2017 was an important year in the world of video games. Some say it indicates a paradigm shift in the industry. Indie games such as Cuphead and PlayerUknown’s Battleground topped the sales charts. Another interesting development was that many triple-A releases were lauded by critics yet panned by the public. The rift between critics and players seems to be growing wider and wider.
Mass Effect: Andromeda is a good example of the sharp difference in opinion between critics and players. Most popular critics gave the game a glowing review, which currently stands on 71 on Metacritic, but most players were far less pleased. The triple A release only scored 4.8 from players. Many players have complained about the multitude of bugs, uninspired story line, and flat out ugly character designs and art.
Another great example would be Gone Home. The game was universally praised by critics and received a high score of 85, but fans were much less pleased about the game. The game was panned by players and it received a score of 4.5 by players. Many have complained that Gone Home barely constitutes a game, and is more akin to a walking simulator.
Other examples include EA’s Battlefront II, Fallout 4, Call of Duty: WWII and Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War III. The big question is: Are critics out of touch? Are critic’s reviews paid for by large studios or are players giving bad reviews to games they haven’t bought or played?
The answer is probably a mix of all 3.
Game Protocol’s game store will attempt to avoid the rift and guarantee that all reviews are legitimate and truthful. As the platform will be decentralized, no single review will be considered superior to another regardless of fame or perceived self-importance. Reviews will also only be allowed to players who have Game Protocol tokens in their wallet, in order to stop the fake review phenomenon. Hopefully, these steps taken by Game Protocol will create a more accurate and fair ranking system which will benefit all players.
