That article is old, but pretty much hits the point on Metacritic. Add to it the fact that game companies tie incentives and bonuses to high metacritic scores and you have a recipe for disaster.
That article is old, but pretty much hits the point on Metacritic. Add to it the fact that game companies tie incentives and bonuses to high metacritic scores and you have a recipe for disaster.
I fundamentally disagree with the article 
, enthusiast sites and enthusiast sites that are well paid, deserve equal amounts of attention. Having the name IGN, means nothing if the article is junk. Having the name Joe Public means nothing if the article is junk.
However, their own opinion and rating of the game, carries equal merit, because it is subjective opinion.
I fundamentally disagree with the article
However, their own opinion and rating of the game, carries equal merit, because it is subjective opinion.
Granted my site is more or less meaningless to the grand scheme of things but it does have the advantage of not being financed by ads from marketing companies that represent the very games being reviewed.
Its an initial impressions review btw, I haven't thrown the game off a cliff (yet) because I'm waiting to let the story make up for other little things.
Given as I'm not some major media outlet I don't think my score needs to be added to the list, but I did want to add an independent review of the game to the post.
I have no idea if the professional reviews of any publication are mishandled, but evidence and proof would be dandy to see when such accusations and gossip are used as so-called facts.
Depends on the site, not all 'large' review sites are the same.
There are some people that have come forward, but the only 'proof' that will exist is their own first hand account.
Other than that you can cite the numerous cases of a game series getting very high marks on certain larger review sites and getting trashed everywhere else, of course that is more circumstantial.
However in the case of advertising it is just common sense, that if someone is paying your wages at the end of the day, you are going to approach them differently to if they are just another game company. Whether or not different means more favorable, who is to say.
Not quite. When the scores do not have to actually own or play the game to review or score it, that is a biased and uninformed opinion. As these are allowed, they further taint the results. And as the article indicates, the algorithms are flawed anyway. Toss in the questionable launch day User reviews, and there is little left there of note.
I have no idea if the professional reviews of any publication are mishandled, but evidence and proof would be dandy to see when such accusations and gossip are used as so-called facts.
For the record, I agree with you on User scores, and I think Professional reviews are more reliable but with an understanding that they, too, are deeply imperfect because of the way money works in the games journalism industry and the pressure it causes on journalists. I have a few friends who work in the industry and my boyfriend quit the games journalism industry due to such pressure (to review/score lightly, to change scores, etc) - he went back to school and learned to actually make games because writing about them objectively was quite difficult. I will note the pressure was less on what he wrote than the score. They had no problem with him writing what was essentially a 6.0/10.0 review as long as he attached an 8 or higher. Now, the industry has improved in terms of being much wider due to Youtube, etc, but it's mostly an issue of advertisers basically being the same people you are reviewing. I don't think there's the kind of massive, seedy corruption some people mention, but I definitely think it makes sense that there is pressure. I've heard this from multiple people in that situation.
This isn't proof, of course, but it is a perspective.
For the record, I agree with you on User scores, and I think Professional reviews are more reliable but with an understanding that they, too, are deeply imperfect because of the way money works in the games journalism industry and the pressure it causes on journalists. I have a few friends who work in the industry and my boyfriend quit the games journalism industry due to such pressure (to review/score lightly, to change scores, etc) - he went back to school and learned to actually make games because writing about them objectively was quite difficult. I will note the pressure was less on what he wrote than the score. They had no problem with him writing what was essentially a 6.0/10.0 review as long as he attached an 8 or higher. Now, the industry has improved in terms of being much wider due to Youtube, etc, but it's mostly an issue of advertisers basically being the same people you are reviewing. I don't think there's the kind of massive, seedy corruption some people mention, but I definitely think it makes sense that there is pressure. I've heard this from multiple people in that situation.
This isn't proof, of course, but it is a perspective.
The easy fix is to abolish scores all together, and just read the articles to discern impressions then.
I doubt anyone will do that unless we start our own review website.
For the record, I agree with you on User scores, and I think Professional reviews are more reliable but with an understanding that they, too, are deeply imperfect because of the way money works in the games journalism industry and the pressure it causes on journalists. I have a few friends who work in the industry and my boyfriend quit the games journalism industry due to such pressure (to review/score lightly, to change scores, etc) - he went back to school and learned to actually make games because writing about them objectively was quite difficult. I will note the pressure was less on what he wrote than the score. They had no problem with him writing what was essentially a 6.0/10.0 review as long as he attached an 8 or higher. Now, the industry has improved in terms of being much wider due to Youtube, etc, but it's mostly an issue of advertisers basically being the same people you are reviewing. I don't think there's the kind of massive, seedy corruption some people mention, but I definitely think it makes sense that there is pressure. I've heard this from multiple people in that situation.
This isn't proof, of course, but it is a perspective.
Retour en haut