Support NeoGAF

[BacklashWave534]

Is the job of a journalist to be honest and tell the consumers that a game is looking bad, or is it to be the marketing arm of a massive corporation?

I've played Suicide Squad btw, it's an absolute piece of shit.

Journalist and honest are not two words that are usually found in the same sentence these days. You stand a much better chance of getting an honest review from your favorite Youtuber than an agenda driven journalist.

Keep in mind IGN is the company that lowered the score of a game because it has to much water.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Just to push back a little with a theory I have, but I do think the average quality of games has improved as we have commonly used standards for controls, cameras, etc. Further, with the explosion of indie develop and the barrier of entry to get games published on platforms being really low, we have more releases than ever. I think that's why we see so many ~7 rated games as there is little need to cover terrible titles and it's now impossible to cover every release for any given platform, most things are going to naturally fit in that range.

I get what you're saying and I agree. Game sites and YT dudes arent going to review obscure $5 Steam games and such.

However, on a traditional 1-10 scale, a 6 or 6.5/10 would mean decent. Nothing great, but it's technically even a bit better than an average 5/10 or C score on an A-F scale.

There is no way all those junky 65/100 kinds of games are all decent quality. To me, it's like the typical game is boosted by 20 pts the past 20 years if games were rated on a true 1-100 scale.

 

[bender]

I get what you're saying and I agree. Game sites and YT dudes arent going to review obscure $5 Steam games and such.

However, on a traditional 1-10 scale, a 6 or 6.5/10 would mean decent. Nothing great, but it's technically even a bit better than an average 5/10 or C score on an A-F scale.

There is no way all those junky 65/100 kinds of games are all decent quality. To me, it's like the typical game is boosted by 20 pts the past 20 years if games were rated on a true 1-100 scale.

I do think more of the scale should be used or better yet, scoring systems should be rethought. I always liked the idea of buy, rent, pass which ACG uses in a more modern sense. The problem with the average quality of games being so close to one another, is that a clump of scores in a 6-8 range makes those scores largely useless to a readership. My three point scale doesn't solve that either. I think the best solution is to ditch scores all together. Scores and summary blocks were useful as people generally don't read long reviews but with video production being the norm, video and audio are much easier for anyone to digest and makes scoring feel outdated.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I do think more of the scale should be used or better yet, scoring systems should be rethought. I always liked the idea of buy, rent, pass which ACG uses in a more modern sense. The problem with the average quality of games being so close to one another, is that a clump of scores in a 6-8 range makes those scores largely useless to a readership. My three point scale doesn't solve that either. I think the best solution is to ditch scores all together. Scores and summary blocks were useful as people generally don't read long reviews but with video production being the norm, video and audio are much easier for anyone to digest and makes scoring feel outdated.

For a second there I thought of Dave and Steve's rating scale!

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Just to push back a little with a theory I have, but I do think the average quality of games has improved as we have commonly used standards for controls, cameras, etc. Further, with the explosion of indie develop and the barrier of entry to get games published on platforms being really low, we have more releases than ever. I think that's why we see so many ~7 rated games as there is little need to cover terrible titles and it's now impossible to cover every release for any given platform, most things are going to naturally fit in that range.

It's why so few games really stand out. So many games follow general templates.

But there are still some games pushing the envelope.

It doesn't make sense to put out games that are pure trash these days with how expensive games are to develop. More and more we'll see studios close because of things like this.

WB might be able to absorb the loss of Suicide Squad because of Hogwarts Legacy, but that doesn't mean they'll dump more money into Rocksteady.

 

[bender]

It's why so few games really stand out. So many games follow general templates.

It's a two a fold problem. Monkey see, monkey do has always been common in video games, but with how easy it is for smaller teams to standup a game these days, we get clones in a matter of weeks. Just look at all the takes on Vampire Survivors clones, roguelites, and craft'em-ups. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, AAA games are so expensive that they rarely take risk. Everything feels like a combination of been there, done that or safe and boring.

Personally, gaming is at a low point right now and I find myself going back to older titles more often than not.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

It's a two a fold problem. Monkey see, monkey do has always been common in video games, but with how easy it is for smaller teams to standup a game these days, we get clones in a matter of weeks. Just look at all the takes on Vampire Survivors clones, roguelites, and craft'em-ups. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, AAA games are so expensive that they rarely take risk. Everything feels like a combination of been there, done that or safe and boring.

Personally, gaming is at a low point right now and I find myself going back to older titles more often than not.

And thats the thing that some tech industries like gaming get pinched the most.... it's always got to be better. So all those big budget safe and boring games have to be based on a certain minimum level of production values or else gamers will say..... "this sucks it looks like last gen." No wonder so many game makers prefer inching up. If they blow gamers away, then the minimum threshold of graphics and quality just got higher for the next game.

In other industries, customers like better quality products and such but for a lot of shit as long as it's good enough like bags of cookies or a pair of jeans they dont really get amped up expecting better like tech gadgets and software that evolves. Even for some techie gadgets like toasters and clock radios, nobody has expectations it'll evolve like a PC specs or a game.

But it is something gaming does to itself. They are the ones promoting Unreal Engine, CGI trailers, bigger open worlds than last game etc.... So they are putting those expectations into gamers minds too. Back in the day, nobody expected games to have a million MP modes or have so many games be open world or have tons of cut scenes and professional actors. But game makers added those costly features. So gamers expect it.

 

[Thabass]

I agree with you, but the hit piece they put out was unprofessional and they could have shit on the game when they put the actual review out

Not to defend IGN...actually no, I will, that wasn't a hit piece. They did their fucking job and was honest about the game and their feelings about it. If Rocksteady is going to be this petty about it, then I don't think I want this game at all.

 

[Mossybrew]

IGNs preview was refreshingly honest in a world where previews have been little better than press release marketing for a long long time. If their review is delayed so be it, thats how gaming 'journalism' should operate.

 

[bender]

But it is something gaming does to itself. They are the ones promoting Unreal Engine, CGI trailers, bigger open worlds than last game etc.... So they are putting those expectations into gamers minds too. Back in the day, nobody expected games to have a million MP modes or have so many games be open world or have tons of cut scenes and professional actors. But game makers added those costly features. So gamers expect it.

I think gamers have done it to themselves as well if the general discourse on GAF is anything to go by. I firmly believe the push for better visuals is near a breaking point and has largely been disguised thanks to cross-generation development ,the erosion of platform exclusives, and other monetization schemes.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

And thats the thing that some tech industries like gaming get pinched the most.... it's always got to be better. So all those big budget safe and boring games have to be based on a certain minimum level of production values or else gamers will say..... "this sucks it looks like last gen." No wonder so many game makers prefer inching up. If they blow gamers away, then the minimum threshold of graphics and quality just got higher for the next game.

In other industries, customers like better quality products and such but for a lot of shit as long as it's good enough like bags of cookies or a pair of jeans they dont really get amped up expecting better like tech gadgets and software that evolves. Even for some techie gadgets like toasters and clock radios, nobody has expectations it'll evolve like a PC specs or a game.

But it is something gaming does to itself. They are the ones promoting Unreal Engine, CGI trailers, bigger open worlds than last game etc.... So they are putting those expectations into gamers minds too. Back in the day, nobody expected games to have a million MP modes or have so many games be open world or have tons of cut scenes and professional actors. But game makers added those costly features. So gamers expect it.

I feel like Japan lost a whole decade of gaming because they tried to do it their own way, using their own engines and they weren't fully prepared for the ramp up to HD and then to 4K.

Where you see some real success is from Capcom with their RE engine, but pretty much every other non-Nintendo Japanese company has largely failed with few exceptions like FromSoftware, though their games aren't technical marvels.

Had Japan adopted Unreal Engine sooner, maybe we wouldn't have seen such a fall in the prevalence of Japanese games, but on the other hand they would have felt more same-y.

I think the evolution of consoles becoming more PC-like really helped western developers more, especially since they could port their games to a PC market, which hasn't been as historically desired in Japan until again fairly recently.

You saw some Western developers strike out on their own like CDPR who got a massive advantage over Japanese studios, but they've also recently given up their engine.

I wonder if Naughty Dog is running into similar problems. I think we've seen the extent of Sony's studios using their own engines and not really evolving much this generation. Their most impressive game largely uses a new engine for Demon's Souls, but we've also seen that Bluepoint hasn't put anything out since.

 

[hinch7]

Whether it's at launch or after launch the meta score is going to be the same in the end. If IGN would rate the game lower because (god forbid) they had to buy a copy, then the system is broken anyway.

While true, a lot of people depend on initial reviews for their buying decisions. IGN being the more well known reviewer of games, to get a copy late because of being blacklisted, they'll miss out on launch. And being one of the largest publications for video games news and reviews, I'd presume they'll also carry a lot of weight to the aggrigate score.

While I'm sure if IGN has any integrity that this won't affect their review, for WB to blacklist them; unless IGN they broke an agreement. Isn't a good look for them or the product they are selling.

 

[hinch7]

Dupe please delete

 

[Baki]

If WB specifically black flagged IGN because of a negative preview, it's the usual Publishwr bullshit. No, IGN isn't owed codes. However, they (for once) did their job and informed their readers that the game is coming in isn't good.

WTF is this WB defense force in this thread? Publication and journalists (yes, yes, IGN isn't amazing I know) do their job, Publisher retaliates and folks are jumping to take the bullet for utter trash that's WB?!

IGN publishing a honest preview is exactly their business model and job. Expecting publisher to play ball afterwards is strange as the publisher job is to sell as many units as possible.

 

[Mooreberg]

Stop adding a moral "framing" to what is essentially a business transaction between 2 businesses. WB doesn't owe IGN review codes that drive revenue to IGN. Going to Twitter to create a media spectacle is both unprofessional and malicious.

Completely agreed. Unfortunately, the sentiment towards this game has been so bad for so long, that a publisher with any confidence in the final product should getting review code and a reasonable embargo date out to everyone. Even sites as shitty as IGN.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

, it was ostentatiously subjective

It should be, given it's an opinion.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

IGN publishing a honest preview is exactly their business model and job.

It's not. It's literal sponsored content. IGNs job is to sell product. Their business model is to secure early access to games in order to drive clicks.

 

[GymWolf]

Previews MUST be neutral sound pretty retarded to me.

If they can't actually inform the people about the state of the game what is even the point?

 

[GymWolf]

We all sure this game is going to suck? It kind of reminds me of Sunset Overdrive.

Not an high bar tbh.

 

[Agent_4Seven]

I feel bad for Rocksteady. Even though this game is not what I want from them at all, it was hardly their decision to make GaaS out of it in the first place and they haven't even removed GaaS stuff from the game, it's all there, it's just the store for MTs is not in the game.

I hope Rocksteady will survive this, even though it is not the same as it was before (quite a few devs and co-founders left, opened a new studio already and hiring for more devs). WB as a gaming company and publisher is absolute shit, period.

 

[WitchHunter]

No sense of humor at all... sigh.

 

[MagiusNecros]

Previews MUST be neutral sound pretty retarded to me.

If they can't actually inform the people about the state of the game what is even the point?

If previews were neutral the previews would be objective and neither praise or bash the game. And if the purpose of previews is to hype people up for a game then were they ever neutral to begin with? Not at all.

A good preview would be a game overview of how the game plays and works and wouldn't contain any opinions from the outlet at all.

 

[Unrivaledx88]

IGN is shit and WB games has been shit. Loll hope ign goes out of business.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

We all sure this game is going to suck? It kind of reminds me of Sunset Overdrive.

I like it way better than Sunset Overdrive. You are in full control here, if you mess it up, it's your fault entirely.

In Sunset Overdrive, you have enemies attacking from all directions and you dont have any control on your speed. It needed more polish.

This one feels like fully fleshed out gameplay system. And you have 4 different playstyles on top which will take time/effort to master.

 

[GymWolf]

If previews were neutral the previews would be objective and neither praise or bash the game. And if the purpose of previews is to hype people up for a game then were they ever neutral to begin with? Not at all.

A good preview would be a game overview of how the game plays and works and wouldn't contain any opinions from the outlet at all.

A good preview should be honest and inform people if the game is shit or boring.

We know they usually aren't because modern vg media is trash.

 

[MagiusNecros]

A good preview should be honest and inform people if the game is shit or boring.

We know they usually aren't because modern vg media is trash.

Modern vg outlets are generally paid off and dishonest to farm for clicks and usually follow a script. Usually to score brownie points with a publisher so the outlet can get actual "early access" to generate more content for their outlet.

In this case however the audience knows Suicide Squad is crap and IGN is letting you know it's crap too. If you've been playing games for a long time all you need is a decent gameplay overview and you can tell right away whether a game is objectively good or not.

 

[GymWolf]

Modern vg outlets are generally paid off and dishonest to farm for clicks and usually follow a script. Usually to score brownie points with a publisher so the outlet can get actual "early access" to generate more content for their outlet.

In this case however the audience knows Suicide Squad is crap and IGN is letting you know it's crap too. If you've been playing games for a long time all you need is a decent gameplay overview and you can tell right away whether a game is objectively good or not.

I was talking in general, i personally don't give a flying fuck about prewiews and reviews because as you say, watching some gameplay is enough to judge stuff for experiencex players, and modern media is utter trash.

 

[Edgelord79]

Are these sites supposed to be independent or subservient to the publishers?

It's difficult to be independent when you are subservient to getting the review code. Once IGN puts out the review piece based on the game being out, most of the revenue they would make will be gone.

IGN also should have been a bit more neutral in their preview piece due to this.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Are these sites supposed to be independent or subservient to the publishers?

Depends on the site and publisher/developer. Some not wanting to cover the Insomniac leak was pretty eye opening.

 

[THE DUCK]

It's suicide squad, why would anyone care? A video game based on two so - so movies.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

The expectation is that this game will be the worst thing ever and I'm certain that loads of people will say as much every time it's mentioned whether they've played it or not. That's been the narrative for years now.

Rocksteady/WB presumably don't feel the same about the game or they wouldn't be offering reviewers preview access.

There's a scenario where this game isn't the worst game in the world and doesn't deserve to be slated by a version of ign who think they'll get more clicks with an article that says "lol, we think it sucks" instead of "you know what? This is better than we have been led to believe."

The alternative is that Rocksteady and WB know their game sucks and know they'll get terrible reviews. In that instance the best thing they can do is run a bunch of ads to try and create their own narrative and not let anyone play it until as late as possible. It doesn't make much sense for them to make sure that the game's reputation is in tatters before it launches.

 

[Roufianos]

Unprofessional of IGN so they get treated unprofessionally by WB.

Yea, letting players know the game sucks in advance is 'unprofessional'.

Congrats on winning worst post of the year in Jan.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I don't understand why so many people are shitting on IGN in this thread. Yes they've made poor reviews here and there and there was that plagiarism controversy, but they're still a huge outlet and refusing to send them any codes is not a good look for WB.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if WB was very selective who to send codes to in an effort to have only 7/10+ reviews for launch.

 

[hemo memo]

If IGN of all websites says it is bad then it is really really bad. I mean IGN is the nicest reviewer to big publishers. I mean even in the preview the person is saying I really wanted to like this preview but couldn't.

 

[Connificent]

 

[StueyDuck]

IGN posted an extremely negative preview for Suicide Squad (traditionally preview tone is meant to be neutral), and now WB has retaliated by refusing to send them review code at all:

i mean IGN aren't owed anything. I would feel bad if games journalism wasn't a steaming pile of shit to begin with.

 

[StueyDuck]

"Previews … neutral"

No, previews should be indicative of the final product and any issues should be highlighted, and trash should be called out.

If they're withholding review codes across the board to mitigate the inevitable bad reviews, then that just shows how important it is that previews are honest.

remember those cyberpunk 2077/Anthem previews...

they are meaningless just as reviews and gaming media in general

 

[Panajev2001a]

I agree with you, but the hit piece they put out was unprofessional and they could have shit on the game when they put the actual review out

Since when a preview needs to be positive or neutral to be professional? .

 

[mdkirby]

I don't get why people have to throw so much shit to this game. Just don't buy it and done. There's a lot of effort put on these projects by people who have no agency in WB's corporate decisions.

It's to send a message, particularly when it's not just a shitty GAAS game, but a GAAS game at the expense of a decade of lost output from one of the more renowned single player studios.

We also have the head of DC games saying they want all their IP to be GAAS. Which is pretty crazy after just releasing a single player Harry Potter game that sold 25million units and made well over a billion dollars. But nope, they want to turn everything into suicide squad.

Letting the displeasure known loudly and clearly, and then to see it lose them hundreds of millions should hopefully communicate to them that maybe they should rethink that position. That's the hope anyhow, but I expect they'll continue to be blinded by Fortnite shaped dollar signs painted on their eyeballs.

 

[systemr123]

Are these sites supposed to be independent or subservient to the publishers?

It depends on who you ask. If you ask the publishers they should work for them, if you ask the people who like to inform themselves whether to buy a game or not they should work for them.

Obviously the right moral place here is to be on the consumer side, but publishers of course have the right to not let their products been previewed/reviewed with one of their own copies if they're afraid of bad press.

Although, if they're afraid of this, they obviously should improve their product instead of trying to mislead potential customers into buying a crap product. The customer will fall into this trap for a few times but then don't buy the publishers products anymore even if the new product would be actually good, making everyone lose in the end.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Well done WB

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Ahaha nice. Kudos to WB. More should follow.

A lot of gaming journous these days are just glorified reddit posters

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, gaming journos are not pros anymore. They are mostly shills / casual gamers / ideological activists expelled from culture sections. They are so bad that is difficult to ascertain when they are acting in bad faith.

However, for this particular case, WB is wrong unless they are getting some payback from Hogwarts Legacy. IMO an outlet should be vetoed only when:

- They have a track record of purposefully lowering the scores of a publisher/developer: the case of Stevivor with Sony.

- They have manifested personal opposition towards the game/developers: Hogwarts Legacy boycott case.

I doubt Suicide Squad falls into either of these categories. Anyway, everyone knows the game is gonna suck, no matter MC.

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

I think it's weird that people accuse these sites of being paid shills and when they show they aren't it's unprofessional lol

Doesn't this imply that there's pretty massive pressure to do what the bug publishers want or else get blacklisted from receiving early review codes and therefore misout on click money?

 

[Camreezie]

Since when a preview needs to be positive or neutral to be professional? .

Previews are generally neutral, they always wait til review to slate a product. Previews are opinion and subject to change. Reviews are a finished product. Im not backing IGN or WB they're both dicks in the situation lmao

 

[xrnzaaas]

Previews are generally neutral, they always wait til review to slate a product. Previews are opinion and subject to change. Reviews are a finished product. Im not backing IGN or WB they're both dicks in the situation lmao

That would be poor journalism. You can remain fairly neutral when there are some poorly implented smaller/single things in the preview version that could still improve in time for the final release. You mention that in the preview without sounding negative before the game has even had time to launch.

It's a different case when the core of the game is all wrong or broken and it clearly looks like a complete catastrophy waiting to happen. You should be able to tell that based on your experience that it's not fixable within a few months left to launch.

 

[SportsFan581]

Because doing this will not cause reviews to be even harsher than they would have been?

The only upside that WB can hope for, and probably what they are trying to facilitate, is that the average players aren't as critical as the reviewers. Thus, they are hoping users view the game in a better light and then that spreads around.

Like what happened with the Hi-Fi Rush shadow drop, where the gamers formed an opinion on it without the help of reviewers. Though it certainly helped that Hi-Fi was a very polished released.

 

[ManaByte]

They did their fucking job

Again, no they didn't. A verdict has ALWAYS been meant to be saved for the Review. Destin put the verdict in the preview headline. It was a review based on a preview event and not the entire game.

 

[Kenpachii]

Then judge the game on what u played so far and give it a super low number that will teach them.

 

[ManaByte]

That would be poor journalism. You can remain fairly neutral when there are some poorly implented smaller/single things in the preview version that could still improve in time for the final release. You mention that in the preview without sounding negative before the game has even had time to launch.

It's a different case when the core of the game is all wrong or broken and it clearly looks like a complete catastrophy waiting to happen. You should be able to tell that based on your experience that it's not fixable within a few months left to launch.

Ok let me give you a recent example. The final preview code for Guardians of the Galaxy was absolutely not as polished as the final released game. It was missing RT, had a lot of framerate issues, some pretty annoying bugs, etc. It was feature complete and enough to review the game coming right off of a preview, but all of the issues in the preview code are fixed in the final gold master review code and day 1 patch. Square even provided the patch information to reviewers to let them know that stuff was already fixed. What IGN did was equal to saying "Fuck you, I'm reviewing the preview code. Eat shit." and posting it with a sensationalist clickbait headline to farm rage clicks and "engagement".