Are Reviewers Still Afraid To Bomb Big Games?

[TransJenner]

I can't even finish the game because the mission won't progress


Same thing happened with New Vegas

 

[basketball reasons]

I can't even finish the game because the mission won't progress


Same thing happened with New Vegas

its ok the fans will fix it

 

[spliz]

I download every album that gets above an 80 on metacritic. Found some good gems that way

The way music is reviewed now is completely atrocious. People who aren't even qualified to review these albums get these opportunities. Especially hip hop. And as far as gaming reviews go. It depends on the site. If u go on metacritic u may get a better gauge of the game cause it's combined reviews. But if u only go on a site or 2. Yea. U may get burned. Especially when u look at reviews for remasters n shyt. I don't like how they review old games that got great scores and turn around and give them bad scores cause they got remastered. And judge them by today's standards. Rather than judging the quality of the remaster and linking the original review of the game. That's amateur shyt right there.

 

[Fatboi1]

They gave that MESS MGSV a 10.

 

[Jazzy B.]

MGSV was unfinished no higher than a 5/10. Yet it got 9/10's

 

[GoldTeef]

I'd be willing to bet most would agree that Skyrim is much better. A:I seemed a bit generic (but I am looking forward to experiencing it with my soon to arrive Oculus Rift).

@ A:I being generic compared to skyrim

They shouldn't really be compared, they're two different games that don't have much in common.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Maybe not a conspiracy, but there is a rather toxic relationship between game developers and reviewers, where the latter might be less inclined to point out game flaws to keep a relationship with the devs. Many game reviewers get early review copies directly from the developers (in addition to other free swag). Reviewers are incentivized to get reviews out first for ad review & site traffic. A company has the right to withheld these games from whomever they wish. So if they know a reviewer didn't like previous games or bad mouthed previous products, or the company itself, they might cut a reviewer from early access to their games. Not to mention, sometimes, especially AAA game devs, have flown reviewers out to see them, fed them top notch meals, put them in fancy hotels, gave them laptops & shyt in addition to early access to their games. Who would want to risk a company blacklisting them, and miss out on shyt like this?

It's why we needed gamer gate.

Reviewers are more effected by deadlines, and headlines than they are by publishers.

Even with all the events and free swag reviewers still hold some integrity.

 

[Killigraphy]

Its been obvious over the years, less "unofficial" magazines and more paid for review mags on shelves. Gamegate; more specifically the whole Zoe Quinn debacle, exposed that if you're a female game developer, you can fukk your way to good reviews and a Steam Catalog.

Thankfully we have guys like Totalbiscuit, Jim Sterling, AngryJoe and several others who have no problem completely obliterating a title.

 

[basketball reasons]

Gamegate; more specifically the whole Zoe Quinn debacle, exposed that if you're a female game developer, you can fukk your way to good reviews and a Steam Catalog.

that was proven false

 

[Ciggavelli]

The way music is reviewed now is completely atrocious. People who aren't even qualified to review these albums get these opportunities. Especially hip hop. And as far as gaming reviews go. It depends on the site. If u go on metacritic u may get a better gauge of the game cause it's combined reviews. But if u only go on a site or 2. Yea. U may get burned. Especially when u look at reviews for remasters n shyt. I don't like how they review old games that got great scores and turn around and give them bad scores cause they got remastered. And judge them by today's standards. Rather than judging the quality of the remaster and linking the original review of the game. That's amateur shyt right there.

Yeah, hip-hop reviews are pretty terrible; I agree. I use forums, word of mouth, and mixtapes for rap. For indie and electronica, metacritic is pretty good (but I also download all the editor's choice awards from allmusic.com too). For metal, I use Decibel magazine reviews (metal is also reviewed horribly on metacritic). You just gotta know what tools to use for what.

 

[Killigraphy]

that was proven false

Not really, even she doesn't deny it, also there's the five guys situation...If a chick wants to stay over my house and shes not a close friend, I take that as meaning one thing.

 

[duckbutta]

Why does someone else view of a game matter to me?

If I want to play a game but it get's bad reviews am I not supposed to play it?

If I don't want to play a game but it gets good reviews am I supposed to play it?

Video game reviews are something I just don't understand.

 

[NoMayo15]

Its been obvious over the years, less "unofficial" magazines and more paid for review mags on shelves. Gamegate; more specifically the whole Zoe Quinn debacle, exposed that if you're a female game developer, you can fukk your way to good reviews and a Steam Catalog.

Thankfully we have guys like Totalbiscuit, Jim Sterling, AngryJoe and several others who have no problem completely obliterating a title.

This is why I rely more on metacritic's aggregate user scores & the opinions of some youtubers rather than major review sites. The small guy seems to be more honest in pointing out a game's flaws.

 

[NoMayo15]

This writer seems to agree there is a problem with the current review model: Video Games Are Broken, Reviews Are Broken, And Things Have To Change

FEB 16, 2016 @ 10:25 PM 45,607 VIEWS
Video Games Are Broken, Reviews Are Broken, And Things Have To Change
Fellow gamers, our favorite entertainment industry is in trouble. It has become the victim of irresponsible reviews and blind trust. It is being disabled by apathy and undeserved forgiveness. Something’s gotta give, and it might as well start with the press.

“Wait, aren’t you press?” you’re asking. Yes, and in the past I’ve committed some of the things I’m about to rail against because I’m not perfect, but I’m trying my best to course-correct and do what’s right for the industry and especially for its consumers. More importantly, I’m trying to raise awareness of a serious problem affecting millions of gamers every week: Reviews.

Does this game feel like an 82 to you right now?

As I write this, Street Fighter V is utterly broken on its day of release and people are understandably upset. For at least 16 hours running, finding strangers to battle online is all but impossible due to server instability and connectivity issues. Finding friends to play against is impossible because you can’t create a Battle Lobby. The game’s producer has apologized onTwitter TWTR +6.72%, and Capcom has set up a standalone Twitter accountjust to track server progress and updates.

Broken Record

Games are launching broken, and we keep forgiving. Worse, perhaps, is that the gaming press is shielding your eyes from serious issues that are brought to light only after a game is publicly released and subjected to heavy play in a live server environment. That’s because a large percentage of outlets — including this one, on occasion– are choosing to publish their reviews the instant an embargo is lifted, which is typically the day prior to release.

This needs to stop. This has to stop.

To be clear before we move forward, my complaint isn’t confined to Street Fighter V, but Capcom’s newest release has certainly exacerbated the problem with multiplayer-centric reviews. Here’s a small sampling of reviews that hit on Monday.

When Charging $60 Is Criminal: 'Street Fighter V' Doesn't Even Have Arcade...

There's A Huge Problem With 'Halo 5' Reviews, And Only One Way To Solve It


Destructoid: “Most people will be spending their time in the online component, though, and here’s the good news: it works, and when more players start to really use it, it’s going to be great.” SCORE: 8/10

Most people will be spending time in the online component because, frankly, there isn’t much to do offline. And it’s not great. It’s broken. Destructoid would have known this had they waited 24 hours to publish their review.

“Come on, Jason, I’m sure Capcom will have it ironed out in no time,” I hear you saying. At this point it’s absolutely unforgivable to give publishers a pass and assume that server problems will be ironed out within hours or even days. Why? Well, Halo: The Master Chief Collection sayshello. Remember that game which saw the majority of its reviews published 4 days before it released? When the online component worked pretty well? We cannot forget that Halo: MCC stayed broken for what amounts to forever in this industry.

Nearly 6 months after it released, the connectivity issues were still so terrible that developer 343 Industries had to shut down what was supposed to be their first official tournament. I could also talk about Battlefield 3, or any number of other games that amounted to lemons until they were patched up weeks after their initial release.

The bottom line? Readers have faith in their favorite outlets. If their favorite outlets fail to highlight such grievous issues, it’s entirely plausible that hundreds or thousands of gamers rush out and buy that 8.0-rated game only to find themselves frustrated when they can’t play for the next 12 or 112 hours.

IGN: “[...] it’s difficult to understand or accept the big gaping holes in Street Fighter 5’s feature set. The biggest, most unforgivable thing right now is that there’s simply no way to play the CPU in a standard two out of three-round match, because bizarrely, there’s no CPU vs mode and no standard arcade mode. [...] This is basic functionality that every fighting game has, and it just isn’t here, despite the fact that all the pieces to provide it are.” SCORE: 8/10

IGN also published their review of Street Fighter V the day before it released, and as such wasn’t able to discuss the online issues the game is facing right now. Worse, the review score wasn’t remotely justified in the text. IGN rightly criticized the game’s anemic mode offerings with phrases like “difficult to accept,” “big gaping holes” and “basic functionality that every fighting game has” but the score just seems…wrong.

And it seems like every review praising the game defends its score by saying that Capcom is promising to add more content in March and June. But the game is out right now and that content could be terrible.

Game Informer deserves kudos for waiting until the day of release to finish evaluating the game and publish their review. But curiously, there’s this quote: “With such a neutered experience outside of the online component, any server downtime practically renders the game useless.”

By that logic, the game is absolutely useless right now to everyone who bought it. And yet it’s awarded a 7.25 out of 10.

Folks, we don’t buy our vehicles and expect that the dealer will install the brakes a month from now. Nor do we happily extend forgiveness and bide our time if we can’t even accelerate the car out of the lot.

Remember Who Reviews Are For

My gripe has always been the sheer existence of review scores, but more specifically when these review scores are published. The authors of these reviews are entitled to their opinions, and they’re certainly allowed to assign their own definitions of weight and value to the components of a game that add up to the final score. But it’s time to push back against the system.

Why are reviews published the day before release? Because publishers establish embargoes that lift uniformly across the globe, allowing all sites an equal amount of time to render their criticisms, and an equal chance for eyeballs. The problem is that serves the site, and it serves the publishers.

Does that practice serve you best? Wouldn’t you rather wait an additional 24 hours and be served with an impression of the game after it’s been subjected to millions of players, in its everyday environment? Wouldn’t you rather know about bugs, or balance issues, or broken servers, or broken gameplay before making that purchase decision?

If we want fewer games to launch broken, we have to hold publishers accountable. But that first step absolutely starts with me, and with my fellow critics in the game industry. And you need to tell us that’s what you want. Ultimately, the games and the coverage of games is done for you. So wield the power you have and make your voice heard.

 

[Neil Tyson]

MGSV was unfinished no higher than a 5/10. Yet it got 9/10's

It wasn't that bad. 5/10?