|
|
Post by vetus on Sept 26, 2014 6:50:01 GMT -5
It's a well-known fact that companies often pay gaming sites and magazines in order to give positive reviews and hype for their new games. But when you see these games having plently of negative reviews from users, you realize how biased are the professional reviews. Sure, there are also biased users who don't know how to review a game but that's a minority and they mean no shit when most of the users reviews are more positive. Do you know any examples of games with positive proffesional reviews but negative users reviews? Here are two of them I know: 1) Watch Dogs: www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogs2) Depression Quest: www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_Quest |
|
|
|
Post by nightdreamer on Sept 26, 2014 9:48:02 GMT -5
Gaming publications getting paid to give high scores is one myth that needs to die. If that were the case, EVERYONE will apply for a job as a game critic! Get paid a lot, get laid a lot, and your work is 100% playing. Let's also stop pretending that videogames are the only victim of poor journalism: every field has a few really bad ones.
As for user reviews, I'm wary of them because a lot of them rate in absolutes: either 0 or 10 stars. Most of them border on illiterate too
|
|
|
|
Post by PooshhMao on Sept 26, 2014 10:20:41 GMT -5
Gaming publications getting paid to give high scores is one myth that needs to die. If that were the case, EVERYONE will apply for a job as a game critic! Get paid a lot, get laid a lot, and your work is 100% playing. Let's also stop pretending that videogames are the only victim of poor journalism: every field has a few really bad ones. As for user reviews, I'm wary of them because a lot of them rate in absolutes: either 0 or 10 stars. Most of them border on illiterate too ... no offense, but that's a dumb argument. |
|
|
|
Post by thoothan on Sept 26, 2014 10:21:56 GMT -5
Being wary of idiot hyperbole in the gaming world isn't dumb at all
|
|
|
|
Post by thoothan on Sept 26, 2014 10:22:10 GMT -5
THIS GAME SUCKS YOU CAN'T EVEN PLAY AS MARIO 0/10
|
|
|
|
Post by masamvne on Sept 26, 2014 11:04:42 GMT -5
Critics and users often have different interpretations, not just in video games but in film, music, literature, etc. It's not a new phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
Post by llj on Sept 26, 2014 11:25:47 GMT -5
Critics and users often have different interpretations, not just in video games but in film, music, literature, etc. It's not a new phenomenon. Is this the old "art" vs "entertainment" divide? Honestly, as much as I like video games, I still don't see them as "art" in the same way I see an "art" film or "art" literature. As for this thread, I've seen cases of the opposite, where a game gets slammed by a critic but users liked it better. I was poking through reviews of Remember Me the other day and user reviews seem to receive it more warmly than official critics. Honestly, I don't think video game critics are any more knowledgeable or enlightened than the average gamer. At least for film critics, I'm usually confident that they're exposed to a lot more variety than the average filmgoer, but I still don't see a big knowledge divide between a game critic and your average gamer. |
|
|
|
Post by ReyVGM on Sept 26, 2014 11:42:27 GMT -5
Some critics review a game based on things most players don't pay attention to. Like level design, artistic choices, originality, etc.
While some gamers say a game sucks if it's not 1080p at 60fps.
I haven't played Watch Dogs, but I have not heard anyone say the game is bad because it's boring, or because the controls suck. But I have heard people saying the game sucks because the graphics don't look like when it was originally shown, or because the glass doors don't reflect accurately, and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by masamvne on Sept 26, 2014 11:44:44 GMT -5
Critics and users often have different interpretations, not just in video games but in film, music, literature, etc. It's not a new phenomenon. Is this the old "art" vs "entertainment" divide? Honestly, as much as I like video games, I still don't see them as "art" in the same way I see an "art" film or "art" literature. Not really, just that critics might try to evaluate a game differently to some users, whether that's because critics are looking at it as 'art' or if users rate a critically average game highly for cult factor/quirky design |
|
|
|
Post by llj on Sept 26, 2014 12:18:58 GMT -5
Some critics review a game based on things most players don't pay attention to. Like level design, artistic choices, originality, etc. While some gamers say a game sucks if it's not 1080p at 60fps. I think the same could be said for the average gamer though. There are some critics who ignore things like level design or place an emphasis more on other areas whereas someone who's not a critic might see those things more than a critic does. I mean look at HG101. This site covers a lot of games that many people think mainstream game critics either initially overlooked or dismissed prematurely. It does happen a lot. I just don't think the gap in knowledge is all that large between the average gamer and a game critic now. Most gamers are pretty savvy when it comes to game design and whatnot. I think you'll find tons of threads online with people arguing about artistic choices and originality and craftsmanship in certain games. Even Joe Sixpack Call of Duty gamer today is probably a lot more knowledgeable about game design than most would assume. You could make a case that being able to access more games now than in the past almost completely renders the job of a game critic obsolete, because that was what was really holding back gamers back in the days of Gamepro and EGM where game critics had slightly more and earlier access to video games worldwide compared to the average gamer. |
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Sept 26, 2014 12:36:22 GMT -5
Gaming publications getting paid to give high scores is one myth that needs to die. Yeah, the idea that review scores are paid off is a misguided one. There's certainly a lot of sketchy stuff that publishers do, like high priced junkets or forcing reviewers to play under less-than-ideal circumstances (hang in these closely monitored hotel suites as we command you to power through this game in eight hour chunks). There are definitely reasons why critical consensus might differ from general consensus, but payola is not one of them, so it is not a "well-known fact". Also citing Depression Quest is a loaded example considering the "non-game" nonsense that got lobbed at it before it was even the center of a ridiculous controversy. |
|
|
|
Post by Vokkan on Sept 26, 2014 13:17:23 GMT -5
Professional reviewing is just a game of guess the metacritic score the game is gonna get, because if you deviate from the metascore you're a) a bad reviewer in the eyes of the consumers, and b) you get calls from the games advertisement/PR-rep who wants an explanation to why you aren't doing what everybody else is doing - which essentially is giving every shitty AAA game a 8/10 because that's the safe thing to do.
Also, videogames journalism is far from any real journalism in that it is eating directly out of the hand of those they are critiqueing. If you don't play nice you don't recieve those early review copies, and if you're days or weeks behind your compeditiors you're nothing in the news/reviewing buisiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by alphex on Sept 26, 2014 13:38:21 GMT -5
Some critics review a game based on things most players don't pay attention to. Like level design, artistic choices, originality, etc. While some gamers say a game sucks if it's not 1080p at 60fps. If you've ever played games more in-depth, or games that have some stuff that's more advanced, you'll catch yourself avoiding coverage by gaming mags because you'll only get angry. Seriously, gaming mags have shown they have no clue whatsoever when it comes to vs fighting games (this I know because I've been playing the genre for over 10 years now). You're likely to find the most stupid hints, strategy tips and gameplay analyses there. And it kinda worries me that with other genres, I gotta trust these guys because I won't notice them talking bullshit from a mile away. So, no. Gaming reviews are not made by experts by default. Some critics know better, yes. But I wouldn't know who these guys are, because I don't do much review reading anymore, so to me, I'd probably put more trust into a demo or gameplay video. |
|
|
|
Post by vetus on Sept 26, 2014 14:58:19 GMT -5
Also citing Depression Quest is a loaded example considering the "non-game" nonsense that got lobbed at it before it was even the center of a ridiculous controversy. Reasons that this game is so hated is that it's incredibly dull, pretendious and innacurate about depression, yet journalists praise it as it's a work of art, a masterpiece. Gaming publications getting paid to give high scores is one myth that needs to die. Sure. Next you will say is that there is not such a thing as fixed sports matches. www.joystiq.com/2006/12/11/sony-marketers-are-horrible-liars-pretend-to-run-fansite/ |
|
|
|
Post by Échalote on Sept 26, 2014 15:08:00 GMT -5
Also citing Depression Quest is a loaded example considering the "non-game" nonsense that got lobbed at it before it was even the center of a ridiculous controversy. Reasons that this game is so hated is that it's incredibly dull, pretendious and innacurate about depression, yet journalists praise it as it's a work of art, a masterpiece. This is probably why nearly all the negative user reviews (except one) on metacritc were posted AFTER August 18th. Gee, I wonder why. On topic, a Bioware employee tried to spam The Witcher 2 page with bad reviews back in 2011. |
|
