Support NeoGAF

[James Scott]

Wasn't dodging the question, I just think assigning singular words to numbers is really dumb and restrictive.

If a game's getting scores of 7 and above, to me it means it's worth checking out.



Genuinely curious, what's a 6 and a 5 mean to you?

Ok. Goes to bad 4 and under

 

[dan2026]

As of May 9, Prey has an 80 on Metacritic. Although that number may jump up and down a bit before it settles, it is not considered fantastic.

8/10 is not a great game?

Fuck me, soon everything that isnt 10/10 will be considered trash.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

I wonder how these big sites would react when game companies start to only send pre-launch copies to youtube/twitch influencers exclusively.

 

[Visualante2]

As much as I dislike Bethesda's review policy. How many publishers out there are even willing to publish a game like Prey these days? I appreciate that's a sad way to look at it but that's how I feel.

 

[ScientificPizza]

I think most people would agree, except for the contrarians in this thread who have a very liberal definition for "fantastic"

you're just being pedantic

 

[Joeku]

Here's the thing, though.

1) If we're speculating that Prey would review better if copies were sent out earlier, then we're basically admitting that a large portion of reviewers are rushing through the game to get a review out. Which is a completely separate and (in my opinion, more concerning) problem. It almost seems like someone at Bethesda is taking a principled approach here, to their own detriment.

Something like this is what concerns me. Early copies and an embargo creates somewhat of an even playing field. If the game is upwards of 40 hours long, Bethesda will give reviewers time enough to complete it and collect their thoughts into a review that then gets edited (or at least proofread). However, by their current policy, pressure is then on all of these different outlets to try to be first, and in a game like Prey that wants you to take your goddamn time, rushing will affect the review, for better and for worse.

While respectable places will of course do what they can to be as measured as possible, there has to be some temptation to be the first one at the finish line.

Also, people are going to get early copies from mom n pop shops anyway. That's a foregone conclusion. Bethesda might as well at least acknowledge that.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I'm doubtful you can draw a direct line between the review policy and the lackluster marketing for Bethesda's recent titles. That being said, it's pretty unquestionably anti-consumer and I kinda struggle to support it.

Reviews are free marketing, that's objective. They are objectively taking away from marketing that the game seems to have desperately needed (according to UK sales numbers).

Bethesda's is hurting their games to protect the preorders of a theoretically low scoring game (something that Bethesda hasnt had a problem with this gen).

 

[Instro]

Doom was widely available for around $20 within around 6 months, if the game was a success it wouldn't have dropped in price that bad so quickly.

Yes all games drop in price fast these days, but doom dropped incredibly fast for a game 90+ rated. The game might have had decent legs, but with how fast it dropped in price I doubt Bethesda is happy about that.

Fallout 4 could be had for $20 6 months after launch as well. Bethesda has been aggressive with their MSRP for many years now going back into last gen.

 

[Ripenen]

I believe Zenimax did this exact thing with Fallout New Vegas.

Right and that was what, six years ago? Is the author of this article implying that Bethesda is purposefully trying to push down review scores so they don't have to pay out bonuses?

As the author then admits he doesn't know if Bethesda even gives Metacritic bonuses. So why mention it at all?

 

[Lionel Richie]

This is such a weird speculation, do we have any evidence that the game might have scored otherwise had it been available to reviewers earlier? It didn't greatly affect DOOM or Dishonored 2. And Kotaku fails to see this is pretty much a reflection of our sad state of affairs in being so obsessed with Metacritic, journalists aren't rushing for the big scoop or shit like that but to be amongst the first to award an arbitrary number to a game. That's what isn't fair to the developers who, according to the article, "spent four years on this game only to watch reviewers stamp numbers on it after just four days". It's not a problem with the policy here as much as it's with the industry unhealthy obsession with Metacritic.

 

[Kthulhu]

8/10 is not a great game?

Fuck me, soon everything that isnt 10/10 will be considered trash.

Considering how people reacted to a certain someone giving a certain popular Nintendo launch title a 7/10, we're kind of already there.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

I quoted it because it's the word used in the article. I'm still baffled as to how an 8/10 isn't considered fantastic.

Hello Square One, it's good to be back.

you're just being pedantic

Because I like to use words as they should be? Then sure, I'm pedantic.

I couldn't find a single popular review scale that equates an 8 or 80 to "fantastic"

 

[ByWatterson]

This article is quite heavy on speculation and hypothesizing. They don't know whether reviewers rushed, let alone whether said hypothetical rushing impacted scores, or to what extent.

I'm not taking a position on the policy, but this article smacks of "I don't like thing, therefore thing must be universally bad" thinking.

#berniewouldhavewon

 

[killroy87]

As much as I dislike Bethesda's review policy. How many publishers out there are even willing to publish a game like Prey these days? I appreciate that's a sad way to look at it but that's how I feel.

That's the thing though. If the game is good (which it is) high review scores will lead to more sales, will lead to more risky games like Prey.

It's in nobody's best interest for this game to underperform.

 

[HueyFreeman]

Cross-posting my comments from the review thread

There's a cynical logic in bethesda's policy. It essentially acknowledges that many reviews are just a form of marketing, and so much of it compromised by poor writing or uncomfortable industry relationships, that they've just said "eh, we'll just do our own direct to consumer pre-release marketing." I understand and agree with claims that it is certainly not pro-consumer, but in general (PC Dishonored frustrations aside), these have all been really great games on release, so it's not really like they're trying to hide something - just acknowledging that this is a hugely flawed system.

That so much of Jason's argument hinges on reviewers having to rush to publish the review is an illustration of the flaw in the media coverage in general. Frankly I don't think it would be a bad thing moving to a system where all reviewers, regardless of advertising conflicts, have the game on day 1, so that they are playing the most up to date, patched game with a up and running online infrastructure facing its actual load, and releasing their reviews contemporary with others, so the competition then becomes who writes the best, most reliable and honest review, as opposed to who has it first.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

If Bethesda wants to keep the policy they should learn to better market their own games.

 

[franklyshankly]

See, to me, I'd probably consider 5 to be "average" in my mind, since it's, well, the average between 1 and 10. And then I'd work my way up from there.

So few games end up between 0 and 3 that part of the range is pretty much a non factor. So putting average at a 6 is fair to me.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Frankly I don't think it would be a bad thing moving to a system where all reviewers, regardless of advertising conflicts, have the game on day 1, so that they are playing the most up to date, patched game with a up and running online infrastructure facing its actual load, and releasing their reviews contemporary with others, so the competition then becomes who writes the best, most reliable and honest review, as opposed to who has it first.?

I don't see how this doesn't make the "who has it first" problem worse than it is. Now, every major outlet has the same amount of time because of embargoes; there is barely a race. By removing that, you're creating one

 

[Barry Burton]

I don't think it's necessarily a lack of marketing push that's hurting Bethesda's recent games, and more that the marketing itself really isn't landing. I saw tons of TV ads for both Doom and Dishonored 2 well before and after release, and just saw quite a few Prey commercials over the weekend. They're getting the word out there. It doesn't feel like it's an issue of consumers not knowing if/when these games are out. I think it's Bethesda's messaging itself that is proving to be ineffective, especially with their IPs that don't have wide mainstream appeal.

Though obviously their review policy isn't going to help matters for them, and it's especially troublesome when a game is good and could really use plenty of good launch week buzz. Speaking personally, I rarely preorder a game or buy one at launch unless I'm 100% sold on it. If not, I'll wait for impressions but for some folks, that waiting game might last until it's already dropped in price or until they've forgotten about the game entirely and moved onto something else new and shiny.

I know it's not a popular opinion around these parts, but this just sounds like someone's that bitter that couldn't have a review for people to click on, on Day 1.

Are people calling DOOM a flop? What stats are you using to back up that sort of claim?

Don't know if it falls under the category of "flop", but it didn't make the Top 20 list for last year, behind the likes of Titanfall 2 and Far Cry Primal.

 

[ArjanN]

Considering how people reacted to a certain someone giving a certain popular Nintendo launch title a 7/10, we're kind of already there.

I mean, people flipped their shit over Zelda getting an 8.8 back in the day, so it's nothing new really.

 

[Easy_D]

And it should be your take too. There is NO benefit to consumers by withholding reviews and information

I hope this policy continues to bite Bethesda in the butt

Especially when the game itself is GOOD lol. When did they start doing this anyway? Did they with DOOM as well? I remember the marketing was SHIT and all they did was focus on the terrible multiplayer.

 

[terencecah]

I think most of the purchasing public knows about a games release because of reviews.

By delaying reviews, you delay awareness


But I don't know anything

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Especially when the game itself is GOOD lol. When did they start doing this anyway? Did they with DOOM as well? I remember the marketing was SHIT and all they did was focus on the terrible multiplayer.

Pretty sure it was Doom. And yeah, that Conan Clueless Gamer made Doom look incredibly unremarkable.

 

[Joeku]

Especially when the game itself is GOOD lol. When did they start doing this anyway? Did they with DOOM as well? I remember the marketing was SHIT and all they did was focus on the terrible multiplayer.

I think Doom might have been the first one to fall under this policy.

Thank fuck for them the game was so goddamn good. It was carried entirely on word-of-mouth.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

I mean, people flipped their shit over Zelda getting an 8.8 back in the day, so it's nothing new really.

People flipped their shit at a 7 for BotW. We don't need to go far back.

 

[ScientificPizza]

Hello Square One, it's good to be back.



Because I like to use words as they should be? Then sure, I'm pedantic.

I couldn't find a single popular review scale that equates an 8 or 80 to "fantastic"

Because you're continuing to argue about the difference between great and fantastic when they can both be used interchangably to represent the same thing

It's not someone using a word incorrectly as opinions about this stuff is subjective. If someone thinks an 8/10 game is fantastic then they think it's fantastic. That's not wrong or misuse of a word. The only argument you have is pedantry and how certain numbers should only be attached to certain words

 

[Nanashrew]

Cross-posting my comments from the review thread



That so much of Jason's argument hinges on reviewers having to rush to publish the review is an illustration of the flaw in the media coverage in general. Frankly I don't think it would be a bad thing moving to a system where all reviewers, regardless of advertising conflicts, have the game on day 1, so that they are playing the most up to date, patched game with a up and running online infrastructure facing its actual load, and releasing their reviews contemporary with others, so the competition then becomes who writes the best, most reliable and honest review, as opposed to who has it first.

Embargos are in place so that reviews are not a race to get them out. It makes things fair to everyone. The earlier the review copy media outlets can get, the better too. They could take much more time with it and give more well thought out reviews.

 

[GwyndolinCinder]

Where does it actually mention that the Policy is bad for Bethesda?
"An 80 is not fantastic" - Site that doesnt use review scores, because review scores are dumb.

I think most of the purchasing public knows about a games release because of reviews.

By delaying reviews, you delay awareness


But I don't know anything

 

[Sizzel]

Let's not kid ourselves here that 1-10 scale realllly exists.

I have been around since forever and all that really means is I have seen a boat load of mags and websites and read a ton of reviews. I may be less qualified to comment on any subject that any given person.This is my observation though

I watched the versions of 5 star rating morph and change over the years, but I think we have a juiced up version that is publisher friendly now. This is what I have observationally concluded is going on.

6=60%=1, 7=70%=2 8=80%=3 , 9=90%=4 and 10=100%=5 stars.

how often do games get below 6? or 60%? sure shovel ware or indie games. if you will.How often do games fall in the 80%...etc... some of you may be too young to remember the full-on 5-star system or rating individual categories up until 5 and taking the mean, that is fine, I could be 100% wrong here. Maybe all game have just gotten... better. It is possible.

So let's assume that is true. If all games have gotten better and 1-5(out of 10) games don't or rarely exist... then do 6-10 games have the same meaning anymore? if almost nothing is a 1-5 or 10-50% then the scale for good, really starts at +-60% or that is 1 star now in this hyper good world. At least how I see it. So that being said if Prey (could be a great game) sits at 79%, to quantify it against most games released and reviewed... it is about a 2.9 or a 3-star game. In the old days that was a pass(unless you loved the genre/setting/etc) a little over 50% of the stars.

So is 79% a "good" rating? no. It is mediocre or average. but sounds a hell of a lot better than 2.9 or 58-60%. Agree/ disagree, but what are we even comparing to if almost nothing AAA wise is below 60%. Sounds better than 2.9 or 3 anything let alone 58-60%. IDK. just a thought

 

[ModernBoxes]

First, what problem? Second, I'm part of this imaginary problem because I use words as they should be intended?



Nice way of dodging the question.

If 8/10 is fantastic, what's 7/10? That's generally considered good, but that's far too big of step down for the 1 point gap

Edit: IGN on their official scale considers an 8 to be "Great." 7 is "Good"

The problem has always been the American mindset of equating numbers with scores you'd see in school.

No one uses the full scale properly. It has to be weighted at 80-100 in order to appear good.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Because you're continuing to argue about the difference between great and fantastic when they can both be used interchangably to represent the same thing

I have never heard the words used interchangeably. What a strange argument, considering the same could be said for "good" or just about any positive adjective.

Why even use words at that point if we're not willing to discern distinction?

 

[torre_avenue]

I wonder how these big sites would react when game companies start to only send pre-launch copies to youtube/twitch influencers exclusively.

I think, in some twisted way, it would make them more objective.

The whole issue with games media was that the relationship between the media and the firms they covered was getting too close for comfort; it's why sites started disclosing things like whether companies flew them out for those unique experiences or to special preview events. That's what caused the whole controversy over reviews becoming inflated as part of a tit-for-tat scheme. Now that companies have just started leaving old media for new, that problem should indirectly solve itself. It's obviously not a cure, but I hope that the lack of attention & benefits showered upon sites like Kotaku or IGN or Eurogamer et al. would bring back reviews and coverage to a more """factual level."""

 

[Szadek]

Especially when the game itself is GOOD lol. When did they start doing this anyway? Did they with DOOM as well? I remember the marketing was SHIT and all they did was focus on the terrible multiplayer.

It started with Doom "because multiplayer" , but then the also did it with skyrim remaster "because it worked for Doom" (although the more honest answer would be "because fuck you we can") and every game after that.

 

[Imbarkus]

Bethesda are definitely on to something with this and have probably seen the sort of success on PC from games like DayZ or PlayerUnknown mainly due to word of mouth, twitch streamers and youtube content creators rather than coverage from traditional media. But I think they need a much stronger marketing presence before launch to compensate for the lack of media presence or we'll have situations like with Prey where nobody seems to know that it's already released. Will be very interesting to see if they're successful with it long term, I certainly don't think the idea is insanity or without merit though.

Ah the good old "one size fits all" game marketing.

Why didn't our single-player story-driven experience get loved across the internet in streams in the exact same way that worked for an Early Access game developed and named after a famous modder?

Critics were the potential advocates and influencers for this game. But the percentage "on board" was reduced from something greater than zero, to zero.

 

[george_us]

What sucks is that developers are the ones who are going to feel the brunt of Prey's reportedly low sales because the mistakes of the parent company. Consumers are the ones who lose the least in this situation imo. It's no thing for me to wait a couple of days or weeks for more information. By that time a game is already considered a failure by Bethesda.

 

[Chris1]

Fallout 4 could be had for $20 6 months after launch as well. Bethesda has been aggressive with their MSRP for many years now going back into last gen.

Hmm well in the UK it took fallout 4 till October to get down to about ~£15 on Amazon. Doom on the other hand it took until around November, almost half the time it did FO4. Of course other retailers could have dropped it before then but Amazon is the easiest one to track that far back.

At least in the UK Doom dropped in price really fast

 

[Freshmaker]

I'm fairly certain that's how all reviewers feel.

The sales numbers don't seem to be demonstrating anything else.

Bethesda basically turned down free promotion for no benefit.

 

[hank_tree]

I know it's not a popular opinion around these parts, but this just sounds like someone's that bitter that couldn't have a review for people to click on, on Day 1.

Are people calling DOOM a flop? What stats are you using to back up that sort of claim?

I don't know if it was a flop but it was available around here for half price within a month of release. Same with Dishonored 2 actually.

 

[TriangularDuck]

Especially when the game itself is GOOD lol. When did they start doing this anyway? Did they with DOOM as well? I remember the marketing was SHIT and all they did was focus on the terrible multiplayer.

Yep. I was completely uninterested in DOOM because the marketing was trash and there were no pre-release reviews to tell me the game was actually good.

By the time I actually heard the game was good, I happily bought it for 20 bucks. Could have bought it at launch for 60 if everything around the game wasn't so terribly mishandled. Prey is completely off my radar too, and I'll probably also be buying it for 20 bucks.

 

[Nanashrew]

The synonyms for fantastic are: great, terrific, impressive, tremendous, phenomenal, marvelous, wonderful, sensational, outstanding, superb, super, excellent, first-rate, dazzling, out of this world, breathtaking, terrific, fabulous, ace, cool, awesome, brilliant.

Guys, words are dumb and often interchangeable.

 

[iammeiam]

It's unfortunate all around. I'm enjoying the hell out of the game and the relative lack of prerelease hype has made it a pleasant surprise. It's horrible that it's going to backfire on Armand, though.

Way to go, you bunch of press sneak fucks.

That just reminded me Prey has a Press Sneak achievement.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

I think the real takeaway is that their review policy hurt Prey's sales (at least initially) because it resulted in less buzz than what would have been generated by the stellar reviews.

 

[HueyFreeman]

Embargos are in place so that reviews are not a race to get them out. It makes things fair to everyone. The earlier the review copy media outlets can get, the better too. They could take much more time with it and give more well thought out reviews.

I don't see how this doesn't make the "who has it first" problem worse than it is. Now, every major outlet has the same amount of time because of embargoes; there is barely a race. By removing that, you're creating one

These are fair points, but this assumes absolutely all reviewers are actually getting the game, and not being cherry-picked by publishers. Furthermore, we're still talking about something that requires resources, meaning that indies will inherently have a more difficult time with it and there will be differential market access as a result. Finally, neither of these posts addressses the fact that pre-release reviews are often playing an unfinished version of the game, which people complain equally noisily about.

 

[conman]

What sucks is that developers are the ones who are going to feel the brunt of Prey's reportedly low sales because the mistakes of the parent company. Consumers are the ones who lose the least in this situation imo. It's no thing for me to wait a couple of days or weeks for more information. By that time a game is already considered a failure by Bethesda.

Totally.

I have a hard time imagining that their policy affects sales much one way or the other. On balance, some games might be hurt by early negative reviews, but others would be boosted by it. And as a publisher, you should be doing everything you can to enable your studios to produce quality games. So this doesn't affect the publisher.

And players who insist on buying games on day one will still buy things on day one. The rest of us will wait like we always do. So this doesn't affect players.

Meanwhile, reviewers will rush to get reviews up as fast as possible since there's no embargo date to worry about. Those rushed reviews are not ideal conditions for generating positive review scores. And the more measured, responsible reviewers will take their time, meaning that many releases will only reach higher metacritic averages over time. So it's the developers who stand to lose from this policy.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

See, to me, I'd probably consider 5 to be "average" in my mind, since it's, well, the average between 1 and 10. And then I'd work my way up from there.

It's not. The average between 1 and 10 is 5.5.

So 5 and 6 are both equally valid to consider "average".

 

[polyh3dron]

Yep. I was completely uninterested in DOOM because the marketing was trash and there were no pre-release reviews to tell me the game was actually good.

By the time I actually heard the game was good, I happily bought it for 20 bucks. Could have bought it at launch for 60 if everything around the game wasn't so terribly mishandled. Prey is completely off my radar too, and I'll probably also be buying it for 20 bucks.

See, this here is why it's bad for Bethesda. Not because reviewers are crying about "muh free early games".

 

[Gothos]

Now imagine that policy stays up until The Elder Scrolls VI or some other truly big game from Bethesda. I pity those people who will have to review it.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

The synonyms for fantastic are: great, terrific, impressive, tremendous, phenomenal, marvelous, wonderful, sensational, outstanding, superb, super, excellent, first-rate, dazzling, out of this world, breathtaking, terrific, fabulous, ace, cool, awesome, brilliant.

Just because a word shows up on a list of synonyms doesn't mean there aren't important and valid distinctions between them, especially in context.

Even if that list does sound like a Trump quote

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

See, this here is why it's bad for Bethesda. Not because reviewers are crying about "muh free early games".

Sounds more like poor marketing, which is more important to a game that what reviewers say.

 

[Aizen.S.Kennedy]

I look forward to the future where publishers give early copies to YouTube personalities and streamers exclusively. I wonder which game review sites will be totally cool with that because the consumer still gets early info and which sites will have issues with it while totally not mentioning their own financial concerns.