Are all awards and most of game critics corrupt?

[soldant]

When did I ever say there'd be a point in reforming it? I said gamers are just getting what gamers want. Because they're idiots.

I disagree. The entire "consumers are idiot sheeple" thing seems to be a bit of a cop-out, or alternatively a way to say "They're mainstream, therefore they're idiots." If most gamers want Call of Honour 9: Marines in the Middle East then I can't really see how they're idiots, their tastes are just different from what I'd like (which would be a follow up to Terror from the Deep). In terms of reviews, people like quick summaries of the game, and scores are one way to do that. So long as people understand that they're subjective, and ideally so long as they come with a few good and bad points, I don't see them as being an issue.

I don't read all of an RPS review, or really all of any review, unless I want to know absolutely everything about the game. Chances are I'll skim three or four reviews looking for key words or phrases, look at their scores and summary points, and then make up my mind. Because most reviews carry on with a lot of nonsense and explanation which I probably don't need to know. The worst kind of reviews can come off as pretentious and condescending, even if they do make a few good points.

[Hypernetic]

I disagree. The entire "consumers are idiot sheeple" thing seems to be a bit of a cop-out, or alternatively a way to say "They're mainstream, therefore they're idiots." If most gamers want Call of Honour 9: Marines in the Middle East then I can't really see how they're idiots, their tastes are just different from what I'd like (which would be a follow up to Terror from the Deep). In terms of reviews, people like quick summaries of the game, and scores are one way to do that. So long as people understand that they're subjective, and ideally so long as they come with a few good and bad points, I don't see them as being an issue.

I don't read all of an RPS review, or really all of any review, unless I want to know absolutely everything about the game. Chances are I'll skim three or four reviews looking for key words or phrases, look at their scores and summary points, and then make up my mind. Because most reviews carry on with a lot of nonsense and explanation which I probably don't need to know. The worst kind of reviews can come off as pretentious and condescending, even if they do make a few good points.

I really only read reviews when I think a game is really bad.

[hamster]

You said it: Ideal, not realistic. People will do and say what they want no matter how stipulated it is in the official papers. If you are proposing some kind of regulation, please explain it further so we can discuss it. Saying "it should be regulated" isn't constructive in any way if it doesn't carry with it any further explanation.

I did propose actual provisions - you just failed to see it earlier in the thread. So to reiterate:

-prohibit reviewers from featuring ads of games that they review; disclose if ads feature other (non reviewed) games by the same developer/publisher within the last 6 months

-force review code to be distributed to all accredited reviewers OR keep a database disclosing instances where review code was requested but refused

-marketing must be operated by an independent 3rd party. <-- conceptually sound but impossible to verify and of limited effectiveness but it suffices as a minimum standard.

-new suggestion: reviews must disclose metacritic average in their review (the average in the review must therefore be retroactively updated as the numbers update over time. The average ought to be updated for up to 6 months after release of the game on a weekly basis.)

I suspect it's peers rather than publishers which are the problem. The big hole in the corruption theory is that someone like EA doesn't pay it's own guys to do it's marketing; they subcontract out to marketing companies for that. Same applies to the large review publishers; they pay other companies to pull in the ad revenue. So it's kinda hard for someone like EA to threaten to pull all their advertising, because neither they nor the publisher they're talking to directly control it.

Um just because there's a 3rd party responsible for the marketing doesn't mean the marketing folks are suddenly completely disinterested in the outcome. The marketing folks work for the publisher. You really think if a major reviewer is thinking of scoring a triple A below 70 a red flag won't go up and the publisher will be in the dark until publication day?

Integrity on the other hand is somewhat vital. If you mark a popular game down once you might get away with it (as a 'controversial' review). Do it consistently on the other hand and you'll quickly be dismissed with "oh yeah, those guys always say the good games suck". Which is a pretty big problem when your revenue is primarily based on people trusting your reviews.

Which is why you give decent scores to some games, crappy scores to others without the leverage, and over score other games by x amount. It's the difference between 70% and 80%.

[NathanH]

And the writer can write a crappy score too; it's far easier to just say "and therefore 8.5/10" without thinking about it further than it is to try and write a 2-3 sentence summary without thinking.

More to the point, why do we care, at all, about crappy writers? If the writer is crappy, we won't read his stuff anyway. It's not like we have this tiny pool of crappy writers and we want to make them do as well as possible; we have a huge pool of writers, some bad and some good. We only want to read the good ones, and a summary if nothing else can give us a quick idea of how well the writer can write.

As for automatic sorting, I'm honestly not sure that's even a positive thing. Why do you want to find a random review written by someone you've never heard of before? Surely it's better to find a few reviewers you trust and agree with rather than relying on reading large numbers of reviews for every game just to get the basic facts straight. RPS is pretty good about talking about the flaws even in games that they praise very highly, and there are other review sites of generally high quality as well.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't hold for games with any mechanical meat. Perhaps it is true for games that aren't much more elaborate than pointing your screen at some pixels and pressing down your mouse, but take your favourite meaty strategy game or RPG and read all the reviews. Practically all of them will either gloss over the systems in favour of rambling about nothing much, or make so many factual errors and criticisms based on poor play that they're actually worse than not reading them at all. I can't say I've encountered the idea of a Trusted Reviewer in strategy gaming, you just have to make do; sometimes a particular reviewer has a good day but it's not at all consistent. Scores can be quite useful in helping you make do. Of course it isn't as easy as looking at the highest metacritic average: the discerning strategy gamer knows that the best titles are usually the ones that lurk around the 80 mark.

Mainly I read strategy review text to see what the UI sounds like, and to see whether it gets the "really complicated" criticism that immediately means that you have to add 10 to the review score.

[deano2099]

Hard to argue with that, though I would suggest you listen to Three Moves Ahead if you don't already.

[SirDavies]

-prohibit reviewers from featuring ads of games that they review; disclose if ads feature other (non reviewed) games by the same developer/publisher within the last 6 months

-force review code to be distributed to all accredited reviewers OR keep a database disclosing instances where review code was requested but refused

-marketing must be operated by an independent 3rd party. <-- conceptually sound but impossible to verify and of limited effectiveness but it suffices as a minimum standard.

-new suggestion: reviews must disclose metacritic average in their review (the average in the review must therefore be retroactively updated as the numbers update over time. The average ought to be updated for up to 6 months after release of the game on a weekly basis.)

That's ridiculous. The whole point of both reviews and full-page ads is to inform/advertise about a game that is close to it's release date. There will be a lot less people interested in either of those if the game is 6 months old. Also, limitating a site's content to those games that can't afford to pay for advertising decreases it's informative value and limits the available criticism on the game. If a publisher wanted a game to be successful, even if it were bad, it would just have to put advertisements on all the major and more critic websites to assure itself a greater metacritic score and with it, more sales. And with marketing being operated by a non-related third-party, the writers on the site wouldn't have any say on the matter. Finally, why do you consider the metacritic average a "must" for any review? If people want to know that, they know where to look at (metacritic.com), so I feel that although it would be a nice addition, I don't see why should it be mandatory.

[archonsod]

Um just because there's a 3rd party responsible for the marketing doesn't mean the marketing folks are suddenly completely disinterested in the outcome. The marketing folks work for the publisher. You really think if a major reviewer is thinking of scoring a triple A below 70 a red flag won't go up and the publisher will be in the dark until publication day?

Half the time I'm pretty sure the publication doesn't even know what ad is going to be on the page till someone looks at it, nevermind the publisher. Welcome to the 21st century.

[Finicky]

And if people are just looking at metacritic or a number, they won't read the review anyway, so "reform" is pointless.

The "problem" is that people have different criteria by which they evaluate things.

Let's take the new XCOM for example. I love it, so does anyone who isn't a soulless monster. I basically got (almost) exactly what I wanted. So if I were to assign it a letter grade, I would give it a high B or a low A (88 to 95 or so)

One of my friends LOVES Call of Duty. MW2 had a short (but very fun) SP campaign and an MP mode that he (and just about everyone else on earth) loved. There was no particular innovation to it, but it was exactly what he (and many others) wanted. Ergo, he would give it a high B or a low A.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Except mw2 has fucked up broken spawn mechanics, no dedicated server support or admin support, dropped mod support which was in cod4 and waw, ran like dogshit on all 4xxx series amd cards (that was never fixed)...

There was a lot objectively wrong, broken and missing with that game compared to cod4 yet 100/100 goty everywhere.
Review sites only care about hits and ad money and the easiest way to get both is hype and telling people what they want to hear.
Hence: LOL game 'journalism'.

I went for years and years relying on gaming magazines (the independant ones), and never once got burned buying a game.
You know why? Those mags cost 5-7 euros (like regular magazines), they had one page way at the back with an ad or none at all , and they were still a part of regular journalism and the standards that implies.

It's only when every college dropout or marketing bachelor degree waste of oxygen started creating their own gaming websites (which then caused paper print to go out of business) that standards circled down the drain.

With paper print you were paying for a service and they relied on their service to be reliable as the readers were their sole source of income , now you are just traffic for clicks. Totally different goals totally different priorities.

It's like those 'official playstation/xbox/nintendo' magazines from back then, they too had pages full of ads, early pr approved exlusives and their thing was to spread hype.

[hamster]

That's ridiculous. The whole point of both reviews and full-page ads is to inform/advertise about a game that is close to it's release date. There will be a lot less people interested in either of those if the game is 6 months old.

So? Why should a reviewer also be paid to advertise a game that they're reviewing?

Also, limitating a site's content to those games that can't afford to pay for advertising decreases it's informative value and limits the available criticism on the game.

No, it would mean that you would have the choice between advertising a big game and not reviewing it, or reviewing it and not advertising it. Quite sure that most reviewers would choose the latter. The only thing it would limit is any potential conflict, real or perceived.

If a publisher wanted a game to be successful, even if it were bad, it would just have to put advertisements on all the major and more critic websites to assure itself a greater metacritic score and with it, more sales.

Huh?

And with marketing being operated by a non-related third-party, the writers on the site wouldn't have any say on the matter.

How are they non-related?

Finally, why do you consider the metacritic average a "must" for any review? If people want to know that, they know where to look at (metacritic.com), so I feel that although it would be a nice addition, I don't see why should it be mandatory.

It's just convenience and good practice that doesn't cost anything.

Half the time I'm pretty sure the publication doesn't even know what ad is going to be on the page till someone looks at it, nevermind the publisher. Welcome to the 21st century.

Probably super small reviewers use google ads or whatever. But if you're a publisher you'd be pretty damn keen to keep tabs on reviewers, especially the more prominent ones. And it is entirely within a publisher's power to pull ads from specific sites, is it not? Well there you go. People are constantly doing all sorts of incredibly complex things for the pursuit of advantage. Don't underestimate human resourcefulness, especially when people have all the tools and circumstances handed to them.

[dnf]

I disagree. The entire "consumers are idiot sheeple" thing seems to be a bit of a cop-out, or alternatively a way to say "They're mainstream, therefore they're idiots." If most gamers want Call of Honour 9: Marines in the Middle East then I can't really see how they're idiots, their tastes are just different from what I'd like

If it makes you fell better, i can say these people are not retarded, they just have retarded tastes in games.

[gundato]

Except mw2 has fucked up broken spawn mechanics, no dedicated server support or admin support, dropped mod support which was in cod4 and waw, ran like dogshit on all 4xxx series amd cards (that was never fixed)...

Okay, so the PC version had problems. Console version was still very well received.

Mods were never a big deal for CoD, so I don't see why it should lose points.

Dedicated servers are something it probably deserved off for. I don't know how much that impacted the quality of gameplay, but they added it back in later so let's assume it had a negative one.

There was a lot objectively wrong, broken and missing with that game compared to cod4 yet 100/100 goty everywhere.

Oh, how cute. Pulling stuff out of your ass.

Let's look at what it ACTUALLY got
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/ca...dern-warfare-2

Quick look shows that it generally averaged high 80s, low 90s with a few very negative reviews. Which is perfectly reasonable. It had a few technical flaws, but they didn't detract from the gameplay as far as the actual gamers were concerned.

PS3 and XBOX did a lot better (about 8 points) because of THE EXACT PROBLEMS YOU LISTED!!! Maybe, rather than just reviewing review sites without actually reading them, you should try to actually review what is actually there, not the hype you heard about on the radio. Either that or we all have to assume you are an evil person who works for a consortium of people who are opposed to game journalism (because that is CLEARLY the only reasonable conclusion :p)

Wild sweeping conclusion (I'll give it a shot, since you already made a bunch in your post): The system isn't broke. Some review sources may be suspect, but that's why you don't go to "Cheat Code Central" for a game review.

It's like those 'official playstation/xbox/nintendo' magazines from back then, they too had pages full of ads, early pr approved exlusives and their thing was to spread hype.

The funny thing is, I used to subscribe to EGM and Official US Playstation Magazine (both had the same publisher, I believe). More often than not, OPM was MORE critical of PSX games than EGM was. Never really understood how that worked

[Diesel-]

Let's look at what it ACTUALLY got
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/ca...dern-warfare-2

Quick look shows that it generally averaged high 80s, low 90s with a few very negative reviews. Which is perfectly reasonable. It had a few technical flaws, but they didn't detract from the gameplay as far as the actual gamers were concerned.

PS3 and XBOX did a lot better (about 8 points) because of THE EXACT PROBLEMS YOU LISTED!!! Maybe, rather than just reviewing review sites without actually reading them, you should try to actually review what is actually there, not the hype you heard about on the radio. Either that or we all have to assume you are an evil person who works for a consortium of people who are opposed to game journalism (because that is CLEARLY the only reasonable conclusion :p)

Wild sweeping conclusion (I'll give it a shot, since you already made a bunch in your post): The system isn't broke. Some review sources may be suspect, but that's why you don't go to "Cheat Code Central" for a game review.


The funny thing is, I used to subscribe to EGM and Official US Playstation Magazine (both had the same publisher, I believe). More often than not, OPM was MORE critical of PSX games than EGM was. Never really understood how that worked

Its called standard. PC has better standard for FPS so obviously games like MW2 will score negative

[dnf]

Its called standard. PC has better standard for games

Fixed. And since a lot of game journos standarts are from a average console gamer, 10/10 day 1 purchase

[Diesel-]

Fixed. And since a lot of game journos standarts are from a average console gamer, 10/10 day 1 purchase

I havenot played any 10 rated game that make me say "WOW this game is great". all are terrible games

most of popular games are crap anyways

[gundato]

Fixed. And since a lot of game journos standarts are from a average console gamer, 10/10 day 1 purchase

Oy, and now we are at the masturbatory "We are better than the console users"

[dnf]

Pretty much, why not?

[Sketch]

What great FPS games have been PC exclusive recently?

[MoLAoS]

If the vast majority of the population has only played a limited number of games then their ability to determine the quality of those games is equally limited. It may very well be that COD is the best FPS game ever invented, but we cannot use the majority of console players as evidence of that because their experience lacks depth.

Thus the torment of the serious gamer is that marketing controls allocation of funds and not game quality. Popularity is not an indicator of quality because popularity contains dozens of obfuscating factors which damage the possible correlation.

We might be able to make reasonable conclusions about two games that have had a similar amount of exposure although we must be careful in which part of those games we blame for success or failure when deciding on whether we could develop a version which will be more popular.

[gundato]

If the vast majority of the population has only played a limited number of games then their ability to determine the quality of those games is equally limited. It may very well be that COD is the best FPS game ever invented, but we cannot use the majority of console players as evidence of that because their experience lacks depth.

Thus the torment of the serious gamer is that marketing controls allocation of funds and not game quality. Popularity is not an indicator of quality because popularity contains dozens of obfuscating factors which damage the possible correlation.

We might be able to make reasonable conclusions about two games that have had a similar amount of exposure although we must be careful in which part of those games we blame for success or failure when deciding on whether we could develop a version which will be more popular.

How does it lack depth? Having played DOOM or Wolf3D doesn't put me in any better position to understand how atmospheric Metro 2033 was or how much I love ArmA

But fine, let's pretend for a moment you are right. Then NO review can ever be used unless they have played every single game ever made. You want to review CoD 40? You better have played Ken's Labyrinth and Bulletstorm and that game based on Uwe Bolle's movie!

Or, maybe, just maybe, it goes back to what I have been saying the entire time. You find somebody with similar tastes to you. And that is all that matters.

The only way what you are saying makes any sense is if we once more pretend that there is a "right" answer as to what someone's opinion should be.

[Diesel-]

What great FPS games have been PC exclusive recently?

STALKER. best FPS ever.