am i the only one who is frustrated with reviewers getting paid to give good reviews about AAA titles that are over all are half way done and have the other half being sold for DLC.I could go on a good rant bashing some reviewers and their ''reviews''but instead i want know your opinion on the whole thing and who are the reviewers who can and can't be trusted.
reviewers getting paid to give good reviews
- Thread starter skleege
- Start date
Recommended Videos
an example would be ign how they gave evolve a 9/10 while others like the angry Joe show gave it a 5/10 and and metacritic's user score gave it a 4.3/10 but that game did have other good reviews so lets move on to another game simcity 2013 ign gave it a 7/10 but projared gave it a 3/10 both reviews were made near launch and metacritics user score gave it a 2.2/10 now that could just be a difference of opinions but ign gave alien isolation a 5.9/10 while metacritic gave it a user score of 8.4/10 and the angry joe show gave it a 8/10 now i was going to include this in the article but i felt it was to bashy towards ign
So difference of opinion now counts as proof of getting paid off? In that case, who's paying you off to say all of this?skleege said:
No, you're not the only one frustrated with reviewers being "paid". In fact, I'm sure this thread will be filled with people agreeing with you.
As for who to trust, trust who you like reading.
Or do what I do, which is scour the internet for many reviews on the same game/film/whatever and see if the opinions on it line up. If the majority of them do, I'll probably look into it more/buy it if it's good. If it's a decently even split of good and bad, wait for a sale. If mostly bad, wait for user reviews and if THEY say it's bad, avoid.
As for who to trust, trust who you like reading.
Or do what I do, which is scour the internet for many reviews on the same game/film/whatever and see if the opinions on it line up. If the majority of them do, I'll probably look into it more/buy it if it's good. If it's a decently even split of good and bad, wait for a sale. If mostly bad, wait for user reviews and if THEY say it's bad, avoid.
You should be worried about REAL dangers out there, like squirrel army takeover of North america.skleege said:
They caused the car crash, train delay and Teacher's strike one day to prevent me from being educated.
You people are all blind, blind to the truth!
No, it doesn't prove anything. It shows that there's a difference of opinion, which is very common. There might be some other factors, such as different scoring standards (which is certainly the case once AngryJoe and Metacritic users come in),[footnote]While this is an insult to Metacritic users, this isn't an insult to AngryJoe. It's just a fact he's stated numerous times that he grades things more harshly than other critics.[/footnote] but at its core, a lot of this comes down to people simply having a difference of opinion. But if such a concept is that foreign to you, maybe you should spend more time making threads about games than about your conspiracy theories. Maybe once you start talking about the games themselves you'll realize that people can have a difference of opinion without getting paid to have that opinion.skleege said:
Game reviews are at a point where they are rather useless as every game is 7+/10. I don't ever pay attention to game reviews, I get more information just watching unedited gameplay of a game and judging for myself.
I'm sure some reviews are paid. Just the fact that publishers' ad revenue keeps sites going and the fact of how much publishers care about Metacritic scores, there has to be some conflict of interest with game reviewers. How much? I don't know or really care as I said I don't even pay attention to reviews. Didn't the whole Jeff Gerstmann Kane and Lynch thing prove there was shady stuff going on years ago?
But again this is nothing surprising or anything. Movie studios pay for fake reviews for some reason even when the audience doesn't care how well a movie scores anyways (like Transformers). Saying there's nothing going on or most reviews are paid are 2 extremes that almost certainly aren't true, the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle.
I'm sure some reviews are paid. Just the fact that publishers' ad revenue keeps sites going and the fact of how much publishers care about Metacritic scores, there has to be some conflict of interest with game reviewers. How much? I don't know or really care as I said I don't even pay attention to reviews. Didn't the whole Jeff Gerstmann Kane and Lynch thing prove there was shady stuff going on years ago?
But again this is nothing surprising or anything. Movie studios pay for fake reviews for some reason even when the audience doesn't care how well a movie scores anyways (like Transformers). Saying there's nothing going on or most reviews are paid are 2 extremes that almost certainly aren't true, the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle.
I guess to play devil's advocate and defend the OP: I've heard of reviewers getting paid off by companies to give decent reviews.
Shadow of Mordor had a very shady contract deal with online personalities. Most famously a Gamespot writer was fired for giving a bad review to a game which contributed pressure between the sites then management and advertisers (Phoenix mentioned it above). One case I remimber was a review of Revelations 2012 that was positively glowing dispite the game being considered very crappy. That website was taken down not long after.
So it does happen, probably more often than we think. That's why it is healthy to look at more than one review when researching the representation of the game and not sweat too much about individual scores.
Shadow of Mordor had a very shady contract deal with online personalities. Most famously a Gamespot writer was fired for giving a bad review to a game which contributed pressure between the sites then management and advertisers (Phoenix mentioned it above). One case I remimber was a review of Revelations 2012 that was positively glowing dispite the game being considered very crappy. That website was taken down not long after.
So it does happen, probably more often than we think. That's why it is healthy to look at more than one review when researching the representation of the game and not sweat too much about individual scores.
There was a Cracked article where they interviewed a game developer [http://www.cracked.com/article_20727_5-reasons-video-game-industry-about-to-crash.html], and he talked about publishers gaming the scoring system. But I wouldn't call what he's describing straight-up bribing reviewers for good scores, but buttering them up with events, ad revenue, and publicity if you say something nice that they put on the box.
And don't forget the whole Kane & Lynch/Jeff Gerstmann fiasco.
And don't forget the whole Kane & Lynch/Jeff Gerstmann fiasco.
Another example from IGN would be Assassin's Creed Unity. They were running ads for the game all the time before the launch of the game and so Unity got great review inspite of having many issues. Another example not limited to ign would be Battlefield 4.That game also was broken at launch yet got great glowing reviews from big and popular sites like ign and gamespot.
Umm OP, I know that this theory about game reviewers being bought out by publishers may sound plausible but it is not cemented by any evidence to be real. Even I am wary with some reviewers but I would not called them out as 'sell-out' when their is little to no evidence to support it or it may as well be me being paranoid. In the end, I will advised you (But I think you already do) to look up for reviewers who you either have in common or are to be trusted.
Also, I was being very general when I meant 'reviewers' since I know the whole Gamespot Kane& lynch problem, and how I suspect that some game journalists being to close to the publishers for coverage and also the publishers picking favourites with their journalists. But yeah it is just a suspicion tho.
Also, I was being very general when I meant 'reviewers' since I know the whole Gamespot Kane& lynch problem, and how I suspect that some game journalists being to close to the publishers for coverage and also the publishers picking favourites with their journalists. But yeah it is just a suspicion tho.
Nope, because I've never seen or heard of it happening. I've heard of questionable practices, like taking some cool stuff, free hotel rooms, and whatnot, but straight up taking cash in exchange for a good score? Nope, never heard of it.
People often bring up IGN as a big offender. I would like to point out that other game reviewers gave Isolation glowing reviews, but IGN didn't even give it a six out of ten. So what's the logic here? IGN didn't get the proper bribe, so in turn they decided to trash the game? Or is it more likely that people happen to have different opinions than other people...?
As for games having DLC, I still don't get what the big deal is. Now, if you're talking about on-disc, locked DLC, then yeah I understand. But I recently saw a thread where the O.P. was complaining about the Dark Souls II DLC saying that it was cheap and a cash grab. Despite the fact that the DLC came out months after the release of the game. DLC is not a bad thing. How it's handled is what decides if it's bad.
People often bring up IGN as a big offender. I would like to point out that other game reviewers gave Isolation glowing reviews, but IGN didn't even give it a six out of ten. So what's the logic here? IGN didn't get the proper bribe, so in turn they decided to trash the game? Or is it more likely that people happen to have different opinions than other people...?
As for games having DLC, I still don't get what the big deal is. Now, if you're talking about on-disc, locked DLC, then yeah I understand. But I recently saw a thread where the O.P. was complaining about the Dark Souls II DLC saying that it was cheap and a cash grab. Despite the fact that the DLC came out months after the release of the game. DLC is not a bad thing. How it's handled is what decides if it's bad.