164 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRealJayDee]

BrotherWarth wrote...

There's nothing wrong with giving a game a 10/10 or calling a game perfect. I thought Heavy Rain was a perfect game. Was it the best game ever? No. But it did exactly what it set out to and it did it so well that I didn't find any flaws that detracted from my experience.

I love Heavy Rain, I love what it wants to be and what it did. And I think it's deeply, deeply flawed. As a 'game' that hasn't got much going for it besides the story and the characters there are just too many things wrong with these aspects. I can't go into detail because I don't wanna spoil the game for others and derail the thread, but boy, were there things wrong or not well executed. Still, despite it's shortcomings I love Heavy Rain (and I like Fahrenheit a lot, although in the last third of the game or so the story goes into full bat**** crazy mode).

On topic: it's not a conspiracy, and it's not evil - it's business. I accepted that. I just don't wanna be told it's all perfectly honest and as objective as possible. Well, come to think of it, maybe mainstream video game journalism is as honest and objective... as possible.

[fchopin]

There was a demo for DA2 so who cares what reviewers say, i liked the combat in the demo so that was enough for me.

[Korusus]

kingjezza wrote...

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.

Ah yes now I remember, that was what made the PCGamer review so egregious.  Even I was surprised at how low-quality DA2 was, not at all what I expected from BioWare.  One has to wonder whether PCGamer thought they would get away with such a high score simply because it was a BioWare game and up to that point BioWare typically only released AAA games.  ME3 ending aside, DA2 is still the only non-AAA (production values at least) game I would say BioWare has ever released so I can't completely fault the guy.  But it is outrageous...they should really re-review the game.

MetaCritic scores for DA2 felt pretty accurate to me...it was about a C game, which for BioWare is not good at all.  Even more bizarre is that the X360 version got rated more harshly than the PC version...total mind screw there.  PCGamer should have their title stripped for that, they should be defending the PC industry from consolization, not supporting it.  They lose double points for that in my book.

[Gatt9]

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.

So you're saying that EA didn't hire one of IGN's employees to voice act in ME3?

You're saying that the ex-gamespot employee who described his termination when a Publisher demanded his review be changed is false?

I think I read somewhere that following DA2's release Bioware hired one of IGN's reviewers?

http://social.biowar...index/9151022/1

We have two very different ideas of what constitutes conflict of interest and dishonest journalism.  From where I'm sitting,  it looks pretty obvious to me how games are "Reviewed".

It's also ironic that you comment on how much sites earn as a business.  Where does the money come from?  Advertisers?  Who are the Advertisers?  The Publishers.  It doesn't take much to realize that the Publishers can easily threaten a site's ability to survive considering the Publishers are the ones paying them. 

Review embargoes unless your site's score is "High enough",  reports that Publishers call sites and ask them to "Rereview a game to make it more inline with everyone else",  reports that bad reviews can threaten your chances of getting press copies,  etc.

There's a mountain of evidence today on just how shady "Gaming Journalism" is.

[Conduit0]

The whole, "Reviewers are paid off" is a woefully childish mentality. Its nothing but a hackneyed excuse to justify that their own opinion is right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

Also I laugh my posterior off at people pointing to the whole Gerstmann thing as proof that reviewers are paid off. So you're going to tell me that Aaron Thomas and Jeff Gerstmann didn't get the memo about going easy on the Advertiser's games, or maybe that they are literally the only two honest professional journalists in all of gaming? Riiiiight. The whole thing happened because Gamespot hired a marketing team that was absolutely clueless about how gaming journalism works, Gerstmann himself states that very clearly.

[TheRealJayDee]

fchopin wrote...

There was a demo for DA2 so who cares what reviewers say, i liked the combat in the demo so that was enough for me.

I actually disliked the combat in the demo very much, and I didn't believe this could actually be the real, complete beginning of the game. But I had high hopes that in the game the story would make up for the annoying flashy combat. I kept my preorder. After all, 'twas the sequel to one of my favourite games of the last years. And Signature edition... 

Same with Mass Effect 3 - the demo really got me worried. Again, I couldn't believe this would be the actual beginning of the game. Buuut it was ME3, the big finale for all my Shepards, so kept my CE preorder. I even swallowed the bitter pill that was the Origin requirement, which by all that is right should have been a dealbreaker for me. I so wanted to play and love this game.

Today I have to say that it was fully my fault to ignore the feelings the demos gave me, to believe the pre-release hype and not to resist the incentives to preorder. As I said, for the next game I'll wait for the user reviews before thinking of purchasing. And then likely until I read the user reviews for the first DLCs as well...

[Brockololly]

DinoSteve wrote...
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.

That sort of relationship between gaming sites and publishers is probably why we have the modern gaming review scale:

[daaaav]

I trust angry joe. Unfortunately he takes friggen weeks to review a game. Give him a pre order.

[Vandicus]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

There's nothing wrong with giving a game a 10/10 or calling a game perfect. I thought Heavy Rain was a perfect game. Was it the best game ever? No. But it did exactly what it set out to and it did it so well that I didn't find any flaws that detracted from my experience.

On topic: it's not a conspiracy, and it's not evil - it's business. I accepted that. I just don't wanna be told it's all perfectly honest and as objective as possible. Well, come to think of it, maybe mainstream video game journalism is as honest and objective... as possible.

I don't believe anyone ever claimed reviews are objective as possible. In fact the whole point is that reviews ARE subjective. Nobody has the same criteria for what they like in a game and what they feel is an irrelevant flaw or a gamedestroying one.

Some of the most common negatives for DA2 are environment reuse and art style. Guess what, some people don't give a damn about environment reuse and graphics mean less than nothing to them. I happen to find DA2 superior to DA:O, and I enjoyed DA:O immensely. So if I were to rate the two games, I'd give DA:O a 9/10, and DA2 a 10/10 for removing filler quests, having a better plot, and showing results in game of previous actions more frequently than DA:O. The game would not receive many point deductions, if any, for environment reuse or the art style if i were to review it.

There are no objective scoring guidelines for video games. Everybody has different preferences and all reviews are subjective. 

[moilami]

1+1=2.

[Emzamination]

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.

^ This.If chris says there is no back room dirty dealing going on with reviewers then there isn't.Chris has acted with integrity and never led this community astray before so why would he start now? See the bioware badge under his avatar? That means he knows exactly what he's talking about when it pertains to company dealings. You guys need to chillax with the tin foil hats

Modifié par Emzamination, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:03 .

[Apollo Starflare]

If there is bribery involved in the reviewing process for games, the folks doing the bribing aren't doing a very good job.

[Vandicus]

BrotherWarth wrote...


A reviewer gives a game a bad score. That game's publisher happens to advertise heavily on that reviewer's site. That game's publisher threatens to pull advertisements over less-than-stellar reviews. Game reviewer is fired.
So unless you expect us to show a case of a game publisher somehow firing someone who works for a game publication themselves...

Selective attention.

http://www.gamespot....e-unleashed-ii/ 

Both this and the original forced unleashed have mediocre to negative reviews of them on gamespot. Both games were heavily advertised in many locations, including gamespot. 

Also

http://www.gamespot....-nukem-forever/ 

Now I'm not keeping a track record of what games gamespot had advertisements on their site for, but I'd be surprised if Duke-nukem forever did not pay for an advertisement on gamespot. 

Plenty of games that are hyped up and have a huge advertising budget get bad reviews. 

Here's an EA title.

http://www.gamespot....review-6393230/ 

So how is it that EA pays off reviewers to give DA2 rave reviews but not Madden NFL? 

Another one for a different system.
http://www.gamespot....review-6394045/ 

How much do you think these guys are charging at gamespot that EA couldn't afford more than a 5.5? Here's a thought, maybe the reviewers aren't being paid off at all. 


*EDIT

Apollo Starflare wrote...

If there is bribery involved in the reviewing process for games, the folks doing the bribing aren't doing a very good job.

 

Quoted for truth

Modifié par Vandicus, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:11 .

[Atakuma]

Brockololly wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...
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.

That sort of relationship between gaming sites and publishers is probably why we have the modern gaming review scale:

That looks more like how angry internet commentors view the rating system. Seriously, anything below an eight and some people act like the reviewer filmed themselves defecating on the game.

Modifié par Atakuma, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:11 .

[Firky]

Meh. I don't know why I bother. Well, I do know why I bother. It's a gig I really care about.

So, I can only speak from my own experience as a freelance reviewer, of 5 years, paid by a print magazine, but .. (in response to various people in the thread.)

1. I haven't kept an EA game in years. They ask for it back or deactivate it, if it's through Origin.
2. Publishers don't pay me any money.
3. I have no idea what our mag advertises. I read it, but I'm not interested in ads.
4. My editors NEVER pressure me for this score or that score. Ever.

5. Yes, press trips happen. For DA2, it wasn't a review event, it was a hands on preview. Our outlet was invited and I was the third person on the list for going, the other 2 already being in the US on other press trips, but I went. (The other 2 were busy.) There was no compulsion to even write about the event, let alone positively, implied or expilcit, but our magazine group found 6 pages, between them. I was paid for 6 pages, which is *really* not a lot of money given I was away from home for 5 days and I had to organise babysitting for my kids. I spent 36+28 hours on planes and in airports, just because I really was very interested in seeing the game. Sure, press trips happen, but you have to put them in context. More often, they're like a recent SWTOR event, in which I travelled 30 mins on a bus, was offered a beer, which I declined, played for a while, chatted with people I know and then went home to write something the magazine didn't end up commissioning.

6. I reviewed DA2, but it could have been anyone; someone who didn't go on the press trip. That's what happened, in our outlet, for ME3. Two different people.

7. I scored 3 games 9/10 last year, Witcher 2, Bastion and DA2. I could have scored DA2 lower, but I know that a lower score would have dramatically misrepresented how much I enjoyed the game, despite its ugly townies etc, and that the temptation to score it lower was driven by that desire for "hardcore cred". So I didn't. What I did do was try to accurately represent the features of the game, for our audience. That year my scores ranged from 4 to my only ever 10 - for an $8 indie. (The mag doesn't always bother with very low scoring games, due to lack of pages and a desire to prioritise indies.)

If anything, I think the "problem" with gaming press is that we're enthusiastic and we like games. Myself, anyway, wouldn't do it otherwise. (And I have a pretty extensive RPG pedigree, or the mag wouldn't pay me. They don't pay me shooters.) It's fun, but lots of hours/passion etc. I know people who do it full time. It's pretty rare. I'm currently sitting at the airport, going to an Indie games festival, self funded. Maybe I'll get some money back for writing a few pages, maybe not. That's how it is.

As for DA3. Man. I don't want to review it. (I've made a few friends now which would put it into conflict of interest territory, anyway.) But, why would I want to get called the c-word and 50 variants of the word "stupid" (which I did, most recently only a month ago - still) for providing an honest review. Hopefully, when DA3 roles around, I'll be able to pick up 4 pages of Indie games and get paid the same amount of money for a lot less work and abuse via internet.

But, sure, everyone's experience is different. I'm sure every other DA2 reviewer has golden fittings in their bathroom.

[Emzamination]

Wait, I do remember hearing something about TopWare Interactive shaking down any reviewer who gave two worlds 2 a bad score, not that it needed much reason.

Au here we are - Link

Modifié par Emzamination, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:22 .

[Conduit0]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

The whole, "Reviewers are paid off" is a woefully childish mentality. Its nothing but a hackneyed excuse to justify that their own opinion is right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

Well, let's see. Game publications rely on advertising money from game publishers. Game reviewers rely on getting games early from game publishers to get their reviews out to the public as quickly as possible. Game companies rely on public perception of their games, which professional reviews inform.
Now, unless you're a child, the math here seems pretty simple.

Game companies rely heavily on the publicity that game publications bring to their games. If say Ubisoft boycotted IGN, it would hurt their sales far worse than it would effect IGN's advertising income. There are hundreds of publishers and developers that would continue to shell out advertising dollars and would be all to happy to have their game take the place of the next AC game smeared across the front pages of the site.
You added 1 + 1 and got pie.

BrotherWarth wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...
Also I laugh my posterior off at people pointing to the whole Gerstmann thing as proof that reviewers are paid off. So you're going to tell me that Aaron Thomas and Jeff Gerstmann didn't get the memo about going easy on the Advertiser's games, or maybe that they are literally the only two honest professional journalists in all of gaming? Riiiiight. The whole thing happened because Gamespot hired a marketing team that was absolutely clueless about how gaming journalism works, Gerstmann himself states that very clearly.

A reviewer gives a game a bad score. That game's publisher happens to advertise heavily on that reviewer's site. That game's publisher threatens to pull advertisements over less-than-stellar reviews. Game reviewer is fired.
So unless you expect us to show a case of a game publisher somehow firing someone who works for a game publication themselves...

A single incident does not prove a pattern. So unless you can point to other credible sources showing the same thing happening to other gaming journalists, or some how prove that Gerstmann is the only honest professional journalist in all of gaming journalism, the only thing that the Gerstmann incident proves, is that you should always hire marketing teams that are well versed in the industry.





Yes, I meant pie, not pi, thats just how bad the math really is.

Modifié par Conduit0, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:29 .

[Realmzmaster]

What is considered an honest pre-release review? One that agrees with your opinion? One that agrees with my opinion? One that agrees with no ones's opinion. What is you do not like the review does that make it dishonest? What if the reviewer truly believes in the review given. Is he or she being dishonest because it does not agree with your opinion?

Reviews are subjective works. You do not have to agree with them, but can you say without a doubt when a reviewer is being dishonest?

[Anarya]

I really think games reviews would benefit tremendously from ditching the at-a-glance numerical or star ratings and just making people read the actual review.

I'm not a games reviewer but if I were to assign numerical ratings to DAO and DA2, they'd probably both be around an 8, but for very different reasons.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Conduit0 wrote...


Game companies rely heavily on the publicity that game publications bring to their games. If say Ubisoft boycotted IGN, it would hurt their sales far worse than it would effect IGN's advertising income. There are hundreds of publishers and developers that would continue to shell out advertising dollars and would be all to happy to have their game take the place of the next AC game smeared across the front pages of the site.
You added 1 + 1 and got pie.

But isn't there other review sites just as successful as ign that would happily take the advertisement money. Also we are taking about EA here not ubi the loss of EA's revenue would be substantial.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:28 .

[Vandicus]

DinoSteve wrote...



But isn't there other review sites just as successful as ign that would happily take the advertisement money. Also we are taking about EA hare not ubi the loss of EA's revenue would be substantial.

Developer A does not like IGN's review and pulls advertising, which would normally have resulted in a payment of $50,000.

Developer B, who was unwilling to pay $50,000 but is willing to pay $49,000, as the runner up in bidding for advertising space instead gets advertising there.

Therefore IGN gets $1,000 less than previously.

Yes people, that's how free market competition works. Losing one customer for a commodity when there are hundreds of customers offering comparable though slightly lower sums(Developer A does not want to overpay, in the bidding war there's will only be slightly over the runner up's point where they give up) does not create a large loss in revenue.

Furthermore, look at my post above. I've provided several links where EA games got mediocre to horrible reviews. If the review companies are being bribed, gaming companies are obviously doing a horrible job at bribing them.

[Vandicus]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...


A reviewer gives a game a bad score. That game's publisher happens to advertise heavily on that reviewer's site. That game's publisher threatens to pull advertisements over less-than-stellar reviews. Game reviewer is fired.
So unless you expect us to show a case of a game publisher somehow firing someone who works for a game publication themselves...

Selective attention.

[snip]

This might be the derpiest possible response. I gave a specific case to prove my point. You reply with "Yeah, but these games got average scores and they advertised too!" You may be new to this whole logic thing, but that's not it. If I say "Crime rates are very high." you can't say "That man who just walked by didn't stab you, so crime rates aren't high." and expect not to be pointed and laughed at.

Your entire case was invalidated.

Argument A: Reviewers have inherently suspect opinions becaue their funding comes from the source of the people they're reviewing.

Rebuttal: Lots of games with large advertising budgets and with huge vested interests(such as EA) are either not bribing/threatening the reviewers or doing a damn horrible job at bribing/threatening them. As a result it can easily be seen that cases such as your singular instance are in the minority.

*the threat being pulling of advertising


Misrepresenting your opponent's argument with hyperbole does not render the argument moot.

*EDIT

Ironically your analogy actually appears to be in reverse. You point to a single instance as proof of industry wide corruption, I point to industry wide evidence of negative reviews for massive gaming companies as evidence that your single instance is a rarity.

Modifié par Vandicus, 21 septembre 2012 - 01:39 .