451 réponses à ce sujet

[Weskerr]

I've been doing a little research concerning gaming journalism and what I've found is disturbing. Gaming publishers have tremendous power over these gaming sites in terms of money. This is achieved through advertisements. If it weren't for these advertisements, many gaming review sites would not be in business. Because of how this system works, reviews of games from publishers who provide advertisements for particular sites are skewed and not objective.

The conflict of interest is obvious. The most egregious example of game sites being in the pockets of game publishers was Gamespot's firing of their lead editor, Jeff Gertsmann. He gave a bad review to the game Kane and Lynch whose publisher provided heavy amounts of advertising to the site prior to the review. It is clear how easily the system can be abused. If there's even a possibility that game review sites can be manipulated by game publishers, then any reviews they write are essentially worthless. The onus is on the review sites to show that they uphold journalistic integrity. They can do so through transparency of their dealings with gaming publishers - showing statistics of exactly where their revenue comes from, informing the reader in a review if a free copy of the game being reviewed was given, listing any gifts given to the reviewer prior to the review and so on.

Right now, gaming review sites have little to no integrity, are corrupt and biased, and sometimes even take orders from publishers about when to post reviews. Objective journalism in gaming is nearly non-existent. The whole situation is akin to the political machines that existed in American politics in the late 19th century. It's disgraceful.

[shepard1038]

Obrusnine wrote...

Elk Cloner wrote...

Obrusnine wrote...

Why is it that not a single one I have seen with a review has even mentioned the terrible ending. I mean seriously, wtf???

Gametrailers have. Although they gave ME3 high score. Figures, they're Call of Duty and PlayStation fanboys...

That's because ME3 deserved a high score. You can't judge an entire game on 10 minutes. Even if the ending left something to be desired. Mass Effect was a journey worth taking.

Even if the ending was bad the Game is one of the best I played. The journey is amazing.

[Stanley Woo]

EJ107 wrote...

I understand that, but 100/100 would imply a perfect game and between the various bugs (import ones in particular) and slightly clunky mission/codex log, I wouldn't say the game is perfect (very good, but never perfect) And the subjective endings only add to that (many, many people actively hate them, and I know some who are not even big fans of the series and dislike it). 

Is that what the reviewer means by 100/100? Because I can think of several other ways to interpret a perfect score for a video game review:

- HOLY CRAP IT WAS SO FUN!
- the game is an exemplar of its genre
- everything the game was trying to accomplish, it did so
- the game is completely problem free
- the game is perfect
- the game has tremendous value for its price
- the positives of the whole game experience vastly outweighed the negatives

And depending on the site or publication's policies, it may or may not be possible to get a perfect score. not saying you're wrong, but I can think of other reasons a game might get a perfect (or high or low) score.

[Obrusnine]

the red boon wrote...

Who else didn't care about these big review websites because they usually got it wrong with other games you've played?

I mostly trust reviewers. Of course, I won't put full belief in a single critic, but they usually are around what I would say about something. Reviews are just a way to make an informed decision about purchasing a product. As long as you recognize the fact that it was an opinion, then you can objectively make decisions based on that opinion.

You should look for a critic that generally judges games on the same standard you do. For me that's IGN, I don't always agree with them of course, but most of the time I find it alright.

Now, off to read any new replies,

[TUHD]

the red boon wrote...

Who else didn't care about these big review websites because they usually got it wrong with other games you've played?

I've learned to distrust IGN, PCGamer, GameInformer and the like ever since I played DA2 and compared the difference between my experience and their reviews - leaving a gap where the Mount Everest fits in a couple of times. I didn't completely trust them beforehand, but it wasn't distrust, just some caution. Now it's distrust.

[The Spamming Troll]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Perhaps they had no problem with the ending, and/or felt the endings did not detract from their game experience.

perhaps monkeys fly out of my butt.

[ciorex]

Obrusnine wrote...

ciorex wrote...

Lets just pretend for a moment that there actually were 16 "diferent" endings, there is still one problem, the destruction of the mass relays.

I'm sure you're aware of this, as you created the damn lore, that when a mass relay is destroyed it goes super nova and prety much vaporises the entire system its located in. So, what you've done in esence, is you've turned Shapard into the bigest mass murderer in the galaxy, aside from the Reapers ofcourse.

How does that make any sense?

Did you forget this was a spoiler free forum! I swear to god if my thread gets closed cause of you, -.-

This bit of lore is from Mass Effect 2, so that would be highly unlikely

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Adeph wrote...

To be fair guys, these are the same critics that never, ever seem to experience any of the bugs that so many games release with and which you are I will find within a few days.

To be fair, a game reviewer's job isn't to be a bug hunter. It's to play the game and give people an idea of what it's like, to aid them in making their purchasing decision. If they feel that a bug or issue needs to be called out, I'm sure they would. I have read reviews which have called out things like install issues, connection problems, crashes, even hosts of minor bugs that, while noteworthy, ultimately did not hinder the game.

This is basically what it means to be objective, and most people can be objective to varying degrees.

How about the fact that you can't import your Shepard's face at all if you imported straight from ME->ME2->ME3? Can you explain me why neither you at Bioware nor any of the reviewers stumbled upon this 'problem', which for me personally is game breaking and preventing me from playing since release?

There's actually a podcast on the Escapist that mentions the import issue. Two of the people on the podcast mention it, one thought it was just him until the other verified it was a known issue if you tried to carry over your character over from the two previous games. They both agreed it was, well "silly" and a huge QA oversight that it didn't dawn on the developers that people playing in all likelihood would be those who have actually played all three. You would think it would be a reward for brand loyalty. The one that did beat the game said that although they enjoyed the game, the ending was bull****.

[Obrusnine]

TUHD wrote...

the red boon wrote...

Who else didn't care about these big review websites because they usually got it wrong with other games you've played?

I've learned to distrust IGN, PCGamer, GameInformer and the like ever since I played DA2 and compared the difference between my experience and their reviews - leaving a gap where the Mount Everest fits in a couple of times. I didn't completely trust them beforehand, but it wasn't distrust, just some caution. Now it's distrust.

I think it's kind of harsh to base your entire opinion of something off of a single experience.

[NedPepper]

Elite Midget wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

Kanner wrote...

You remember how DA2 got an almost universal 9/10?

Yeah.

We've even had three different people from Penny-Arcade defending/explaining/praising the endings. You will not find genuinely useful opinions on Bioware products anywhere other than the fan base itself now. Bioware is literally the 'too-big-to-fail' monolith of the video game reporting world.

If we're truly relying on THIS fanbase in its fractured, childish, rude, entitled exisistence to be some kind of harbringer of truth and quality, Bioware is doomed.  You know who I believe has done more damage to Bioware than EA, Day One DLC, Multiplayer, DA2 being rushed....the sychophants on this forum and the trolls on metacritic.  This site is a toxic wasteland of negative nitpicking that has lost sight of the simple of love of gaming.

They're more reliable than reviewers since they actualy play the game to the full.

Kinda hard to love the game when Bioware lied about everything concerning ME3.

Not getting the ending YOU wanted does not consititue a bad game.  But I can't argue this.  I tried before with Dragon Age 2 and I simply decided it wasn't worth my time or effort.  DA2 wasn't perfect, but it sure as heck is not a "bad game."  It's hyperbolic nonsense.  I am so tired of it.  I wish I could find my quote that said the same thing was going to happen with ME 3.  And I was right. 

I've never seen a fanbase caninbalize a  company they claim to love like Bioware fans.  It's...a bizarre phenomenon.

(They should answer for Day One DLC and the face importing issues....these are real issues... gamebreaking design and corporate greed issues...but the rest of this outcry just feels unhinged.)

[Obrusnine]

ciorex wrote...

Obrusnine wrote...

ciorex wrote...

Lets just pretend for a moment that there actually were 16 "diferent" endings, there is still one problem, the destruction of the mass relays.

I'm sure you're aware of this, as you created the damn lore, that when a mass relay is destroyed it goes super nova and prety much vaporises the entire system its located in. So, what you've done in esence, is you've turned Shapard into the bigest mass murderer in the galaxy, aside from the Reapers ofcourse.

How does that make any sense?

Did you forget this was a spoiler free forum! I swear to god if my thread gets closed cause of you, -.-

This bit of lore is from Mass Effect 2, so that would be highly unlikely

Look at the bold in the quote.

Modifié par Obrusnine, 15 mars 2012 - 11:24 .

[Lee T]

the red boon wrote...

Who else didn't care about these big review websites because they usually got it wrong with other games you've played?

I

Mass effect linked exemples :

I stopped taking seriously anything written by Kevin Van Ord (Gamespot) when he gave a generally better review and slightly better grade to Assassin's Creed (the first one) than Mass Effect (the first one).

Since I consider ME2 to be globally inferior to ME1 I have a hard time taking seriously all reviews that said it made everything in ME1 better. And that's pretty much every critic (I also felt very alone here  ).

[Elite Midget]

Stanley Woo wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

I understand that, but 100/100 would imply a perfect game and between the various bugs (import ones in particular) and slightly clunky mission/codex log, I wouldn't say the game is perfect (very good, but never perfect) And the subjective endings only add to that (many, many people actively hate them, and I know some who are not even big fans of the series and dislike it). 

Is that what the reviewer means by 100/100? Because I can think of several other ways to interpret a perfect score for a video game review:

- HOLY CRAP IT WAS SO FUN!
- the game is an exemplar of its genre
- everything the game was trying to accomplish, it did so
- the game is completely problem free
- the game is perfect
- the game has tremendous value for its price
- the positives of the whole game experience vastly outweighed the negatives

And depending on the site or publication's policies, it may or may not be possible to get a perfect score. not saying you're wrong, but I can think of other reasons a game might get a perfect (or high or low) score.

So you know why there's such a huge fan backlash going on and countless low user review scores as well?

[Caz Neerg]

nedpepper wrote...
(They should answer for Day One DLC and the face importing issues....these are real issues... gamebreaking design and corporate greed issues...but the rest of this outcry just feels unhinged.)

So let me get this straight; because *you* care about Day One DLC and face importing, those are "real, gamebreaking issues," but because you don't think the ending is broken, people getting upset about that are "unhinged?"  Despite there clearly being tens of thousands more people expressing that opinion than are expressing yours, and many of those people feel the entire series has been broken, not just this game?

[KotorEffect3]

Honestly I trust professional reviewers more than fans. Fans review with emotion and they will bomb a game they don't like over a minor thing or they will praise a game as being absolutely perfect. Professional reviewers on the other hand will look at all the aspects of a game, look at what the dev is trying to accomplish and go from there. Professional reviewers are generaly smarter and more rational than fans are.

[Zanath]

Obrusnine wrote...

Why is it that not a single one I have seen with a review has even mentioned the terrible ending. I mean seriously, wtf???

Adam Sessler in on X-Play literally said "this is how you end a trilogy!"

That one made me laugh, really hard.

Hello, you're talking about the people that consistently gives big budget and famous games stellar reviews regardless of their quality ?

The same who gave 9/10 for DA2 and praised Civilization 5 as a marvelous iteration, when both have been considered by actual players as failures ?

Paint me surprised...

[Wishpig]

Did some of the critics get paid off? Maybe. Maybe not. I could see it going either way.

Keep in mind it is there job to review THE ENTIRE product. Not just a part (like the ending). Most people on these forums, or at least MANY people on the forums, acknowledge the fact the majority of the game was fantastic and only the last few minutes sucked hard. The high review scores attest to this.

I'm sure the ending wasn't refered to often because of spoilers.

Modifié par Wishpig, 15 mars 2012 - 11:31 .

[Elite Midget]

nedpepper wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

Kanner wrote...

You remember how DA2 got an almost universal 9/10?

Yeah.

We've even had three different people from Penny-Arcade defending/explaining/praising the endings. You will not find genuinely useful opinions on Bioware products anywhere other than the fan base itself now. Bioware is literally the 'too-big-to-fail' monolith of the video game reporting world.

If we're truly relying on THIS fanbase in its fractured, childish, rude, entitled exisistence to be some kind of harbringer of truth and quality, Bioware is doomed.  You know who I believe has done more damage to Bioware than EA, Day One DLC, Multiplayer, DA2 being rushed....the sychophants on this forum and the trolls on metacritic.  This site is a toxic wasteland of negative nitpicking that has lost sight of the simple of love of gaming.

They're more reliable than reviewers since they actualy play the game to the full.

Kinda hard to love the game when Bioware lied about everything concerning ME3.

Not getting the ending YOU wanted does not consititue a bad game.  But I can't argue this.  I tried before with Dragon Age 2 and I simply decided it wasn't worth my time or effort.  DA2 wasn't perfect, but it sure as heck is not a "bad game."  It's hyperbolic nonsense.  I am so tired of it.  I wish I could find my quote that said the same thing was going to happen with ME 3.  And I was right. 

I've never seen a fanbase caninbalize a  company they claim to love like Bioware fans.  It's...a bizarre phenomenon.

(They should answer for Day One DLC and the face importing issues....these are real issues... gamebreaking design and corporate greed issues...but the rest of this outcry just feels unhinged.)

....Why do I bother with those that are so dense? It isn't about the ending someone wants, it's the lack of choices or more than one ending outside recolors. What you did in ME1-3 doesn't matter, in the end everyone gets the same 3 choices that make very little to no refence to anything that has happened in the trilogy. It also fails to make you care for anything in the series since everyone dies after the reset button is hit and have n way of connecting as galactic community anymore. But hey, we saved Earth, right?

Bioware promised many varied endings that would be vastly different based on your choices. So yes, there should have been a Happy Ending, a Reaper Victory Ending, and the such. Instead we got some random convulted nonsense thrown in at the last minute.

Modifié par Elite Midget, 15 mars 2012 - 11:32 .

[Obrusnine]

Caz Neerg wrote...

nedpepper wrote...
(They should answer for Day One DLC and the face importing issues....these are real issues... gamebreaking design and corporate greed issues...but the rest of this outcry just feels unhinged.)

So let me get this straight; because *you* care about Day One DLC and face importing, those are "real, gamebreaking issues," but because you don't think the ending is broken, people getting upset about that are "unhinged?"  Despite there clearly being tens of thousands more people expressing that opinion than are expressing yours, and many of those people feel the entire series has been broken, not just this game?

Also, it's not a "gamebreaking issue" at all. I would've had no problem rebuilding my face if I had finished the series on PS3. As it was, I liked my PS3 head better and actually used the face code off of it (although it was very hard to read...) on my PC version. If you REALLY care THAT much about the face, then just use the face code from ME2. Most everything will be the same and you can fix it up if anything is wrong.

Like there was this thing with funky orange hair and it wasn't the right hair style, but I fixed that in less then 90 seconds.

[Duvel_Duvel]

Stanley Woo wrote...
I would hope that all reviewers are giving us a "realistic and genuine review," otherwise even more poeple will decide that reviews don't mean anything anymore.

How on earth could a 'game journalist' write such a review when his income is depending on ads from the thing he reviews.

How it currently works is simple, gaming industry sends money to IGN, IGN then markets the game on their site.
There is nothing wrong with that, but I hope we can be honest and say it has nothing to do with objective journalism.

All gaming sites also have an active interest in hyping games, since more interest in games simply means more visits to their site.

Modifié par Duvel_Duvel, 15 mars 2012 - 11:34 .

[TUHD]

Obrusnine wrote...

TUHD wrote...

the red boon wrote...

Who else didn't care about these big review websites because they usually got it wrong with other games you've played?

I've learned to distrust IGN, PCGamer, GameInformer and the like ever since I played DA2 and compared the difference between my experience and their reviews - leaving a gap where the Mount Everest fits in a couple of times. I didn't completely trust them beforehand, but it wasn't distrust, just some caution. Now it's distrust.

I think it's kind of harsh to base your entire opinion of something off of a single experience.

I putted it wrong. Ever since then I've been comparing the reviews of those sites/magazines to user reviews for games I'd potentially buy (ever since DA2). The majority of the time, there's an rather big discrepancy between their reviews and user reviews. Hence why.

Modifié par TUHD, 15 mars 2012 - 11:33 .

[FlyingCow371]

If reviewers didn't make it to the ending, then perfect scores are fairly understandable. It was an excellent game throughout most of the time spent playing it. So there's 25-30 hours of excellent content, then half an hour of terrible content. It would be somewhat difficult to combine those very different experiences into a single score... at first glance just looking at the time spent in game having fun vs. destruction of souls/hope, it's heavily in favor of good/fun times. The journey to the end was really excellent. But since the ending is such a critical time in the lasting impression anything leaves you with...it can impact replayability of ME3 and others in the series, enjoyment of ME3 multiplayer, books, potential DLC, music, it could even impact the enjoyment of talking to friends about the game. If when you remember it, you just think of how terrible one part of it was, and how close it came to a masterpiece, about how some pre-game interviews were lies...those things definitely can detract from the overall experience.

So yes, it is somewhat surprising that most of the reviews don't mention it. Although it's very possible that a lot of reviewers just don't make it to the end, or if they do they didn't care too much about what happens to the universe after the game is over; they were just busy writing something up before some deadlines. Plus it'd be hard to write about in a review without including too many spoilers. If they just said that it was a letdown, a lot of people probably wouldn't believe them on the strength of bioware's prior reputation. I know I didn't believe people when they first told me that finishing the game isn't worth it.

[Elite Midget]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Honestly I trust professional reviewers more than fans. Fans review with emotion and they will bomb a game they don't like over a minor thing or they will praise a game as being absolutely perfect. Professional reviewers on the other hand will look at all the aspects of a game, look at what the dev is trying to accomplish and go from there. Professional reviewers are generaly smarter and more rational than fans are.

Right, because they were right about DA2. Surely that's why all that planned DLC for DA2 ended up getting released because th reviewers said it was a great game that fans would love.

Ohwaitaminuterightthere!