Support NeoGAF

[toddhunter]

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.

Except that info was already available if you cared. Face it, TB is not a person, it is a brand and marketing machine aimed at exploiting impressionable gamers. The whole 60fps police was just part of it like the steam curator process morphing into a way of generating them youtube hits.

All these reviews are just ways to generate income. Big games, big hype, clicks, banner ads and ign first previews. You don't have to be paid directly to see how it all fits together and to play your role. If publishers don't play along it breaks the symbiotic model for the chosen fee.

The option is clear. Don't preorder, wait for real reviews and be part of the solution, not the problem.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

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?

The point is to actively discuss issues which caused the publisher to parade trinkets around for the consumer to put their money down on before even making an informed decision versus having a concise and detailed opinion ready when the games are released. If we don't have this discussion then issue isn't there right? That's what the Publishers want they want you to make an informed decision based on your love for them or because you can just wait but you'll miss out on that exclusive and Elusive mask you can only get before the game comes out and the one place to get it is the one place where you get your nails done. I need a manicure anyways.

And rawbhawb, I read your post. Fair enough on your end.

 

[Beartruck]

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.

Emphatically wrong. Most everyone I know checks rotten tomatoes before they go see a film, and companies know this. It's why you increasing see "certified fresh!" on a movie poster or box if it got high reviews.

 

[Alo0oy]

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.

Yeah, it's useful. But it was also a hit list for his followers so they can harass any developer that doesn't meet his standards. It's how him and Milo harass people, they don't actively harass them, they just point a finger at them and their army starts doing their bidding.

In the end, they shrug their shoulders and claim innocence.

 

[Fliesen]

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

I still don't see the reason why some are fine with us moving a way from a world where we could:

Make a reasonable purchase decision
AND
purchase a game on release day.

What is so bad about day (-1) review embargoes with review copies being with journalists 1 week in advance, that we should welcome a move away from that situation?

Just because it worked with Doom doesn't prove a point, because Doom would've still been amazing, even if they followed the classic "send out review copies, embargo till launch day".


Again, previously we were able to make a reasonable purchase decision on day 1, not miss out on the narrative twists, the discussion, the excitement, while neither blindly having spent money on the pig on the poke. This is being taken away from us for no real reason.
What people previously said about those who pre-ordered, can now be said about whoever buys a game within multiple days of release. That sucks.

 

[Alo0oy]

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.

You know very well what I meant.

 

[KORNdoggy]

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.

you can't take subjective feelings out of it, it's half of the entire review. yes there are objective things that can be talked about. but it's typically the sort of "captain obvious" stuff you get an idea of by watching footage of the game in question anyway. i don't need a review to tell me what you do in the game. PR materials show me in a much better way. and lets not even mention reviews obsession with spoilers...you mention technical issues, but they are hardly ever discussed in a review. they're glossed over as a non-issue, and it's the reason games like mafia and bathesda games still walk away with praise and high scores from a lot of publications.

until there are big changes withing "professional" reviews, i have no use for them. i can make my own mind up.

 

[Armaros]

You know very well what I meant.

What we know is you comparing a steam group to gamergate.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

This post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Cynicalbrit/comments/402uqe/totalbiscuit_speaks_out_on_gamergate_again/
Clearly shows what he thinks of Gamergate and his role in it.

 

[Filthy Casual]

Great analysis and I agree on all points. On an individual level It's pretty easy to avoid getting burned by simply waiting for reviews/impressions if you have any kind of self control, but there's still no reason to accept the practice.

 

[hbkdx12]

The point is to actively discuss issues which caused the publisher to parade trinkets around for the consumer to put their money down on before even making an informed decision versus having a concise and detailed opinion ready when the games are released. If we don't have this discussion then issue isn't there right? That's what the Publishers want they want you to make an informed decision based on your love for them or because you can just wait but you'll miss out on that exclusive and Elusive mask you can only get before the game comes out and the one place to get it is the one place where you get your nails done. I need a manicure anyways.

And rawbhawb, I read your post. Fair enough on your end.

At some point there has to be some kind of responsibility on gamers for not being able to show restraint for not preordering if reviews are that important to them.

I'm sure i'll be dragged through the mud for saying the following but it's hard not to feel like there's a large sense of entitlement being thrown around on this issue. Reviews aren't going anywhere. People will still have access to them. It boils down to not getting them when/how they want it.

Additionally, TB makes the point that by not giving pre release codes that all this does is force reviewers to rush through a game and miss things that can potentially affect their view of the game. Realistically, i don't see how this is a problem that's inherent to any publisher or why it's their responsibility to fix it. Because a review decides to forego the due diligence of thoroughly reviewing a game so as to rush through it in order to post it sooner and therefore get more clicks seems more like an issue with the reviewer and the system they operate within in terms of vying for those clicks in order to be relevant.

 

[Dick Justice]

Except that info was already available if you cared.

Except no, it wasn't for the most part unless you looked through forums or searched for it specifically. Having it right there on the store page was a useful convenience.

 

[Alo0oy]

What we know is you comparing a steam group to gamergate.

Yes, a Steam group created by a Gamergater. Your attempt to absolve him doesn't work here.

 

[ClosingADoor]

you can't take subjective feelings out of it, it's half of the entire review. yes there are objective things that can be talked about. but it's typically the sort of "captain obvious" stuff you get an idea of by watching footage of the game in question anyway. i don't need a review to tell me what you do in the game. PR materials show me in a much better way. and lets not even mention reviews obsession with spoilers...you mention technical issues, but they are hardly ever discussed in a review. they're glossed over as a non-issue, and it's the reason games like mafia and bathesda games still walk away with praise and high scores from a lot of publications.

until there are big changes withing "professional" reviews, i have no use for them. i can make my own mind up.

"PR materials show me in a much better way"? Yeah, that's the point of them. To show the best of the game and not show the ugly things.

Technical issues are discussed. Eurogamer has a whole thing dedicated to it even to check the framerates and resolutions. So if you care about it, would be handy for them to get the game a week in advance to check it.

Even if you are fine with not looking at reviews, they can hold a lot of value for other people. And by not giving publications an early copy (even if the game is done!) the publisher is being anti-consumer. There is simply no other way to look at it.

 

[More_Badass]

you can't take subjective feelings out of it, it's half of the entire review. yes there are objective things that can be talked about. but it's typically the sort of "captain obvious" stuff you get an idea of by watching footage of the game in question anyway. i don't need a review to tell me what you do in the game. PR materials show me in a much better way. and lets not even mention reviews obsession with spoilers...you mention technical issues, but they are hardly ever discussed in a review. they're glossed over as a non-issue, and it's the reason games like mafia and bathesda games still walk away with praise and high scores from a lot of publications.

until there are big changes withing "professional" reviews, i have no use for them. i can make my own mind up.

Reviews offer three things that simply watching gameplay and press material can't

- Offer context and impressions on the game as a whole. Watching gameplay is like reading a chapter in a book or one episode in a show. Might give you a sense of tone and style, but it won't tell you about the work as a whole or if it improves throughout

- Offers a retrospective angle on a game. Someone had to think back, consider their time with the game, what worked for them, what didn't, etc. What looks cool and exciting in a 15-20 minute segment might not be so fun after five hours. It doesn't tell you how the final act frustrates or drops in quality, or that the gameplay and mechanics didn't really come together well. You only can get that kind of perspective after playing the game.

- Offers a perspective other than your own, which can provide insight you may never consider. Other impressions is what sold me on Gravity Rush, Demons' Souls, and other games I never would have played, even after watching gameplay

 

[Joeku]

PR materials show me in a much better way

http://store.steampowered.com/app/314710/
PR: Mighty No. 9 is a 2D Side-scrolling Action game that takes the best elements from 8 and 16-bit classics that you know and love and transforms them with modern tech, fresh mechanics, and fan input into something fresh and amazing!
User reviews: Mixed

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mighty-no-9
Professional reviews: 52 average

So if you'd rather go with PR over people (and in this case the users and professionals are in agreeement) you aren't making up your own mind, you're letting a marketing team make it up for you.

 

[BronzeWolf]

After No Man's Sky, I don't see how people could support this practice.

Fuck that, I am not preordering games or buying day 1 from companies that are not forward with review copies.

 

[KORNdoggy]

http://store.steampowered.com/app/314710/
PR: Mighty No. 9 is a 2D Side-scrolling Action game that takes the best elements from 8 and 16-bit classics that you know and love and transforms them with modern tech, fresh mechanics, and fan input into something fresh and amazing!
User reviews: Mixed

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mighty-no-9
Professional reviews: 52 average

So if you'd rather go with PR over people (and in this case the users and professionals are in agreeement) you aren't making up your own mind, you're letting a marketing team make it up for you.

the PR materials/gameplay footage is what makes me want to buy the game. i make up my own mind on whatever i consider it good or not when i play it myself.

P.S. mighty number 9 PR material looked like shit from the get go. so i never bought it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

the PR materials/gameplay footage is what makes me want to buy the game. i make up my own mind on whatever i consider it good or not when i play it myself.

P.S. mighty number 9 PR material looked like shit from the get go. so i never bought it.

Some people do not have a 100% luck rate like you then and did get burned from time to time because of PR material. To pretend it shows a game in a more realistic way is just silly.

 

[Joeku]

the PR materials/gameplay footage is what makes me want to buy the game. i make up my own mind on whatever i consider it good or not when i play it myself.

P.S. mighty number 9 PR material looked like shit from the get go. so i never bought it.

Right, so what I'm saying is why are you trusting specifically-targeted and edited footage that presents what they consider the absolute best of the game over video and words of the real end user experience? You play the game, not the trailer.

 

[mrlion]

Who cares?

Honestly, its one of the things that I don't like about TotalBiscuit about fighting for "consumer rights". Its not a big deal. There are other sources of media where you can see whether the game is crap or not like Twitch or Let's Play videos.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

At some point there has to be some kind of responsibility on gamers for not being able to show restraint for not preordering if reviews are that important to them.

I'm sure i'll be dragged through the mud for saying the following but it's hard not to feel like there's a large sense of entitlement being thrown around on this issue. Reviews aren't going anywhere. People will still have access to them. It boils down to not getting them when/how they want it.

Additionally, TB makes the point that by not giving pre release codes that all this does is force reviewers to rush through a game and miss things that can potentially affect their view of the game. Realistically, i don't see how this is a problem that's inherent to any publisher or why it's their responsibility to fix it. Because a review decides to forego the due diligence of thoroughly reviewing a game so as to rush through it in order to post it sooner and therefore get more clicks seems more like an issue with the reviewer and the system they operate within in terms of vying for those clicks in order to be relevant.

Thanks for explaining your stance. I've already stated all my points and I'm going to respect your opinion even if I can't come all the way with it. My mind is simply wracked with reality and this has been a fun discussion so thank you for keeping it civil.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Who cares?

Honestly, its one of the things that I don't like about TotalBiscuit about fighting for "consumer rights". Its not a big deal. There are other sources of media where you can see whether the game is crap or not like Twitch or Let's Play videos.

Not if you want to buy on release. And Twitch and Let's Plays are not the same as reviews. They might help you in making a decision, but they only show a fraction of the game.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I might be imagining things but i think TB said in one of his podcasts that he valued the idea that they originally had but he condemned the shitshow that they became or something like that. I might be completely wrong but i'm pretty sure that i remember him saying something along those lines.

TB actually does care about video game journalism issues, that's what tons of his show is about. He's never agreed with brigading and harassing people and sending death threats, so lumping him with GG is just a way to dismiss his opinions. Hell in this same video he talks about how gaming tribalism is shit and turns to angry bullshit.

If he's GG by his statements then Sterling certainly is too.

I thought the video was solid, in that there's a lot of entitlement issues with game reviews that don't exist for a lot of other media, and that's partly because games journalism is so transparently dependent on the game publishers (and with the rise of social media that's become even worse) than vice versa.

And that's the problem. Games journalism has never been as independent and rigorous as other mediums (and yeah, there's plenty of issues in the wider press, but it's laughable in comparison) and now game publishers have realized that they don't much *need* the games press since they can manufacture their own press, they can deliver Youtube videos and tweets directly to followers, and they can send the game to streamers and LPers who might be even more inclined to break some journalistic tenets to get games early and the like (and they're not journalists, so who's really caring about it?) So yeah, in some ways this is gaming press complaining that they don't get to be the gatekeepers, but it's still a bad thing for gamers as well.

Especially if like me you prefer to live in a world with fewer Twitter hate brigades, basically turning consumer's only direct feedback into shouting at devs doesn't seem like a great idea.

 

[Lanrutcon]

Who cares?

Honestly, its one of the things that I don't like about TotalBiscuit about fighting for "consumer rights". Its not a big deal. There are other sources of media where you can see whether the game is crap or not like Twitch or Let's Play videos.

No.

Not "consumer rights".

Consumer rights.

 

[Fisty]

So do they still have launch day review embargoes in place as well?

If not, this may be a blessing in disguise. Plenty of reviewers have means to get games early outside of the publisher, so if the games aren't bound by embargo we could still get the reviews pretty early.

 

[mrlion]

Not if you want to buy on release. And Twitch and Let's Plays are not the same as reviews. They might help you in making a decision, but they only show a fraction of the game.

Well then if the consumer can't wait longer for a review then not sure what else to tell them. We all know what happens now when you do that. No Man's Sky not only is a landmark of how not to make a game its also a landmark on why not to pre order.

 

[KORNdoggy]

Right, so what I'm saying is why are you trusting specifically-targeted and edited footage that presents what they consider the absolute best of the game over video and words of the real end user experience? You play the game, not the trailer.

no, i'm saying i'm trusting myself. PR, ads, youtubers showing gameplay footage, twitch streams, they all show me what i need to know to make a purchase. do i know that game is good based on those things? no. but i would rather play something and decide for myself. a review is a middle man who does not need to exist as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Armaros]

no, i'm saying i'm trusting myself. PR, ads, youtubers showing gameplay footage, twitch streams, they all show me what i need to know to make a purchase. do i know that game is good based on those things? no. but i would rather play something and decide for myself. a review is a middle man who does not need to exist as far as i'm concerned.

But the rest of those ARE also middlemen. Unless you believe that Bethesda is giving out copies to youtubers and twitch streamers out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

[E-flux]

TB actually does care about video game journalism issues, that's what tons of his show is about. He's never agreed with brigading and harassing people and sending death threats, so lumping him with GG is just a way to dismiss his opinions. Hell in this same video he talks about how gaming tribalism is shit and turns to angry bullshit.

If he's GG by his statements then Sterling certainly is too.

I thought the video was solid, in that there's a lot of entitlement issues with game reviews that don't exist for a lot of other media, and that's partly because games journalism is so transparently dependent on the game publishers (and with the rise of social media that's become even worse) than vice versa.

And that's the problem. Games journalism has never been as independent and rigorous as other mediums (and yeah, there's plenty of issues in the wider press, but it's laughable in comparison) and now game publishers have realized that they don't much *need* the games press since they can manufacture their own press, they can deliver Youtube videos and tweets directly to followers, and they can send the game to streamers and LPers who might be even more inclined to break some journalistic tenets to get games early and the like (and they're not journalists, so who's really caring about it?) So yeah, in some ways this is gaming press complaining that they don't get to be the gatekeepers, but it's still a bad thing for gamers as well.

Especially if like me you prefer to live in a world with fewer Twitter hate brigades, basically turning consumer's only direct feedback into shouting at devs doesn't seem like a great idea.

Yeah, he does seem to care. I wouldn't consider myself as an fan of TB but i do enjoy his longer opinion pieces and it kinda baffles me that some people think him as some sort of evil mastermind who is sending people to attack others for not running their games 60 fps and stuff, and plenty of other things that pop us as soon as a thread pops up with TB in it.

 

[KORNdoggy]

But the rest of those ARE also middlemen. Unless you believe that Bethesda is giving out copies to youtubers and twitch streamers out of the goodness of their hearts?

non of those sources of media are telling me what i should and shouldn't buy and what is and isn't fun. that's subjective. and i'm not a sheep. reviews means nothing.

 

[Joeku]

non of those sources of media are telling me what i should and shouldn't buy and what is and isn't fun. that's subjective. and i'm not a sheep. reviews means nothing.

So the people who are editorial staff, with checks and balances, are encouraging sheep-dom more than the marketing team of a publisher and the youtubers they supply despite the actual scandals that have happened there?

 

[Fuchsdh]

Yeah, it's useful. But it was also a hit list for his followers so they can harass any developer that doesn't meet his standards. It's how him and Milo harass people, they don't actively harass them, they just point a finger at them and their army starts doing their bidding.

In the end, they shrug their shoulders and claim innocence.

By this standard, you're basically saying if I penned a post criticizing a developer for their portrayal of women calling out the head writer, I'm essentially guilty of any shit that developer gets? That makes no sense.

Comparing Milo's actions to creating a group for 60FPS games is a dumb equivalency and minimizes how much shit Milo actually did, clearly breaking the Twitter ToS, before they finally shitcanned him.

 

[Armaros]

non of those sources of media are telling me what i should and shouldn't buy and what is and isn't fun. that's subjective. and i'm not a sheep. reviews means nothing.

So you don't believe in reality because that is exactly what you-tubers and twitch streamers do. And whats more, they are the ones that Bethesda specifically pick out for their views on the game. You think Bethesda is going to give out copies ahead of these delayed review copies to people that are critical of them? Then what would be the point of the delayed review copies.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Yeah, he does seem to care. I wouldn't consider myself as an fan of TB but i do enjoy his longer opinion pieces and it kinda baffles me that some people think him as some sort of evil mastermind who is sending people to attack others for not running their games 60 fps and stuff, and plenty of other things that pop us as soon as a thread pops up with TB in it.

He has done those things and there's plenty of evidence showing it. He not as blatant as other people in GG but it's there.

 

[danowat]

non of those sources of media are telling me what i should and shouldn't buy and what is and isn't fun. that's subjective. and i'm not a sheep. reviews means nothing.

Instead you are being led blind by the publisher driven hype train.

 

[The_Lump]

This is like saying "well, we all know people drive drunk, so just be extra careful on the road. Problem solved!"

No. This doesn't solve the problem of devs/pubs purposefully avoiding pre-release review coverage. The consumer should definitely be informed before making a purchase but when devs/pubs load their games with preorder bonuses and the like - the dev can't fucking ask you to buy their game ahead of time and in the same breath not do what is needed to inform you of what the fuck you are buying.

The point is, there's nothing you as a consumer can do except not buy the game on day one. That's your only option.

They aren't breaking the law, they aren't breaching your consumer rights. They owe you nothing other than the game you choose to hand over money for.

If you knowingly choose to hand over that money before finding out if the game is borked - then that's on you whether it seems fair or not.

 

[Fliesen]

Well then if the consumer can't wait longer for a review then not sure what else to tell them.

so, in a perfect world, launch week sales should be close to 0, with everyone waiting for reviewers and streamers to spend time on the games, while the average customer would reasonably wait for early impressions and more thorough reviews to trickle in

So, basically, in a perfect world, ... you know ... reviewers should have *gasp* early access to games.

We all know what happens now when you do that. No Man's Sky not only is a landmark of how not to make a game its also a landmark on why not to pre order.

No Man's Sky is a perfect example of why the 'reviewers get early copies' is such a needed and valuable concept.

To re-iterate: Buying games on day 1 is not even remotely compareable to pre-ordering games. Because usually, by day 1 - unless it's a game with a strong online component - there should be plenty of well written critique that will tell you if the final product is actually what you're hoping it would be.

Not giving out early review copies basically puts 'day-1-buyers' and 'pre-orderers' on the same level, because it means you'll have the choice between having your cake (the joy of being part of the day 1 conversation) and eating it (making an informed purchase decision) - while previously, in most cases, you could have had both...

 

[KORNdoggy]

So the people who are editorial staff, with checks and balances, are encouraging sheep-dom more than the marketing team of a publisher and the youtubers they supply despite the actual scandals that have happened there?

i'd argue PR is there to encourage a purchase (which can be returned, sold, criticized) but a review is there to replace your own opinion, or at least that's the effect it seems to have had on gamers... I've seen way too many people who feel like they would enjoy a game not bother because it has a 7.5 on metacritic. or how people will say a game is terrible with no actual experience playing it. an opinion based entirely on other peoples (reviewers)

i just stand by making my own mind up about games, movies, food etc. i don't need someone else to have played a game for me to enjoy it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well then if the consumer can't wait longer for a review then not sure what else to tell them. We all know what happens now when you do that. No Man's Sky not only is a landmark of how not to make a game its also a landmark on why not to pre order.

But then it is clearly an anti-consumer move from Bethesda to capitalize on the people who do not want to wait those days. And that is not something we should encourage or support.

Sure, they have every right to do so. But it is still a bad thing for us as consumers.

i'd argue PR is there to encourage a purchase (which can be returned, sold, criticized) but a review is there to replace your own opinion, or at least that's the effect it seems to have had on gamers... I've seen way too many people who feel like they would enjoy a game not bother because it has a 7.5 on metacritic. or how people will say a game is terrible with no actual experience playing it. an opinion based entirely on other peoples (reviewers)

i just stand by making my own mind up about games, movies, food etc. i don't need someone else to have played a game for me to enjoy it.

No, it is not supposed to replace your own opinion. What makes you think that? That is really strange.

Let's say a restaurant has all bad reviews, everyone says "don't eat there, it's shit, you'll get food poisoning", you go out and think; well, let's make up my own mind?

 

[Anth0ny]

I feel like it's going to get to this point for every company, unfortunately.

Think of it like this: does a company make more money from sending a game to reviewers early and getting positive reviews going into launch, or lose more money from sending a game to reviewers early and getting negative reviews going into launch?

I look at No Man's Sky and see exactly why this is happening. Devs want to pump out unfinished shit and not have to deal with negative reviews preventing them from making money from impatient HYPED gamers who need to buy all their shit day one.

These days, I just don't think shipping a game to critical ass, traditional game reviewers is making anyone that much money. To the point where it's just unnecessary.

They are WAY better off shipping the game to Pewdiepie, who has a 1000x bigger audience than traditional gaming press sites, and will jizz over the game he gets sent. Youtubers are MONEY. Game critics are hard asses.

what a time to be alive

 

[KORNdoggy]

But then it is clearly an anti-consumer move from Bethesda to capitalize on the people who do not want to wait those days. And that is not something we should encourage or support.

Sure, they have every right to do so. But it is still a bad thing for us as consumers.


No, it is not supposed to replace your own opinion. What makes you think that? That is really strange.

that seems to be how people use them. i gave examples. a lot of people aren't saying they think *insert game* is shit because they played it, and disliked it. they're saying it's shit because other people are. and for me that seems weird.

 

[Diancecht]

you can't take subjective feelings out of it, it's half of the entire review. yes there are objective things that can be talked about. but it's typically the sort of "captain obvious" stuff you get an idea of by watching footage of the game in question anyway. i don't need a review to tell me what you do in the game. PR materials show me in a much better way. and lets not even mention reviews obsession with spoilers...you mention technical issues, but they are hardly ever discussed in a review. they're glossed over as a non-issue, and it's the reason games like mafia and bathesda games still walk away with praise and high scores from a lot of publications.

until there are big changes withing "professional" reviews, i have no use for them. i can make my own mind up.

As a person who works in a PR industry, hell fucking no dude. My entire job is to lie to your face as much as I can and curate the message in a way that you believe my lies. PR industry is a shit show, don't trust any PR person or PR lie.

 

[More_Badass]

i'd argue PR is there to encourage a purchase (which can be returned, sold, criticized) but a review is there to replace your own opinion, or at least that's the effect it seems to have had on gamers... I've seen way too many people who feel like they would enjoy a game not bother because it has a 7.5 on metacritic. or how people will say a game is terrible with no actual experience playing it. an opinion based entirely on other peoples (reviewers)

i just stand by making my own mind up about games, movies, food etc. i don't need someone else to have played a game for me to enjoy it.

Thus the problem isn't reviews. It's people and their foolish natures.

 

[KORNdoggy]

Let's say a restaurant has all bad reviews, everyone says "don't eat there, it's shit, you'll get food poisoning", you go out and think; well, let's make up my own mind?

i bought and loved no mans sky despite what everyone else was saying. because at the end of the day i'm not a general consensus. i'm an individual.

 

[buenoblue]

Maybe Bethesda are just sick of all these sites leeching clicks for money. Everyone from 2 bit youtubers to ign have been making money from early access to games. These people have created a business from using video from games they didn't create.

You can not do this for movies and I think the game business is going the same way. The videogame coverage bubble is gonna burst. This is good because if you rely on devs giving you early access to fund your business model it becomes so hard to be impartial.

Does anybody trust those amazon reviews where people are given the goods for free. No.

 

[CSJ]

non of those sources of media are telling me what i should and shouldn't buy and what is and isn't fun. that's subjective. and i'm not a sheep. reviews means nothing.

Reviews are not just about what's fun.
Glaring issues and other such warrant closer inspection and attention.

 

[More_Badass]

i bought and loved no mans sky despite what everyone else was saying. because at the end of the day i'm not a general consensus. i'm an individual.

You should have reviewed the game. Your individual outlook and tastes may have interested people who feel the same

 

[ClosingADoor]

that seems to be how people use them. i gave examples. a lot of people aren't saying they think *insert game* is shit because they played it, and disliked it. they're saying it's shit because other people are. and for me that seems weird.

That's not the reviewers fault.

i bought and loved no mans sky despite what everyone else was saying. because at the end of the day i'm not a general consensus. i'm an individual.

Of course those things happen. But that doesn't mean reviews are worthless and you should always ignore them. Or that they might not be useful to some people.

Let's say I have the budget to buy one game this year. I'm really looking forward to Infinite Warfare and Dishonored 2. And both have cool pre order bonuses or even a discount. If one turns out to be a bad game, it would be helpful to know that so I can cancel and switch to the other game a few days in advance.

Maybe Bethesda are just sick of all these sites leeching clicks for money. Everyone from 2 bit youtubers to ign have been making money from early access to games. These people have created a business from using video from games they didn't create.

You can not do this for movies and I think the game business is going the same way. The videogame coverage bubble is gonna burst. This is good because if you rely on devs giving you early access to fund your business model it becomes so hard to be impartial.

Does anybody trust those amazon reviews where people are given the goods for free. No.

Can I just laugh a bit? You really think reviewers are lining their pockets from early access to games? That these people are leeching clicks for money? Seriously now? That must be why websites are closing down left and right, things are shifting to Patreon and even the big sites have trouble with their budget to hire enough people. Where did this narrative come from that game journalists are the big bad people making money of the poor game publishers?

Amazon reviews are from consumers. Reviews on websites like IGN, Kotaku, etc are from people employed by the website or hired on a freelance basis. You really think they are influenced in their opinion by receiving game number 43 this year for free to review? Get real. That's not even getting into that the one in charge of editorial makes the call who reviews the game, it is not sent directly to the journalist.

 

[Armaros]

Maybe Bethesda are just sick of all these sites leeching clicks for money. Everyone from 2 bit youtubers to ign have been making money from early access to games. These people have created a business from using video from games they didn't create.

You can not do this for movies and I think the game business is going the same way. The videogame coverage bubble is gonna burst. This is good because if you rely on devs giving you early access to fund your business model it becomes so hard to be impartial.

Does anybody trust those amazon reviews where people are given the goods for free. No.

They dont do this for movies? What alternate Earth do you live on? You don't see how moviegoers and studios both religiously look at rotten tomatoes when a movie comes out? Who do you think are giving out the scores there?