The problem is not reviews or reviewers. The problem is you.

[Callate]

Why would someone accept a bribe rather than reveal it and revel in the fame and new-found reputation for integrity?

...Well, why does anyone accept a bribe rather than reveal it, journalist or otherwise? Because they think they won't be believed? Because they think (correctly or otherwise) it's become endemic to their culture and they can't swim upstream alone? Because they worry that by being a whistle-blower they'll burn bridges important to their career?

I don't doubt that it's pretty rare. I also don't doubt that it has happened. I used to read a really crappy game magazine (whose name escapes me and which no longer exists) which clearly gave medium high to high review scores to nearly every product that came across their pages- save exactly one, which they would throw to the wolves. There may not have been direct journalist payment going on there, but I have strong suspicions that somewhere up the chain there were some not-so-subtle conversations going on about ad revenue or the like. Things like the GameSpot/Kane & Lynch debacle paint a similar picture, as do occasions of PR people grumbling that maybe some people won't be getting their early review copies next cycle. There have also been more than a few cases of "Wouldn't you love to be flown down and put up to get an exclusive on our game?" kinds of things. There are plenty of ways to apply pressure that aren't the same as a direct bribe, yet still have a similar effect.

All that said, when a review is crap, I think it's better to point out why the review is crap rather than indulge in unfounded speculation on things happening behind the scenes, and I agree the latter occurs too often. Even if something unseemly is occurring offstage, what will appear in a bad review will be evident in double standards and questionable patterns, which are far easier to call out, anyway. Maybe the reviewer is in the thrall of Game Company X- but it's more damning and far more provable to point out that a similar game from a different publisher, one that got far higher reviews everywhere else, was panned for vague and arbitrary reasons.

And even without out-and-out bribery, I think there's blame to go around.

 

[DirgeNovak]

The very idea of devs/publishers paying reviewers off is ludicrous. Being offered a bribe to review a game positively would be a much better story to publish for any journalist than just pocket the cash and do as they're asked.
The only exception to this would be a certain period in Gamespot's history, around the beginning of last gen, when site executives were too chickenshit to risk angering publishers and the site started doling out perfect and near-perfect scores like candy for AAA games that brought in lots of ad money. They're still a bit too lenient on AAA and too harsh on indies for my tastes, but they're mostly okay now.
Critics exist to give their opinion on things. Your job as a reader is to find one or (preferably) a few with whom you generally agree and read their stuff when you're on the fence about something. That's it. Getting worked up about reviews is stupid and childish.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Some random thoughts on the subject...

1) While there hasn't been much evidence past the Kane and Lynch fiasco of direct tampering, there certainly is a consistent conflict of interest when your primary source of criticism/review is also completely funded by your advertising dollars. When a lot of reviews read like glossy marketing hype and seem completely oblivious to obvious and objective flaws (bugs, serious performance issues, etc), that compounds the issue. So while it's easy for any disgruntled fan to point at a review they dislike and shout "corruption!", it's the industry's fault for allowing it to be this way. And when I say "industry" I mean the gaming press, because if companies are buying reviews, that's just good business sense.

2) Scored reviews are just fundamentally problematic. I used to like to gather my favorite games and break them down into a top 20, a top 50, a top 100. It was fun to reflect on my favorite games and share the list with friends. As time went by, I enjoyed the process less and less. Partly because it became a lot of work for what is fundamentally a vanity project, and partly because I'm having a hell of a time ranking games against one another these days. To the Moon was a 10/10 game, absolutely excellent at what it did. Arguably my favorite game that year. But it was five hours long and the "game play" elements were thin to nonexistent. Skyrim's story isn't even in the same galaxy, but it provided me with 150 hours plus of play time, much of which was hugely enjoyable. How do I rank those games against one another? If I give "Gone Home" a great score because it did exactly what it set out to do, and then give DOTA 2 the same score for completely different reasons, how confusing is that for readers? I'd say just talk about the games and abandon scores entirely, but people are addicted to scores. They're fun to read and they drive web traffic.

3) The 7-10 scale is ridiculous. 10 is excellent, 9.5 is very good, 9 is good, 8 is average, 7 is poor, 6 is broken, 5 is SUPER broken, 4 is super-duper-deluxe broken, 3 is cataclysmic, 2 fried the machine they tried to play it on and 1 gave the reviewer cancer.

 

[Super Cyborg]

Some random thoughts on the subject...

1) While there hasn't been much evidence past the Kane and Lynch fiasco of direct tampering, there certainly is a consistent conflict of interest when your primary source of criticism/review is also completely funded by your advertising dollars. When a lot of reviews read like glossy marketing hype and seem completely oblivious to obvious and objective flaws (bugs, serious performance issues, etc), that compounds the issue. So while it's easy for any disgruntled fan to point at a review they dislike and shout "corruption!", it's the industry's fault for allowing it to be this way. And when I say "industry" I mean the gaming press, because if companies are buying reviews, that's just good business sense.

2) Scored reviews are just fundamentally problematic. I used to like to gather my favorite games and break them down into a top 20, a top 50, a top 100. It was fun to reflect on my favorite games and share the list with friends. As time went by, I enjoyed the process less and less. Partly because it became a lot of work for what is fundamentally a vanity project, and partly because I'm having a hell of a time ranking games against one another these days. To the Moon was a 10/10 game, absolutely excellent at what it did. Arguably my favorite game that year. But it was five hours long and the "game play" elements were thin to nonexistent. Skyrim's story isn't even in the same galaxy, but it provided me with 150 hours plus of play time, much of which was hugely enjoyable. How do I rank those games against one another? If I give "Gone Home" a great score because it did exactly what it set out to do, and then give DOTA 2 the same score for completely different reasons, how confusing is that for readers? I'd say just talk about the games and abandon scores entirely, but people are addicted to scores. They're fun to read and they drive web traffic.

3) The 7-10 scale is ridiculous. 10 is excellent, 9.5 is very good, 9 is good, 8 is average, 7 is poor, 6 is broken, 5 is SUPER broken, 4 is super-duper-deluxe broken, 3 is cataclysmic, 2 fried the machine they tried to play it on and 1 gave the reviewer cancer.

I will look at scores to get a sense of if people are seeing it as great, terrible, or somewhere in between. I also use it to my advantage so I can get a full sense of the game by reading various reviews of different scores. I'm with you on reading the actual review to get the information. Most of the times I read the reviews for games I'm interested in, and know that there are certain things that I hope to see in the game if I'm going to buy it. When looking at reviews for Conception II, I was expecting and wanting the over the top innuendos, a decent story, and some fun gameplay with lots of customization since there were so many classes to choose from. When looking at the various reviews, even the ones who didn't like the game confirmed that's what the game was like, so I bought it and was happy with it. It's crazy that people will look at reviews, or even worse the game case, and look for scores and awards it was given to confirm if they want it.

When it comes to people using reviews to justify their opinion, it can get bad. One problem I see these days is that people will go in with certain expectations of what the game should be, and if it doesn't fit that mold, people will hate the game and not care about anything that was good. FF 13 got a lot of flak for not being a bit more open up, and claimed that all you did was press X to win. Skyward Sword was hated because it wasn't as open world as people were hoping for. I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to not like the game, but it seems a lot of people are dismissing games because it didn't fit what they wanted, and that was me for a bit with Other M. With FF13 especially, I had a friend that would point to reviews that had low scores to justify why he didn't like the game, and ignored anything we had to say other wise, and he didn't even read the review.

I think the best thing we can do is educate people we know on the best way to use reviews. If people read both good and bad reviews, and reviews did a good job explaining what the game is like, and why they think it works or doesn't, people can use what they know they like to decide what games to but.

 

[Zhukov]

The only number I can trust is the user review score on Metacritic, which is made by people who paid to play the game, instead of getting paid to play it.

Ha!

A lot of Metacritic user reviews are from people who haven't even played the game. (Not to mention people who pirated it.)

I'm always seeing user reviews that go up ten minutes after the release of a 20 hour game, or someone posting reviews for a game on multiple platforms the day after release, or someone whose account was made for the sole purpose of giving a 0 to a game they have a grudge against, or an account which has nothing but 0s or nothing but 10s and only on games from a particular dev.

Besides, while professional reviewers use the 6-10 scale, Metacritic users have the 1 OR 10 scale. Because they're not trying to give a fair evaluation, they're trying to push the aggregate score as far as they can in the desired direction. (Which makes me wonder about the possibility of dummy accounts. I mean, if I were a rabid fanboy, that's what I'd do.)

And this is before you actually read what people write on there. Y'know, if you can read it given how many of the reviews read like the writer was typing while wearing boxing gloves and simultaneously fighting off a rapid orangutang. I've seen some ridiculous shit on there. The example that sticks in my mind was someone ranting about how Bastion was filthy anti-religeous propaganda because it didn't contain references to any Abrahamic religions.

Reviewers get accused of fanboyism or, err... hater-ness (?) from time to time, but on among Metacritic users that's the bloody norm.

And this is the information source you place your trust in?

 

[Racecarlock]

Call of Duty does not sell well because it's "fun", and it's only partly because it appeals to a besieged demonic populace who learned that theft pays during the Native American genocide and is eager for theft to once again pay in the modern Middle East, as reflected through Call of Duty gameplay.

Excuse me? Excuse me.

Ok, I used to regard you as a quirky guy who would occasionally write some wordy essay on something that would be fun to read for a bit.

But you just crossed a line. Demonic populace? Are you serious? No, really, are you being real right now? Because who the hell are you to judge people?

You know why I bought COD 4? Because I tried demos of the other games and found it fun. Yes, fun. Not because I am a part of a demonic populace you fucking asshole. You think you're special. You think just because you use big words that people will find you smart and that people will agree with you on that basis. No. You have to be a reasonable human.

What reasonable human would write those sentences up there? Are you just not aware of feelings or do you just not care? I'm sorry to the mods if this comes off a bit angry, but if this guy can get away with that which I just quoted, I feel entirely justified right now. Learn that people just have preferences that you don't or fuck off.

 

[Zhukov]

[snip]

Yo.

If you wish to avoid mod wrath then you may want to consider editing out a few choice words in that post.

Usually I'd assume you were aware of this and were willing to take the hit to have your say, but this'll put you on the brink of a perma-ban.

Just sayin'.

 

[Racecarlock]

[snip]

Yo.

If you wish to avoid mod wrath then you may want to consider editing out a few choice words in that post.

Usually I'd assume you were aware of this and were willing to take the hit to have your say, but this'll put you on the brink of a perma-ban.

Just sayin'.

To be honest, I think I'll be alright. I mean, just look at what he said. Demonic thieves. Who calls a group of people that? Seriously.

 

[Super Cyborg]

The only number I can trust is the user review score on Metacritic, which is made by people who paid to play the game, instead of getting paid to play it.

Ha!

A lot of Metacritic user reviews are from people who haven't even played the game. (Not to mention people who pirated it.)

I'm always seeing user reviews that go up ten minutes after the release of a 20 hour game, or someone posting reviews for a game on multiple platforms the day after release, or someone whose account was made for the sole purpose of giving a 0 to a game they have a grudge against, or an account which has nothing but 0s or nothing but 10s and only on games from a particular dev.

Besides, while professional reviewers use the 6-10 scale, Metacritic users have the 1 OR 10 scale. Because they're not trying to give a fair evaluation, they're trying to push the aggregate score as far as they can in the desired direction. (Which makes me wonder about the possibility of dummy accounts. I mean, if I were a rabid fanboy, that's what I'd do.)

And this is before you actually read what people write on there. Y'know, if you can read it given how many of the reviews read like the writer was typing while wearing boxing gloves and simultaneously fighting off a rapid orangutang. I've seen some ridiculous shit on there. The example that sticks in my mind was someone ranting about how Bastion was filthy anti-religeous propaganda because it didn't contain references to any Abrahamic religions.

Reviewers get accused of fanboyism or, err... hater-ness (?) from time to time, but on among Metacritic users that's the bloody norm.

And this is the information source you place your trust in?

I may be wrong, but it seems that it's more of a problem for well known games. I don't go there often, but if I was to look at COD, Elder Scrolls, and big title names that are hyped, people will start putting 10's or 0's depending on what there preconception of the game is. If you look up lesser known games, there might be some that do that, but most of the small amount of user reviews are honest and quite long.

I think if Metacritic is used, it should be used as a way find links to professional review sites that have done it, and use reviews should probably be ingnored, unless it's easy to tell which ones are legit and which ones are fake, which usually is easy by the content, and if it's a mid range score, it's most likely good.

In the end, don't use the Metacritic scores as test of whether or not a game is considered good. Best thing to do is go to various sites and look at comments of what people seem to think. It takes a few months before everything calms down and one can get an idea of what people think. I think the games that can have the most problems is middle of the road reviewed games. If a game is not regarded good by a large majority, then a lot of people won't care, or if it's a big named game, people will disregard it despite the fact that there's still a number of people who like the game, and there's a chance that they could like a game. People are weird and will only play games that are scored high.

 

[nuttshell]

I stopped trusting "professional" reviewers but not because I think they are bribed by the publishers/devs. (the german "pros" are still pretty allright, imho) I still think pubs/devs use shady tactics to tip a reviewer into their favor but that's not the reason I distrust the "pros" anymore. I just can't find relevant information in a review, and when I do, the standards of the reviewers are usually waaay lower then mine...this guy here summed it up quite nicely: http://www.gatheryourparty.com/2014/07/16/tripping-on-air-why-game-journalists-cant-describe-games/

 

[Riotguards]

well how can it possibly be our fault?

game journalist are the professional reviewers whom are to be regarded as people who's opinions are more or less with the public, just like a film critic or any sort of reviewer

i'm not sure if other professions of reviewers are as "corrupt" (you could lose your job if you don't score highly) but when the majority of game journalist are branded as sell-out or buy for high score then there's clearly something wrong with the entire profession

my only method in checking out whether a game is good or bad is to just wait until its release, then see the sway of the journalist as they realise that the game is on a sinking ship of negativity which could drag them along (thus changing their reviews later on)

 

[ThriKreen]

well how can it possibly be our fault?

Because the gamer views the review and game as what they want it to be, and not what it is. And when that confirmation bias does not match it, they tend to get huffy because they want to be right and not be seen as wrong for liking or disliking a game.

As opposed to saying "Welp, this game is not what I imagined it to be, it's not for me, but if you still like it, that's fine too" and move on, or "It's not what I expected, but I still enjoyed it!"

Instead it's "It's not what I want, therefore this game sucks and everyone should hate it too!"

 

[Twinrehz]

While game journalism apparently is peppered with accusations of bribery, how about the other side of the coin, blackmail? A while ago I saw a swedish documentary concerning some unethical workings of Dole, the banana company. An american journalist wanted to publish an article about the subject in the New York Times, but the article was pulled because Dole didn't like the negative implications that they were evil (which they totally are), and told the newspaper that if they published said article, they would pull the commercial support away from The New York Times, which would end up being a costly affair for them.

By what FUCKING right do they, a private corporation, attempt to stifle the freedom of journalism just because it'll put them in a bad light? Murrica, land of the free and home of the corporations who hold all the power to make sure everyone is kept in the dark! They even tried to do the same to a swedish newspaper (or news network, I don't quite remember), but since corporations have less power in Scandinavia than they do in the United Corporation of America (yes, I am being petty right now), they were basically told to fuck off.

If they indeed did have bad practice going on, then they should damn well acknowledge it, rather than putting a gag on the press. And if they indeed had gone bankrupt because of it, then that would be a lesson well taught, because I fully believe that being a huge multi-billion dollar company does NOT exempt you from ethical practices.

It may well be that there were some details I missed, perhaps it was old practices they had since changed, but that still doesn't mean you should hide it from the public.

I guess the same thing can be said about game reviews.

captcha: good luck. I guess I'll be needing it...

 

[Something Amyss]

It's possible with movie reviews.

Not any more than with games. Movies, music, books, they all fall under that subjectivity thing people talk about all the time. You can try and guess what people will like, but it is still a rather subjective field.

It's all about the reviewer honestly telling you why he/she liked or disliked the game, and we don't have that.

And we didn't get it with EC, either. You even mention that.

But you held it up saying this is about how games should be reviewed. Maybe you meant to say something different, but I can't read minds.

-snip-

I do take your point, but the issue is that when people are concerned with their own interests, they will prioritise them. It's nice to think optimistically, but realistically I don't see any of this happening because we all have our own priorities and they come first and they're often at odds (or perceived as such).

And frankly, maybe it's just years of internet forums slowly killing my soul, but I don't really expect any better.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

It's all about the reviewer honestly telling you why he/she liked or disliked the game, and we don't have that.

And we didn't get it with EC, either. You even mention that.

But you held it up saying this is about how games should be reviewed. Maybe you meant to say something different, but I can't read minds.

Huh? Are you talking about EC in general or just the one video? I said the video is more along the lines of how games should be reviewed, not that games should be reviewed just like that as that wasn't an actual game review. And, the video told me exactly why EC didn't like the game. I disliked Uncharted 3 and would give it below a 5/10 (average) just based on non-gameplay related issues. I hated the whole Drake/Sully storyline from both character perspective and story perspective. There was no character development from Drake, the ship chapters make no sense whatsoever, and Uncharted 2's Sully contradicts Uncharted 3's Sully. That's the main reason I didn't like Uncharted. I could go into the gameplay as well like reused set-pieces that Uncharted 2 did better, a wannabe Batman melee system that failed hard, etc.

If you just go to Metacritic or GameRankings, you see there isn't much variance among reviews for game because game reviewers rated games objectively instead of subjectively. Go to IGN and see a 9.0, then you'll go to GameSpot and see an 8.5; there's something inherently wrong with that. If the gameplay is solid and all the standard features are there, the game is at least 7/10. You can dislike a game even if the gameplay is solid. Do you seriously think all 50 reviewers liked GTAV?