NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Well, honestly it's a pretty cool flag.
Seems it's nicer than the game though... shame.
Seems it's nicer than the game though... shame.
-
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
Stop talking about AC3 in that way. I haven't even played it yet
Stop talking about AC3 in that way. I haven't even played it yet
Don't worry, he's lying.
CambriaRising
Member
Stop talking about AC3 in that way. I haven't even played it yet
Tag quotes man.
endresults
Member
Has Wainwright poked her head out of her hole yet? I need to know if she sees her shadow or not so I know when to winterize.
chickdigger802
Banned
http://updates.kotaku.com/post/34775753950/how-it-feels-to-review-halo-4-on-microsofts-turf
interesting. Don't hear about review events much, so it's a cool enough perspective, BUT THE PR GUYS ARE BRAINWASHING YOU SUBCONSIOUSLY WITH TEHM VOODOO FOODBOXES.
interesting. Don't hear about review events much, so it's a cool enough perspective, BUT THE PR GUYS ARE BRAINWASHING YOU SUBCONSIOUSLY WITH TEHM VOODOO FOODBOXES.
chickdigger802
Banned
Oh yeah, how has Rockstar been with recent games? I remember there were a lot of talk about them being pretty fucking big assholes about reviews and review scores.
Will the same happen with GTA 5 next spring?
Will the same happen with GTA 5 next spring?
Neuromancer
Member
Probably. It netted them such great scores last time.
It's a good article. I think the middle ground of playing since it was in the same city they already live in is fairly reasonable.
I still think it affects your impression of the game. Free food isn't as big a deal as literally playing multi-player with the people who made the game, or taking breaks and having them ask what you think. You'd have to be pretty courageous to tell them to their face that their game sucks while you're playing it. I'm not saying Halo 4 sucks; I'm sure it's pretty awesome, but yeah, I don't know how it doesn't affect the overall experience substantially.
At least Kotaku was transparent about it, and they're letting us in on it. This is a good start.
Ideally I would like to see a note mentioning that the game was played at an event in the review itself.
Edit: Yeah, having it in the fine print at the bottom would be fine with me. Or have another item in the little summary box Kotaku uses.
CambriaRising
Member
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Stop talking about AC3 in that way. I haven't even played it yet
That flag is a solid 9/10.
I keep hearing the games 8/10.
I cancelled my pre-order since my wife grounded my kids from the 360 (and thus me as well) for a couple weeks.
Which is fine, my Steam backlog is pretty daunting, and I've been trying to tackle them one at a time.
Although I joked about it earlier, there are some who would worry about taking a confrontational stance with publishers over what may be perceived as a trivial issue*.
For those people charitable auctions would be a great solution.
I also like the idea of collectors (rightfully) having access to the merchandise.
Also..
I know the issue of auctions creating additional advertising has been raised but as long as the auctions were handled by an outside party and the proceeds went to charity I don't see the harm.
The merchandise would create as much advertising as any other game-related collectors item and after all that IS what they are.
*if baffles me blatantly overt attempts to influence professionals who's job it is to present opinions to the public in a neutral and unbiased way can be perceived and/or portrayed as trivial but that is the uniform response the games press has given to the issue
Yeah, review events are not talked about much, but from what I've heard, that seems like one of the more tame ones.
But you seem awfully dismissive of the idea that review events serve to influence reviewers. Make no mistake, the entire purpose of these events is to control the conditions of the review. They want the reviewers comfortable, they don't want them hungry, upset, or thinking about anything other than the game.
This in itself is inoffensive; the review should be focused on the game, not on what was distracting them while they played it. But more than that, they want the reviewer to psychologically associate playing the game with positive feelings. They want to make everything external to the game positive, so that when the writer is later writing the review they have fond memories, and are more likely to review favorably. They have people on hand to help out in case the reviewers have trouble, or have any questions, so that the reviewers never feel stuck or get too frustrated (unlike say, anyone buying this game at retail). They give reviewers a chance to mingle in between rounds, so they can share their feelings on the game while the feelings of excitement are still fresh, thus reinforcing the ideas (obviously this tactic can backfire if they don't like the game, but it can make a great game seem even more amazing). They allow reviewers a chance to play multiplayer with the developers, which can be considered an honor for fans of the series.
If they didn't want to control the environment of the review, they would mail sites review copies, and coordinate times for multiplayer sessions for reviewers. You know, the way the majority of the game reviews work.
Haha, most reviewers review games in their homes. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly would not a Microsoft employee crashing on my couch until I finished Halo 4.
chickdigger802
Banned
didn't nintendo do all kinds of crazy shit with review units and what not back in the day?
i think i remember shane on 1up yours talking about this happening - i think it was nintendo who used to do it and he was talking about metroid prime but it might by my memory, and how weird it was having a random person just sitting around waiting for the game to finish.
movie studios sometimes sends a person to watch people watch their screeners to avoid piracy. freakin' weird.
IdreamofHIME
Member
I remember being taken a back that Hilary from IGN reviewed GTA4 based on like one full day with the final build at some Take2 event.
The whole thing seems wrong...and rushed.
Those MS PR guys at the Halo4 event suggesting they play on normal mode was whack too.
The whole thing seems wrong...and rushed.
Those MS PR guys at the Halo4 event suggesting they play on normal mode was whack too.
Haha, most reviewers review games in their homes. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly would not a Microsoft employee crashing on my couch until I finished Halo 4.
Well you're talking about the need for "review sessions." They're not reviewing the games in their hotel rooms at weird hours at these things. They're reviewing them at some location most likely during normal business hours. That could easily be accomplished sending PR people to the reviewer's place of employment, instead of the other way around.
Again, it would be much cheaper but wouldn't exert the influence that free trips provide.
I imagine that a lot of the people at these events are freelancers and writers for fan-sites, none of whom would have office spaces to host PR people. And then there'd be the issue of timing and whatnot -- it doesn't seem very practical.
The ideal situation is for companies to cut with the event BS and just send us the game. Which actually happened with Halo 4 anyway, annoyingly enough: the office got copies of the game just days after Tina attended that event.
Wouldn't that essentially have the same effect in the end? You'd have a PR person to answer your questions there who is trying to reinforce your positive experiences. I guess if you're talking about crazy trips to exotic locations it wouldn't be quite the same, but I'm thinking more of the "go to an office downtown" to play kind of event like this Halo one.
Even if these events have a positive effect on the eventual score it is very unlikely that it would be major enough to result in a game that would be a "Maybe" (much less a "bad") going to a "Play this game". This is why, for me at least, noting that the game was played primarily at an event would be enough.
My one worry is that it does present the ideal environment for multiplayer matches (the LAN party) which could make it seem more fun than what is experienced by the average player playing online. But then most reviewers impressions of multiplayer are so superficial that I never read much into it.
A fair point, and one I hadn't considered. I'm actually surprised that developers don't include something in the code of review builds to identify the person or site it was intended for. Similar to how a lot of games in beta and under NDA nowadays will have a function that displays the email address of the person logged in anytime you take a screenshot, in order to easily track down leaks. I imagine it would at least be possible to implement a similar system into review builds. Obviously this wouldn't prevent a leak in the short term, but it would allow companies to name and shame leakers, and could do a lot to prevent it in the future.
It is ridiculous, but it seems it is all too common. Perhaps due to the rushed nature of reviews (and I mean that in the least accusatory manner possible, but the nature of reviews is that they are done under a limited timeframe), any sources of frustration end up being huge points of contention in many reviews. This may or may not be in line with the average reader, but there are times where it gets ridiculous. I've seen some reviewers go as far as to suggest that if a gamer ever encounters a fail-state, then the game designer has failed (I'm not even making that up). This is why publishers are so pushy that the game is reviewed on easy mode, because they don't want the reviewer to encounter a single bit of frustration. It's absurd, but it happens.
The problem with that method is it presents the opposite psychological effect of a review event. At a review event, you want the attendees to feel pampered, special. If you do your job right, they will be happy, complacent, and excited the whole time. If you send someone to keep an eye on them, they feel babysat and under suspicion. This causes a negative association with the game in question.
chickdigger802
Banned
weird, didn't the polygon review mentioned that they were recommended to play on heroic?
Well of course not even having these events would be ideal. They could review the game in the comfort of their own setup. If they're worried about it leaking, implement watermarking on it like movie studios do. Now that wouldn't really prevent someone from capturing video and pixelating out the watermark, but you can bet your ass it would prevent someone from leaking the actual game.
What are the next steps for this thread?
Keep highlighting journo & pr poor actions?
Set some rules of acceptible and non acceptable behaviour?
Rate writers, sites etc against these rules?
Keep calling key miss steps out (in new threads)?
Keep vocally asking for better.
I think this threads at a point where it's so mega splinter threads will be needed to keep the momentum keep everyone's eyes open here.
Keep highlighting journo & pr poor actions?
Set some rules of acceptible and non acceptable behaviour?
Rate writers, sites etc against these rules?
Keep calling key miss steps out (in new threads)?
Keep vocally asking for better.
I think this threads at a point where it's so mega splinter threads will be needed to keep the momentum keep everyone's eyes open here.
For what it's worth, I've talked to a lot of reviewers about this, and pretty much everyone would rather review a game in the comfort of their own home than in a supervised hotel where they can do nothing else for 10 hours straight. Especially if going to that event requires travel.
People who work (unpaid) for fan sites might love the free vacations, but at least in my experience, professional writers like sweatpants better.
I've never done one of these things. Hoping to never have to!
People who work (unpaid) for fan sites might love the free vacations, but at least in my experience, professional writers like sweatpants better.
I've never done one of these things. Hoping to never have to!
Agreed. It's all about transparency. I'd appreciate more of these kinds of articles.
My suggestion would be to keep it classy (no more Geoff photoshops, sorry guys) and to not blow up the smallest things. Post relevant stuff to keep the thread relevant. It doesn't matter if the pace is slowing down.
chickdigger802
Banned
Question for whoever still pops in here.
How has Rockstar been with their recent games, like Max Payne 3, Red Dead, Midnight club 4?
Are they still horrid experiences to review with their guys nagging and crazy review situations?
How has Rockstar been with their recent games, like Max Payne 3, Red Dead, Midnight club 4?
Are they still horrid experiences to review with their guys nagging and crazy review situations?
APZonerunner
Member
I'm amazed Kotaku played under these circumstances, as I've had a full copy of the game on disc for the best part of two weeks. Perhaps it's a MS US thing, mind - I'm UK based.
We got the game a few days after the event. Annoying, right?
APZonerunner
Member
Mental. The only event like this I've had with Microsoft was for Fable 3, and there they encouraged us to bring a USB to take our save home, and sent us home with a copy of the game anyway - but it was a last interview opportunity and stuff, too. Molyneux etc hanging out in a rented room as we played, and then at the end we took our saves and went home.
Different standards for different countries, I suppose. That explains the complete lack of US press on Live for the first few days.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Jake Tower
Banned
The latter especially seems like exactly the type to be most susceptible to problems discussed in this thread...
stephentotilo
Behind The Games
Jason, they know. They saw us unbox it!
/thread
Did Intent Media & Square Enix use Hitman to bury a secret?
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/1/3587268/did-intent-media-square-enix-use-hitman-to-bury-a-secret
And the plot thickens...
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/1/3587268/did-intent-media-square-enix-use-hitman-to-bury-a-secret
And the plot thickens...
Jake Tower
Banned
Hahaha not only she still has work, she wrote a Hitman piece.
OmniAvenger
Member
Free vacation? Well, no, not my kind of vacation. But it's definitely a complete disconnect from reality. Laundry? Walk the dog? Kids? Wife? Closing the door when going to the bathroom? Picking up my clothes? These junkets -- for preview or review -- are like slipping into another dimension.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Holy shit, now that's an article(& I believe as it's on a US based site US libel laws apply, right?). It's a bit odd that it isn't on Polygon I would have thought they would share stories such as this.
It seems Rab was on the money all long.
...
I sometimes wonder if IGN really makes these deals. I always thought it was kind of an understanding: we give you exclusives and better ad money, you give us review scores we are comfortable with, no one says a word more. I never really thought it was this direct, like, actually inviting them over to ask them to do this.
Edit: Also, I want to add that how anyone think OXM and OPM are anything but marketing materials is beyond me. Do the people who work there really think that? Do readers even care?
Damn. Amazing article.
Every time I think this thread is finally dying down the rabbit hole gets deeper.
You cray cray games industry. God damn.
*applause*
That Halo 4 review event article is creepy. 'Little brother Master Chief, really?'
I only play Halo games coop with my buddies on the highest difficulty. A review written up based on playing solo (or even 2p coop) will never match with the experience I have at home.
Not a criticism of the reviews, just saying, their efforts to even hint at the 'preferred' Halo experience is bullshit.
- Status