You don't follow them at all. That's the part that seems to be completely lost in this old conversation.Phoenixmgs said:You follow certain reviewers you like, not follow websites or staffs.
Shilling DWK out of fucking nowhere? I think I like you.Silentpony said:I haven't read a game review in years. I don't care what critics or reviewers think. It's an obsolete and inherently arrogant medium.
This clip basically sums up what all critics think of themselves:
It is probably a block bot. Block lists I feel are necessary yes but Block Bots are where I draw the line and say you. the person who uses them, are just a really shitty person. I do not know if Jim Sterling uses one I am just saying its really dumb and cowardly.Weaver said:Jim blocked me on twitter and I don't know why.
Can't speak to the other guys but I understand that Jim does not get games (at least not AAA) for free. Granted he can still probably write them off as a business expense.Silentpony said:Especially when they get their games for free.
Firstly, nice of you to ignore my questions because you have no legitimate answers for them.DaCosta said:You don't follow them at all. That's the part that seems to be completely lost in this old conversation.Phoenixmgs said:You follow certain reviewers you like, not follow websites or staffs.
Websites like Gamespot and IGN get like 40 to 50 million views per month. They are meant to offer something to everyone, so that when the average person googles for a review on a certain game, they may be useful.
Following reviewers is for Youtubers, who try to force some kind of intimacy so they can create fanboys who'll give them money on patreon.
Bingo.The Rogue Wolf said:The problem with game reviews is that very few people these days use them to actually inform themselves about a game they're interested in; instead, they want reviews to buttress their already-formed opinions.
But he didn't always have to buy them. That's actually a pretty recent development. Jim cut his teeth at Destructoid as a reviewer who made videos about all the free merch he got for reviewing games.jademunky said:Can't speak to the other guys but I understand that Jim does not get games (at least not AAA) for free. Granted he can still probably write them off as a business expense.Silentpony said:Especially when they get their games for free.
EZ, there's no negative review for Asylum because it's a well made combat system, and was clearly marketed as a melee/gadget focused stealth/action hybrid. As a result of the game' genre being clear from the start, it was easy for sites to assign the right reviewer for the job, and easy for solo reviewers to decide in advance whether or not they wanted to play the game. Reviewers who like that genre bought it and enjoyed it, and it was clear to reviewers that don't enjoy the genre that it wasnt worth their time well in advance of release.Phoenixmgs said:What about Batman Arkham Asylum? That was the 1st game with said combat system. Why is there no negative review for that game then? Plus, games heavy on story are all reviewed the same as well. Where's a negative review for say Metal Gear Solid 4? Not even all MGS fans liked the story. Or what about Metal Gear Solid 5? MGS5 was quite the departure for the series.
You can learn about a game via a positive or negative review. Sometimes a positive review can tell you that you won't like the game and vice verse. And going to a website for reviews is not helpful because they have a staff. Getting something out of a review is finding reviewers that share similar opinions or at least are good at explaining why they liked or didn't like something. You follow certain reviewers you like, not follow websites or staffs. You follow certain movie critics, who they work for is meaningless.
No one really trusts critics and reviews anymore. The gaming industry matured with the internet and the suits realized its cheaper and easier to pay for good reviews than it is to make a good game. Why put hours and money into a game when you can give reviewers free stuff and pamper them, have them praise your title with pre-written reviews and press packages, make bank on pre-orders and then totally forget about the game a week after launch?Fappy said:I agree with him for the most part, and this coming from someone who used to write game reviews.
Straight-up game reviews are in such a problematic state right now I really don't see how they are of use to any consumers.
To be fair that criticism/concern was already being voiced by gamers long before GG was a thing. Remember the Kain and Lynch controversy? Even the Doritos pope stuff predates GG.Silentpony said:No one really trusts critics and reviews anymore. The gaming industry matured with the internet and the suits realized its cheaper and easier to pay for good reviews than it is to make a good game. Why put hours and money into a game when you can give reviewers free stuff and pamper them, have them praise your title with pre-written reviews and press packages, make bank on pre-orders and then totally forget about the game a week after launch?Fappy said:I agree with him for the most part, and this coming from someone who used to write game reviews.
Straight-up game reviews are in such a problematic state right now I really don't see how they are of use to any consumers.
If GG was right about anything it was that critics and devs being besties who hang out all the time and throw each other parties probably shouldn't be happening and doesn't exact make us trust in their 'objective' opinion of a game their friends are making.
I think? Was the K/L thing where some guy gave it a poor score, so the Devs basically had him fired?Fappy said:To be fair that criticism/concern was already being voiced by gamers long before GG was a thing. Remember the Kain and Lynch controversy? Even the Doritos pope stuff predates GG.Silentpony said:No one really trusts critics and reviews anymore. The gaming industry matured with the internet and the suits realized its cheaper and easier to pay for good reviews than it is to make a good game. Why put hours and money into a game when you can give reviewers free stuff and pamper them, have them praise your title with pre-written reviews and press packages, make bank on pre-orders and then totally forget about the game a week after launch?Fappy said:I agree with him for the most part, and this coming from someone who used to write game reviews.
Straight-up game reviews are in such a problematic state right now I really don't see how they are of use to any consumers.
If GG was right about anything it was that critics and devs being besties who hang out all the time and throw each other parties probably shouldn't be happening and doesn't exact make us trust in their 'objective' opinion of a game their friends are making.
Yeah, the K/L thing was basically a Gamespot reviewer giving the game a low score in the midst of an advertising campaign on the same site. The publisher bitched to Gamespot and got him fired over it.Silentpony said:I think? Was the K/L thing where some guy gave it a poor score, so the Devs basically had him fired?Fappy said:To be fair that criticism/concern was already being voiced by gamers long before GG was a thing. Remember the Kain and Lynch controversy? Even the Doritos pope stuff predates GG.Silentpony said:No one really trusts critics and reviews anymore. The gaming industry matured with the internet and the suits realized its cheaper and easier to pay for good reviews than it is to make a good game. Why put hours and money into a game when you can give reviewers free stuff and pamper them, have them praise your title with pre-written reviews and press packages, make bank on pre-orders and then totally forget about the game a week after launch?Fappy said:I agree with him for the most part, and this coming from someone who used to write game reviews.
Straight-up game reviews are in such a problematic state right now I really don't see how they are of use to any consumers.
If GG was right about anything it was that critics and devs being besties who hang out all the time and throw each other parties probably shouldn't be happening and doesn't exact make us trust in their 'objective' opinion of a game their friends are making.
What was the doritos thing though? I want to say it involved Halo 3, but that might have been mountain dew...
Gamespot is a pos site. Used to be good back in the 90?s when it wasn?t so PC.Fappy said:Yeah, the K/L thing was basically a Gamespot reviewer giving the game a low score in the midst of an advertising campaign on the same site. The publisher bitched to Gamespot and got him fired over it.Silentpony said:I think? Was the K/L thing where some guy gave it a poor score, so the Devs basically had him fired?Fappy said:To be fair that criticism/concern was already being voiced by gamers long before GG was a thing. Remember the Kain and Lynch controversy? Even the Doritos pope stuff predates GG.Silentpony said:No one really trusts critics and reviews anymore. The gaming industry matured with the internet and the suits realized its cheaper and easier to pay for good reviews than it is to make a good game. Why put hours and money into a game when you can give reviewers free stuff and pamper them, have them praise your title with pre-written reviews and press packages, make bank on pre-orders and then totally forget about the game a week after launch?Fappy said:I agree with him for the most part, and this coming from someone who used to write game reviews.
Straight-up game reviews are in such a problematic state right now I really don't see how they are of use to any consumers.
If GG was right about anything it was that critics and devs being besties who hang out all the time and throw each other parties probably shouldn't be happening and doesn't exact make us trust in their 'objective' opinion of a game their friends are making.
What was the doritos thing though? I want to say it involved Halo 3, but that might have been mountain dew...
The Doritos thing was Geoff Keighley doing a painful interview surrounded by mountain dew and doritos product placement. He's since moved on from that horrific display, but it was pretty awful at the time. The sad part is that he's not really a bad journalist. Don't think he'll ever live that incident down though.
Kek.demoman_chaos said:Tildamort is one of those few things that R34 exceptions should be made for.Silentpony said:I haven't read a game review in years. I don't care what critics or reviewers think. It's an obsolete and inherently arrogant medium.
This clip basically sums up what all critics think of themselves:
I like Arkham Asylum myself but there's plenty to criticize about the game. I can easily see the complaint that the combat system is basically a series of quick-time events. And, even though the combat system was new and fresh at the time, I even recall it being rather limited in moves becoming repetitive as Arkham City really fleshed it out quite a bit more. The boss battles did suck (outside of Ivy) and the ending sucked. The Riddler trophies were just a collectathon, not riddles or puzzles. The story, while having some good moments, was not even on par with a TAS episode. I'd call Arkham Asylum a solid foundation for sure around a 7/10 but for the game (or really any game) to have an average score of 91 is pretty ridiculous. Best Picture winners at the Oscars don't even score that high.Xorph said:EZ, there's no negative review for Asylum because it's a well made combat system, and was clearly marketed as a melee/gadget focused stealth/action hybrid. As a result of the game' genre being clear from the start, it was easy for sites to assign the right reviewer for the job, and easy for solo reviewers to decide in advance whether or not they wanted to play the game. Reviewers who like that genre bought it and enjoyed it, and it was clear to reviewers that don't enjoy the genre that it wasnt worth their time well in advance of release.
In this regard, a review that's negative with the reason being "I'm just sick of arkham combat/never liked it to begin with" is by and large a useless review due to the fact that all of the games that use arkham combat have clearly communicated that fact prior to release. Someone who doesn't like Arkham combat isn't going to like the game no matter what, so there's zero reason for them to read reviews on Shadow of War or etc because they had all the info they needed prior to release to know they wouldn't like the game.
A game's score is meant to reflect the expected enjoyment for fans of the game's genre, not gamers in general, as if it was the latter there wouldn't be a single game scoring more than 5/10 due to people who never would've liked the game leaving uneccesary negative reviews.
Regarding MGS4, I feel that the issue is likely that professional reviewers tend to put less of their score's weight into the story than the gameplay. In all but the most narrative-heavy games like Gone Home, a bad narrative is going to get you docked like a point and a half at most on a professional review site, and its something that I personally am also unhappy about, I'd say weight it 50/50 if anything.
As far as 5 being a departure, pro reviewers likely graded it as "open world action/stealth game" and not "MGS game", though even if they graded it as the latter I wouldn't neccesarily assume being a departure would lead to lower scores if the game was still fab (and again, 5's issues seemed to mostly be with the story, so ign and co likely didnt dock it as many points as they probably should've).
As far as following reviewers with similar tastes to you, my response would have to be "If you don't like Arkham combat, and the reviewers you follow don't like it either, what good does it do any of you to waste time writing/reading reviews of them when you all know you'll dislike them from the start?"
Something on your mind sonIamGamer41 said:I hope he will quit the game called life soon. It's not like his wife needs him as she is screwing people who are actually men and not some cuck like Steriling.
Also funny enough ACG gave the game a "wait for sell" I'm not calling a conspiracy but I just like to add that.CritialGaming said:I'd like to point out to everyone that Gamespot and IGN have both given The Evil Within 2 an 8.0 score. Meanwhile both website's front pages have full gusto adds for the game itself. I find that all very very curious.