mcv seem awful. pushing out pr constantly culminating in that ridiculous hitman review piece , then desperately trying to get people to like them without admitting any fault with pathetic retweets and article updates, before finally opening bragging about firing their unpopular employee as if that's going to get them off.
-
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.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
NekoFever
Member
I think that's a big part of why the battle for high scores is so intense. Games aren't impulse purchases for most people, and they can't afford to drop that much money on something with even a chance of being a dud.
Urm I kind of find it pleasing the speech-stifling threats of legal actions over BS alleged libel backfired. Not sure why thats a bad thing?
what do you thing? me: HNGNHNHNGNGHNGH
That does indeed seem to be the biggest problem.
But why do we focus on scores that much? I'm aware it's, arguably, a good indication of quality. READ the reviews, that's what influences me. The written content, not some number or grade at the end of an article.
Is it a problem though? As long as reviews are mostly consistent and use a meaningful range of scores, they could rate games on a scale from 13 to 18 for all I care. It's silly that most outlets use a 10 or 20 point scale that is effectively chopped in half because the bottom half is never used, but as long as a 7 always means "probably not a good game", there's still value in that.
WeylandxYutani
Member
*golf clap*
Problem solved. From now on its a 5 to 10 scale
Seriously though. Whoever started this has got a lot to answer for. I'll play a 6/10 game if its relevant to my interests.
Yeah I think systems like this work better, I cant recall the website in question but I recall one site used a "Critical Miss - Miss - Hit - Critical Hit" scale and it worked pretty well.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
She was never a journalist to begin with
She caused someone else to lose his job. Fuck that, she got her just desserts.
Gully State
Member
I forget which gaming podcast addressed this, but this idea has been brought up by certain outlets (I think it was IGN) before and publishers shot it down as they absolutely hate this kind of rating system (though I suppose if every site decided to do this, there publishers would have no choice but to play ball).
McBradders
NeoGAF: my new HOME
PUBLISHERS SHOT IT DOWN.
Publishers.
P u b l i s h e r s.
What the fucking fuck do they have to do with how an outlet reviews and scores a game?
Probably not, but slightly more satisfying than her keeping her job.
Yeah but it's just a sign of how things ended up. MCV let it become personal, Wainright gets rape threats and whatever else the internet can muster, then waits for the smoke to clear, fires her and for some reason decides to declare it to the world on twitter like it's something to be proud of (while not saying, maybe, "we won't do it again").
All the while, Geoff Keighly hasn't said a word and Hitman got shining reviews on console exclusive magazines while most sites that showed a little care for the franchise either panned it (videogame industry speaking, so 6 or 7) or at least called it out.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I'm not celebrating the Wainright dismissal, but she did openly dance on Florence's grave after he lost his job, so it's hard not to see a little justice in it.
As I said, though, I suspect that she will have a cushy consultancy job soon enough. She has clearly and obviously shown that she is willing to carry water for publishers and they love sycophancy in the guise of constructive criticism.
As I said, though, I suspect that she will have a cushy consultancy job soon enough. She has clearly and obviously shown that she is willing to carry water for publishers and they love sycophancy in the guise of constructive criticism.
Guys, let's not have laws anymore, criminals hate them.
Yeah, terrible analogy and all, but that's exactly what it is like. You don't want to seem like you're catering to the publishers? Then you shouldn't give a fuck about upsetting them. Who's your intended public, them or gamers?
(McBradders, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just expanding on your post, which is totally spot-on)
Gully State
Member
Readers provide the attention and exposure publishers need for their games and publishers provide ad revenue to keep sites profitable and exclusive coverage content to drive traffic. I don't agree with this but that's their rationale.
Ahahahaha.
You can't make this shit up.
LOL, these guys are truly something else.
wastedyears
Member
Why would her career be over? Because the enthusiast press only hires the most talented writers on Earth? Because they only hire those with the highest levels of journalistic integrity? Not by a long shot.
Seriously, she has a much higher profile now, many, many more people know who she is than did before all of this happened, and all she has to do is write a quick "I made a mistake" type of article, or a "my side of the story" post and then wash her hands of the whole situation. She'll probably come out ahead in the long run.
I just saw this:
At the bottom of this review.
I like this kind of transparency. Kudos, Digital Trends!
At the bottom of this review.
I like this kind of transparency. Kudos, Digital Trends!
NihonTiger90
Member
It's nice to see folks doing this. I've had my non-gaming news site doing this for reviews for a while now, but I hope more gaming sites will consider adding just something small like this to their reviews.
A few sites have been doing this for a while now. Joystiq was the first one I remember being so upfront about where they got their copies, which version they reviewed, and if there were any special circumstances to the review (at a publisher-hosted event, for example). Seems like more sites have been doing this over the past year or so. And this last bit of craziness seems to have pushed a few more into giving those details.
It's good to see.
Dion Blaster
Member
Scores will always matter unless prices drastically fall. If a fully priced retail game got the same sort of reviews that Mighty Switch Force did I would have never bought it. When games are less of an investment people are more willing to take chances on them.
I'm sure there are plenty of avenues for her to pursue in the PR space, but I would have very little respect for any 'journalistic' outlet that employed her after this. Not that my lack of patronage would be career-ending, though.
You know, this may be largely irrelevant, but this whole thing (at least, in regards to Hitman) has taken me from "will look into this game, maybe get when a bit cheap" to "not even bothering considering". And it's not actually a "stance" I'm consciously taking with this, more that there's so much confusion with what reviews are genuine and what aren't, it's too much effort to find out if it'll even be something I'm interested in or not.
There's too much out there game-wise without bothering with reviews that are essentially one long string of hyperbolic terms. I'm more likely to buy a game based on a review that gave it a ~70% rating than a ~90% one, purely because there's usually no critical justification in giving a game a near perfect score. Whereas with the lower one, you're forced to.
That's probably another thing, too. Given that it's really only big-budget, big-hype games that get that sort of treatment, just how many people have been pushed away from buying these sorts of games? Obviously they'll still sell, but I can't help but think that these reviews are turning more people away from the game than drawing them to it.
Another problem is that it's too easy to pick a game that you just *know* will will have reviewers jizzing their pants these days. Halo 4, Hitman, Assassin's Creed, GTA etc.
I'm not sure what the point of this post was. I'm sure there are some good ideas in there, though
There's too much out there game-wise without bothering with reviews that are essentially one long string of hyperbolic terms. I'm more likely to buy a game based on a review that gave it a ~70% rating than a ~90% one, purely because there's usually no critical justification in giving a game a near perfect score. Whereas with the lower one, you're forced to.
That's probably another thing, too. Given that it's really only big-budget, big-hype games that get that sort of treatment, just how many people have been pushed away from buying these sorts of games? Obviously they'll still sell, but I can't help but think that these reviews are turning more people away from the game than drawing them to it.
Another problem is that it's too easy to pick a game that you just *know* will will have reviewers jizzing their pants these days. Halo 4, Hitman, Assassin's Creed, GTA etc.
I'm not sure what the point of this post was. I'm sure there are some good ideas in there, though
Yep. They'll just get someone new to do exactly the same thing.
I'm not sure what the point of this post was. I'm sure there are some good ideas in there, though
The point is that you shouldn't rely on reviews for 100% objective, impartial buying advice.
The best way to see if you'll like a game is to try the demo. If there's no demo, wait until there is one. If the publisher doesn't make a demo, well...
Riposte
Member
Whether something is worth buying or not is largely dependent on one's financial state. This unaddressable factor will come up more often when you get rid of the 5 star (or higher) system and allowing the reader to decide for himself whether a game "that good/bad" is worth "that much/little" (which varies greatly based on time).
Ultimately reviews should be more than "buy guides", which is better accomplished with direct media from publishers and a little word of mouth here and there. They should be criticism. They should break down and make us understand games. So much so that collectively, reviews should show us the history of game design from sequel to sequel, series to series, genre to genre. This is why good reviews are best read after (or perhaps during) clearing a game, like any other kind of discussion on that game.
Reviews should be about aligning with your particular tastes, and how well the game accomplishes what the game itself is setting out to do. For example, I'm a fan of the old Hitman games. There's some major changes in the new game that do not suit my tastes, but I have no problem with it getting a good score if it's good at what it intends to do.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Game Journalism, sponsored by Dorito King. See if you can spot the difference:
BEFORE:
Hint:
Answer to this puzzle?! Damage Control:
BEFORE:
AFTER:
Hint:
A DLC character who hasn't even been released or created yet.
Answer to this puzzle?! Damage Control:
Thats why it is a big deal. If he actually played the game he wouldn't write it like the Starhawk guy is in the game. It IS a reworded press release.
I do think he played it, maybe he didn't realize what he was doing when he stuffed the review to meet the deadline or something. I know I'm kind of making excuses for laziness, but it's hard for me to think it should be bunched up with straight up malice/other stuff talked about in this thread at large. At least for what I understand/assume happened.
I'm more bothered by hyperbole, and even fan reactions (yea, we kinda breed an environment for this type of press to thrive in) that allow for such pandering, than some dude who couldn't be bothered to come with an original paragraph to pad his review. But I guess we could and can still ask for some little attention paid to both.
Isn't the problem that even the written content is heavily influenced these days?
Dreams-Visions
Member
fascinating thread.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Man, I can't believe this ends with her getting fired. God damn. lol
If the MCV people's twitter comments are anything to go by they didn't fire her for lack of integrity so much as for the negative attention for the site and, presumably "the industry they serve". She fits right in otherwise and they've fiercely defended her up until now.
At least they're not outright pointing fingers at 'trolls' now that this malarkey cost her her job after all.
Tying a game's quality to some economic component is a poor way to do things. You tend to start grading on stuff like game length or replay value.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yeah, it's just the shittiness of this industry coming full circle. That's what is funny and sad about this whole thing.
McBradders
NeoGAF: my new HOME
Wow.
It doesn't really fit into the "Games Journalism" thing, just the "MCV wat." thing... but I thought this was funny:
MCV seem to be posting pretty much anything at the moment. A lot of it seems like PR fluff, and not the retail industry they pointed out recently... :/
ElRenoRaven
Member
Wow. Just caught up. Karma is such a bitch. She costs a man his job and now all said and done she's out of her job. Can't say I feel sorry for her. What comes around goes around. The whole interview thing doesn't surprise me either. Probably realized it would make her look like what she truly is.
- Status