|
Post by Garamoth on Sept 26, 2014 22:54:48 GMT -5
Has the "myth" of the developers getting a bonus based on Metacritic score ever been confirmed? It's supposed to be a hoax, except maybe it's not? I wonder if there are proven companies or games where it happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 23:04:49 GMT -5
It's definitely real. Some publishers tie it into the developer's contract. Not much the rank and file can do about it, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Joestar on Sept 26, 2014 23:10:56 GMT -5
It's definitely real. Some publishers tie it into the developer's contract. Not much the rank and file can do about it, unfortunately. Can't possibly be real. It's all a fabrication by the MRAs to cover up their misogyny. Ebola's their fault too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 23:11:41 GMT -5
And here I thought it was tied to chem trails. Damn liberal media.
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Sept 26, 2014 23:13:36 GMT -5
The joke of the whole thing is that nobody uses review scores to buy games! All of the Joe Sixpack guys I've met over the years just buy whatever they see an ad for on tv, or what they see that's new at Gamestop or Walmart. They don't read reviews or give a shit what Metacritic says. The hardcore usually don't use reviews either, as we prefer to trust word of mouth. Honestly, I have a pretty solid instinct when it comes to what I'd like or what I wouldn't. Sometimes, yeah, it gets frustrating when the general public hates something I like, but I try not to think too much about it.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Joestar on Sept 26, 2014 23:16:02 GMT -5
And here I thought it was tied to chem trails. Damn liberal media. They are. The guys behind Gamergate are all big pharma lobbyists trying to shape the world into a white anglo-saxon male-dominated society of their liking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2014 23:17:17 GMT -5
Exactly. It doesn't matter if the general population loves Halo but you like Disgaea. Another person's opinion doesn't change your enjoyment of something you like.
|
|
|
Post by thoothan on Sept 27, 2014 0:03:33 GMT -5
Has the "myth" of the developers getting a bonus based on Metacritic score ever been confirmed? It's supposed to be a hoax, except maybe it's not? I wonder if there are proven companies or games where it happened. New Vegas. Obsidian was supposed to get a bonus if the game scored over an 85(? I think this was the number) on metacritic, however due to bethesda having them rush the game out towards the end, the reviews frequently dropped the score to all the shitty glitches, and they did not score 85 or w.e
|
|
|
Post by Snarboo on Sept 27, 2014 6:50:56 GMT -5
IIRC, Obsidian was 1 metracritic point away from earning their bonus on New Vegas. That's not the first time metacritic has been used for shady purposes like that. I know there was a scandal involving Dragon Age 2 receiving pumped up scores from fake community reviews. Edit:Games criticism is finally going what book, movie and TV criticism has done for decades, almost centuries: Personal experience. It's one thing to write about games personally - there's a lot to be said about games as a personal or emotional experience - but it's another to introduce politics into the equation. Once that genie is out of the bottle, you have a knife that cuts both ways. When people get sick of hearing one political viewpoint, they will flock to or create another, and I'm not sure I like the idea of gaming having a Fox News equivalent. Not to mention how hard it is to separate a game from the political issues surrounding it! I understand the politicization of gaming is nothing knew, as there have always been groups that have been marginalized inside and outside of the industry, but I never thought I'd see the day when gaming was as polarized as American politics. It's increasingly hard to enjoy something when you feel you're being put on trial for enjoying or not enjoying it. Video games should not be put under this Consumer Reports style of criticism, it's a piece of creative work, not a fucking car or TV set. Actually I think it's perfectly fair to review games this way, given that games are a product that are liable to fail or malfunction. With a book or movie, you're guaranteed to get an experience that is exactly what the author intended, good or bad. With a game, there's a very good chance you will never be able to experience it at all. This is something that is sometimes glossed over with "new games journalism", especially with indie darlings or more popular titles. For example, I had no idea Wasteland 2 was a buggy mess until I read Feynman's post about it. Almost every preview and review I've seen glossed over the crippling bugs in the latter half of the game. See also: Early Access.
|
|
TonicBH
Junior Member
8-bit Alex Trebek is judging you.
Posts: 79
|
Post by TonicBH on Sept 27, 2014 11:40:18 GMT -5
Video games should not be put under this Consumer Reports style of criticism, it's a piece of creative work, not a fucking car or TV set. Actually I think it's perfectly fair to review games this way, given that games are a product that are liable to fail or malfunction. With a book or movie, you're guaranteed to get an experience that is exactly what the author intended, good or bad. With a game, there's a very good chance you will never be able to experience it at all. This is something that is sometimes glossed over with "new games journalism", especially with indie darlings or more popular titles. For example, I had no idea Wasteland 2 was a buggy mess until I read Feynman's post about it. Almost every preview and review I've seen glossed over the crippling bugs in the latter half of the game. Right, if there's some sort of technical issue, then it should be addressed. But the problem is some people wanting reviews to just be about what's on the tin, stuff that you could easily find out on the official website, the back of the box, or even a trailer. Reviews should be more about what the person thinks about the game, not this "objectivity" that some people want because that's utterly impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Joestar on Sept 27, 2014 11:48:53 GMT -5
IIRC, Obsidian was 1 metracritic point away from earning their bonus on New Vegas. That's not the first time metacritic has been used for shady purposes like that. I know there was a scandal involving Dragon Age 2 receiving pumped up scores from fake community reviews. It's sad, that was one of their best and arguably least-buggy games (and a lot better than Fallout 3, by far). Haven't played South Park yet, though so... I know I'm in the minority by default, but does anyone else ignore reviews when either "snobbery" or the aforementioned "new games journalism" is involved?
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Sept 27, 2014 12:28:15 GMT -5
\however due to bethesda having them rush the game out towards the end, the reviews frequently dropped the score to all the shitty glitches For that Bethesda shouldn't be criticized too much. After all, Obsidian (or any even vaguely related dev like Troika or Black Isle) has never ever delivered a product that was properly polished upon first release. (But then again, neither did Bethesda, did they?) Almost every preview and review I've seen glossed over the crippling bugs in the latter half of the game. Could that have been related to one of two other issues in this case, namely a) reviewers not having enough time to properly play the game until the review needs to go online on release day or b) reviewers' goodwill to believe that the bugs will be fixed until release?
|
|
|
Post by Snarboo on Sept 27, 2014 12:44:11 GMT -5
Could that have been related to one of two other issues in this case, namely a) reviewers not having enough time to properly play the game until the review needs to go online on release day or b) reviewers' goodwill to believe that the bugs will be fixed until release? Right, but I was tempted to preorder it based on positive press until I decided to wait due to monetary reasons. Had I gone through with it, I might have ended up with a game I couldn't play, something I wouldn't have known until after I had spent money on it. Granted that's entirely the developer's fault, but I've seen a lot of gaming press that were willing to ignore fatal flaws like that if a game was popular enough.
|
|
|
Post by thoothan on Sept 27, 2014 13:51:43 GMT -5
Yea it's absolutely true that obsidian games are always pretty buggy. New Vegas was a pretty big mess though. Freezing and crashing on loading screens was a huge nuisance. From what I've heard a lot though, Bethesda really screwed them on QA time and forced them to rush the release a bit early, causing it to be a much buggier mess at launch. The game is nowhere CLOSE to how bad it was back then after all the patches thankfully though.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Joestar on Sept 27, 2014 16:56:44 GMT -5
Actually I think it's perfectly fair to review games this way, given that games are a product that are liable to fail or malfunction. With a book or movie, you're guaranteed to get an experience that is exactly what the author intended, good or bad. With a game, there's a very good chance you will never be able to experience it at all. This is something that is sometimes glossed over with "new games journalism", especially with indie darlings or more popular titles. For example, I had no idea Wasteland 2 was a buggy mess until I read Feynman's post about it. Almost every preview and review I've seen glossed over the crippling bugs in the latter half of the game. Right, if there's some sort of technical issue, then it should be addressed. But the problem is some people wanting reviews to just be about what's on the tin, stuff that you could easily find out on the official website, the back of the box, or even a trailer. Reviews should be more about what the person thinks about the game, not this "objectivity" that some people want because that's utterly impossible. I'm going to assume that you're talking about my comments, so I'm going to clarify my position on the matter. I never said that people should try and cleanse reviews or articles from having a personal perspective. If the reviewer/author provides personal accounts or something relevant to the review in question, that's a good thing - it gives the reader an idea of who they are, where they're coming from, and how much credence to lend what the reviewer is saying. The problem is that the majority of games journalists take it to an extreme and lose sight of the forest for the trees. They aren't being paid to do Livejournal entries, they're supposed to be reviewing games. If going into a personal account strengthens an article, all the better. Problem is that most of the time they spend more time talking about themselves than they do about the games. What I also find problematic is how games journalists (usually the same offenders as the ones above) feel it's necessary to use their reviews or articles as a soapbox for their personal political views. That's why I won't read anything by people like Leigh Alexander, Christian Nutt, or Bob Mackey, because they're going to find some way to force their agenda into whatever unrelated issue they're writing about. Yes, I know that I can ignore them and I do - unfortunately, people I do actually respect and enjoy reading will more often than not retweet whatever clickbait those "crusader" writers is shoveling that day, and it's incredibly annoying. In summary, there's a time and a place for personal opinions. So, does that qualify as "rational" enough for you?
|
|