142 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

Toyou4you wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Toyou4you wrote...

Abirn wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Toyou4you wrote...

I'm a fan and I love it. And video game review companies get the game much earlier then we do. For those saying critics got paid then explain how EA games have in the past gotten crappy reviews

Explain why reviewers were fired for not giving high enough ratings to games and how this was publicized all across the gamer-known sites despite attempts to husk it up by GameSpot AND IGN.

I'd also like him to explain the reports of blacklisting by companies like Acitivision and gearbox.

If you don't like what critics say then don't read their reviews. And I can't explain why people get fired bbecause I don't work for those companies and neither do you. How does Activision get black listed if their games get good reviews, and so does gearbox. How about you guys accept that your opinion for ME3 is different then critics.

Guy gives Kane and Lynch a less than stellar review.
They threaten to take out advertisements of the game.
Guy gets fired.

Chobot gets voice work in Mass Effect 3.
IGN gives game perfect 10.
Proof is right there man.

IGN gave it a 9.5 and had second opinions for it. To add on they probably give Chobot a ton of crap for her character looking like shes from Jersey and the fact that you can romance her. And I never heard about there being threats of Kane and Lynch ads being taken off. Bad games have ads look at Too Human and STFU2,etc. And what does this have to do with ME3

The point is their is a conflict of interest.  Why should we take them seriously if their getting early copys of the game so they can be the first to review it?
They've lost all credibility in the eyes of many of us and its going to be hard to get that back without changing things.  First thing that needs to go is the obvious pandering.  If their getting free stuff from them where's the incentive to be honest?  Sure there are bad games with bad reviews but if the game is obviously bad their obvious double dealing would be even more obvious. 
Your attitude is exactly what their expecting.

[Lincoln MuaDib]

I never knew who JJessica Chobot was. Now I know, I am unimpressed.

Not only does she look like Snooki (in the game, at least), she's a bland bland bland bland bland character that you can't even punch.

Completely pointless. Rather like IGN's game reviews.

[Xenogias]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Jesusland wrote...
I see differing opinions among the fans, and I don't mind that.  But I don't see that diversity of opinion among the professional critics.  It's like they're all reading off the same script.  Why?  That's where my question is coming from.

Well, for starters, perhaps they are less emotionally invested than the fans.  When you play lots of different games, you're less likely to be worrying about who had a relationship with who.

And even people critical of the game market have said fans are being paranoid.  Both those admired Forbes bloggers said that there's really no corruption that reviewers who liked the game are "shills".

There is plenty of proof out there to show just how corrupt the "critics" are in the gaming industry. People either dont care (which is fine) or are ignorant of exactly how much money is involved with these reviews and refuse to look at facts (which is not fine). Or they really dont believe it in which case I would simply suggest educating yourself beyond someones blog. People have lost jobs over giving a poor review/score. Developers have actually had bonuses withheld by publishers for not meeting certain scores on Metacritic. Ever wonder why a AAA title doesnt recieve less than a 9/10 anymore unless its complete trash? Its not hard to figure out if you really want to.

Honestly I really dont care. I dont even pay attention to the critics. Even if I didnt think money changed hands  (and I clearly do)  I would still ignore them. Why? Because I decide for myself if I want a game or not. Generally I dont even play the newest games untill months or even years after they launch. The only time I buy a game when it releases is if I have played other games in a series and liked them or I trust the developer. Unfortunatly my list of "trusted Devs to buy on release day" list is down to one and thats an indie developer.

[AkiKishi]

The mainstream review system is inherently corrupt.

[Drake-Shepard]

Alexraptor1 wrote...

10/10 games do not exist, 0/10 and 10/10 are numbers that no true professional with any integrity will ever use.

ratings out of 10 skew everything. It means 5/10 = rubbish.... when it should mean its ok.


They need to start using 5 star ratings again. And they can always give half stars.

Ratings out of 10 only work if your using 1000+ reviews from fans and critics..Like IMDB. the highest rated movie there is 9.2/10. And these movies are pretty much perfect for their genre. Its a different meduim but it says a lot about the value of a 10/10 rating on a game when the best movie in the world (not my opinion) gets 9.2.


ps. and yh, reviewers didn't finish the game is understandable. IGN with their conflict of interest is painful. gaming reviewers can be as corrupt as the oscars

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top 

Modifié par Drake-Shepard, 26 mars 2012 - 10:46 .

[DaJe]

freestylez wrote...

Everyone knows the gaming journalism isn't real journalism, at least not yet. There are just no true professional standards and way too many conflicts of interests (most game reviw sites are draped with ads from the very game they're reviewing)..

Gaming review sites are also obsessed with 0-day reviews. This may work in the movie industry because one can watch a movie 3 times within 6 hours. For a game like ME3? You won't even be off Palaven in 6 hours. Games aren't given the attention they should before reviews are made.

I found this opinion piece to be on point for several issues:

http://massively.joy...journalism-yet/

The problem is that not everyone knows this. BW hides behind these perfect scores and takes them as confirmation to stay their course. And you can hardly blame them.

IGN gets the most hits, yet is the least credible site I have seen.

There are even many "critics" who admit several problems of ME3, yet push a 10/10 or 100% on it. They don't even realise yet how this behaviour is detrimental to game quality.

Perfection can not be achieved, only approached. By scoring every AAA game from a big publisher with 10/10 the critics can be blamed to a large degree for the creative and quality stagnation that has been going on for years now since they make it seem that there is no room for improvement.

[Elhanan]

Some fans were disappointed; not all. And I contend that perhaps the professionals are smarter than some of these so-called fans; odds based on behaviour seems to provide ample evidence.

[Evenjelith]

I loved the game till the end. It's still one of the best I've every played despite that.

No matter how good the rest of the game was though, you can't 10/10 something that ends like this. Even if you were satisfied with the ending, the fact that Bioware is releasing DLC means they think the experience can be expanded and improved. If the games' already 10/10 why should we bother playing new DLC.

Modifié par Evenjelith, 26 mars 2012 - 11:20 .

[JudasMesiah]

I would like to say that not every critique/review liked ME3.  

NOTE: I would to state that this was not the finest example but it works.

[ReshyShira]

Jesusland wrote...

Fans were dissapointed, but the professional critics LOVED it...

I wonder why?  Are the professional critics smarter than we are?  Or are they just paid shills for the gaming industry.  Discuss. 

They're called 'Embargo' Agreements.  If you do not give it a high enough of a score they don't send you a review copy and you have to wait until after the game is released to review.  This means that other companies that gave it a higher score will get more traffic as people go over to it because it has it's score out sooner.


In otherwords, it's nothing but a blantant cash grab at the expense of the consumors.




18:30 For Embargo Agreements.

Modifié par James_Raynor, 26 mars 2012 - 02:42 .

[MattFini]

Some critics likely reviewed this game before completing it.

Now they're stuck on their initial word.

Maybe not all of them, but that's definitely the case with a few of 'em.

[ZombifiedJake]

Giantbomb was the only site that I saw who gave an honest review.

Other than that, never trust online reviews - insanely corrupt. Incentives all around.

[bEVEsthda]

craigdolphin wrote...

Personally I think it boils down to a large difference in how reviewers approach games and gaming. If I played several different games a day I'd soon prize 'novelty' over anything else too.

These are the same people who prized DA2's 'unique' aesthetic over themuch better (IMO) but classical/generic aesthetic of DAO. The ending of ME3 revolts gamers who spent hours focussed on the lore and the emotional experience of ME1 and 2. But critics are rushing through to complete as fast as possible to meet a deadline. They don't have the same emotional connection, or attention to lore. These things are, comparatively speaking, not what they are looking for in their game. Likewise, long games that offer 80+ hours of gameplay frustrate them because they don't have the time to play them through so they adore games that are shorter and that let them move onto the next game in their list. Complex inventory management doesn't appeal to them in their rush to get onto the next game in their list, simplified, streamlined works for their agenda.

Add to all that the conflict of interest from advertising dollars and not needing to pay for their own copies, and it all boils down to a markedly different appreciation for various sets of features.

Regardless, I decided to never again pay attention to professional game reviewers after DA2. They simply don't reflect my subjective tastes for it to be worthwhile. About the only thing I find helpful in them are screenshots, video, and a description of the gameplay. Liking or disliking the game is a subjective thing and I prefer to listen to feedback from other gamers who like the same kinds of features that I do.

I think that picture could be reflecting reality well.

However, I'd add two other issues. One that I believe is both disastrous and big. The reviewers need to quickly feel familiar and comfortable with the gameplay and game paradigms. I've seen some uninspiring reviews where it was clear the reviewer didn't have a clue to how to relate to a truly innovative game, and tried to play a different game.

This is possibly one reason why we see so much of gaming converging to the same, very old, very impoverished gameplay structure.

The best a game, where there is something truly interesting going on, seem to be able to hope for, is some comment along the lines " <...hardcore/geeks/whatever> may appreciate this though...>

The other is that reviewers may feel they have to be fair and objective, and in that spirit let the quality of the craftmanship of the game affect their verdict too much.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 26 mars 2012 - 04:49 .

[Toyou4you]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Toyou4you wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Toyou4you wrote...

Abirn wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Toyou4you wrote...

I'm a fan and I love it. And video game review companies get the game much earlier then we do. For those saying critics got paid then explain how EA games have in the past gotten crappy reviews

Explain why reviewers were fired for not giving high enough ratings to games and how this was publicized all across the gamer-known sites despite attempts to husk it up by GameSpot AND IGN.

I'd also like him to explain the reports of blacklisting by companies like Acitivision and gearbox.

If you don't like what critics say then don't read their reviews. And I can't explain why people get fired bbecause I don't work for those companies and neither do you. How does Activision get black listed if their games get good reviews, and so does gearbox. How about you guys accept that your opinion for ME3 is different then critics.

Guy gives Kane and Lynch a less than stellar review.
They threaten to take out advertisements of the game.
Guy gets fired.

Chobot gets voice work in Mass Effect 3.
IGN gives game perfect 10.
Proof is right there man.

IGN gave it a 9.5 and had second opinions for it. To add on they probably give Chobot a ton of crap for her character looking like shes from Jersey and the fact that you can romance her. And I never heard about there being threats of Kane and Lynch ads being taken off. Bad games have ads look at Too Human and STFU2,etc. And what does this have to do with ME3

The point is their is a conflict of interest.  Why should we take them seriously if their getting early copys of the game so they can be the first to review it?
They've lost all credibility in the eyes of many of us and its going to be hard to get that back without changing things.  First thing that needs to go is the obvious pandering.  If their getting free stuff from them where's the incentive to be honest?  Sure there are bad games with bad reviews but if the game is obviously bad their obvious double dealing would be even more obvious. 
Your attitude is exactly what their expecting.

then don't look at  their reviews. problem solved

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Professional critics doesn't bit the hand which feed them.

[Ronin1325]

I think the most... discomfiting thing about it is that we've got 70+ major reviewers who *all* gave it 9/10 or even 10/10. The player's ratings have been... much lower to say the least. Now I know arguments have been made about "review bombing" by the fans, but did all these professional reviewers consider the train-wreck ending so inconsequential that it didn't drop it a couple of notches? Guys like Angry Joe & Jeremy Jahns did & their final scores ended up being a lot more understandable.

[frypan]

The Chobot fiasco highlighted the problem for me. Whether or not there are actual probity issues, its important for a game review site to retain the appearance of impartiality. The fact IGN didnt do that is a real concern, as it shows they dont feel accountable to their readers.

There really should be a bigger stink about the quality of games journalism... oh but wait, who would write it up? Some reviewers were fair though, and hopefully we'll see more retrospectives later that address the issue.

Someone else has mentioned that the reporter in game should have been Emily Wong. I agree as the concept was great. The whole Chobot thing was cack handed, and the romance option... just off.

[Toyou4you]

Ronin1325 wrote...

I think the most... discomfiting thing about it is that we've got 70+ major reviewers who *all* gave it 9/10 or even 10/10. The player's ratings have been... much lower to say the least. Now I know arguments have been made about "review bombing" by the fans, but did all these professional reviewers consider the train-wreck ending so inconsequential that it didn't drop it a couple of notches? Guys like Angry Joe & Jeremy Jahns did & their final scores ended up being a lot more understandable.

Review bombing in my opinion is much worse, and most "bad" reviews are review bombing, I don't see why a game would deserve a zero. Now as long as the reasson is supported by logic I'm fine with a bad review for a game I love. When though it is someone who says the ending is bad grr and gives it a zero, then I have a problem.