More MCV goodness: Post positive Hitman reviews, ignore negative ones(not conspiracy)
- Thread starter chickdigger802
- Start date
Try following the whole games journalism scandal and you'd realise. How you think it's acceptable to say that critics are "delighted" with the game while blatantly ignoring all negative reviews, I'm not sure. You prefer your journalism without even the merest hint of fact checking?
Cerebral Assassin
Member
I find RPS to be pretty credible, & Eurogamer is one of the rare sites that has well-written articles on there, so I have no real issue with them. Why do you think they are trash?
Why would negative reviews not be valuable to a store trying to determine how much of a game they should stock?
McBradders
NeoGAF: my new HOME
Metacritic as a tool for judging the quality of the games should be ignored. Negative reviews for the sake of pushing forward your PR agenda shouldn't.
Videogames Journalism is not Journalism so I really have no preference.
Although, this isn't videogame journalism, it's number influencing to assist retail stores in stock and inventory forecasting. Four of the mentioned review sites were from PC exclusive websites which are likely to have little to no influence on physical retailers because they're not selling Steam keys. So when you cut them out, and then the majority of reviews are positive enough, I have a hard time getting upset of the use of the word "delighted."
Relevancy of PC reviews to 360/PS3 sales are pretty slim in terms of market affect, not product quality.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your average joe who buys a console game is more likely to check GameInformer than RPS.
So everything that has me clicking on forums over websites for news and opinions all neatly laid out? That's not riling me up.
Not to mention that idolizing these reviewers is something someone should have grown out of by the time they were technically old enough to register on GAF.I think its pretty amusing that many of you are just realising that Gaming website are shoddy. I found that out when Gerstmann left gamspot, never did I trusted any review after that. I think that worked for me so far
Amazing that it took a dude to be surrounded by mounds of Doritos and stacks of Dew for people to go "Wait, something is up here."
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I really think some people are missing quite how big the Eurogamer Network actually is.
Although frankly the fact they have enough clout to put on their own annual expo should be something of a clue, lets not forget that they are not only Eurogamer and its many language specific variants(.de, .fr, .es, .it, .pl), they are also gamesindustry.biz and industrygamers.inc, and partners with Rock Paper Shotgun, VG247, and Nintendolife.
Its quite an empire the Loman brothers preside over.
Although frankly the fact they have enough clout to put on their own annual expo should be something of a clue, lets not forget that they are not only Eurogamer and its many language specific variants(.de, .fr, .es, .it, .pl), they are also gamesindustry.biz and industrygamers.inc, and partners with Rock Paper Shotgun, VG247, and Nintendolife.
Its quite an empire the Loman brothers preside over.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
I think its pretty amusing that many of you are just realising that Gaming website are shoddy. I found that out when Gerstmann left gamspot, never did I trusted any review after that. I think that worked for me so far
I find it pretty amusing(did you mean to sound so condescending, or is it just that English isn'tyour first language?) that you trusted reviews before Kane&Lynch-Gate, that sort of thing has been happening in the UK for decades.
who said anything about trusting the whole spectrum? I did trust couple of reviewers here and there and that pretty much dies when that outbreak happend....
If the whole thing have been happening for decades, I do find it amusing that everyone is flipping about it now.
mediapulp_wes
Member
Don't know Ben personally, do follow him on twitter and I'm pretty sure that when he wrote his piece, the only reviews on metacritic were positive ones. Now maybe they should have waited, but I agree with his comment that this isn't a conspiracy. Maybe a little poor judgement, but nothing more than that.
A lil' googlin' never hurt nobody.
Adam Scott Aukerman
Member
I agree, that's my suspicion as well. And had their conduct since that minor bout of poor judgement not been such a clusterfuck, it probably wouldn't have escalated into this mess.
MCV seem to have a knack for that recently.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Nobody said anything about the whole spectrum (except you), & it is pretty obvious why people are interested in the topic now.
CecilRousso
Member
So after four updates, a reposting of the article to a new url, and a couple of excuses, they still haven´t changed this bit: "Grumpy Eurogamer appears to be the odd one out at the moment".
slightconfuse
Banned
wow this is feiging ignorance and getting a zinger at eurogamer in the process. Also someone needs to do damage control on twitter beforewe have another dorito gate
Right...
The fact it is coming out now is the annoying part since its been widely known that this whole practice likes to recieve ''gifts'' and all sort of promotional help from companies.
This should have happened long time ago.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
It wasn't public knowledge that some reviews are being written by people who have worked for the publisher of said game, that goes far beyond gifts or help. I do agree that the move to the Internet should have changed things, but unfortunately things have only got worse.
Just because you don't think games journalism is "proper journalism" and seem to be fine with MCV's approach doesn't mean others are.
What did I just read? They're the same game.
"Average Joe" in the US, maybe. GameInformer isn't even published here.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Huh? Any of those things would drag most games down.
They should disclose them - how can they have a headline "Reviewers delighted with Hitman Absolution" (the original before it was edited) while ignoring all the reviews they considered bad? Also calling Eurogamer "grumpy" for daring to give the game 7/10. It's a joke.
If you're not going to read my post or bother to respond to it without playing semantics then there isn't much to talk about, is there?
Exactly. There is nothing differentiating the criticism from any other game and I find it incredibly odd that this is the one that gets made an example of. GameTrailers "The check bounced" summary in the game's OT probably has more truth than snark.
I did read your post (yes I saw your edit). You said "Videogames journalism is not journalism" - to you, maybe. If others expect games journalists to have basic journalistic standards, then that doesn't make them wrong.
Also your point the MCV roundup helping retailers to decide inventory is completely irrelevant. They should absolutely list all reviews if that's their intention because just cherry picking positive reviews does not give retailers a fair picture of the critical reaction to the game. Not that that makes any difference - for the majority of games, reviews are far from the be all and end all in dictating their sales. Titles can score fantastic reviews across the board and still sell poorly for a variety of other reasons, despite being brilliant games. Likewise titles in series such as FIFA can sell millions of copies whether they're good, like they are now, or shit, like they used to be in the PS2 days.
Why would a chain that sells PS3 and 360 games use PC reviews? Why would that concern them? Again, I'm talking about forecasting inventory and how these opinions will affect demand. Are you really trying to assert the people read a Gamespy review and then go buy a 360 copy of the game?
Retailers are not looking at stocking their shelves with only games that pass there approval tests when it comes to quality.
When you remove the 4 PC exclusive sites that had negative reviews from the 8 that were mentioned in Walker's tweets what does that do? Is the game's aggregate score excluding the PC exclusive sites qualifying for "delightful" then?
Cerebral Assassin
Member
In this particular case there is a very vocal backlash against this game (regardless of version), why would it be useful for retailers to not have that information( especially given the metacritic preference for one review of a game that has multiple versions)? It seems obvious that the only people that that article benefits is SE, not the retailers(who MCV claim to be their clients).
You seem to have some bizarre problem with the PC platform, which is both puzzling and quite funny. It's the same game. Hitman Absolution on Xbox 360 is the same as Hitman Absolution on PC, except for a few graphical improvements and DX11 support on PC. The game itself is the same. This part of your post is completely baffling, you act as if Game's stock manager logs on to Metacritic and goes "Hmm, great reviews, not so much on PC, just buy 360 copies then". They won't even use reviews to begin with - buying decisions are made weeks if not months before a game's release, and since most reviews these days are embargoed until the day of release, games are already out. Where do they come from? Games retailers don't wait for reviews and then magic a carefully-calculated quantity of said reviewed title out of thin air.
chickdigger802
Banned
I understand the logic of vidcons, but do also remember that big multiplatform sites pretty much always just review the 360 copy. That doesn't prevent ps3 copies to appear at stores right?
how do consumer groups work in a market
man, should i plan on restocking
nah nah nah, man. so you see, what you can do is just look at metacritic and assume that people who read playstation magazine will buy the 360 version. you should plan on that because that makes sense because they're the same game.
actually, buy one copy of each version based on that review. you gotta make sure your supply doesn't run low and that you can hold onto to the money until the next printing date comes around.
Probably needs to be a bigger fiasco about this considering how much lying is done about console versions being the same. Digital Foundry seems to be doing a pretty good job on this front but it's not ~mainstream~.
man, should i plan on restocking
nah nah nah, man. so you see, what you can do is just look at metacritic and assume that people who read playstation magazine will buy the 360 version. you should plan on that because that makes sense because they're the same game.
actually, buy one copy of each version based on that review. you gotta make sure your supply doesn't run low and that you can hold onto to the money until the next printing date comes around.
Probably needs to be a bigger fiasco about this considering how much lying is done about console versions being the same. Digital Foundry seems to be doing a pretty good job on this front but it's not ~mainstream~.
What on earth is your point, seriously? Game stores will not use reviews to plan stock. As I just said, most reviews these days don't come out until, at the earliest, a couple of days before release. For most of the bigger titles, the ones that will actually sell, usually release day. Stock will have already been ordered.
Retailers order more stock based on how well the first shipment sold, not based on Metacritic.
Ah the sarcasm is hilarious due to how spectacularly wrong you are. Kazerei just gave you the correct answer.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Trade in amounts also play into that decision(perhaps not so much for the first restock, but subsequent ones).
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Just looking on Metacritic, PS3 version is at 84%, 360 version at 80%, which pretty much shows the critical consensus (for whatever's that's worth to you) is slap bang between the sites mentioned in the MCV puff-piece.
Walker getting his panties in a bunch over them describing the EG review as "grumpy" seems pretty peculiar to me, calling it out as "despicable" is a pretty extreme reaction to such a mild admonition. Since when has he had such paper-thin skin?
What I find particularly suspect is the way this feud is being spread into the public domain by the use of social media. This is a spat between factions in the media, there's plenty to be gained and lost on both sides.
This whole thing has been shaped as the scrappy little stand-up guys versus the big-bad media machine with the hearts and minds of the game-buying public on the line.
Which of course is not the reality. There are vested interests on both sides. The Eurogamer network is in their own words "one of the world's leading games media businesses", many of the people complaining at MCV's antics are employees of the EG network. There is a definite conflict of interests here, but its being very clearly spun to create a certain impression.
Take for example the hilariously self-serving editorial post on Eurogamer about their review/preview practices. Don't worry kids, our guys wont do the junkets and freebies anymore in case they get brainwashed by the big bad publishers. Like that's suddenly a gold-badge of journalistic integrity. Give me a break, if they were corruptible before they will be just as corruptible now, they just have to be less obvious about it.
They (allegedly) get slapped with a libel threat that noone seems to believe is supportable in law, get rid of the writer then act like they are the one's who's shit doesn't stink!
These guys have enough clout to have their own annual expo, does that not suggest some serious quid-pro-quo in industry circles? How about the way they have cynically drummed up page hits by stirring up fanboy conflict with flame-bait articles, and deliberate controversy?
Not saying that MCV are any better in their own shady way, but this is not the gold standard of reportage.
Walker getting his panties in a bunch over them describing the EG review as "grumpy" seems pretty peculiar to me, calling it out as "despicable" is a pretty extreme reaction to such a mild admonition. Since when has he had such paper-thin skin?
What I find particularly suspect is the way this feud is being spread into the public domain by the use of social media. This is a spat between factions in the media, there's plenty to be gained and lost on both sides.
This whole thing has been shaped as the scrappy little stand-up guys versus the big-bad media machine with the hearts and minds of the game-buying public on the line.
Which of course is not the reality. There are vested interests on both sides. The Eurogamer network is in their own words "one of the world's leading games media businesses", many of the people complaining at MCV's antics are employees of the EG network. There is a definite conflict of interests here, but its being very clearly spun to create a certain impression.
Take for example the hilariously self-serving editorial post on Eurogamer about their review/preview practices. Don't worry kids, our guys wont do the junkets and freebies anymore in case they get brainwashed by the big bad publishers. Like that's suddenly a gold-badge of journalistic integrity. Give me a break, if they were corruptible before they will be just as corruptible now, they just have to be less obvious about it.
They (allegedly) get slapped with a libel threat that noone seems to believe is supportable in law, get rid of the writer then act like they are the one's who's shit doesn't stink!
These guys have enough clout to have their own annual expo, does that not suggest some serious quid-pro-quo in industry circles? How about the way they have cynically drummed up page hits by stirring up fanboy conflict with flame-bait articles, and deliberate controversy?
Not saying that MCV are any better in their own shady way, but this is not the gold standard of reportage.