By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Exclusive: Critics Admit To Lowering Scores For Attention.

 

Do you agree ?

Yes 173 74.57%
 
No 59 25.43%
 
Total:232
DanneSandin on 02 March 2015
oniyide said:
DanneSandin said:
The sad thing is, if you wanna get an honest review you mpre or less HAVE to go to one of the bigger sites since the smaller ones might be dishonest about the score. And even the bigger sites might be forced to adjust the final score to please some publishers.

What we as gamers really should do is buying paper magazines instead. That way the magazine isn't dependent on ad revenue and can't be forced by publishers to give better scores to certain games.

But we're all too fucking lazy and CHEAP to do that, aren't we? We want everything for free and on our terms. WE have created this situation, no matter how indirect


I understand your frustration but i think you are being a little cynical. Magazines were just another casualty of the world becoming more digital. A couple of publications went away outside of gaming. But what are people to do now? I cant speak for everyone but i have a subcription to Game Informer, gamers hate that publication because of its ties to Gamestop (unfortunate as it is legit good), Sony doesnt have there PSM anymore, there is PC world (not everyone is PC gamer), Xbox magazine (not everyone is an Xbox gamer) and EGM which is only quarterly? are they even still doing print or did that die again?

And lets be real do you think people really want to wait a month to see if a game is good or not?

I completely agree with you here. I understand WHY paper magazines aren't doing so well, but a consequens of that is that gaming media is dependent on ad rev - which is the core problem we're talking about. Just because digital is the next logical step, doesn't make it a good/better one.

What game publishers COULD do to ease some of these problems, is to give paper magazines BIG exclusives, so as to drive people to that media. However, then we end up with the opposite problem: the publishers having such a strong grip over magazine publishers... So I don't really know what to do here...



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Around the Network
walsufnir on 02 March 2015

So did the german site that reviewed The Order higher than anyone else. They want to shine and get some clicks when they behave different than others.



DanneSandin on 02 March 2015
ryuzaki57 said:
curl-6 said:

Maybe because reviewers don't assess games solely on graphics?

Yes, but PS4/Vita games never get credits for having top graphics. 3DS games aren't penalised for having 10-year old graphics. That's not normal, gamers derserve the best tech and journalists deny that by being soft on Nintendo games.

Furthermore, gameplay, story, etc. are very subjective aspects and can be manipulated easily. 

I think you have to differentiate between GRAPHICS and ART STYLE, because if there's something Nintendo are good at it's art style. Graphics are really all about how many polygons you can squeeze in and stucff like that, the technical stuff. Art style is what makes a game look GOOD. Just take a look at Zelda WW; released in... 2001? It STILL looks better that quite a lot of early X360/PS3 games! Because it used its art style VERY successfully. So graphics aren't all that important, the LOOK and the FEEL of a game is much more important. And Nintendo does that part very well, therefore they don't get points taken off the score. Just look at Shovel Knight; AWFUL graphics compared to The Order 1886, but the ART STYLE serves the rest of the game so well it doesn't matter. Or look at Tearaway; that art style is perfect for that game!



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

eva01beserk on 02 March 2015
Aeolus451 said:
eva01beserk said:

I agree with you there, but out of 100% of the score, graphics should only acount for 10% max of that total score for any game.

Unless you tell me is for one of  those stupid tale tell games where there is actually no gameplay then it should be like 50%.


10% is way too low. 25%, I think is better. Games should be compared to each other within their generation.  If a game looks like last gen graphically, it should be notably penalized for that in it's review and the scoring. There's too much click bait and fans/bloggers writing reviews. Hence why i don't take the majority of reviews seriously.

like I said in a previous commet, we need to break down what each part of a game is worth to know what is truly important and assigne a percentage to that quality of the game and make reviewers follow it to avoid all this debate with a national standard.

Like 

story   30%

gameplay 30%

bugs  20%

artstyle  20%

and what ever else is important. But it has to be agreed upon by a large number of people so its fair. That way we avoid some douche reviewer giving a game a 20 cuz is to short or has no multyplaer or singleplayer or the graphics sucked or just dint like the story. It would force them to be slitghtly more honest.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Aeolus451 on 02 March 2015
eva01beserk said:
Aeolus451 said:


10% is way too low. 25%, I think is better. Games should be compared to each other within their generation.  If a game looks like last gen graphically, it should be notably penalized for that in it's review and the scoring. There's too much click bait and fans/bloggers writing reviews. Hence why i don't take the majority of reviews seriously.

like I said in a previous commet, we need to break down what each part of a game is worth to know what is truly important and assigne a percentage to that quality of the game and make reviewers follow it to avoid all this debate with a national standard.

Like 

story   30%

gameplay 30%

bugs  20%

artstyle  20%

and what ever else is important. But it has to be agreed upon by a large number of people so its fair. That way we avoid some douche reviewer giving a game a 20 cuz is to short or has no multyplaer or singleplayer or the graphics sucked or just dint like the story. It would force them to be slitghtly more honest.

There's plenty of games that would score high with art style but low with actual graphics. If we're going for honesty and all.

Story 20%
Gameplay 20%
Bugs 20%
Art style 20%
Graphics 20%

 



Around the Network
eva01beserk on 02 March 2015
Aeolus451 said:
eva01beserk said:
Aeolus451 said:


10% is way too low. 25%, I think is better. Games should be compared to each other within their generation.  If a game looks like last gen graphically, it should be notably penalized for that in it's review and the scoring. There's too much click bait and fans/bloggers writing reviews. Hence why i don't take the majority of reviews seriously.

like I said in a previous commet, we need to break down what each part of a game is worth to know what is truly important and assigne a percentage to that quality of the game and make reviewers follow it to avoid all this debate with a national standard.

Like 

story   30%

gameplay 30%

bugs  20%

artstyle  20%

and what ever else is important. But it has to be agreed upon by a large number of people so its fair. That way we avoid some douche reviewer giving a game a 20 cuz is to short or has no multyplaer or singleplayer or the graphics sucked or just dint like the story. It would force them to be slitghtly more honest.

There's plenty of games that would score high with art style but low with actual graphics. If we're going for honesty and all.

Story 20%
Gameplay 20%
Bugs 20%
Art style 20%
Graphics 20%

 

I guess, but now your saying that just for looks the game deserves 40% of its score and thats to much.

We should probably add sound to te mix and give it like 5%. and content should be like 15%. so I would say artstyle 12.5% and graphics 12.5% if you want to seprate them.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Nate4Drake on 02 March 2015
eva01beserk said:
Aeolus451 said:
eva01beserk said:
Aeolus451 said:


10% is way too low. 25%, I think is better. Games should be compared to each other within their generation.  If a game looks like last gen graphically, it should be notably penalized for that in it's review and the scoring. There's too much click bait and fans/bloggers writing reviews. Hence why i don't take the majority of reviews seriously.

like I said in a previous commet, we need to break down what each part of a game is worth to know what is truly important and assigne a percentage to that quality of the game and make reviewers follow it to avoid all this debate with a national standard.

Like 

story   30%

gameplay 30%

bugs  20%

artstyle  20%

and what ever else is important. But it has to be agreed upon by a large number of people so its fair. That way we avoid some douche reviewer giving a game a 20 cuz is to short or has no multyplaer or singleplayer or the graphics sucked or just dint like the story. It would force them to be slitghtly more honest.

There's plenty of games that would score high with art style but low with actual graphics. If we're going for honesty and all.

Story 20%
Gameplay 20%
Bugs 20%
Art style 20%
Graphics 20%

 

I guess, but now your saying that just for looks the game deserves 40% of its score and thats to much.

We should probably add sound to te mix and give it like 5%. and content should be like 15%. so I would say artstyle 12.5% and graphics 12.5% if you want to seprate them.

I would make it very simple.  Just an average among :

1) Graphics/Art Design

2) Sound/Music

3) Game-play and Controls.

4) Story/Story telling

5) Longevity/Value/Bugs/features/MP.

Just go with a Score which is the average, then the Reviewer will give the full review, and you will make an idea reading all the review, and not just looking at the Score.  Doing like this, you will 'cut' garbage like some reviews from Quarter to Three, who gave Halo4 a 20/100.  No way you can rate Halo4(example) 20/100 if you apply the 'old style Rating'; I mean, you should never rate Halo4 less than 7/10, but in this way you can't cheat, and you would look like a joke if you try to make an everage of 20/100 with Halo4 or The Order 1886. ( I'm not comparing these two games).



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

eva01beserk on 02 March 2015
Nate4Drake said:
eva01beserk said:

I guess, but now your saying that just for looks the game deserves 40% of its score and thats to much.

We should probably add sound to te mix and give it like 5%. and content should be like 15%. so I would say artstyle 12.5% and graphics 12.5% if you want to seprate them.

I would make it very simple.  Just an average among :

1) Graphics/Art Design

2) Sound/Music

3) Game-play and Controls.

4) Story/Story telling

5) Longevity/Value/Bugs/features/MP.

Just go with a Score which is the average, then the Reviewer will give the full review, and you will make an idea reading all the review, and not just looking at the Score.  Doing like this, you will 'cut' garbage like some reviews from Quarter to Three, who gave Halo4 a 20/100.  No way you can rate Halo4(example) 20/100 if you apply the 'old style Rating'; I mean, you should never rate Halo4 less than 7/10, but in this way you can't cheat, and you would look like a joke if you try to make an everage of 20/100 with Halo4 or The Order 1886. ( I'm not comparing these two games).

That would be the best choice if an agreement cant be achived and it would beat by far anything we have now. The only thing I dont like is saying everithing is just as important, some things are added value That a game could do great without, like sound for me, but your method would be the simplest and fastest way to solve the issue we have right know.

We should probably do one of those petitions to send to metacritic to enforce this new review system. Whats that site called that helps makes those?



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

rolltide101x on 02 March 2015
Nate4Drake said:

And unfortunately, that minority typically involves small to mid-range sites that need the traffic. It also usually centers on those who are, let’s say, less than professional (i.e., just a gamer pretending to be a journalist with no real credentials). Given the way the Internet works, and the fact that anyone can post a review of anything, nobody should be too surprised.  Now, moving on.

 

There is no "credentials" to review a game. Anybody can (and should be able to) review anything they want. I just really do not like how you worded that there like some person's opinion is any better than anyone elses.



Nate4Drake on 02 March 2015
eva01beserk said:
Nate4Drake said:

I would make it very simple.  Just an average among :

1) Graphics/Art Design

2) Sound/Music

3) Game-play and Controls.

4) Story/Story telling

5) Longevity/Value/Bugs/features/MP.

Just go with a Score which is the average, then the Reviewer will give the full review, and you will make an idea reading all the review, and not just looking at the Score.  Doing like this, you will 'cut' garbage like some reviews from Quarter to Three, who gave Halo4 a 20/100.  No way you can rate Halo4(example) 20/100 if you apply the 'old style Rating'; I mean, you should never rate Halo4 less than 7/10, but in this way you can't cheat, and you would look like a joke if you try to make an everage of 20/100 with Halo4 or The Order 1886. ( I'm not comparing these two games).

That would be the best choice if an agreement cant be achived and it would beat by far anything we have now. The only thing I dont like is saying everithing is just as important, some things are added value That a game could do great without, like sound for me, but your method would be the simplest and fastest way to solve the issue we have right know.

We should probably do one of those petitions to send to metacritic to enforce this new review system. Whats that site called that helps makes those?

That's a great idea mate ;)    And WE ALL as gamers, developers, publishers, deserve a better Metacritic. We should try. Let's do this Petitions !

Right now I don't know that much about that site that might help with this, but I will do a search.



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.