I think the miserable excuses for ideology on both sides (or at least their extremes) are really getting in the way of the creation of content worth reading, instead resulting in a lot of vitriol signifying nothing. Never mind that Those Who Shall Not Be Named aren't actually doing anything that actually advances their goals short of suggesting that major publishers are untouchable leviathans while indie developers are free to be harassed because they don't have the money to hire the really persistent lawyers.
tl;dr, create something worth my time if you want to get on the Adblock whitelist.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotMachinima settles FTC charges about "deceptive" promotion.
Well, that's some good news.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)Some good points, but a lot of unnecessary negativity and a bad conclusion. The main issue I have is that this situation isn't so much the fault of most reviewers (although there are some problems with some of them), but it's more trouble with the system itself.
The problem comes from the fact that most video game reviews have to be created on the Internet's wavelength; that is, reviewers have a set time limit to get their reviews out there. They have to match release dates, they have multiple games to cover, and they have their own lives to live on top of that. Given the current market, I'd say that this amounts to maybe 10 hours of play maximum per review.
The problem is that this is the first 10 hours of each game, and not all games are created the same in terms of length and pacing. Some gradually grow into a more fulfilling experience, while others have twists and turns within their story that make early game issues relatively worthwhile to get past. And then there are games you can 100% within that very time frame. So it's already a case of that reviews are not going to be representative of the actual game.
The deadlines also give reviewers less time to double-check their work and thought processes. This is often how biases get shown; people being too busy to actually think about what they are doing or saying. So these biases are going to be way more apparent. Furthermore, there are no takebacks on the Internet; once it's out there, everyone will know exactly what you originally said.
Compounding this issue is that consumers want to maximize bang for their bucks. In this case, this usually amounts to getting the most play hours per dollar. Obviously, that kind of consumer desire encourages certain types of games - either very repetitive games that are appealing for other reasons (Total Biscuit touched on this a few months ago), or deep and long games that reviewers can't hope to cover properly given the time limitations. The kind of games that lend themselves least to a review-on-a-deadline schedule.
It's an unwinnable situation with preorders and launch day sales. If they don't make these deadlines, the reviews aren't going to be relevant enough to draw attention. While it can be delayed somewhat, there are clear limits. But making those deadlines means risking the bias seeping in, as it does time and time again.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)When games review sites stop plastering their front pages with massive, unskippable and ludicrously overblown adverts for games they're busily throwing out nine or ten out of ten scores to willy-nilly, that's when you can start taking their claims of "professionalism" seriously.
I recently discovered the Rageaholic series of videos on Youtube - the guy behind it is as opinionated as heck and likes to mock a lot of the other reviewers I follow, but he makes a lot of good points as to how incestuous the video games industry and their related journalism actually is. If you want to go looking he did a multi-part series on them and he rips the utter crap out of Kotaku.
I am still and forever will be baffled to hear people insist that Video Game Reviewers, Magazines and Opinion articles (I repeated myself twice there) are things people actually use when making purchase decisions; and what is more, that the three mentioned above is to blame in any way shape or form if the buyer did not enjoy the product.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesThey send them a copy for them to play, sometimes slip money under the table to the reviewer and hope this works.
How the buyers feel affected by this as if their mothers were personally insulted, is beyond me.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesMy theory: for some people, when they dislike a game, they want to run to the reviews and read a bunch of reviews bashing the game to feel validated about their opinion. When they see a bunch of reviews praising the game instead, they feel as though the review industry has come to their house and personally told them that their opinion is bad and they should feel bad. It's insecurity breeding hostility as it so often does.
For those people who actually do make purchase decisions based upon reviews because they have a limited budget and I guess renting doesn't exist in their neighborhood or something so they rely on other people to tell them what's good. When those people recommend a game that they don't like, they feel personally betrayed when they paid $60 for an experience that's not well-suited to them based solely on the fact that twelve game magazines gave the game an 8.8.
edited 27th Oct '15 8:09:04 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.For the first one, those people seem to be throwing a tantrum about candy in the middle of the market.
For the second, with so many ways to have, for free, first hand reviews from people about game experiences (Let's plays, Customer Reviews, and Streams), it just seems particularly silly to still blame others for a purchase like that.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Honestly, when I am expecting a game or DLC, and see a bunch of reviews that call it "meh" (it happened twice last month - with Beyond Earth's Rising Tide, and with Might & Magic Heroes VII), I tend to cancel my payment and wait for sales, while I was ready for a day 1 buy beforehand. Some points raised in the reviews I find rather unfair (especially for MMH 7) but if it was that good, the journalists would just say so.
I think there is an issue with AAA games, since Fan Dumb can cause a critic site to lose money from the backlash if it judges it too harshly. But for other games, reviews are informative. Just read more than one of them.
edited 27th Oct '15 8:14:33 AM by Julep
![]()
Yeah.
Then add in a dose of my ever-popular talking point: rage. Anger feels good. It feels liberating and validating. It's super-addictive which reinforces an Everybody Sucks But Me worldview. Some people will go out of their way to find excuses to stay angry - if you've been angry long enough, you sort of have to, because the moment you stop being angry, you have to come to terms with what you did while on your rage-high. And then some people do that by denying fault long enough to get angry about something new again.
Anger is a self-perpetuating drug.
edited 27th Oct '15 8:19:44 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.This has to be noted - most games purchasers don't give a shit about let's plays, customer reviews or streams. They do give a shit (for some odd reason I can't figure out but I'm not part of them) about so-called professional video games reviewers.
We know different because we're educated. We take the time to research games, and hang around sites like this and other more focused video games fan sites.
But we are part of a vanishingly small minority compared to those moms, dads, granpas and granmas who buy vidya games for their kids because of what some "journalist" tells them about what the game is like.
Keep in mind Jeff Gertsman of Giant Bomb was fired from Gamespot for giving Kane and Lynch a 6/10 because said game was heavily featured in Gamespot advertising. That's what I never want to see again and why I pay attention to Video Game Journalism discussions. Everything you guys have mention is a great step forward from that debacle.
And even if we are educated, inflated reviews can hurt the prospects of smaller games we do like not selling because the publisher wasn't friendly enough to review sites to get as much coverage as the big boys.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.The thing about that, though, is that it's a largely unprovable and self-fulfilling concept. Game X underperformed because Y.
Maybe Y is that reviewers didn't cover it enough. Maybe Y is that it had to compete with the long-anticipated sequel to a beloved franchise and wound up Overshadowed by Awesome. Maybe Y is that it was just a shitty game, and the person who liked it is in the minority; every title has some fans. Maybe it's a combination of the above or other reasons.
Either way, it's next to impossible to prove that the game's failure is directly linked to insufficient media coverage, especially in a world where titles like Undertale can beat the latest Metal Gear Solid on Metacritic.
But a person doesn't have to prove it to himself to be angry. They just have to assert it. "It's obvious to anyone with half a brain. I don't need proof, you just need to think. The crooked industry MURDERED my favorite game because they were too busy sucking Capcom's phallic metaphor to give two shits about QUALITY entertainment!" And then Bob can take some hits off his rage-high for a few weeks until the anger dies down and he has to find something new to be outraged about.
Anger is a fleeting high, and a given subject can only provide so much fuel.
edited 27th Oct '15 8:32:56 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Anger around reviews has been around for a long time in this industry. This is an industry where it's nearly impossible for a notable game to score below a 7 on Metacritic. This is an industry where fans were outraged when Uncharted 3 got an 8 on one website. This is an industry where the fans wanted to burn down Gamespot for giving Twilight Princess an 8.8. The fans don't know how to handle reviews, and the reviewers aren't very good at using the full scale, even if they have gotten better in recent years.
General reception and word of mouth is mostly important for untested games and the bad ones. Call of Duty may not score amazingly high anymore, but that doesn't stop it from selling 20 million copies a year. New games like The Order: 1886 or Codename Steam getting negative reception seems to have hurt them a lot, and buggy games like Assassin's Creed Unity got hit hard even if they day 1 sales were still good. Conversely, it is possible for a game to be boosted from highly positive reviews and word of mouth. Bloodborne was almost certainly one of those titles.
Personally, I just don't trust "professional" review sites anymore. It's too jumbled up with the industry — how can I rely on your review being objective when a third of the page is an ad for that very same game? When I'm on the fence about buying a game, I typically look at reviewer-versus-use aggregate scores on Metacritic, LP's or video reviews by independent sources on Youtube, and gameplay videos to see what I'm getting into. But score doesn't mean much anymore.
Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.Ok. Great. Fine example.
Here is the thing. How does this affect the consumer? Why does this affect my pocket? If someone has a right to be pissed here, it is Jeff Gertsman, and while we can support his point of view, to assimilate this as “our struggle” is just….is just silly. It is just partisanship for the sake of partisanship.
How these magazines and blogs and videos affects us is wholly on each individual person. Reviewers and stuff make a buck out of something silly and you know what, good for them. But unless reviewers are hypnotoads they are just the same raving mad lunatic screaming in the park, except behind a computer. They are both doing the exact same thing: Giving an opinion. If someone wants to pay them for that: Great! Good for you, Glenn Coco! But why this is an affront?
Silly.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIt's not about this affecting me personally, I just found that situation to be incredibly stupid and the result of Gamespot advertising the game for money.
I care because people like Jeff should be able to give their honest opinions on the quality of a game without losing their jobs over it. THAT is silly.
I'm only speaking for me here. I don't know how other people are going about this type of discussion on other sites.
EDIT:Maybe you have a point and I shouldn't care at all really, but as long as the discussion doesn't get hostile again there's no reason not to comment every now and then.
edited 27th Oct '15 10:04:17 AM by VeryMelon
how can I rely on your review being objective when a third of the page is an ad for that very same game?
This. Honestly, game reviews are very important. I'm about to drop $60 and 40 hours of my life into this, and now thanks to day 1 DLC I have to do it at launch or I might miss out on stuff. Yet, subjective issues aside (which applies to everything from movies to books), I find video game reviews to be the least reliable of any medium. Video game magazines/sites get the majority of their revenue from video game ads. It's just a system that breeds conflict of interest.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.And also one that is completely separated from the customer-publisher process. You don't buy your games via whatever dot com, they are literal optional things people flock to because reasons.
They are not necessary they are literally a hobby some company decided to put money into randomly and apparently this gives them power?
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesDay 1 DLC does not mean "DLC that only exists for 1 day and then is taken down and never available to players again." It means DLC that becomes available on launch day. Free access coupons to Day 1 DLC are often included as incentives to purchase a new copy rather than pay a discounted price for a used copy, but it is super-rare for DLC to be Lost Forever because you didn't buy the game on launch.
Preorder bonuses are another story, but if they're anything of substance as opposed to cool skins or Pay To Win super-equipment, they tend to become available down the road anyway.
edited 27th Oct '15 10:44:00 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

I'm just here to play games.
Your momma's so dumb she thinks oral sex means talking dirty.