278: Opinions for Sale or Trade

[SteveZim1017]

"Nobody is perfect, and it is unrealistic to expect that reviewers can always be unblemished bastions of journalistic brilliance that never make mistakes. I've made my share of mistakes with reviews, and I sometimes think we as an industry can be far too worried about what publishers may think of low scores, or are too scared of our own readers and wish not to offend them by criticizing a major release. "

this is why people think reviews are bought. As a Reviewer your review should be based soley own your opinion of the game. If it is just your opinion, there is no way your review can be "wrong." Its when you start skewing your review for other choices like page hits or reader reactions that you have no business calling yourself a reviewer.

 

[Tharticus]

The moment that someone sees a perfect score, chances are people will lower the score because they will nitpick over anything that's flawed. Like Starcraft 2. Or any game that is scored perfect in any magazine like... Famitsu. At times, PR people love to pass money under the table to a major gaming review site or magazine to having raise the score to convince the reader to say this game is awful/bad/decent/great/excellent.

I even think if maybe the PR also pass money to even lower the scores from their competitors.

In the end, if gaming sites believe that their opinion/scores will increase game sales, that varies differently. DJ Hero? Got average scores. Did perform badly on sales. Madden games? Same old, same old. Sells like hotcakes every single year.

 

[The Random One]

And the twist of the knife is that, in the end, it's like a politician getting himself involved in deep corruption schemes to unlawfully pass his bill to increase the distance between stripes in a zebra crossing by half an inch. Oh god, I think I reached some kind of metaphor zenith. What I mean is that pretty much ever study that has, well studied it says that review scores aren't even in the top ten reasons that make people choose to buy a game. So publishers and game mags alike are sullying their reputations, sometimes not even inflating their review score, for meaningless numbers.

I think publishers are starting to catch on that even bad publicity is still publicity, though. Games reviews by Yahtzee now have a link to buy them under the video. 'The game is a colourful metaphor that likens it to one's biological waste of a sexual nature. Buy it!' (If I didn't prefer to buy used games I might use that link a lot, though, since when I'm considering whether to buy a game I tend to look at gameplay videos, read forums, read reviews, and then watch Yahtzee's take on it to see what are the bad things. If I'm still interested after that it's pretty much a safe buy. At least he was the only review who told me that Red Dead Redemption has the same awkward running controls as GTAIV thus saving me a lot of money.)

Only review I ever had a problem with was GTA IV. Prior to release many mainstream gaming sites had an ass load of ads for the game and upon it's release gave it high scores across the board. Meanwhile the gaming community especially veterans of the GTA franchise were disappointed with the lack of freedom and overly serious tone of the game. I recall gametrailers.com giving it a perfect score when the game was far from perfect. I feel that the more a game is advertised ($$) on a site magazine etc the more pressure there is for them give favorable reviews.

To be honest I don't think that, or at least all of that, was just people in gaming sites with money signs on their eyes. They were probably protecting themselves from a fan onslaught (which is another problem with reviews, probably worth its own article). One of my favourite Penny Arcade strips is one related to the outcry of fans after Gametrailers gave MGS4 a 9. ('You know what nine is, right? It's right next to ten!') They might just be expecting that fans would look over the failures and be angry that they didn't as well, which would have happened.

 

[Michael O'Hair]

Truth is, most of us aren't being paid off by game publishers, and the vast majority of us are normal gamers, not sinister conspirators from Hell's obsidian lakes.

It's hard to trust anyone who feels strongly about games to have absolutely no bias. I hardly trust myself to have no bias when it comes to opinions about "this game" or "that game".

The bias was self-enforced when I was young; I preferred NES games over Sega Master System games, SNES games over Sega Genesis games, Dreamcast games over N64 games, Playstation games over Sega Saturn games, and so on. I wasn't the fact that one company was better than the other, but that I played better games on one platform and played some bad ones on the other.

That's not to say that the bias can be overcome, but we all have preconceived notions about what makes a good game or a bad game.

Game reviews are a poor measurement of a game's value. During high school, I remember renting or borrowing almost every game before I bought it. This was due to a three page feature about Shaq-Fu in EGM. I'm sure you can imagine the result.

Shaq-Fu made me distrust game reviews journalists to this day.

 

[silvain]

Nice article, Jim.

Other people are bringing it up, but I'd like to again mention that the hype train and soft influence (plane tickets to gatherings, booze, parties and the like) are probably more damaging to reviewers than MONEYHATs are. For some reason, many video game reviewers tend to get really caught up in hype, much more than their contemporaries seem to be in the other arts.

I'm not really sure why this is, though I do wonder if it's because the same people who are putting out press releases, previews, and the rest of the news end up doing the reviews.

 

[dickseverywhere]

Spoiler: snip

To be fair, reviews are biased from the start, a payoff of any kind only makes the bias go farther to one side or the other. As a review is that one person's experience with the game, usually before anything has been patched or cleaned up post-release, reviews really depend on who is playing the game, their personal tastes, their level of skill in that specific genre, etc. Game reviews really have no place, in my opinion. Instead, every game should have a demo that is no less than 45 minutes long for a single-player demo, and either a 5 hour or heavily limited multiplayer demo available for free download on whatever gaming service happens to have the game, and maybe even available at a kiosk in a Gamestop or something. This way, people can play the game for a bit, form their own opinions about it, and decide whether or not they want to buy it. Now, I realise that this would put game reviewers out of a job, but I'm sure that they could easily do something else with the same company. Then again, I'm probably being optimistic.

TL;DR: Go read the fucking thing and quit being an impatient ass.

Spoiler: snip

fucking yes, where did all the fucking demos go? used to be you got multiple demos coming out from months before release, now you're lucky if you get one at all. seriously what the hell happened there?

 

[gphjr14]

And the twist of the knife is that, in the end, it's like a politician getting himself involved in deep corruption schemes to unlawfully pass his bill to increase the distance between stripes in a zebra crossing by half an inch. Oh god, I think I reached some kind of metaphor zenith. What I mean is that pretty much ever study that has, well studied it says that review scores aren't even in the top ten reasons that make people choose to buy a game. So publishers and game mags alike are sullying their reputations, sometimes not even inflating their review score, for meaningless numbers.

I think publishers are starting to catch on that even bad publicity is still publicity, though. Games reviews by Yahtzee now have a link to buy them under the video. 'The game is a colourful metaphor that likens it to one's biological waste of a sexual nature. Buy it!' (If I didn't prefer to buy used games I might use that link a lot, though, since when I'm considering whether to buy a game I tend to look at gameplay videos, read forums, read reviews, and then watch Yahtzee's take on it to see what are the bad things. If I'm still interested after that it's pretty much a safe buy. At least he was the only review who told me that Red Dead Redemption has the same awkward running controls as GTAIV thus saving me a lot of money.)

Only review I ever had a problem with was GTA IV. Prior to release many mainstream gaming sites had an ass load of ads for the game and upon it's release gave it high scores across the board. Meanwhile the gaming community especially veterans of the GTA franchise were disappointed with the lack of freedom and overly serious tone of the game. I recall gametrailers.com giving it a perfect score when the game was far from perfect. I feel that the more a game is advertised ($$) on a site magazine etc the more pressure there is for them give favorable reviews.

To be honest I don't think that, or at least all of that, was just people in gaming sites with money signs on their eyes. They were probably protecting themselves from a fan onslaught (which is another problem with reviews, probably worth its own article). One of my favourite Penny Arcade strips is one related to the outcry of fans after Gametrailers gave MGS4 a 9. ('You know what nine is, right? It's right next to ten!') They might just be expecting that fans would look over the failures and be angry that they didn't as well, which would have happened.

I visit Gametrailers quite frequently for trailers but put little stock in their reviews. GT seems to have a problem with people whining over less than a full point difference in scores but its another thing I considered but failed to mention. Games with a lot of hype around them tend to force reviewers to choose between integrity or internet traffic. I recall back in the mid 90s gamerevolution was critical of most games but now that they're in the somewhat big league their review scores don't vary that much from other mainstream videogame sites/magazines. I know Yahtzee's ZP is more for comedy than a consumers guide but most of his views and concerns on games coincides with mine. He held contempt for GTA IV for the same reasons I did, he said Saints Row 2 was better I went out on a limb and got and found myself playing it way more than I did GTA IV.

And I know how hostile people can be when a popular game receives any kind of criticism. I complained about the lack of mission variety, weapons, car handling and things like parachutes and people barked back those weren't necessary, so unnecessary that they were all included in Lost and the Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony. R* knew they should've been in IV but were too worried about graphics and setting up repetitive man dates with "your kezin" every 24 in game hours.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Hi, Jim. Welcome to our site!

Exclusive reviews need to go...And review embargos should go with it. If you're confident in your product, don't hold the reviews back until the day the game comes out. Because by the time most people read the reviews, they'll already have gotten the game.

 

[ZakCanard]

fucking yes, where did all the fucking demos go? used to be you got multiple demos coming out from months before release, now you're lucky if you get one at all. seriously what the hell happened there?

The Internet for all intents and purposes killed off the print mags, the world's primary source of game demos. Those mags that still exist tend not to run cover discs as production costs will eat into their already tight profit margins even further. Once you factor in that game demos can now be as huge as full games themselves and not everyone has access to unlimited bandwidth DSL/Cable broadband to download them with, you've got game demos stuck in a sort of limbo state until infrastructure catches up with technology.

 

[vxicepickxv]

fucking yes, where did all the fucking demos go? used to be you got multiple demos coming out from months before release, now you're lucky if you get one at all. seriously what the hell happened there?

The Internet for all intents and purposes killed off the print mags, the world's primary source of game demos. Those mags that still exist tend not to run cover discs as production costs will eat into their already tight profit margins even further. Once you factor in that game demos can now be as huge as full games themselves and not everyone has access to unlimited bandwidth DSL/Cable broadband to download them with, you've got game demos stuck in a sort of limbo state until infrastructure catches up with technology.

The only print magazines I can think of that come with disks are PC Gamer and Official X-Box Magazine.

I don't like exclusive reviews, because they seem a bit shady. If an official review is really low like AvP was, then I don't mind it so much, but high scoring exclusive reviews are pretty suspect. One of my favorite reviews was for Assassin's Creed 2 on the PC. It was talking about how amazing the game was, but don't buy it because the DRM is just too restrictive. He went on to talk about how great it was, and if it wasn't for the DRM, you should go get it. He basically said that the review was written for the great game it was, not for the DRM it had. Don't buy this game if you support this restrictive DRM.

 

[LazyAza]

That was a great read Jim. It does suck how alot of reviews don't exactly seem trustworthy. I've been very suspicious of GameTrailers especially for some time now but eh rather than being one of those neogaf capslock whiners I just chose to ignore their site and sites like theirs where honesty is clearly in question.

If anyone would like my recommendations; GiantBomb, 1up and Jims own Destructoid are very trustworthy places for game reviews and all regularly feature interesting, entertaining and often funny content.

 

[VondeVon]

What freaks me out is that Game Informer is owned and published by GameStop.

What sane person buys a magazine filled with game reviews from the people who sell those games?
Isn't that like paying the company to look at their ads?

That said, it's apparently the #1 magazine in Australia now. Sigh.

 

[obliviondoll]

[sub]Scrumpmonkey will give Modern Warfare 2 a 9.5/10 when Activision pays for his holiday, booze flights and hookers whist playing it. [/sub]

I guess I'm a more legitimate reviewer than you then.

If Activision gives me a holiday, flights, booze etc, I'm still not giving Modern Warfare 2 higher than a 6. Of course, I docked a full point from the score because they stole the abbreviation of a significantly better game about giant robots.

But being PROPERLY on-topic...

I'm a reviewer for Gameplanet in NZ (www.gameplanet.co.nz), and I've never done an exclusive review that was promoted as such, or that I was told was exclusive. If someone tells me I can be published early, I'll be excited. If they turn around and tell me what to say in the review or how to rate the game, I'll spread the word that "someone" tried to buy my review. And that I'm conspicuously NOT reviewing a specific game. I won't tell them who tried to buy a review, or what game I was going to review, but I know a lot of people who know that 2 + 2 = 4.

And as for Rise of the Robots, I actually don't think it's that bad a game. As an arcade-style fighting game, it was AWFUL, yes. But that's because it WASN'T an arcade-style fighting game. The problem was that they targeted the wrong market. It had enough issues to keep it from reaching 8/10, but it was a solid 7/10 in my mind. Of course, it was the first 2D beat-em-up style game I played with a realistic feel to the combat (no over-the-top special moves or jumping 8 feet high just to make the gameplay work).

 

[DayDark]

I mostly read reviews from metacritic to avoid sample bias. In any case, IGN, Gametrailers, and The Escapist, are the only sites I really take serious, the key thing with reviews is to read the text next to the number.

 

[Evil Tim]

And as for Rise of the Robots, I actually don't think it's that bad a game. As an arcade-style fighting game, it was AWFUL, yes. But that's because it WASN'T an arcade-style fighting game. The problem was that they targeted the wrong market.

Yes, the jumping backwards into a corner and pressing kick market would have lapped it up if correctly targeted, I'm sure.

It had enough issues to keep it from reaching 8/10, but it was a solid 7/10 in my mind.

Shame all the consumers who bought it had to play it outside your mind, where it sucked.

Of course, it was the first 2D beat-em-up style game I played with a realistic feel to the combat (no over-the-top special moves or jumping 8 feet high just to make the gameplay work).

Why in God's name would you want a game about robots hitting each other to have a "realistic" feel to the fighting? If you're going to go that route, you need to present your game as such; when your enemy is a powerloader or a mechanical gorilla, you expect things to be over the top. When they're not, you're disappointed; more so when the AI is too stupid to put up a fight and there's exactly one selectable character in singleplayer. If there's one place you'd have a good reason for eight foot jumps, fireballs, transforming attacks and energy waves, it's a game where the fighters are machines. What's the point of a fighting game being about robots if they're just going to wrestle like people?

As for the positive review, I believe that was CU Amiga, who did bullshit reviews for a slightly different reason to most; they were trying to save the platform by rating every major Amiga release absurdly highly, the logic being that sales of crappy games would encourage publishers to resume support, rather than destroy consumer confidence in the reviews (guess which one actually happened). They did things even the dumbest publisher wouldn't ask them to do like reviewing games based on unfinished beta code months or even most of a year before the actual release (Epic and Alien 3, respectively). Never underestimate the ability of a reviewer to do stupid things because he's a fanboy rather than because someone paid him to.

 

[obliviondoll]

And as for Rise of the Robots, I actually don't think it's that bad a game. As an arcade-style fighting game, it was AWFUL, yes. But that's because it WASN'T an arcade-style fighting game. The problem was that they targeted the wrong market.

Yes, the jumping backwards into a corner and pressing kick market would have lapped it up if correctly targeted, I'm sure.

Of course, it was the first 2D beat-em-up style game I played with a realistic feel to the combat (no over-the-top special moves or jumping 8 feet high just to make the gameplay work).

Why in God's name would you want a game about robots hitting each other to have a "realistic" feel to the fighting? If you're going to go that route, you need to present your game as such; when your enemy is a powerloader or a mechanical gorilla, you expect things to be over the top. When they're not, you're disappointed; more so when the AI is too stupid to put up a fight and there's exactly one selectable character in singleplayer.

I'm sorry. I don't see how a powerloader is going to be any good at jumping twice its height in the air, and I don't have a problem with the gameplay reflecting that. They promoted the game blatantly towards Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat fans. If they'd targeted people who were going to enjoy a more down-to-earth feel, the game would have probably done better. A large portion of the market One Must Fall: 2097 won over would have quite enjoyed it, and that game probably would have been better promoted toward the hardcore fighting game fanbase. Also, something I still find funny about Rise: it made record sales during the first week after release because of how heavy-handed the hype was, and during the following week had record numbers of returns.

Agree with you on the possibility of winning through the jump backwards and kick every fight, but that was a bug, not a feature. As for the lack of choice of character, you forgot to mention that in two player, one person had to be the guy from single-player. That was a deliberate design choice to allow them to direct the story. Unfortunately, it was also a stupid one. So yes, I agree, there were issues. I think I already mentioned that though.

It had enough issues to keep it from reaching 8/10

Guess so.

 

[Evil Tim]

I'm sorry. I don't see how a powerloader is going to be any good at jumping twice its height in the air, and I don't have a problem with the gameplay reflecting that.

Hell, a powerloader shouldn't realistically be any good at fighting at all, so they got that aspect nailed down too with the AI.

If they'd wanted to market a realistic fighting game, they should have just bitten the bullet and made a wrestling game with people. When you're up against a military robot (and at very least the red one was supposed to be a soldier bot, if I recall rightly), you expect some wacky shit to go down. Just having him throw punches and kicks is lame.

 

[obliviondoll]

Hell, a powerloader shouldn't realistically be any good at fighting at all, so they got that aspect nailed down too with the AI.

If they'd wanted to market a realistic fighting game, they should have just bitten the bullet and made a wrestling game with people. When you're up against a military robot (and at very least the red one was supposed to be a soldier bot, if I recall rightly), you expect some wacky shit to go down. Just having him throw punches and kicks is lame.

I guess we'll have to leave it there then.

I don't think the game was terrible, but I'll admit it was flawed. I thought the soldier robot should have had some form of projectile attack though, so you have legitimate points about at least some of the problems with the game. I still enjoyed it, even though I admit it could have been better. And OMF:2097 was an example of much better. But then, it's my favourite 2D fighter, so I would say that.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

A big example of this is the Gerstmann incident over on Gamespot about Kane and Lynch. Gerstmann game the game a pretty bad review, because the game itself was pretty bad. But since it was also advertised on the site a lot, its assumed that the Publisher didn't like the review, and put on pressure to fire him. Well whatever happened, he got fired, and his review was replaced with a more favorable review.

Agreed with everything, except the fact that I liked Kane & Lynch and the fact that his review is actually still there.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/kanelynchdeadmen/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review


PT: It's hard to trust any reviews whatsoever since Rise of The Robots (one of the worst, most repetitive, unbalanced games ever), since Underworld or since any AAA-title games.

Of course, world exclusive reviews can't be trusted. Even if a "reviewer" isn't bought, he's still somewhat grateful that he's getting the game early.

Now, most problems I've had with reviews were with the negative ones, yet, it's a shady business and it's really hard to defend.