When was the last time Mark actually harped on a game? They aren't even reviews; they are game commentaries.
The divergence of reviews and public perception
- Thread starter Margalis
- Start date
Right, and I'm in no way trying to dismiss the average customer, but what I'm trying to say is that even after tallying both, you're still likely to get a more informed and elaborate response from the passionate crowd.
I find skimming Gamefaqs reviews is far more valuable than anything else. There you get a wide range of disparate reviews and are likely to find one that mentions your pet likes or peeves or that is written from your mindset.
I feel like this issue is somewhat new, at least in degree of severity. It seems now that every game that gets a high review score has virtually no flaws and beyond that is the best in every category. So a great game with average sound gets a 10 for sound, and a great game with a dumb plot is praised for an awesome plot. Like Gears 2 may be an overall great game but does the IGN review need to spend multiple paragraphs praising the story?
Whereas it seems to me that in the past games with high review scores still had review text that called out weaknesses, but then said the game as a whole was still great. (See infamous Gears 1 A+ review)
I feel like this issue is somewhat new, at least in degree of severity. It seems now that every game that gets a high review score has virtually no flaws and beyond that is the best in every category. So a great game with average sound gets a 10 for sound, and a great game with a dumb plot is praised for an awesome plot. Like Gears 2 may be an overall great game but does the IGN review need to spend multiple paragraphs praising the story?
Whereas it seems to me that in the past games with high review scores still had review text that called out weaknesses, but then said the game as a whole was still great. (See infamous Gears 1 A+ review)
Population size changes are statistically insignificant as long as you sample under 5% of the population, you just get a bonus for going over that. The math is too tough for 4am
and I haven't spent the past couple days tutoring a friend in it, 'cuz it's not part of stats101
This doesn't mean that the poll in question is as solid as it would be with a true random sample. But I don't think we can really say that there are nearly fifteen times as many people who sign up (and do they still make you register a Bioware game to post too?) just to hate, as there are dedicated sycophants on their own forum who are gonna automatically be happy.
Yeah I do, I find his videos enjoyable and entertaining to watch. I guess I don't really consider him part of this mess.
Right. I'm not even saying random sampling is the best option. You could employ some stratified-variant to a non-random sample and still have solid results. I think the issue with the ending outcry is an artistic and business question, not necessarily a math one. I've never ever seen such a backlash, and I know anecdotal evidence doesn't matter, but I refuse to believe most people are happy. Most people are apathetic and indifferent; those who care are unhappy -- and that's what matters.
Agreed! People who don't get sample sizes are just a pet peeve, and you can never go wrong with Lucca fanart.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
it boils down to conflict of interest.
if you see advertisements from a publisher, and said publisher's game is reviewed, it doesnt matter if it was a bad or good one. there is a conflict of interest.
last i remembered hearing, a journalist who has a conflict of interest should not be even paid attention to...
if you see advertisements from a publisher, and said publisher's game is reviewed, it doesnt matter if it was a bad or good one. there is a conflict of interest.
last i remembered hearing, a journalist who has a conflict of interest should not be even paid attention to...
Omotesando
Member
Video game reviewers live in a warped world where they actually believe what they write, it's quite scary, but then again when I watch MLG and see these Halo Reach gamers bro fist each other I just think the hardcore gamer with it's criticism are the minority in this industry and the landscape has changed.
The_Hitcher89
Member
Its a real problem I think that gaming outlets rely on early information, through previews, screenshots, videos, exclusive reveals etc.
Any other industry makes its money and its reputation after release. If a film's shit, it will review badly and it will bomb in most cases. If a films flawed, those flaws will be mentioned and honestly examined, as the reviewer knows that even if he was blacklisted, he'd be able to watch the film on release. If a game reviewer was to be forced to wait for release to review a game, they'd lose too many hits to risk being put into a position where they're deprived of that oppurtunity.
Why risk giving a AAA game an honest 7 and losing future hits, when you could give it a 9 and guarantee a few trips to the developer in the near future? I don't think its an industry of corruption and back-handers, but it is certainly one of backslapping and a need to toe the line to an extent
Any other industry makes its money and its reputation after release. If a film's shit, it will review badly and it will bomb in most cases. If a films flawed, those flaws will be mentioned and honestly examined, as the reviewer knows that even if he was blacklisted, he'd be able to watch the film on release. If a game reviewer was to be forced to wait for release to review a game, they'd lose too many hits to risk being put into a position where they're deprived of that oppurtunity.
Why risk giving a AAA game an honest 7 and losing future hits, when you could give it a 9 and guarantee a few trips to the developer in the near future? I don't think its an industry of corruption and back-handers, but it is certainly one of backslapping and a need to toe the line to an extent
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I totally agree with this.
And this is due to the general immaturity of the gaming public imho, who want everything NOW and couldn't give a damn about journalistic integrity as long as the "journalists" get them early peeks/previews of the games they are fans of.
semiconscious
Member
so complicated
...& there's always that batch of (mostly japanese) second-tier titles around to bash mercilessly in order to periodically re-establish your 'credibility'...
I agree. Ideally, there should be a separation between gaming news sites and gaming review sites. The later should function solely as reviews and discussion site and not news/previews site. Also the later needs to operate independently, free from the clutch of publishers.
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
I agree with a lot of the points in this thread. But I'd also like to mention that the solution is not to give overly low and harsh reviews to non hyped games to compensate for high scores given to hyped up games (I'm looking at you IGN and your recent strings of 3's, 4's and 5's. Becoming "EDGE" isn't the solution.
Basically this. The actual score isn't so much the problem. Be it 1 - 5, 1 - 10, or 7-10 or whatever scale a website uses. The actual review should dictate the score, don't give it a score and try to write a review to 'match' it. You'll notice a game getting a 9 or 10, the entire review is dedicated on only positive things to justify that 9 or 10. You can still mention some of the poor elements of a top tier game with a high score. Whereas any game with a 7 or below, the entire review is then dedicated to trashing the shit out of it. Despite a game, let's say that got a 7 would still probably have a lot of good qualities to it.
Basically this. The actual score isn't so much the problem. Be it 1 - 5, 1 - 10, or 7-10 or whatever scale a website uses. The actual review should dictate the score, don't give it a score and try to write a review to 'match' it. You'll notice a game getting a 9 or 10, the entire review is dedicated on only positive things to justify that 9 or 10. You can still mention some of the poor elements of a top tier game with a high score. Whereas any game with a 7 or below, the entire review is then dedicated to trashing the shit out of it. Despite a game, let's say that got a 7 would still probably have a lot of good qualities to it.
Game magazine editors frequently receive "review guides" with copies of reviewable software. Some of these guides are innocuous. Others are pages long and attempt to write the review for the critic.
The most famous review guide was for Devil May Cry 3. It was pages long and had a convoluted chart, if I recall correctly. I still may have it somewhere...
With Mass Effect, I'm sure reviewers were told not to spoil the ending of the game. But that doesn't mean the ending can't be held up as nonsense. It just means EA and BioWare will look unfavorably (and to what extent, I certainly cannot say) on any critic who mentions specifics about the conclusion.
The main issue with these embargoes and review guides is that they apply to reviews written and posted (or printed) before a certain date. You can be timely with a critique, but you have to be wary of the guidelines. Or, you can choose to be late to the party and forgo the restrictions.
I bet they do this so their average review score shows lower on metacritic, which gives them a heavier weighting when giving a high score which makes them more valuable
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I agree with you on every point.
Reviewers should also not be afraid of criticizing a game and losing access to future pre-relase copies - they could always just buy the game on release and review it.
The_Hitcher89
Member
Out of interest, did any of the LA Noire pre-release reviews mention how cripplingly boring it becomes after 15 hours or so?
Gotta get dem hits, gotta get dat early copy
Gotta get dem hits, gotta get dat early copy
SquiddyCracker
Banned
They probably didn't reach 15 hours...
The_Hitcher89
Member
I know you're joking, but I wonder to what extent reviewers skim through games as quickly as possible. I mean, they have huge backlogs, and a many games to play, so I'd be surprised if they played games the way that most people would. For instance, if you played LA Noire quick-travelling everywhere, skipping the combat parts and passing cases with the bare minimum amount of evidence, you'd have a completely different experience to the one I had (and most others, I imagine)
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
When you say review guide you mean an actual guide "guide" - like a poor man's Brady Games or Prima type deal where they try to explain the ins and outs of a game? If that's the case, I could kind of see why DMC3 had one with it, considering it was a highly challenging skill oriented action game. Or do you mean a guide in terms of what can or can't be said, and things like what is considered a known bug that will be patched out etc. etc.
That's the thing, I find it hard to believe that many of them managed to complete Mass Effect 3 in 1-2 days upon receiving review copies whereas everyone else clocking 20 to 50+ hours just on one play-through. If they never reach the ending, then THEY SHOULD let us know that by saying "This reviewer never reached the ending and therefore has no knowledge of what's in store for you players". I don't like being lied to by reviewers who said something like "ME3 neatly end the series" when the fact is the game has an
open-ended
Even better, they should tell us how far they got in their play through because their reviews will then only account for those portions they play.
I suspect it's more like what can or can't be said in the reviews. For example, you can't say that the game has bad graphic but it's okay to criticize one or two character design, etc. In other words, the companies direct the reviewers on what they can say.
The_Hitcher89
Member
I'd spoiler. Its only minor, and people would perhaps like to have known when they complete it for themselves, but it should be their choice
I'd spoiler. Its only minor, and people would perhaps like to have known when they complete it for themselves, but it should be their choice
Oops. Done!
88 isn't a "worst game" score at all.
90+ and 80+ games are pretty much in the same tier, quality wise.
From what I've heard people say on podcasts etc, review guides are basically more extensive manuals to try to guide the reviewer into playing the game the "right" way like the developers intended. That can be a good or a bad thing depending on if you want the review to be an unbiased reflection of the average player's experience or more informed, but possibly biased. God Hand probably should've come with a review guide...
The_Hitcher89
Member
If you reviewed Skyrim a week after release, what score would you give it?
If you reviewed Skyrim now, what score would you give it?
If you reviewed Skyrim now, what score would you give it?
90+ then, 79 now.
The_Hitcher89
Member
Exact same for me, and that's without the crippling issues other PS3 users experienced
I suspect with games like ME3 many people don't finish the games and many others blow through as fast as possible and are just happy to be done with it. They don't get invested in the game and hence judge it more on stuff like technical merit and other "objective" criteria than how the experience struck them.
As far as review guides go, reviewers should strive to review games in as similar a way as possible to how the public consumes them. If a game is too obtuse and a tutorial or manual isn't enough the game should come with that guide for everyone, just just reviewers.
For example Dante's Inferno guide told reviewers how to beat some frustrating parts. So some percentage of players are expected to get stuck but no review will reflect that. if the reviewer needs extra help doesn't the player as well?
As far as review guides go, reviewers should strive to review games in as similar a way as possible to how the public consumes them. If a game is too obtuse and a tutorial or manual isn't enough the game should come with that guide for everyone, just just reviewers.
For example Dante's Inferno guide told reviewers how to beat some frustrating parts. So some percentage of players are expected to get stuck but no review will reflect that. if the reviewer needs extra help doesn't the player as well?
Yeah the first weeks of playing it was some of the best gaming I had, but now I have no desire to replay it, or to even finish some quests.
9/10
9/10
Not so hard. I've been playing Bethesda games forever, so I know what I'm getting and quickly realize what exactly they did (and did not) accomplish. (And I don't give a shit about how it runs on anything other than PC)
It can be both or either. I've reviewed games where I was sent a walkthrough with the review disk. And I know of game critics who have called up PR agents to have walkthroughs sent to them.
In the case of Devil May Cry 3, I believe, the guide was an extended list of features, descriptions of characters, etc., plus a godawful chart detailing what every reviewer could and could not say. My memory is hazy here. It's been a few years, and I didn't review the game.
Oops:
I found it. It's for Devil May Cry 4, not Devil May Cry 3.
It came with a "Tome of Knowledge" -- a colored booklet describing the heroes, characters, weapons, abilities, locations, unlockables, etc, and containing an interview with the creator. It also came with a fact sheet, a press release, and the aforementioned chart of the restrictions for reviews. The chart goes mission by mission and details three dates when specific details can be revealed -- along with a sidebar noting items that may never be mentioned.
It is more detailed than I remember it being.
The_Hitcher89
Member
Same again. I clocked over a hundred hours, but like LA Noire I realised that the gameplay had lost its fun. The quest rewards were not satisfactory, even the major sidequests were impact-less, certain mechanics were hindering my enjoyment, dungeons were repetitive, combat was simple and easy to the point of irrelevance, small glitches making quests impossible, annoyingly long load times (perhaps unavoidable in fairness)
For the first couple of weeks, it looked like being my game of the generation. But all the small flaws just crept up on me and eventually took the fun out of the game for me
Zeouterlimits
Member
There're a lot of good points here, but a bit of a lack of humility in certain posts.
There's a level of that reviewer didn't agree with those titles I loved/hated too, they must be incompetent.
I do think Jett hit the nail on the head though. Tis really unfortunate.
There's a level of that reviewer didn't agree with those titles I loved/hated too, they must be incompetent.
I do think Jett hit the nail on the head though. Tis really unfortunate.
PrinceOfApathy
Banned
They are just generally very uneducated. That is all there is to it. I know many gamers on GAF that can write infinitely better, indepth reviews but they aren't paid for it, why is someone that is paid to do something comes off a drivel spouting maniac.
What also irks me is that AAA releases will get a pass on game design flaws that the exact same reviewer will nit pick to death in a lesser title. It drives me absolutely insane. You just contradicted yourself, and should be put in a mental institution if you can't make up your mind. Unless you can only make up your mind when heavy advertising funds can be pulled.
Also L.A Noire was anything but boring. I loved that game, I even bought all the DLC cases. I have put an ungodly amount of time in L.A Noire. Enjoyed the dialogue, well written script, colorful side characters, loved the music, loved driving around LA and just sitting down in Bowling Alleys, Bus Stops, whatever diner I could find. When Cole had to use the phone sometimes I never used the phone immediately next to me, I'd drive around and see if I could find a phone inside some other building, just to make it seem like Cole and his partner had dinner and Cole is now calling R and I. Or I'd go back to the Police station and use the phone in the detective office. Yeah I'm insane, I get really caught up in some characters.
I have never found one single Golden Film reel, and I don't plan to. I loved the stories of each case. It was an immense experience for me, not once was I ever "bored", but that didn't mean L.A Noire had no flaws. I could see where certain things had gone wrong in the development process, and what had to be tacked on to flesh it out. Overall I would have given the title an 8.5
Skyrim I would give a 7.5. Also out of the 2 ME games I played, ME1 and ME2 they do not deserve over an 8. These games are extremely flawed, but provide and engaging experience to prop it up.
Both ( L.A Noire, Skyrim ) games extremely shallow as a puddle, but the music, story, cast of characters is what props L.A Noire higher up the scale for me than Skyrim, because in both games downfall, the other compensates by having a cool, slick, consistent atmosphere, narrative and as I said experience.
What also irks me is that AAA releases will get a pass on game design flaws that the exact same reviewer will nit pick to death in a lesser title. It drives me absolutely insane. You just contradicted yourself, and should be put in a mental institution if you can't make up your mind. Unless you can only make up your mind when heavy advertising funds can be pulled.
Also L.A Noire was anything but boring. I loved that game, I even bought all the DLC cases. I have put an ungodly amount of time in L.A Noire. Enjoyed the dialogue, well written script, colorful side characters, loved the music, loved driving around LA and just sitting down in Bowling Alleys, Bus Stops, whatever diner I could find. When Cole had to use the phone sometimes I never used the phone immediately next to me, I'd drive around and see if I could find a phone inside some other building, just to make it seem like Cole and his partner had dinner and Cole is now calling R and I. Or I'd go back to the Police station and use the phone in the detective office. Yeah I'm insane, I get really caught up in some characters.
I have never found one single Golden Film reel, and I don't plan to. I loved the stories of each case. It was an immense experience for me, not once was I ever "bored", but that didn't mean L.A Noire had no flaws. I could see where certain things had gone wrong in the development process, and what had to be tacked on to flesh it out. Overall I would have given the title an 8.5
Skyrim I would give a 7.5. Also out of the 2 ME games I played, ME1 and ME2 they do not deserve over an 8. These games are extremely flawed, but provide and engaging experience to prop it up.
Both ( L.A Noire, Skyrim ) games extremely shallow as a puddle, but the music, story, cast of characters is what props L.A Noire higher up the scale for me than Skyrim, because in both games downfall, the other compensates by having a cool, slick, consistent atmosphere, narrative and as I said experience.
This may be a bit off topic for this thread, but I don't really understand the perspective on Skyrim some people have. If you've played a game for dozens of hours (or over 100!) and enjoyed it a lot, how does it matter what happens afterwards? I got burnt out on Skyrim at the 95 hour mark or so and haven't touched it since. I'll probably go back with a ton of mods later this year and finish it. But even if for some reason I don't, giving me that large amount of great entertainment puts it among the top tier of games I've played over the past few years.
I've not really experienced it personally, but it's probably looking back at all that time spent and not really remembering anything that great or compelling and wondering why you stuck with it for so long.
Ventilaator
Banned
I totally gave up on reviews after several of them straight up lied to me. Anybody want to go ahead and start actuallyusefulreviews.com or something? Writing non-crap reviews isn't that hard.
According to brain-equipped people, sure, but 8.8 for Twilight Princess apparently meant that the game was utter crap according to the comments, so only 9+ games are "good" for some people.
According to brain-equipped people, sure, but 8.8 for Twilight Princess apparently meant that the game was utter crap according to the comments, so only 9+ games are "good" for some people.
This is why I keep telling people to ignore wrpg reviews (well, all reviews if possible). You can tell how most of them just play a few hours and give up, probably because of deadlines. ME3 was one of the more embarrassing moments for this industry's media. No one mentioned the ending situation because most probably didn't even get that far, and when the controversy erupted instead of being journalists they spent their time lashing out at everyone like children.
Jake Tower
Banned
Shawn Elliott stated that he had seen reviews that had copied 600+ words directly from the 'review guide.'
The_Hitcher89
Member
I've often thought about starting a review site in which I and others just review games after we've had our fill of them. Others can submit reviews, but the game has to be at least a month old. We'd have no early access, no preview discs, just honest reviews unaffected by reliance for hits and hype.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
There seems to be a great deal of people who understand the failings of the biggest video game reviewers, so my question is why there haven't been a website with the selling point of being un-buyable and reviewing things without being a tremendous fanboy?
If these reviewers exist, I'm afraid I must have missed them.
If these reviewers exist, I'm afraid I must have missed them.
The_Hitcher89
Member
Why would he reveal that without naming names? He'll be -25 on trust, but +200 on integrity and respect from the people who care for his work
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The bottom line is that people should be more accepting of that fact that what they hold to be true, usually isn't true for everyone.
These things are all matters of "taste" and subjective worth; there's no scientific component whatsoever.
Also don't people realize that when they are getting into comparing stats and poll results they are playing in the PR sandbox which is all about representing and manipulating mass response to fit a client's agenda.
The "science" in PR is not about revealing truth, its about manipulating behaviour.
These things are all matters of "taste" and subjective worth; there's no scientific component whatsoever.
Also don't people realize that when they are getting into comparing stats and poll results they are playing in the PR sandbox which is all about representing and manipulating mass response to fit a client's agenda.
The "science" in PR is not about revealing truth, its about manipulating behaviour.
Ventilaator
Banned
If a review is factually wrong, how exactly is that a matter of taste?
Before- 90-93
Now- 60
Skyrim is my personal embarrassment. I fully admit I fell to the hype of a new ES and willfully ignored many of its faults until the hype wore off and my eyes saw just how poor it is. GOTY voting was over when I hit that point though.
I can't speak for anyone else but the enjoyment I thought I was having wasn't really taking place. I could feel something was off while I was playing, and I realized that I was just going through the motions. It's a very poor and stripped down ES game even compared to Oblivion. It needs a LOT of mods to make it a good game.
Similar threads
- Poll