Why do video game review sites and the gaming community suck?
ngon master
First of all, metacritic is a joke, Diablo 3, Mass Effect 3, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Minecraft, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, and World of Warcraft all have really high reviewer scores and poor user scores. It is awesome that there is a site that averages reviewer scores, but it in no way wieghts reviewers that do a poor job or rate harshly. Obviously there is a problem with AAA games automatically getting 8.0 scores. I understand the gaming hivemind feels to 0 vote a lot of these games to let their voice and complaints be heard, but 0 voting a game because of server issues, or drm, or being a rehash is fair to the studio.
One reviewer that gets it right for me is yahtzee, he doesn't rate games, he reviews them. He says if he likes them or not, and states why even if it is a bias. Its fine not to like FPS, just be honest in your review and say what you liked about it inspite of your bias. I'm not a fan of the presentation as much, but he doesn't get caught up in hype or the gaming community hive mind, he has an opinion, compares games, and talks about if they are fun and what really maters.
My thoughts on DRM and how it should affect a review score, personally, I don't like DRM, or the idea of it, it should be avoided in single player games, but multiplayer games are going to have some form to prevent account sharing. I'd like to see reviewers state the drm status, none, light, heavy, and state what the game requires. Or even one site that does it and include the ranking. It is a major issue for some people, and none for others, so it really shouldn't be taken to much into account in the review.
And whats with the crazy sensationalist fanboy hivemind that makes a massive deal of launch issues. There will be hiccups.
One reviewer that gets it right for me is yahtzee, he doesn't rate games, he reviews them. He says if he likes them or not, and states why even if it is a bias. Its fine not to like FPS, just be honest in your review and say what you liked about it inspite of your bias. I'm not a fan of the presentation as much, but he doesn't get caught up in hype or the gaming community hive mind, he has an opinion, compares games, and talks about if they are fun and what really maters.
My thoughts on DRM and how it should affect a review score, personally, I don't like DRM, or the idea of it, it should be avoided in single player games, but multiplayer games are going to have some form to prevent account sharing. I'd like to see reviewers state the drm status, none, light, heavy, and state what the game requires. Or even one site that does it and include the ranking. It is a major issue for some people, and none for others, so it really shouldn't be taken to much into account in the review.
And whats with the crazy sensationalist fanboy hivemind that makes a massive deal of launch issues. There will be hiccups.
Replies
Context is huge, and usually the first thing people skip over.
Not to mention, objective bias is something many people don't seem to have. You either play in favor of the studio because you feel bad for them, or you tear them apart because you still think games are made from Unicorn poop simply by thinking about it. You don't think about "Hey, you know what, it took them 10 years to make the game with a huge budget, and I'm fan of the series, but I need to keep things in perspective, sometimes a pet-project needs to neutered".
You either take your time and follow a criteria to fill in that will be fully filled, well rounded and written on a FINISHED game that you played all the way through, which most likely would require some time, and lets face, you review a game within the first week it's out or not.
Or you do the cheaper thing, which is rush through the game ASAP and just talk about the quick experience of it in a cheap format, or take your time in the initial parts of the game and talk about 'first impression' disguised under the banner of 'review'.
On the other hand, we have your average gamer, who is a mixed bag, fan will cherish everything you say, so there is no feedback there, and others who have serious issues with the games, need to bomb it inorder to get some sort of attention.
Personally, I would love to see less focus on numbers...listening to a review a la GiantBomb never killed anyone you know, cutting out the power from your 'average' reviewer would be much better. If each site could funnel the voice of their communities into the review instead, and be filtered from there alongside the paid reviewer, that would be awesome, meaning no more numbers needed, longer videos that explain stuff, and proper 'context' given to the issues at hand.
PS: Yahtzee ain't half bad, but before his two last videos, and after the ME2 video, he was pretty much in rut, most of his reviews during that time felt 'limited' as he spent more time making fun of something rather then tackling the issue in manner that described what the issue was and what it felt like, so pick which videos you take to heart lightly.
edit: also, a lot of sites just like to throw out controversial reviews for hits. Which again, lower metacritic scores, and dipshit publishers layoff or dont give out bonuses because it was an 84 instead of an 85.
I don't think it's even that deep. There's just a lot of little pricks out there that feel more entitlement than they should, and are far too picky. If you're cancelling pre-orders because the sequel to your beloved series features slightly different bullet drop mechanics (as a crazy example :poly124:) seriously, go the fuck outside and take up an outdoor hobby. Shit ain't that serious man. The asinine things I see people bitching about these days is unreal...
To cut a long story short, I didn't get any data, the problem is those communities have become so preoccupied with perfecting trolling, that they have forgotten how humans actually communicate.
I know this is more of a focus on players/fans but you know they are all the same people.
pretty much
also
How many times will I see valid complaints about a game get dismissed with "haters gonna hate"? It grows quite tiresome.
A lot of big review sites I suspect are paid to pimp by publishers or rich developers. They basically run ads guised as reviews (in my opinion).
I think if you want real indie (hopefully objective) reviews you have to look for amateur sites who haven't "sold out" yet to marketers, like: http://usercreatedcontent.ca/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation
[ame="
The only thing I disagree is that you have to know the industry when reviewing a game. Why should people have to? You can still critique food without being a cook. Comment on a movie without being a director, talk about a book without being a writer.
Sure it sucks when people put a lot of effort into a bad product, especially when the flaw doesn't lie with their contribution. Yet the overall product sucks. And if we tell ourselves otherwise we're just bullshitting ourselves. Making games is a team effort with all its advantages and disadvantages. But lying to ourselves about it ("yeah the game sucks dead monkey ass, but they put a lot of effort into it: D+") isn't going to help us as industry. (I wouldn't give critiques like this on artwork either! I don't think many Polycounters would) Be honest. Learn from your mistakes and improve.
Instead they Bash good games because it got a 6 or compare a good game to a game with similar genres then bash it because its Rating/Review was lower than the similar game
Back when Mass Effect first launched everyone said it was crap so I avoided it until I came to see those same people don't like Sci-Fi games, shooters, or Rpg Which made me stop taking Opinions and research the game fully myself. They only give in to what they love and shun everything els.
I stopped browsing or even looking at review sites because they kinda act the same way. coming across a person who loves JRPG's to the core then try to rate a Shooter or racing game = only to cough up piles of Biased retardation. (Ive seen this happen a few times)
It feels like Game critic sites are passing their opinions off as bold Fact and if the game gets a low rating people will assume its not worth its price and Steal it
Other than that, you can't miss the hype when friends find something.
imo yahtzee's kinda a dweeb. I dont know about his real reasons for liking or disliking games, but in the trite comedy he writes he tends to present pretty asinine criticisms of a lot of games. I'm pretty sore he tore at bayonetta's art, too! Luddites make bad comedians.
But, whatever, it's one of those maddening facts of life, and I don't really read those sites anyway, and hold a low opinion of reviewers in general.
One small thing is when a games developer defends itself against criticism by throwing out "we got lots of 8s, 9s, 10s from everybody" - well no shit, you're never gonna get anything less to begin with from large sites that get paid advertisement money.
Also, for those of you who browse GiantBomb - what's the point of the the Quick Looks with a developer of the game present there? All that does is basically make the guys kiss ass the entire time without being able to speak their minds on the quality of the mechanics.
Games journalism has pretty low quality control, but the insinuation that it's a matter of poor ethics instead of poor judgement is downright insulting. I kinda expect better from a specialist community like polycount -- have respect for artisans and professionals. Journalists can be idiots and incapable of thinking outside of the box, but that doesn't mean they're corrupt. =\
And don't take my thoughts as that of Polycount's - what I say is my opinion alone.
My post was kindof reactive and hostile, sorry. To clarify:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards
Journalism, as a field, has to take ethics VERY seriously. This includes reviewers! If your higher ups are altering your scores because you're on the take, and you don't walk away from the publication, it's a gigantic breach of ethics and protocol. Kindof akin to artists stealing work in terms of seriousness. Accusing someone of that is a very big deal, and I think it gets thrown around a lot by people who don't really understand how serious it would be in that field.
Haha, yeah, I totally agree with you on those. Game Dev Quick Looks make me cringe - it's like they brought the game's PR-Man into the office.
Saying that, the Skull Girls folk had some pretty interesting things to say in regards to game dev philosophy, so it's not always bad.
If you're reporting on wars, sure. When it comes to entertainment and the light stuff, you can buy your reviews.
It's common practice in the world of nightclubs, bars, events and restaurants in London to buy reviews off, I know this first hand. I would not be surprised if this extends to other forms of entertainment with money to throw around. Sorry man.
Aside from that. Becase reviews are now buisness not journalism. ("if you give us 10, we give you exclusivity for 2 weeks", and this exclusive review generate ad revenue because people are curious, because there is no other review...).
And you know what. Worst part in this, it's nothing illigal here. Because noone essentialy bribes anyone...
End user don't care. Do I have to know how cars are made to be able for criticizng them and gicing poor review because it's not driving as I expected ?
Basically I have little idea about how bad the Internet review scene is, and from the sounds of it I'm thinking ignorance is bliss.
That shit needs to stop. It's incredibly disrespectful and completely defeats the purpose of reviews in the first place. The whole relationship between reviewers and publishers has become utterly farcical.
Ultimately what needs to happen is for publishers to stop using the idiotic system of basing any part of their business on aggregate scores from Metacritic and the like. Once that's sorted, developers can stop being fucked over from a few dubious review scores and the games media can have a go at being somewhat trustworthy.
I just want to know... should I go and try to make more friends with 'non-gamers' and find out if what they're playing really lines up? I read some reviews and they help inform my purchases, but really it's mostly just a confirmer: I really made up my mind ages ago. But the big sales to me seem to come from great marketing, good games that spread word-o-mouth. I suppose that it's no surprise that these games also get good reviews but with the knowledge that publishers try to manipulate these proceedings then just HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Most reviews seem to be made with one of two mindsets. Either they're meant to glorified shopping guides(as is the case with most major game reviewers) or they're designed to simply be funny and entertaining in and of themselves(such as with Yahtzee or the That Guy With The Glasses community). The former is useless to anyone who's capable of forming their own opinions and the latter is completely uninformative.
What I want in a review is a discussion. I want to hear some one talk about why a piece of media does or does not work. My goal is to become more informed about the views of others and to know more about how the media can be improved. I find that to be the most engaging.
A publisher can easly justify saving or killing a studio based of reviews, obviously they mostly care about sales, but it does matter to a start up or small or indy studio that needs to get more people to try a game.
Secondly, metacritic. Yes, it averages all the reviews together. Here's the thing. A lot of companies pay for higher than average reviews. They are usually the ones that are the first reviews out. The company sends them a copy of the game early and I guess they review with less than harsh crits. It gets the good reviews out for launch. Wait a couple weeks after a release, then check back and you`ll see all the lower scores from other sites / companies.
User reviews are always going to be pretty shitty. Most gamers that write reviews online are a bunch of D-bags. They troll, and they only write shitty reviews. They don't care. 1 little thing is wrong with the game and they`ll rip it apart. Chances are they hit send and then go back to playing it though. Online forums / user reviews represent such a SMALL percentage of players. Problem is, the people that are happy with hit dont bother going online to say how happy they are. They are too busy playing.
Nature of the beast, really.
0-7: Shit. Don't bother
8: OK. Worth a bargain bin price
9: Really good
10: Best game ever.
In reality, I think 8 is a really decent score for a game that is solid, fun, but not revolutionary. In the industry it's assumed that getting an 8 might as well be a 0.
I propose a 3 point scale:
Awful, Good, Amazing.
Not sure much more granularity is necessary. What really is the difference between an 87 and an 89. Really?
It goes both ways, you get people who glorify something that is really a piece of shit, such as Revelations 2012 on Gamespot: http://uk.gamespot.com/revelations-2012/platform/pc/
A while back when the LOTR trilogy was taking preorders on bluray it was announced they were going to release it in the theatrical cut, then 6 months later they'd release the directors cuts. A blatant attempt to get people to cave and hope they'd buy it twice.
The box set had hundreds of 1 star reviews on amazon weeks before it even shipped because of that.
With a game like Diablo 3 where people were pissed about the DRM when it was announced, I suspect a lot of those ratings are people who didn't buy it and are just trying to sabotage the rating because they're upset about the Blizzards decision.
You must have been looking at very specific titles or got lucky, because that's far from the norm.
Many games don't get finished, others are threatened to give good-scores, if not, Ads and Copies are not sent in the future to said peeps, and having a set time is not OK. Not ever, how would you like it if someone walked out on your movie half way through and complained about how they didn't get to see any action in it other then 5 minutes in the beginning? That sounds odd, no? There is a reason games have a nice climax at the ending usually, or not...which can change the way you enjoy the game.
I think this year alone, several games had game breaking bugs halfway-3/4 through the game, which NEEDED to be patched, but no one knew, since the Reviewers where put on a schedule, which is their job to rate the game from first to start.
And people who enjoy the game or don't complain about it are also at fault. If the game has an issue, why not come in and say what the problem is, and say the game overall is awesome and go back to playing the game?
Spending 5 minutes in saying thank to a Dev and mentioning what's wrong vs. Trolls who spend 30 minutes in ranting Yathzee style about one single point isn't making things better.
So yeah, either you become part of the 'voice' or stay quite and complain about it on random youtube videos...because that always works, right?