>user scores have gone down since 2000
>critic scores have gone up since 2007
>revenue has nearly quadrupled
Why did the critics and userbase split so hard?
Gaming HAS gotten worse over the years
>user scores have gone down since 2000
>critic scores have gone up since 2007
>revenue has nearly quadrupled
Why did the critics and userbase split so hard?
review bombing
Good thing you can just play great older games.
t. Zoomer playing GOLDENEYE for the first time.
because the "industry" figured out that they can put in the least ammount of effort possible and make up for it by bribing reviewers since there's literally no scrutiny for game reviews
those who won't accept get blacklisted and lose their livelihood
“””””””””””””video game critics”””””””””””””””” are paid shills
I guess they don't pay us gaymers to play those shitty games.
>2019
4-year-old data, anon. Seems that everybody is missing 3 years of their lives for some reason
Frick off
>Seems that everybody is missing 3 years of their lives for some reason
ah yes i too remember the illegal government enforced destruction of the standard way of life
I remember reports of game sales doing quite well during the lockdowns. Even dying MMOs were able to hold on a little longer thanks to everyone being locked up. Arcades were the only sector that got fricked.
Users had to pay for the game
what a fricking dumb chart...both scores have gone up 10x from about 7 to around 70
The top critics are right. Users let themselves fall prey to things like ideology and waifuism. You can't trust their opinions because they vastly overrate Japanese games while review bombing anything that doesn't let you romance underaged girls.
You skip the part how you can't trust majority of pro-critics because of conflict of interest.
The same companies that buy ad space on those websites and sending them review copies earlier are getting their games reviewed.
But what you said is also true.
In short, pirate everything pay only if you like it.
>You skip the part how you can't trust majority of pro-critics because of conflict of interest.
I can trust them more than I can trust weebs. And they haven't steered me wrong yet. Even TLOU2 was a good game, even though Ganker will seethe if I say it.
For me their score is quite worthless, but I can tell what I would like to play after watching a brief uncut gameplay. Someone who dislikes FPS won't give Quake or Solder of Fortune high score, same as I would not score "movie" game highly even if that game was objectively good. I value gameplay over story/voiceacting, some people want to see spectacle and move on. This is why there cannot be universal scoring system that makes sense.
>after 2007 reviewer opinion suddenly diverges from its parallel of player opinion
How the frick is 2007 THE year for everything going wrong?
Iphones/smartphones
>user scores
more paid reviews
~2010 is the period when a bunch of old social media/aggregator sites all went out of business in quick succession and the survivors all started serving content algorithmically instead of chronologically.
What you are seeing is the result of users being less happy in general as they are collectively trained to seek out and consume outrage because it drives engagement metrics for these websites.
The only thing that can hurt a reviewer pursuing their failson pseudo-job is rating a game badly that everyone else rated highly. Rating a game as good that everyone else dislikes is just eccentric, rating a game as bad that everyone else worships is a major danger.
So there is inexorable pressure pushing scores up.
I bet that 2000s dip in metascores was driven by the great anti-Japanese hate awakening where every westoid game journalist decided Japs really needed to pay American studios for their loser friends to goldbrick at.
I remember how bad some of cucksole ports were on PC. Majority of those games were jap games. PS1 and PS2 games with locked controls and resolution/graphic settings. But this isn't PC only scoring so I doubt this is what we are seeing here.