|
On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR 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! 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.
What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10?
On November 13 2012 23:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 23:50 goiflin wrote: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 ont he matter? The fact that they have a minimum amount of talent in writing. 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.
Being honest, yes. And yes, I'm aware that it exists. But we're talking about professional journalists, here. You're shifting the subject. Just because there are honest people doesn't mean the dishonest ones get out of being criticized.
And your summation of the movie industry's reviewers leads me to believe that you probably don't understand film at any level beyond entertainment. Or video games, for that matter. Which is fine, honestly. But when a game like CoD gets millions upon millions of sales, subscriptions, DLC purchases, it doesn't make it a good game, just like Transformers 3 isn't a good movie because millions flocked to go and see it. It's fun, just as transformers was entertaining (I was entertained by it), but neither of those examples actually accomplishes anything for their given medium. They are of little substance story wise, technical features are pretty run of the mill standard stuff, and the characters are wholly uninteresting and forgettable. They are mediocre. 5/10.
|
On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR 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! 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. What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10?
I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from.
Being honest, yes. And yes, I'm aware that it exists. But we're talking about professional journalists, here. You're shifting the subject. Just because there are honest people doesn't mean the dishonest ones get out of being criticized.
And your summation of the movie industry's reviewers leads me to believe that you probably don't understand film at any level beyond entertainment. Or video games, for that matter. Which is fine, honestly. But when a game like CoD gets millions upon millions of sales, subscriptions, DLC purchases, it doesn't make it a good game, just like Transformers 3 isn't a good movie because millions flocked to go and see it. It's fun, just as transformers was entertaining (I was entertained by it), but neither of those examples actually accomplishes anything for their given medium. They are of little substance story wise, technical features are pretty run of the mill standard stuff, and the characters are wholly uninteresting and forgettable. They are mediocre. 5/10.
That's okay because your statement inclines me to believe that you have no idea what you're talking about either. I'm no CoD fan and I think it's crap personally, but the fact that so many people enjoy the game, while not absolutely correlating into how "good" it is, does say something about its success insofar as it is doing something right. I'm not making a bandwagon argument (fallacy) here which is what you seem to have made my point out to be. Your appeal to a sort of universal, unbiased standard is a joke though.
Word of advice: The unbiased "God's eye" perspective is a lie.
|
Is this news? The videogames industry has always been more juvenile, unethical and unprofessional compared to other entertainment industries, whether it be film, TV, music or other sports. And if you read the SC2 general forum responses to the numerous SC2 scandals that hit the scene, that's just what the kiddies want.
|
On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR 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! 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. What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10? I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from.
Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores.
|
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)
Only very rarely do I find myself disagreeing with you Mr. Probe1, but this is one of those times.
There are quite a few Video Game Critics that create content that is more then just shilling for a distributor/producer. They just try to give a game an honest review of its strengths and weakness'. I wouldnt call these people "journalists" by any stretch though, because it isnt journalism, its criticism.
An example would be someone like zero punctuation or DragoonPK (a TL user who is also a freelance game critic).
|
A perfect score in game journalism means a game that you can play for half an hour and not get bored and won't crash your console/PC.
|
Video game journalism isn't exactly an industry of high demand.
It couldn't exist without sponsorship from the video-game industry itself, at least certainly not in any substantial fashion.
You read reviews in a game magazine which uses advertising from video-games. Does that mean the reviews are paid for? Not directly, but in a way, they are and always have been.
This isn't news to me, what is news to me is people thought video-game journalism was an actual thing.
|
On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR 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! 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. What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10? I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from. Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores.
They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not.
|
I use common sense. I recommend it to everyone. It helps you avoid ever having to read a thread like this or terrible gaming site reviews to find out the obvious.
|
On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR 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! 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. What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10? I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from. Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not.
Alright, what did any of those games accomplish?
|
On November 14 2012 00:16 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR 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! 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. What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10? I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from. Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not. Alright, what did any of those games accomplish?
Saying the CoD franchise hasn't accomplished anything is a bit much.
|
On November 14 2012 00:19 Microsloth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:16 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR 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! 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. What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10? I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from. Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not. Alright, what did any of those games accomplish? Saying the CoD franchise hasn't accomplished anything is a bit much.
Besides sales? Oh, and sure. I'd say CoD4 deserved a better score than the rest of the series for introducing leveling mechanics, unlocks, and whatnot to the series. Anything past that, however, hasn't accomplished much of anything.
|
On November 14 2012 00:19 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:19 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:16 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR 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! 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. What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10? I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from. Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not. Alright, what did any of those games accomplish? Saying the CoD franchise hasn't accomplished anything is a bit much. Besides sales?
So... going from CoD to CoD2, 3, then MWF 1 2 3, they didn't innovate at all in the multiplayer FPS scene? They didn't have engaging storylines and increasingly high quality graphics? What the fuck do you want? It's a FPS. Maybe you don't like the genre, but that's no reason to shit all over it, and I'm not even a CoD fanboy. Name a game that's accomplished something in your eyes then. I wanna see what mr. "high standards" over here thinks is worthy of the term "accomplishment"
|
lol I can tell the butthurt is great in this one.
They didnt innovate anything. They just followed suit and took what the most popular and implemented that into their games. The cod:mw2 and upwards espacially didnt innovate anything. To say that they deserve 8/10 or above is ridiculous. Its the same game new title.
|
On November 14 2012 00:10 PassiveAce 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) Only very rarely do I find myself disagreeing with you Mr. Probe1, but this is one of those times. There are quite a few Video Game Critics that create content that is more then just shilling for a distributor/producer. They just try to give a game an honest review of its strengths and weakness'. I wouldnt call these people "journalists" by any stretch though, because it isnt journalism, its criticism. An example would be someone like zero punctuation or DragoonPK (a TL user who is also a freelance game critic).
people who place reviewing above shilling also typically don't get early access to games, and definitely not the big ticket ones. major companies like activision, ea, etc all have the review companies by the balls and will simply cut off their access if reviews are overly critical. those companies can't survive if they're getting games after they release and have to pay for them to boot.
|
On November 14 2012 00:31 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:10 PassiveAce 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) Only very rarely do I find myself disagreeing with you Mr. Probe1, but this is one of those times. There are quite a few Video Game Critics that create content that is more then just shilling for a distributor/producer. They just try to give a game an honest review of its strengths and weakness'. I wouldnt call these people "journalists" by any stretch though, because it isnt journalism, its criticism. An example would be someone like zero punctuation or DragoonPK (a TL user who is also a freelance game critic). people who place reviewing above shilling also typically don't get early access to games, and definitely not the big ticket ones. major companies like activision, ea, etc all have the review companies by the balls and will simply cut off their access if reviews are overly critical. those companies can't survive if they're getting games after they release and have to pay for them to boot.
First of all, im a fan of your play and your MLG runs 
Second, some independent reviewers have found a niche of success without the benefit of pre-release reviews.
|
On November 14 2012 00:30 TheRealArtemis wrote:
lol I can tell the butthurt is great in this one.
They didnt innovate anything. They just followed suit and took what the most popular and implemented that into their games. The cod:mw2 and upwards espacially didnt innovate anything. To say that they deserve 8/10 or above is ridiculous. Its the same game new title.
I'm waiting for someone to name a game that's accomplished something. Specifically something more than CoD did when it came out with MWF's multiplayer system.
There's a LOT of franchises that did what CoD's doing. Diablo ring any bells? SC2 perhaps? WoW's expansions.... everyone is making games to buff their bottom line. Money matters.
Halo, medal of honor, Any DoTA/LoL games... Please, name some accomplishments.
My point is, a game doesn't have to be some ground breaking, hipster pleasing bucket of awesome to be good. Yah, MWF3 is just another clone of MWF2.... I don't even love the series, I'm just using an example here, but SC2 is just built on the success of brood war, shinier graphics, easier mechanics, diablo 3, same thing... WoW.. same....
BUT these games are still decent games, and enjoyable. Listening to people cry about mainstream games being terrible clones of each other just gets old.
Hold your standards high enough and you can complain about anything though I guess...
|
Usually my disdain for reviews is having to read comments by posters such as the posters who have posted in this thread. Reading 200 posts about why 200 people with 200 completely different opinions are absolutely and irrefutably correct -- without ever setting up any sort of metric to gauge even one element of the game... Yeah, brilliant.
|
On November 14 2012 00:37 Batssa wrote:
Usually my disdain for reviews is having to read comments by posters such as the posters who have posted in this thread. Reading 200 posts about why 200 people with 200 completely different opinions are absolutely and irrefutably correct -- without ever setting up any sort of metric to gauge even one element of the game... Yeah, brilliant.
This guy gets it.
|
On November 14 2012 00:23 Microsloth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 00:19 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:19 Microsloth wrote:On November 14 2012 00:16 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 14 2012 00:06 goiflin wrote:On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 13 2012 23:58 goiflin wrote:On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR 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! 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. What merits does this system have, exactly? Where every game, regardless of flaws, gets a 9/10? I'm sorry. Your post seemed to indicate a different system than "every game gets a 9/10". If you are just against the "every game gets a 9/10" system, I can get behind that. I've never heard of that system or seen it used in practice though so I don't know where you are getting it from. Let me clarify: I mean every AAA title. So, AC3, ME3, CoD, DA2, SW:TOR, etc. 9/10 review scores, and yet, none of those games actually accomplished anything. There were no original or interesting gameplay mechanics, no graphical tour-de-force, no amazing story, no deep characters. They were built to entertain, and entertain they shall. But that doesn't stop them from being mediocre, and journalists still review these games with near perfect scores. They didn't accomplish anything? See at this point I could call you crazy and talk about how good at least a third of those games are, but then I would be falling into your flawed understanding that somehow there is an underlying truth behind whether they are good or not. Alright, what did any of those games accomplish? Saying the CoD franchise hasn't accomplished anything is a bit much. Besides sales? So... going from CoD to CoD2, 3, then MWF 1 2 3, they didn't innovate at all in the multiplayer FPS scene? They didn't have engaging storylines and increasingly high quality graphics? What the fuck do you want? It's a FPS. Maybe you don't like the genre, but that's no reason to shit all over it, and I'm not even a CoD fanboy. Name a game that's accomplished something in your eyes then. I wanna see what mr. "high standards" over here thinks is worthy of the term "accomplishment"
No, an engaging story isn't forgettable. Every CoD games story is pretty forgettable. I've beaten 1, 2, 4, and MW2 as well, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I love FPS. I've dumped probably tens of thousands of hours into playing FPS. And CoD is fun. With friends, very fun. But it doesn't accomplish anything. That is to say, the graphics have never been amazing (but not bad), the gameplay has always been pretty good (but not amazing OR bad), and the stories have always been on par with hollywood action films (read: pretty crappy). Most entries to the series are 5 or 6 out of ten at best.
A game that has accomplished something in my eyes would be something like Half Life. A fully voice acted campaign back then wasn't run of the mill. The graphics were damn good for the time, the gameplay extremely solid, the storytelling was extremely well done considering storytelling was less than an afterthought in the genre beforehand, and the game would go on to produce one of the most engaging mods of all time.
Another game I'd list is Final Fantasy 4. It took the series to another level with ATB, and an actual storyline with characters. While it's not exactly a big deal in retrospect, considering the storylines we get nowadays, it was a pretty big deal back when we were making parties of four nameless heroes to go and save the world.
Those are games that accomplished something. That advanced their genres. As I admitted, CoD4 DID introduce unlock systems and whatnot. That is something that changed the genre of FPS drastically, considering you can't throw a rock and NOT hit an FPS that uses those systems nowadays. Thusly, CoD4 deserves a good rating. But the rest? Nothing new.
On November 14 2012 00:37 Batssa wrote:
Usually my disdain for reviews is having to read comments by posters such as the posters who have posted in this thread. Reading 200 posts about why 200 people with 200 completely different opinions are absolutely and irrefutably correct -- without ever setting up any sort of metric to gauge even one element of the game... Yeah, brilliant.
I do think that's a good point. The best way to review a game would be to not give a score at all, or have any sort of metric, but instead look at every aspect individually, and talk about what you liked and what you found lacking. It's hard to quantify quality with a number anyway, considering all the variables that go into video game development.
And obviously, having bad graphics or a crappy story doesn't exactly turn them off of a game, so it's better just to put it out there with no score whatsoever, and let the reader gauge on whether they'd enjoy the game or not when you've pointed out all the different pros and cons to a game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
