Support NeoGAF

[rawbhawb]

It's a cowardly move on Bethesda's part, sure, but it's hard to argue against the idea that people do act against their own self interest which causes them to do it in the first place. Fortunately for me, I can wait for proper impressions before I make my purchases.

That's some serious accusation. Do you have receipt on that claim?

There are none. TB had some sentiments GG shared (some of which he reversed on) but he hasn't endorsed the group and even condemned certain actions by them, like when they targeted Laura Dale for appearing on his show. There's valid reasons to dislike TB, but his "involvement" with GG is exaggerated on NeoGAF and it's tiresome seeing it brought up in a discussion unrelated to it just because TB is mentioned somewhere.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

You and 99% of consumers, which is why this entire thing is baffling to me. Reviewers getting upset they can't inform their audience at a time where people are finding reviews increasingly less relieved to their consuming habits.

I don't think consumers find reviews less relevant. Rather, subsets of consumers are more openly hostile to reviews that don't conform to what hype and marketing have already convinced them what a game is. That reaction is not apathy, it's anger and confusion.

Publishers want their games' sales to scale with their marketing budget. Gamers want to feel justified for their preorder and their months of free Stanning. The press is the odd man out here, they get nothing but grief for criticizing a AAA game before and during release, it's only in the weeks and months after that hyped gamers attempt any kind of introspective analysis.

List Wars/Day One/Bonus culture is a self inflicted wound. Bethesda is just no longer pretending that they care. As long as their games are good (or good enough), I doubt they'll suffer any real backlash.

 

[Dragonslayer_023]

I don't think consumers find reviews less relevant. Rather, subsets of consumers are more openly hostile to reviews that don't conform to what hype and marketing have already convinced them what a game is. That reaction is not apathy, it's anger and confusion.

What I see more often is people get hyped based on a good review and preorder, only to be disappointed when they get a mediocre game.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

As a consumer I want to be as informed as possible pre-release. I get that there's games that tug at my heart and my emotional sides and elicit a feeling that tends to sway me into the side of purchase. Problem with this kind of policy is that, as John noted, the message is being funneled and pre-order culture has become such a thing it has tied the consumer into putting money down ahead on a product in order to receive trinkets as a reward.

This annoys me to no end as a consumer because pre-order culture or something I was caught in for years. It simply worked and where it once was a well-intentioned incentive, has now become a more Insidious and poisonous marketing tool and limiting access to Media or if you want me to join in on this efforts to insult or hate these privileged Outlets, let's just call them "entitled nerds who can't play games before us loyal fans". That should sound hateful enough right? As I'm sure that this is what these Publishers want. They want us as the consumer to think of these people get access to games as entitled when we should all know that even the most review culture skeptical person has at least one or two people out there that they just simply trust their unflinchingly unbiased opinions. That's why we have review threads for guys like Angry Joe or videos for Jim Sterling or anything compelling like this video which honestly does deserve its own thread.

The very fact that some are passive about it proves the point. This is why you have to talk about it and these issues, while made to generally divide the fans against each other, are not healthy. It's creating an arbitrary artificial and publisher controlled message which doesn't inhibit positive constructive discussion about a product.

If you can't get over the fact that this is wrong for the consumer then you are as passive and as tired as everybody else. You can do something about it and discuss it and tackle the issue head-on and actually wait to purchase a stupid product without pre-ordering and putting your money down just on good faith because we love our favorite game companies don't we?

I'm so tired of this kind of culture and my statement have been very clean but pardon my French when I say fuck that mentality. I'm going to continue to wait for some media and ingest enough to make my own decision without having to put a large amount of money down just on good faith because I love my favorite publisher!

 

[vg260]

You are not FORCED to buy it day 1 you know, you can take as much feedback as you want from different sources (youtube let's plays - reviews) AFTER the game's launch and decide.

rushing to buy anything is not anyone's fault but your own.

I agree, but there's a disconnect when the publishers use pre-order incentives to get you to pre-purchase the game sight unseen. I generally don't care about reviews and wait for actual user experiences here or elsewhere, However, I just find it a very unfriendly customer policy to both push you to pre-order and make sure it can't be reviewed prior.

 

[Jacksinthe]

It's a cowardly move on Bethesda's part, sure, but it's hard to argue against the idea that people do act against their own self interest which causes them to do it in the first place. Fortunately for me, I can wait for proper impressions before I make my purchases.

The problem here, as stated plenty, is that what will a "proper" impression be when everyone is gunning day 1 to slap a review up to be the first to get clicks/views? This will drop the quality of the review at the expense of getting revenue.

Revenue is important to keep journos working so we get coverage but having the review timeline based on "ready, set... GO!" is piss poor for journos and the public. We will get fewer reviews representative of the actual product, and in a time where reviewers are purposefully told to not mention A, B or C (usually problems, negatives) just to keep to a whitelist by the publisher so you can keep doing your job - there won't be much left to count on as "proper" reviews. The outlets that actually do give a fuck and do their due diligence are often not considered by devs/pubs, they are wildcards and big devs/pubs can't trust them giving 9/10s. The situation was fucked as it is - this just makes it more fucked.

 

[More_Badass]

What I see more often is people get hyped based on a good review and preorder, only to be disappointed when they get a mediocre game.

That's on the person, not the review. They should stick with reviewers with similar tastes

 

[Croatoan]

I am with Bethesda on this. The idea that people are paid for an opinion is ridiculous, and companies giving away free copies for these opinions is even more so. It doesn't help that "professional reviewers" (LOL) can't keep their fucking politics out of everything and often times shit on a game for clicks (or praise a game for kickbacks).

The entire review system is a sham in the games industry and out. In our current society the "Critic" is a antiquated profession that should go the way of the dinosaur.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I am with Bethesda on this. The idea that people are paid for an opinion is ridiculous, and companies giving away free copies for these opinions is even more so. It doesn't help that "professional reviewers" (LOL) can't keep their fucking politics out of everything and often times shit on a game for clicks (or praise a game for kickbacks).

The entire review system is a sham in the games industry and out. In our current society the "Critic" is a antiquated profession that should go the way of the dinosaur.

FairPoint and while we're at it let's get rid of pre-order incentives, overpriced downloadable content, and all the other money grabbing schemes these developers and Publishers are coming up with. Then we will call it even but until then I want as informed and concise opinion as possible before the game comes out minus all the stupid bull crap incentivized trinket and digital garbage that is painted in front of me in order to get my hard-earned money before I can even make a Justified and informed decision. How about that?

 

[More_Badass]

I am with Bethesda on this. The idea that people are paid for an opinion is ridiculous, and companies giving away free copies for these opinions is even more so. It doesn't help that "professional reviewers" (LOL) can't keep their fucking politics out of everything and often times shit on a game for clicks (or praise a game for kickbacks).

1) It's been working fine in every other medium for generations
2) Oh, no, politics! The horror!
3) You should provide hard evidence rather than gut feelings.

 

[MUnited83]

Some people prefer reviews? (Not me) what does it harm you if they are available or not? I dont understand what you are fighting against.

And those people can wait a few days of they prefer reviews then, they are not going to die for playing a game a couple days after release.

 

[Lord Panda]

I am with Bethesda on this. The idea that people are paid for an opinion is ridiculous, and companies giving away free copies for these opinions is even more so. It doesn't help that "professional reviewers" (LOL) can't keep their fucking politics out of everything and often times shit on a game for clicks (or praise a game for kickbacks).

The entire review system is a sham in the games industry and out. In our current society the "Critic" is a antiquated profession that should go the way of the dinosaur.

What the hell am I even reading? Reviewers play an important role in informing customers on the pros and cons of a product or service. Geesus did you even engage your brain before spouting such nonsense?

 

[ClosingADoor]

I am with Bethesda on this. The idea that people are paid for an opinion is ridiculous, and companies giving away free copies for these opinions is even more so. It doesn't help that "professional reviewers" (LOL) can't keep their fucking politics out of everything and often times shit on a game for clicks (or praise a game for kickbacks).

The entire review system is a sham in the games industry and out. In our current society the "Critic" is a antiquated profession that should go the way of the dinosaur.

People being paid for their opinion is very normal. It happens all the time. Free copies don't influence that opinion also.

Can you point to any respectable outlet (and not some amateur run blog) that has "fucking politics" in their reviews and "shits on a game for clicks"? Because I have yet to see them.

What do you propose we replace critics with? Because everything you mention as the problem with reviews are happening way more with things like Twitch streams, Youtube videos or social media impressions about games.

 

[Joeku]

I am with Bethesda on this. The idea that people are paid for an opinion is ridiculous, and companies giving away free copies for these opinions is even more so. It doesn't help that "professional reviewers" (LOL) can't keep their fucking politics out of everything and often times shit on a game for clicks (or praise a game for kickbacks).

The entire review system is a sham in the games industry and out. In our current society the "Critic" is a antiquated profession that should go the way of the dinosaur.

Yeah, fuck intellecualism! And don't forget to go to Buffalo Wild Wings for that sweet titan skin. Mmm,

Spoiler

back

boneless.

 

[Croatoan]

FairPoint and while we're at it let's get rid of pee odor and centers, overpriced downloadable content, and all the other money grabbing schemes these developers and Publishers are coming up with. Then we will call it even but until then I want as informed and concise opinion as possible before the game comes out minus all the stupid bull crap incentivized trinket and digital garbage that is painted in front of me in order to get my hard-earned money before I can even make a Justified and informed decision. How about that?

All a consumer has to do is wait for the game to release and read other consumers opinions. They are everywhere now! I get more out of Amazon reviews, posts on neogaf, and even some steam reviews (the serious ones at least) than any paid reviewer.

1) It's been working fine in every other medium for generations
2) Oh, no, politics! The horror!
3) You should provide hard evidence rather than gut feelings.

1. Uhh, no it hasn't. Lets look at movie reviews which are pretty much ignored by everyone but fanboys and their wars. Word of mouth and non paid reviews are best for movies.
2. Politics don't belong in a game review, period.
3. GTAIV, the infamous 8.0s (or less) for clicks, other games that got 10s but sucked (reviewers paid off).

I agree that people should wait until after the game launches to purchase. You need info from early adopters.

 

[ClosingADoor]

All a consumer has to do is wait for the game to release and read other consumers opinions. They are everywhere now! I get more out of Amazon reviews, posts on neogaf, and even some steam reviews (the serious ones at least) than any paid reviewer.

If everyone waits for the consumer opinion, there are no consumers to write an opinion. Bit of an extreme example of course, but still. It's strange that you are fine with other people throwing money away on a bad game so you can avoid it, but don't want actual writers to do the same thing for some reason.

Also, you never use reviews? Really? Going to buy a new car, smartphone, videocard, etc, you don't look up professional reviews and benchmark tests and such? Because they play a pretty major role for me.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

All a consumer has to do is wait for the game to release and read other consumers opinions. They are everywhere now! I get more out of Amazon reviews, posts on neogaf, and even some steam reviews (the serious ones at least) than any paid reviewer.

The main issue we have here is that those opinions won't start trickling in until the product is released. The inherent problem is created by the ones that want the message control and in this case it's the Publishers. They want the money ahead of time because they're going to provide me these shiny shoes that I can only get from pre ordering at McDonald's and what about that ring that you can get from the Home Depot if you buy 3 refrigerators? I don't know about you but I could use a refrigerator in every room.

 

[KORNdoggy]

What the hell am I even reading? Reviewers play an important role in informing customers on the pros and cons of a product or service. Geesus did you even engage your brain before spouting such nonsense?

except when they don't. why don't bethesda games get notes about bugs, glitches, and the general level of unpolish. apparently it's not important for consumers to know. 9/10 anyway. the double standards within the "professional" review space is ridiculous. frankly i'd be happy for every publisher to do what bethesda are doing. if review sites burn in the process, so be it.

 

[Septimius]

This is especially troubling in today's online shopping world. I place my order for a new game that I want a week before release, so that I can get it on release day.

 

[tebunker]

But in the case of Bethesda, only those who aren't wildcards, and those who's review scores can be predicted?.

Are these the kind of outlets we really want to follow?

I think if you look around here and even on social media there are many people in this hobby who only want to hear positivity and gushing. So yes there are a lot of people who only want positive reinforcement.

A lot of the times these are the same people who argue that reviews should only look at objective things and the hard facts etc. They don't want critical thought or analysis in their reviews.

This is in part a result of the general enthuiast press that placated their industry counterparts in order to maintain the symbiotic relationship that monetarily benefited them both.

As the industry has matured and aged and its become less about selling kids toys, needing little to no critical thought, to now selling adults an entertainment medium, so too has the critical eye. Writing has gotten better, there is more demand for better critical writing and thought.

This puts stress on publishers who want to control a message and used to rely on free pr from the enthusiast press. It has also caused a rift between the press/hobbyist who wants the positive only type of stuff and the people who want to have their medium seen with a critical eye and to mature with them.

So yeah long story short there are still quite a few people who only want everything to be positive reinforcement of their opinions. They aren't interested in critical analysis or counter arguments etc. To me, and this is strictly my opinion, these are people who are either emotionally immature or just haven't experienced enough of the world. I could be worng there, but I just haven't seen enough to indicate otherwise.

Oh I forgot to state that I am not okay with publishers not giving reviewers early copies. Yes it is anti consumer, and ultimately I hope it fully causes the separation between journalistic outlets and enthusiast ones. As well I hope it eventually comes back and bites them in the ass. How many more times do we need to see Rooster Teeth "calling out" a review from someone like Jeff Gerstmann for being "click baiting" amd overly negative; to see that there are other issues at play here.

 

[ClosingADoor]

except when they don't. why don't bethesda games get notes about bugs, glitches, and the general level of unpolish. apparently it's not important for consumers to know. 9/10 anyway. the double standards within the "professional" review space is ridiculous.

Most reviews I have seen of these games mention the bugs and glitches. But the overall score is still high because they enjoy the game. If those things bother you a lot, read the text instead of scrolling down to the score.

 

[More_Badass]

except when they don't. why don't bethesda games get notes about bugs, glitches, and the general level of unpolish. apparently it's not important for consumers to know. 9/10 anyway. the double standards within the "professional" review space is ridiculous.

You do realize how reviews and scores work right? It isn't a technical analysis; they're representation of how much that individual enjoyed the game, just like how great movies can get bad reviews and vice versa.

Genre classics like The Thing and The Shining were not well received when they came out. They're their considered masterpieces in their genre. The movies never changed. Opinion and perspective did

 

[Fliesen]

... the fact that on a gaming discussion board, where people LOVE to be a part of a game's OT that is certainly the most interesting during the first days of release, we still have people being all "well, don't be dumb, wait for a week before you buy the game" kinda rubs me the wrong way.
Being hyped for a game, discussing the narrative events as they happen, discussing strategies when there is no 'best practice' around, finding funny - soon to be patched - glitches - that's what many people enjoy about gaming, and by shifting the "when is it reasonable (i.e. when do i have sufficient information to make the choice) to purchase a game" further and further past release kills that kind of joy.

when previously, pre-ordering a game was "buying it based on trust" and wait for reviews (which allowed for buying the game on day 1), we're now being pushed towards even day 1 purchases being based more on hype and on trust than on reviews and facts.

I don't see how anyone can welcome that sentiment.

It's not just about pre-order bonuses. It's about being part of the conversation as it happens.

 

[pants]

And those people can wait a few days of they prefer reviews then, they are not going to die for playing a game a couple days after release.

Yeah but then they lose access to their increasingly more wanted pre-order knick-knacks for doing the sensible thing, this is the trap.

 

[GametimeUK]

I personally have no issue with a launch day embargo. I do take issues with how these companies will spin and manipulate the narrative and act like this is beneficial for the fans etc and give no evidence supporting their claims.

This type of stuff is solely aimed at getting those day 1 buyers to be tempted to grab a copy of the game because they are hyped and don't have the willpower to wait for a review.

For me, companies can do this all they wish. It just means I won't buy as many games day 1.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

except when they don't. why don't bethesda games get notes about bugs, glitches, and the general level of unpolish. apparently it's not important for consumers to know. 9/10 anyway. the double standards within the "professional" review space is ridiculous.

Note that I am a consumer much like you but this is the kind of reaction that is elicited and publishers want you to turn on these privileged Nerds that get copies ahead of all of us in order to enact a stupid policy. Notice how blatantly insulting these reviews because isn't that what the Publishers want? A divisive and unnecessary excuse for us to say screw all them people even if there are some good and critically unbiased folks out there who just say it how it is. What happens is that review Outlets all get pushed in the same bunch and honestly I am not a big fan of reviews but I do trust a few people because they're going to give it to me the way I want it. They're going to tell me what I I need to hear, not what I want to hear.

 

[Septimius]

I personally have no issue with a launch day embargo. I do take issues with how these companies will spin and manipulate the narrative and act like this is beneficial for the fans etc and give no evidence supporting their claims.

This type of stuff is solely aimed at getting those day 1 buyers to be tempted to grab a copy of the game because they are hyped and don't have the willpower to wait for a review.

For me, companies can do this all they wish. It just means I won't buy as many games day 1.

I don't think it's right to say "it's OK for me, because I'll just wait". To me, it's about not allowing publishers the power to contort the market to their advantage. It's to prevent more No Man's Sky debacles from happening, and it's to have developers focusing on making a good game, not to build the hype for it. I'm happy you might be able to steer clear of potentially overhyped games, but I don't think this is a direction gaming should be taken.

 

[KORNdoggy]

You do realize how reviews and scores work right? That aren't technical analysis; they're representation of how much that individual enjoyed the game, just like how great movies can get bad reviews and vice versa.

so you agree reviews are pointless then? i mean, in what world is it a good thing for a great film to get a bad score and vice versa? if they're inconsistent, and ultimately proof that an experience can only be judged on an individual basis (which you claim is all reviews are anyway), then surely you agree people should just buy a game, and judge for themselves?

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

All a consumer has to do is wait for the game to release and read other consumers opinions. They are everywhere now! I get more out of Amazon reviews, posts on neogaf, and even some steam reviews (the serious ones at least) than any paid reviewer.



1. Uhh, no it hasn't. Lets look at movie reviews which are pretty much ignored by everyone but fanboys and their wars. Word of mouth and non paid reviews are best for movies.
2. Politics don't belong in a game review, period.
3. GTAIV, the infamous 8.0s (or less) for clicks, other games that got 10s but sucked (reviewers paid off).

I agree that people should wait until after the game launches to purchase. You need info from early adopters.

except when they don't. why don't bethesda games get notes about bugs, glitches, and the general level of unpolish. apparently it's not important for consumers to know. 9/10 anyway. the double standards within the "professional" review space is ridiculous. frankly i'd be happy for every publisher to do what bethesda are doing. if review sites burn in the process, so be it.

I've never seen such blatant and seemingly prideful display of idiocy.

 

[Lord Panda]

except when they don't. why don't bethesda games get notes about bugs, glitches, and the general level of unpolish. apparently it's not important for consumers to know. 9/10 anyway. the double standards within the "professional" review space is ridiculous.

And giving publishers a free ride and removing all oversight is going to improve things? I agree that games journalism overall needs a big kick up the bum but there are still sources that I trust out there such as Jim Sterling, John Bain, and the crew from Edge and RPS.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

so you agree reviews are pointless then? i mean, in what world is it a good thing for a great film to get a bad score and vice versa? if they're inconsistent, and ultimately proof that an experience can only be judged on an individual basis (which you claim is all reviews are anyway), then surely you agree people should just buy a game, and judge for themselves?

Let's throw out the word review for a minute and let's just call it an informed opinion prior to a product being released. That way the consumers aren't burning our hard-earned money every time just because I can get that one magical piece of clothing which will give my character enhancements but I can only get it for a limited time at Bed Bath & Beyond.

The point is that it's not about whether or not the message is controlled pre-release, it's that an informed opinion is being prohibited because the Publishers don't want anybody to have access and have informed opinion but they want you to get that one digital piece of clothing from your favorite store and you can only do it if you preorder the game at Olive Garden.

You can toss me into the smart consumer category where I want all the information I can get and I don't want to be pandered by this dangling piece of meat that I have to pay $60 ahead of making an informed decision and damn it all if I miss out on it because it's only available before you are able to actually own the game so here's my $60 just because I love my favorite publisher!

 

[pants]

so you agree reviews are pointless then? i mean, in what world is it a good thing for a great film to get a bad score and vice versa? if they're inconsistent, and ultimately proof that an experience can only be judged on an individual basis (which you claim is all reviews are anyway), then surely you agree people should just buy a game, and judge for themselves?

You could just try following reviewers you know have similar tastes to yourself. It helps make the reviews you read relevant to your space

 

[rawbhawb]

The problem here, as stated plenty, is that what will a "proper" impression be when everyone is gunning day 1 to slap a review up to be the first to get clicks/views? This will drop the quality of the review at the expense of getting revenue.

Revenue is important to keep journos working so we get coverage but having the review timeline based on "ready, set... GO!" is piss poor for journos and the public. We will get fewer reviews representative of the actual product, and in a time where reviewers are purposefully told to not mention A, B or C (usually problems, negatives) just to keep to a whitelist by the publisher so you can keep doing your job - there won't be much left to count on as "proper" reviews. The outlets that actually do give a fuck and do their due diligence are often not considered by devs/pubs, they are wildcards and big devs/pubs can't trust them giving 9/10s. The situation was fucked as it is - this just makes it more fucked.

If more reviewers were to take proper time with a game so they could give a honest impression and more consumers were more patient and do more research before they make their purchase, this whole deal wouldn't really be a problem.

Not excusing Bethesda. What's best for consumers should be the standard, and plenty of companies do allow their games to be played ahead of release so those vital impressions can reach the masses (making others who don't, like Bethesda, look cowardly, as stated) but it's not like you can blame Beth either.

 

[More_Badass]

so you agree reviews are pointless then? i mean, in what world is it a good thing for a great film to get a bad score and vice versa? if they're inconsistent, and ultimately proof that an experience can only be judged on an individual basis (which you claim is all reviews are anyway), then surely you agree people should just buy a game, and judge for themselves?

Why can't a great movie get a bad score? Of course it's a good thing. Imagine if people had to give things they disliked or didn't enjoy good ratings because the general consensus says otherwise.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

If more reviewers were to take proper time with a game so they could give a honest impression and more consumers were more patient and do more research before they make their purchase, this whole deal wouldn't really be a problem.

Not excusing Bethesda. What's best for consumers should be the standard, and plenty of companies do allow their games to be played ahead of release so those vital impressions can reach the masses (making others who don't like Bethesda look cowardly, as stated) but it's not like you can blame Beth either.

This is true because screw those entitled nerds. Let's not forget that. We must not forget to insult and get emotional about the true enemy in those press sneaks!

This is exactly the reaction that Bethesda wants and what causes this division and you as the consumer to be reacting on emotion and not on rationality.

 

[Evilmaus]

If someone wants a game so much that he is gonna buy it on release day, would reviews manage to change is mind?
Reviews are only useful to people who aren't sure about a game, and those won't buy ot on the release date anyway.

Check the World Of Final Fantasy review thread. It's full of people who flip-flopped between having a pre-order, to considering cancelling because of demo, to being back on board because of the reviews.

 

[More_Badass]

... the fact that on a gaming discussion board, where people LOVE to be a part of a game's OT that is certainly the most interesting during the first days of release, we still have people being all "well, don't be dumb, wait for a week before you buy the game" kinda rubs me the wrong way.
Being hyped for a game, discussing the narrative events as they happen, discussing strategies when there is no 'best practice' around, finding funny - soon to be patched - glitches - that's what many people enjoy about gaming, and by shifting the "when is it reasonable (i.e. when do i have sufficient information to make the choice) to purchase a game" further and further past release kills that kind of joy.

To be fair, what is logical and what is emotionally satisfying doesn't often mesh. Waiting is the most reasonable course of action, it might just save you money, but then you miss out on the amorphous satisfaction

 

[ClosingADoor]

so you agree reviews are pointless then? i mean, in what world is it a good thing for a great film to get a bad score and vice versa? if they're inconsistent, and ultimately proof that an experience can only be judged on an individual basis (which you claim is all reviews are anyway), then surely you agree people should just buy a game, and judge for themselves?

The review will give information and opinion. You don't have to agree with that opinion of course, but for products it is an important part of the buying process because not everyone can be expected to be up-to-date about it all. Of course with games, music, movies, you will sometimes have reviews you don't agree with because a large part of it will be subjective. That does not make them worthless.

 

[KORNdoggy]

You could just try following reviewers you know have similar tastes to yourself. It helps make the reviews you read relevant to your space

they don't exist. i can't think of a single reviewer that rates something like earth defense force so highly, yet hates red dead redemption with a passion. someone who loves uncharted, but hates the tomb raider reboot. but that's the thing with options. EVERYONES is different.

i buy games that interest me, like how i watch movies that interest me, i don't care what some random guy on a website thinks about it. he isn't me. his opinion means precisely nothing. i pre-order to get additional content and a game that arrived days in advance for less money...and on the rare occasion it turns out i dislike it, i sell the thing on ebay usually for extra since i got the game cheaper by pre-ordering... i lose nothing as a consumer.

 

[RichiRamjag]

Seems like people are more willing to insult the faceless hordes of gamers rather than hold the company accountable to being a bit more transparent. Sad to see.

 

[hbkdx12]

I don't understand the sudden uptick in the backlash for this

The whole "preorders are stupid" is not a new narrative. And even with less or no pre release reviews, this isn't eliminating reviews at all so i'm not seeing what's being lost.

If you're the type that needs a review to make an informed purchase, just wait for one. Why does this change anything just because the review isn't coming pre release and instead is coming a few days after release?

 

[Alo0oy]

There are none. TB had some sentiments GG shared (some of which he reversed on) but he hasn't endorsed the group and even condemned certain actions by them, like when they targeted Laura Dale for appearing on his show. There's valid reasons to dislike TB, but his "involvement" with GG is exaggerated on NeoGAF and it's tiresome seeing it brought up in a discussion unrelated to it just because TB is mentioned somewhere.

He didn't just "share their sentiments", he actively campaigned with them. Including harassment.

Every time he pulls stunts like this, his army starts harassing developers on Twitter. I remember him creating a Steam group with games that didn't have 60FPS support, and it was basically a hit list for his followers. Any game that didn't meet his standards - including low budget games - got its developers harassed.

"Ethics in games Journalism" lol.

 

[danowat]

they don't exist. i can't think of a single reviewer that rates something like earth defense force so highly, yet hates red dead redemption with a passion. someone who loves uncharted, but hates the tomb raider reboot. but that's the thing with options. EVERYONES is different.

i buy games that interest me, like how i watch movies that interest me, i don't care what some random guy on a website thinks about it. he isn't me. his opinion means precisely nothing. i pre-order to get additional content and a game that arrived days in advance for less money...and on the rare occasion it turns out i dislike it, i sell the thing on ebay usually for extra since i got the game cheaper by pre-ordering... i lose nothing as a consumer.

But surely if you build up a picture of a product from a selection of viewpoints, then you get a fairly rounded view of what to expect?.

Also, let's take subjective feelings out of it, there is also the issue of objective problems, like technical issues and the like that should be fairly static across a broad spectrum of reviews.

 

[ghostjoke]

I get if you don't care and just want to pre-order - once you're not complaining afterwards that you got burnt - but when you have critics from all walks, especially people like TB or Jim who can only benefit from such things happening (I suspect TB is also a "wildcard" in publisher's eyes) are all agreeing that this has no benefit to the consumer, why are people still going to bat for Bethesda?

His point about some reviewers scrambling to the ending and it potentially affecting their score is interesting, especially in the context of Bethesda. From what I read about the main story of Fallout 4, the last thing they would want reviewers doing is focusing on it as the crux of their review.

I'm not sure if it's my imagination, but the people who are defending this seems to be focused on the scores (aka the least useful part of a review for the individual) and not the contents. It makes sense if that's all you think reviews are. If all anyone did was throw out numbers it would be pointless, but in-depth critic of a game like any good review would do should be informative even if you don't agree with the score given at the end.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

they don't exist. i can't think of a single reviewer that rates something like earth defense force so highly, yet hates red dead redemption with a passion.

I'm a reviewer. I love EDF, and RDR bored me to tears.
There you go.

Seriously though, there are thousands of reviewers out there, at least one of them has to have tastes that match up with your own. Thing is, a lot of them aren't writing for IGN, kotaku, giantbomb, or any of the other major sites.

You mentioned Neogaf posts and Steam reviews. They're really not all that different from reviews found on dedicated gaming sites. I mean, sure there are rules about grammar and all that other nonsense, but in the end it's still an opinion.

 

[Dick Justice]

He makes a good point about Bethesda driving an even bigger wedge between players and journalists by bringing out the jealousy that players have towards journalists getting early copies despite not being fans. Just look at some of the idiots in this very thread complaining about "people being paid for their opinions".

I remember him creating a Steam group with games that didn't have 60FPS support, and it was basically a hit list for his followers.

Oh look, this shit again. The notification of a lack of 60fps support was pretty useful for a lot of consumers such as myself, who avoid games that can't be run at higher framerates, because lower framerates on PC are far more jarring and difficult to get used to compared to playing a console game on a TV.

 

[rawbhawb]

This is true because screw those entitled nerds. Let's not forget that. We must not forget to insult and get emotional about the true enemy in those press sneaks!

This is exactly the reaction that Bethesda wants and what causes this division and you as the consumer to be reacting on emotion and not on rationality.

Hey I'm your side. I want Beth and every other company to allow every site and every notable critic like TB and Jim Sterling to get their hands on whatever game coming out to play so they could give me the info I want to help make my purchasing decision.

I also want no microtransaction in any games, no patches to fix games that shouldn't be broken in the first place, DLC that doesn't feel like it should already be in the game and loads of other stuff.

The problem is a lot of (not all) the press / pundits and most consumers make it hard for that to happen.

He didn't just "share their sentiments", he actively campaigned with them. Including harassment.

Every time he pulls stunts like this, his army starts harassing developers on Twitter. I remember him creating a Steam group with games that didn't have 60FPS support, and it was basically a hit list for his followers. Any game that didn't meet his standards - including low budget games - got its developers harassed.

"Ethics in games Journalism" lol.

No, his "involvement" began and ended at him sharing sentiments. You can dislike him for having those sentiments, that's fair. But continue to act like he's a supervillain, and inform his anti-GG associates like Jim Sterling or Danny O'Dwyer that he's waving that GG flag.

 

[Spman2099]

All a consumer has to do is wait for the game to release and read other consumers opinions. They are everywhere now! I get more out of Amazon reviews, posts on neogaf, and even some steam reviews (the serious ones at least) than any paid reviewer.

1. Uhh, no it hasn't. Lets look at movie reviews which are pretty much ignored by everyone but fanboys and their wars. Word of mouth and non paid reviews are best for movies.
2. Politics don't belong in a game review, period.
3. GTAIV, the infamous 8.0s (or less) for clicks, other games that got 10s but sucked (reviewers paid off).

I agree that people should wait until after the game launches to purchase. You need info from early adopters.

Yikes! I hope this post is some form of satire...

 

[Intheflorsh]

1. Uhh, no it hasn't. Lets look at movie reviews which are pretty much ignored by everyone but fanboys and their wars. Word of mouth and non paid reviews are best for movies.
2. Politics don't belong in a game review, period.
3. GTAIV, the infamous 8.0s (or less) for clicks, other games that got 10s but sucked (reviewers paid off).

If your idea of hard evidence is "a game I didn't like got good reviews therefore PAID OFF REVIEWERS", you are an idiot.

 

[Armaros]

All a consumer has to do is wait for the game to release and read other consumers opinions. They are everywhere now! I get more out of Amazon reviews, posts on neogaf, and even some steam reviews (the serious ones at least) than any paid reviewer.



1. Uhh, no it hasn't. Lets look at movie reviews which are pretty much ignored by everyone but fanboys and their wars. Word of mouth and non paid reviews are best for movies.
2. Politics don't belong in a game review, period.
3. GTAIV, the infamous 8.0s (or less) for clicks, other games that got 10s but sucked (reviewers paid off).

I agree that people should wait until after the game launches to purchase. You need info from early adopters.

Everything you just said is either nonsense or hearsay. And willfull ignorance of the reality of media of any sort. Gaming is not some special snowflake that deserves special rules regarding reviews.

He didn't just "share their sentiments", he actively campaigned with them. Including harassment.

Every time he pulls stunts like this, his army starts harassing developers on Twitter. I remember him creating a Steam group with games that didn't have 60FPS support, and it was basically a hit list for his followers. Any game that didn't meet his standards - including low budget games - got its developers harassed.

"Ethics in games Journalism" lol.

Are you fucking serious in comparing "Games with 60 FPS'" TO GAMERGATE? I dont even thyink you know what GamerGate has done if you want to label any group you dont like with it.