Are major game reviewers morally bankrupt at this point? (Wall of Text Warning) (Updated)

[RicoADF]

The problem with this is that it requires a fundamental shift in the way we view grades. When someone receives a 50% on a test in school, they aren't thinking "Well, I did average." No, they are thinking "I am so screwed right now!" Pretty much everything below 70% is a sign that you need serious improvement, with the exact score only indicating how much improvement there needs to be. If you want people to accept 50% as average, then you need to change their thinking on what those grades mean, but that would be very hard considering most people grow up viewing a grading scale as only being acceptable if their grade falls within the 70-100% range. Even in college you won't be able to move on to the next class if your grade is below 70% at the end.

That's not a universal thing man. At my university you have to get below 40% to fail, and anything above 70 is the highest possible grade. I got 85% once and was fucking ecstatic. So it might be like that in most cases but don't assume it's universal.

I was speaking general terms, not universal ones. It doesn't have to be universal, though. If the general population has that view, which comes from the "most cases" you've already acknowledged, then it will require a shift in thinking before most people accept a different system in video game grading.

Your system is the US system, in UK/Australia/NZ etc are 50% to fail and goes up from there, which makes sense really.
Other countries probably have their own way of breaking it up, but assuming that your system is world wide wasn't a good choice. Gaming wise yes it seems that way and it's stupid, but gaming is basically America first, the rest of the world often gets ignored (stupid of them).

 

[deleted139124]

DELETED

 

[veloper]

Metacritic user reviews are sooooo reliable. Remember how shitty Portal 2 was, a game that got reviewbombed by those people?

You think scoring an average of 8.7 is unreasonably low for Portal 2?

They seem to have cleared it out there but just as a reference:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-04-19-portal-2-metacritic-user-score-pounded

Portal 2 got reviewbombed because there were some cosmetics to buy at release and hat a 5.something userscore. And it is not unknown that the gaming community loves to reviewbomb titles because of minor flaws.

It usually corrects itself. There's still somewhere about 100 really low user scores for P2, but the many greens outweigh the reds and you end up with a good score.
Binary works too when you take alot of samples. A member here once suggested to give the users only two choices: upvote or downvote. That would work and make the proces more transparant too.

Games that really deserved low scores, such as Spore, stay in the red.

 

[quickmelt]

Game reviewers have been morally bankrupt since companies like EA, Activision, and Crapcom can just buy reviews with threats of not giving them games to reviews. It's not the fact that they pay them, it's the fact that they threaten them with not giving them games to review anymore. What bugs me further is that reviews of games are published before the games are even out now. It's a disgusting practice by companies like Game Informer and most companies today that serves to basically push product before a game is even out. That's why I usually just pay attention to some LPs if I want to find out if a game is good or now, I'll see some gameplay and that will usually decide my purchase.

Either way reviewers are morally bankrupt people with your best interests at heart no longer. The only one I'll partially listen to or take seriously is Yahtzee.

 

[kaioshade]

Game reviewers have been morally bankrupt since companies like EA, Activision, and Crapcom can just buy reviews with threats of not giving them games to reviews. It's not the fact that they pay them, it's the fact that they threaten them with not giving them games to review anymore. What bugs me further is that reviews of games are published before the games are even out now. It's a disgusting practice by companies like Game Informer and most companies today that serves to basically push product before a game is even out. That's why I usually just pay attention to some LPs if I want to find out if a game is good or now, I'll see some gameplay and that will usually decide my purchase.

Either way reviewers are morally bankrupt people with your best interests at heart no longer. The only one I'll partially listen to or take seriously is Yahtzee.

The funny thing is they almost have to bend to the companies will. They are the big sites, and those are the sites the general populace look to for information. The only way to be absolutely sure of a review is to have reviewers buy the games themselves with their own money. But part of the perks of being a reviewer is having games provided for you. Its a tough situation. Although you have the right idea about using Lets Play videos for information. However there are some things, like control mechanics and general feel of the game that is hard to convey through video alone.

 

[quickmelt]

Game reviewers have been morally bankrupt since companies like EA, Activision, and Crapcom can just buy reviews with threats of not giving them games to reviews. It's not the fact that they pay them, it's the fact that they threaten them with not giving them games to review anymore. What bugs me further is that reviews of games are published before the games are even out now. It's a disgusting practice by companies like Game Informer and most companies today that serves to basically push product before a game is even out. That's why I usually just pay attention to some LPs if I want to find out if a game is good or now, I'll see some gameplay and that will usually decide my purchase.

Either way reviewers are morally bankrupt people with your best interests at heart no longer. The only one I'll partially listen to or take seriously is Yahtzee.

The funny thing is they almost have to bend to the companies will. They are the big sites, and those are the sites the general populace look to for information. The only way to be absolutely sure of a review is to have reviewers buy the games themselves with their own money. But part of the perks of being a reviewer is having games provided for you. Its a tough situation. Although you have the right idea about using Lets Play videos for information. However there are some things, like control mechanics and general feel of the game that is hard to convey through video alone.

Not really, honestly. I just watched an LP of the newest Space Hulk and the controls are actually rather easy to convey through an LP. Most games have simple controls today anyways, unless you're doing something like "Papers, Please" which slaps a rulebook in your face and tells you to figure it out. Which, was rather fun actually and I ended up buying the games.

 

[MysticSlayer]

The problem with this is that it requires a fundamental shift in the way we view grades. When someone receives a 50% on a test in school, they aren't thinking "Well, I did average." No, they are thinking "I am so screwed right now!" Pretty much everything below 70% is a sign that you need serious improvement, with the exact score only indicating how much improvement there needs to be. If you want people to accept 50% as average, then you need to change their thinking on what those grades mean, but that would be very hard considering most people grow up viewing a grading scale as only being acceptable if their grade falls within the 70-100% range. Even in college you won't be able to move on to the next class if your grade is below 70% at the end.

That's not a universal thing man. At my university you have to get below 40% to fail, and anything above 70 is the highest possible grade. I got 85% once and was fucking ecstatic. So it might be like that in most cases but don't assume it's universal.

I was speaking general terms, not universal ones. It doesn't have to be universal, though. If the general population has that view, which comes from the "most cases" you've already acknowledged, then it will require a shift in thinking before most people accept a different system in video game grading.

Your system is the US system, in UK/Australia/NZ etc are 50% to fail and goes up from there, which makes sense really.
Other countries probably have their own way of breaking it up, but assuming that your system is world wide wasn't a good choice. Gaming wise yes it seems that way and it's stupid, but gaming is basically America first, the rest of the world often gets ignored (stupid of them).

I already pointed out in another post that I don't have to take a worldwide approach, as the standards seem to be set by the major American reviewers, such as IGN. In that case, the American system of grading is likely to dominate, as it is the view that many of those major reviewers would have grown up with. Yes, there are major reviewers from outside the U.S., but if the standard is set by reviewers from the U.S., then that really doesn't matter.

 

[kaioshade]

Game reviewers have been morally bankrupt since companies like EA, Activision, and Crapcom can just buy reviews with threats of not giving them games to reviews. It's not the fact that they pay them, it's the fact that they threaten them with not giving them games to review anymore. What bugs me further is that reviews of games are published before the games are even out now. It's a disgusting practice by companies like Game Informer and most companies today that serves to basically push product before a game is even out. That's why I usually just pay attention to some LPs if I want to find out if a game is good or now, I'll see some gameplay and that will usually decide my purchase.

Either way reviewers are morally bankrupt people with your best interests at heart no longer. The only one I'll partially listen to or take seriously is Yahtzee.

The funny thing is they almost have to bend to the companies will. They are the big sites, and those are the sites the general populace look to for information. The only way to be absolutely sure of a review is to have reviewers buy the games themselves with their own money. But part of the perks of being a reviewer is having games provided for you. Its a tough situation. Although you have the right idea about using Lets Play videos for information. However there are some things, like control mechanics and general feel of the game that is hard to convey through video alone.

Not really, honestly. I just watched an LP of the newest Space Hulk and the controls are actually rather easy to convey through an LP. Most games have simple controls today anyways, unless you're doing something like "Papers, Please" which slaps a rulebook in your face and tells you to figure it out. Which, was rather fun actually and I ended up buying the games.

Let me clarify. Lets say for example, i was watching a video of bayonetta. Now i can clearly see how the game plays, but how does it control. how many button presses will it take for me to do some of those things? do i need to contort my fingers in some crazy positions o do simple combos, for example. of course the answer is no for that, but things like that, unless specifically told in the video by the player, can be hard to properly convey.

But you are right in most games do not have overly complicated controls, so this is not quite as much as an issue.

 

[quickmelt]

Game reviewers have been morally bankrupt since companies like EA, Activision, and Crapcom can just buy reviews with threats of not giving them games to reviews. It's not the fact that they pay them, it's the fact that they threaten them with not giving them games to review anymore. What bugs me further is that reviews of games are published before the games are even out now. It's a disgusting practice by companies like Game Informer and most companies today that serves to basically push product before a game is even out. That's why I usually just pay attention to some LPs if I want to find out if a game is good or now, I'll see some gameplay and that will usually decide my purchase.

Either way reviewers are morally bankrupt people with your best interests at heart no longer. The only one I'll partially listen to or take seriously is Yahtzee.

The funny thing is they almost have to bend to the companies will. They are the big sites, and those are the sites the general populace look to for information. The only way to be absolutely sure of a review is to have reviewers buy the games themselves with their own money. But part of the perks of being a reviewer is having games provided for you. Its a tough situation. Although you have the right idea about using Lets Play videos for information. However there are some things, like control mechanics and general feel of the game that is hard to convey through video alone.

Not really, honestly. I just watched an LP of the newest Space Hulk and the controls are actually rather easy to convey through an LP. Most games have simple controls today anyways, unless you're doing something like "Papers, Please" which slaps a rulebook in your face and tells you to figure it out. Which, was rather fun actually and I ended up buying the games.

Let me clarify. Lets say for example, i was watching a video of bayonetta. Now i can clearly see how the game plays, but how does it control. how many button presses will it take for me to do some of those things? do i need to contort my fingers in some crazy positions o do simple combos, for example. of course the answer is no for that, but things like that, unless specifically told in the video by the player, can be hard to properly convey.

But you are right in most games do not have overly complicated controls, so this is not quite as much as an issue.

I'd honestly say most of the LPs of bayonetta or DMC 1/2/3/4 are just people showing off the combos they can perform, anyways. Takes work to get SSS ranks in those games and the people who play them and can get them are usually much more knowledgeable about them in the first place.