You missed the photoshop that was being quoted maybe 10 times each page?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bioshock "Exclusive Review" IGN edition - A lot of annoyed journos (Ironcreed wow).
- Thread starter unbias
- Start date
For us, you are probably correct, but "us" isn't as many of us as we think, I imagine. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense for publishers to tack on bonuses based on metacritic reviews. They clearly have a pie chart or graph somewhere in their marketing super conglomerate that says "This score=profit".
Look up top.
sleeprockss
Banned
I know, it's not as if he has a halo above his head or anything. He's a human being just like you and me.
Ironcreed posted a pretty funny photo that made fun of and at the same time made Geoff look kinda like a badass. I'm thinking Geoff should embrace it and make it his avatar. If I was him I would "own it" as a middle finger to the people who just hate him.
Great as it is, I hope people know Ironcreed's picture isn't original, but was first posted on /v/ in November-ish. I mean, it's a Tumblr hotlink.
But still, anything to salt the open wound of gamer/journalist relations is welcome. I want things to get heated and weird so we can have a dialogue on this stuff.
But still, anything to salt the open wound of gamer/journalist relations is welcome. I want things to get heated and weird so we can have a dialogue on this stuff.
Kenny Blankenship
Neo Member
What if they got the exclusive review on the basis they gave it a high score no matter what. Comparing igns review to the rest should be interesting
CartridgeBlower
Member
This. Every time he comes up in any thread in GAF, it's some link to his twitter where he's complaining. Ego the size of a battleship, talent the size of a dust buster.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Your counterpoint is the point, really. People were unhappy with the idea of always-online because they were concerned it wouldn't work all the time. And it doesn't. If we lived in an internet utopia where everything worked 100% of the time and we were all drowning in bandwidth, there might still be grumbling about tacked-on social features but by and large everyone would just shut up and play the game.
And you could say that Maxis just screwed up their launch and a better prepared company wouldn't have these problems, but we never know whether a company will be prepared or not.. because it's always possible to not be prepared.
And this comes down to demeanor. OK, for some reason Gies feels like completely dismissing another journalist's source because he's heard differently from Maxis. Fine. One can say "People we've personally spoken to at Maxis have insisted the server calculations are too complicated to be implemented offline" or one can say "OH INSIDE SOURCE MY FAVORITE KIND". One of these is completely acceptable (if a bit credulous) and one of these is what an asshole says. Guess which one he picked.
Not to mention it wasn't Joe Schmoe's Vidjagame Blog. It was RPS. They have an older and better reputation than nearly everyone, nevermind Polygon.
speculawyer
Member
Fuck this "exclusive review" shit.
I refuse to go to IGN and will wait for the general embargo to end.
I refuse to go to IGN and will wait for the general embargo to end.
Oh, snap. I saw the Doritosgate and Deus Ex mash up when it was first posted. I forgot to remember the name of the poster. Thanks for the reminded.
TheNatural
My Member!
The outliers for reviews seem to be what changes its GameRanking or Metacritic score. The median almost always seems to be squarely in the 8.5 +/- 0.5 range.
I don't think it's necessarily a flaw of the reviewer either that they give these scores. I think it's simply that developers really don't take too many chances with their franchises over the course of the generation, they know what their consumers want, they replicate it with some tweaks or a new environment, and they're competent at what they do. And yeah, granted that many hardcore fans are going to be turned on or off at the intricacies of certain changes made - but the core game never changes.
Gears of War is Gears of War. God of War is God of War. Crysis is Crysis. If you liked the others, well, you're probably going to like the new one in theory. If you never liked those types of games, then you're not going to give a fuck now either. Unless something really fucked up along the way that is apparently to everyone: like how Resident Evil 6 was fucked up, or more recently the SimCity debacle, there's nothing new to be said. You know what you're getting.
Personally I think reviewers need to do a better job of giving insight of what a new game in the series does or doesn't do for people who haven't traditionally given a fuck. At least look at it from that standpoint.
If other sites lower their scores because they didn't get an exclusive review is worse than what we are discussing in my opinion. You do understand that pubs are in communication with places like IGN and others and know when a good score is coming. If you really think that 2k games said, hey Ign exclusive review of bioshock, but you have to give it a 9.9 out of 10 then you are really out for a conspiracy theory for no reason other then to hate on IGN.
We should contrive to lock Arthur Gies and Kevin Dent in a perpetual Twitter battle so that we might quarantine this problem before it's too late.
Oh snap son, you just flipped the script! Unintentional hilarity ahoy! Actually now that I read it there seem to be like five instances of totally unintentional yet miraculously relevant puns in my earlier post.
Oh snap son, you just flipped the script! Unintentional hilarity ahoy! Actually now that I read it there seem to be like five instances of totally unintentional yet miraculously relevant puns in my earlier post.
HueyFreeman
Banned
Plebiscites doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, Adam. The word you're looking for is plebeians
Not to mention the java source code being released and the Azzer modder who was able to play offline fine. It is one thing to believe the developer, it is another thing when every-time new information comes out, the PR changes just slightly enough to treat it like a misunderstanding. And then you have the last bit of PR seemingly moving the goal post completely.
If what you are "Selling" the product as, and what the product acts like to the consumer after the fact, is seemingly different from how it was sold, that is a problem. As the consumer, forget "gaming enthusiast" at that point, if I have to sacrifice offline single-player for always online, content controlled(mods are bad) game, then it better be exactly what was described.
Luckily for me, I have friends who dont pay attention and dont want to pay attention with games, and just buy whatever the hell they want, so I got to play the game, but for those who didnt, as journalists, to rush to the defense of the publisher at the expense of the consumer is not a smart idea. Specially when what the consumer was told about "why" certain consumer desires were being given up for XY&Z and XYZ didnt live up to what was being sold, through PR.
To carry that bill of goods to the consumer and talk down to them, like you know more, simply because you are who you are well... is a problem.
As I mentioned before, it was probably auto-corrected by his cell-phone. He is an English Lit major, I would be disappointed if he thought that plebiscites was actually the correct word. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, here.
it probably was a play on words of sorts, with "sites" being in it, sorta.
Times like these I wish Sessler posted on GAF. Who fucking knows.
HueyFreeman
Banned
Hmm. I like him alright, but he hasn't struck me as being incapable of this. Plus the tweet is still up.
All hail ironcreed, GAF's new resident internet comedy aggregating mastermind. I know you won't let us down.
Didn't a GAFer end up reading it off some girl's laptop as she created a PowerPoint presentation while travelling on an airplane?
CamHostage
Member
Look, my respect Keighley goes miles for those GameSpot development stories like The Final Hours of Metal Gear Solid 2, but let's be real here about "exclusives". They're not achieved by sneaky maneuvers and hard digging (some, but hardly any of the ones we're talking about,) they are achieved by promising X number of views on cover or featured placement, preceded by an amount of time at a bar chatting up PR ladies. Product journalism is as much scheduling and schmoozing as it is working. The business isn't the Pentagon where the secrets are precious, there were literally 1,000 people who could have told everybody intimate details about Assassins Creed 4 months ago but they didn't because it wasn't on the official product announcement schedule yet.
Geoff being ticked that somebody locked down the review timing agreement is hardly different than what he does where he "scoops" everybody with GTTV exclusives. He didn't have to work hard for those scoops and he didn't beat the world to the story, he gets handed material on the publishers' timelines (including his most recent Moby Dick Studios interview where he got a world exclusive by simply being invited to a hotel room) for "first-dibs" because he has an established TV show on a on-brand television network. (I'm not calling Keighley lazy, to remain on top you do have to work hard and I know he does, I'm just saying that like IGN, numbers already do half your job when you're big.) Game Informer, same thing, they get covers on games nobody else sees for half a year, and it's not because they're so clever and so in touch, it's because they have a retailer tie-in that ensures an unbeatable circulation. When you're big, you don't have to go out and get scoops, they gravitate to you.
Yes, exclusive reviews are a separate thing because of the possible conflict of integrity, and yes, writers do have to work your ass off and dig deep to make truly great stories pop. I'm not denigrating the job of a journalist. I'm just saying, who are we still trying to fool with the term "exclusive"?
It's a fair subject to question. My standing is that every aspect of game journalism is subject to tainting (will this score affect my relationship with this publisher? should I break this story even though I have embargoed material on the subject? if this doesn't get a certain amount of hits should I bother writing it? if the fanbase my site attracts is going to disagree with my write-up, should I change my approach or tone to play better to the crowd?) and it's your damned job as a journalist to do the right thing. The possibility of allowing subconscious influence that you're not even aware of or that you have no control over, that's the question that is worthy of argument here. (IGN for example has written exclusive reviews for games that it trashed, and even Bioshock Infinite was not glowing, but just because the writer thinks he's beyond the influence because he toughens up to meet the pressure, is he really fighting it completely?) Generally I don't care and generally I feel it's a conspiracy theory that all these journalists are on the take with moneyhats, but it's a worthy argument to hash out if there is at least a certain level of levelheadedness.
EmCeeGramr
Member
I totally understand why it's annoying for people to hate something for what it isn't than for what it is. But at the same time, I feel like people have been hating SimCity for what it is, and Maxis has been trying to tug at journalists' and fellow designers' heartstrings by reframing the argument as a creative difference.
Before launch, I saw little consternation about cities being interdependent or a multiplayer oriented SimCity; most of the trepidation and preemptive outrage was in response to the always-online aspect itself. Afterwards, the frustrations seemed to mostly center upon how the game is broken in various ways, and yet Maxis attempted to justify these flaws by insisting that they're all part of some divine mystery that we believers must take on faith. If a player chooses to create a private region and play alone (much like a more specialized and advanced version of what SimCity 4 was already doing), then that player will eventually start to question what kind of artistic statement or creative expression comes from the game needing to save cities to a server instead of their own hard drive.
As for the journalist portion, perhaps the solution is to investigate further rather than snidely dismiss another journalist's story. That's what gets me. After the initial claims from Maxis seemed to be misleading or at the very least on shaky grounds, I'd feel a tad disrespected that someone told my site something of questionable veracity and that I had defended them. I wouldn't double down on my unearned loyalty.
Ironcreed REVEALED TO BE A FRAUD!!
Thats cool, it was a funny picture.
Ha, Ha, funny indeed. Glad it at least got a rise out of some of you.
Don't be modest. You clearly have a knack for this. You could be the next Daniel Tosh.
You should find that guy in the Deus Ex costume and have him do a Web Redemption.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
it's definitely a play on websites, i feel it's fairly obvious.
While you are correct most of it is high school+economics, which adds to the "PR" aspect of it all, and honestly they cant do a whole lot about that because of the very nature of the games, that isnt the biggest problem, imo. The biggest problem is that publishers has the media by the balls, because so many of them are willing to play ball at the price of the media itself. It is a very self destructing environment, when what and when you get stuff, a lot of the time is based on simply high-school(dont piss of the popular kids/publishers).
It gets even worse when one of the most popular publications is tied to a retail chain... While they may be "objective", the perks they probably get to "create a certain narrative" of perception by the publishers for them, probably creates a distorted version of that objectivity. Anyone who doesnt think your environment shapes your perception, probably needs to take more vacations or go into a different field of work for awhile or something.
I feel like he would have written "plebisites" if a pun were intended.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
"Plebeians" auto-corrects to "plebiscites" if you understandably start to misspell it as "plebians".
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
don't single s' make a z sound with an i in front?
Ironcreed REVEALED TO BE A FRAUD!!
Thats cool, it was a funny picture.
I feel bamboozled! ironcreed is this century's Thomas Edison!
It's them writing about every bit of the game they play, because a real review in progress would go something like--
"8:05pm Opened up my word-writing application!
8:30pm got a really good headline down!
8:45pm this paragraph is proving to be humdinger! I'm not sure whether to mention the graphics or the effects first!
9:00pm remembered whether I liked the game or not, then looked at the wiki page for specific details. I've got about 1000 words, so I'll call it a day! Stay tuned to this page for more updates on this review!"
He's like a modern day Seann William Scott.
"Tune in next week to find out your chances to pump up your click and viewer ratings!"
Internets version of a commercial, fuckign fantastic.
scytherage
Member
I sometimes wonder if game reviews were better before the internet, when we all had to buy game magazines to read them. At least these writers would have other sources of income instead of now where they really do need to get money from somewhere other than their customers' page views (which pay cents, literally. Ouch.)
With the internet this approach is practically impossible now; if you sell a review it will just get copy-pasted everywhere. So yeah, I don't think moneyhats are going away anytime soon; it's the nature of the business now, and these guys gotta eat.
With the internet this approach is practically impossible now; if you sell a review it will just get copy-pasted everywhere. So yeah, I don't think moneyhats are going away anytime soon; it's the nature of the business now, and these guys gotta eat.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
I think twitter is at fault too
Every reviewer thinks they are a goddamn celebrity and think they some how matter in the gaming lexicon
If someone on the twittersphere says so and so review was shit/moneyhatted, you see the reviewer come running to reply and take up the shield
Hell I forget the controversy but the a gaming scholar called out Polygon reviewers, and all of them came like moths to a flame, came running trying to protect themselves
They were more passionate in their tweets than their reviews or being "journalistic"
He even called them out on it
Reviewers want to gain a name from themselves and try to merge into the PR/Game company part
It's just like Congress, create the fucking laws for industries, then when time is up, switch roles and become lobbyists and gorge off the free money thrown at you for helping out in times of need
I still say one of these fucking outlets is owned in some way by a publisher, fully outright
Very conspiracy theory in nature, but this shit calls for it
The douchebags going "Boo-Hoo, we didn't get this exclusive, so no one can have exclusives" childish mentality is the reason gaming journalism is a fucking joke
CamHostage
Member
Ha, I love how you put it in your first sentence that the job is mostly schoolyard and boardroom rather than "newsroom" like we all dream it should be. My only problem with your problem is that you are assuming magazines and websites have zero power in the equation, that they have no choice but to bow to the master. That's not how it works, I promise you that. Yes, there are compromising situations (particularly when times get tight and every ad dollar means something going both ways,) but a good media source makes the news its own. You don't get read because you're full of 9s, you get read because people like your opinions and writings; you get read because Google tracks high volumes of traffic to your site and bumps up your link to better accommodate searchers. (True, when an exclusive means you're the only one on the block then you have cornered the market, but it's a head-start rather than a true monopoly when we're talking a matter of days and we're talking about opinionated material that might be worth waiting for elsewhere; many people seek out multiple review sources.)
Take for instance Nintendo Power, I subscribed to that magazine for decades knowing full well that I couldn't honestly trust any score in there. I liked the content, and even though I was looking at biased opinion, I still liked the opinion. (I know there are games I bought simply because NP gushed about them, and I will never know if they are actually good or if I was just swept up, but they created a warm feeling that stuck with me all the way to the game store and back and to the end of the game.) HipHopGamer is another source that can't be trusted because the dude is straight-up crazy, but I give him hits because I like his attitude and he goes after stories nobody else bothers with. I like hardly any of the games Jeremy Parish likes (we agree on everything Bionic Commando, I know that, and I share his unreasoned love of Goonies games, that's about it) but I read his writings because I like what he writes. Publishers can't dictate that.
And believe it or not, if you are a good game producer, you don't solicit false reviews because you have a smart (and chatty) target audience that can tell a plant. Better to create an atmosphere around a game that will either lead into or circumvent reviews, making it not matter what the score is so long as people are talking about the game.
By the way, this power structure seems to be at a fever pitch according to the internet, but in reality, it is eroding rapidly because the old preview/review system is breaking down. Before, journalists were at the mercy of the man who held the preview builds, but increasingly more commonly now, games get betas and roll out without a set launch date. The Call of Duties of the world are still trying to have their special day, but even then, illegal bootlegs invariably leak weeks before the launch date. If journalists were seriously that hungry to cover a game they have their means (even if they weren't willing to break laws they would still know that a game store manager still can be a game journalists' best friend,) and if publishers were really that choosy about review scores they could tie review builds up in so much red tape that only the desperate would touch them instead of just buying their own copy. You're worried that one side is looking to fuck the other one over, but media outlets and publishers are happiest when they have a cozy working relationship, you'd be wiser to be worried about the collusion than the corruption.
(*EDIT RATHER THAN REPLY-POST: Yeah, I getcha, I don't mean to argue down your point at all, just wanted to add another lincoln log to your opinion tower...)
I think the issue a few people have is just assuming the 'media' as one assemblage who work towards a common goal to help each other out. This shows exactly how divided things are and it's hard to expect to make improvements in gaming media philosophy while things are in this state.
Person A might want to do things the 'right way'. That'd be a massive mistake because person B will just jump right in front of him and do things the 'wrong way' and be more successful in that situation preventing person A from advancing their career.
There simply isn't a big market for 'good games journalism' so what we have now is what is going to continue. Yes there is a market but the vast majority of consumers aren't interested in following that strand and are content with early reviews or being blissfully ignorant of some of the behind the scenes dealings.
Person A might want to do things the 'right way'. That'd be a massive mistake because person B will just jump right in front of him and do things the 'wrong way' and be more successful in that situation preventing person A from advancing their career.
There simply isn't a big market for 'good games journalism' so what we have now is what is going to continue. Yes there is a market but the vast majority of consumers aren't interested in following that strand and are content with early reviews or being blissfully ignorant of some of the behind the scenes dealings.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you, please don't misunderstand me. That is just how it "appears" to play out; either through what is reported, how it is reported, or by the constant fecal matter they complain about on twitter. I'm not saying it needs to be that way or it always is...I just dont have a better way to explain how it looks and acts, to me(based on what they describe and what I've read over the years).
JAY the BIRD
Neo Member
SkyTurnsRed
Banned
2 for 2, GAF, you never let me down.
LOL, you really have to wonder what goes through Geoff's mind when he sees all of this shit. Surely he finds it amusing to at least some extent.
I'm sorry, but this is needed with this one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M
Wont let it happen again, but this should be playing in the backgroudn of that pic...
JAY the BIRD
Neo Member
Didn't he say he would have something to say in regards to the whole dorito pope picture debacle? Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
RedAssedApe
Banned
Now that they whined openly...if they score it noticeably lower than IGN/deviate from the average they will look petty!
Ken Levine is an evil genius.
Ken Levine is an evil genius.
I don't recall. But he probably just laughs, shakes his head and goes about his Dorito pimping business as usual.
Similar threads
- Locked