-
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.
When a 96 Metacritic is not enough.
- Thread starter ZZZZ
- Start date
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Game journalists making a joke of themselves once again. Trying to spin a big story over nothing. It worked with the mindless cunts tho, it's gaining traction over the regular anti-Sony crowd.
Paracelsus
Member
It would never work, because they want sales to be frontloaded so they can please stockholders and convince the masses to join the bandwagon.
You either are in for the initial hype or you miss the train, you're all alone playing the game because everybody else has moved on, and it could occur to you the game doesn't interest you as much as you thought it would.
That's how huge backlogs happen and that's why the scores need to be overinflated. You have to feel like you're missing out, like you can't miss the day one.
Gamerguy84
Member
No man. I dont think Sony was pressuring anyone as has been stated in this thread.
The entire point of my post was to say I dont put any trust in any gaming media. Especially ones with PS or Xbox in the address.
I listen to Angry Joe a bit and NX gamer. Other than that I do my own research.
Edit. I removed what I typed but the link is still there of the opinion piece of poly..
Last edited:
Lionel Richie
Member
That's a very fair point, but the idea of a publisher "reaching out" to a journo for whatever reason other than incorrect information is frightening. Not trusting Polygon or Vice is the correct way of doing things IMO, but if the reports are accurate here then there is an additional layer of unreliability to this process which somehow makes it even more deleterious than the agenda these outlet push or frankly their overall incompetence.
Kumomeme
Member
overall score should take count of critic+user so there would not be discrepancy between to side and give 'honest' view of the game
and personally i believe single 1-10 score is no enough to measure game..there is more to these things that cant be measured by number....atleast better has separate breakdown like story 1-10, gameplay 1-10, music 1-10 for example to give viewers better idea to what kind of game and how it suit their taste..we often had situation that a game get perfect score despite gameplay aspect is lacking and vice versa.
and personally i believe single 1-10 score is no enough to measure game..there is more to these things that cant be measured by number....atleast better has separate breakdown like story 1-10, gameplay 1-10, music 1-10 for example to give viewers better idea to what kind of game and how it suit their taste..we often had situation that a game get perfect score despite gameplay aspect is lacking and vice versa.
Kumomeme
Member
agreed..i think Bruce Straley can balance out neil druckman and i believe they are quite good pair during first Tlou game..he atleast can put 'leash' on druckman like how there rumors that neil want to kill elena but bruce 'stop' him and stuff. There lot of other creative director that need someone like that too...like nomura for example...
DrScissorsMD
Banned
Both reviews and readers of reviews need to rethink how they’re doing this. To clarify: I think way, way too much emphasis by both reviewers and readers is put on scores or averages/totals. If someone I generally disagree with IRL tells me they highly rate something, that’s likely to put me off said item/product as opposed to a trusted friend telling me so. People need to find a few reviewers they “align” with taste-wise and focus on that if they’re actually seeking an opinion or insight into the game.
I personally have zero interest in TLOU2. Does that make me wrong? No. Does that make all the fans/high-rating reviews wrong? Of course not. But I’ve heard enough from people/reviewers I trust to know this is not for me. I’m not going to blindly buy it or play it because it’s getting mass praise.
It’s like some weird knock-on effect from console wars. My idea of a perfect review system is no scores, not even a liked/dislike. You read the reviews and you make an informed decision on your own experiences with that genre/IP/dev etc alongside the opinions of people you know like the same things as you. And before people go “hur dur you can’t just ignore negative opinions” we’re talking about Vidya, not a second medical opinion. If I want to know if I’ll like a game, am I gonna ask someone I know that likes similar games or am I gonna ask someone who hates them?
I personally have zero interest in TLOU2. Does that make me wrong? No. Does that make all the fans/high-rating reviews wrong? Of course not. But I’ve heard enough from people/reviewers I trust to know this is not for me. I’m not going to blindly buy it or play it because it’s getting mass praise.
It’s like some weird knock-on effect from console wars. My idea of a perfect review system is no scores, not even a liked/dislike. You read the reviews and you make an informed decision on your own experiences with that genre/IP/dev etc alongside the opinions of people you know like the same things as you. And before people go “hur dur you can’t just ignore negative opinions” we’re talking about Vidya, not a second medical opinion. If I want to know if I’ll like a game, am I gonna ask someone I know that likes similar games or am I gonna ask someone who hates them?
LOLCats
Banned
but isnt he a nazi
Last edited:
dano1
A Sheep
Reminds me of the modern day review scale.
If it's not a perfect 10, it's worthless.
So true!! I miss the old ratings system.
I believe IGN said the don’t score any game under a 5. On a 10 point scale that’s ridiculous!!
Dont want to hurt anyone’s feelings
ZehDon
Member
The thing about opinions is they are subjective, so you can't shut down a review because you disagree with it. Having not played the game, I can say that one core criticism I've seen repeated by numerous people and outlets is that the game-play quite often feels like a rather minor evolution of the original - it feels good to play, but its not strayed far. Not being able to move bodies to avoid detection, AI routines being easily exploitable, waist-high objects sign-posting combat environments, and so forth. And I've seen arguments that, given the "theme" of the story, "good feeling gameplay" may not even be a good thing in terms of drawing the player into the main story beats. It's as valid as any other take - including that one professional review which claimed the game has the best writing of any medium, which is laughably out of touch.
Bryank75
Banned
Yes, I came to post this. It brings a lot to the table.Bring this back please
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Magazine archive is awesome. Tons of old game mag scans.
Pretty sure this EGM mag is the first one I bought 30 years ago.
Check out the reviews they used to do on a 10 pt scale. Flip through it, reviews are near the front.
Fun Fact: Looks like they got Space Harrier and Golden Axe pics switched by accident!
Pretty sure this EGM mag is the first one I bought 30 years ago.
Check out the reviews they used to do on a 10 pt scale. Flip through it, reviews are near the front.
Fun Fact: Looks like they got Space Harrier and Golden Axe pics switched by accident!
Electronic Gaming Monthly 08 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Electronic Gaming Monthly 08
archive.org
Last edited:
supernova8
Banned
Yeah I (sort of) work one of the PR functions for our company and if someone (well-known with considerable reach) writes an article/makes a YouTube video about our product(s), we will try to make contact with them to get more details. We wouldn't ever ask them to change their review unless they had objectively lied about something (intentionally or otherwise) like saying X function isn't on the product when it is but they just couldn't find it.
I have no idea how it would work in games though. Maybe there is more pressure to give a good score. Who knows? Not all PR is the same. Different industries have different power dynamics.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Gaming sites are dependent on fast clicks, and that comes with early previews and free swag and gold copies for reviews. And that comes with sucking up with glowing reviews or get blacklisted.
Unless someone has a big following like Angry Joe who puts on a show with costumes and production values a week later by buying his own games, most web sites would die under that model.
And many get ad/banner revenue from companies, which makes it worse because there is now a financial relationship. That Gamespot/Jeff Gertsman public debacle 10 years ago made it blatantly obvious.
So even though they are not on the HR payroll, in a way they are. The companies I work for (non-gaming) don't have these on going kinds of product/ad revenue relationships. Instead, our marketing company does it more direct in one-off contracts at a time. Hire bloggers to plug the product. Send them a case of product, some information, help them with digital marketing material (videos, images, photoshop stuff), and pay them $5,000. Depending on the blog site it can cost more or less.
And look at that...... never seen a blogger give our products a shit review. I thought bloggers were supposed to be unbiased, fan friendly average joes giving all the normal folks a review from their basement.
Funny how that works.
Last edited:
supernova8
Banned
Kane and Lynch, was it?
Yeah I have respect for AngryJoe (and others who buy their games rather than getting free/early review copies) because he can genuinely say whatever he wants about it. I've watched a good chunk of his reviews and I don't recall him going over the top in anger at a particular part of a game. He does tend to repeat the same complaint over and over during his livestreams but the pre-recorded stuff seems fine.
I especially loved his video on Battlefield 4. Really hit the nail on the head.
At our company we don't currently pay people to do stuff like that (although I am internally pushing for it) because it's a new concept to our somewhat old-style management and they think it'll set a precedent meaning we have to send review stuff to all big social media stars (which, as you know, is not true and is entirely up to us).
Anyway yeah keep on fighting the good fight.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Yup.
He gave K&L a 6/10 at the same time Gamespot had huge K&L banners on the home page that wrapped around the border of the page. lol. I don't know if GS ever took down or changed the review, but I remember seeing it. And it said 6/10. From his Wiki:
Termination from GameSpot (2007–2008)[edit]
Gerstmann was dismissed from his position at GameSpot as Editorial Director on November 28, 2007.[4] Immediately after his termination, rumors circulated proclaiming his dismissal was a result of external pressure from Eidos Interactive, the publisher of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, which Gerstmann had previously given a Fair rating, which is relatively undesirable, along with critique.[5] This was at a time when Eidos had been putting heavy advertising money into GameSpot,[5] transforming the entire website to use a Kane & Lynch theme and background instead of the regular GameSpot layout. In accordance with California State Law and CNET Networks, GameSpot could not give details as to why Gerstmann was terminated.[6] Both GameSpot and parent company CNET stated that his dismissal was unrelated to the negative review.[7] However, a subsequent interview with Gerstmann in 2012 countered this statement, with Gerstmann claiming that management gave in to publisher pressure.[8]
Following Gerstmann's termination, editors Alex Navarro, Ryan Davis, Brad Shoemaker, and Vinny Caravella left GameSpot, feeling that they could no longer work for a publication that was perceived as having caved in to advertiser pressure.[5]
In 2012, with Gerstmann's Giant Bomb site acquired by CBS Interactive which owned CNET, part of the acquisition nullified the non-disparagement agreement between Gerstmann and CNET. During a 2012 GameSpot "On the Spot" interview with Gerstmann, Gerstmann was able to talk of the terms of his dismissal in 2008. Gerstmann revealed that his firing was in fact related to the low review score he had given to Kane & Lynch, though his explanation cited other similar events that led up to the termination, including a 7.5 (good) rating given to Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction by Aaron Thomas, then an employee under Gerstmann. Events such as these led to him being "called into a room" several times to discuss reviews posted on the site. Gerstmann went on to lay the blame on a new management team that was unable to properly handle tension between the marketing and editorial staff, laying additional blame on the marketing department, which he claimed was unprepared in how to handle publisher complaints and threats to withdraw advertising money over low review scores.[8] Gerstmann also stated he ran into a few members of [Kane & Lynch] developer IO Interactive at a convention a few months after his firing. He claims one of the people he ran into said, "Yeah, Kane & Lynch wasn't a very good game." Gerstmann responded, "You should totally call up my old bosses and tell them that."[9]
Last edited:
NoxNyctores
Member
Streamers have already been for over a week with drama and now this, where the hell am I gonna get enough popcorn for this?
Velius
Banned
Into cucktitude they must now go!
iorek21
Member
It's obvious that something happens for certain games during reviews/early acess/embargoes.
For instance, some Nintendo and Rockstar's games at 97 Metascore seems like nearly perfect games, which, in the case of RDR2 and GTA V at least, is not really true.
It could be just that reviewers are biased and thus will give a perfect score to those games, or it could be another thing, I'm not really sure.
I doubt that paid reviews are a thing for most of the games, but maybe there's a kind of gentlemen's agreement so that certain games do not get too much heat in order to the early access privilege continue
For instance, some Nintendo and Rockstar's games at 97 Metascore seems like nearly perfect games, which, in the case of RDR2 and GTA V at least, is not really true.
It could be just that reviewers are biased and thus will give a perfect score to those games, or it could be another thing, I'm not really sure.
I doubt that paid reviews are a thing for most of the games, but maybe there's a kind of gentlemen's agreement so that certain games do not get too much heat in order to the early access privilege continue
namekuseijin
Banned
The highest rated or engrossing gay porn is not yet enough to make me watch it. Sorry.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
But all porn sites who got early copies Porneo Cookies: Double Crust Edition give it 10/10 on the boner meter.
Just to prove their reviews are legit, be sure to check out all the material about the movie the website got from the studio:
- Previews from 2 years ago
- Previews from a year ago
- Director Q&A from 6 months ago
- Teaser clips every 4 months
- Porn stud and Porn slut AMA session
- Contest giveaway. Submit a review back and win copies of Porneo Cookies for horny friends
- Free collector's items the website got used to help promote to customers to buy the Deluxe Edition which includes plaster of paris veiny dick
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
I doubt anyone who sold that well first day of release are annoyed by much really.
You say it like they once weren't arrogant
Last edited:
Jtibh
Banned
I like the ACG review scale.
Buy wait for a sale or never touch.
When he says wait for sale i know i save a lot of money and still get to have a good time.
It means the game is good at the right price.
When he says its a buy i know whether i buy now or later i wont regret it and its worth the full price.
Buy wait for a sale or never touch.
When he says wait for sale i know i save a lot of money and still get to have a good time.
It means the game is good at the right price.
When he says its a buy i know whether i buy now or later i wont regret it and its worth the full price.
tryDEATH
Member
Sony really going into the trenches for this one, which I don't think is worth it. The game certainly nailed some aspects of the game and came up a short in other departments. Thinking you got a perfect game where you're questioning criticism just come across as delusional, but Sony has made MetaCritic scores their thing to chase this generation so I am not entirely shocked they actually went that far.
yurinka
Member
Well, I didn't like most of the new characters and in terms of story or narrative I think that their part should have been shorter or at least shown in other places of the game. Like to introduce them before the very important moment that happens during the early hours, or maybe to keep alternating chapter by chapter between them and Ellie.
But other than that, that is only even personal taste or suggestion, it's an awesome game in everything else. The game is at least a solid 9 in my book, and I could accept an 8 if you have an issue with long games, manly women, that game genere, you're a Sony hater fanboy or stuff like that. But under 8 doesn't make sense at all.
To call it 'a poor sequel' and other dumb shit they mention is laughable. Regarding the PR, I assume asked them for details of some questions about stuff that doesn't make sense because I assume they won't understand stuff like calling it a bad sequel, but mostly to detail in a report for the publisher & dev what things are liked or disliked in the press, more than to tell the journo what they should write.
Last edited:
Bragr
Banned
You would think so, but at least on twitter, there been some salt. Naughty Dog staff is bizarre with their public interactions, their staff is so frustrated with some gamers and political views they reguraly lash out against people.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
I miss the times when a 90+ score meant a completely new genius concept that would define gaming for the future.
Like Tetris, Mario Bros or Maniac Mansion.
TLOU2 would have been given something in high 70ies to mid 80ies range, imo.
Like Tetris, Mario Bros or Maniac Mansion.
TLOU2 would have been given something in high 70ies to mid 80ies range, imo.
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
I will never ever for the life of me get video game drama. Fights over reviews, console wars, all of it.
It seems so weird to me. You don't see this shit in TV. No one argues Comcast vs Verizon to the death or fights over Breaking Bad finale reviews.
At least not to this capacity. It's so fucking weird. I have to think it's mostly teenagers who care about this shit to such a degree, but apparently not.
It seems so weird to me. You don't see this shit in TV. No one argues Comcast vs Verizon to the death or fights over Breaking Bad finale reviews.
At least not to this capacity. It's so fucking weird. I have to think it's mostly teenagers who care about this shit to such a degree, but apparently not.
That is happening for all video games. God of War was 95 for a full week (now 94). Persona 5 royal was 96 for 2 weeks (now 95). The last Zelda was 98 for 3 weeks (now 97).
mrBarrelNut
Member
I think Sony is the most disgusting company in gaming ATM. Harassing reviewers, trying to silence Youtube critics using shitty tactics, censorship etc. What a POS company.
ToadMan
Member
Really? And do you think it’s inappropriate for the owner of a restaurant to ask for your feedback on the food?
Sony are giving out copies of their content so reviewers can form an opinion and publish it to make hits and money.
Sony have every right to solicit that opinion and ask for clarification or further information to improve their content going forward.
This article is not implying any impropriety on Sony’s part and there is no evidence of anything underhand in Sony’s actions.
The only one implying underhandedness is you - with zero evidence of that...
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
Could you show some evidence of this claim? It’s libellous to say this without evidence to back it up.
Last edited:
Jon Neu
Banned
And then people don’t understand why we take gaming media reviews and opinions with a grain of salt.
Rathalos
Banned
I completely agree games are too long in general. Assassin's Creed is a great example, after 10-15 hours I'm done, but there's another 10+ hours to go, and it's all the same.
As for the TLOU2, I gave it a 10/10 and absolutely loved it, but even still it was about 2-3 hours too long IMO.
As for the TLOU2, I gave it a 10/10 and absolutely loved it, but even still it was about 2-3 hours too long IMO.
Jon Neu
Banned
TLOU2 is weird. Sometimes you feel like the game is too long, but then you reach the end and you are like: that’s it?
Sony wanted to get some feedback on why you they did not like the game - so long as Sony is not using it as an intimidation tactic I don't see the problem.While the vast majority of reviews have lavished The Last of Us Part 2 with all sorts of praise, a handful of outlets — Polygon included — have been slightly more critical of the blockbuster game. According to Zacny, Vice’s review prompted a Sony representative to reach out on behalf of Naughty Dog.
The Last of Us Part 2 has become a minefield
Devs, critics, and fans butt heads over one of the year’s biggest gameswww.polygon.com
Edit: I didn't know this was something that occurred in a daily basis, i think it shouldn't happen but according to people that work in the industry it's part of the job to expect a call depending on how you review the game, especially if you were part of the group that got to review it early.
karaveo
Banned
3: Flip a coin
Jon Neu
Banned
It’s precisely an intimidation tactic.
If you don’t wash the back of the devs and companies, next time you aren’t going to be invited to the next event, the next game you wouldn’t receive an early copy, etc...
If the studio wants to use it as an intimidation tactic they would simply not send you an early review copy for the next game they do not need to contact you, secondly if they wanted to do this they would speak to executives not the reviewer in question.
And if the studio wants more detailed feedback than what was written in the review how else are they to do this without speaking to reviewer?
I cannot imagine a more incompetent means of intimidating someone than leaving actual emails - if they want to do that they will simply ghost your organisation.
I can't help but feel you have to be starting from a position of bad faith to arrive at this sort of conclusion.