More_Badass
Member
If there's one thing I've learned from GAF, it's that some people have some very odd misconceptions about writing online and writing about games
-
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.
TotalBiscuit - I will now talk about Bethesda's review policy for just over 21 mins
- Thread starter pants
- Start date
Aces&Eights
Member
This. Reviews don't do anything for me. Who's to say the reviewer is showing all aspects? That they are non-biased? If I trust a developer I will preorder but those are very few in number. If I am not sure I will wait until it launches and watch real world gameplay on youtube or twitch. 1 hour of someone streaming usually tells me all I need to know about a game and if I will like the way it plays.
I welcome not having my twitch feed and YT feed congested with 7 day early "CHECKS OUT MAH REVIEWS OF NEW GAMEZ!
More_Badass
Member
What does a non-biased review look like compared to a biased one?
but again. what is bad to mr reviewer, doesn't necessarily ring true for you. and vice versa. you may be cancelling a pre-order for a game you will like more just because some guy said so. your own consumer behavior is being shaped by someone else. don;t you find that weird?
and i think a lot of it is the reviewers fault. they're writing articles that are perceived as law for a large group of people... and yet those articles are full of opinions. i think if reviews were purely objective statements about performance, mission structure, gameplay systems etc we'd be in a much better place. drop the score. keep it objective. because why should what some guy thinks about something be held in higher regard to anyone else, more importantly, my own?
at the end of the day being told if something is good or bad does influence our own perception of things.
What is this non-biased review? A review with zero opinion?
Oh look there is that word again, Objective. Tell me what is an objective review? When Reviews by nature are subjective?
More_Badass
Member
How is that the review's fault?
And you should have reviewed No Man's Sky. Your perspective and outlook on the game may have interested people who find they have similar tastes and interests as you. I'm genuine about that
Actually, could you offer some purely objective statements about No Man's Sky? Since it's a game you enjoyed, that shouldn't be hard
Aces&Eights
Member
A non-biased one would be someone giving a review that is straight from the heart and not tainted by any type of kickbacks, NDA and allows the user to have full access to all elements of a game, I.E., all single player, MP seeing if there are microtransactions, etc.
I can never know for certain what is real or not. I'm not even saying that the reviewer is intentionally doing it. Look at the Deus Ex microtransaction thing. It wasn't even activated in the review copies.
Waiting for release date allows me, the consumer, to make a 100% informed decision. I can check with different users playing and all things are laid bare. If there are scummy micros, they are evident. If the game is glitchy, it's going to show.
TheRedSnifit
Member
You may be able to afford every single game that comes out, but some people can't afford to drop $60 on every game. For those in the latter category, reviews can help them judge whether or not a game is worth their money.
poppedcollar69
Member
just read that his health is stable for the time being, thats good to hear
hence why i said that's a direction i'd like them to take.
More_Badass
Member
"A review that is straight from the heart"...What does that even mean?
What kind of "kickbacks" do you think reviewers are getting? Like you think reviewers get monetary kickbacks or something?
Adam_Vania
Banned
slow news cycle? outrage gets views? internet commentators capitalizing on this whole consumers-mistreated-by-big-bad-companies roll?
we live in an era where you can see thousands of impressions from independent gamers if you only wait a few hours after a game is released. it's called self control.
don't pre-order unless you are fine with that money being gone forever.
as i've said prior, if you buy a game and decided you don't like it (made up your own mind). sell it on ebay. it will have retained value if you're not one of those people who take 80 hours to decide if they like a game or not (looking at some no mans sky complainers) and you'll get back what you paid for it. it's not like you're forced to keep everything you buy. and if you want reviews, get some self control and wait for the review.
well, that's what an embargo is for. - if you break it, you don't get early access anymore. AFAIK Twitch even temp bans channels for streaming unreleased games.
And if the games were acquired by some mom&pop shop breaking the release date, then there's nothing Bethesda could do about anyways.
TheRedSnifit
Member
I somehow doubt that I'll be able to sell many used games for $60.
I also have these things called "a full-time job," "college," "family," "friends,"etc. I don't have time to play every single game, so how do I maximize my chances of only playing ones I enjoy?
Pantaghana
Member
I find most discussion about biased reviews to be bullshit, because no matter what a reviewer says, it's possible to accuse them of bias:
Game has a generally positive reception and a reviewer agrees with it? Appealing to the fanbase for clicks.
Game has a generally positive reception and a reviewer disagrees with it? Just being controversial for clicks.
Game has a generally negative reception and a reviewer disagrees with it? Paid off and just being controversial for clicks.
Game has a generally negative reception and a reviewer agrees with it? Bandwagoning for clicks.
Game has a generally mediocre reception and a reviewer agrees with it? They weren't paid enough, so they are having their revenge while also being polite so they get the preview copy of the next game.
Game has a generally mediocre reception and a reviewer thinks its better than average? Paid off.
Game has a generally mediocre reception and a reviewer thinks its below average? Again being controversial for clicks.
I have seen for myself every single one of these examples, and I wish I was joking.
That is not to say all reviews are honest, but I doubt its anywhere near as prevalent as some people claim.
Your wish, granted. Take note how completely worthless such a review is.
Game has a generally positive reception and a reviewer agrees with it? Appealing to the fanbase for clicks.
Game has a generally positive reception and a reviewer disagrees with it? Just being controversial for clicks.
Game has a generally negative reception and a reviewer disagrees with it? Paid off and just being controversial for clicks.
Game has a generally negative reception and a reviewer agrees with it? Bandwagoning for clicks.
Game has a generally mediocre reception and a reviewer agrees with it? They weren't paid enough, so they are having their revenge while also being polite so they get the preview copy of the next game.
Game has a generally mediocre reception and a reviewer thinks its better than average? Paid off.
Game has a generally mediocre reception and a reviewer thinks its below average? Again being controversial for clicks.
I have seen for myself every single one of these examples, and I wish I was joking.
That is not to say all reviews are honest, but I doubt its anywhere near as prevalent as some people claim.
Your wish, granted. Take note how completely worthless such a review is.
UserDoesNotExist
Member
This. Both sides are wrong on this issue, because they're still stuck in a dead-tree mindset.
Game reviews do not make sense in an era of streaming video, and Polygon et al are scared that their business model is dying out. I mean, ffs, they're actually claiming that the practice of game companies sending free games to independent news sites increases their editorial reliability? I know this is the way it's always been done, but seriously?
Conversely, preordering a game is also a stupid idea in an era where you can jump on Twitch on Tuesday at midnight, watch people play the new hotness, and then download the game while still in your underwear if it tickles your fancy. That Amazon discount people give as a rationalization for preordering lasts for two weeks after launch. That is more than enough time for the dust to settle.
You do not need e-dead-tree reviews, and you do not need to preorder.
Steeped in a Sea of Games
Member
Every time I see TB on the main page it makes my skin crawl. Leave that creep to other parts of the internet.
This also seems silly. If Bethesda burns enough people, they lose their business. I think NMS is proof enough of that. Teaches more people to be careful with their purchases as well. Win, win.
This also seems silly. If Bethesda burns enough people, they lose their business. I think NMS is proof enough of that. Teaches more people to be careful with their purchases as well. Win, win.
ClosingADoor
Member
Why do you think reviewers are biased? Do you think they hold stock in Activision to give Call of Duty a higher rating or something? And how are Twitch streamers then less biased in what they show?
You seem to think that reviews need to be 100% in line with your views. That is not the case. You use a review to get a global impression of the game, together with other sources. And reviews are important for that. No, they will not always be your opinion. That is impossible.
But you are denying that reviews can hold value for consumers. And that is just strange, because they do hold value and are useful. I don't get how this is even up for debate.
An objective review doesn't exist. You seem to want a fact sheet. That is not what a review is supposed to be. A review takes all those elements you mention and more, and then discusses if that makes the game good or not. It literally can not be objective, that is against the definition of a review.
ClosingADoor
Member
So don't read reviews by that guy anymore if you don't trust him. Then there are a few thousand others who didn't make a silly video.
PsychoSoldier
Banned
Man, if you guys don't like reviews because you listened to a review and it was wrong for you, then it is going to get so much worse when Bethesda gets more and more careful about the Youtubers they select to have early access to their product.
They will absolutely guarantee that the people who get it early are likely to like the game or are going to be in on co-branding deals, and this potential sameness in opinion is going to be a way bigger issue.
They will absolutely guarantee that the people who get it early are likely to like the game or are going to be in on co-branding deals, and this potential sameness in opinion is going to be a way bigger issue.
Ploid 3.0
Member
I was more thinking about why Bethesda stopped giving out early stuff. Reviewers must have nailed a game the released after 2011 pretty hard and it hurt them.
I always over research games to make sure I like them. I got burned badly on GTA4. All overly careful game buys after that were pretty solid for me.
ClosingADoor
Member
Don't think so. The marketing department just weighted the possible risk and rewards and came to the conclusion this might be better for profit. I can't think of any Bethesda games that have really been hurt by reviews. Which makes the choice even stranger actually.
Shai-Tan
Banned
Some corporate practices do bias reviews especially early reviews but it's not necessarily an effect on an individual as much as it's biased selection. So limiting review copies is an attempt to control the message and maybe sometimes there is an alignment of interests in click based media to go along with that agenda with early reviews or selectively limiting access.
That said they are far from the only source of external bias on game reviews. For example fans of games are often manipulated by hype or simply being partial to a series which puts social pressure on reviewers to conform to their opinions. Part of the problem there is the nature of reviewing which doesn't necessarily allow for an in depth encounter which is why it is important for reviewers to receive games early because day 1 reviewing is going to create a mad rush to finish games. What I hope happens with this controversy is it becomes generally accepted that withholding access is a sign that there isn't confidence in the quality of the game in the same way that movies shielding themselves from critics is usually a bad sign that would hurt confidence in what the marketing is trying to convey.
Edit: I wrote that before watching the video. All points made by Total biscuit better than I could muster
That said they are far from the only source of external bias on game reviews. For example fans of games are often manipulated by hype or simply being partial to a series which puts social pressure on reviewers to conform to their opinions. Part of the problem there is the nature of reviewing which doesn't necessarily allow for an in depth encounter which is why it is important for reviewers to receive games early because day 1 reviewing is going to create a mad rush to finish games. What I hope happens with this controversy is it becomes generally accepted that withholding access is a sign that there isn't confidence in the quality of the game in the same way that movies shielding themselves from critics is usually a bad sign that would hurt confidence in what the marketing is trying to convey.
Edit: I wrote that before watching the video. All points made by Total biscuit better than I could muster
randomengine
Banned
The only thing this affects is reviewers and really at that point, who gives a shit. Not my problem. A review will come eventually, word of mouth will spread and the truth of a game will eventually leak out.
You're not forced to buy it day one, but IMO that doesn't mean there shouldn't be reviews readily available ahead of launch so that if you want to jump in day one, because you like that experience, you can do so while being a bit more informed. I view it similar to movies and movie reviews.
Plus, with pre-order bonuses and early access there are reasons outside of wanting to be there day one that might push people towards preordering. Also, with how large games are and data caps, preloading can be very valuable to some. If reviews are excellent and you decide you want to be there day one you can pre-order and start working on that d/l ahead of time.
Just some thoughts.
ClosingADoor
Member
If this would only impact reviewers, Bethesda wouldn't do this. Early reviews have an impact on word of mouth and sales and they don't want to run the risk those reviews are anything but extremely positive.
Maintenance
Member
Still trying to figure it out why suddenly this is a problem. It has been for years and almost no one gave a fuck, this is like a major site posting "DLC is bad" / "Microtransactions are bad" (which I agree) today, when those things are already part of the culture.
Can't wait for the "Lootcrates are bad for the customer" articles 5 years from now.
Can't wait for the "Lootcrates are bad for the customer" articles 5 years from now.
randomengine
Banned
Those early purchasers, a lot of them, would purchase the game regardless. Let's say someone buys the game and loves it. Those early reviews just work to diminish their opinion of the game. "You know that game is shit, right?"
People who care about reviews will wait for whenever the reviews are available.
Look...first and foremost this is a business. Part of it just happens to be creating something that people can enjoy. However, they are in no position to conform to what a specific group of people want. Most people that buys from Bethesda don't care about this and therefore these types of actions, these business practices, exist. Is it right? Probably not, but its not something that can be a big deal unless it really affects you directly to the point that it threatens your life. In this case it doesn't. Its just a video game, its a commodity that is not really needed, you have the option to either buy it or not buy it.
pants
Member
I feel like this thread has kinda gone off track, we're arguing about the value of reviews, reviewers and generally fighting among ourselves when the point (I feel) of this exercise is to make you aware that publishers are trying to remove some of your early information centers (ones they cant control) in favour of their own curated media and overly enthusiastic, less critical sources while ramping up the sales pitch, content and value add of pre order DLC to trick the weakest of us into pre-ordering games before the quality of the product can be reasonably determined. This isnt a pleasant omen for us gamers and we shouldn't really be shouting at journalists for this, even if you're not susceptible to this right now as most of us arent, if our weaker brothers and sisters keep going at it we'll all be strong armed into buying pre-orders down the line as publishers move more of the base game into pre-order dlc creating a situation where if you arent getting it day 1 you either have to wait x days/months till the pre order dlc becomes available stand alone, if at all, or a GOTY edition where applicable.
Remember at the start of the 360/PS3 gen when we all scoffed at the very idea of DLC? Well look where we are now.
Remember at the start of the 360/PS3 gen when we all scoffed at the very idea of DLC? Well look where we are now.
ClosingADoor
Member
Negative reviews might move people to cancel their pre order. If you have pre ordered the game for some extras, but a ton of negative reviews come out, you might say: let's cancel and wait anyway.
Of course they might still love the game. Or they might not. That is why we have reviews, to help making an informed decision to buy a product or not. That is not diminishing a opinion of a game, that is informing a consumer.
I don't take it very seriously, don't worry about that. I just think businesses shouldn't engage in anti-consumer practices and that is what Bethesda is doing here and what this thread is about.
You can say "just wait a week longer" but then you also have that same publisher trying to get pre orders in with a ton of actions and extras. In the end it is the decision of the consumer to buy it or not, no doubt about that. But as a consumer, having early reviews is worth something to make an informed decision.
randomengine
Banned
I take the opposite approach. No early reviews means less spoilers and less streams ruining the game before launch. I think this change is overall a positive one.
randomengine
Banned
If you are so easily swayed by reviews, you shouldn't be pre-ordering to begin with. The kinds of incentives in the day-one editions are for fans of the series or publisher or developer. Those kinds of people should just stop pre-ordering.
ClosingADoor
Member
That is a very strange jump in logic. So if a game in a series or from a company I like is being developed. And they give some extras or discount to pre order. Then a dozen or so negative reviews come in from respectable outlet and I decide to cancel the order, I am "easily swayed"? No, I'm just being informed the game is probably not as good as I hoped it would be.
I think reading reviews is generally a very bad way of informing your purchase, because it has a good chance of being actively misleading. An eloquent positive review from someone who happens to like the game a lot is too easy to give too much weight to.
But its useful to have people playing the game before general release simply to warn when games are a buggy mess, or lack the features they're supposed to.
(And the metacritic score is useful, you should just try to stay away from the text until after you've made your decision)
But its useful to have people playing the game before general release simply to warn when games are a buggy mess, or lack the features they're supposed to.
(And the metacritic score is useful, you should just try to stay away from the text until after you've made your decision)
pants
Member
While I very much will happily fight for your cause to stay spoiler free, I feel it is unreasonable of you to want to deny reviews, streams and other media of talking about a subject/posting video for you to stay spoiler free. It's really up to you to avoid twitch streamer x streaming the game you dont want to be spoiled for you or avoiding review y from gamebanana covering the game you dont want to have spoiled.
ClosingADoor
Member
This is the first time I've seen someone say "stay away from the text" for reviews. The text actually gives information about the game.
Rexatality
Member
You are a member now, so you can make a thread for that if you wish.
pants
Member
lmao, the irony of this post is perfect
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Well, it's not like you're going to read just one of them. A game is liable to have a dozen or so reviews available the day it comes out.
If everyone says the game is good, then it's probably a safe bet.
This too.
More_Badass
Member
That person doesn't happen to like the game. They do like it
Why is that "actively misleading"?
I haven't read through all the posts in here so maybe someone else has brought it up, but I think it's really interesting that, from what I can see, this thread is playing out exactly as TB talks about in his video. You have people in here defending the company and their anti-consumer behavior even though it in no ways benefits the people doing the defending. There really is this strange need to feel justified in our wants and preferences to the point of arguing with other people, even when we're the ones ultimately being hurt.
Shai-Tan
Banned
If you're worried about spoilers it's not difficult to avoid. I read NeoGAF every day yet I still have no idea what happens in Uncharted 4 (waiting to play on ps4 pro). Media blackout is very possible. Unless you're framing it as a weakness of the will problem. My response in turn is that it's good to train some impulse control.
pants
Member
Very much noticed it but didnt want to address it directly, hoping most people just normally realize it after a bit.
lol I know, but I loved the first and this is a pretty good price so I'm going for it.
ClosingADoor
Member
Happens all the time with videogames (and other things also, but the most of it I've seen is videogames). Don't really know why.
But this move from Bethesda is one in the latest of gaming companies trying for years on end to curb the influence of the gaming media. It's not something we should be in favor of, even if the gaming media has plenty of problems of its own.
I do wonder if this way of pushing the gaming media aside for reviews might backfire. At least in a review you get a bit of text explaining why a game is this way or that and even if a game is a 6/10 or something, the good parts are also highlighted. On social media (Twitter, Youtube) the messages people sent are a lot more extreme and the game will just "suck".
Calm waterfall
Banned
I don´t agree with Bethesda at all. I think it´s scummy, but with that said reviews are pretty much worthless because they express each individual reviewer´s opinion and nothing more. I watch let´s play and youtube videos to decide which game i buy. Also i only pre-ordered one game in 2010, and never again pre-ordered. Consumers are also to blame for pre-ordering products they barely know anything about, or because because they listen to a reviewer´s opinion.
Exactly this. I would rather play the demo and judge for myself instead of getting a ramdom internet person tell me what to buy. Most movie/game reviewers don´t match my opinions anyway. For instance i loved Suicide Squad, and it has a very low score.
Yes they are. Most of the time they are more informative regarding Technical glitches, characters, gameplay and story. The debate created in discussion threads, not only on neogaf but generally online, gives me a much more informed decision regarding buying games because of the different point of views towards a single game. Of course all people have their biases towards genre, gameplay etc.... but the back and forth discussion is so much better than a person on a website judging a game. MANY OPINIONS>ONE OPINION.