|
On November 13 2012 21:12 goiflin wrote:
I think the biggest issue behind gaming journalism is that a 5/10 means the game is the worst game of all time, when it SHOULD mean that it's a mediocre game (Something like mass effect 3) that doesn't do anything new or interesting, while having sub-par mechanics, graphics, story, etc. We should be at a point where we can objectively look at a release, and say "It does this, this and this wrong, and this this and this right, so it's 5/10 still fun but not timeless". But articles are usually "It does this, this and this right, and this is kinda wrong to some niche crowd, so 10/10 tour de force.".
A game HAS to get > 7.5/10 to be considered fun by most folks, which is a shame, because mediocre games can be fun too (anyone play Tiny Tank? Duke Nukem: Time to Kill?).Gaming journalism has been put into a hole, where publishers want perfect scores or they can threaten not letting your magazine/site run reviews on their games. Development studios want big scores to get their bonuses, and gaming journalists have to oblige, since they've already met the status quo where all the fans expect perfect scores for the latest big titles or they'll stop visiting their website and go somewhere else that reviews that game more favourably.
I say down with modern gaming journalism! Bring back the 5/10!
I very much agree with this.
For a game to get 1-4/10 it literally has to be the worst fucking game of the year.
It makes the /10 completely meaningless. You may as well subtract 5 from the scores and make it /5.
|
On November 13 2012 21:19 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 21:12 goiflin wrote:
I think the biggest issue behind gaming journalism is that a 5/10 means the game is the worst game of all time, when it SHOULD mean that it's a mediocre game (Something like mass effect 3) that doesn't do anything new or interesting, while having sub-par mechanics, graphics, story, etc. We should be at a point where we can objectively look at a release, and say "It does this, this and this wrong, and this this and this right, so it's 5/10 still fun but not timeless". But articles are usually "It does this, this and this right, and this is kinda wrong to some niche crowd, so 10/10 tour de force.".
A game HAS to get > 7.5/10 to be considered fun by most folks, which is a shame, because mediocre games can be fun too (anyone play Tiny Tank? Duke Nukem: Time to Kill?).Gaming journalism has been put into a hole, where publishers want perfect scores or they can threaten not letting your magazine/site run reviews on their games. Development studios want big scores to get their bonuses, and gaming journalists have to oblige, since they've already met the status quo where all the fans expect perfect scores for the latest big titles or they'll stop visiting their website and go somewhere else that reviews that game more favourably.
I say down with modern gaming journalism! Bring back the 5/10! I very much agree with this. For a game to get 1-4/10 it literally has to be the worst fucking game of the year. It makes the /10 completely meaningless. You may as well subtract 5 from the scores and make it /5.
During steam sale I actually noticed that I'm a victim of that thinking. When I browse all those cheap games, I IGNORE games which have a score beneath 80/100. I'm not actively thinking 'Wow this is a bad game' but rather 'Well, 80 is not good enough'. So, for my brain, it doesn't make any difference between a 50, 60 or even 70 points game... that's just sad because I know there are good games out there, that aren't CoD enough to be rated good.
|
Dragon age 2, 90+ in every review by every "critic" and journalist everywhere. User metacritic score of like 30. Go figure why that is. The game was garbage.
|
On November 13 2012 21:35 unkkz wrote:
Dragon age 2, 90+ in every review by every "critic" and journalist everywhere. User metacritic score of like 30. Go figure why that is. The game was garbage.
Fun garbage, but still pretty garbage. There wasn't a lot the game did better than any other modern contemporary. It felt very rushed. Despite being a mediocre game with a crappy story and forgettable characters (outside the qun), I had fun playing through it. Nowhere near as much as DA:O though 
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51458 Posts
Yeah i refuse to read most "journalist" reviews on anything game based anyway. 90% of the time the best person to review a game is yourself, as many games cater to different peoples needs.
Some people like game x, but other people think game x is a pile of crap, that is not going to stop you from playing game x though....is it?
But like probe said, best reviews are from the players themselves and not the "gaming journalists" that are clearly being sponsered by x and y company who put money into z game.
Still also can't understand why people turn to reviews of a game rather than a demo or renting of it. So many ways to do this now, LoveFilm/Blockbuster the best ways to rent (netflix too maybe?) then demos on xbox live/steam/playstatation network should be ample too.
|
Those articles belong about 7-8 years in the past, old news is old....
User was warned for this post
|
On November 13 2012 21:52 HeatEXTEND wrote:
Those articles belong about 7-8 years in the past, old news is old....
Thanks for your contribution, it is much appreciated.
|
Right back at ya
Edit: my point here being, if you need a !picture of a journo actually sitting next to a bunch of sponsor products! to understand that gaming journalism has been shit for god knows how long, something is very, very wrong.
|
I remember seeing a question in the Q and A section of a PS1 magazine years ago. The guy was asking why a game (cant remember which) go 80%+ and its sequel got ~60%. The reply was something like "X2 contains the same characters, similar story and exactly the same graphics and mechanics. Only the maps and skins have changed since X. X2 therefore scored a 0 for originality where X scored highly."
Now we have reviews giving 11/10 scores to every COD4 reskin that gets release for $60 a year (not including DLC)
The problem is that handouts from game companies are shoved down game journalists noses, and the threat of being refused preview copies of games because of a previous bad review is taken seriously because losing the ability to preview a game will cause readers to go elsewhere to read about it = lost page views= lost money.
Theres a cycle of co dependance between publishers and games "journalism" websites that means as long of the money and freebees keep flowing so will the 10/10 reviews (Hell i saw SW:TOR described as "perfection" by a major "journalism" website, and we all know what happened to that).
Until an independent company comes along who has the funds to tell the major publishers to shove it and journalists who actually care about games instead of making a fast buck off games there will be no end to the retarded stuff that comes out of those sites.
Until then find yourself a copy of the game review score -> actually quality conversion chart.
On November 13 2012 21:52 HeatEXTEND wrote:
Those articles belong about 7-8 years in the past, old news is old....
Go to bed Schneider
|
As the previous poster said, I remember when games that were once called expansion packs but would now be called sequels (Call of Duty franchise is the best example I can think of) would be reviewed based on what they added to the series, and often recieve a lower score than the original game for (unsurprisingly) being similar to the parent game. It was exceptional expansion packs like BW that completely changed their parent games that got the good reviews. By those standards, something like Modern Warfare 2 and 3 would be scoring pretty lowly based on their "solid formula, but adds very little to the franchise". That's just a sidenote though.
I never really put much thought into this, just stopped reading sites like IGN a long time ago. But when you think about, gaming reviews should be something like film reviews, where the reviewer has a strong opinion that comes across as highly personal, yet based on objective qualities. Of course, gaming reviews from major sites and magazines are a waste of space, as well all know, while incredibly hyped movies like Prometheus can still recieve somewhat mixed reviews. In my opinion, gaming "critics" should be aiming to achieve the sort of detachment you tend to get from professional film critics.
|
Sigh. All journalists these days have bias, although some are less so than others. In the gaming sphere, that bias has always seemed to be a bit more out there, in terms of being somewhat more transparent. (Yes, we all know they're biased, they know they're biased, and they generally won't tell you but you can figure it out.)
One of the reasons I'm sad about G4TV changing formats and X Play being cancelled. Like them or hate them, Sessler and Morgan (at least) never seemed to have a problem saying "This game sucks!" (Usually at length, with the possibility of bad puns.)
Then again, there's always Slasher. I may criticize his "sources" and writing style, but as far as I can tell he isn't excessively biased. Or at least I haven't noticed it yet. (I'm watching you.)
|
On November 13 2012 20:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 20:07 Probe1 wrote:
It's been 2 months of criticism against "Gaming Journalism". But it's a dumb argument. Why?
Because there's no such thing as independent gaming journalism. Every single 'journalist' takes money or compensation. It happens on TL and it happens on Eurogamer and it happens on yoursitexyz.
If you expect honesty then expect to read through a half dozen user generated reviews and tbh, just pirate the damn game and see if its fun before buying. Reviewers are for the most part extensions of marketing departments. There is no such thing is scruples in video game 'journalism'.
(I'm not referring to eSports, only "review/hype/release" articles) User generated reviews are usually overreactions and pirating a game is illegal, so some people do actually read 'reviews'. Obivously you are cynical about this, but i don't see why video games journalism is something which could never exist. See the VG247 article, although i am yet to see the actual effect that this has had on the sites reviews.
I don't get it. Do you want a Rotten Tomatoes website for games or something? What would be the point? If I want a review I can usually already find gameplay with commentary on youtube. What else do you need?
|
On November 13 2012 21:19 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 21:12 goiflin wrote:
I think the biggest issue behind gaming journalism is that a 5/10 means the game is the worst game of all time, when it SHOULD mean that it's a mediocre game (Something like mass effect 3) that doesn't do anything new or interesting, while having sub-par mechanics, graphics, story, etc. We should be at a point where we can objectively look at a release, and say "It does this, this and this wrong, and this this and this right, so it's 5/10 still fun but not timeless". But articles are usually "It does this, this and this right, and this is kinda wrong to some niche crowd, so 10/10 tour de force.".
A game HAS to get > 7.5/10 to be considered fun by most folks, which is a shame, because mediocre games can be fun too (anyone play Tiny Tank? Duke Nukem: Time to Kill?).Gaming journalism has been put into a hole, where publishers want perfect scores or they can threaten not letting your magazine/site run reviews on their games. Development studios want big scores to get their bonuses, and gaming journalists have to oblige, since they've already met the status quo where all the fans expect perfect scores for the latest big titles or they'll stop visiting their website and go somewhere else that reviews that game more favourably.
I say down with modern gaming journalism! Bring back the 5/10! I very much agree with this. For a game to get 1-4/10 it literally has to be the worst fucking game of the year. It makes the /10 completely meaningless. You may as well subtract 5 from the scores and make it /5.
Only if you go by angry-forum-gamer standards, where 1-4 means "I didn't like the game".
In terms of actual unbiased reviews, any game that actually has graphical polish, some length of gameplay, and is playable, regardless of how fun it is deserves at least a 4-6 review. Giving a game a 1 should mean that it is an absolutely piece of trash in every single aspect.
|
On November 13 2012 23:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 20:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 13 2012 20:07 Probe1 wrote:
It's been 2 months of criticism against "Gaming Journalism". But it's a dumb argument. Why?
Because there's no such thing as independent gaming journalism. Every single 'journalist' takes money or compensation. It happens on TL and it happens on Eurogamer and it happens on yoursitexyz.
If you expect honesty then expect to read through a half dozen user generated reviews and tbh, just pirate the damn game and see if its fun before buying. Reviewers are for the most part extensions of marketing departments. There is no such thing is scruples in video game 'journalism'.
(I'm not referring to eSports, only "review/hype/release" articles) User generated reviews are usually overreactions and pirating a game is illegal, so some people do actually read 'reviews'. Obivously you are cynical about this, but i don't see why video games journalism is something which could never exist. See the VG247 article, although i am yet to see the actual effect that this has had on the sites reviews. I don't get it. Do you want a Rotten Tomatoes website for games or something?
How about journalists who don't have to worry about getting sacked if they give a game a 6? How about publishers shifting priorities from marketing to development, and not doing the whole "dev studio gets a bonus if the average review score is above x"?
How about journalistic integrity? Or is integrity too much to ask for, in this day and age?
On November 13 2012 23:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 21:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 13 2012 21:12 goiflin wrote:
I think the biggest issue behind gaming journalism is that a 5/10 means the game is the worst game of all time, when it SHOULD mean that it's a mediocre game (Something like mass effect 3) that doesn't do anything new or interesting, while having sub-par mechanics, graphics, story, etc. We should be at a point where we can objectively look at a release, and say "It does this, this and this wrong, and this this and this right, so it's 5/10 still fun but not timeless". But articles are usually "It does this, this and this right, and this is kinda wrong to some niche crowd, so 10/10 tour de force.".
A game HAS to get > 7.5/10 to be considered fun by most folks, which is a shame, because mediocre games can be fun too (anyone play Tiny Tank? Duke Nukem: Time to Kill?).Gaming journalism has been put into a hole, where publishers want perfect scores or they can threaten not letting your magazine/site run reviews on their games. Development studios want big scores to get their bonuses, and gaming journalists have to oblige, since they've already met the status quo where all the fans expect perfect scores for the latest big titles or they'll stop visiting their website and go somewhere else that reviews that game more favourably.
I say down with modern gaming journalism! Bring back the 5/10! I very much agree with this. For a game to get 1-4/10 it literally has to be the worst fucking game of the year. It makes the /10 completely meaningless. You may as well subtract 5 from the scores and make it /5. Only if you go by angry-forum-gamer standards, where 1-4 means "I didn't like the game". In terms of actual unbiased reviews, any game that actually has graphical polish, some length of gameplay, and is playable, regardless of how fun it is deserves at least a 4-6 review. Giving a game a 1 should mean that it is an absolutely piece of trash in every single aspect.
It's not the "angry-forum-gamer" standard. It's the average player standard. Go up to a fan of any recent mediocre AAA release title, and tell them their game only really deserves a 5 because it's not doing anything new, has mechanics that have been implemented better in less popular titles, and has pretty bad graphics and storyline in comparison to other contemporary releases. They will flip their lid and say you're wrong, regardless of whether or not they post on forums.
It's not a niche crowd that would be in an uproar if a CoD game got a 5.
|
On November 13 2012 20:30 zalz wrote:
It's a disgrace that they even call themselves journalists, because they are simply marketeers. They are paid to promote games, not give them honest reviews.
all that needs to be said
gaming journalism is bottom of the barrel stuff
|
On November 13 2012 21:12 goiflin wrote:
I think the biggest issue behind gaming journalism is that a 5/10 means the game is the worst game of all time, when it SHOULD mean that it's a mediocre game (Something like mass effect 3) that doesn't do anything new or interesting, while having sub-par mechanics, graphics, story, etc. We should be at a point where we can objectively look at a release, and say "It does this, this and this wrong, and this this and this right, so it's 5/10 still fun but not timeless". But articles are usually "It does this, this and this right, and this is kinda wrong to some niche crowd, so 10/10 tour de force.".
A game HAS to get > 7.5/10 to be considered fun by most folks, which is a shame, because mediocre games can be fun too (anyone play Tiny Tank? Duke Nukem: Time to Kill?).Gaming journalism has been put into a hole, where publishers want perfect scores or they can threaten not letting your magazine/site run reviews on their games. Development studios want big scores to get their bonuses, and gaming journalists have to oblige, since they've already met the status quo where all the fans expect perfect scores for the latest big titles or they'll stop visiting their website and go somewhere else that reviews that game more favourably.
I say down with modern gaming journalism! Bring back the 5/10!
That's not even a serious issue, it's just a matter of what relative rating system you prefer. Do you think school grading should work the same way? Both what you propose and the current system have their merits. The important thing isn't that one system is used over another, but that the raters are all consistently using the same system if their ratings are being pooled into an average, and also that the reader is made aware of the system as well.
|
First off, you can't *not* have a bias. It's a useful ideal for some contexts (academic debate) but in most other spheres of life, including journalism, there is always a bias. This bias should be announced or obvious by some means. For gaming journalism, the most beneficial bias would be a bias in favor of the gaming public.
Second off, journalism takes skill. It's not merely putting words together, it's not something anybody can do. Good journalism is a craft. There's some conception among the modern day citizen that "everything should be free," and I think that's because of the internet. But it can't be free, so saying it should be is a moot point. Somebody has to pay the journalists. Nobody's doing that in gaming, there's no ethical oversight, so what happens is strongarming by the gaming companies. This isn't the journalist's fault, there's no place for them if they're not mouthpieces. This is our fault.
The only way to change this model where journalists get paid by companies but put out content biased in our favor is to consistently, wholly, and systematically scrutinize and reject content which is company-centric. If they only way companies can get press out is to acquiesce to the demands of the gaming public, then that's what they'll do.
Except that's unrealistic, too, because this process of scrutiny is where the journalists fit in -- so WE don't have to do it! if you want journalistic reporting with a bias beneficial to the gaming public, we have to pay for it. Simple as that.
|
Other thoughts, I'm calling this journalism because you guys are but this isn't journalism. This is advertising -- it's straight manipulation or payment for content in channels of mass media.
And the best way I can think of to combat this would be to set up an ethics oversight board which could set up a ring of major journalistic sources which received licenses where, if companies wanted to be reviewed, they'd have to sent the precopy to all the sources regardless of their opinion on then. Second, it would have to favor granting licenses to small, independent sources which live up to ethical and journalistic standards established by the board. I'd only see this happening after a MAJOR public sting & fallout
|
On November 13 2012 23:50 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 23:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 13 2012 20:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 13 2012 20:07 Probe1 wrote:
It's been 2 months of criticism against "Gaming Journalism". But it's a dumb argument. Why?
Because there's no such thing as independent gaming journalism. Every single 'journalist' takes money or compensation. It happens on TL and it happens on Eurogamer and it happens on yoursitexyz.
If you expect honesty then expect to read through a half dozen user generated reviews and tbh, just pirate the damn game and see if its fun before buying. Reviewers are for the most part extensions of marketing departments. There is no such thing is scruples in video game 'journalism'.
(I'm not referring to eSports, only "review/hype/release" articles) User generated reviews are usually overreactions and pirating a game is illegal, so some people do actually read 'reviews'. Obivously you are cynical about this, but i don't see why video games journalism is something which could never exist. See the VG247 article, although i am yet to see the actual effect that this has had on the sites reviews. I don't get it. Do you want a Rotten Tomatoes website for games or something? How about journalists who don't have to worry about getting sacked if they give a game a 6? How about publishers shifting priorities from marketing to development, and not doing the whole "dev studio gets a bonus if the average review score is above x"? How about journalistic integrity? Or is integrity too much to ask for, in this day and age?
I don't mind it, it's a lot more positive than the movie industry where you have dozens of pomp fucks telling me X movie is shit when hundreds of thousands, even millions of people enjoyed it. What makes their opinion better than anyone elses on the matter? The fact that they have a minimum amount of talent in writing doesn't given them any more insight into aesthetic appreciation than anyone else.
The priorities of the publishers on marketing is no different than in any other industry, this isn't unique to gaming.
What is journalistic integrity? Being honest? If that's the criterion, then it already exists and in surpluses, you're just looking in the wrong place. Head over to youtube and look for some user-generated content, there is no shortage of it.
|
Giant bomb talked about this in one of their latest podcasts, worth a listen for sure, was a bit more insightful compared to TBs little spiel.
Basically you have to find writers that line up with your feelings on games and follow their stuff around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
