Gamers Don't Read Reviews
And they probably won't read this
I was browsing the usual social media apps many weeks ago and DBZ Sparking! Zero had just released for the people who didn’t spend $100 to play 3 days early. Review embargoes were lifted, and IGN posted their review of the game ultimately giving it a 7/10. Comment sections were filled, and video think pieces were made talking about how IGN is washed up, they don’t play games, they’re all corporate now, etc etc etc. I hadn’t gotten a chance to really play Sparking! Zero until recently due to focusing on Metaphor: ReFantazio (I also have a full-time job not revolving around video games).
I think this is a discussion I could add to because of my years of experience as a games journalist and reviewer. I’ve written over 500 reviews (not including editorials, listicles, previews, event coverage etc) and while not all of them are great, they certainly helped shape my ability to review games now. I wouldn’t say I am an IGN hater outright and I typically don’t care about their stance on games when it comes to reviews. There are so many reviewers and writers at IGN I don’t see the point in harping on the site. I’d much rather focus on the writers themselves.
I’m not necessarily defending IGN in this editorial, I am defending the writers. The current video game community loves to dogpile on reviewers because it is fun and trendy (not all the time of course). I have noticed a lot of gamers who criticize reviews don’t read them. The small blurb and the number rating at the end serve as a BRIEF summary and a way to get you to read the review when posted on social media. People are not infallible, but for the most part, the reviewer of the game does explain why they would give a game a particular score.
I know I am almost four weeks late to this conversation.
The discourse surrounding Sparking! Zero is simple, a writer for IGN gave the game a 7/10, and people think it should be rated higher. The main crux of their argument is that they gave Concord (which was pulled from all stores and shutdown after two weeks), Dustborn (a “controversial” indie game), and Star Wars Outlaws (Standard Issue Ubisoft Open-World) all 7’s. My issue? The reviewer for Sparking! Zero did not review those other three games. IGN does have standards and practices for their rating system but at the end of the day, it is up to the reviewer to score it.
My intention with this piece is to break down the reviews for Sparking! Zero, Dustborn, Concord, and Star Wars Outlaws. I think the criticism about the these four games all being a 7/10 is odd and nonsensical. When someone makes these comparisons I fail to see the relevance. “Well Dustborn was a bad game and it got the same score as DBZ which is a good game.” Ok and? They’re Different reviewers and different games. The review even states Dustborn is not for everyone and you’ll probably not like it if you’re not the target audience. They all fit the parameters for being average or slightly above, but they’re all completely different games from one another. The same score does not mean they’re the same quality. To make this leap, you have to completely ignore why Concord failed.
The main points I have seen people criticize IGN on, they’re bland/dry/too corporate, they gave *this game* a “low score” but *this game* the same score but it is “better”, and the people who review these games aren’t “real gamers”.
Game critics are not supposed to be “the average view”. A critic offers a more technical analysis of a product. This goes for all forms of media and industries. A food critic is going to have a different view of a restaurant’s food than the average person. The same goes for game critics. Typically, the two communities will have differing opinions. An IGN review that is “bland/dry and corporate” is by design. It is supposed to offer a more unbiased view of the product compared to the average person on Backloggd or a Facebook comment section. In the eyes of a critic, what makes a game bad will be different than the average gamer. If a reviewer offers too much of a biased opinion on a product, its appeal diminishes. It is why I don’t review/play CoD games these days. I hate the franchise and the community that revolves around it. If someone LOVES CoD, they’ll just be called a fanboy if they review the game too highly, they’ll be called an industry shill. A drier review is more appealing than those scenarios.
When people speak about “IGN” as a group when talking about review scores it can spread misinformation about those reviewers and the variety of views they bring to a publication. A good example I personally have dates to 2014. I had no intention of reviewing Dragon Age: Inquisition, but I was a fan of the franchise. I wrote a list for the 5 issues I had with the game (this was around launch). I criticized it for being terribly buggy for a AAA title, I found the voice acting quality to be inconsistent, the story was incomplete and found the combat trying to do too much all at once.
I had a negative view of the game, while the actual review done by another writer on the site loved the game. To judge the entire site by my negative view of Dragon Age Inquisition was wrong. Two things can exist at the same time. IGN didn’t give Sparking! Zero a 7, Jarrett Green who writes for IGN did.
This leads me to my next point, when looking at reviews, readers should find reviewers that match what they play. Let’s look at some other games I mentioned that were given a 7.
Dustborn was reviewed by Rachel Weber at IGN. She’s written three reviews for the website total, Dustborn, Tiny Glade, and House Flipper 2. Looking at their Twitter and other reviews, it seems like they have an open mind when it comes to games. They expressed interest in games like Space Marine 2 while reviewing three games that are all different from one another.
Takeaways from their Dustborn review.
Immediately critical of the game’s first impressions. The character designs/story come off as performative at first.
Points out the game has little replay value because of the shallow combat.
Found the game to be boring at times.
It’s easy to label Dustborn as terrible if the game isn’t for you.
“It’s good” which means it functions, tells a coherent story despite loads of exposition.
Rated a 7 because it’s a game that accomplishes its goal. It is by no means great. They were able to find moments of enjoyment.
Clearly beat the game.
This is written by someone who plays games. The review clearly talks about what is wrong with the combat and other gameplay sections in detail, and what would make it better.
Next, we have Tristan Ogilvie, the writer who gave Star Wars Outlaws a 7. His most recent review scores are, Kong: Survival Instinct – 5, A Quiet Place – 7, Until Dawn Remake – 5, SH2 Remake – 8, Saints Row Remake – 6, Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth – 9. These are the most interesting takeaways from these reviews I found that help determine what kind of reviewer he is and what kind of games he likes.
Until Dawn Remake: He sees past the niche “choose your own adventure” style this game goes for. Give a lot of credit to the original for making a horror game feel more like a classic horror movie. As a remake, he judges the game based on the new additions the remake rather than reviewing it based on the original. The remake got a lower score because it was unnecessary and lacked the previous game’s charm.
SH2 Remake got an 8 instead of a 9 because they artificially made the game longer than it needed to be. He easily could have given it a 9 like the original which he clearly has fond memories of but didn’t. This is a common theme I have noticed for the three games he’s reviewed that were remakes.
Star Wars Skywalker Saga: Establishes a likeness for Star Wars but it’s a hyperfan. This is important considering Star Wars fans online are insufferable gremlins who hate everything that features a person of color or a woman.
Star Wars Outlaws is yet another game plagued by incels who found it ridiculous a woman would be the main character. But the conversation does not end there. Ubisoft has been radically embracing a predatory pricing structure for games. It doesn’t just stop at the $70 price point. When the release date was announced, Ubisoft showed off the different versions of the game you could pre-order, Standard, Gold, and Ultimate.
As you can see by the graphic, $70 is just for the game. You got a pre-order bonus skin to use in game for your ship as well. The Gold Edition was $110 and came with three-day early access to play the game as well as the future story DLC. And for $130 you would get extra character skins, the future DLC, and early access. (DragonBall Z: Sparking! Zero also adopted this payment structure with early access being locked behind a $100 paywall. Which is arguably worse for a game with a competitive online mode. That is an entirely different conversation but does highlight the hypocrisy of gamers.)
Despite all of this, people were still moderately hopeful about Outlaws. The result after playing? It was just a standard Ubisoft game with interesting ideas and no real follow through. Which Tristan talks about in the body of the review. Here are the takeaways from his SW: Outlaws review that aren’t in the summary next to the score.
Establishes early that the game has broken promises and delivers on both a good and bad experience.
Positives include a fresh Star Wars story that doesn’t hinge on the Skywalkers. This review appreciates a decent story and many of his reviews hinge on that aspect. This is consistent with games he’s given a middling score with.
Compares the game to other open-world titles like GTAV and TOTK, says it is disappointing that the game lacks the level of freedom when compared to games that are older but in the same genre. But also praises the game’s exploration, particularly space travel.
Gameplay is mostly criticized for a lack of variety and a lot is tied to the usual open-world busy work we see in every game in the genre.
Praises the character development being more than just a skill tree and levels. It’s more interactive tying skill acquisition to missions.
Mentions there’s too much reliance on stealth for how inconsistent the quality is. Sometimes it is done exceedingly well but others are held back by dull repetitive combat.
The review has a list of his favorite Star Wars games. (This showcases the reviewer’s history of playing games).
Talks about bugs frequently, especially around launch day. People glaze Cyberpunk 2077 and say it is a masterpiece while completely ignoring the state it was in when it was released. The fact people do not extend this same courtesy to other games showcases gamer hypocrisy -again-.
Praises the Syndicate system saying it is unique.
Tristan gave Star Wars Outlaws a 7 because when you spend some time with the game you experience more of the good than the bad. The bad is usually clipped to showcase the game is “trash”. This reviewer clearly views a 7 as playable and has something to offer but easy to skip. While something like a 5 or 6 is average leaning towards bad and 9 being almost perfect.
The next writer is Travis Northrup. He’s the person who gave Concord a 7. If you aren’t up to date on Concord. Lately the game is being used by right wing reactionary incels as proof of “go woke go broke”. They claim the game was pushing a woke agenda and it failed because of it. However, when you read the review, you won’t see someone talk about “DEI” or anything of the sort. You’d read about a game that played it incredibly safe in a market that rewards taking big risks with bold and diverse gameplay to set itself apart. Concord was PlayStation’s biggest failure being live for only two weeks before getting pulled. (While editing this editorial, Sony announced it will be dissolving the studio that made Concord. This is all too common within the game industry when a game performs poorly. To say this is an overreaction on Sony’s part would be an understatement.)
A $40 hero shooter with cosmetic microtransactions, promised cinematic shorts to give the outlandishly diverse characters more personality and depth, and new maps/characters would be free; this sounds SUPER familiar. It should, because that is exactly what Overwatch 1 was praised for when it came out. Except OW had Loot Boxes as well, a functionally obsolete game mechanic due to changing gambling laws.
Before I get to their Concord review, let’s take a quick look at what their more recent review scores look like and some of the takeaways with them. Unknown 9 Awakening – 5, Diablo 4 DLC – 8, Satisfactory – 9, Earth Defense Force 6 – 7, The First Descendant – 5.
Unknown 9 Awakening: Criticized the formulaic story but still found it enjoyable. Spoke highly of the powers you use in combat, clearly played long enough to experience the best parts of the game. Values a good story even if it is cliché.
Diablo 4 DLC: Reviewer loves the action genre, spoke highly of the base Diablo 4 game. Ultimately was fun to play but it lacked decent story content.
Satisfactory: Overflowing positivity about the game, specifies 130 hours spent in game. Near perfect score indicates there’s very little wrong with the game outside of the predictable technical annoyances. The biggest drawback was generic combat.
EDF 6: Appreciates the camp the franchise is known for. Is very aware this is not intended to be a perfect game and will be “bad” by all other means. However, the game is still enjoyable.
The First Descendant 5: Mentions a 120-hour playtime with the game. Can easily say they’ve played enough to have a well thought out opinion. Critical of predatory monetization. Found the typical gameplay loop to be monotonous chores. However, he had nothing but positive things to say about character variety regarding gameplay. There is also a list of favorite F2p games within the review indicating this is not the first time they’ve played a game like this. The 5 score is based around a terrible and repetitive story with an overtly predatory F2p model.
Now with all of that out of the way, what can we determine from these reviews in terms of what rating this reviewer would give? They clearly get extra points for having a unique story, but gameplay is valued just as high. Well developed action is a big factor in gaining a higher score. They have an affinity for shooters and online games as well.
Now onto Concord. Keep in mind, this is a review that was written before Sony announced it was shutting the game down. Reviews are rarely changed and updated when things like this happen. Context is important. Low player count does not directly mean a game is trash. There are multiple factors that determine why a company would pull their game. And there are multiple reasons why Concord was as unsuccessful as it was (I assure you it wasn’t because it was “woke”). But judging by what so many people have said that aren’t in the “anti-woke crowd”, it wasn’t Gollum game level bad.
As I was reading the review, I noticed a lot of what Travis was saying about the game, both positive and negative were like a lot of other reviewers, content creators, and commenters said during the beta. But those same creators/commenters take every chance they get to dunk on Concord as if they always knew it would fail.
Here’s what he said.
Played 40 hours of the game, plenty of gametime to form an opinion.
Criticized the game for playing it safe gameplay wise.
Goes into detail about character abilities and what makes them fun.
There are comments about low player count within the review.
The biggest criticism of the game is that it lacks originality and identity.
The review included a list of competitive shooters from the writer, clearly, they play these kinds of games.
A 7 for Concord means the game is BARELY above average. A 7/10 is equivalent to 3.5 stars. Average. The game functionally worked well. People complaining about the character designs are boring because they ALWAYS want to be some-kind-of-phobic when “fixing” the designs. Concord was an average game with potential if they leaned into the more original ideas and relied less on being a run of the mill shooter. This is clearly not the market for that kind of game or philosophy. Hence why it failed. It was the wrong time to release (it reminded me of Battleborn).
Finally, the DragonBallZ Sparking! Zero review. Jarrett Green has quite a few reviews on IGN, let’s see his most recent ones. Dragon’s Dogma 2 - 8, Tales of Kenzera: Zau - 7, Tactical Breach Wizards – 8, Enotria – 7, Starship Troopers: Extermination – 6, The Thaumaturge – 8. These are all reviews I’d argue would match what other gamers would give. People were saying DD2 was so good it could have been GOTY competition at the time of release. He generally likes the games he reviews, prefers games that lean into their unique style but favors a good story. I will say, the reviewer and I agree on many of the criticisms of DBZ: SZ. I do not think he’s being unreasonable, to be honest, there’s nothing to really gain from giving the game an unreasonable score, so why would he?
These were the biggest takeaways from the review.
Right off the bat he acknowledges the history of the Budokai Tenkaichi games and their impact on the fighting game genre. He also knows the difference between an arena fighter, 3D fighter, and traditional fighting games.
He’s clearly a DBZ fan by even having a ranking of the DBZ games within the review as well as talking about his history with the franchise.
He routinely cites specific missions within the game and their outcomes when it comes to the What If missions. Showing that he clearly played the game.
There are three major criticisms of the game which perfectly explain why the game gets a 7 and not an 8 or 9, Menu/UI quality/navigation, terrible tutorial/training modes, and lackluster What If stories that are nice additions but the cutscenes for them rarely go beyond a slideshow.
He’s right about Menu Navigation, it is laggy, the inputs switch around depending on the menu that you’re in, in many cases you can’t just go back one screen, you must go back two screens. This is a fighting game with a campaign that has a lot of content, missing this hard on menus when games like Metaphor didn’t sacrifice function for style, it is almost unacceptable to have this be an issue in 2024. You spend 30% of your time in DBZ on menus, they should the well-made.
The initial tutorial barely teaches you the fundamentals of the game. They also sort of imply it as “optional” so its super easy to straight up skip, no wonder people didn’t know how to beat Great Ape Vegeta. When you do use the training mode, every move has its own selection, it isn’t very intuitive.
These two issues alone are reason enough to keep it from being AT LEAST a 9 by “IGN standards”.
The final thoughts are that it relies heavily on nostalgia (as the franchise has for decades) and it was cited “to a fault” which means it focuses more on the brand rather than the quality of the overall game design. This is a valid critique, but it is not one the average player thinks about too often.
I’d say quite a few people who think “IGN” is wrong for this rating didn’t read the review or are just letting anticipation and nostalgia cloud their judgement. The fact that the same people slamming Ubisoft for paying $100 for early access and unreleased DLC were absolutely quiet and happily dropped $100 for DBZ speaks volumes. No wonder Ubisoft and EA keep doing this shit.
DragonBallZ: Sparking! Zero coasted off nostalgia while still being a fun game. It is a good game. But like Concord it still plays it safe. The downside with Concord was it was an original IP. It had a $40 entry fee in a market that is dominated by F2P shooters. Games that get away with it like Battlefield or Call of Duty are able to survive due to being old brands.
All of this, so I could analyze what a 7 means to “IGN”. I wanted to see what their review numbers mean and how the reviewers use them. An IGN 7 will be different than a CrowbarTV 7, and readers should investigate other reviews by the writers to see if they look for the same things in games as you do. You can’t JUST look at the two sentence summary and a number and call it good. That barely tells you any information. The score is the ending, the review is the reasoning. “What does a 7 even mean anymore?” If you read the fucking review and they tell you what it means. Every assumption I made in this yap session was based on reading the reviews of these writers. My conclusions are based on context.
Yes, there will be outliers. I specifically remember Jim Sterling (Destructoid) giving a Mario Kart game a 6 or 7, saying it was “more of the same” as a negative but he gave the most recent Call of Duty a 9 saying it was “more of the same” as a positive. At that point, CoD was even more of the same rehashed BS than it is now. But you judge the reviewer AFTER reading the review. You don’t just write the entire site off after literally just seeing a number you don’t agree with.
So, what does it mean when IGN gives a 7? Simply put, it means “good”. The game is playable and has SOMETHING to offer. It won’t be winning awards, it is not great, but functionally speaking, the game works. Games that get a score of 1-3 are functionally incomplete games. They are genuinely bad from an objective point of view. The Gollum game was a 1-4. It literally did not work.
What I gathered was this scale, 1-4 = Terrible, 5 = Mediocre/Okay, 6-7 = Average/Above Average with room for improvement, 8-9 = Must Play/Incredible, 10 = Masterpiece. DBZ fits the “above average with room for improvement rating”. Listen, I know if you are a super fan and you have been waiting basically a decade for this game to come out, I get it. But you were always going to love it regardless. I’m a Mexican American Millennial man, I breathe DBZ, always have. But I’m also going to take my personal relationship with DBZ out of the equation to give a more measured review.
IGN has a section of their website explaining their Editorial Standards. They note that opinions are not for sale and are managed by a team. Their review opinions are separate from publisher relations. While it can be beneficial for a reviewer to track the progress for games via hands-on demonstrations, it is not always the best move for the reviewer to the be same person. Personal positive biases can be formed with simple psychology. Treat the hands-on person to a nice dinner, pay for drinks, maybe a spa day, and put them in a positive mindset so they’ll make the association of good treatment = good game. That clearly happens but it’s not going to be with a game like DBZ.
I listed industry popular games within this article against smaller indie game reviews too. They criticize them the same, if anything a reviewer will be more forgiving of a game that is developed by a smaller team and harsher to a game with a bigger team.
Holding reviewers accountable for consistency’s sake is a must for the reader. I am all for it. I am guilty of being overly harsh to Stellar Blade because I cannot stand this gooner game trend with bland character design. Initially I thought it was just the character design. But after playing and seeing nearly every aspect of movement and environment action was geared towards something suggestive with Eve, I gave up.
Gamers will sit on their high horse saying they can review games better and then go to Backloggd and unironically use the word “soyjacking” in their own ridiculous attempt to be edgy and different when “reviewing” a game like Astro Bot.
I remember reading back when TOTK came out, a review from someone who gave it a 6/10. I haven’t played the new Zelda games, but I found it to be insane to give a game such a middling score when it is universally loved. The reviewer admitted to not liking BOTW but got it in his head for some reason that the DIRECT SEQUEL was going to be more like “classic N64 LoZ”. Which was based on a translation of something from a magazine in Japan. That is the reviewer’s fault for setting ridiculous expectations for themselves. That is not the game’s fault. He knew he wasn’t going to like the game, and he reviewed it anyway. That is not a reliable reviewer to follow. There’s a reason I don’t review competitive shooters like CoD anymore. I do not like them. I reviewed Stellar Blade after playing the PS+ game trial and because I enjoy Soulslike games.
Gamers need to stop dogpiling on game reviewers claiming they, “don’t play games” when it is literally their career to play them. Just because you disagree with a score does not mean it is totally unfounded. You weren’t going to read the review if they gave it a 9 in the first place, you may as well read it if they gave it a 7.
Fans can’t see beyond the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia for DBZ thinking it deserves more praise. Those same people are unable to look at the full picture of Concord’s failure. Giving Sparking! Zero, Concord, Star Wars Outlaws, and Dustborn 7/10’s doesn’t mean anything when it’s different reviewers, different genres of games, in completely different markets. They’re all 7s in their genres. That’s where the similarities start and stop.
Final Thoughts: By the time this is done people are still on this “reviews are bad kick” because of new controversy with Dragon Age Inquisition.