End of. Game critics have been clutching at straws ever since.
>>62769550
>debunked
>provides absolutely zero proof to this apparent fact
>>62769584
Game critics refusing to criticize games is a pretty big issue. The entire industry is a hugbox.
>>62766909
Alright your telling me l.a. noir is just random shooting shit? And has no storyline style and characters?.
>>62764940
>Why are movie critics so harsh but game critics easily impressed? It seems like movies are always rated low and most games get a positive review from critics.
This is completely fucking backwards. What planet are you on?
>Make a game with dazzling graphics, intricate level-design, hours of recorded dialogue and voice acting, spend countless hours play-testing it, and then ship it at JUST THE RIGHT time to get noticed in the market.
>"6.5 out of 10. It's playable, but so is everything else. Whatever."
>Make a movie about slavery or the Holocaust.
"10/10. LITERALLY THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. BEST MOVIE EVER. TOOK 12 YEARS TO MAKE, SO IT'S GOOD."
>game critics easily impressed
oh boy here we go
something something gamer something something gate
>>62769597
All the politics and dishonesty in the industry has put me off. I just replay The Curse of Monkey Island, Doom, Gears of War and Max Payne. Been burnt so many times with games that are reviewed well and absolutely garbage
>>62769584
This is a fucking pathetic post.
>>62766909
You kinda just described online multiplayer matches instead of RPGs or hell even plstformers.
>>62769597
>provides absolutely zero proof to this apparent fact
You want proof that the world is round too?
The debate is over. It has been since the late 80's/early 90's. The only people that haven't caught up to this fact are the willfully ignorant and those that really don't care in the first place.
>>62769636
Hi /v/eddit! Care to explain why?
>>62769625
Try renting?
>>62769474
>No one bothers to seriously review chocolate bars for a similar reason. It's purpose is only to entertain. Video games are a consumable, throwaway thing that have a clear purpose. Entertainment through interactivity. You're reviewing a game based on its ability to entertain you.
That has literally zero difference from a movie.
It's because film is art.
Video games are not.
>>62769639
>>62769614
I didn't even make the post before that, I just wanted to make a dank joke
>>62769647
>ad hominem
>3 random examples with no reasoning
>subjective bullshit
>>62769643
>three more sentences
>still no proof
>>62764940
They aren't. Movies are just trash.
>Media that isn't FILM? For children. As a super mature adult, I only consume the most mature entertainment fit for mature adults, such as myself.
Holy shit, I can SMELL all the unlaundered trench coats an BO in this thread through my fucking screen.
I'm willing to bet NONE of you are even self-aware enough to realize how hilarious you sound. You're probably 100% serious, which makes this shit even funnier/sadder.
Not strictly what OP was talking about but this thread is shit anyway, so I'll ask anyway
Has there ever been a video game that was completely shat upon when it was released and then later considered to be extremely good? It happens a lot in film with some really famous films, but I haven't heard of it in vidya.
>>62769647
Case and point I met an artist who was making a wooden miniature house with bullets on it. It was supposed to represent how guns can protect homes in his own words. Did I think it was trash sure. Do I consider it art sure
>>62769716
You mean cult classics?
>>62769716
Not really.
That happens with movies like 2001, The Thing and Blade Runner because movie-audiences are fickle and easily-influenced by everything else on the market, and then realize they were being shitheads 20 years later.
The audience for games tend to at least try to be objective with praise/dismissal, so that happens less.
>>62769716
Wasn't pong not well received at first?
>>62769745
More like people considered it a novelty that wouldn't amount to anything.
Also, Pong wasn't the first ever video game.
>>62769745
Nvm people loved the shit out of it lol
>>62769716
Every console Zelda-game that came after Majora's Mask.
Plenty of unique FPS's that were called "generic" when they came out but praised for originality later, such as F.E.A.R. and Geist.
>>62769737
Not really, some films recover very quickly and the opinions change after the first wave of reviews.
>>62769771
The Mad Max game that came out recently was rated horrible by reviewers, but praised by players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJANS0VTpbY
As someone who likes movies and video games, I see no difference in quality of critics.
Both are god awful and should never be given attention.
Watch a trailer. If you like the look of it, go watch/rent/buy it.
If you like it, great. Money well spent.
If you don't like it, take it back or just deal with the bad purchase. It's a part of consumable media. Sometimes taking gambles on what to buy is part of the fun.
>>62766255
>Gaming
>A fad
>Movie critics
>Respected, cultured
>Hollywood
Art, culture, timeless
>>62769827
This. Just because you don't like something doesn't disqualify it from being art
>>62764940
Because the technology to make vidya is moving forward at a much faster pace than movie technology. Critics get blinded by the graphics and whatnot and ooh and aah over that. That's why there's so few games out there that can really be called timeless, because by the time the next big thing comes around the last generation of games looks dated and obsolete in comparison.
>>62769958
You clearly just don't know anything about the early days of film
Look at the huge changes between 1900 and 1940. And it wasn't just technologically, cinema was literally changing the way the world works.
All video games have done is look prettier and found new ways to break mechanics
Ebert was gay, right?
>>62764940
One is due to a lack of integrity.
However another thing is due to a different standard. Movies are based mainly on their story/dialogue, and somewhat on the cinematography. The difference between the film of 1995 and the film of today is... higher quality video, and maybe higher quality special effects. Films are judged on a VERY different set of criteria.
Meanwhile, games have been improving dramatically since they first came out. Super Mario 1 was an 8 out of 10 maybe when it came out, released today it would be a shitty little app no one cares about, because the standards have changed.
But with that change in standards, quickly teetering towards incredibly higher quality (in graphics and such anyways), the scale has never had a way to accurately reflect that slide.
*Film* comes along, 8/10. *Film 2* is completely different, gets a 6/10.
*Shooter* was an 8/10. *Shooter 2* comes along, it's strictly better than Shooter in every way, just took what made the first game good and did more of it, streamlined it... so it HAS to be higher than an 8, otherwise you're saying the objectively better game isn't better. And this keeps happening, so you have a scale based around 8-10 because 1-6 are filled with the history of games less than 20 years ago when they couldn't even dream of the quality we have now.
>>62765847
we can and should discourage it if it's bad
>>62765559
>The AAA games that get stellar reviews are like the video game equivalent of Transformers: Dark of the MoonMGSV was a good game
The quality of a game is almost completely unrelated to it's depth or adherence to any artistic principle.
The same is films, and any discerning critic would fail to be impressed by a film that did just that.
Ebert was a reviewer, not a critic, anyways. The same goes for so-called game critics.
>>62765559
It's because games are still a relatively "new" market, at least theyve been mainstream for a short time.
Since it became "cool" to be a "gamer" all this retards invaded this world, among those bloggers, tumblers and womens studies majors, who constitute pretty much 90% of game journalists. Of course they're paid indirectly with invites to events and general lobbyism, but I think they're just generally idiots to begin with
>>62770445
The film industry was willing to change over time. Compare shit like Birth of a Nation to pretty much everything made 40 years later and you'll see how the industry changed.
If people like you are in charge the video game industry will die.
>>62770475
Why so you say that? I just described the situtation and gave no opinion. You must have injected some opinion into my post in order to get angry at me.
>>62770360
* the same is not true for films
>>62770475
You can also see a huge change between Birth of a Nation and what preceded it.
>>62770529
>gave no opinion
>literally called people idiots and retards
>>62764940
>Why are movie critics so harsh
Both movie critics and video game blogshitters are easily impressed. Just look at reviews for Boyhood and Mad Max Fury Road if you want recent examples.
>>62765559
I'd build off this and say that most video-game reviewers are complete amateurs like ign or kotaku, there is a distinct class of film critics that you can trust to be critical even when their favourite film is on the autopsy table whilst all a video-game critic is thinking about getting the assignment done.
It's why a YouTuber like MatthewMatosis is more of professional critic than tbe critics that actually get paid.
>>62770584
This is why it's important to differentiate between reviewers and critics.
>>62770575
If you want a real discussion youre gonna have to elaborate a bit more than greentext. Do you think the majority of game journalists are well informed and balanced people that dotn get influenced?
Just quoting others with meme arrows and g;ving no counterpoints whatzovere is what made this site the shithole it now is. One time you could actually discuss instead of just shitposting, then all the kids like you came
Movie critics aren't harsh. They just aren't paid by Disney, Sony or Universal.
Game critics however get their bucks from the publisher.
>>62769507
>he thinks an interactive medium (that is, a game dressed up as art) which requires viewer input via a series of button presses in order to 'win' will ever, EVER, be superior to a medium which facilitates reverie, contemplation, reflection and enlightenment
fuck off with your children's toys faggot
>>62770747
Them being retards and idiots is your opinion
You don't see scientific studies calling test subjects fucking morons because personal bias and opinion should be excluded. If you're not willing to do the same you're not worth talking to.
>>62770837
All of that can be done in a video game though.
I'm a fan of vidya as a hobby, but I agree that by and large vidya games are pleb when it comes to competent storytelling. Even the best video games hammer you over the head when trying to be affecting and serious. The Last of Us? Oh my god. Good game, by games standards, and fun to play, but it's laughably maudlin.
I also agree that most reviewers are man children that can't bear to give a game a bad review, and then will turn around and bash a game months later. Uncharted 3 got universally great reviews upon release - now you'd be hard pressed to find a critic that doesn't think large segments of that game were poor.
>>62770475
Yeah, and the film industry became the piece of shit it is today.
If videogames had stayed like 10 years ago it would have been perfect.
Every single change in both industries has been a complete fucking disaster.
>>62766255
>>children's hobby, a fad that will soon pass
> the world's largest entertainment sector
choke on your own cocklet Quentin
i don't really see a difference. the amount of games that are lauded every year seems to be in check with the amount of movies that are. ebert was often criticized by critics for being too kind to ordinary films.
>>62771615
The difference is there are smaller movie scenes where film is treated as an art while vidya games are reviewed the same everywhere
Game reviewers start from 10 and decrease at each failure
Movie reviewers start from 5 and decrease or increase at each pro/con
Because videogames are not art, so no suprise there's no serious critique of it.
>criticism = reviews
this is how you find plebs
So many oldfags itt
>>62767576
Well said Anon.
