Eurogamer dropping review scores

[NZA]

How so? I don't believe in the 'buy reviews' conspiracy, but let's say for the sake of argument that it's true. Can't devs/publishers still pay off reviewers to write glowing reviews and give them 'recommended' or 'essential' ratings. I don't see how this changes anything.

typically no major site i have ever seen has given an utterly trash game an 8.5 or higher. if there is fraud, i would have to assume it is to varying degrees, like making sure one first person shooter gets .5 higher than the competing shooter, or making sure a game you feel is actually a 7 gets at least an 8 instead. by taking the numbers out, most games are pretty much in a broad territory of "is it even worth trying or not". most games that i see gamers doing the payola conspiracy complaints about tend to be annual installment games where the gameplay is built on an old model so it is almost never a terrible game, so if you like the last one, you will like this one to some extent.

by getting rid of numbers, you get rid of that whole temptation. you already know COD, BF, NBA2K, AC, etc. are "good" games, but how good is this year's version? theoretically payola may be pushing the needle a few notches, but no major site is willing to tarnish its credibility by making a game that should be a 2.5 have a 9.0 score. it's just a few points. three broad categories gets rid of that altogether. now, context is what matters.

 

[BasedPrime]

you are kidding yourself if you think it's 2 times in 10 years. Heavy advertising on game sites is pretty much payola bruh.

He lost breh

 

[Khalil's_Black_Excellence]

My problem is, I can't just trust one site. One opinion means nothing to me. I need more than that. I like aggregates. Metacritic gives me that

Didn't say just one site. Most of us have a least a small handful of sites that are "reliable" to use to check up on about probably anything really.

 

[Ciggavelli]

you are kidding yourself if you think it's 2 times in 10 years. Heavy advertising on game sites is pretty much payola bruh.

all I gotta do is respond the way I always respond when somebody makes this claim

I guess the destiny and assassin's creed unity checks didn't clear

Destiny was one of the most hyped and advertised games of this generation so far. Certainly their checks woulda cleared.

Didn't say just one site. Most of us have a least a small handful of sites that are "reliable" to use to check up on about probably anything really.

Not all games get reviewed by all the sites breh. Especially the obscure indie ones.

What, I gotta have a Rolodex of the top 100 review sites on deck to make sure I'm not missing out on a slept on game?

 

[daze23]

That's on you.. If I were to ask opinions on a specific game just to hear what the players are saying, i'd want to get opinions from a bunch of folks and not just known fanboys. Everyone on here has some sort of bias or agenda but when pointed out, we gasp like "Huh, not me!!?"

I see bias from everyone on here. Hell, I stay pullin @daze23 legs from time to time as I see it come out in his posts occasionally(especially with PS4 exclusives .)

I just think a video or two should suffice. Hell you asked me about Persona 4 golden and despite it having really high scores(93), you're still on the fence since you talked about not liking RPG games like that.

emo cac reviewers

 

[Ciggavelli]

typically no major site i have ever seen has given an utterly trash game an 8.5 or higher. if there is fraud, i would have to assume it is to varying degrees, like making sure one first person shooter gets .5 higher than the competing shooter, or making sure a game you feel is actually a 7 gets at least an 8 instead. by taking the numbers out, most games are pretty much in a broad territory of "is it even worth trying or not". most games that i see gamers doing the payola conspiracy complaints about tend to be annual installment games where the gameplay is built on an old model so it is almost never a terrible game, so if you like the last one, you will like this one to some extent.

by getting rid of numbers, you get rid of that whole temptation. you already know COD, BF, NBA2K, AC, etc. are "good" games, but how good is this year's version? theoretically payola may be pushing the needle a few notches, but no major site is willing to tarnish its credibility by making a game that should be a 2.5 have a 9.0 score. it's just a few points. three broad categories gets rid of that altogether. now, context is what matters.

Yeah, I don't believe in the conspiracy theory at all. Having three categories is worthless to me when it comes from one source. Plus, it just leads to lazy reviewing. Is this a 7-9 game? Well, yeah, so let's stamp 'recommended' on it.

When you have to break down each component and assign a number rating, you have to think. These 2 sites are just being p*ssy and scared to make an opinion. Broad categories don't help out that much. The difference between a 70 and a 90 is big. But nah, that's just put them all under the 'recommended' category.

And I don't give a shyt about one man's 3,000 word essay on a game. i need more than one opinion. Metacritic gives you that.

If joystiq and eurogamer are too scared to put their opinions next to the 50 other reviewers, fukk em.

 

[Ciggavelli]

emo cac reviewers

Everybody loves metacritic when a game they like scores high, but it's trash when a game they like scores low.

It's clear as day on this site.

 

[Fatboi1]

emo cac reviewers

Why you quote me?

 

[daze23]

typically no major site i have ever seen has given an utterly trash game an 8.5 or higher. if there is fraud, i would have to assume it is to varying degrees, like making sure one first person shooter gets .5 higher than the competing shooter, or making sure a game you feel is actually a 7 gets at least an 8 instead. by taking the numbers out, most games are pretty much in a broad territory of "is it even worth trying or not". most games that i see gamers doing the payola conspiracy complaints about tend to be annual installment games where the gameplay is built on an old model so it is almost never a terrible game, so if you like the last one, you will like this one to some extent.

by getting rid of numbers, you get rid of that whole temptation. you already know COD, BF, NBA2K, AC, etc. are "good" games, but how good is this year's version? theoretically payola may be pushing the needle a few notches, but no major site is willing to tarnish its credibility by making a game that should be a 2.5 have a 9.0 score. it's just a few points. three broad categories gets rid of that altogether. now, context is what matters.

couldn't payola influence pretty much any system?

 

[daze23]

Why you quote me?

because you mentioned me

 

[Ciggavelli]

The coli, where publishers pay for reviews in the 70s, where reviews don't matter, but I'll bring them up whenever possible, where people buy games based on gut feelings, where advertising and bullshots make you buy a game.

 

[dBoyFresh*212]

There's another site that did this not long ago too.

I miss the OG review system with numbers for each category (Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Replay value) then an overall score.

I do like how they will only be reviewing final retail copies now. Don't know why these publications don't update their reviews after major patches are released though this should be mandatory

 

[Ciggavelli]

I miss the OG review system with numbers for each category (Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Replay value) then an overall score.

This is exactly how it should be done. The more numbers, the better.

 

[Fatboi1]

because you mentioned me

Mention me again and your name will be stickied at the top with a time and date for a fight.

Spoiler

Real-Time combat.

 

[Liquid]

Yeah I don't agree with @Ciggavelli at all on this one. Review scores let's people get lazy.

Just because a game is a 9/10 average on metacritic doesn't mean everyone is going to like it. dropping the numbers gives people a reason to actually read the review and not just jump to the score.