Page 4 of 47 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 924
  1. #61
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    Because reviews are done by one person and so they probably will have one opinion on the game?
    Yes but one person is more than capable at looking at a subject from several different angles. In IGN's case, not all the DA2 articles were the same person. There was the glowing reviews and then the monumental amount of glorified advertising articles which followed.

  2. #62
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Dariune View Post
    Going back on point I think the OP does have a valid point although im not sure on the delivery.

    I often suspect that sites like IGN are taking money. Their opinions sometimes seem just a bit too onesided. Taking DA2 as an example. Whether you liked it or not I think its fair to say that enough people didnt like it that the game doesnt deserve "Classic" status. And yet IGN raved about it.

    Even RPS who, for the most part, seem intent on giving an honest opinion make me wonder sometimes.

    Most recently with X-COM. I am playing it now and it is quite good. Not great, but average to above average IMO. But the raving about how great the game, even though the raving was fairly well presented and objective (Such is the skill of the master writer) felt far more over the top than i felt.

    I am just one person though and this doesnt mean RPS are taking money to say that X-COM is great. But it does sometimes make me wonder if a reviewer can be trusted. (Not that I ever take anyones word as gospel) From the lower end of the literary video game indistry like IGN to the more verbose and objective RPS, I feel that "corruption" isnt unthinkable.
    Im simply not gonna read a review of a game that is heavily advertised like this one was on RPS.

  3. #63
    Lesser Hivemind Node SirDavies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    504
    People have opinions. If you don't agree with them, don't listen to them/read/watch their content. It's as easy as that. This is the internet, there's a place for everything. Who cares if the VGA's consider Skyrim to be the GOTY? I don't, you don't. Let's just play the games we enjoy, read the stuff we find interesting and get on with our lives. I really don't see the problem here.
    Last edited by SirDavies; 12-10-2012 at 12:43 AM.

  4. #64
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kadayi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,459
    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    But Future Publishing, who are getting a drumming in this thread, are losing money hand-over-fist: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...g-profits-fall

    And when was the last time you saw or ever heard about a loaded games journalist?

    The whole system is screwed, that's for sure, but I always hate that people have in their mind this concept of games journos being given literal bribes to write good reviews.

    It's far more complex than that, but mostly boils down to:
    • readers value early reviews over well-written ones
    • publishers like publications that go easy on them
    • publishers give review code to people they like first, and to people they don't like not at all
    • publications that get reviews in first see increase traffic and hence ad revenue


    Seriously, I'm sure there are plenty of games writers out their ready and willing to sell out, but no-one's buying. It's not envelopes full of cash, it's far more insidious.
    Careful Dean, don't shatter the illusion that Games Journalism is somehow where the real money is at....
    Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil

    Tradition is the tyranny of dead men

    Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi

    Probable Replicant

    *blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me


    Quote Originally Posted by Finicky View Post
    Kadayi will remain the worst poster on the interwebs.
    Gifmaster 4000 2014 Year of the Gif

    Persons of disinterest: Nalano, deano2099

  5. #65
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    235
    But its fun to tear opinions apart :(

  6. #66
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kadayi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Lagoon West, Vermilion Sands
    Posts
    4,459
    Quote Originally Posted by dnf View Post
    But its fun to tear opinions apart :(
    Shush you, everyone knows John Walker has more money than Kim Dot Com.
    Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil

    Tradition is the tyranny of dead men

    Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi

    Probable Replicant

    *blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me


    Quote Originally Posted by Finicky View Post
    Kadayi will remain the worst poster on the interwebs.
    Gifmaster 4000 2014 Year of the Gif

    Persons of disinterest: Nalano, deano2099

  7. #67
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Swayze View Post
    This buthurt PC-Elitism over Halo still exists?

    Yes it was going to be an amazing PC game ( and Mac before that) until Bungie got bought out by Microsoft.

    If you claim Halo is a bad game you're a dope plain and simple. It was ahead of its time in so many ways. Even when it was released on PC much too late there still wasn't much ahead of it.

    Man if you dislike Halo or see any of it as average you must just not like games, or be playing games from the future, on your quantum-core system.
    Well, you can safely argue that Halo has atrocious (SP) level design. Compare its levels (at least for 1 and 2) versus previous SP games and it definitely is bland and comes up lacking.

    But I do give Halo massive credit for being the first game that truly united vehicles and infantry in multiplayer. Every other game prior (and even most current) that tried to merge the two ended up with a disconnect between the two resulting in "A bunch of guys shooting each others, and then a tank killing stuff"
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  8. #68
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by dnf View Post
    Im simply not gonna read a review of a game that is heavily advertised like this one was on RPS.
    Well someone has the pay the writer's rent. And the internet turned up and people started expecting everything for free, so the consumer isn't going to pay it. So yes, it has to be done by advertising instead.

    The simple solution for an ad-free totally independent review site is to pay for it. If everyone that spent their time moaning about it instead chipped in a quid a month we could have one. But either you pay for the reviews, or the publishers do through advertising.

  9. #69
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sketch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    Well, you can safely argue that Halo has atrocious (SP) level design. Compare its levels (at least for 1 and 2) versus previous SP games and it definitely is bland and comes up lacking.

    But I do give Halo massive credit for being the first game that truly united vehicles and infantry in multiplayer. Every other game prior (and even most current) that tried to merge the two ended up with a disconnect between the two resulting in "A bunch of guys shooting each others, and then a tank killing stuff"
    Halo's level design is one of it's best things. Yeah in Halo 1 there is the awful, awful Library level, but the open world missions like the 2nd campaign mission, Two Betrayals...they're huge, and very nicely designed.

  10. #70
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Woundedbum View Post
    Halo's level design is one of it's best things. Yeah in Halo 1 there is the awful, awful Library level, but the open world missions like the 2nd campaign mission, Two Betrayals...they're huge, and very nicely designed.
    I wouldn't call Halo 2's "open world" good level design. Been a few years since I played it (and on the PC to boot), but I Found them all to be very bland and without "cover" as it were. That's not to say they weren't fun (not my cup of tea, but I See their influence in Resistance and Killzone which I love), just that the level design was kind of crap.

    And I have to admit: Halo 1 is actually one of my favorite experiences ever. Some driver error resulted in every enemy being invisible unless I had my flashlight on them (a lot of level geometry was see-through too). That made the game VERY fun in that I had to ration my use of the flashlight so that I wouldn't get stuck dodging gunfire while waiting for it to recharge. I strongly suspect one of the lead devs at Remedy had the same glitch.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  11. #71
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Swayze View Post
    If you claim Halo is a bad game you're a dope plain and simple.
    It was a mediocre game offered to a uncritical captive audience starved of PC gaming's storied history of FPSs. To this day it's more marketing - and how! - than product.

    If you never played anything like it, you'd think it was the bee's knees too.

    Quote Originally Posted by deano2099 View Post
    But Future Publishing, who are getting a drumming in this thread, are losing money hand-over-fist: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...g-profits-fall

    And when was the last time you saw or ever heard about a loaded games journalist?

    The whole system is screwed, that's for sure, but I always hate that people have in their mind this concept of games journos being given literal bribes to write good reviews.

    It's far more complex than that, but mostly boils down to:
    • readers value early reviews over well-written ones
    • publishers like publications that go easy on them
    • publishers give review code to people they like first, and to people they don't like not at all
    • publications that get reviews in first see increase traffic and hence ad revenue


    Seriously, I'm sure there are plenty of games writers out their ready and willing to sell out, but no-one's buying. It's not envelopes full of cash, it's far more insidious.
    I expected more of you, Deano.

    Follow the fucking money. You know, the money that goes from the pockets of gamers to the bank accounts of publishers because they read glorified press releases and squeeing previews and reviews of games.

    Games writing is a hand-to-mouth profession. The writers are easily malleable because there's so fucking many of them. They get scraps because that's how much they have the leverage to demand. They're in the pockets of publishers because publishers have the money (and goods) they need to support their profession, and so they do what the publishers want.

    How hard was that? Seriously. If games writers were independently wealthy, they wouldn't need to sabotage their credibility.

    Why is the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page so biased? Because the WSJ is owned by an Australian mogul and thus must reflect his political alignment. It's always the fucking money.
    Last edited by Nalano; 12-10-2012 at 01:40 AM.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  12. #72
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Dariune View Post
    But the raving about how great the game, even though the raving was fairly well presented and objective (Such is the skill of the master writer) felt far more over the top than i felt.
    This is your opinion. RPS really like the game. I really like the game. Plenty of others really like the game. Where does that leave this sentiment? You know, I think The Witcher games are the most overrated piles of nonsense in PC gaming today. I don't like them, I find their "maturity" to be rather clumsy and shallow, I don't like the mechanics, I don't like the story. But plenty of other people clearly do, and they would want to list it as a classic. My classic games list probably looks a lot different to yours.

    Am I biased? Of course. Reviews cannot be objective, they are always a subjective assessment of a game coloured by the reviewer's personality. Reviews are not a scientific analysis, there is no defined "good" and "bad". Reviews are an opinion, which by strict definition can't be objective. In terms of "objective" as "judged fairly" that definition has serious problems because everyone has different ideas of what is "fair".

    Lately, it seems that review reactions go like this:
    Reviewer: "This game was awesome, go play it."
    Readers: "OMFG IT'S A CLASSIC / OMFG THIS GUY IS BIASED."

    Reviewer: "This game is pretty good OR this game isn't perfect but it's not bad either."
    Readers: "It's crap, don't bother / It's a cult classic, everyone should play it."

    Reviewer: "It's an indie game and..."
    Readers: "OMFG IT'S A CLASSIC / OMFG INDIE BIAS."

    Reviewer: "This game is bad."
    Readers: "OMFG THIS GUY IS BIASED / OMFG TOO TRUE BRAH!"

    If you agree with the reviewer, chances are you're going to call it unbiased and fair. If you don't, you're more inclined to call it biased and unfair. Reviews, awards, etc, they're all just subjective opinions. It's not possible to create a review that caters to absolutely everyone and conforms to a totally objective standard, because all reviews are just opinions. That's not to say that someone blatantly making crap up against what the game actually presents against common standards is acceptable, but the entire "WHAT NARGLE WARS 2 DIDN'T GET GOTY OMFG SO BIASED" thing is ridiculous. GOTY is an absurd concept anyway.

  13. #73
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,331
    Pretty much. Yes, there is always going to be a (sub)conscious bias toward not pissing off the people giving you money. But that is going to be overridden by all the OTHER bias inherently included in any gamer (yes, believe it or not, the people who are reviewing games DO play them).

    Now, obviously there ARE some special cases (even then, hype is a huge factor and arguably greater than marketing), but you can spot those from a mile away. And if you can't figure out if a review is biased toward "following the money trail" or whatever the crap Nally is rambling about, then you have bigger problems.

    The moral of the story: Read the reviews, not the scores. Learn what reviewers have similar tastes to you, and read their reviews. And if you think they might be biased, READ ANOTHER REVIEW.
    Last edited by gundato; 12-10-2012 at 02:36 AM.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  14. #74
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano
    I expected more of you, Deano.

    Follow the fucking money. You know, the money that goes from the pockets of gamers to the bank accounts of publishers because they read glorified press releases and squeeing previews and reviews of games.

    Games writing is a hand-to-mouth profession. The writers are easily malleable because there's so fucking many of them. They get scraps because that's how much they have the leverage to demand. They're in the pockets of publishers because publishers have the money (and goods) they need to support their profession, and so they do what the publishers want.

    How hard was that? Seriously. If games writers were independently wealthy, they wouldn't need to sabotage their credibility.

    Why is the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page so biased? Because the WSJ is owned by an Australian mogul and thus must reflect his political alignment. It's always the fucking money.
    Except that you've offered no proof to back that up? "Always follow the money" seems like a great idea, but you can't back that claim up by saying "look at this thing, follow the money to those guys, and there's your cause" because you're using your original premise to find your conclusion. If you're right then that's a perfectly valid chain of logic, but if you're wrong then you just promoted a hypothesis to your attention unfairly. If you start with one random hypothesis out of many, and then you just check to see whether it might be right, you won't end up with the right answer most of the time. Let's say, for example, that a murder was committed in some hypothetical city. The police have no idea who did it, so they decide to check out Martin, because they figure they ought to check out someone, and besides he's kind of a shady character. He doesn't have a strong alibi, so they figure it very well might be him. Later on, it turns out that the murderer had black hair and their shoe size was a 9. That matches Martin, so they assume that he probably did it after all. However, he didn't; there was no reason to suspect him in the first place, so any circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime was not actually supporting the hypothesis that he did it. They promoted him to their attention unfairly, which caused them to make what is obviously a stupid mistake.

    Basically, correlation is not causality, so you'll need to prove a causal connection between the trail of money and the voicing of opinions before you can claim simple correlation as supporting evidence. Supporting evidence has to be supporting an already highly plausible hypothesis for it to mean anything. Step one is to make sure that the only place you reference your conclusion in your argument is in fact *in* your conclusion. If you find yourself talking about your conclusion before you've proven it, you're doing it wrong. Show me something that proves causation, not correlation, and I'll get behind you. until then, I'll continue assuming that most journalists don't take any form of money for positive reviews, and I'll certainly not entertain the idea that RPS does. I rather like deano's presentation; it's not definitive, but it definitely seems like a real possibility. He earned the right for his hypothesis to be promoted to our attention fairly; he makes several assumptions that need to be independently substantiated, but those are themselves independent hypotheses to be tested. Honestly Nalano you've just been coming off as incredibly foolish and willing to believe literally anything someone tells you. Your only criteria for whether you believe something appears to be how much it conforms to your pre-existing cynical worldview. I'll just make the point that if you only believe things that conform to what you already believed, you'll never be able to learn anything new. Not to mention you'll only ever be as right as your initial beliefs were. It's the same fallacy as I mentioned above, taken to an extreme level.

  15. #75
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    110
    Apologies for the double post, but I ought to make the (totally separate) point that RPS actually said here that they get more hits on reviews after a game is out rather than earlier, which may debunk some of the assumed theories about how getting early review code is everything.

  16. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    781
    Here's the thing: if there is a loophole, you can bet your ass somebody somewhere is squirming through the gaps to exploit it.
    People are splashing money on games that they have never had the opportunity to play. Imperfect information makes for an imperfect market. Consumers can only rely on demos (which aren't always available), betas, marketing or reviews for even KNOWING what it is they're buying. So if the reviews prejudicially favor a game, you don't even have a true and accurate view of what the product is. You literally do not know what you are buying because your purchase is dependent on factors that are subjectively untrue. How ridiculous is this?

    There needs to be a best practice guideline that excludes potential conflicts of interest between reviewers and publishers. Reviewers should not be hosting ads of a game that they review. Or at least the departments responsible should be separated by a chinese wall (hard to do in a 10 man company). Reviewers should have their accounts monitored. It should be a COMPULSORY REQUIREMENT for review code to be distributed freely when ready to all reviewers upon demand. No favoritism.

    The same guidelines should apply to movies or any sort of media based product that you cannot qualitatively assess without experiencing (i.e. paying for).

    Or you could end up with the situation where tons of people end up buying garbage...and the result is people put off purchases until there is word of mouth to go on.

  17. #77
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,331
    Quote Originally Posted by hamster View Post
    Here's the thing: if there is a loophole, you can bet your ass somebody somewhere is squirming through the gaps to exploit it.
    People are splashing money on games that they have never had the opportunity to play. Imperfect information makes for an imperfect market. Consumers can only rely on demos (which aren't always available), betas, marketing or reviews for even KNOWING what it is they're buying. So if the reviews prejudicially favor a game, you don't even have a true and accurate view of what the product is. You literally do not know what you are buying because your purchase is dependent on factors that are subjectively untrue. How ridiculous is this?

    There needs to be a best practice guideline that excludes potential conflicts of interest between reviewers and publishers. Reviewers should not be hosting ads of a game that they review. Or at least the departments responsible should be separated by a chinese wall (hard to do in a 10 man company). Reviewers should have their accounts monitored. It should be a COMPULSORY REQUIREMENT for review code to be distributed freely when ready to all reviewers upon demand. No favoritism.

    The same guidelines should apply to movies or any sort of media based product that you cannot qualitatively assess without experiencing (i.e. paying for).

    Or you could end up with the situation where tons of people end up buying garbage...and the result is people put off purchases until there is word of mouth to go on.
    So we need to change how the entire review (and magazine, and anything) industry works because it is going to destroy the world even though it hasn't already done so?
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  18. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    781
    Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
    So we need to change how the entire review (and magazine, and anything) industry works because it is going to destroy the world even though it hasn't already done so?
    I consider these to be very basic conflict of interest safeguards. It's utterly alien to me how there are no preventive measures in place. If you stop to think you'd realize the amount of money that can be (i should say "is" and "was") misallocated as a consequence of imperfect information.

    Games, by the way, is a very large industry. When people fail to take it seriously all sorts of regulatory loopholes crop up. Your attitude is the reason why the industry is the way it is. "They're just gaaames". Yeah but it's money spent with an opportunity cost attached to it. If every goddamn industry was taken as lightly as games people would be bleeding money left & right in a perpetual state of discontent because they never ever get what they really want, thereby completely distorting the market economy. It's really simple actually, and expecting good governance should be the very minimum we expect of an ENTIRE billion dollar industry, don't you think?

  19. #79
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gundato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,331
    Quote Originally Posted by hamster View Post
    I consider these to be very basic conflict of interest safeguards. It's utterly alien to me how there are no preventive measures in place. If you stop to think you'd realize the amount of money that can be (i should say "is" and "was") misallocated as a consequence of imperfect information.

    Games, by the way, is a very large industry. When people fail to take it seriously all sorts of regulatory loopholes crop up. Your attitude is the reason why the industry is the way it is. "They're just gaaames". Yeah but it's money spent with an opportunity cost attached to it. If every goddamn industry was taken as lightly as games people would be bleeding money left & right in a perpetual state of discontent because they never ever get what they really want, thereby completely distorting the market economy. It's really simple actually, and expecting good governance should be the very minimum we expect of an ENTIRE billion dollar industry, don't you think?
    Why would there need to BE preventive measures in the first place? There isn't a problem...

    And where are these statistics on how much is "misallocated as a consequence of imperfect information"? I am usually not one to ask for statistics, but I do want them in this case. Because bad games generally sell poorly, good games tend to sell well*. Clearly people are buying the games they want to buy.
    Obviously there are the pre-order issues, but reviews generally hit too late to really help them anyway.

    Book review websites tend to run ads that advertise books
    Game review websites (and magazines) run ads that advertise games
    Movie sites run movie ads

    Yet the world has not stopped turning, and people are generally satisfied. Because you see, this is an error correcting system. If a review source goes "too far", people stop using them.

    *: Yes, there are cases where a "good" game sells poorly and a "bad" game sells well. But keep in mind that those might just be people who have different tastes than you.
    Steam: Gundato
    PSN: Gundato
    If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

  20. #80
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    110
    Or you could let market forces work it out, because they will. One games review site offering bullshit, biased reviews? Well, people will get burned by them and then go to a different site next time. Someone will pick up the slack and give real, unbiased reviews that people really want to read, and are informative. For me, that's usually RPS, although I definitely have different tastes from most of the RPS staff in certain areas. Totalbiscuit is pretty good with his "WTF is..." videos. If you get burned by bad reviews, more than once or twice, then you're an idiot. Find sites that do give good reviews and read them. They exist; there is pretty much 0 startup costs with starting a blog (actually it is literally 0 right now, other than time) so anyone can try it, which means that there is good distribution of supply. Enforcing rules and regulations that the market could have easily sorted out on it's own is stupid and wasteful.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •