Support NeoGAF

[Glass Shark]

I don't think many (or any?) people here are saying that the press are paid off. They're trying to provide you with examples of shit that the press are saying about this situation that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. They either have very little knowledge of the technical side of things or they're just flatout lying to their readers.

The Cinemablend article this thread is about suggests that publications are trying to be nice to Microsoft, even to gloss over flaws about the Xbox One, in order to keep Microsoft ad dollars flowing and to maintain a good relationship so they can still get free games. That, to me, is what "on the take" means.

Edit: Ignoring solidsnakex and consistently responding with handwaving isn't gonna win an argument, just lengthen it needlessly. Clearly you have nothing to say beyond "games writers have no ulterior motives, because I have drinks with some of them sometimes."

If "handwaving" to you means that I have a different opinion than you do, I don't really know how to have a discussion with you about this. You believe that journalists have a shady relationship with publishers, I don't. I don't because the evidence doesn't support it. Because games get bad scores all the time. Because I listen to podcasts where critics and journalists completely ream games that deserve it. Because I've been given review assignments and I've been given complete autonomy to write whatever I truly feel about the game and have never been told, "this score isn't high enough, the publisher will be mad, please bump it up."

Game journalists aren't paid to give good scores, but they are in bed with the publishers and want to keep it that way, since otherwise they won't get exclusive screenshots/videos/unveilings/whatever and they lose hits. Pretty simple.

What do you think would have happened if for example IGN or Gamestop would have trashed a game like Skyrim? Do you think Bethesda would still send them exclusive material of their next game?

I dunno. Maybe, maybe not. But when critics rightfully destroyed MOH: Warfighter or any number of other terrible games, EA kept providing review copies. The people who work in PR for these companies try not to take anything personally. They know that the critics are just doing their jobs.

And what can a big gaming site do? Say no to their demands and miss out on early copies? They would only be able to get their reviews a day or two after the game's released. Most of the clicks would be gone by then. I don't see things getting better anytime soon.

No question it would be hard to pass up an exclusive like that. And it's hard to balance being optimistic about an upcoming game and being realistic. You always need to give the benefit of the doubt to the developer that they can fix problems and polish things up before the final game comes out. Games come down to the wire these days. A week or two of optimization during the final phases of development can make the difference between 15 FPS and 30+.

 

[travisbickle]

Seriously, though. Sony's biggest value proposition (other than first party games) to consumers is that they have the most powerful console for the cheapest price. They are letting the press take that away from them. I just don't see why they would let it slip away from them before the console even launches. If power doesn't matter after November 15th, then they are down to the subjective matter of games and only games while the competitor has a leg up on the multimedia side with a online gaming service that is synonymous with online gaming itself. Let this one argument slip away and the balance of power can turn upside down quite quickly.

Same thing happened with the DRM. The same few journalists pretending it didn't matter, the public wouldn't care, Sony will probably do it too, when it was rumours on forums. Then when it became full blown fact that the One had restrictive DRM and Sony didn't real news sites reported it and it became well known.

At the moment we have one game being shown with differences (BF4) one game developer tweeting the difference (CoD) and a couple of months of forum rumours with tech reductions on One games (KI, DR3, Ryse) and CBOAT. The power difference is still within the gaming clique, the same clique where some argued that not being able to sell, lend, borrow or buy second-hand games was a good idea.

Wait till the consoles are released and most of the resolutions/power difference is in the public domain.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

I think it is a lost cause to keep arguing with this guy folks. It has gone on for pages now.

 

[Replicant]

There are plenty of people who actually believe that critics or publications are paid to give good scores, yes. The accusation by Cinemablend and others in this topic that journalists are playing nice with Microsoft because of ad revenue is really no better.

OR freebies OR exclusive access OR interviews. It doesn't matter why reviewers do it, the fact is, there have been occasions where some reviewers were in cahoots with publishers instead of just being honest with their reviews. Otherwise we wouldn't have gotten that BS Mass Effect 3 reviews where every reviewers and their mother failed to even recognized the failure of the narrative. Or the SIM CITY debacle where Polygon basically acted like official damage-control PR for EA. And some of the joint-advertising efforts in big gaming publications is just downright embarrassing. The Doritos-gate comes to mind.

 

[andromeduck]

You think they're going to have price drops in late 2014?

You must not have high hopes for them.

right because perf/cost for PC's double every year

 

[Pbae]

Sorry, just getting caught up. I was watching a movie.



I'm not damage controlling anything. I plan on getting a PS4 near launch, and I made that decision before the resolution stuff happened. I don't cover Xbox One games, so I have no incentive to put a positive spin on Microsoft. In fact, I've been pretty critical of them over the past few months. Example.



Always-online DRM doesn't bug me. I won't fault you if you don't like it. For a future that I hope is all-digital, the restrictions on used games, selling back games, renting games, etc. doesn't affect me. I understand some people don't like it, but I think some of the ideas MS had about family sharing and whatnot were pretty innovative, and those got scrapped with their DRM.



I didn't demand anything. I calmly asked two questions in this thread. Here and here. Neither were met with specific examples like you claim. Here and here are the answers I got.



See above about people supposedly answering the questions I asked. And as for opinion, I have mine and you have yours. If yours is different than mine, that's fine.



Once again, see above.

There is a prevailing idea on many gaming forums that all major game journalists and critics are on the take. As someone who is in that industry and has many friends in it as well, I don't see any of the shady stuff that GAF wants to believe. I ask for specific examples of corruption, and I don't get any. If I had a way to prove that it's not happening, then I would. But you can't prove a negative. What can I do? Show you all the not-paychecks I'm getting from Microsoft?

It's particularly frustrating because I really do want to provide honest opinions about games to people who are looking for help on what to buy and play, but to be lumped in with some conspiracy theory about everyone trying to keep Microsoft happy is really disconcerting.

After reading some of your post, it is in my OPINION that you are out of your depth.

Gaming is first and foremost a visual medium. You'll never have a player go, "Gee, I really wish that was a lower resolution," or "This game would look much better on last gen." So it's ridiculous to hear from "journalist" that the discrepancies in resolution doesn't matter. As previous members have mentioned, even slight differences would be heralded as a game changer by certain publications and now those same publications are spouting that a 50% difference is negligible which is preposterous. Catering to ones audience is one thing, but blatantly obfuscating hard evidence in a means to direct the narrative isn't journalism but rather propaganda. Everyone has a bias, but one can choose to have an open mind and put themselves in the shoes of potential readers. Why or who would usually read articles of various comparisons before each product is even out? I'd argue that it would be consumer's that aren't knowledgeable on the matter that most likely seek out editorials like these. People such as parents or grandparents looking to pick the right present for their child, a teenager who works part time and can only afford one console, or maybe just someone who saw a game commercial that piqued his/her interest. All of these viewers are now being bombarded with factually wrong information or very skewed information from sites of authority. Can you not see what's wrong with that?

I'll end with this, a terrible joke to lighten this heavy post.

"Knack Knack"
"Who's There?"
"Gaming Journalist"
"Gaming Journalist Who?"
"That's the Joke."

 

[Glass Shark]

OR freebies OR exclusive access OR interviews. It doesn't matter why reviewers do it, the fact is, there have been occasions where some reviewers were in cahoots with publishers instead of just being honest with their reviews.

If this is your opinion, it's fine to just say it without backing it up. It's not a strong argument, but it's fine. However, if you're going to call something a fact, it helps to provide clear examples of reviewers being "in cahoots" with publishers.

Otherwise we wouldn't have gotten that BS Mass Effect 3 reviews where every reviewers and their mother failed to even recognized the failure of the narrative.

I've never played the Mass Effect series so I can't really speak to this point. However, as an outsider I can say it seems like the ME superfans expected something that BioWare could never have delivered. I think critics in general probably took a more measured approach to things.

Or the SIM CITY debacle where Polygon basically acted like official damage-control PR for EA.

I don't see how you got this considering Polygon repeatedly lowered SimCity's score after all the problems.

And some of the joint-advertising efforts in big gaming publications is just downright embarrassing. The Doritos-gate comes to mind.

It's the appearance of evil, and I can totally understand gamers being uneasy about these kind of relationships, like ads from publishers or even full-site takeovers. However, as has been pointed out in this thread, the people who sell the ads on these sites are completely separate from editorial. That doesn't stop sleazy stuff from happening like Kotaku's current shilling for Gunnar in an advertorial, but it's not as rampant as many are quick to believe.

 

[travisbickle]

Gaming is first and foremost a visual medium.

You're probably arguing with people who have said both of the following statements (or similar) to the ones below:

"Knack's a joke, who's going to buy a next gen system for those kind of visuals? it doesn't look next gen. Cerny lol"

"Well really there's not much difference between 720 and 1080. Who buys consoles for graphics? if you want the best graphics buy a PC."

 

[Mikey Jr.]

I think Sony should go on the offensive again right before launch.

$399.

Thats the biggest fucking thing going for them. $399 in peoples faces. Constantly.

 

[Ateron]

I think Sony should go on the offensive again right before launch.

$399.

Thats the biggest fucking thing going for them. $399 in peoples faces. Constantly.

That would be the smart thing to do, but Sony has the nasty habit of firing on their own feet at the last minute. They have the advantage on every front. Now they need to capitalize on it. The product is good, they just have to make sure the audience knows it. Let them know why is 1080p a plus, and that the 100$ less doesn't equate to a worse product (that can work both ways, I'm afraid).

 

[Replicant]

If this is your opinion, it's fine to just say it without backing it up. It's not a strong argument, but it's fine. However, if you're going to call something a fact, it helps to provide clear examples of reviewers being "in cahoots" with publishers.

Read down. Maybe you'll actually find the examples you're looking for before you typed your responses.

I've never played the Mass Effect series so I can't really speak to this point. However, as an outsider I can say it seems like the ME superfans expected something that BioWare could never have delivered. I think critics in general probably took a more measured approach to things.

Lame excuses. Players don't expect anything but conclusions to the game that they've shaped and personalized in the past 2.5 games. Not a 1 in 3 completely out of nowhere approach that Bioware delivered. WTF does 'measured approach' means anyway? Even the most devoted ME fans can see the flaw from miles away especially when it comes to inserting Jessica Chobot's useless character into the game and the story's ending.

I don't see how you got this considering Polygon repeatedly lowered SimCity's score after all the problems.

The denial, the whole "this game is meant to be played online", was completely disgusting especially when proven that it can be played offline. Lowering the score? Don't make me laugh. As if that'd fix every BS they've said.

It's the appearance of evil, and I can totally understand gamers being uneasy about these kind of relationships, like ads from publishers or even full-site takeovers. However, as has been pointed out in this thread, the people who sell the ads on these sites are completely separate from editorial. That doesn't stop sleazy stuff from happening like Kotaku's current shilling for Gunnar in an advertorial, but it's not as rampant as many are quick to believe.

From our perspective, the minute you take anything from publishers, then your objective POV has already been compromised. It's really hard to take something from someone and say harsh things about them later on. It's just human nature. At the best reviewers would go "This game is not that good but the graphic is nice, etc". At worst, reviewers go on a "Mass Effect 3 10/10 with Dewritos!"

 

[Glass Shark]

Gaming is first and foremost a visual medium. You'll never have a player go, "Gee, I really wish that was a lower resolution," or "This game would look much better on last gen." So it's ridiculous to hear from "journalist" that the discrepancies in resolution doesn't matter.

Kyle Orland said he didn't feel the differences mattered to him given his particular gaming setup. He told readers to watch the video and judge for themselves. He also told readers that if they care about performance, get a PS4.

As previous members have mentioned, even slight differences would be heralded as a game changer by certain publications and now those same publications are spouting that a 50% difference is negligible which is preposterous. Catering to ones audience is one thing, but blatantly obfuscating hard evidence in a means to direct the narrative isn't journalism but rather propaganda. Everyone has a bias, but one can choose to have an open mind and put themselves in the shoes of potential readers. Why or who would usually read articles of various comparisons before each product is even out? I'd argue that it would be consumer's that aren't knowledgeable on the matter that most likely seek out editorials like these. People such as parents or grandparents looking to pick the right present for their child, a teenager who works part time and can only afford one console, or maybe just someone who saw a game commercial that piqued his/her interest. All of these viewers are now being bombarded with factually wrong information or very skewed information from sites of authority. Can you not see what's wrong with that?

No one is hiding facts here. If they were trying to, it would be idiotic. Many sites have reported factually about the resolution discrepancy with CoD. The other thing that is baffling is that everyone is making assumptions based on the fact that a very small number of people in the world have played these consoles, and an even smaller number have played final hardware or software. Could the performance difference between the PS4 and XO be significant enough for the average person to tell from an average gaming setup? Maybe. But we just don't know yet. No one does. Not gamers, not journalists. That's the point. That's the problem I have, is that there are so many people here with preconceived notions.

I would venture to guess that once these systems come out, if you put most multiplatform games on them side-by-side and had a blind test, the results would be all over the map and it wouldn't be heavily skewed towards one platform or the other. In their BF4 review, Polygon posted screenshots of PS4 and XO versions of the game, and many people thought the XO screenshots were of PS4 and vice versa.

Please, let's just wait and see. That's all I'm saying. And it seems like anyone who isn't jumping to conclusions is getting lambasted. That's just crazy to me.

 

[Glass Shark]

Read down. Maybe you'll actually find the examples you're looking for before you typed your responses.

This is, I think, the fundamental problem that I have whenever this argument comes up. Because one person's opinion was different from someone else, that's enough evidence for some people to assume that something sleazy is going on.

For me, when someone has a different opinion than me, it's fascinating, and I try to understand it, and I may or may not come to see the situation from the other person's perspective. I may keep the opinion I had before or it may change. But either way, I don't immediately approach them as if they are wrong. Just that they feel differently than me.

 

[jschreier]

Step 1) turn forum console flame wars into an article
Step 2) get linked by forums
Step 3) profit

If you say you want better journalism in gaming yet you posted in support of this article, you're part of the problem.

 

[pinny]

I dunno. Maybe, maybe not. But when critics rightfully destroyed MOH: Warfighter or any number of other terrible games, EA kept providing review copies. The people who work in PR for these companies try not to take anything personally. They know that the critics are just doing their jobs.

Well, in the case of very bad games this doesn't hold true. It may also not hold true for smaller games. In case of the big AAA games it definitely does though, unless they turn out completely horrible.

Consider this: why are the publishers even giving a single site exclusive material of one of their unreleased games? Wouldn't the game be much better exposed if they gave it to all the big sites? Or why not simply put it up on their own website/facebook/twitter to get some extra traffic for their own sites? The fact that single gaming sites regularly receive exclusive screenshots/videos/etc. should tell you than what's going on.

And one more thing: compare the metacritic score to the user score of the big AAA games. You should notice something. I mean, Skyrim (360 version) for example received a metacritic of 96 and it's been reviewed by 89 critics. So basically every critic thought it's the hottest shit ever. Isn't this extreme unanimity a bit suspicious?

 

[Reg]

Framerate is easier to discern than resolution imo. With that you'll see a noticable advantage for the ps4. Even in battlefield the ps4 was running at a higher framerate along side the resolution bump.

 

[OmegaDL50]

Well, in the case of very bad games this doesn't hold true. It may also not hold true for smaller games. In case of the big "AAA" games it definitely does though, unless they turn out completely horrible.

Consider this: why are the publishers even giving a single site exclusive material of one of their unreleased games? Wouldn't the game be much better exposed if they gave it to all the big sites? Or why not simply put it up on their own website/facebook/twitter to get some extra traffic for their own sites? The fact that single gaming sites regularly receive exclusive screenshots/videos/etc. should tell you than what's going on.

And one more thing: compare the metacritic score versus the user score of the big AAA games. You should notice something. I mean, Skyrim (360 version) for example received a metacritic of 96 and it's been reviewed by 89 critics. So basically every critic thought it's the hottest shit ever. Isn't this extreme unanimity a bit suspicious?

This isn't even factoring those invitation based event review events, which journalistic integrity is thrown by the way side.

I'm talking about this sort of nonsense - http://www.p4rgaming.com/sony-you-c...-review-event-if-you-give-us-a-perfect-score/

 

[hawk2025]

Josh,

How about Arthur Gies' personal email to Alberto Penello revealing NDA'd information he was not supposed to tell his readers, much less the competition?

 

[werks]

If this is your opinion, it's fine to just say it without backing it up. It's not a strong argument, but it's fine. However, if you're going to call something a fact, it helps to provide clear examples of reviewers being "in cahoots" with publishers.



I've never played the Mass Effect series so I can't really speak to this point. However, as an outsider I can say it seems like the ME superfans expected something that BioWare could never have delivered. I think critics in general probably took a more measured approach to things.



I don't see how you got this considering Polygon repeatedly lowered SimCity's score after all the problems.



It's the appearance of evil, and I can totally understand gamers being uneasy about these kind of relationships, like ads from publishers or even full-site takeovers. However, as has been pointed out in this thread, the people who sell the ads on these sites are completely separate from editorial. That doesn't stop sleazy stuff from happening like Kotaku's current shilling for Gunnar in an advertorial, but it's not as rampant as many are quick to believe.

You are an idiot. Eurogamer recommended NFS in the GT5 review,while at the same time having a full site NFS ad in the GT5 review.

I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

 

[JesseEwiak]

And one more thing: compare the metacritic score to the user score of the big AAA games. You should notice something. I mean, Skyrim (360 version) for example received a metacritic of 96 and it's been reviewed by 89 critics. So basically every critic thought it's the hottest shit ever. Isn't this extreme unanimity a bit suspicious?

Some things are pretty awesome. For example, Gravity has a 97% Rotten Tomatoes rating ( I think). Most Oscar-bait movies get pretty high ratings, for example, but nobody thinks they're being paid off because most of them like indie and costume dramas.

 

[EmptySpace]

Step 1) turn forum console flame wars into an article
Step 2) get linked by forums
Step 3) profit

If you say you want better journalism in gaming yet you posted in support of this article, you're part of the problem.

oh shut up. the differences are there, period. people have known the hardware differences and gaming press like you said "oh we should wait because hardware does not matter, software does."

suddenly we have hard evidence of multiple games being (surprise surprise) graphically inferior in the inferior hardware. now what? "oh they're negligible. games will get better."

hypocrites. from which forum do the gaming press get their news nowadays? if anything, neogaf has been doing your job for the past year.

 

[OmegaDL50]

Oh boy. This is getting a bit too heated in here.

I am fine for civil discussion, but lets not turn this into a flame war. I don't think personal attacks and insults don't promote healthy debate.

If this is where this discussion is headed my interest is beginning to wane.

EDIT: If a Moderator or Admin, feels this post is out of line, they can delete it at their discretion. I'm not trying step on any toes here.

 

[Replicant]

This is, I think, the fundamental problem that I have whenever this argument comes up. Because one person's opinion was different from someone else, that's enough evidence for some people to assume that something sleazy is going on.

And your problem is your assumption that people have no base to believe that something sleazy is going on. When you have consistently written reviews that go against what the players experienced when they play the game(s), is it any wonder that they become suspicious of your motive?

For me, when someone has a different opinion than me, it's fascinating, and I try to understand it, and I may or may not come to see the situation from the other person's perspective. I may keep the opinion I had before or it may change. But either way, I don't immediately approach them as if they are wrong. Just that they feel differently than me.

It's one thing to have a different opinion. It's quite another to have the players of the game and the reviewers of the game to be on the opposite position in regards to the game that they've played. In my case, I choose to trust the players because 9 out of 10, they actually have spend the time to play the game more extensively and have tried different combinations that a reviewer may not have done so because they are being chased by deadline or trying to be "ME FIRST!" in a world of gaming journalism.

 

[cfresh]

Step 1) turn forum console flame wars into an article
Step 2) get linked by forums
Step 3) profit

If you say you want better journalism in gaming yet you posted in support of this article, you're part of the problem.

I thought there was a valid argument in the article.

 

[Pimpbaa]

The other thing that is baffling is that everyone is making assumptions based on the fact that a very small number of people in the world have played these consoles

A small number may have played the new consoles, but there are many people (PC gamers) who already know higher resolutions are very very noticeable. I have been gaming on my PC hooked to to my HDTV along with my PS3. I see the difference on a daily basis, and it's fucking huge. It's pretty much why I have a gaming PC, so I can play multiplatform games at 1080p 60fps. And all that is with current gen games with current gen assets. Once games start showing up with significantly increased texture detail, the differences are going to be even more apparent as 720p would even be unable to resolve the detail. So when some game "journalist" writes some article and says there isn't much difference, he's either got to have bad eyesight, a fanboy, or he is being paid to say that.

 

[onlyindreams]

There is a prevailing idea on many gaming forums that all major game journalists and critics are on the take. As someone who is in that industry and has many friends in it as well, I don't see any of the shady stuff that GAF wants to believe. I ask for specific examples of corruption, and I don't get any. If I had a way to prove that it's not happening, then I would. But you can't prove a negative. What can I do? Show you all the not-paychecks I'm getting from Microsoft?

I just looked at your twitter, you're a goddamn delusional nobody who thinks because they can "blog" they're in the industry. Shut up

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Mushroomer25]

This isn't even factoring those invitation based event review events, which journalistic integrity is thrown by the way side.

I'm talking about this sort of nonsense - http://www.p4rgaming.com/sony-you-c...-review-event-if-you-give-us-a-perfect-score/

Was there any sort of fact-based journalism in that link, or was it all just rampant, childish speculation?

 

[onlyindreams]

Lol this clown writes for a website that has 167 twitter followers acting like he's relevant enough to be on anyone's take

 

[Glass Shark]

And your problem is your assumption that people have no base to believe that something sleazy is going on.

I don't have a problem with assumptions, but don't present them as fact without evidence. (Feelings or hunches or even coincidences are not evidence.)

 

[goomba]

and here i thought people bought consoles based on the games available to said console.

 

[Grimsen]

The "wait and see" bullshit needs to stop. The facts are there. The Xbone may very well end up like the ps2 if the console has the content to back it up, but still clinging on to hope of technical parity with the ps4 is at this point a dubious position to take.

I just looked at your twitter, you're a goddamn delusional nobody who thinks because they can "blog" they're in the industry. Shut up

My popcorn's in the microwave, brb.

 

[Replicant]

I don't have a problem with assumptions, but don't present them as fact without evidence. (Feelings or hunches or even coincidences are not evidence.)

People in here including myself have pointed out examples in which, Polygon, for example, outright involved in covering up EA's mess in SimCity debacle and yet you chose to ignore them.

Also, why are you acting like you are the gaming press' white knight? Did they ask you to represent them?

 

[Glass Shark]

The "wait and see" bullshit needs to stop.

"Shoot first and ask questions later" has never worked that well for us as a society. It's a little odd that I even have to point that out.

 

[Zeth]

You are an idiot. Eurogamer recommended NFS in the GT5 review,while at the same time having a full site NFS ad in the GT5 review.

I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

You've uncovered quite a scandal - you should write an article about it at least, I'm sure people would want more details.

 

[Ateron]

This isn't gonna end well.

 

[Pbae]

You're probably arguing with people who have said both of the following statements (or similar) to the ones below:

"Knack's a joke, who's going to buy a next gen system for those kind of visuals? it doesn't look next gen. Cerny lol"

"Well really there's not much difference between 720 and 1080. Who buys consoles for graphics? if you want the best graphics buy a PC."

Yep, time for bed.

Friendly reminder for those in the U.S: Change your clocks!

 

[Glass Shark]

People in here including myself have pointed out examples in which, Polygon, for example, outright involved in covering up EA's mess in SimCity debacle and yet you chose to ignore them.

Honestly, I still don't see the logic in saying that Polygon was somehow shilling for EA when they were very clear that SimCity was busted and lowered the score multiple times. Call their efforts to warn gamers misguided if you want, but at least they tried to make the problems known with their review score.

 

[hawk2025]

I'm not aware of what you're referring to. Mind providing a link?

Of course.

This exchange happened on Twitter:

You'll recall that this was right after the 720p rumor came out, but was not related to that -- Sessler started tweeting mysteriously, and Gies joined in. At the time we didn't know what it was about, but now we do, and as Gies mentioned it had nothing to do with Microsoft. It was about Sony sending review units to the press.

Gies then proceeded to quickly delete the tweet.

 

[Wille517]

Was there any sort of fact-based journalism in that link, or was it all just rampant, childish speculation?

That was an entire page of what happens when FUD and Tales from your Ass have a bastard child.

 

[Glass Shark]

Lol this clown writes for a website that has 167 twitter followers acting like he's relevant enough to be on anyone's take

I never claimed to be anything other than a writer. No need for the personal attack.

 

[OmegaDL50]

Was there any sort of fact-based journalism in that link, or was it all just rampant, childish speculation?

Well there was this topic too - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=704860

I just think the idea of heavily monitored and controlled game criticism just goes against the idea of being able to create an article emphasizing on objectivity and isn't swayed by corporate events or ad revenue.

Is it too much trouble for new articles or gaming websites to at keep things impartial and tell it how it is with no bullshit, fluff or favoritism.

Maybe it's too much hope and and I have unrealistic expectations.

 

[Grimsen]

"Shoot first and ask questions later" has never worked that well for us as a society. It's a little odd that I even have to point that out.

Care to quote my whole post?

Or do you refute the technical information released on the next gen games and systems?

I'm really starting to question your intentions here, with the massive amount of posts in this thread.

 

[Replicant]

Honestly, I still don't see the logic in saying that Polygon was somehow shilling for EA when they were very clear that SimCity was busted and lowered the score multiple times. Call their efforts to warn gamers misguided if you want, but at least they tried to make the problems known with their review score.

Their review score meant nothing. NOTHING. Tell me how a review score is supposed to tell the players about the myriads of problems that SimCity had? Also, they lowered the score after being called out about it and after people raised stink about them being EA's mouth piece.

 

[QaaQer]

The problem is that a lot of gaming sites are scared to get blacklisted.

There's a lot more that goes on behind the scenes in the games media industry than is let on.

The press live a strange life. At E3 they can flash their badge to skip the lines, get access to a nicer lounge, and get review copies thrown at them.

Outside of that, it's a struggle. They have to constantly hound publishers to get review copies, which are subsequently read by publishers, and often determine whether they get the invites to launch parties and the next game for free.

Bigger sites often have large contracts, especially in terms of advertising, which means they don't want to upset potential advertisers, since they need that money to get by.

Because the game news sites thrive on advertising from the same people they review products from, they can never be truly objective. That IGN AMA? That was sponsored.

.

basically, they don't bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[Ateron]

Honestly, I still don't see the logic in saying that Polygon was somehow shilling for EA when they were very clear that SimCity was busted and lowered the score multiple times. Call their efforts to warn gamers misguided if you want, but at least they tried to make the problems known with their review score.

Maybe an attempt to save face?

 

[Glass Shark]

Of course.

This exchange happened on Twitter:

You'll recall that this was right after the 720p rumor came out, but was not related to that -- Sessler started tweeting mysteriously, and Gies joined in. At the time we didn't know what it was about, but now we do, and as Gies mentioned it had nothing to do with Microsoft. It was about Sony sending review units to the press.

Gies then proceeded to quickly delete the tweet.

Now that you mentioned it I do recall seeing this. However, I don't really follow what it has to do with this thread.

 

[BPoole]

I prefer The Mountain Dewmocracy

 

[pinny]

Some things are pretty awesome. For example, Gravity has a 97% Rotten Tomatoes rating ( I think). Most Oscar-bait movies get pretty high ratings, for example, but nobody thinks they're being paid off because most of them like indie and costume dramas.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/xbox360?view=condensed&sort=desc
Compare the metacritic scores to the user scores. The user score is pretty much always lower and significantly lower.

Also, even for really awesome games there are always some outliners. Take a look at the gamefaqs reviews for Skyrim for example. While most scores are between 8 and 10, there is still a 4/10, a 5/10, a 6/10, etc. On metacritic the lowest score is 75 and out of all the 89 reviews, 86 gave a score between 90 and 100.

 

[onlyindreams]

I never claimed to be anything other than a writer. No need for the personal attack.

Uhm what? You claimed you were in the industry therefore having insider information that us normal consumers don't have as to what actually goes on. I don't see any proof of that when I look at a website you "work" for, probably in a volunteer role, that can't run up more than 160 twitter followers.