Great post in the other thread connected to this:
Exactly. Couple that with either very brief or non-existent pre-release review windows, publishers treating all media and info on their projects like a direct tap on Angela Merkel's cell phone, and therefore requiring absurd controls (like having reviews done in a hotel room over a forced time period) to ensure no leaks and you wind up with an audience who just isn't in the right frame of mind to do the job.
For what it's worth, and this may not be accurate, but from what I understand Sony has at times been particularly frustrating to deal with when it comes to early review access. If anyone thinks there is a real anti-Sony sentiment that is by far more likely to be the source of such angst than anything else. I know if some pricks made my job impossibly hard while the other pricks I work for are screaming at me to get it done I'm not going to direct more of my ire at the one thing I can control (the review for the first prick's game) than things I can't (my boss).
Personally I'm dubious of that. I think Nintendo gets a tangible nostalgia bump in their scores, but then I feel that same nostalgia so even though I see through it that doesn't make Mario Kart 8 any less charming to me.
I think MS is amazingly good at manipulating anyone it can have it's marketing teams interface with directly, and it shows in how the gaming press covers them. It isn't some grand conspiracy, just the truly elite person to person marketeers hitting home runs every day like you would expect them to when any one of them makes more than the entire staff at any video game news outlet combined. It isn't a fair competition and the video game press isn't going to win.
But then, what do people expect when you take those who have significant vested interest in video games and the stunted social skills to prove it and pair them off with the most cunning alpha types in an industry full of super competitive alphas when the later has been given a clear agenda to push? I mean, it's got to be like shooting fish in a barrel. Add that most of the industry's various major platforms are more reliant on the publishers they work with than ESPN is with the NFL and you've got one hell of a fucked up structure with zero checks or balances anywhere in sight. Really, bitching about members of the gaming press having an agenda is starting to feel like victim blaming.
Spot on.
If you don't want to delve too deeply into the reasons why the current videogame review system and the culture around it is incredibly flawed to render reviews pretty much worthless save for acting as a
semi-accurate first impression of a title, just think about the most immediately glaring flaw in the process - the review deadline culture or, simply put, the lack of time 'reviewers' have with a game before they are asked to slap a score on the end of it and pump out their review article to remain relevant. This problem is exacerbated by some of what Drek mentioned above (chiefly the fact that reviewers, aside from suffering from a culture of brevity, are also generally not well paid and therefore open to inducement) but let's concentrate on the most glaring problem.
DriveClub and the game's reviews is a pretty perfect example of the problem. The game's core, aside from the actual racing, is on being a
socially connected experience. The joy from the game will come from forming clans, racing friends, challenging rivals, climbing up online leaderboards, competing against other connected racers, etc etc.
Yet the environment and the context from which Eurogamer, Gamespot and the like are reviewing the game is from game-time with empty servers bar a handful of other early access owners. They probably haven't formed clans.They can't get into the meat and bones of online leaderboards and challenging to beat meaningful record laps. And most glaringly, they've only experienced a fraction of the game in the likely
several hours they get to play the game so that their review hits the deadline.
In what f*cking world would you put stock in a score or piece of text produced by someone in this situation when it comes to a title you are deciding on whether to buy or not? You wouldn't because It'd be stupid. If I wanted to use these reviews for something, it would be as a means to discover the first impression of the game, which would be pretty worthless in any case. Or more likely, use the review to find out about what's in the game and what the options and modes are etc.
Imagine an album from a really talented artist is coming out. You've been waiting for it for
over a year...the band/singers are really talented because of previous work which you've really liked. So the day before release day, the album gets thrust into the hands of a 'reviewer'. He's tired, he has a cynical nature from being in his particular profession.
He likely doesn't like this genre of music, first of all. Then he listens to the first 3 tracks in their entirety and skips through most of the remaining tracks on the album to get a feel of it. He ain't got much time. He didn't enjoy it, so he proceeds to slap a 2/5 on his review article as he needs to hit his deadline. Would you put stock in this man's opinion, and 20 other individual cases like his, on a product you want to buy?
It seems we do. This is what Metacritic is. A great algorithm for determining how good a game appears in its first 15%.
