I did a quick search just now and couldn't find anything on this site about a piece of news which at the moment, is still fairly unknown, but which could have a HUGE effect on video games journalism.
It has been labelled #doritosgate.
Before i go on, i am aware that video games journalism and Starcraft 2 have a relationship (mainly through IGN and their massive support of the esports scene), but the whole point of this is that some things have to be said.
I am also aware that certain things should have been said and actions taken LONG ago (with the sacking of whoever it was who wrote the Kane and Lynch review).
Doritosgate has its roots in two articles published on the Eurogamer..
The first included a picture that has spread very quickly around social networking sites, of a prominent video games reviewer sitting next to a HALO advertisement board next to a table laden with doritos and mountain dew, the sponsors of the game.
The second is related to the fact that the first article had to be edited, after a legal complaint was made by Lauren Wainwright. She was singled out as a journalist who took part in a competition run by games publishers to win a PS3 by tweeting about their game.
The writer of the original article resigned from Eurogamer as a result of the editing of his column.
What effect has/will this have on video games journalism?
Well i have a feeling that there might be certain massive Starcraft supporting companies who are big enough to be able to just ignore it and brush it off.
I have only found out about this whole thing this morning, so any other sources of information on the scandal would be very welcome
Also i'm not sure whether this should be in blogs, but it is bound to lead to some very lively discussion about what is and is not acceptable behavior for critics.
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)
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.
It isn't cynicism. It's honesty. Video game journalism has no code of ethics. Again, your best bet is to read reviews written by users that don't have connections to the video game industry.
How can you even speak about journalism for these people? But that's always been the case. They're marketing & advertising companies. Video game journalism takes place on the very few independent platforms and community sites.
I'm sorry, but you have to be absolutely removed from any realm of reality if you think gaming-journalism has an ethical spine.
Every single site, and the "journalists" that run them, are bought and paid for all the way. If you think they can get away with giving a AAA title a negative review, you're not living in the same reality as us.
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.
If they don't play ball, their site doesn't get that sexy add money, and they don't get advance copies, so their reviews are late, so their viewership drops.
People like to bash Fox News, but they are the fucking divine pinacle of all journalistic integrity compared to the gaming-journalism industry.
Corrupt? I'm not sure you can speak of corruption when it literally permeates the entire industry from top to bottom. Business as usual is probably more accurate.
TotalBiscuit talked about that in great length in a recent TGS Podcast (i think 2 weeks ago, not sure). From what i remember, he basically said that it's impossible for any reviewer to not be biased. However, as a consumer you can look for reviewers to find one that you feel you can trust and that shares your gaming interest.
Yes, there are some very bad apples but usually people recognize it quickly and those reviewers lose credibility fast, even without making a "scandal" out of it, so their reviews end up ignored quickly.
Mass Effect 3 proved how biased reviews are OR they just made the review without finishing the game. Game itself was mediocre when compared to 1st or 2nd when you add in all the loops and cut dialogue options that made ME so good.
On November 13 2012 20:39 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Mass Effect 3 proved how biased reviews are OR they just made the review without finishing the game. Game itself was mediocre when compared to 1st or 2nd when you add in all the loops and cut dialogue options that made ME so good.
Yeah, this is old news.
Of course, its obvious that most reviews are biased. But the discussion is an important one to have, if there is going to be any chance of having non corrupt reviews.
Apparently no-one even seems to want that, and everyone has already given up on it anyway.
It's not like anyone didn't realize most, at least bigger, gaming websites etc are bought, hard. This isn't a problem, because only sheep blindly go by their scores and opinions. What you do is read up on the game, watch video reviews, and then read between the lines in reviews, and that gives you a decent idea of how the game works. Then, whether you like that or not, is up to you. Blindly trusting their scores and writing is a big no-no since even if they aren't bought, it's still subjective.
On November 13 2012 20:41 FortuneSyn wrote: I read the 3 links and I don't really understand. The only evidence of this happening is in that mountaindew/doritos picture?
No, everyone already knew that it was happening. That article and the lawsuit/editing of the article created a discussion in the industry.
I don't quite understand the nature and scope of the fallout. Who was outraged by this? Why? What arguments did they have to back up their indignation?
I read both the article and the editor's blog and I didn't find them objectionable. If anything I found it candid, and unfortunately based on the fallout, courageous. There's a giant elephant in the room, its name is "conflict of interest". It sounds as if everyone upset by that article have long since resigned to the fact that the elephant will always be there, even coming to embrace it. They sound incredibly jaded to be making an uproar over being reminded of something they threw away a long time ago in the name of compromise, it was necessary, simply a nature of the work they might say.
There are obvious cross-references to SC2 and ESPORTS here. ESPORTS journalism largely relies on personal connections in order to actually access information. Want to know if a new team is forming? Want to know who is being traded? To where? How about if a team is about to disband or an interview with a player or a league? Do you want to get press access to an event so you can cover it? As a journalist it's absolutely vital that you maintain relationships with the people that make all of that possible yet somehow you are still expected to ask uncomfortable questions, be critical, hold people accountable.
I wonder if there are things we can learn from other domains where such an intricate dance must be done. Something like the White House correspondents? They have to be critical of the president yet their access to him is systematized, how does it work? How about other niche interest industries like MMA or gymnastics? Do they have a system that works better?
In the end it does matter. It does matter that the reviews you read or the interviews you read actually have substance to them instead of being a mouth piece of the people pushing out a product. A product you consume. A product you have a choice in whether you want to consume or not. Because if you don't care, and you just take the mouth pieces' word for it that it tastes good, sooner or later you'll lose your sense of taste. And then you get a stomach ache from consuming junk. You. Don't. Deserve. Junk. But first you need to realize it matters.
Mass Effect 3 proved how biased reviews are OR they just made the review without finishing the game. Game itself was mediocre when compared to 1st or 2nd when you add in all the loops and cut dialogue options that made ME so good.
Yeah, this is old news.
Old news and relevant news are different things. You wouldn't post that in the "Nazi-Uprising in Present Day Germany" thread would you? Nazi groups have never gone away so, come on it's practically ancient news! Except it's relevant. So don't post rot.
On November 13 2012 20:50 dicedicerevolution wrote: I don't quite understand the nature and scope of the fallout. Who was outraged by this? Why? What arguments did they have to back up their indignation?
I read both the article and the editor's blog and I didn't find them objectionable. If anything I found it candid, and unfortunately based on the fallout, courageous. There's a giant elephant in the room, its name is "conflict of interest". It sounds as if everyone upset by that article have long since resigned to the fact that the elephant will always be there, even coming to embrace it. They sound incredibly jaded to be making an uproar over being reminded of something they threw away a long time ago in the name of compromise, it was necessary, simply a nature of the work they might say.
There are obvious cross-references to SC2 and ESPORTS here. ESPORTS journalism largely relies on personal connections in order to actually access information. Want to know if a new team is forming? Want to know who is being traded? To where? How about if a team is about to disband or an interview with a player or a league? Do you want to get press access to an event so you can cover it? As a journalist it's absolutely vital that you maintain relationships with the people that make all of that possible yet somehow you are still expected to ask uncomfortable questions, be critical, hold people accountable.
I wonder if there are things we can learn from other domains where such an intricate dance must be done. Something like the White House correspondents? They have to be critical of the president yet their access to him is systematized, how does it work? How about other niche interest industries like MMA or gymnastics? Do they have a system that works better?
In the end it does matter. It does matter that the reviews you read or the interviews you read actually have substance to them instead of being a mouth piece of the people pushing out a product. A product you consume. A product you have a choice in whether you want to consume or not. Because if you don't care, and you just take the mouth pieces' word for it that it tastes good, sooner or later you'll lose your sense of taste. And then you get a stomach ache from consuming junk. You. Don't. Deserve. Junk. But first you need to realize it matters.
As Jesse Cox says in theTGS Podcast, the outrage is caused by the fact the Lauren Wainwright threatened to sue Eurogamer, and the companies that she works for/reviews the products of forced Eurogamer to remove parts of the original article. Then reddit kicked in, and the shitstorm began.
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!
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 21:12 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
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.
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....
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 20:07 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 21:12 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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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).
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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
It's an opinion...
On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote: 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.
You know its possible to not read the score when it's written. If you disagree with how they 'score' a game, just ignore the score. It's not like the text magically disappears when they put on the score.
On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote: 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.
You know its possible to not read the score when it's written. If you disagree with how they 'score' a game, just ignore the score. It's not like the text magically disappears when they put on the score.
That's great, but ignoring how the vast majority of people read reviews (IE: A number) is neither here nor there. I'm agreeing with the guy; a review would always be much more informative if it wasn't trying to apply a metric to everything it says. There'd be lot less inconsistency, that's for sure.
On November 13 2012 23:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [quote]
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, and a sequel that
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
Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES)
I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play.
I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by.
With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before".
This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really.
So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing.
I think the biggest issue is the industry just isn't big enough and it's better to get these shallow reviews (every Call of duty since black ops, I thought MW2 did a lot of neat things) so people mass buy then to have people smashing these games and parents looking for christmas presents going "well I'll get the Ipod instead" or something similar.
Biggest examples so far are MW3 and from what I've seen Black Ops 2 along with Reach, ME3, Assassin's Creed Revelations and even Skyrim for being a beautiful full game of generic stereotypes with a weak storyline (the only thing saving Skyrim from being on my shitlist after buying is the expansion packs are really really good).
Anyway, you'll never get good journalism from dependent journalists. You have to just ask friends/colleagues and they'll be the most brutally honest add that you can tell their bias rather easily and you can form rather educated opinions.
It would be interested if TL put together a team to review games etc. Could be cool and might catch a lot of eyes.
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, and a sequel that
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
Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES)
I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play.
I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by.
With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before".
This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really.
So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing.
I know it's a difficult prospect business wise, to keep innovation up, but I don't think it's a requirement to ENJOY a game. Just to get a high score.
But I also don't think people should mind going out to see Transformers 3 or play CoD:BO2 because it's not the cream of he crop in their respective mediums. They can still be very enjoyable, regardless of any reviews.
Its been said a bunch of times but my main issue with video game "journalism" is that for major AAA releases there is no such thing as a negative review. No matter how bad the game is a CoD, Halo, GTA, etc game will never get less than an 8 maybe 7.5 if its absolute trash. The most glaring example I can think of is Dragon Age 2. The game was pretty pathetic even by the lowest standards...if an indy developer put that out it would've gotten 5's across the board. Even Bioware says they have to do better for the next one. Yet you're hard pressed to find a score lower than an 8 for the game on most major game sites. If even trash like that can't score less than 7 how do you expect to ever find an unbiased review for a major release? At least in the movie industry unless you release an absolute masterpiece like the Godfather or something you will have conflicting and negative reviews out there. This doesn't exist in the videogame world outside of forums/player opinions.
We all know that gaming journalism is BS and has been for literally DECADES, we've gone from when ET for the Atari 2600 was covered by Newsweek and the New York Times, and Daikatana being the center of major marketing campaigns and being covered on Time magazine to now when it's just a huge circle jerk between the gaming industry and major news sites won't touch it with a ten foot pole unless it's bad news for sensationalism. It's not been that long since Jeff Gerstmann got fired for giving Kane and Lynch a 6/10.
On November 14 2012 00:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [quote]
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, and a sequel that
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
Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES)
I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play.
I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by.
With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before".
This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really.
So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing.
I know it's a difficult prospect business wise, to keep innovation up, but I don't think it's a requirement to ENJOY a game. Just to get a high score.
But I also don't think people should mind going out to see Transformers 3 or play CoD:BO2 because it's not the cream of he crop in their respective mediums. They can still be very enjoyable, regardless of any reviews.
I agree, sometimes you need to suck it up and go watch expendables 2 or play CoD:BO2 just to see some shit blow up.
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, and a sequel that
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
Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES)
I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play.
I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by.
With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before".
This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really.
So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing.
I know it's a difficult prospect business wise, to keep innovation up, but I don't think it's a requirement to ENJOY a game. Just to get a high score.
But I also don't think people should mind going out to see Transformers 3 or play CoD:BO2 because it's not the cream of he crop in their respective mediums. They can still be very enjoyable, regardless of any reviews.
I agree, sometimes you need to suck it up and go watch expendables 2 or play CoD:BO2 just to see some shit blow up.
suck it up my ass, this is like saying if in any other field the person doing honest work getting fired is okay while applauding the circle jerk. It isn't just the reviews that piss people off, you can watch movies / play games with out them, it's that there are people who are genuinely interested in the medium as an art form or to develop their own stories and experiences and they will never see the light of day because they don't have fifty million dollars to afford the super special advertising campaign with a free happy ending.
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, and a sequel that
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
Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES)
I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play.
I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by.
With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before".
This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really.
So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing.
I know it's a difficult prospect business wise, to keep innovation up, but I don't think it's a requirement to ENJOY a game. Just to get a high score.
But I also don't think people should mind going out to see Transformers 3 or play CoD:BO2 because it's not the cream of he crop in their respective mediums. They can still be very enjoyable, regardless of any reviews.
I agree, sometimes you need to suck it up and go watch expendables 2 or play CoD:BO2 just to see some shit blow up.
I don't think anyone is saying people aren't allowed to enjoy these types of games. The difference is this http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_dark_of_the_moon/ . Its clear to most people AS WELL as reviewers that transformers is crap as an actual movie but will provide you with a few hours of mindless entertainment if you're into that type of thing. Now try and find a negative review for CoD or any other major release in the past few years
On November 14 2012 00:39 goiflin wrote: 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.
You know its possible to not read the score when it's written. If you disagree with how they 'score' a game, just ignore the score. It's not like the text magically disappears when they put on the score.
That's great, but ignoring how the vast majority of people read reviews (IE: A number) is neither here nor there. I'm agreeing with the guy; a review would always be much more informative if it wasn't trying to apply a metric to everything it says. There'd be lot less inconsistency, that's for sure.
If the review was poorly written, that's a problem with the writer and editor. I still have no idea why you care about the score, especially since you know you would disagree with it. I have never liked the AAA FPS games. They're just boring to me. I would rate them 2 or 3 out of 5. But I don't harp on the fact that they get 9s and 10s in reviews. The score is nothing more than some guy's opinion.
It is kind of ironic, that most people already consider gaming journalism to be "bottom of the barrel" stuff as one poster put it, so this doesn't really have the same level of effect it should have.
But that's just in terms of the quality of reviews. I am skeptical about people's claims that game reviewers are flat out an extension of the marketing arm for a game publisher. Yes maybe they give them access to games earlier, and maybe in the future they could delay access to their games if they know that reviewer doesn't like their games...does this mean that they own them as if they were their own personal marketing group? I don't think so.
Same for if they give them free subscriptions to Xbox live, or PS3's as gifts. Maybe we should be a little more critical of them accepting these gifts...but at the same time, should we assume that these make all the difference between a 75% score and a 95% score? That again, they are just extensions of the marketing team? Its just extremism.
All that it means is that they can have an influence...how large it is is up for debate. Being pictured with doritos and mountain dew is definitely pushing it though, assuming that those companies are tied to the developers of a specific game.
I think the reality is, if you do have a game and you throw millions of dollars to develop it, its probably going to be good. I don't think they deserve 95%+ scores every time, but I could understand how someone who is easily impressed by flashy graphics and "EPIC BATTLES" (cough, anything Bethesda related) could give these scores. To me it makes a lot more sense to just assume that the game reviewers are incompetent, and somewhat like children who are easily appeased, rather than that they are secretly in the pockets of game publishers, and that there is a conspiracy that is being kept secret among hundreds of executives and thousands of reviewers, in spite of gaming journalism's very public nature. It would be too hard to keep these things a secret if it were as bad as everyone was making it out to be.
I definitely think there is some influence going on...but as to how bad it is, as to whether PC Gamer or IGN would actually be willing to give some of these AAA titles bad scores, I'm not sure.
I checked PC Gamer's review for Call of Duty: Black Ops (for PC) and they gave it 64%, saying it was dazzling and flashy, but that it was let down by bad scripting, glitchy multiplayer, and increasingly dull firefights. I guess that's a good sign, right?
Edit: Ooh I found another good sign. PC Gamer UK give Crysis 2 a 70% . But then, maybe my taste in games is just bad, I guess its hard to know.
On November 14 2012 00:50 zer0das wrote: I bought 2 bags of Doritos after reading the OP. Probably not the appropriate response, but I have no regrets after lunch.
Glad I'm not the only one that got a serious craving for Doritos after reading this post :D
I think games that have 9.5 or 10, should be games I remember in more than decade and come back to beat the game again, for the sake of pure enjoyment and should only be given to games that can be considered the best game of the year in its respective genre.
1/10 should be saved for unplayable. 5/10 should be it did well in one regard (graphics, story, sound, gameplay, replayability), but shitty in the other regards. 7/10 should be saved for games that did well in almost every regard and fell short in one regard. 8/10 should be a game that did well in all categories, better than average. Everything above 8 should be saved for soley gameplay/complete fun factor and innovation.
But meh, I usually only pick games based on what my friends say about them.
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)
What?
HB and R1CH are the only full-time guys and the rest are volunteers. It's been said many times before bud.
Not all journalism we see has monetary gain. In fact, a lot of these writers are kids who are just learning their craft and many of them don't receive jack shit.
e-sports journalism is in it's infancy and journalism in every facet whether it be magazines, newspapers, television.. they all have their own agendas and are right-wing or left-wing.
Yes there are some reviewers critics who get paid to say certain stuff as well. Guess what? That happens in the film industry as well. -_-
I guess this is news? Maybe im just more aware of this then most people, but companies have been sending free things and "bribing" journalists since the beginning of time.
A friend of mine does a couple hours about technology on a radio show. She gets sent every new video game before it comes out, and all type of different tech. One time she was even given a bmw to drive for two weeks, since it had some new bluetooth tech in it a few years back.
If you want honest opinions then you need to actually do a little research and find a reviewer that you agree with, I find youtube is a decent place if you know who to watch.
Nerds getting riled up about nothing? Sounds about right. I thought everyone knew gaming journalism was shit many, many years ago. I only ever bought Nintendo Power and GamePro to look at the pictures.......
video game journalism died for me when I read the first wave of Shadow of the Colossus reviews.
I never watched another episode of X-Play or read another issue of EGM again. At the time, I was baffled by what I read, now I at least understand the context under which that happened.
this was after a near death blow to my ability to stomach it after reviews for Enter the Matrix in major publications were held until after the game had been released causing me to blow 60 dollars on one of the worst pieces of crap in modern memory for a major title.
BTW this sort of thing is unfortunately pervasive. After exposing that they were modifying vehicles to fit specific test tracks rather than provide stock cars that people can actually buy, Ferrari will no longer provide Chris Harris with cars to test. Similarly, in the game industry publishing an overly honest review will hurt your ability to operate in the marketplace as other people are going to beat you to the punch.
I've always felt that video game journalists are fake, that they are acting like journalists but really they are just PR people. Part of the problem is the fans ofcourse, fans that will not accept a bad grade for their favorit game. It needs to change, but it will probably take a while before we have real journalism in the games industry.
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.
User metascore is even worse than "critic" score. Look at diablo 3, its not a good game by any means. But its got 500 1/10 "becyz i cudnt log in 4 30 min after releaz" " NO NECROMANCER FUCK THIS SHIT GAME" and so on
tekken tag 2 review by ign was one of those biased reviews, it got so much shit for it on youtube, you can see the dislike ratio. their argument towards giving a bad rating was because "the game is too difficult (which they mention many, many times) and lacked single player". point 1, its the best tekken so far gameplay/mechanics wise. point 2, tag series are never about single player
There's really no alternative to biased gaming site reviews though. Gamers themselves give terrible reviews usually based on one issue, e.g. any DRM that isn't Steam automatically assures a game masses of terrible ratings, likely from people who've never played the games. Popular games like Halo, Call of Duty, and the Battlefield series automatically get tons of 0 ratings too. Plus the gaming community tends to go on witchhunts against anyone who disagrees with the popular opinion (Borderlands 2).
The TTT2 review was hard to watch as someone who likes fighting games. I think whenever I see a huge story where a site/mag gets early access and tons of beautiful spreads I get immediately suspicious, ESPECIALLY with Rockstar. They're incredibly controlling and manipulative of what they let get reported. You pretty much have to market their games for them. Another issue is gaming journalists have no unified code or ethics, they just have this group think that it's ok to keep rationalizing their unprofessional behavior. They also view themselves as simply "enthusiasts", which is concerning as well.
This is really a less big deal than people are making it, or it should be unless you really take reviews at face value. Everyone's biased, hell most of our "real" journalists can't even report simple facts straight.
Of course in some cases the money trail is a little too blatantly the path people've gone down to reach their conclusions and if that is the case then yeah, I'd prefer if they were honest about it (aren't there actual laws about that in the States btw?), but this is why you were given a brain.
Especially something as subjective as scored reviews can't be taken as truth, it's always been a stupid system. You just find sites which agree more with your personal bias, the things you find important, and experience will help you further thin those out. You know, like social networking or, when it comes down to it, the internet.
For that to be possible there have to be such sites however, because as others stated gamers as a whole reviewing things themselves just don't cut it and with demos becoming less and less common so you can't just make up your own mind (which would still be on a purposefully crafted and thus skewed set of materials), what's the alternative? I doubt anything will change, outside perhaps a temporary push for more truthiness with everyone assuring their audiences that THEY certainly NEVER did such things (which seems unlikely) and then we'll carry on as we've always have. Which is fine really.
There are a lot of comparisons in this thread to the film or music industry, and indeed these are the most similar industries, but a decent AAA game takes at least 20 hours of game play to complete if it's single player and significantly longer to get to grips with if it's multiplayer. There's no way a journalist can put in that kind of time on a game they get pre-released the same week they have to write the review.
Even if the journalist was the most honorable human being on the planet, there's no way they could do anything more than scrape the surface of a deep game before going to print. This leads to cheap, superficial reviews by people who haven't been given the chance to know what they are talking about. It inflates the cost of quality games journalism and makes it harder for publications to be independent. This is totally unlike film or music where the critic can analyse several releases in a day.
To labour the point some more, would you trust a film reviewer who walked out of a film after the first hour? Of course not. Would you trust a game reviewer who put in 10 hours on a game? Maybe: but there have been plenty of games which are fun at first but soon get repetitive or are too short or are fine until a certain point then go drastically off the rails. I don't want to name names as it will just upset people and I don't want this thread to turn into a "flame CoD" thread again.
I don't think the integrity of games journalism is particularly worse than the film or music industry (which possibly isn't saying much), but we rely on it more as a new game cost so much more than an album or a trip to the cinema, in time as well as money, so it should be better.
EDIT: sorry i know i've just gone off on one but it is a lot easier to review a film than a game so i think the comparisons drawn here are somewhat false. That said I'm a fan of film critic Mark Kermode who refuses to give a film a score, if you want to know what he thinks of a film you have to listen to what he says.
The original article is completely correct though, if you get your games based on most popular review sites you'll be buying all big budget titles, regardless of their quality. This is the reason the only reviewer I take somewhat seriously is Zero Punctuation, if I'm actually interested in playing a game these days I just look up a Let's play and decide for myself if it's worth the trouble.
On November 14 2012 00:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [quote]
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, and a sequel that
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
Half Life was the shit when it came out, no doubts there. Can't comment on FF4 as I played 1, 3, and 7 onwards. (Loved the shit out of FF1 on NES)
I just question whether or not we should be so highly critical of these games that have come out in the past 5 years or so. What game would you give a high score to? I guess when it comes right down to it...it's like... what more do you want? What could they do to make these games better? Nearly all games these days have voice acting, beautiful cinematics and game play.
I kind of see gaming like I do the movie business these days. The percentage of NEW movies coming out, compared to sequels and remakes is astonishing compared to years gone by.
With social media connecting us the way it has, it's becoming increasingly difficult to foster raw creativity. This generation has sort of "seen it all before".
This leaves us with newer versions of older content in the entertainment industry, both video games and movies. It's depressing to think about really.
So yeah, I agree the CoD's and Halo's of today are just copies of games gone by with bad guys names changing and graphics being 5% better, but it's hard for companies to alter the formula when a) this is what's making money and b) it's not cost effective to wait around for, and foster original ideas that could just end up failing.
I know it's a difficult prospect business wise, to keep innovation up, but I don't think it's a requirement to ENJOY a game. Just to get a high score.
But I also don't think people should mind going out to see Transformers 3 or play CoD:BO2 because it's not the cream of he crop in their respective mediums. They can still be very enjoyable, regardless of any reviews.
I agree, sometimes you need to suck it up and go watch expendables 2 or play CoD:BO2 just to see some shit blow up.
suck it up my ass, this is like saying if in any other field the person doing honest work getting fired is okay while applauding the circle jerk. It isn't just the reviews that piss people off, you can watch movies / play games with out them, it's that there are people who are genuinely interested in the medium as an art form or to develop their own stories and experiences and they will never see the light of day because they don't have fifty million dollars to afford the super special advertising campaign with a free happy ending.
This was a hilariously bad place to respond with "my ass"
There is more to games journalism than reviews and previews. Sure, any preview is going to be positive, and reviews of big names games are never going to be negative. Small games can still get honest reviews, so if a game without a big name or a big marketing budget gets good reviews, you can be pretty sure it is good.
But still there is more to games journalism than reviews. You can have retrospectives, a look back at games past where the writer can look at the impact the game had on those that followed, and be honest about its flaws. You can have editorials about a particular issue in gaming, like women in games, or the trend in motion sensing controllers etc. Articles on the game design process. Technical graphical discussion. Reviews of Esports events.
Just because big games aren't reviewed properly, doesn't mean that games journalism is completely corrupt and pointless. Seeing games journalism as a score at the end of a review is a highly limited way of understanding it. IMO reviewers shouldn't give scores.
Another note, people saying that sequels need to bring something new to be rated highly, I disagree. If a game does what it does really well, it is still a good game. I mean look at Portal 2. Same as portal but longer. Same sense of humour, a few extra puzzle types, but still a good game because it executes it really well.
On November 14 2012 17:31 ControlMonkey wrote: Sure, any preview is going to be positive, and reviews of big names games are never going to be negative.
The fact that you assume this makes me sad :[. You talk like this is business as usual. It's not. It's sad and screwed up and acting like it's always been like this (it hasn't) does not make it any better.
On November 13 2012 23:57 Hypemeup wrote: 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.
Yep, quite a thorough discussion on the Bombcast. By the by, OP, Jeff Gerstmann (now of Giant Bomb) was the one fired from Gamespot for the Kane and Lynch debacle. I found this funny because that whole thing was referred to as Gerstmanngate, and referred to this as Doritosgate without recalling the last incident's name.
Anyhoo, gonna go load-up today's -- this week's -- bombcast right now, hoping they have a follow-up conversation on this!
So... a guy gets fired for writing a review that the editors don't like and no one cares, but THAT'S what creates a scandal? Better late than never I guess.
On November 14 2012 21:46 MilesTeg wrote: So... a guy gets fired for writing a review that the editors don't like and no one cares, but THAT'S what creates a scandal? Better late than never I guess.
If you're referring to Gerstmann, he panned the game as mediocre at best, while there were Kane and Lynch promotions and ads all over the site around his review(s). He got canned because he told the truth while corporate was cashing cheques for more-than-advertising.
On November 14 2012 17:31 ControlMonkey wrote: Sure, any preview is going to be positive, and reviews of big names games are never going to be negative.
The fact that you assume this makes me sad :[. You talk like this is business as usual. It's not. It's sad and screwed up and acting like it's always been like this (it hasn't) does not make it any better.
My point is that reviews are not all there is to games journalism. IMO the reviews section should be the smallest part of a gaming mag.
I'm not going to try to come up with another way to say "yeah most game journalists have agendas and its lame", (whoops I just did) but I would like to be the first (I mean second) person ITT to recommend a critic who doesn't seem beholden to any developers, and also happens to be fucking hilarious and awesome.
shit I didn't see someone already mentioned Yahtzee. hang on I'll try to think of something smart to say.
How about, instead of complaining about how terrible other critics are, thoughtful and well-informed gamers should make an effort to get their unbiased opinions to the community.
On November 15 2012 07:55 Wolfswood wrote: I'm not going to try to come up with another way to say "yeah most game journalists have agendas and its lame", (whoops I just did) but I would like to be the first person ITT to recommend a critic who doesn't seem beholden to any developers, and also happens to be fucking hilarious and awesome.
shit I didn't see someone already mentioned Yahtzee. hang on I'll try to think of something smart to say.
How about, instead of complaining about how terrible other critics are, thoughtful and well-informed gamers should make an effort to get their unbiased opinions to the community.
OMG he is my new favourite person. That FIFA 13 review lol
On November 14 2012 03:56 red_b wrote: video game journalism died for me when I read the first wave of Shadow of the Colossus reviews.
I never watched another episode of X-Play or read another issue of EGM again. At the time, I was baffled by what I read, now I at least understand the context under which that happened.
this was after a near death blow to my ability to stomach it after reviews for Enter the Matrix in major publications were held until after the game had been released causing me to blow 60 dollars on one of the worst pieces of crap in modern memory for a major title.
BTW this sort of thing is unfortunately pervasive. After exposing that they were modifying vehicles to fit specific test tracks rather than provide stock cars that people can actually buy, Ferrari will no longer provide Chris Harris with cars to test. Similarly, in the game industry publishing an overly honest review will hurt your ability to operate in the marketplace as other people are going to beat you to the punch.
Huh? Shadow of the Colossus was well liked by everyone including Xplay. What happened?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/irnni.jpg)
