326 réponses à ce sujet

[Bigdoser]

Honestly walking dead should get Goty imo. Plus the ending and the whole story to the game twas awesome.

[Grand Wazoo]

IGN, bunch of ignorant people playing journalists nominates ME3 for GOTY? Why should I even start caring? I doubt they are really 'paid off' though, but it is clear that their actions are far from legit, just like with many other major sites. And with the current state of gaming journalism, being the joke it is, it is kinda hard to find any solid reviews. Metacritic user reviews can provide some insight, if you read between the lines and ignore the overly positive and negative reviews.

ME3 was not a bad game, just a mediocre game with good combat but a disappointing story, along with the dreadful autodialogue and such. But I suspect ME3 will win lot of these awards, games are already so overhyped as they are so I guess a little afterhype won't do no harm. I just think that the GOTY award has stopped meaning anything long time ago.

[LinksOcarina]

M25105 wrote...

Reviewers getting invited to lavish parties, I'm sure that would never affect the score of a game, right?

Videogame journalism and ethics.

The dates of these two articles were 2003 and 2007. I should point out, as I said previously in this thread, that these practices are slowly changing overall, mostly because of the negative press behind the insider deals and what have you. Instead of the swanky hotels most reviewers are getting press junkets and free interviews just by asking. Exclusive content is slowly dissipating and being replaced by editorials and podcasts, and for the most part, those incentives to sway scores are dissapearing.

So it's not a bleak picture as people make it out to be. That said, the bigger sites are a bit more succeptable to it, such as IGN. But it has little to do with EA giving them anything, it is on the responsabilities of the reviewers to not engage in these practices. 

[clarkusdarkus]

Grubas wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

anorling wrote...

M25105 wrote...

A little video about reviewers being paid, since some of you can't use common sense.

Interesting video.
 
I think these picutres sums up things pretty well and explains what people mean by "paid reviews".









It's not about getting money. It's about getting benefits. "paid reviews" is just a figure of speech.
Though one can understand sites like IGN. Getting a review out first on a big hyped game means lots of hits on their site. I get that it can be hard to resist for them and other sites.

Gotta love people defending EA/Bioware and completely ignoring posts like this........speaks volumes oh how the industry works, EA wont leave things to chance and i feel sorry for those that are blinded by such things.

Well then lets repeat it again. Can't do much damage, can it?

Purely for scientific research im bumping this:bandit:

[LinksOcarina]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Grubas wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

anorling wrote...

M25105 wrote...

A little video about reviewers being paid, since some of you can't use common sense.

Interesting video.
 
I think these picutres sums up things pretty well and explains what people mean by "paid reviews".









It's not about getting money. It's about getting benefits. "paid reviews" is just a figure of speech.
Though one can understand sites like IGN. Getting a review out first on a big hyped game means lots of hits on their site. I get that it can be hard to resist for them and other sites.

Gotta love people defending EA/Bioware and completely ignoring posts like this........speaks volumes oh how the industry works, EA wont leave things to chance and i feel sorry for those that are blinded by such things.

Well then lets repeat it again. Can't do much damage, can it?

Purely for scientific research im bumping this:bandit:

For clarification, the Eidos tweet is absolutely true, the RenderGroup got shat on for saying that and eventually did nothing of the sort, and the EA one was proven to be untrue. 

Just going to throw that out there.

[Kel Riever]

Yah? You should put a link up to that source saying it was untrue. It isn't a small deal.

[clarkusdarkus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Grubas wrote...

clarkusdarkus wrote...

anorling wrote...

M25105 wrote...

A little video about reviewers being paid, since some of you can't use common sense.

Interesting video.
 
I think these picutres sums up things pretty well and explains what people mean by "paid reviews".









It's not about getting money. It's about getting benefits. "paid reviews" is just a figure of speech.
Though one can understand sites like IGN. Getting a review out first on a big hyped game means lots of hits on their site. I get that it can be hard to resist for them and other sites.

Gotta love people defending EA/Bioware and completely ignoring posts like this........speaks volumes oh how the industry works, EA wont leave things to chance and i feel sorry for those that are blinded by such things.

Well then lets repeat it again. Can't do much damage, can it?

Purely for scientific research im bumping this:bandit:

For clarification, the Eidos tweet is absolutely true, the RenderGroup got shat on for saying that and eventually did nothing of the sort, and the EA one was proven to be untrue. 

Just going to throw that out there.

They obviously paid them off

[LinksOcarina]

Kel Riever wrote...

Yah? You should put a link up to that source saying it was untrue. It isn't a small deal.

Untrue in the sense that they were not looking to manipulate anything. 

Here is what I was referring to. 

The full questionaire does ask about possible scores and experience with the games, but little on how it would actually influence the score. Usually the website assigns a reviewer before the game is shipped and this information is kept secret. EA ****ed up by even asking for it, to be sure, but it is far from manipulating review scores since A) no surveys were filled out, and the data used would do little to give them a good score, since the reviewer is obligated to ignore such requests. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 06 décembre 2012 - 05:56 .

[MegaIllusiveMan]

4stringwizard wrote...

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

I kind of agree. Outside of the last few minutes, it was (for me) a really great game.

Not for me.  

1. I for one didn't enjoy the horrible journal
 2.the fetch quests,
3 the auto-dialogue,
4.the lack of any hub worlds,
5.or Jessica Chobot.  

1. That could be a bug. Hopefully it will be fixed

2. Well, the N7 Quests disapointed me, really. But why do the Normal N7 Quests when you have Multi-player? EX: Shepard clears out a facilty of Cerberus/Reapers and the MP Team defend it. Not Defending it lowers the Galactic Readiness, AKA more invasion on those places.

3. It would be the best thing Shepard would speak during a Galactic War. Shepard can't play nice, neither bad. He has to talk to impress the War Assets and others to join him

4. It's a Galactic War. How could be there any hubs? The Citadel had to be there, because the game NEEDS at least one hub to progress missions. Citadel was the best choice because it's the "source" of Galactic Government. (SPOILERS FOR OMEGA DLC) Omega is occupied by Cerberus Forces, when you liberate it, Aria will rebuild it, sure...( SPOILER FOR OMEGA DLC ENDS HERE) Who wants to walk among rubbles? Illium is also being attacked by Reaper Forces.

5. Well, I didn't like Jessica Chobot, but you could dump her. There is no excuse for that;

OBSERVATION:

These are just my opinion.

On Topic:

Of course, it is a good choice. The game itself is good, the Endings with the EC are great!

[Kel Riever]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Yah? You should put a link up to that source saying it was untrue. It isn't a small deal.

Untrue in the sense that they were not looking to manipulate anything. 

Here is what I was referring to. 

The full questionaire does ask about possible scores and experience with the games, but little on how it would actually influence the score. Usually the website assigns a reviewer before the game is shipped and this information is kept secret. EA ****ed up by even asking for it, to be sure, but it is far from manipulating review scores since A) no surveys were filled out, and the data used would do little to give them a good score, since the reviewer is obligated to ignore such requests. 

Thank you for the link.  Its good to see both sides.

Having read it, I'm going to have to say personally I believe it was an attempt to manipulate, and EA got crocodile tears for itself once it was found out.  By the way, manipulating reviews is, as someone mentioned, not just a video game industry event.  But to think somehow that EA, or game companies, do not try to influence reviews of themselves is, as far as I am concerned, pure naivety.

Did you know Consumer Reports has never been successfully sued for a negative review as 'defamation.'?  They are not for profit, and also explicitly forbid any reviews of theirs, positive or negative, to be used for advertisement.  I don't think they get every review right, but it speaks to exactly what the problem with reviewers are.  And when you get a paycheck from EA for its add in your magazine (or Coke or whatever) and the daily sandwich you eat every day comes from your advertisers, and you review that company who sends you a check, are people (in general) so blasted in thought as to think that 'good faith' and 'self monitoring' are going to rule the day when it comes to biase?  Oh wait, especially since it is regularly reported across any industry that it isn't?

You literally should believe a commercial more than a game review.  Because the commercial isn't pretending to be unbiased.  I'd rather see a trailer for a game and see if that excites me than read a review in Ignoramus Game Nonsense.  Or hear from a friend.  Or read online reviews from regular people.

There's no Consumer Reports style reviewer in the video game industry.  And if there were, it wouldn't be flawless.  But it'd be a lot better source than the dog in heat reviewers we have now.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 06 décembre 2012 - 06:41 .

[Grubas]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Yah? You should put a link up to that source saying it was untrue. It isn't a small deal.

Untrue in the sense that they were not looking to manipulate anything. 

Here is what I was referring to. 

The full questionaire does ask about possible scores and experience with the games, but little on how it would actually influence the score. Usually the website assigns a reviewer before the game is shipped and this information is kept secret. EA ****ed up by even asking for it, to be sure, but it is far from manipulating review scores since A) no surveys were filled out, and the data used would do little to give them a good score, since the reviewer is obligated to ignore such requests. 

How does this prove anything. EA claims it was human error. One might claim EA gives in to backlash created, because it went public. No prove. Just damage control.

Modifié par Grubas, 06 décembre 2012 - 06:46 .

[JBPBRC]

Illusive Man hates Shepard wrote...


5. Well, I didn't like Jessica Chobot, but you could dump her. There is no excuse for that;

Nononononono. The best actions to take if (when) not liking Chobot/Allers is to either forever leave her on the Citadel or to simply ignore her if you already put her on the ship--for no other reason than you happen to lose a dreadnought (despite one N7 character more than making up for the loss, silly EMS/War Asset system)

[LinksOcarina]

Kel Riever wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Yah? You should put a link up to that source saying it was untrue. It isn't a small deal.

Untrue in the sense that they were not looking to manipulate anything. 

Here is what I was referring to. 

The full questionaire does ask about possible scores and experience with the games, but little on how it would actually influence the score. Usually the website assigns a reviewer before the game is shipped and this information is kept secret. EA ****ed up by even asking for it, to be sure, but it is far from manipulating review scores since A) no surveys were filled out, and the data used would do little to give them a good score, since the reviewer is obligated to ignore such requests. 

Thank you for the link.  Its good to see both sides.

Having read it, I'm going to have to say personally I believe it was an attempt to manipulate, and EA got crocodile tears for itself once it was found out.  By the way, manipulating reviews is, as someone mentioned, not just a video game industry event.  But to think somehow that EA, or game companies, do not try to influence reviews of themselves is, as far as I am concerned, pure naivety.

Did you know Consumer Reports has never been successfully sued for a negative review as 'defamation.'?  They are not for profit, and also explicitly forbid any reviews of theirs, positive or negative, to be used for advertisement.  I don't think they get every review right, but it speaks to exactly what the problem with reviewers are.  And when you get a paycheck from EA for its add in your magazine (or Coke or whatever) and the daily sandwich you eat every day comes from your advertisers, and you review that company who sends you a check, are people (in general) so blasted in thought as to think that 'good faith' and 'self monitoring' are going to rule the day when it comes to biase?  Oh wait, especially since it is regularly reported across any industry that it isn't?

You literally should believe a commercial more than a game review.  Because the commercial isn't pretending to be unbiased.  I'd rather see a trailer for a game and see if that excites me than read a review in Ignoramus Game Nonsense.  Or hear from a friend.  Or read online reviews from regular people.

There's no Consumer Reports style reviewer in the video game industry.  And if there were, it wouldn't be flawless.  But it'd be a lot better source than the dog in heat reviewers we have now.

The online reviews from regular people are just as biased as those commercials, so its hard to really trust them any more or less than game reviews. If what you want to believe is what you see for yourself, stop reading reviews we write.

All I know is I do my job and I do it with integrity and enough pride to know that no one influences my own reviews. Take that for what you will in the end, but the only thing I ask is to stop painting a broad stroke for all reviewers, because it is far from the truth in the end. 

Grubas wrote...


How does this prove anything. EA claims it was human error. One might claim EA gives in to backlash created, because it went public. No prove. Just damage control.

You are looking at the wrong part. The survey should be the focus itself, not what EA said afterwards. 

Most bloggers painted it as EA is trying to manipulate scores. Based purely on the survey, does it really seem that way? When I first read it didn't to me. In fact, the accusations came from the Norwegian game sites that said EA was manipulating them. 

So it's basically a glorified he said, she said kind of thing. The evidence is circumstantial because of its interpretation. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 06 décembre 2012 - 06:59 .

[Kel Riever]

LinksOcarina, I think its obvious I am making a generalization. I happen to work in finance. Its not like I don't get painted with a broad brush stroke either. But that's part of being in the industry that I'm in, and if you write these reviews, then its part of yours.

You know when that will change? When the industry changes as a whole. In the meantime, you will either rise above it and become known as the person who writes actually honest reviews (let's hope) or someone will eventually make the kind of company that I was talking about and you'll work for them and not have to worry about it. Best of luck to you getting a good rep in your industry. Because it damn well needs someone with a good rep.

[Wintermist]

Good one. Imagine that people, despite your loudest complaints, people seem to have liked the game

[Suspire]

ohgod people are actually  trying to justify auto-dialogue, rofl

Modifié par Suspire, 06 décembre 2012 - 07:22 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Wintermist wrote...

Good one. Imagine that people, despite your loudest complaints, people seem to have liked the game

People like twilight despite my complaining that doesn't make it good.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 06 décembre 2012 - 07:46 .

[Suspire]

The white knighting going on only gets more hilarious, the level of reaching is like Garrus' level of reach.

ps:  I'm still happy for people who really enjoyed the rest of the game, something I wish I could have... so I guess I'm not completely lost to cynicism yet

Modifié par Suspire, 06 décembre 2012 - 08:55 .

[Necrotron]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

I kind of agree. Outside of the last few minutes, it was (for me) a really great game.

I'm conflicted on it.  It was truly an excellent game, but also features the single worst moment of gaming history, at least for me.  I find it ironic that the same game winning game of the year also features the worst ending of video game history.

Still, happy for Bioware for getting recognition.

[Kataphrut94]

It's going to get lots of nominations from lots of sites. This is because it is not only a great game, but because it is a gaming milestone, being the conclusion of this epic trilogy that a lot of people have become attached to.

Is it really so hard to accept that fact? Besides, there's no guarantee it's going to win everything. If anything, all the controversy may work out in it's favour since it generated buzz and made the game strangely more memorable.

[Peranor]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

It's going to get lots of nominations from lots of sites. This is because it is not only a great game, but because it is a gaming milestone, being the conclusion of this epic trilogy that a lot of people have become attached to.

Is it really so hard to accept that fact? Besides, there's no guarantee it's going to win everything. If anything, all the controversy may work out in it's favour since it generated buzz and made the game strangely more memorable.

I'm genuinely curious about this.
ME3 may be a great game. But how is it a "gaming milestone"?
I've said it before. Whether you liked the game or not it brought nothing new to the table other then a debatable ending. And even that has been done before.

[Zaizer]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

It's going to get lots of nominations from lots of sites. This is because it is not only a great game, but because it is a gaming milestone, being the conclusion of this epic trilogy that a lot of people have become attached to.

Is it really so hard to accept that fact?

The "conclusion" part mostly.

[hiraeth]

I'm really torn when I hear that ME3 might win GOTY. On the one hand, ME is an amazing universe and Shepard's story (well, 99% of it) is an engaging, emotional, and addicting adventure. I want to give praise for the majority of the story, and in that sense, I do think it deserves GOTY. On the other hand, I cannot forgive that the ending--a crucial part to a story--was botched so horribly. The feeling that I was left with after completing the game (EC included) was awful, and it's a shame because the story had *so* much potential. In terms of non-story aspects, the combat was improved, though autodialogue was *painful*.

Basically, I want it to win GOTY so that Bioware/EA knows what a great story they've made, and that precisely because it's a great story, it deserves a better conclusion. But they're not going to change the ending, so...I guess I'm left with "I don't care if ME3 gets GOTY." I cared about ME2 getting it because ME2 was phenomenal in so many ways (IMO), but this year when I watch the VGAs or hear about ME3 being nominated for GOTY, I'll just have a brief "ugh, if it weren't for that horrid ending..." passing thought.

[Binary_Helix 1]

I've visited ign since 2000 onward and used their forums for several years as well. With this generation even their own community memebers don't trust what the main site says anymore. They mostly enjoy the forums and come back for that.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:59 .

[Ridwan]

A game of the year should be based on a number of factors, sales for one thing, another thing how polished it is, and lastly if it's entertaining and has good replay value.

To those about to write "sales doesn't mean quality", I'm sure that's a great way to convince people to invest in your game. People buy stuff cause they enjoy it (New Super Mario Bros. Wii) or in some cases (GTA 4) cause they're mislead (GTA previous games being awesome).

There's a reason why games like Dear Esther doesn't sell, and it has nothing to do with people being to stupid to get it and only liking COD games.