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 03 March 2015
oniyide said:
DanneSandin said:
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...


oh i agree i dont know why people are so in love with digital. Unless its significantly cheaper. I'll go with hard copies. Thats not just games, books, movies, music. Movies have the right idea. Buy the bluray and get a digital copy. 

Funny thing is that Game Informer gets just that, exclusive previews on stuff no one else is getting but as you said that opens up another problem...yeah we're screwed

Im the same; I prefer hard copies of anything I buy! I only own a few handful games in digital format, but no movies, books or songs.

Im not even sure we have Game Informer here in Sweden... but I buy a magazine called Level from time to time :)



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

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

Around the Network
DanneSandin on 03 March 2015
oniyide said:
DanneSandin said:
oniyide said:
eva01beserk said:


Not the same, I got to give credit to nintendo here since they dont rehash the same on an anual basis(aside from pokemon wich is happeninng now to do aanual releases). They at least wait 3 years for another game, some only get one game per gen like smash, zelda, kart and others. Even if they where the same thing, we get a little brake and the improvemnts feel more meningfull cuz we get years acumulated of improobements than a little one every year.

This is how i genuinly feel and it is actually one of the things i do like about Nintendo. Now with that being said, serious question. Are these improvements ACTUALLY meaningful or do they FEEL meaningful because the gap in time between games is so much wider than most? 

I think the answer is, do the improvements ADD something to the already established formula? If it adds something, then I think they're meaningful. Do they enhance your experience? And that answer is gonna be different for everyone that plays the game. For me, the motion controls of Zelda SS was something that added something for me, so that was meaningful for me. Sometimes, it was immerive breaking, but most of the time they were a great addition. The same thing goes for the Silent Realm in the same game; it was nice to change up the pacing and mechanics of the game some times.

fair enough. IMHO i think some series get a pass because they release so infrequently. Ill pick on the NSMB series. The original actually TOOK stuff away. Less items. No Yoshi, more bland worlds(imo) and what it did add was one new item that only showed up in the first wolrd a wall jump and new graphics engine. But it got praised all over. The AC series add more stuff between the original and 3 and it didnt take 20 years but thats up to each person to decide.

I dont think adding new items automatically makes ot a better game. NSMB was the first  Mario 2D platformer in years, amd it probably was one of the better ones for its day and age. You also have to remember that the games are compared to the competition of the time.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

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

eva01beserk on 03 March 2015
curl-6 said:
eva01beserk said:

Not my standard, Im making a thread for everyone to give an opinion so we all come to an agreement. And frankly Im not a sony fan, im a nintendo fan.Its not about games getting bad reviews if they dont deserve it, its games that also  get great reviews when they dont deserve it And even I got to admit that some nintendo games get praised when they are not so great, like bayonetta should not have scored a 91, still a good game, but not that much.

The other problem is clickbait reviews, even if we cant change the score, we want to be able to know wich reviews are them.

all we want is mainly fr reviews to separate scores for the most imprtant aspects of games, so a reviewer that dosent like one aspect of a game to give it a horrible score for that one thing they dont like and ignore the rest of its qualitys, also goes both ways, average games that get super high scores for the one thing that they do right is also unaceptable. And even if they decide to give a undeserving score by lowering something else to get the average low, we would know, like saying 

the order 1886

graphics   60

story 60

gameplay 60

the average for that review is 60, while we know that this game focuses on graphics and a 60 for that particullar aspect is undeserved and the average is to low. even if the result is 80 for graphics, the average would not be to high anyways but it would still be more trustworthy. 

the same could be said fro a game with a score over the top with probably a bad story and they claim the story is 90 just to bring the average up, we would know a game that dosent focus on story like destiny or COD or bayoneta or titanfall dont deserve it cuz the focuus is gameplay so getting a 70-80 average on thoe types of games would still be conider a great game. A problem is that we tend to ignore flaws with our favorite games, and this way we would score each part independently and the biggest change I belive will happen is not lower score games getting better score, but games that score to high will be lowered a bit, fixing the baseles comparasion of diferent games.

But who are we to say how reviewers judge a game? Everyone has their own personal preferences and opinions. For some people, one element may completely ruin or redeem the experience. 
Forcing a standardized process ignores that different people have different analytical approaches and perspectives, in my opinion.

Not trying t tell them how to review a game, tryng to make them tell us for what reason they are giving points, like I said, if a game like call of duty the gameplay impacted them and want to give it a 10/10, but the story underwhelmmed them and give it a 5/10 its understandable cuz those games priorityze gameplay over story, so if they give gamplay 10/10 and story 9/10 to boost the average score, we will know they are not trustworhty, they will still be able to give any score to any game, we will just be able to know when they are giving bullshit scores. We just want them to tell us what part of thhe game they give the points to and what others the deduct.



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

-Ack!- on 03 March 2015
Aeolus451 said:
-Ack!- said:


IGN is too big for obvious click-baits. IMO Ruby/Sapphire had too much water when compared to Johto and Kanto maps, on the other hand mentioning it as a major flaw without any reasoning was probably stupid.

Just like the article Skyrim vs Dark Souls, which spawned the infamous Winner:Dark Souls -meme.


Someone compared Skyrim to Dark souls and wrote any article about it. lol. I never saw it. 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/09/24/top-five-reasons-dark-souls-will-eat-skyrims-face

Bad journalism at its best :D



Aeolus451 on 03 March 2015
-Ack!- said:
Aeolus451 said:


Someone compared Skyrim to Dark souls and wrote any article about it. lol. I never saw it. 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/09/24/top-five-reasons-dark-souls-will-eat-skyrims-face

Bad journalism at its best :D


Some of his critisms about skyrim were right and others were silly but there were too many holes in their comparisons. I can see why the article got some attention just by looking at the comments of the article. haha.



Around the Network
Nate4Drake on 03 March 2015
eva01beserk said:
curl-6 said:

Wait a sec, you people are actually trying to pressure reviewers to conform to your standards just cos you're upset that your favourite company's exclusives are being criticized?

No offense, but that's kind of sad, frankly.

Not my standard, Im making a thread for everyone to give an opinion so we all come to an agreement. And frankly Im not a sony fan, im a nintendo fan.Its not about games getting bad reviews if they dont deserve it, its games that also  get great reviews when they dont deserve it And even I got to admit that some nintendo games get praised when they are not so great, like bayonetta should not have scored a 91, still a good game, but not that much.

The other problem is clickbait reviews, even if we cant change the score, we want to be able to know wich reviews are them.

all we want is mainly fr reviews to separate scores for the most imprtant aspects of games, so a reviewer that dosent like one aspect of a game to give it a horrible score for that one thing they dont like and ignore the rest of its qualitys, also goes both ways, average games that get super high scores for the one thing that they do right is also unaceptable. And even if they decide to give a undeserving score by lowering something else to get the average low, we would know, like saying 

the order 1886

graphics   60

story 60

gameplay 60

the average for that review is 60, while we know that this game focuses on graphics and a 60 for that particullar aspect is undeserved and the average is to low. even if the result is 80 for graphics, the average would not be to high anyways but it would still be more trustworthy. 

the same could be said fro a game with a score over the top with probably a bad story and they claim the story is 90 just to bring the average up, we would know a game that dosent focus on story like destiny or COD or bayoneta or titanfall dont deserve it cuz the focuus is gameplay so getting a 70-80 average on thoe types of games would still be conider a great game. A problem is that we tend to ignore flaws with our favorite games, and this way we would score each part independently and the biggest change I belive will happen is not lower score games getting better score, but games that score to high will be lowered a bit, fixing the baseles comparasion of diferent games.

I will make a New Thread about The Petition for  a 'Universal Rating System' for METACRITIC.   Please help ;)



”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.

curl-6 on 03 March 2015
eva01beserk said:
curl-6 said:

But who are we to say how reviewers judge a game? Everyone has their own personal preferences and opinions. For some people, one element may completely ruin or redeem the experience. 
Forcing a standardized process ignores that different people have different analytical approaches and perspectives, in my opinion.

Not trying t tell them how to review a game, tryng to make them tell us for what reason they are giving points, like I said, if a game like call of duty the gameplay impacted them and want to give it a 10/10, but the story underwhelmmed them and give it a 5/10 its understandable cuz those games priorityze gameplay over story, so if they give gamplay 10/10 and story 9/10 to boost the average score, we will know they are not trustworhty, they will still be able to give any score to any game, we will just be able to know when they are giving bullshit scores. We just want them to tell us what part of thhe game they give the points to and what others the deduct.

Some reviewers don't take a segmented approach though, they review a game holistically, assessing how it fits together as a total package rather than the sum of its parts. I get what you're aiming for now, I just don't think it would be a good fit for all reviewers.



oniyide on 04 March 2015
DanneSandin said:
oniyide said:

fair enough. IMHO i think some series get a pass because they release so infrequently. Ill pick on the NSMB series. The original actually TOOK stuff away. Less items. No Yoshi, more bland worlds(imo) and what it did add was one new item that only showed up in the first wolrd a wall jump and new graphics engine. But it got praised all over. The AC series add more stuff between the original and 3 and it didnt take 20 years but thats up to each person to decide.

I dont think adding new items automatically makes ot a better game. NSMB was the first  Mario 2D platformer in years, amd it probably was one of the better ones for its day and age. You also have to remember that the games are compared to the competition of the time.

hmmmm... i dont think ive ever looked at it like that before. Yeah 2d Mario still craps on alot of other 2d platformers especially in that time when NSMB came out there wasnt that much in that genre anyway. I compare Mario games with each other and i just found NSMB...hell the whole series wanting. While they did get better over time. the NSMB games dont hold a candle to 3 or World. IMHO they are not even as good as those. And after 20 years am I expecting too much if I want them to be at least as good as games that came out on NES/SNES



DanneSandin on 04 March 2015
oniyide said:
DanneSandin said:

I dont think adding new items automatically makes ot a better game. NSMB was the first  Mario 2D platformer in years, amd it probably was one of the better ones for its day and age. You also have to remember that the games are compared to the competition of the time.

hmmmm... i dont think ive ever looked at it like that before. Yeah 2d Mario still craps on alot of other 2d platformers especially in that time when NSMB came out there wasnt that much in that genre anyway. I compare Mario games with each other and i just found NSMB...hell the whole series wanting. While they did get better over time. the NSMB games dont hold a candle to 3 or World. IMHO they are not even as good as those. And after 20 years am I expecting too much if I want them to be at least as good as games that came out on NES/SNES

I can absolutely see what you mean, but if you were to play SMB3 and NSMB side by side, what makes one better than the other? me, I love the wall jump, and I don't need a lot of power ups, but that doesn't mean I think NSMB is better than SMB3. What I've found lacking in the NSMB-series is the innovations. Super Mario used to be all about pushing the limits - in one way or another. And they all looked very different from each other. NSMB all looks the same, and doesn't add quite as much compared to what their predecessors managaed to cram in between titles.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

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

Sharpryno on 04 March 2015

Well no kidding, Armond White has been doing did it for so long on Rottentomatoes.com for movies.

It works both ways too, high scores for crap games, low scores for hyped games.

Just don't act like it only applies to Sony. It is also another reason Activision is incredibly ignorant when telling Bungie "If Destiny scores over a 90 on MC you get paid more!"
It is not a complete way to judge a game. Find some critics you like and judge JUST FROM THEM. Not the masses from no name websites who sole purpose is to get clicks and attention.