164 réponses à ce sujet

[Mazebook]

I always just trust my own stomach. Read , watch gameplay videos and decide. If my stomach was wrong, I analyse what i did not like about the game and adjust future purchasing decisions accordingly.

[Massakkolia]

Chris Priestly wrote...

First - All reviews are honest. I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews. If they did, and it ever was proven they did, they would kill their business. It is not worth a review site the small amount they would be paid by a company compared to what they earn as a business.

People should definitely use common sense when plowing through reviews. Reading the contents instead of just checking out the score is a good start, comparing several reviews is even better. Also, social media is full of customer reviews soon after the game has been released.

That being said...Chris, you can't seriously claim that professional gaming sites and other game publications aren't influenced by the business they're suppose to critique. I work in the media industry and converse with game journalists every now and then. It's a well-known fact that game industry and the journalism around it form a very tight-knit union, unhealthily so. Fashion and cosmetics industry have a similar bond with women's magazines. 

There are some good publications (or individual journalists) that keep their distance from the industry influence but it's very difficult. Their livelihood depends on smooth relations. Going easy on big advertiser's products is deep-rooted in the culture of consumer journalism. Magazines can get some extra income from selling the physical product but most professional gaming sites live solely from ads. They don't sell good journalism, they sell clicks. 

Big conspiracies and shady dealings in smoky corridors rarely ever happen. That doesn't mean that game journalism isn't suffering from a severe case of dodgyness.

[Raiperai]

Chris Priestly wrote...

First - All reviews are honest.

So you're saying that:

- you don't buy journalists' plane tickets?
- you don't buy them lunch and drinks?
- you don't pay their hotel rooms?
- you don't buy them drinks until they're complete hammered?
- you don't promise them exclusive sneak peeks of your next big title if they give your genericpieceof**** a 9/10?

There's more ways to buy a person than just plain cash, Chris. But you know that already. Apparently you can't even be honest about it though. Shame.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Chris Priestly wrote...

 I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews.

kane & lynch eidos/gamespot

[alikilar]

some game reviewers give different types of reviewes like with the Viking 360 game i fricken thought it was awsome soo did G4TV but not Gamespot them douches D:< but each reviewer has their different flavor.

[IanPolaris]

DinoSteve wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

 I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews.

kane & lynch eidos/gamespot

But the reviewers don't get bought off...honest.  Riiight.  Doesn't read that way to me.

-Polaris

[Atakuma]

DinoSteve wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

 I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews.

kane & lynch eidos/gamespot

Unsubstantiated rumors are always a great way to make a point.

[IanPolaris]

Atakuma wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

 I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews.

kane & lynch eidos/gamespot

Unsubstantiated rumors are always a great way to make a point.

It was never denied by gamespot (after he came out in 2012) and there was a legal agreement until May of 2012 that kept him from revealing this.  I'd say there is at least implicit substantiation...more than mere 'rumor'.

-Polaris

[Korusus]

Oh yes...PCGamer. That DA2 review from PCGamer was quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, and IIRC it got them a lot of flak from their subscribers, even calls for a retraction.

The only people I trust are the players. The actual players, not the people that get paid to play games. The people for whom a $60 investment is a substantial risk.

[robertm2]

IanPolaris wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

 I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews.

kane & lynch eidos/gamespot

Unsubstantiated rumors are always a great way to make a point.

It was never denied by gamespot (after he came out in 2012) and there was a legal agreement until May of 2012 that kept him from revealing this.  I'd say there is at least implicit substantiation...more than mere 'rumor'.

-Polaris

not to mention this is the only advertised game that got a poor review and it resulted in somebody being fired. does not seem like a coincedence to me.

[Atakuma]

IanPolaris wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

 I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews.

kane & lynch eidos/gamespot

Unsubstantiated rumors are always a great way to make a point.

It was never denied by gamespot (after he came out in 2012) and there was a legal agreement until May of 2012 that kept him from revealing this.  I'd say there is at least implicit substantiation...more than mere 'rumor'.

-Polaris

My mistake for not reading all the relevant information before posting, still, it's hardly compelling evidence that most reviews are bought in some way.

[Darth_Trethon]

Chris Priestly wrote...

First - All reviews are honest. I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews. If they did, and it ever was proven they did, they would kill their business. It is not worth a review site the small amount they would be paid by a company compared to what they earn as a business.

Second - As Ninja Stan mentioned, all reviews are subjective. What is "good" to you, may be "bad" to them and vice versa.

Third - There is not a 100% adopted scale of what is good or bad. No one says "This gets a 7 on the Richtor scale" or similar as there is no standardized system of reviews. 5 stars, thumbs up, 7/10, etc. Different people may intend to give the exact same critique, but their scale means it is a 90% game whereas the other scale it is a 3.5/10.

Personally, I NEVER listen to just one review. Sure, there are some critics or sites I trust more than others, but I still prefer to use aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritc or whatever. And even then, I still use it as a guideline. "Hmm... that game is only getting  50% rating. Yet, I personally love that sort of game. I may get it anyways" or "Even though reviews are giving it 98%, I don't really play that sort of game. Pass." sort of thing.

As customers, we should all be aware of what we are buying. Ask your friends. Read the reviews. Heck, rent the game (if you can find a store that rents games still) before you buy. Educate yourself before you put down your money.

You claim the reviews are honest just because they cannot be proven crooked in a courtroom but the whole business is based on getting good with the big companies and publishers for all kinds of things....future exclussive interviews, announcements and first looks as well as avoiding the wrath of the same ones. There's too many implied promisses and threats to noncompliance. So no you don't directly hand them a big roll of cash but the reality is that it's all the same.....plus jumping through legal loopholes.

I'm surprised the OP pointed out DA2 reviews when the champion of all false reviews, advertisement and blatant lies is Mass Effect 3.

[Blastback]

Atakuma wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

 I know people don't believe this, but mainstream review sites don't get "bought off" to give good (or bad) reviews.

kane & lynch eidos/gamespot

Unsubstantiated rumors are always a great way to make a point.

It was never denied by gamespot (after he came out in 2012) and there was a legal agreement until May of 2012 that kept him from revealing this.  I'd say there is at least implicit substantiation...more than mere 'rumor'.

-Polaris

My mistake for not reading all the relevant information before posting, still, it's hardly compelling evidence that most reviews are bought in some way.

I don't think reviews are bought per say, but I think that there is a relationship there that makes reviewers hesitant to be to harsh sometimes.  They are dependent on the companies for ads and the like.  So I imagine they do sometimes tread delicately

[leeboi2]

Modifié par leeboi2, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:10 .

[Rawgrim]

There was some fuss last year, or the year before, about reviewers not getting to playtest one of the Battlefield games. They got sent a form and had to cross out replies and such. The ones that liked CoD didn`t get the playtest battlefield early. I`d put the link up for it, but I am too lazy to dig it up.

[Darth Death]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

You just have to learn how to read game reviews on a curve. First of all, the reviewers have no monetary investment in a game because they're given a game for free to play. They don't feel that heart sinking feeling of buying a game for $60 and realizing within the first half and hour that you just blew $60. So naturally, prof. game reviewers score higher. Go by this chart.

10 is a great game
9 is a good game
8's range means it's okay but there are issues and you must purchase with caution.
7's some might find enjoyment out of the game but the reviewer didn't
6's the reviewer cringed every time he had to load this and had to remind himself he gets paid
5's the game is only playable while drunk, reviewer hopes not many people will buy this game to call him on his assesment because it's hard to read your drunk writing.
4's the game is so broken that the reviewer knows everyone will call him a hero for slammin it
3's and below don't exist in the game reviewing world

10(s) shouldn't exist. It implies the game is near perfection or even perfect itself. 

[Atakuma]

Blastback wrote...

I don't think reviews are bought per say, but I think that there is a relationship there that makes reviewers hesitant to be to harsh sometimes.  They are dependent on the companies for ads and the like.  So I imagine they do sometimes tread delicately

Absolutely. I'm not arguing that there isn't an unhealthy dependency on ad revenue and the like, I just find it irritating how everything needs to be turned into some evil conspiracy.

Modifié par Atakuma, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:18 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

There is no evil conspiracy, reviewers get paid with the revenue from advertisements for games, so how can they give an honest review when there livelihood can get taken away.

[horacethegrey]

The only reviews I trust are Gametrailers and Angry Joe. 

That said, I don't envy anyone who has the unlucky duty of reviewing this game next year. If they give the game a high score, fans may complain the high score is undeserving and biased. If they give it an average or low score, the overlords at EA may decide to pull their primo advertising from the reviewer's website or magazine.

Either way, they're screwed.

[Heather Cline]

The answer is no. Take a look at ME3 and it's pre-release reviews and hype. So I wouldn't hold my breath.

[kingjezza]

It seriously insults my intelligence to suggest that PC Gamer review is entirely honest. For a start it was pretty much the first official review to come out, I posted it up on this very forum and summarised the whole thing as I'm subscribed to the magazine and get it early. It still annoys me that what was written in that article convinced me the game would be good.

The review gives DA2 a whopping 94%, but even more so it failed to mention a single flaw in the game, the only point that verged on negative was Rich Mccormick's view he felt a little confined at first, even that was quickly dismissed and turned into a positive (knowing the city inside out blah blah). Not a single fault is picked up on in that review. There are literally no negatives about the game. Now, even the fans who love DA2 the most seem to realise it's got its faults, you would never have known it from the PC gamer review, to read that is to believe DA2 is one of the greatest games of all time.

Now I'm sure no payments were made but nobody is going to tell me PC Gamer would have had that exclusive early review out if it was going to be a negative review. please, most of us aren't that naive.

[PsychoBlonde]

If it's pre-release, isn't that a PREVIEW?

[Rawgrim]

No idea if its a conspiracy or anything, but I have noticed the big company games tend to get top scores no matter what.