Why don't major Youtube channels and gaming magazines have enough balls to rate Doom Eternal with the highest score?

I remember When Doom 2016 came out it too had some criticism at first and later it was considered one of the best shooters of the decade and the best comeback in gaming history. Reviews gave 2016 mostly 9s, and I totally agree with the score. But seriously, how come Eternal is not a 10? I'm not asking every Eternal review should be a 10, but at least there should be more 10s this time around.

It seems that every review agrees that Eternal is fantastic/amazing/phenomenal with some flaws, but they are all inconsistent regarding flaws. For example, they mostly agree that the combat is flawless, but for the flaws it is either the Marauder is hard/unbalanced or breaking the pace, which is total bull shit in my opinion. Opinions on the story are contradicting, they say the story is either too simple or too complicated, or is too much which is total bull shit in my opinion as well because you can skip it. Opinions on the platforming are that it is good, bad and ok, some say it is is too much, some say it is ok during a fight in the arena but not between fights, some say it is great between fights as well because it makes exploration more interesting. I mean if there was nothing to do between fights then they would say it is boring and repetitive.

Are people afraid they're going to be labeled as fanboys if they give a game 10? I understand that there is no perfect game but looking for or making up flaws in a game and giving it a lower score just for the sake of it is just lame. I mean, if you really try you can find flaws in Ocarina Of Time as well.

I'm not bothered. All those nine ratings make it a "must play" for FPS fans as far as I'm concerned.

I'd rate it a 9.5 myself. Pretty damn close to perfection.

10/10 for me! Smash that like button and subscribe. Also be sure to ring that bell to notify you of further uploads!!!!

Maybe it got mostly 9s because people thought it "is fantastic/amazing/phenomenal with some flaws". I'd give it a 9 too personally. It's fantastic, but when there are clear things I think would have made the game better (fo example, the pacing of the opening of the game is pretty disappointing given how perfect it was in Doom 2016) you're not going to give it a perfect score.

2 hours ago, GoatLord said:

"Why doesn't everyone exactly agree with me?"

3 hours ago, Hofmann said:

I'm not asking every Eternal review should be a 10, but at least there should be more 10s this time around. 

More like "Why don't more people agree with my score?", but ok I see your point.

"Why doesn't everyone have my opinions?"
 

As far as the singleplay portion goes, it's a 10/10 from me. The aesthetics, the gameplay, the atmospehre and audio and details.... just fucking WOW! It gave me the same excitement & awe running through some of those levels to where it felt like I was running through the classic DOOM's for the first time again. The lore is badass, too. haven't really tried the battlemode/MP component beyond a single match, but it seemed pretty fun. Of course, not as groundbreaking as DM was to classic DOOM, but still fun.

Best DOOM since 93's (Ultimate) DOOM. Better, actually. Though '93 DOOM will always be my favorite... just so much history and sentimental value.

I hold them both (Eternal and DOOM '93) in equal regard; masterpiece labors of love.  Next up would be DOOM 64 on my list.

4 hours ago, Hofmann said:

But seriously, how come Eternal is not a 10?

Cause it is not deserving a 10. That's all. 

4 hours ago, Hofmann said:

I remember When Doom 2016 came out it too had some criticism at first and later it was considered one of the best shooters of the decade and the best comeback in gaming history. Reviews gave 2016 mostly 9s, and I totally agree with the score. But seriously, how come Eternal is not a 10?

Because its not a perfect game.

Protip: The perfect game does not exist.

4 hours ago, Hofmann said:

I'm not asking every Eternal review should be a 10, but at least there should be more 10s this time around.

Why? Do you need additional confirmation from other reviewers to support your belief that Eternal is a good game in its own right?

4 hours ago, Hofmann said:

It seems that every review agrees that Eternal is fantastic/amazing/phenomenal with some flaws, but they are all inconsistent regarding flaws.

Its almost like reviewers have a subjective perspective of things and thus what one considers a minus, the other may not, thus the flaws are also different each time.

You then go off on a tangent how most subjective reviewer opinions are total bullshit but all i get from that is that you do not seem to understand that reviews are subjective in the first place.

4 hours ago, Hofmann said:

Are people afraid they're going to be labeled as fanboys if they give a game 10?

People are afraid of people like Hofmann who are going to call them out no matter what grade they are giving the game because its never the right one.

4 hours ago, Hofmann said:

I understand that there is no perfect game but looking for or making up flaws in a game and giving it a lower score just for the sake of it is just lame.

Giving 10s to Eternal just because you feel there are too little 10's is equally lame for all the points described above.

4 hours ago, Hofmann said:

I mean, if you really try you can find flaws in Ocarina Of Time as well.

Protip: The perfect game does not exist.

Obviously it's 7.5/10 with mark "not for everyone". Gamedesign is weak.

The game is easily a 9.5 for me, though I can see why a  couple of points got knocked down for some reviewers. While the platforming sections do get more comfortable as the game goes on, it does tend to get a bit obsessed with long stretches of really random stretches of such. Sometimes they at least connect to the visual situation (almost all the Hell on Earth sections feel thematically appropriate), but then you get these massive jump puzzles in Urdak and Hell that are just.... why....whyyyy.....

Also, the Marauder. He is a big, big reason for me not personally giving the game a full perfect 10. I beat him just fine.... I just don't like him and think he seriously needs a balancing upgrade with that damn shield and "stop and go" style of fighting him. 

Other than that though, I LOVED Eternal, and it seems like a good chunk of the reviewers did too, so I don't think it really matters that they didn't give it the perfect ten. 

This game is a solid 9 for me. It's not a ten because it doesn't predicate a complete sea change in the gaming landscape in addition to having near flawless gameplay.

The original Doom ('93) was a 10. Tetris was a 10. Street Fighter II was a 10.

To me, a ten says "The gaming history books will use this game to divide the eras of gaming."

Clear 9.5 for me.

Battlemode is a hell of a lot of fun - it's fantastic, unique, strategic and challenging - but I feel like it being the only multiplayer offering is a little bare bones. And I'm not talking about deathmatch, I feel there are other options they could have included too. Perhaps a horde survival mode plus a modified version of the campaign to allow for coop of some kind. I know Invasion is coming later and I can't wait to see how that plays.

As far as single player goes - nearly perfect. It is the most unique FPS experience I've ever had in terms of the mechanics and the basic combat loop. It's engaging, adrenaline charged, skill dependent and hectic. There is nothing more satisfying than using all your abilities and arsenal to defeat a difficult encounter - and it looks like a masterfully choreographed martial arts movie when you do so - you look like a straight-up badass and it feels great because you earn it with skill, patience, quick reflexes and strategy. Every enemy is incredibly well designed, imo (yes, even the Marauder, I love fighting him). My issues are minor nitpicks - like having to re-complete a level and get to almost the end before being offered fast travel - even if you've already beat it (I understand why they did it this way, but I wish they could have found a work around) and other tiny QOL things, and the visual design of the Baron.

Oh, and to be clear, I don't throw around 9's like candy, much less 9.5's, in my personal ratings for games, not that anyone cares as I'm not an authority or anything lol. But I mean that when I think a game is a 5, that doesn't mean it's terrible as the 10-point scale has seemingly been rebalanced to reflect. Instead a 5 is just that - average - which is not the same as bad. Bad is like 2.

the gfx are extremely gross, not just the fatalities but the enemy skins and general environmental fleshiness too. the jumping sections are too telegraphed. every line of spoken dialogue is idiotic. ten out of ten

It has the highest critic's score on Metacritic compared to any other Doom game (Doom 3, DOOM, the other spinoffs ... the classics don't have many reviews which make sense). I think the game has a deserved reception.

5 hours ago, Hofmann said:

Are people afraid they're going to be labeled as fanboys if they give a game 10?

No.

After I beat it, it is solid 8. The final level is excellent and if you play the game as you are "asked" the core gameplay is... solid.

Then again, I played it on UV and just dashing around like a headless chicken was pretty effective.

CONS

The magic chainsaw is off putting, no 2 pip demons either, the "secret fights" are 90% awful or meh at best (with few exceptions).

No weapons to find early in the secrets, not much point having ammo and armor either.

The 1 up system and cartoonish jumping segments with plaming chains, rocket platforms etc are weird to me too.

PROS

I do like platforming segments that make sense however, like jumping from building to building, climbing an elevator shaft etc.

On the other hand, overall and map aesthetic is really good and the map design is pretty solid too. The combat and movement are responsive and enjoyable.

The best example are the slayer gates, I did enjoy those. The extended beastiary is (mostly) great both visual and mechanic-vise.

And battlemode is amazing IMO. The "ecosystem" they have created for Doom slayer works much better in BM.

The concept itself is inetersting, fun and enjoyable. The small plus also is the fact you only need 3 players.

It is easier to find matches or create small private group.

So yeah, small step forward but somehow also backward from Doom 2016 which I really love, like 9.5/10 love.

Those fucking millennials nowadays prefer playing Animal Crossing, so don't bother Nintendo fans trying to review a real game.
IGN giving 8.2 to a +9 game such as Crash Team Racing because they just can't accept this time that game was better than the Mario counterpart.
Reviewers suck.

1 minute ago, DJVCardMaster said:

Those fucking millennials nowadays prefer playing Animal Crossing, so don't bother Nintendo fans trying to review a real game.

As a life-long PC gamer who's also a Millennial, I find statements like these amusing.

No game is perfect and while Eternal is a fantastic games, there's always going to be some flaws, even/specially when compared of the older games, if you look at some things.

I feel like we should give it some more time, to have a better prespective on the game.

It's not like we're getting a Bioshock Infinite/OverWatch event where people praise a game really highly, before starting to hate it and forget it even exists.

If you’re a reviewer, giving a 10 is hard because it’s almost “too awesome of a score” - it’s basically the reviewer version of “Too Awesome to Use”.

Most reviewers/review-writing rags aren’t worth wasting any of your time on anyway. A few minutes of gameplay footage tells me vastly more about the desirability of the game than someone who thinks their opinion is worth it’s weight in gold.

2 hours ago, deepthaw said:

This game is a solid 9 for me. It's not a ten because it doesn't predicate a complete sea change in the gaming landscape in addition to having near flawless gameplay.

 

The original Doom ('93) was a 10. Tetris was a 10. Street Fighter II was a 10.

 

To me, a ten says "The gaming history books will use this game to divide the eras of gaming."

Perfectly stated!

4 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

Perfectly stated!

I mean, for me, Eternal is a game that changes the FPS genre though

Why don't all reviewers think the way I do? That sounds like a question a Khan Makyr would ask. 

7 minutes ago, The Doommer said:

I mean, for me, Eternal is a game that changes the FPS genre though

I’m glad you love the game so much, I think it looks damn good too. But, what I was getting at and what I think deepthaw was getting at is that games warranting “full 10” scores need to completely change the face of gaming. 

Tetris, Street Fighter and Doom were cloned thousands upon thousands of times. They were so good that whole popular franchises unto themselves started off as “style clones” (Duke Nukem 3D, Mortal Kombat, etc).

I would be very surprised if we saw hundreds of games that were “Doom Eternal clones”, and even more surprised if any of those clones/ripoffs developed into their own popular series, the way it happened with those rare “10/10” games that were mentioned.

Its basically an attempt to stay “objective” about the score, even though true objectivity is impossible when it comes to opinions. If someone doesn’t care about historic influence in their reviews/game scores that’s totally up to them of course, and in that case I can definitely see Eternal being given a 10, particularly compared to some other not-so-great modern releases.

7 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

I would be very surprised if we saw hundreds of games that were “Doom Eternal clones”, and even more surprised if any of those clones/ripoffs developed into their own popular series, the way it happened with those rare “10/10” games that were mentioned.

Valid point. But I guess games will try to insert some of the mechanics though.

9 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

I’m glad you love the game so much, I think it looks damn good too.

Thanks mate. I agree with it being so damn good too.

11 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

Its basically an attempt to stay “objective” about the score, even though true objectivity is impossible when it comes to opinions. If someone doesn’t care about historic influence in their reviews/game scores that’s totally up to them of course, and in that case I can definitely see Eternal being given a 10, particularly compared to some other not-so-great modern releases.

Agreed. Makes sense

3 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

The perfect game does not exist.

Laughs in Doom 1.

Didn't say Doom 2 because for me IoS is the downside.

I Rate Doom Eternal A solid 9/10, Yes i would give it a 10/10 but there was a few things that i disliked with it, One major issue i find is some of the Wall climbing and Parkour sections can be a bit frustrating, and i absolutely 100% hate the goddamn Marauder. (IMO he should have just been a mini-boss instead of a normal common enemy type) I'm more amused with the Doom Hunter's since they are kinda easy but not fodder.  

And before you mention it, I classify a "Boss" as a 1 time deal fight instead of multiple.

Also i would have been nice if they had scrapped the Tyrant as i personally dislike them since they are way too underpowered.

I just gave it a 7 out of 10 because whilst the music and visuals are top-notch, the combat is rather tough for me and I don't like the parkour stuff with the wall-climbing and Tarzan swinging.

26 minutes ago, Foebane72 said:

I don't like the parkour stuff with the wall-climbing and Tarzan swinging.

 

Is it honestly that difficult?

1 minute ago, The Doommer said:

Is it honestly that difficult?

It breaks up the flow and is awkward, as I described in that second lava level elsewhere. It took me ages to get to that final island and I think it was down to luck.

At least Doom 2016 didn't have any of that. Double-jumping, and that was it.