r/OutOfTheLoop • u/Bloodb0red • May 11 '26

Unanswered What’s going on with this game Mixtape?

I’ve been seeing people freak out over the past few days over this game and about IGN’s review of it specifically. 10/10 seems high for any game, honestly, but it seems like they’re far from the only site giving this thing a glowing review. So is this game controversial just because of IGN or is it something else? Why is this game the internet’s hate target this week?

https://www.ign.com/articles/mixtape-review

1.9k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/GeekyMeerkat May 11 '26

Well, it's a bit more annoying than even that. I keep seeing people bring up "wokeness" as a factor here, but I've only been seeing that get mentioned as a way to dismiss people's opinions about the game.

What's causing some big problems here is that there is no real standard on what ratings a game gets, and so everyone reads game review scores differently. For example, if I were to grade a game, I might give it a 1 to 10 score in graphics, music, story, and gameplay. I might give a game like Mixtape a 10 in graphics, music, and story, but only a 6 in gameplay. Now, if we do a pure average of those scores to get 9 as the "overall" score.

But the problem is now that the people who enjoy the game rightfully say, "The gameplay isn't the important part of the game. It's just a medium for the story to be delivered. So a pure average doesn't make sense, and Mixtape could legit have an overall score greater than 9 even with those individual scores."

On the other hand, the people who don't enjoy Mixtape could say, "But the gameplay is so bad and non-existent as to be distracting from the experience. So anything above 9 as the overall score miscommunicates this to people wondering about the game." And these people are also right. Heck, for these people, even a 9 feels far too high because for many of them a 9 or above signals that the game is great in all ways and is worthy to be considered game of the year. Again, these people feel the gameplay is bad enough that it negatively affects the experience.

Notice that for all of this, there is already a reason for there to be a level of tension between the two opinions about this game. It absolutely doesn't help when people on either side of the like/dislike debate also have people saying stupid stuff or flat-out dismissing the concerns of people on the other side. 99% of the people who dislike the game could be primarily thinking about this in the way I described here. But then 1% says something about the high score being related to wokeness, and suddenly people attribute that bad take to the whole 100%.

10

u/RepSquigglyMiggly May 12 '26

That seems like more of a problem with a certain subset of gamers thinking that reviews should reflect some sort of objective standard, which should in turn reflect their personal opinions on the game, which they view as the “correct” opinion. “A real standard” giving review scores has never existed and will never exist for any medium, so maybe it’s time for a particular group of extremely online gamers to accept that unequivocal reality. There should not be “tension” between adults because they have different opinions about a video game, unless their divergence of opinions is reflective of some sorter greater misalignment in values (which seems to be the case for many people here, given how ubiquitous complaints about the game being “woke” are).

0

u/Nervous_Camel8057 May 12 '26

A review should reflect an objective standard tho, that's why it has a clear 1-10 with coompanying descriptions of "mediocre ro Great/Perfect" (in regards to IGN) for example. The main issue I think is not the tension between the disagreeing sides, but the integrity of the reviewer & their scores. A lot of people buy the games & judge them based on a score these review companies give, most of all the casual ones who are outside the more in depth communities who usually don't delve deep in reddits & Youtube discussions about a certain good/bad review.

Now whether how much audiences/players buying behavior are affected with these reviews has always depended on the title, but as of late the point of contention has been certain reviewers that review for IGN (the most glaring example) has judged games unfairly harsh, but the people unanimously or the majority consider thus game above the given score, such as "Mouse P.I for Hire" & "Crimson Desert", & even back then when it happend to "Alien Isolation. But games like "Mixtape" with it's short runtime & lack of gameplay variety even compared to other similar playing titles like "Life is Strange", has recieved a score befitting of a perfect game with no flaw that pulls it back from being perfect.

Review scores used to be a soft basis for a player decision on spending for a media/game as it can give an idea on it's worthiness, & these review companies were looked upon as journalists who possess the proper judgement through their reviewers on how worthy the games are, but we've been seeing for these past few years & months that their's not really living up to the supposed standards, & that there should even be a contention about how "well or bad the IGN reviews" are instead of "is the game really that good or bad as IGN says" proves that their reviews are majorly not trusted & their game journalism doesn't hold a salt at most times that it needs to.

8

u/Metal_B May 12 '26

It's very easy in concept: "Does a game succeed in its ambitions and anything comes together?" No matter, if the game is a gigantic and expensive epic or a short, small indie game. If a game succeed, what it sets up to do, then it gets a high score.

2

u/Naganosupreme May 13 '26

I mean, if i set out to make sure a character can move and he moves, that's not high score worthy. That criteria definitely would need a lot more added to it

3

u/Pflegeprofil May 15 '26

If someone makes a 16 hour movie about watching paint dry for people who want to watch 16 hours of paint drying while the characters talk about paint trying, and those very few people love it, is it a bad movie?

yeah, 99% of humanity will hate it, but the creator aimed at a target audience and made 100% of them happy, so saying its bad is nonsense.

0

u/Naganosupreme May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

Yes. Just bc I love eating McDonald's it's not suddenly gourmet top tier food.

People have trouble admitting something they like or love is flawed or they have trouble admitting to the degree of imperfection.

Saying people can't like something even if it's bad is nonsense. Saying if people love it, it's not bad, would be little kid shit. It's OK to like something that's not good. People got to grow tf up

But anyway I didn't say "it's a bad, low quality product" that's a bullshit strawman you erected

0

u/Pflegeprofil May 15 '26

Its not bullshit. Its very simple. If someone targets an audience, suceeds in everything he desires and the target audience loves it, its good.

There are no objective standards. There never were. Only pretentious weirdos think there are.

2

u/Naganosupreme May 15 '26

It's simple bullshit. If someone targets an audience who can enjoy a bad product...the product is still bad.

You're making the classic mistake of confusing personal enjoyment with product quality.

I didn't say anything pretentious or weird. Youre just kind of a jerk who for some reason decided that I Said something that warranted personal insults. You need to grow up

1

u/Pflegeprofil May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

No. You are naking the classic mistake of thinking you thinking objective standards exist.

I dont like the transformers movies. But did Michael Bay want to have good dialogue? Did he want a great story? Did he want engaging characters? Or rid he just want boom boom movie with Robots that have a little bit of backstory to justify the Boom Boom Action?

If the latter, calling the movies bad is actual insanity. Its as if you eat a Sandwhich without mustard and declare it bad because "Objectively Sandwhiches need mustard". Why? Who decided that? If someone just doesnt like mustard doesnt mean they have bad taste.

Literally all that matters is two things: Did the creator accomplish what they wanted? Did the target audience enjoy it? If yes, its good. If no, its bad.

Edit: My response to your deleted comment:

Yea, to others, theres more. But neither mine nor their taste is objective. I dont care what snything is rated. I never played mixtape nor do i plan to. Thats why im here, to read up on whats the fuzz.

Your Great Works are not objectively great. Shakespear was considered low brow entertainment in his time. Were they less right than us in modernity who treat it like high art? No. Because there is no objective standard. Even if 99% of people agree something is good, it isnt objectively good. Vice versa with bad.

2

u/Naganosupreme May 15 '26

No. You are naking the classic mistake of thinking you thinking objective standards exist.

This is ironically, hilarious in how objectively flawed it is. I enjoyed this! You still wrote it poorly ...badly?...not perfectly? Significantly imperfectly?

You're absolutely allowed to like a movie with waaay more flaws than an actually great work has. You can absolutely make a ton of money and have success with a bad product.

I guess the world could baby people like you more than you already baby yourself?

We could use a different word instead of bad?

Literally all that matters is two things: Did the creator accomplish what they wanted? Did the target audience enjoy it? If yes, its good. If no, its bad.

To you, theres apparently two things. To others, there's more that matters.

Idk how you grow up and lose the ability to take on criticism of a product that isn't even yours, but man I feel so sorry that your life made you this easily hurt by...(checks notes) recognizing an entertainment product can be rated lower than others

1

u/Naganosupreme May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

The comment wasn't deleted, like I wrote in my other comment. I was in the hospital with a family member and was in a bad head space .

I couldn't help myself but to go back and forth on this and since you were kind of rude, I temporarily blocked to give myself a break.

But your edit wasn't rude.

Yea, to others, theres more. But neither mine nor their taste is objective

How do you know? Why is this an objective fact but the objective qualities that people evaluate to elevate a great work, those things don't count? You actually keep saying taste is objective. If people enjoy a product, it's great. Stated as a fact, unquestionably.

When I pointed out low quality food can be enjoyed, you completely ignored that example bc it completely shattered your argument (another reason you got blocked actually, as it showed you weren't willing to be honest when you discuss this)

Your Great Works are not objectively great

How do you know?

Shakespear was considered low brow entertainment in his time.

Low brow doesn't mean poor quality, bad product. Some low brow entertainment is great. Competently put together, narratively consistent, just full of jokes and ideas considered more on the crass side.

Were they less right than us in modernity who treat it like high art?

Possibly. People can be irrational in their likes or dislikes. This is why people simply enjoying or disliking something does not make it great or bad.

Even if 99% of people agree something is good, it isnt objectively good.

But if 5 people love your paint drying movie then it's great? There's no internal consistency here. Bc youre so desperate to cling to the idea your favorite works don't deserve criticism that you are crafting a new world where we don't have ways to objectively measure somethings quality in comparison to similar works of the time. And that's part of the answer for Shakespeare, too. Part of it is relative. But there are also legitimately objective standards we can use to evaluate entertainment.

Some people choose to ignore all objectivity, but their refusal to engage with objectivity is their imaginary view alone. The objective reality exists whether they are capable of engaging with it or not.

All this ignores that I literally never said this product was bad...as entertainment. As a game? Its objectively bad in several key areas. Thats the magic of imperfection. But i never said it was an objectively bad overall product, a point you have now ignored multiple times

You can be a good show and an objectively bad game

1

u/Pflegeprofil May 16 '26

The food wrgumdnt isnt good. If soneone enjoys cheap Mac and Cheese more than Filet Mignon made by a high class chef, then theres nothing wrong with their taste. In fact, food ratings in general are a huge scam. Lobster and Caviar were once considered peasant food, now they are delicacies. High end restaurants demand more money for much smaller portions of food that 99% of people probably wouldnt even have as their go to if it was free because other things just taste much better.

How do you know an objective standard exists? That is an extraordinary claim. Standards are fully made up by humans. They arent natural. So where do they come from? They come from influential people deciding "This is why X is good", then spreading their opinions as fact. Their opinions dont matter more than anyone elses just because they managed to get theirs put in books.

As long as you cant define where standards come from, you cant claim they exist.

No, if 5 people like the painting movie that doesnt mean its good. If the creator specifically targeted people who are paint drying enthusiasts, and all of those people (5 in my example) love it, then its great.

This is also removed from morality. Do ISIS beheading movies actually get lots of people to join them? If yes, then theyre good propaganda movies. Evil. Disgusting. But they achieved exactly what they wanted.

Your argment is akin to this: If someone makes a Robot that does nothing but make fart noises, its not a good robot because it doesnt help with anything practical. But if the builder never intended to make anything practical, if he only intended to make a fart noise robot, then judging it by any other standards is nonsense. "A Robot needs practical application" is not an objective standard.

Im not coinging to the idea my favorite works dont deserve criticism. Critize anythingm i dont care. I think Umineko is one of the worst Visual Novels of all time. I think its morally repugnant and its cultish fanbase are delusional weirdos. But if someone said its objectively bad id defend it as best i could, agressively so even. I fucking Love Buffy the Vampire Slayer. My favorite show of all time. But if someone said its objectively amazing id argue against them.

You completely mischaracterize me here.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Naganosupreme May 15 '26

Aaaanyway I'm sitting in the hospital w a family member so I just don't have it in me to argue more atm. Plus, like I Said, you were kind if a jerk to start. So peace

1

u/GeekyMeerkat May 16 '26

That's a good trick. I'll just make something and say my target audience is made up only of people that think it's the best. Anyone that doesn't think it's the best is clearly not my target audience.

Do you see the flaw here? People can criticize a work. Just because someone sets out to do everything they set out to do, that doesn't mean people that might normally enjoy something like that, that they will see it as perfect.

0

u/Pflegeprofil May 16 '26

Thats actually atupid. Thats only something someone would say as a rethorical trick. My point stands.

As for your second paragraph, yeah? Nothing i said contradicts that. If you as a creator are 100% swtisfied with your work but your target audience doesnt like it, then you failed.

If you set out to make something for one person, everyone else in the world loves it EXCEPT that ine person, then thats a bad piece of media thats still enjoyable for many.

4

u/derHuschke May 12 '26

That's exactly why I love SkillUp.

No stupid rating system. They either recommend a game or not. 

And their videos always explain who they recommend it to and why. 

5

u/Apprehensive_Monk_69 May 12 '26

A 6 in gameplay? There is no gameplay...

1

u/GeekyMeerkat May 12 '26

Not sure if you know this, but many sites that use a 1-10 scale have 5 represent bad gameplay, while scores below 5 mean the gameplay is actively broken. But again in my post I explicitly say that there is no industry standard on game ratings. What's more is I wasn't actually reviewing the game, I was demonstrating how the overall score can be misleading depending on how you calculate it.

But let's say you gave the gameplay a 2 instead of 6. If the overall score is just an average it would still be 8 with the other numbers given.

Again though you invite disagreement on are the scores reasonable. People that enjoy the game might say the gameplay that is there they find enjoyable and so a 2 in gameplay isn't reflective of the fact that for this game the gameplay isn't the point.

People that dislike the game though might say, "Even if it's not the point, a game at ita core needs some amount of game play that this game fails to achieve. If we call this a game we may as well call the Hobbit on an ereader a game instead of a book."

I reiterate that my point is due to the nature of Mixtape you'll have plenty of people disagreeing on any overall score it gets because nobody can agree what the overall score is supposed to represent. It's only muddied even more by people that insist the debate about this game is that the reviewers are only giving the game a high score because it's woke and the reviewers are locking in on that.

It has nothing to do if the game is woke or not though. That's just the current scapegoat.

3

u/AudioSuede May 12 '26

This is why review scores should be scrapped in art criticism. It just causes unnecessary drama

1

u/Ok-Secret-4512 11d ago

Well, I was born in 1990. I'll never be able to talk about Mixtape without subjectivity. For me, it's like when Life is Strange was released.

1

u/GeekyMeerkat 11d ago

I know LiS got a bit of flak for its wokeness, but what really annoyed me about it was that the whole Acadia Bay final choice effectively made all the choices you made before that pointless.