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
Lawlight on 28 February 2015
curl-6 said:
Thing is, they raise scores to curry the favor of fans as well.


I think that's done mostly for Nintendo games. How these games are not docked points for being more of the same is a blatant red flag.



Around the Network
Burek on 28 February 2015
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

Printed magazines are not dependent on ad revenue? Wow, I.....just wow.



curl-6 on 28 February 2015
Lawlight said:
curl-6 said:
Thing is, they raise scores to curry the favor of fans as well.

I think that's done mostly for Nintendo games. How these games are not docked points for being more of the same is a blatant red flag.

Maybe cos they're actually, like, good? :p



vivster on 28 February 2015

Well they lower scores for money and they increase scores for money. It's all in balance :)



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Michelasso on 28 February 2015

I can only say that a 20/100 to a game extremely polished like The Order: 1886 can't be anything else than a clickbait for ads.

And yes, I clicked on that review myself, but I use the ad blocker so they have got no f.ing money from me



Around the Network
teigaga on 28 February 2015

ALthough I know this happens, I don't think critics are getting worse, I think gamers are getting worse. When people anticipate a game nowadays they want it to have the highest metacritic possible and attack any review which doesn't serve this purpose. What recent games were reviewed like shit by recognisable websites? Genuine question.

In the 90s people wouldn't go around looking at every single publications review of a game, the same way they do in the internet age.

With the water gate people fixated on that summarised statement as if the game literally got a 7.8 because "there was too much water", completely ignoring the points regarding balance and the game clearly favouring grass and electric types, water as a jarring environment to transverse. People also buy the assumption if someone has nothing negative to say then a game deserves a 10, not how it works lol. I think the arguement in that case was more how do people approach remakes or games which stick to a very familiar blueprint.




Samus Aran on 28 February 2015
Lawlight said:
curl-6 said:
Thing is, they raise scores to curry the favor of fans as well.


I think that's done mostly for Nintendo games. How these games are not docked points for being more of the same is a blatant red flag.

Fifa, MLB, Uncharted, GoW, CoD, Assasins Creed, New Super Mario Bros., Pokémon, Halo

Stop acting like it only happens to Nintendo lol.



curl-6 on 28 February 2015
teigaga said:
ALthough I know this happens, I don't think critics are getting worse, I think gamers are getting worse. When people anticipate a game nowadays they want it to have the highest metacritic possible and attack any review which doesn't serve this purpose. 

This. Too many gamers have adopted a "shoot the messenger" attitude where they crucify reviewers for having different opinions to them.



Lawlight on 28 February 2015
curl-6 said:
Lawlight said:

I think that's done mostly for Nintendo games. How these games are not docked points for being more of the same is a blatant red flag.

Maybe cos they're actually, like, good? :p


The sequels can be better but they'll still be marked down.



DanneSandin on 28 February 2015
Burek 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

Printed magazines are not dependent on ad revenue? Wow, I.....just wow.

Haha ok yeah, sorry! Of course they're dependent on ad rev as well, but probably not to such a large extant as internet sites. You don't paty ANY thing to visit and read IGN, Gamespot, or whathave you. You DO however buy the papaer magazine.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

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